I'd love to see a replay of one of the TCS games. I had Leros and Canadian Crucible, but never really got to grips with the system.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
I think that can be arranged! There are a number of very manageable scenarios that would make decent subjects for a playthrough. I think the hardest part will be trying to figure out which one. Of course, the obvious answer is just do them all! 😁
@baronswodeck5068
Жыл бұрын
I would love a play through! This is one of my favorite systems...
@hex2redonealpha102
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge Would enjoy that very much!
@iwanhughes2965
Жыл бұрын
Fond memories of playing many titles in this series. Especially GD'41,and Screaming Eagles.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
I very much look forward to trying out GD'41 with the v4.02 rules. Watch for more TCS content on the channel in the future!
@iwanhughes2965
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge I shall look forward to watching your play through and thoughts on how they play now with the latest rules. No more mass of buttoned up tanks across the steppe!😅
@joeperez3520
Жыл бұрын
When I saw "promo" copies of the Bloody 110 maps stapled onto the wall of the New York Compleat Strategist game store, I was blown away by how stunning they looked. Had to have the game as soon as it was released.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
I do miss the days of walking into the FLGS and seeing what's new. Always had a sense of discovery and anticipation when I would stop in. Nowadays, with the industry largely dominated by online retail, unless you know what you are looking for, things can be hard to discover. A personal example is Under an Iron Sky by Thin Red Line Games. I'd not even heard of the company, let alone the game, until they had already produced another three in the series and it was long since sold out. I'd like to think back in the day it would have been one of the discoveries I made like Omaha and TCS (I had never heard of The Gamers before I purchased Omaha). One thing I find really interesting about the Blooy 110 maps are all the terrain feature names printed on them. Too many people must have not liked them, because they didn't do it on any other maps in the series, but I think it's a cool feature on those maps.
@eginfo6209
5 ай бұрын
Bought one in the Netherlands in 89 or 90…. Time flies… bloody 110 it was
@denisdelarive7753
Жыл бұрын
I wasn't going to comment, but after thinking about it, this discussion is very interesting, and greatly adds to the hobby that I've been in since the 1970's. I had seen many of these games advertised but never picked one up, since my interest are not on this level of command. I once read a long time ago some advice on game design where the designer stated that you should have a clear idea of what role, (command rank), you intended for the player. He went on to suggest that the smallest unit in your game should be 2 levels below that. So if you have platoons then you are in the role of a battalion commander. I find this advice to be quite accurate since that is how the chain of command works, in gun powder armies. Not having any experience with TCS I can't judge how it approaches this problem, but I do think that making an attempt at implementing the iconic CCC delema makes for an interesting game system. CCC and "friction" are far too often ignored in many games, which is why I liked you BCS lets plays, and that system. The discussion of game design is far too often forgotten, or simply treated as an annex to the rules when present, which is why this discussion is so interesting. Capturing a sense of reality is the ultimate objective of a gaming system, putting you in the mind of a historical person as far as can be done considering the differences in culture and ability. We often forget that our world is so very different for what it was in the mid 1940 for example, or the devotion to duty of a Japanese officer to his god emperor. Sometime our knowledge and world views creates a divide between our ideas on tactacts and what were established military convention for the person a player is representing. It's a bit like roleplaying to do what you should according to the thinking of the day, and not what modern tactics dictate. Understanding war in the time of your game is not to be expected by all players, so designers have to force a mindset on you, creating limits, and even forced moves. If I understand the discussion here TCS does this, or at least tries to. I recently commented on another channel how a designer had used hex size and turn time to abstract tactical movement in liniar combat to avoid confusing the player with many complex restrictions. It works well but players that don't understand the abstraction find the game lacking in the what they seek, a movement in lines. I find that many players simply don't understand the roleplay aspect of most historical gaming and instead seek the ultimate min-max solution, something that is often not even a consideration of the warriors they play, who's values are very different form ours. Sometimes innovate designs is the best way you have to impose and remove choices from a player to better make him feel the particulars of your subject. It is often better that that old favorite victory points, or victory conditions. As a gamer, first generation roleplayer and military historian I see how much the hobby has evolved, and how creative some games have become, but great designs can be timeless like "War & Peace", the game or the book whichever you have. Thankyou all for making this channel so interesting.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
I plan on doing some videos on the topic of "wargame design and philosophy". While the discussion will be on a general level, I plan to use specific games and their designs as examples to illustrate the various points.
