The Game Box
March 18, 2024, 11:08:16 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The new site is Running.
This one is closed.


sign up here: http://thegamebox.gamesontables.com/
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Links Staff List Login Register  

Anybody Else Hearing About A GMT COIN Game Set During The Gallic Wars?

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anybody Else Hearing About A GMT COIN Game Set During The Gallic Wars?  (Read 759 times)
sparty
I can't wait to play that ... someday...
Forum Curious
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Karma Bad Level 4 50 Posts
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2014, 09:58:56 am »

Okay fine - what about the classic AH/SPI styles then?

Those are fairly specific sets of rules which COULD be expressed without
changing the rules much at all.

How many new game releases do we see that still employ the classic AH/SPI style?  They've morphed significantly over time and the "new classics" are ones that have respected the past, but significantly built upon those tropes of turned them on their head. 

There are certainly standouts that stand the test of time, even across reprints, but tastes have changed and will continue to evolve.

Point to Point CDGs in the 2000's were breeding like rabbits.  I think that's starting to calm down a bit.  Likewise, after Combat Commander demonstrated a renewed interest in Tactical WW2 there were a bunch of new games that are now slowing down a bit. 

To me, COIN is the same way.  We're still at the very beginning of the curve and interest still hasn't found a ceiling.  I'm not suggesting that Fire in the Lake gets released and suddenly interest evaporates.  I'm more suggesting that once you get coverage across eras it'll demand broader innovation to keep it fresh.

To some degree the 2010s are probably going to be remember for wargames that are games about war with non-traditional topics and approaches.  Herman's Churchill system is a great example of how games are morphing into new forms because of the success of COIN.  I wouldn't say he's capitalizing on the success of COIN, but COIN did demonstrate a market for these kinds of games and he's bringing a great new take on that interest to serve the market where it's headed.  To me, that's an exciting development. 

I don't want to play, largely, Hex & Counter wargames that feel like they have felt for the past 40 years.  It's tiresome and every time I think people are WW2 weary...another WW2 game pops out and people go crazy for it.  I'd much prefer some war topic games that get into funding, force building, and logistics at this point.  Again, that's a niche inside a niche inside a niche...so it may never happen, but the COIN series has certainly opened that door.
Report Spam   Logged
Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 983


I mock you


View Profile WWW
Badges: (View All)
Search 500 Posts Karma Bad
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2014, 10:37:39 am »

Okay fine - what about the classic AH/SPI styles then?

Those are fairly specific sets of rules which COULD be expressed without
changing the rules much at all.

How many new game releases do we see that still employ the classic AH/SPI style?  They've morphed significantly over time and the "new classics" are ones that have respected the past, but significantly built upon those tropes of turned them on their head. 

Dunno now - but 3W seemed to specialize in putting them to every conflict they could
for a while - long after the 'golden age'. The space is pretty well covered.

There are certainly standouts that stand the test of time, even across reprints, but tastes have changed and will continue to evolve.

Quote
Point to Point CDGs in the 2000's were breeding like rabbits. 


More variation here than in COIN though. At least so far. If COIN can break the
system mold a bit, it will help keep it fresh. CDGs that are just duplicates set
in different eras haven't fared too well.


Report Spam   Logged
sparty
I can't wait to play that ... someday...
Forum Curious
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Karma Bad Level 4 50 Posts
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2014, 11:01:00 am »

Quote
Point to Point CDGs in the 2000's were breeding like rabbits. 


More variation here than in COIN though. At least so far. If COIN can break the
system mold a bit, it will help keep it fresh. CDGs that are just duplicates set
in different eras haven't fared too well.


That's why I was specific in the CDG definition.  COIN is going to have to present an evolution.  I have some pretty high hopes for Churchill and what will emerge as ideas from Volko, Train, and Herman get "remixed" into the next evolution of these kinds of games.  They're not really wargames per se, but they appeal to wargamers which seems like it could be a tough thing to do without suffering the critique of "pasted on theme" from subject die hards.
Report Spam   Logged
rstites25
Forum Curious
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Level 4 50 Posts Poll Voter
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2014, 11:21:24 am »

Quote
Point to Point CDGs in the 2000's were breeding like rabbits. 


More variation here than in COIN though. At least so far. If COIN can break the
system mold a bit, it will help keep it fresh. CDGs that are just duplicates set
in different eras haven't fared too well.


