Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
32 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Combat Commander: Europe» Forums » General

Subject: Game is pretty good, but... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Malte Menger
Germany
Nürnberg
Germany
flag msg tools
Mountainbike
badge
Roadbike
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
....the art design is something I just cannot stand. The worst part is the design choice to adjust structures to fit the hexsides... Like a fence running zigzag? Come on, what is that?

I dislike this so much that I actually prefer to play CC Pacific just for that very fact eventhough I dont like the gameplay changes of the fatedeck there.

Am I the only one?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
FWIW I like the art. It's clean and functional and gives me a warm fuzzy feeling of nostalgia for SPI graphic design.
25 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyle Smith
United States
Herndon
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What, you've never flown over Europe and seen the carefully laid out, hex shaped fence grids?
26 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
"L'état, c'est moi."
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
admin
designer
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
badge
Caution: May contain wargame like substance
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm sure you're not the only one, but certainly I expect you're one of only few.

It's a game. Part of the game relies on terrain (line of sight for an obvious example) and since fences and walls provide important game related effects, perforce for the game to work those kinds of terrain features have to be along hex spines.

As someone who's been playtesting Combat Commander: Battle Pack #6 – Sea Lion with the designer, and trying my hand at designing some scenarios myself, I've become very conscious of these kinds of trade-offs in not only CC:E but other games as well.
26 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Garramone
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It is true that when a game designer makes terrain 'depicted' (Combat Commander, ASL, etc) as opposed to 'inherent' (Battle Cry, Memoir 44, etc) the need to confine the art inside hexsides isn't as important. And while smoke and blaze are the only 'inherent' terrain in CC, they're not depicted. I'm actually one of those people who really likes the art of Combat Commander, even if I like the art of Squad Leader better, but not the game itself.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chick Lewis
United States
Claremont
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, you are the only one who would prefer two additional pages of complex LOS rules covering how walls, hedges, and fences work over the excellent art design of CC.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malte Menger
Germany
Nürnberg
Germany
flag msg tools
Mountainbike
badge
Roadbike
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
leroy43 wrote:
I'm sure you're not the only one, but certainly I expect you're one of only few.

It's a game. Part of the game relies on terrain (line of sight for an obvious example) and since fences and walls provide important game related effects, perforce for the game to work those kinds of terrain features have to be along hex spines.

As someone who's been playtesting Combat Commander: Battle Pack #6 – Sea Lion with the designer, and trying my hand at designing some scenarios myself, I've become very conscious of these kinds of trade-offs in not only CC:E but other games as well.


I can see your point but as for me I actually dont care if some questionable LOS situations rise once in a while. I just decide what is best for my opponent to not have any kind of senseless discussion (it's a game, right?) and move on with the game. But that aside I was never the anal type about rules too. Anyway, i would love to have the artwork redone in a third printing... :-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyle Smith
United States
Herndon
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
leroy43 wrote:
It's a game. Part of the game relies on terrain (line of sight for an obvious example) and since fences and walls provide important game related effects, perforce for the game to work those kinds of terrain features have to be along hex spines.


This is true, and I never realized it until it was pointed out, but no other cover or LOS feature in the game works like this. The line of sight must actually intersect the forest, building, or elevation crest drawn on the map, not just through the hex it occupies. As such you end up with some pretty close shaves that are valid lines of sight, through some wonkily drawn buildings, forests, and elevation crests. It does seem odd, when its pointed out, that fences and hedges are the only map features which neatly adhere to the hex sides.

I don't mind. It doesn't bother me. I won't stop playing the game because of it. But now that I've noticed, it does make me sit back and wonder why that is? Sheer force of design habit?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malte Menger
Germany
Nürnberg
Germany
flag msg tools
Mountainbike
badge
Roadbike
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chicklewis wrote:
Yes, you are the only one who would prefer two additional pages of complex LOS rules covering how walls, hedges, and fences work over the excellent art design of CC.


hm? right, brother. next.



Edit: Actually as Kyle already pointed out the rules are already there. That aside, if you like your games to have as few rules as possible (and in your perception that counts for everyone) maybe you should look for another game in the first place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stacey Hager
United States
Charleston
West Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I love the art. Simple, clean, and a breeze to interpret. Allows my mind to imagine/view the "movie" of the action with ease.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Janik-Jones
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Up Front fan, Cats were once worshipped as gods and they haven't forgotten this, Combat Commander series fan, The Raven King (game publisher) ... that's me!, Fields of Fire fan
badge
Slywester Janik, awarded the Krzyż Walecznych (Polish Cross of Valour), August 1944
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chicklewis wrote:
Yes, you are the only one who would prefer two additional pages of complex LOS rules covering how walls, hedges, and fences work over the excellent art design of CC.