@korposp
Жыл бұрын
Wow, that was really a nice surprise to see this video. I own all titles except Omaha. What i love most about them i think it is their presentation. You get a detailed OOB, maps with countours, historical notes and those fitting scenarios. Every title is very nice historic wagaming package.
@karlpmueller
11 ай бұрын
Thanks for this video. I've been collecting TCS games for years based on the concept and their looks, will finally be getting one onto the table against an opponent for the first time this weekend (Obj. Schmidt, built from the downloadable counters and map on the Gamers Archive site). It's been a long time coming . . .
@joelhart4027
Жыл бұрын
Very interesting video, looking forward to future videos
@steel-qf7wp
11 ай бұрын
1st and 2nd edition version ruleset are my favorite for the system.
@war_gamer
Жыл бұрын
GREAT VIDEO!!!!
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Thanks! I've been really enjoying your TCS content!
@swankiestnerd8277
Жыл бұрын
Schmidt was my first, and I still play it once in a while.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Believe it or not, the cover art kept me from ever acquiring OS back in the day. Very shallow, I know. And highly regretted. I do now have a copy of it, and was definitely kicking myself for having passed it up back in the 1990's. Looks like a solid game, and it doesn't surprise me that it holds up well all these years later. When you play it, do you use the original 2nd edition rules, or have you tried it with the current edition series rules?
@swankiestnerd8277
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge I don’t have any updated editions so I play with the 2d edition and the Miller tables therein. BTW in my experience, artillery doesn’t do much damage the way the personal experiences describe. I had a friend who was a retired major and he loaned me a military historical review and assessment paper from his training. Very interesting
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
@@swankiestnerd8277 The artillery system is the element that has undergone the most changes as the series rules evolved. I'll be curious to see how impactful (pardon the pun) artillery is with the v4.0 rules, especially compared to 1st and 2nd edition, where you were tracking each individual round's location. One of topics I'd like to do is a detailed discussion of the artillery rules and their evolution throughout TCS. The detailed treatment of artillery is one of the things that really grabbed me with Omaha, but over the years the mechanics for handling artillery have been greatly streamlined, largely for playability purposes. While I am grateful for the time savings in the later artillery systems, part of me still appreciates what the original systems were trying to do.
@swankiestnerd8277
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge after your note I opened the storage box and discovered I had downloaded the 4th edition rules with its tables. The last time I played I’m pretty sure I didn’t use its artillery rules because of some counter issues, but I’ll investigate a bit further. My version has the Miller artillery tables which cut down on the amount of die rolling.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
@@swankiestnerd8277 They introduced new artillery markers in Hunters from the Sky, when they released the v3.1 series rules. They subsequently made slight modifications to the markers in Black Wednesday and again in GD'41, where they've remained stable ever since. The changes to the counters were largely cosmetic and were to help playability. There no real changes to the arty rules themselves (I think v4.0 tweaks a couple things, but nothing major). The biggest changes in the arty rules occurred in the update from 2nd edition to v3.0. You can play without the new arty counters, but you'll just need to note the firepower strength of each barrage. The Gamers produced updated barrage markers for all the early games in their 1996 Christmas mailer. I always thought the Miller Tables were a nifty little tool. Definitely a time saver. If there's been one consistent theme with the evolution of TCS over the years, it has been to simplify the artillery rules. I have mixed feelings on this. While I liked the detail of the original system, there were some definite playability issues (and perhaps some issues about reflecting the historical impact of artillery). I'm in favor of changes that speed play where necessary, but I would like to see the historical importance (and difficulty) in coordinating fire support at this level of combat.
@thegrogshed
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for covering TCS. I played Screaming Eagles but struggled with the op sheets.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Stay tuned! At some point I'll be discussing Op Sheets in detail. Not so much as a tutorial (Lee Forester has done an excellent job of that already), but more in the theory and practical use of them.
