RE: Best board-game?

RE: Best board-game? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

TheHellPatrol -> RE: Best board-game? (8/31/2007 8:14:38 PM)
My best of list: WW2- Bitter Woods Deluxe, The Russian Campaign, Iron Tide:Panzers in the Ardennes and Bitter End(Last German offensive in Hungary '45). Civil War-Glory 3...random chit-pull leader activation Napoleonics- Prussia's Glory 2, Jena and OSG's Napoleon at Bay series. Best Tactical series goes to Lock 'n Load and AP's Panzer Grenadier series. Best starter wargame- A Victory Lost by Multiman Publishing. The games that started it for me 35 years ago: PanzerBlitz and PanzerLeader of course. With Squad Leader/Cross of Iron and Tobruk on the complex side.

LarryP -> RE: Best board-game? (8/31/2007 8:20:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol My best of list: WW2- Bitter Woods Deluxe, The Russian Campaign, Iron Tide:Panzers in the Ardennes and Bitter End(Last German offensive in Hungary '45). Civil War-Glory 3...random chit-pull leader activation Napoleonics- Prussia's Glory 2, Jena and OSG's Napoleon at Bay series. Best Tactical series goes to Lock 'n Load and AP's Panzer Grenadier series. Best starter wargame- A Victory Lost by Multiman Publishing. The games that started it for me 35 years ago: PanzerBlitz and PanzerLeader of course. With Squad Leader/Cross of Iron and Tobruk on the complex side. Could there possibly be a "one favorite?" [&:] [:)]

TheHellPatrol -> RE: Best board-game? (8/31/2007 8:38:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LarryP Could there possibly be a "one favorite?" [&:] [:)] Like with women, i ask myself that question often...[;)]

LarryP -> RE: Best board-game? (8/31/2007 8:41:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol quote: ORIGINAL: LarryP Could there possibly be a "one favorite?" [&:] [:)] Like with women, i ask myself that question often...[;)] That's "another" thread! [;)] [:D] [X(]

Motomouse -> RE: Best board-game? (8/31/2007 10:57:51 PM)
GO

Brigz -> RE: Best board-game? (8/31/2007 11:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skipjack Third Reich (Avalon Hill) - played the heck out of this in the 80s The Civil War (Victory Games) - the hands down pick in my circle of board gamer friends Raid on St. Nazaire (AH) - one of the best solitaire games I know of The Civil War (Victory Games). I absolutely agree with you that this is the best wargame design ever. It's the only game that I've ever had to play straight through now matter how long it took. Sometimes we'd start one afternoon, play all night and finish the next morning. It's so intense you can't walk away from it. I'd also say ASL but it's not a wargame...it's a profession.[;)]

madorosh -> RE: Best board-game? (8/31/2007 11:28:06 PM)
This is about as silly a thread as "what's your favourite colour?" It lacks focus. Board games can be divided into a) historical periods - First World War, Second World War, Arab-Israeli wars, "modern" era, American Civil War, Ancient, etc. b) scale - Grand strategic, strategic, operational, grand tactical, tactical, and man-to-man There are a great many combinations within these general parameters. If one wants to examine just tactical (defined by me as having key units representing platoons, squads or single men) board wargames, taking place in any 20th Century conflict, published before the year 2000, there are 120 titles alone (including Squad Leader and ASL and all modules up to the end of 1999). That's a lot of games. I doubt anyone here has played them all. I doubt anyone has even seen most of them in person. I own examples of all but 15 of them, though I haven't played many of them. Is there a "best"? What do you mean by best? Most playable? Most realistic? They aren't the same thing. Sometimes they are polar opposites. Compare Firepower/Close Assault and Sniper!/Special Forces for example. Both are Man-to-Man wargames covering WWII and the modern era. Both are radically different in their approach. Which is "best"? It's all subjective. The idea that Advanced Squad Leader is the "best wargame ever made" is, in my opinion, unprovable at best and complete falsehood at worst. Certainly they have a fanbase willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money. A look at Squad Leader and a comparison to all other squad-based wargames before it does show an elegance of design that John Hill should be thanked for. There were several squad-based games to precede Squad Leader, beginning with Grunt in 1971 or so, and Search & Destroy in 1974 or 1975. Combat was resolved by an odd-based CRT, just like, oh, just about every wargame since Tactics II onwards. Squad Leader was revolutionary. But that doesn't make it "best". ;)

madorosh -> RE: Best board-game? (8/31/2007 11:38:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter I have to agre with the one who stated that Raid on St. Nazaire was the best sloitaire game ever Subjective. If you're looking at replayability, I don't see how it could possibly compare to Ambush!, which was open-ended and in the end had 30+ different scenarios (including the three modules) and something like 10 map and half/map combinations. Compared to a single situation and single map. Is there really a comparison? The programmed AI of Tokyo Express is touted as the "best" ever, even better than the paragraph driven system in Ambush! and seemed almost human in its ability to (seemingly) react to the actual human player's actions. How did Raid on St. Nazaire's AI compare? So what makes St. Nazaire "best"? I would give it top marks for "biggest and most unwiedly and needlessly expensive mounted mapboard in human history", or perhaps "best magazine game that was actually sold as a bookcase game instead"... :)