CC is a 10 rated game for me. But as someone with a double major in fine art and geography, it'd be disingenuous to not allow for the fact that some of Bowen Simmons excellent work on line of sight and areas for movement couldn't be applied as well to a game of tactical WW2 combat. That's my dream ... the gameplay of CC on a more realistic map that reflects real terrain better.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacovis
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malteh wrote:
chicklewis wrote:
Yes, you are the only one who would prefer two additional pages of complex LOS rules covering how walls, hedges, and fences work over the excellent art design of CC.


hm? right, brother. next.



Edit: Actually as Kyle already pointed out the rules are already there. That aside, if you like your games to have as few rules as possible (and in your perception that counts for everyone) maybe you should look for another game in the first place.


It is not about a game having as few rules as possible, it is about a game having needless rules to crowd an otherwise well streamlined game experience that shines very brightly as it stands. However, if YOU want a game with fiddly rules to cover finely drawn and placed realistic fences, by all means... Go play that game, but leave my CC the hell alone.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Laws
Canada
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
"I play to win, as much or more than any egoist who thinks he's going to win by other means. I want to win the match. But I don't give in to tactical reasoning as the only way to win, rather I believe that efficacy is not divorced from beauty."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaveyJJ wrote:
CC is a 10 rated game for me. But as someone with a double major in fine art and geography, it'd be disingenuous to not allow for the fact that some of Bowen Simmons excellent work on line of sight and areas for movement couldn't be applied as well to a game of tactical WW2 combat. That's my dream ... the gameplay of CC on a more realistic map that reflects real terrain better.


ninja

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chick Lewis
United States
Claremont
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you may be missing the point, MalteH.

The walls which follow hex boundaries are not an art choice, they are a game design choice.

With walls which follow hex bounaries, the wall is either on the edge of YOUR HEX or it is not. Those two statuses (stati?) are distinct and the rules cover each of them.

With walls which wander through hexes, we would then have more cases, and need more finnicky rules. The elegant simplicity and complete lack of questionable cases regarding line of sight or whether or not cover is provided is much more important to me than that the wall on the map is drawn in a straight line.

In my mind's eye, I see the walls as straight,and am not bothered by it at all.

(Edit: Your command of English, by the way, is VERY impressive.)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Laws
Canada
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
"I play to win, as much or more than any egoist who thinks he's going to win by other means. I want to win the match. But I don't give in to tactical reasoning as the only way to win, rather I believe that efficacy is not divorced from beauty."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Namrok wrote:
leroy43 wrote:
It's a game. Part of the game relies on terrain (line of sight for an obvious example) and since fences and walls provide important game related effects, perforce for the game to work those kinds of terrain features have to be along hex spines.


This is true, and I never realized it until it was pointed out, but no other cover or LOS feature in the game works like this. The line of sight must actually intersect the forest, building, or elevation crest drawn on the map, not just through the hex it occupies. As such you end up with some pretty close shaves that are valid lines of sight, through some wonkily drawn buildings, forests, and elevation crests. It does seem odd, when its pointed out, that fences and hedges are the only map features which neatly adhere to the hex sides.

I don't mind. It doesn't bother me. I won't stop playing the game because of it. But now that I've noticed, it does make me sit back and wonder why that is? Sheer force of design habit?


Don't forget a hex represents about 30m; I suspect it comes down to the nature of the structures we're talking about. A wall or fence can be 5cm thick and completely block line of sight, whereas a bocage hedgerow might be a couple of feet and achieve the same effect. A forest 5cm thick won't block anything. So a forest has to be present in some density to be meaningful to LOS.

If you run a wall through a hex, the inevitable problem arises; which side of the wall are units in the hex? You could say, "they are always BEHIND the wall" but what if fire is coming from two different directions? Are the hopping like bunnies over the wall to dodge bullets?

A wall or fence or hedge is a much more discrete object than a patch of woodland or brush. Slap it on the hexside, everyone knows where they stand and what modifiers to apply.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyle Smith
United States
Herndon
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HarlemMimeSchool wrote:
Namrok wrote:
leroy43 wrote:
It's a game. Part of the game relies on terrain (line of sight for an obvious example) and since fences and walls provide important game related effects, perforce for the game to work those kinds of terrain features have to be along hex spines.


This is true, and I never realized it until it was pointed out, but no other cover or LOS feature in the game works like this. The line of sight must actually intersect the forest, building, or elevation crest drawn on the map, not just through the hex it occupies. As such you end up with some pretty close shaves that are valid lines of sight, through some wonkily drawn buildings, forests, and elevation crests. It does seem odd, when its pointed out, that fences and hedges are the only map features which neatly adhere to the hex sides.

I don't mind. It doesn't bother me. I won't stop playing the game because of it. But now that I've noticed, it does make me sit back and wonder why that is? Sheer force of design habit?