@TheBlueTweezers
Жыл бұрын
Concur with most of what you said here, TTE. Goose Green is a big hit over here in the UK though that may not give the required numbers. Have been looking for opportunities to get GD '42 out since last year.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Glad to hear Goose Green is doing well in the UK! It is definitely a change of pace from the endless Battle of the Bulge and Stalingrad game topics we see in the hobby. My only concern is the novelty of the topic may hurt sales a little (there's a reason for all those Bulge and Stalingrad games, after all), which normally wouldn't bother me if the fate of the whole TCS wasn't riding on it. I've duly pre-ordered to show my support for TCS, and I'm genuinely curious to see how the current version of TCS handles 1980's era combat. Thanks for watching, and here's hoping Goose Green hits is number soon!
@siyuanxu3537
Жыл бұрын
thanks for the videos, really enjoyed watching them. TCS is also my favorate system, I have learned the rules many times through out, but the problem for mime is that the game has two layers of gaming (OP Sheets and the actual playing with the counters) and the rules to govern different aspects (like Arty/LoS/Movement/Firing) are also separate, I somehow can not get them into one mind-set, like when I manage one aspect, I forget some other, and when I catch up with them, some rules look foreign for me. But I think it is just my own "deficit". Best regards.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching! Try to think of the Op Sheets as nothing more than a guide for how to move your pieces on map. You can also choose to not use the Op Sheets and just move the pieces on the map, eliminating one of the two layers. Once you get comfortable with the rules on how to move and fight with the pieces, you can add in the Op Sheets rules.
@emrd1
Жыл бұрын
This is a good intro. While I have no real interest in tactical wargames, I do like introductions to other series. Thanks
@johnhalley974
Жыл бұрын
Having owned all the games and played them all scince the nineties I know all their little nuances, Faults and errors. But I would never get rid of any. Still play them all today and have a blast. I’ve also played all my older games with the version 4 rules which enhances the experience. GD41 full campaign was awesome.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Back in the late '90's I sold Omaha, Semper Fi!, and ARS. I couldn't bring myself to get rid of any of the others, because there was something about each one (even with their flaws) that just really appealed to me. I do regret now getting rid of those, but have managed to reacquire two of the three. And who knows, maybe I'll break down and get Semper Fi! again, too. I'm sure I would appreciate it more now than I did back when it originally came out. I am also very much looking forward to trying the older games with the current v4.0 rules. So far, they've worked really nicely with Matanikau and GD'40. I am especially eager to finally get to grips with GD'41 using the latest rules. I'm sure you'll see some content related to that when it happens. Thanks for watching!
@johnhalley974
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge I look forward to more videos on TCS as Kev is the only one that covers it at present.
@marchanna
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the chronical, very interesting. The main downfall (imo) of this series are the written order and op sheet requirements. I tried out the GD 40 module but I was playing a lot of ASL also. If you're a player who likes that stuff, it's great. It seems that you do. And these work fine solitaire. Not so much when in a group of different thinkers/interpreters. Same problem with their civil war games with the orders system. Could never get consensus on the play of those. As a result, it's been ASL for me tactics-wise, and for Civil War -- well -- never found a satisfactory tactical game for that.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
You won't find many (if any) Dean Essig designs at competitive style tournaments (like you find with ASL and others). TCS, along with the Civil War Brigade series (and its derivative Regimental Sub-Series and Line of Battle series) do require a certain mindset when playing. Dean is very upfront about this. In the second paragraph of the 1st edition TCS series rules he states that "common sense and honesty" will be required at certain times when playing. As reasonable as that sounds, it opens a rather large can of worms. I'm not implying that "competitive" players all cheat or have no common sense, quite the opposite actually. I really enjoy ASL (and have a couple thousand dollars worth of ASL product on my gaming shelves), and have had the pleasure of attending ASLOK 4 or 5 times over the years. You are absolutely correct that TCS (and other Essig designs) breakdown and become unplayable between players with different interpretations. Even like-minded individuals can have serious problems. I've had enough issues with a long time gaming partner when trying to play This Hallowed Ground and Last Chance for Victory that we've agreed that CWB/RSS/LoB is just something we won't play. But we happily play all kinds of other games. And we see eye to eye on almost everything. The biggest hurdle TCS (and systems with similar type of command & control mechanics) has is overcoming human nature when playing a game. Everyone, even