JeF -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 12:26:14 AM)
Hi, Should it be a wargame ? If yes, then the best for me is the only one I have. It has a nice Matrix Games logo on the cover. it is Lock'n Load : Band Of Heroes. Otherwise, I'd give my vote to Evo. Cute little gem by a Belgian designer. And it has a bit of combat in it. Moreover, we played Cluedo, the card game, recently and it's a blast. Go and get it ! Cheers, JeF.

LarryP -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 12:29:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh This is about as silly a thread as "what's your favourite colour?" It lacks focus. Then go away. PS: My favorite color is blue.

sprior -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 12:38:57 AM)
I should add Flat Top too. Best played double-blind with an umpire.

madorosh -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 12:45:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LarryP quote: ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh This is about as silly a thread as "what's your favourite colour?" It lacks focus. Then go away. Nah, wrong answer. All you need to do is focus the question and make it interesting, and perhaps the answers will look like a discussion instead of a laundry list. Pick a genre; maybe pick a historical period. Or pick a design element you like and discuss that. Squad Leader's counting of firepower factors, for example - design elegance at play. Does it really offer advantages over an odds-based CRT? It's a fascinating question. Not much point in throwing out random names - you can find those at www.boardgamegeek.com - check out the GeekLists there for more of the same. At least they have pictures. [:)] Board wargames are relatively new in history; in the modern commercial sense they only go back to 1958 or so (I think the first Tactics predated that by a couple of years). They didn't even try to do tactical games until 1969. Miniatures, on the other hand, have been around since the turn of the century, and wargaming itself in a non-commercial sense goes back to the 1800s at the least. If one includes Chess and other games as simulations of warfare, they go back to antiquity. This all confuses the issue even more. But I'll focus it down to just two elements for you. What is more important to you - playabilty? Or realism?

LarryP -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 1:56:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh quote: ORIGINAL: LarryP quote: ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh This is about as silly a thread as "what's your favourite colour?" It lacks focus. Then go away. Nah, wrong answer. All you need to do is focus the question and make it interesting, and perhaps the answers will look like a discussion instead of a laundry list. Pick a genre; maybe pick a historical period. Or pick a design element you like and discuss that. Squad Leader's counting of firepower factors, for example - design elegance at play. Does it really offer advantages over an odds-based CRT? It's a fascinating question. Not much point in throwing out random names - you can find those at www.boardgamegeek.com - check out the GeekLists there for more of the same. At least they have pictures. [:)] Board wargames are relatively new in history; in the modern commercial sense they only go back to 1958 or so (I think the first Tactics predated that by a couple of years). They didn't even try to do tactical games until 1969. Miniatures, on the other hand, have been around since the turn of the century, and wargaming itself in a non-commercial sense goes back to the 1800s at the least. If one includes Chess and other games as simulations of warfare, they go back to antiquity. This all confuses the issue even more. But I'll focus it down to just two elements for you. What is more important to you - playabilty? Or realism? Go and post a thread the way it should be done. It's free. I posted exactly the way I wanted so it's just perfect the way it is. Lots of good replies from almost 100% nice people.

Joram -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 2:45:16 AM)
Wow Michael, you sure know how to turn something fun into something nasty.

madorosh -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 3:12:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joram Wow Michael, you sure know how to turn something fun into something nasty. Which part was more fun for you - the five seconds it took to type the name of your favourite game, or the two minutes it took to read the laundry list of games you've never heard of? [:)][&:] Not trying to be nasty, just trying to stimulate something more interesting than a list of people talking past each other. We've already seen chess, card games and monopoly listed among wargames - and the assertion that the ASL Monolith trumps them all. I'd be far more interested in knowing why people feel these games are "the best" or for that matter what they feel "best" means. Otherwise, it's just empty calories burp You're not trying to tell me that the process of actually thinking beyond a list of names represents a burden on your sense of fun, are you?