That's why I was specific in the CDG definition.  COIN is going to have to present an evolution.  I have some pretty high hopes for Churchill and what will emerge as ideas from Volko, Train, and Herman get "remixed" into the next evolution of these kinds of games.  They're not really wargames per se, but they appeal to wargamers which seems like it could be a tough thing to do without suffering the critique of "pasted on theme" from subject die hards.

I would agree that they are not wargames, but that is because of scope and not for failing to simulate. The wars represented are more than mere theme. I think that will become more apparent with the release of Fire in the Lake, which I believe will implement the core mechanics in much different ways than the three previous volumes.

I think with future volumes you will also start to see more chrome added to the system to address unique things about the particular conflicts represented. And that will further distinguish the titles.

Having watched a lot of Enrico's videos, it seems that he really enjoys watching the story unfold and just enjoying the narrative of the game. In most wargames, that narrative is present after a single playing. COIN games don't seem to give that same narrative in a single solo playing. But, at least in my experience, playing several games of each title the narrative starts to appear. You begin to see the importance of specific geographic areas to that particular war, the way certain factions interact, etc. Once that narrative starts to appear, the distinctions between the titles becomes more apparent and you can start to get a clearer picture of what is different about, for example, Colombia and Cuba and why.

For those who aren't interested in the subject matter and can't see the narrative, more COIN titles probably don't make sense. But the same could be said about other series, e.g. Musket and Pike, GBoH, OCS, etc. One title may be enough of any series for which a system doesn't "click" with a particular person. But for those which COIN does click, they will likely eagerly anticipate each new volume to explore how the system models new subject matter.
Report Spam   Logged
Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 983


I mock you


View Profile WWW
Badges: (View All)
Search 500 Posts Karma Bad
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2014, 11:23:05 am »

Quote
Point to Point CDGs in the 2000's were breeding like rabbits. 


More variation here than in COIN though. At least so far. If COIN can break the
system mold a bit, it will help keep it fresh. CDGs that are just duplicates set
in different eras haven't fared too well.


That's why I was specific in the CDG definition. 

Still not specific enough. P2P includes Paths of Glory, We the People, Here I Stand....

These are very different games in a way that the COIN games are not. Nor in a way that Battle of the Bulge is
all that different from Stalingrad or Napoleon at Waterloo (although the latter uses the SPI CRT).

I don't think COIN can last without changing more, but the example of the golden-era wargames (and the
later clones) is one where a system did. P2P CDGs are not - if COIN can have that much variance in it,
'sameness' won't be an issue.


Report Spam   Logged
sparty
I can't wait to play that ... someday...
Forum Curious
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Karma Bad Level 4 50 Posts
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2014, 11:34:19 am »

A few clarifications:

1 - "Not a wargame" doesn't intone anything bad.  There are plenty of games in the "not a wargame" universe that I enjoy completely!

2 - I agree that CDGs have had incredible variance.  I thought Enrico's sidebar during one of the Unhappy King Charles videos (I think) was spot on.  The CDGs seem on a surface level to be of the same family, but they are inherently very different.  Heck, even games that seem to be of the same family like Paths of Glory and Pursuit of Glory are very different games!

The point I'm making is that people took those Point to Point CDGs and did a lot of new and original work.  It spanned beyond it's progenitor and became a full fledged TYPE of game.  Whether that will happen with COIN remains to be seen.  It will have a big effect on whether or not COIN is a TYPE of game or simply a series of games using a common ruleset.
Report Spam   Logged
rstites25
Forum Curious
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Level 4 50 Posts Poll Voter
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2014, 12:36:41 pm »

A few clarifications:

1 - "Not a wargame" doesn't intone anything bad.  There are plenty of games in the "not a wargame" universe that I enjoy completely!

2 - I agree that CDGs have had incredible variance.  I thought Enrico's sidebar during one of the Unhappy King Charles videos (I think) was spot on.  The CDGs seem on a surface level to be of the same family, but they are inherently very different.  Heck, even games that seem to be of the same family like Paths of Glory and Pursuit of Glory are very different games!

The point I'm making is that people took those Point to Point CDGs and did a lot of new and original work.  It spanned beyond it's progenitor and became a full fledged TYPE of game.  Whether that will happen with COIN remains to be seen.  It will have a big effect on whether or not COIN is a TYPE of game or simply a series of games using a common ruleset.

I don't think that CDGs are an appropriate comp to COIN. COIN is the type of warfare that is being depicted. The driving mechanic, i.e. the shared deck of cards that determine the order of the factions, is what is comparable to CDGs. Eventaully CDGs were adopted to depict a wide variety of conflicts, usually strategic in scope. It will be interesting to see if the card-assisted mechanic--the term I believe GMT is using to describe it--is adopted by other designers to depict other types of warfare.