if you are not in a tournament setting, likes to play to win a game. Since there are no hard and fast, black and white, restrictions, it allows folks to rationalize all kinds of actions to skirt (knowingly or not) the restrictions intended by the command system. That said, I do think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the intent of the Op Sheet mechanism in TCS, which leads to a lot of unnecessary argument over their implementation in a game. I fully understand your issue with TCS, and it's a legitimate concern. For me, though, TCS is the one tactical level gaming system that takes a game beyond just pushing pieces across a hexgrid, and provides a richer experience of the historical subject. Just as BCS puts me in a far different mentality than other operational games, TCS has me thinking differently when I play it than when I play other tactical games. I catch myself thinking in real world terms rather than game pieces and attack factors. Not that there's anything wrong that, because I play and enjoy a lot of games that emphasize doing just that (for instance, WiF). I just like the feel that TCS games provide, in no small part due to the command rules. I do plan on doing at least one video that examines the Op Sheets and C&C rules in depth, both from a theoretical and practical viewpoint, to include issues like the one you've raised. Thanks for watching!
@MrProsat
Жыл бұрын
I know this won't be well received by many wargamers, but combat at this level DEMANDS some sort of written order/op sheet requirements, unless you are good with playing a game with the realism of RISK. Unfortunately, this makes this more realistic simulation of platoon level combat difficult to do solo.
@marchanna
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge I deeply appreciate your entirely thoughtful response. A lot of KZitemrs simply don't countenance contrarian comments on their channel. It's true that most people don't recognize their subconscious bias about winning such that mission creep starts entering their written orders. Dean has been forever tinkering with his written orders rules to outflank this, but has never succeeded imo. I think command control is better simulated by tethering player's abilities to 'do whatever they want' with their units by some kind of random turn-by-turn dynamic. This is something ASL fails to do, by the way. The solo ASL system tried to recapture such limitations with the panic rules for command. The 'Eagles of France' series (Napoleonic) by Hexasim accomplish it by mandating point-to-point movement orders combined with local command control restrictions and effects. So far I am impressed with their blend -- don't know if you are familiar with those games (you probably have been for years!) but do check them out if not, as the rules offer a blend of operational and tactical command control restrictions that feel compellingly realistic.
@marchanna
Жыл бұрын
@@MrProsat What's also 'not well-received' (by wargamers and scholars) are superficial analyses centered around absolutist language in order to bolster inherent flimsiness of the arguments. Combat at this level does not 'demand' written orders. Imagine someone trying to give Audie Murphy written orders to jump on the back of a burning TD to protect his mates and hold at all costs? Simulated in ASL by the ability of created heroes to use the AAMG of tank turrets as riders -- all without a written order mechanism that you 'demand' is essential. Nope. I might agree with your comment had its scope been limited to the realism of staff command simulation at the operational level in tactical situations. But you decided to engage a questionable metaphor about the realism of games through and through, like ASL I suppose, being akin to the attritional strategic blandness of super-simplified games like Risk, lumping all realism effects into some kind of dumbed-down interpretation, simply because games don't have a written orders structure. Too superficial -- I don't buy it.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
@@marchanna Variety is the spice of life! And I find that to be true in the wargaming hobby as well. I guess I'm just not insecure enough to demand that everyone MUST like the same games I do, and that if they don't they are somehow less of a person. 😁 Tastes differ among people, and I can't see how someone preferring a different game than I do is a threat to me. This hobby is too small for us to biker and fight amongst one another, or look down on others, simply because of their tastes in wargame. I do, however, have a huge pet peeve with folks who merely glance at a game, never actually play it, and then start bad-mouthing based on their own (usually erroneous) preconceptions. This happens a lot with games that feature innovative and new mechanisms. I fully respect anyone's opinion on a game who has actually sat down and played it (or at least tried to play it). Even "simple" wargames are complex systems that frequently have subtle nuances that only become apparent after playing it for a bit. Not to mention that I've see several people over the decades cast aspersions on a system that they had been playing incorrectly. I have seen Dean admonish players over the years for "not playing the game the right way", and while I can appreciate what he's saying I think it's more complicated than that. Even players with the best of intentions has failed at times to play by the "spirit of