JAMiAM -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 3:45:50 AM)
Speaking of lack of focus... quote: ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh We've already seen chess, card games and monopoly listed among wargames... Try focusing on the thread title again, rather than trying to "stimulate" discussion...[;)] It says "Best board-game?" Not "Best wargame?" Not "Best board wargame?" Not "Best mounted board wargame?" Not "Best mounted board wargame dealing with a limited set of criteria that will make arguing about a purely subjective matter, sufficiently close to being an objective exercise, so that pedantically overfocused individuals can claim to make a final and definitive argument for their favorite game?" I, for one, find the open-ended nature of the question to be more pleasantly stimulating for discussion than focusing too narrowly. Your mileage may vary...[:)]

Zap -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 4:12:45 AM)
Its called nostalgia and I see nothing wrong with that at all.

TheHellPatrol -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 5:18:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh perhaps the answers will look like a discussion instead of a laundry list. [8\|]That "laundry list" mentioned some games i've never heard of and i have had boardgamegeek bookmarked for ages[:-].

ravinhood -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 8:00:35 AM)
Another board game from Avalon Hill I grew very fond of and probably played as much as SL was "Magic Realm". I think I liked it for the board design. It has HUGE hexed tiles that you setup every game in a random order and everything connects and they all have a magic side that changes the way the tunnels and paths go and or the power of the tiles. Quite an impressive endeavor by whoever developed it. It could be as simple as getting from point A to point B for a game to a complete campaign with all kinds of monsters and npcs. Some npcs you could even recruit or get challenged by at the inns and various other spots. The combat was interesting in that you picked your attack from three catagories and your defense from three catagories and then compared, if you picked the proper box of attack to the defenders box of defense you got a hit. It had a plethora of choices for adventure characters from the White Knight to the Witch. My favorite was usually the Amazon or one of the knights (black or white). You could adventure solo or with some of the other player characters and even have 1 v 1 battles between them if they should meet along the way. Very open ended on how one wished to play it every game. Later after that came an SPI game that my wargaming buddies all became attached to and wanted to play more than normal wargames and that was "Sword & Scorcery" an interesting take on wargaming with orcs and elves and dwarves and goblins and corflu cultists and Imperials and Mercs and Spiders. I believe the War of the South was the most fun scenario we liked to play. It brought in everyone of the factions the civil war of the game more or less as it pitted the north vs the south with several neutrals that you sent out diplomats to to gain their support. Sort of like a War of the Rings game as well as it pitted the Dark Lord "X the Unknown" and "Narklath" against the goodies of the South UnamitIhazredit and King (insert most any Norn name here> Linfalis pops up as an Elven leader I remember and Cronk as a Dwarven one. Slithis was the Swamp Creature leader I recall. Magic played a part in the game as well. If two leaders of opposing sides came in contact with each other I remember you could play out 1 v 1 duels between them and then fight out the battle between the units afterwards. There were solo missions that leaders could take also to find the "sword of everslaying" stuff like that. It was quite fun and another game that someone put in a lot of time to create a masterpiece.

Kuokkanen -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 5:20:24 PM)
What, hasn't anyone mentioned Classic BattleTech yet?

ezzler -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 9:22:20 PM)
If you want to play a fun game that causes the same kind of resentment, mistrust and backstabbing as Risk or Diplomacy or Kremlin then try JUNTA. Excellent game and great fun. Here are some more categories for you Most monster / complicated game that was actually worth playing: World in Flames Most monster / complicated game that was never worth playing : Eagle against the sun Most disappointing puchase Firepower 1950-1990 / plot to assisinate hitler / federation and empire Suprise great games. Enemy in sight / For the republic / powerplay / steam and steel Rule lawyers favourites : ASL / World in Flames / Europa series

Procrustes -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 9:55:47 PM)
The ones I had the most fun with were "Squad Leader" and that old AH game "Blitzkrieg" - I was happy as a clam when I found a remake of that game for TOAW. I also really liked "The Third Reich" - an overview of WW2. My friend also had an SPI(?) game called "Sniper" that we loved - each counter was an individual soldier, and you fought an urban battle with a squad or two.

ezzler -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 9:59:28 PM)
Sniper .. great Thats what made firepower such a let down. Much better components, much worse gameplay

madorosh -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 10:14:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ezz Sniper .. great Thats what made firepower such a let down. Much better components, much worse gameplay Sure, but there are some who feel quite the opposite. I'm not one of them. Any game will be a tradeoff between realism and playability. The quadrilateral buildings in Sniper! alone were a turn-off for some. To me, the play was the thing. Conversely, look at Advanced Squad Leader - would anyone really choke on that 300 page rulebook if the boards were printed on poster paper and the counters had to be cut out by hand? I think part of ASL's attraction is at least as much due to the physical components as to anything else. Sniper! doesn't compare to Firepower in that sense, which came with mounted, hand-painted mapboards (though the urban board was pretty ugly and required that weird cardboard overlay for the 2nd levels). It's all about trade-offs, and in the end, individual tastes. There probably are people who would play ASL on homemade boards with homemade counters - in fact, I bet there are more than a few right now who do.