Don't forget a hex represents about 30m; I suspect it comes down to the nature of the structures we're talking about. A wall or fence can be 5cm thick and completely block line of sight, whereas a bocage hedgerow might be a couple of feet and achieve the same effect. A forest 5cm thick won't block anything. So a forest has to be present in some density to be meaningful to LOS.

If you run a wall through a hex, the inevitable problem arises; which side of the wall are units in the hex? You could say, "they are always BEHIND the wall" but what if fire is coming from two different directions? Are the hopping like bunnies over the wall to dodge bullets?

A wall or fence or hedge is a much more discrete object than a patch of woodland or brush. Slap it on the hexside, everyone knows where they stand and what modifiers to apply.


Personally I see no reason why the rules concerning elevation crest can't be applied in its entirety to more realistic depictions of fences or hedgerows. They already cover every issue you named.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malteh wrote:
I just decide what is best for my opponent to not have any kind of senseless discussion (it's a game, right?) and move on with the game.


You might be fine with this, but it's terrible game design.

When you're playing a game you have a dialogue with your opponent but the rules create the shared assumptions upon which that dialogue is based. By coming to an agreement with your opponent you are simply setting a precedent that becomes an informal rule. You just did something the game designer should have done in the first place.

And saying the discussion is senseless? Surely two people couldn't have conflicting opinions that are based on reasoning! What if both arguments are equally reasonable? Flip a coin! That's great gaming right there (this is literally the solution in some games).

Waving stuff off because it's only a game is also poor reasoning. Why have rules at all when we can just make agreements with each other? Why have games? Who cares if someone scrawls a smiley face with a marker on the Mona Lisa? It's only a painting!
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malte Menger
Germany
Nürnberg
Germany
flag msg tools
Mountainbike
badge
Roadbike
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HarlemMimeSchool wrote:
Namrok wrote:
leroy43 wrote:
It's a game. Part of the game relies on terrain (line of sight for an obvious example) and since fences and walls provide important game related effects, perforce for the game to work those kinds of terrain features have to be along hex spines.


This is true, and I never realized it until it was pointed out, but no other cover or LOS feature in the game works like this. The line of sight must actually intersect the forest, building, or elevation crest drawn on the map, not just through the hex it occupies. As such you end up with some pretty close shaves that are valid lines of sight, through some wonkily drawn buildings, forests, and elevation crests. It does seem odd, when its pointed out, that fences and hedges are the only map features which neatly adhere to the hex sides.

I don't mind. It doesn't bother me. I won't stop playing the game because of it. But now that I've noticed, it does make me sit back and wonder why that is? Sheer force of design habit?


Don't forget a hex represents about 30m; I suspect it comes down to the nature of the structures we're talking about. A wall or fence can be 5cm thick and completely block line of sight, whereas a bocage hedgerow might be a couple of feet and achieve the same effect. A forest 5cm thick won't block anything. So a forest has to be present in some density to be meaningful to LOS.

If you run a wall through a hex, the inevitable problem arises; which side of the wall are units in the hex? You could say, "they are always BEHIND the wall" but what if fire is coming from two different directions? Are the hopping like bunnies over the wall to dodge bullets?

A wall or fence or hedge is a much more discrete object than a patch of woodland or brush. Slap it on the hexside, everyone knows where they stand and what modifiers to apply.


This certainly holds true but i just dont get why it would be such a pain to streamline the whole ruleset by ruling that all los is traced from hexcenter to hexcenter and all units are considered to be in the center of hex for cover determining purposes.

Still i get your points about this being a functional choice and i can definitely see why many people might like that. I am just not one of them and to be honest i am a bit surprised about being the minority in this regard.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chester
United States
Temple
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malteh wrote:
HarlemMimeSchool wrote:
Namrok wrote:
leroy43 wrote:
It's a game. Part of the game relies on terrain (line of sight for an obvious example) and since fences and walls provide important game related effects, perforce for the game to work those kinds of terrain features have to be along hex spines.


This is true, and I never realized it until it was pointed out, but no other cover or LOS feature in the game works like this. The line of sight must actually intersect the forest, building, or elevation crest drawn on the map, not just through the hex it occupies. As such you end up with some pretty close shaves that are valid lines of sight, through some wonkily drawn buildings, forests, and elevation crests. It does seem odd, when its pointed out, that fences and hedges are the only map features which neatly adhere to the hex sides.

I don't mind. It doesn't bother me. I won't stop playing the game because of it. But now that I've noticed, it does make me sit back and wonder why that is? Sheer force of design habit?