the rules", whether consciously or not. While I admire the cleverness of Dean's designs like TCS and CWB to bring in real world c&C considerations in a playable manner, I find it interesting that his most recent design (BCS) is also his most abstract design in many ways. Players constantly push the envelope of any rule system trying to ring the greatest advantage and efficiency out of them (and I'm not talking about cheating or bending the rules, I mean finding the best way to play legally within the bounds of the rules). Gray areas in rules open up the sticky issue of "interpretation", and it's impossible to conduct a truly neutral evaluation of such gray areas in the middle of a game (as each side has a vested interest in using the interpretation more favorable their side). For that reason, I'm inclined to agree with you about the best approach to C&C in wargames from a practical standpoint. Something like a random chit-pull activation mechanism (however cleverly modified) to determine when and how players can move their units is not open to interpretation and does the job of limiting the players' control over their units in the game. Ultimately, that's the whole goal of C&C rules in any game. To limit the knowledge and control players have due to the limitations of the boardgame medium. TCS and CWB take the "Design for Cause" design approach, while something like GTS and BCS take more of a "Design for Effect" approach. I like the panic rules in SASL. It adds a nice element to the ASL experience, and certainly discourages one from running various squads off into the blue. I've thought about trying to implement the rules in regular ASL scenarios, but so many of them seem so finely balanced that this would absolutely derail that. Heck, many ASL'ers bitch about scenarios that have OBA, I can only imagine their reaction if the SASL command rules were used! I have heard of "Eagles of France" by Hexasim, but have never had the opportunity to play one of the games. I enjoy the Napoleonic period quite a bit, so I'll have to go take a closer look at this series and see if I can track down a copy of one to give it a try. I'm always on the lookout for smart games that offer compelling game play! Nice discussion so far, thanks again for watching. This is the kind of thing I was hoping my channel could help encourage in the hobby.
@joffreyiii4024
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for this great video 👍👍 I have a number of TCS games and played most of them solo so the problem of one player being doomed to inactivity didn't matter much to me. GD'42 is on my wish list, and I played Airborne in Holland last year. Can you elaborate a bit about what bothered you regarding the vehicle rules? I liked them in GD '40 and Bloody Omaha but found them confusing in GD '41. Sometimes I just want to set up a game and start playing, but in TCS one first has to spend a considerable amount of time on the Op Sheets, which is the main reason I don't play them very often.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Regarding the vehicle issues in earlier rule editions, it's been a long time since I've dealt with it. As I recall, the crux of the issue was the lack of flexibility of armor. As you know, units must either be in Fire mode or Move mode in a turn. If in Fire mode, they can't move, and if in Move mode they can't fire. While this works well enough for infantry, the critics of TCS back in the '90's (some of whom were current/former tankers) didn't think the system allowed for the full capabilities and historical uses of armor. In my firsthand playing experience, I never consciously came to this conclusion. Although there seemed to be something that didn't feel quite right in certain games (like with the French in GD'40). I just couldn't put my finger on it until I started following this discussion in the online forums. Suddenly, what folks were saying struck a chord. I recall various suggestions being tossed about, but had drifted away from TCS before the issue had been resolved in the discussion forums. The 4th edition TCS rules came out with GD'42 in 2009, which was about 10-11 years after I had stepped away from the series. I had heard there was a new edition of the rules, but foolishly disregarded it at the time. You raise a good point about getting a TCS game started. One cannot simply whip out the game, set up the pieces, and get going. Developing the initial plans and Op Sheets can take some time, especially in the larger games in the series. I find that I spend a lot more time drawing up the Op Sheets than I do setting up the pieces. Especially when you consider that it is a good idea to draw up Op Sheets for pending reinforcements so they can begin accruing weighted turns before they arrive on map. Once that is done, though, I find that usually you can get through several turns fairly quickly (depending on how big the game is), before you need to spend time drawing up new Op Sheets. It's also been mu experience (again, in part because of the reinforcement issue) that it is before the start of play that I spend the most time drawing up Op Sheets (not least because I almost always draw up one for the on map units that is immediately implemented, but then draw up a second to start accruing turns for when the first Op Sheet is completed/failed). This can be a serious barrier to getting the games on the table. Given their size, I think the setup time for TCS games is pretty long.