Procrustes -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 10:16:09 PM)
Yeah, the only thing that took a little getting used to in Sniper was that in order to get the buildings to fit onto the hex map board well they made everything into parallelograms instead of rectangles. Once you got the hang of it you found that it really improved play. Great game. *** EDIT - I thought it helped because it eliminated the problems you have with half-hexes - can you see him or not? Am I exposed or not? Once the building were shaped to the map board a lot of that ambiguity went away. But I admit - it didn't "look right" for a while.

Procrustes -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 10:19:59 PM)
I never played ASL - but I played a lot of Squad Leader with the add-ons (Cross of Iron, Anvil of Victory, and the other one?). I loved the game, but as you got further into it it became hard to keep track of all the addenda and rule changes. I always figured that ASL would be an improvement - are people are suggesting it wasn't?

madorosh -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 10:23:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Procrustes I never played ASL - but I played a lot of Squad Leader with the add-ons (Cross of Iron, Anvil of Victory, and the other one?). I loved the game, but as you got further into it it became hard to keep track of all the addenda and rule changes. I always figured that ASL would be an improvement - are people are suggesting it wasn't? That's an individual choice for each consumer to make. Clearly it wasn't to this fellow who bought the ASL Starter Kit and got hooked on it: quote: I am one of those veteran ASLers who bought Starter Kit#1 because I thought at last! a self-contained module to get people into the hobby. In fact, I bought two copies because I wanted to be able to lend one out and have one on hand. But then a funny thing happened. I got hooked. It started with the top-notch components--say what you like about MMP but they outclass AH in that department--and then when I played the game I got that old '78 Squad Leader rush. It was fun. What a relief to dispense with concealment counters, and recon through clumsiness. Or arguments over SANs: "I'm going to roll for my Sniper now." "You can't, we're past that." "I mentioned it when you rolled the first MC and would have done it then but you spent forty minutes determining HOB." Or weather rolls--if I could only have back the hours I've spent on that silliness. With Starter Kit#2 things got better. If you want to move that gun you have to push it. Classic, simple, learn the rule and get on with the game. SK#3 was more complicated but the big plus was the heave-ho given to the overrun rules. Hallelujah! Yep, I'm a convert. I'm selling off my ASL collection(anybody want to bid on Action Pack #1?)because the Starter Kit system gives me what I crave--a fun, fast-paced challenge. If I do show up at ASLOK this October I'm only going to bring and play the SKs. That way I don't have to entertain the thought of the IIFT(You want to use something that was designed to give the Germans an advantage? I don't think so)or play against some HASL VASL addict who likes to spend two hours on each and every phase. As an example of the benefits of SK I offer this: On a recent road trip I visited a friend down East whose local pub has a games night. We brought SK#1 to the bar and played a couple of scenarios over a few pints. Try doing that with ASL. And it was great to be out and about in the world, not tucked away in some fetid room with poor lighting. NB: I am, of course, referring to the average tournament venue, and not my friend's living arrangements. Don't get me wrong, ASL is a brilliant game, and I will continue to play it. My gaming buddies are still true believers. For me, however, devolution is the way to go. Who would have thought that Devo had it right all those years ago? http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=903051&postcount=87

Procrustes -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 10:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh That's an individual choice for each consumer to make. Clearly it wasn't to this fellow who bought the ASL Starter Kit and got hooked on it: Good point. I admit, the SL games I enjoyed the most were the simpler, smaller ones.

Sarge -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 11:34:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh Not trying to be nasty, just trying to stimulate something more interesting than a list of people talking past each other. We've already seen chess, card games and monopoly listed among wargames - and the assertion that the ASL Monolith trumps them all. I'd be far more interested in knowing why people feel these games are "the best" or for that matter what they feel "best" means. Otherwise, it's just empty calories burp Is a explanation of the reasons one would choose “Chess” as holding a top slot in the all time list real needed ? If so , Point out the titles mentioned in this thread not a distant relative of “Chess”

ravinhood -> RE: Best board-game? (9/1/2007 11:53:01 PM)
Magic Realm?. ;) Source of the Nile? As far as the definition of Best Wargame to me means is one that I played more than any other and I still have and would still play had I had someone close who wanted to play a board wargame anymore. lol My friends today are all into comuter wargames and think those old board wargames are for the old folks home people. lol Goes to show even some of the old grognards have jumped ship for computer wargaming.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75