Don't forget a hex represents about 30m; I suspect it comes down to the nature of the structures we're talking about. A wall or fence can be 5cm thick and completely block line of sight, whereas a bocage hedgerow might be a couple of feet and achieve the same effect. A forest 5cm thick won't block anything. So a forest has to be present in some density to be meaningful to LOS.

If you run a wall through a hex, the inevitable problem arises; which side of the wall are units in the hex? You could say, "they are always BEHIND the wall" but what if fire is coming from two different directions? Are the hopping like bunnies over the wall to dodge bullets?

A wall or fence or hedge is a much more discrete object than a patch of woodland or brush. Slap it on the hexside, everyone knows where they stand and what modifiers to apply.


This certainly holds true but i just dont get why it would be such a pain to streamline the whole ruleset by ruling that all los is traced from hexcenter to hexcenter and all units are considered to be in the center of hex for cover determining purposes.

Still i get your points about this being a functional choice and i can definitely see why many people might like that. I am just not one of them and to be honest i am a bit surprised about being the minority in this regard.

I'm pretty sure you are.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malte Menger
Germany
Nürnberg
Germany
flag msg tools
Mountainbike
badge
Roadbike
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
alfonzo54 wrote:
malteh wrote:
I just decide what is best for my opponent to not have any kind of senseless discussion (it's a game, right?) and move on with the game.


You might be fine with this, but it's terrible game design.

When you're playing a game you have a dialogue with your opponent but the rules create the shared assumptions upon which that dialogue is based. By coming to an agreement with your opponent you are simply setting a precedent that becomes an informal rule. You just did something the game designer should have done in the first place.

And saying the discussion is senseless? Surely two people couldn't have conflicting opinions that are based on reasoning! What if both arguments are equally reasonable? Flip a coin! That's great gaming right there (this is literally the solution in some games).

Waving stuff off because it's only a game is also poor reasoning. Why have rules at all when we can just make agreements with each other? Why have games? Who cares if someone scrawls a smiley face with a marker on the Mona Lisa? It's only a painting!


My points are based on reasoning as well. Just because it does not fit your reasoning does not give you the rights to raise yourself as the voice of reason and evoke questionable analogies. This is becoming very offtopic so we should just agree to disagree and call it a day.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Laws
Canada
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
"I play to win, as much or more than any egoist who thinks he's going to win by other means. I want to win the match. But I don't give in to tactical reasoning as the only way to win, rather I believe that efficacy is not divorced from beauty."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malteh wrote:
This certainly holds true but i just dont get why it would be such a pain to streamline the whole ruleset by ruling that all los is traced from hexcenter to hexcenter and all units are considered to be in the center of hex for cover determining purposes.


What happens if you have units in a wood that is bounded by a wall? Or an orchard bounded by a fence?

Also you would get kooky situations where units would be in a hex with walls and through a quirk of LOS would not be protected from a particular direction despite the fact that the map is an abstraction anyway and real units would definitely be behind a wall if they could be.

Then you'd get threads on an internet message board asking why the designers didn't just move the fences to the hex sides where they could be easily seen and so on and so on.

I do have some sympathy with what you are saying; I designed the maps for Battlepack 6 and it was a monumental pain in the nuts to get the buildings of the Portsmouth dockyard to line up to a hex grid, I just think for sheer simplicity of play, as opposed to design, having the discrete objects on the hexsides is the least worst option.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malteh wrote:
i just dont get why it would be such a pain to streamline the whole ruleset.

I have no problem with anybody attempting such a feat. Have at it! Submit an improved ruleset and I'll see that it is included in the next reprint.
16 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zac Belado
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malteh wrote:
My points are based on reasoning as well. Just because it does not fit your reasoning does not give you the rights to raise yourself as the voice of reason and evoke questionable analogies. This is becoming very offtopic so we should just agree to disagree and call it a day.


If you don't want to have people disagree with you don't post online.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Brady
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malteh wrote:
The worst part is the design choice to adjust structures to fit the hexsides... Like a fence running zigzag? Come on, what is that?





Well, whatever you do, don't play ASL, ATS, Lock 'n Load, Band of Brothers, or most of the other tactical squad level games, since you'll be confronted with the same horrors.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malte Menger
Germany
Nürnberg
Germany
flag msg tools
Mountainbike
badge
Roadbike
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pixelgeek wrote:
malteh wrote:
My points are based on reasoning as well. Just because it does not fit your reasoning does not give you the rights to raise yourself as the voice of reason and evoke questionable analogies. This is becoming very offtopic so we should just agree to disagree and call it a day.


If you don't want to have people disagree with you don't post online.


You are missing the point and that was that this was getting offtopic. I will unsuscribe to this thread now and wont take a look in this thread from now on so be aware of that.

I just wanted to state my opinion and felt a harsh wind blowing at my face pretty soon so i will draw my conclusions and thats about it.

Bye.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.