@ardwulfslair
Жыл бұрын
Well, goddammit.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Is it something I said? 😁
@ardwulfslair
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge It was something I spent. GD '42 en route.
@clarkcommando1983
Жыл бұрын
Do you have the oprional panzer lehr option for omaha? I love the whole series
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Are you referring to the variant counters included in one of The Gamers' Christmas mailers? If so, then yes. I am so glad I reconnected with this series this year. I have found the v4 rules to be really, really good.
@clarkcommando1983
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge yes that was it
@MrProsat
Жыл бұрын
how does this system compare to GTS? The planning aspect looks very interesting - at this level, I think it is virtually a must to bring realism to this level of combat. I have no experience with either but am interested.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
That is an excellent question! And one that unfortunately will take too much room to answer here in the comments. However, I was already thinking of doing a video on this topic, so stayed tuned for that. But to try to give you some kind of (very) brief answer: GTS units are companies, rather than platoons. Hexes are 500 yards instead of 125 yards, and turns are 2 hours instead of 20 minutes. GTS is essentially one step up the scale ladder, so to speak. Both systems use unique CRT's (not odds ratio based). GTS uses a chit pull mechanic (but the best one I've yet seen) to reflect C&C issues instead of the Op Sheet mechanism in TCS. IMO, that makes GTS a little more solo friendly than TCS. GTS games tend to be really big, although most have some reasonably sized scenarios (and The Greatest Day has a wealth of scenarios ranging in size/length from tiny to massive). I find that TCS turns tend to flow more smoothly, mainly because combat resolution requires fewer dice rolls and is quicker. Both games feature a form of overewatch (or opportunity) fire, but in TCS that gets resolved faster than GTS. Both systems are among my all time favorites, and I'd recommend checking out both of them. Hopefully, I can get the opportunity to get content uploaded to the channel faster than I have over the past few months, as I hope to feature videos on both GTS and TCS (as well as a comparison video). Funnily enough, Lee Forester has done a GTS tutorial series as well as his TCS series (I forgot to put the link in the description, I'll fix that now). Watching both of those tutorial series, or at least the intro episodes may give you a bit of insight to each system.
@MrProsat
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedge As always, the thorough and thoughtful reply that I have come to like from you. I am a bit leery about tactical games. I used to love Squad Leader - up to GI Anvil of Victory - as a young wargamer. Then, I joined the USMC and discovered that combat at this level is nowhere near what is portrayed in Squad Leader. Although Panzer is not as bad, the focus is way too much on the technical details, like penetration values and much less on actual issues that involve combat at this level, such as command control, planning and recon. That's why the TCS system seemed more interesting and realistic - the idea of planning your strategy PRIOR to contact and not being able to make instant changes based on what the "god player" sees. The TCS system seems interesting, and I should try it - although I prefer battalion and higher. Thanks for your input, I'll watch your videos, as I know from experience that they are very good when you focus on a game (such as Last Blitzkrieg)
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
@@MrProsat I enjoy ASL quite a bit. It's a fun game, but I am under no illusions as to its "realism". To me, ASL is a caricature of WWII tactical combat. The Hollywood version of war, if you will. I'm not going to base any serious historical judgments off playing it, but it IS entertaining. I completely agree with you regarding the too frequent emphasis in tactical games on weapon specs (like penetration, armor thickness, etc.) at the cost of the truly important factors in combat. Based on your comments, I think you would find TCS much closer to what you are looking for than GTS, although GTS is a fun system, and it certainly highlights the importance of artillery (but not to the extent that GOSS does, but then again, nothing comes close to GOSS in that respect). I'm hoping to get some more TCS content uploaded in the not too distant future which will give you a better look at the nuts and bolts of the system and a sense of how it plays.