The proper comps to COIN are OCS, Musket and Pike, and any other series game that you can think of. The series rules of M&P have evolved to a degree over time, but there is probably 95% rules commonality between the various scenarios in the series. I would argue that the COIN games, thus far, are about the same, if not slightly lower, in rules commonality (probably 85%-90% if I had to guess).

The continued success of the COIN series is not dependent on whether the card-assisted mechanic is adopted by other designers independent of Volko or adapted to other types of warfare. The COIN series itself will continue to be successful for the reasons that all series succeed: the model works to depict the particular subject matter, and the particular subject matter interests a significant number of wargamers.

As an aside, I distinguished that COIN is a simulation, but not a wargame, because when people call it a Euro it tends to give the impression that the games are only superficially tied to a "theme" of counter insurgency in a particular place. That is not the case. The games are very serious attempts at simulation. Categorizing the series along with the likes of Puerto Rico, Settlers of Catan, etc. does them a great disservice, imo.
Report Spam   Logged
Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 983


I mock you


View Profile WWW
Badges: (View All)
Search 500 Posts Karma Bad
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2014, 12:39:48 pm »



As an aside, I distinguished that COIN is a simulation, but not a wargame, because when people call it a Euro it tends to give the impression that the games are only superficially tied to a "theme" of counter insurgency in a particular place. That is not the case. The games are very serious attempts at simulation. Categorizing the series along with the likes of Puerto Rico, Settlers of Catan, etc. does them a great disservice, imo.

I agree that it is a simulation - but it's one which doesn't 'hook' me into the story the way most boardgame simulations do.
It feels as though the whole point optimization is just too close to the surface in a way that detracts from the
precise thing I most enjoy in most simulations.

In that way, it FEELS like a euro.
Report Spam   Logged
sparty
I can't wait to play that ... someday...
Forum Curious
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Karma Bad Level 4 50 Posts
« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2014, 02:00:02 pm »

I'm going to check out on this thread after this post ... it's like BGG all over again where people can't be bothered to read the whole thread and start taking posts outta context to refute points never made.

I never said that COIN was like Point to Point CDGs

I said that the 2000's saw Point to Point CDGs show up at a relatively fast clip.  They were innovating on top of one another.  It was implying that rarely do mechanics stand unchanged over long periods of time.  Thus, my response to Enrico's question about the classic AH/SPI games.  I furthered that by saying that perhaps COIN will start such a movement.

At no point did I attempt to make the case that imply COIN = CDG. 

I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt and just assume you got confused, but this is the kind of **** that made BGG such a frustrating conversation place.
Report Spam   Logged
Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 983


I mock you


View Profile WWW
Badges: (View All)
Search 500 Posts Karma Bad
« Reply #24 on: July 20, 2014, 02:30:26 pm »

What I THOUGHT you were saying was that CDGs showed the same kind of
similarity of system that COIN games do. It's easy to not be able to absorb
what someone says in a forum post - so misunderstandings are quite likely to happen.
That's where the fun is.




It only made sense, since the perceived problem with COIN was that the games all
were too similar. The whole question in my mind is whether something can survive
that similarity. The classic hex-and-counters did, but CDGs are not a good example.
Report Spam   Logged
rstites25
Forum Curious
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Level 4 50 Posts Poll Voter
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2014, 03:02:56 pm »

I'm going to check out on this thread after this post ... it's like BGG all over again where people can't be bothered to read the whole thread and start taking posts outta context to refute points never made.

I never said that COIN was like Point to Point CDGs

I said that the 2000's saw Point to Point CDGs show up at a relatively fast clip.  They were innovating on top of one another.  It was implying that rarely do mechanics stand unchanged over long periods of time.  Thus, my response to Enrico's question about the classic AH/SPI games.  I furthered that by saying that perhaps COIN will start such a movement.

At no point did I attempt to make the case that imply COIN = CDG. 

I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt and just assume you got confused, but this is the kind of **** that made BGG such a frustrating conversation place.

 Huh

I never said that you were implying that COIN = CDG. What I was saying is that you are equating COIN to a mechanic and thus comparing it to other mechanics. I pointed out that the core COIN mechanic was the card assisted system.

The point I was getting at is that there is no need for drastic changes in the COIN series for the continued success of that series. See Musket and Pike; OCS; et. al.. The continued viability of the underlying COIN mechanic outside the COIN series, however, will require the type of evolution and progression that you cite as happening with CDG point-to-point systems.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy