Cheating on Panzer Grenadier

[awdougherty]

Speaking of Ambush cards, I had one opponent that held an Ambush card all game and could never get a chance to use it. I asked after why he held it and not used it for the other Fire order. He said he needed it for any Melee that came up. None ever occurred, but he wouldn't give it up because he thought he needed it. This had two effects, one he never used the Fire to possibly OP fire me, as there was more maneuvering in scenario than close in fighting and more important denying him one more card in his hand and reducing his orders by capability 25%. So the bottomline is that there is many ways to win and many ways to lose.

To me, the biggest failure of the cards is the creation of these kinds of nonsensical false choices. Enemy's making a move, coming in hard, DO YOU CHOOSE THE BLUE CAR OR HAVE THAT THIRD SLICE OF PIZZA??!??!! WHAT DO YOU DO SOLDIER?!?!?!?!

[Hugmenot]

Thanks for the feedback on CC as it was one of the games I thought of later acquiring to play with my now 9 year old son; "was" being the operative word.

He's doing well at Trenches of Valor and we'll try Battle for Moscow in late December. After that, maybe we'll try additional Battleson titles or something simple from the 16th century or earlier.

[J6A]

I haven't played a lot of the Battlesson titles because, well, they are simpler than I like. As I've stated in the past, though, I love ToV as a fun little game. Battle for Moscow is a challenging one, too. The Frank Chadwick Campaigns in Russia (not Battlesson) build on that system and are just a bit more complex. The Arduous Beginning is my favorite of those, although they are all good, IMO.

Here's my take on the others:
A Blood Red Banner - Solo game on the Alamo. Supposed to be fun. Marco liked it. I haven't played it.
Assault on Sevastopol - Intrigues me, but haven't played it.
Battle of 4 Armies - Very simple intro game. Can be played with 2 - 4. If he can handle ToV, he can handle this. I only played this once in early beta, it was too simple for me.
Boom & Zoom - Designed as an intro game, its a programmed learning game. In the initial scenario, your units can move (Zoom) or shoot (Boom). Later scenarios add combinations of this, taller towers, terrain, elite units, etc. At 9, he could probably handle it, however it might be a little tough. I don't have a 9 year old, so I couldn't say for sure. I've played this a few times. Its neat, although I've only played the 1st couple of scenarios.
Israel Independence - Solitaire and requires reading. A fun little 5-15 minute game, might not be good for him.
Paul Koenig's D-Day: The Canadian Beaches - I haven't played this, I have played the Market Garden games which apparently use a similar system. Its a good, fun system with a low unit count and not a lot of rules. He could probably handle this.
Strike Force One - The ultimate intro wargame. If he can handle ToV, he can handle this one.
The Drive on Metz - Haven't played it, don't know much about it.
Toe-to-Toe Nu'klr Combat with the Rooskies - Solo and since he's not part of the Dr. Strangelove generation, perhaps it would be lost on him. Its a blast (no pun intended) to play, though. Although, as a Battlesson, its not the deepest game ever designed.

[awdougherty]

Thanks for the feedback on CC as it was one of the games I thought of later acquiring to play with my now 9 year old son; "was" being the operative word.

I vastly prefer Conflict of Heroes if you need a WW2 squad level game that can handle vehicles and finds a great balance between playability and depth (apologies if you've already tried this series).

[campsawyer]

Thanks for the feedback on CC as it was one of the games I thought of later acquiring to play with my now 9 year old son; "was" being the operative word.

He's doing well at Trenches of Valor and we'll try Battle for Moscow in late December. After that, maybe we'll try additional Battleson titles or something simple from the 16th century or earlier.

Dan,

My son has taken to CC very well the card play is more fun for him. If you have an opportunity to try it I would.

[campsawyer]

Thanks for the feedback on CC as it was one of the games I thought of later acquiring to play with my now 9 year old son; "was" being the operative word.

I vastly prefer Conflict of Heroes if you need a WW2 squad level game that can handle vehicles and finds a great balance between playability and depth (apologies if you've already tried this series).

Interesting. As I like COH, I do find the combat results a bit to simplistic and units tend to die rather quickly. I will say it has the best graphics and the pieces are worth there weight.

[awdougherty]

I think there are definitely some weaknesses to conflict of heroes, but stacked against combat commander, I would pick conflict every time. My squad level game of choice is ATS, but I feel like a 9 year old could easily tackle conflict of heroes.

[campsawyer]

I think there are definitely some weaknesses to conflict of heroes, but stacked against combat commander, I would pick conflict every time. My squad level game of choice is ATS, but I feel like a 9 year old could easily tackle conflict of heroes.

I would agree that it is easy to learn as well as the step by step learn much like the original SL. But the combat damage is too easy and this is where PG is masterful. The combat results canbe devastating, but most of the time is its is an accumulating result with one having to have a choice between recovery and or firing on with damage. In COH you really can't do that.

[armyduck95]

My other gaming crack is LocknLoad's Band of Heroes series. I'm heading to Origins tomorrow and will probably walk out with more.

Yes, I own the entire LnL Heroes line - it is a nice system. For me it has everything I love about ASL/ Squad level combat with none of the tedium.

[armyduck95]

What don't you like about it?

Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Action. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Fire for no effect. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard. Discard.

Seems to be how our games go.

Ok, its the cards. CDG's are either a love or a hate. I have had others comment that the game is to random and chaotic, but that's what war is.

Here are my thoughts on leading squad level games:

I appreciate what each system is trying to model and convey:
1. Combat Commander is almost too random for me, but damn fun with a F2F player, and I like the morale/cohesion mechanism. I think it does a great job with unleashing the fog of war, moments of boredom, tedium and confusion with flashpoints of violent action. But to me it is only enjoyable face to face. And I am not a huge CDG fan (though I loved UP FRONT)

2. ATS - I have no basis to know it. but assume it is close to ASL.

3. ASL - the gold standard; their mechanics for terrain, morale, leadership, weapons types and nationality considerations are phenomenal. IF I had ALL the TIME in the world I would love playing it over and over. It also gives you an appreciation of all the things a true company grade leader it trying to contemplate in a real time action. It is a good teaching game, boarding on simulation.
It was awesome for the 80s/90s, but I feel in this day and age, the high level of minute detail it tries to capture in rules might be better portrayed in a digital form.

4. LnL Heroes. - beautiful artwork, varied theaters and eras (WWII through 1990s). For me it is streamlined ASL, it is all I love about ASL without the tedium, and scenario playing time is very manageable. It has a very interactive mechanic or competitive dice rolling so your opponent never feels left out or helpless, and a good bit of random events in scenarios that make it highly suitable for solitaire play too. It is now my "go to" squad level quick fix game. Biggest complaint may be that it is a bit too "Hollywood Hero" it slants a bit more on the side of entertainment vs. historical accuracy.

5. Have not tried Conflict of Heroes.