@MrProsat
Жыл бұрын
@@thetabletopsedgeYes, entertainment is the correct attitude on tactical games, although there are good teaching moments, such as the effects of artillery and the advantages of infantry in built up areas. Some games do have opposing BOT's (like the old Ambush game), so that is very helpful to induce the element of surprise. I had high hopes for GOSS and the combat system itself is great, probably the best at this level. It is tough game to play, though, because of counter density and you need to move all of those pieces often to see if there is a (sorry, forget the correct terminology) "high ground" terrain, etc. Also, not many scenarios, at least in Atlantic Wall, which was my GOSS game I tried. I have the smaller French 1940 "magazine" game (again, memory fails) but haven't played yet. When I play, I do a total immersion in the history and the game for often months, so I don't play a lot of games. My gaming is more towards simulation and playing "what if" at the operational level. For example, I was playing EFS Army Group South campaign and several scenarios for about 6 months. Now, moved to Twilight in the East (WW1) and Tannenburg, can't seem to escape Russia! I have been considering GTS and bought the recent GTS magazine game on the 4th Armored, but I saw your new TCS video offerings and the games have intrigued me in the past but didn't pull the trigger. I'm sure my wallet will certainly thank you later! Take care and looking forward to seeing your TCS videos.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
@@MrProsat Your point about teaching lessons is a good one. While no wargame is truly "realistic", a good design can provide some excellent insights into the historical subject matter. Some games are better at doing this than others. That's what separates games for me (well, that and how fun they are to play).
@McCainenl
Жыл бұрын
For me as a newbie grognard (now there's a contradiction in terms!), could you explain what a 'bagged game' is and what makes it bad? Googling didn't give any obvious results.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
"Bagged game" refers to how the game is packaged and sold by the publisher. Most games come in a box. Sometimes, though, publishers will release games in a clear plastic (usually resealable) bag in order to save on the production and mailing costs of having the game components in a box. You may hear these games referred to as "ziplock games" as well. "Ziplock" is a popular brand of resealable, clear food storage bags here in the US. Bagged games contain all of the components you would find in a normal, boxed game (except for the dice, usually). Almost all magazine games come packaged this way. My dislike for bagged games is due primarily to the storage issues they create. The few bagged games I have are mostly games in a series that I enjoy, like GOSS or GTS. I simply place the bagged games in one of the other games' boxes in the series. You used to be able to buy blank, white boxes from game publishers (which I would do to store any bagged games I bought), but I have found them very hard to find lately. Hope this helps!
@joeperez3520
Жыл бұрын
I don't have high hopes for Goose Green. I certainly have no interest. I sent Dean a suggestion over 20 years ago for a "Polish Cauldron" game, Polish 1 Armored Division in Normandy acting as the Falaise Pocket "cork" while 12 SS tries to force their way through the Poles.
@MrProsat
Жыл бұрын
That would be an interesting game, because of the desperate situation on both sides.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
Outside of the UK, I tend to agree with you regarding Goose Green. Who knows? Maybe the novelty factor will help propel it. Your suggestion for a TCS game could make for a very interesting one. Here's hoping the series lives on long enough to see it come to fruition!
@joeperez3520
Жыл бұрын
I purchased every TCS game until Semper Fi, A Raging Storm and A Frozen Hell. The situations portrayed didn't interest me. Watching this video, I was about to secure a mint copy of A Raging Storm, until you got to the part about the game being RIDDLED with errors (map and counter errors are the WORST!). One thing that saddens me about the apparent end of the system is that MMP never got to releasing a GD '43.
@MrProsat
Жыл бұрын
A Kursk game would have been fun.
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
I would dearly love to see the GD series completed. I think a GD'43 or GD'44 game would sell very well, and certainly be a blast to play. With regards to ARS, The Gamers did provide replacement counters for the errata in a couple of their Christmas mailers. There are 2 pages of errata on the TCS page of the The Gamers Archive (which I believe is now on the MMP website). If I can round up the replacement counters, I'd be willing to give ARS a try, but without them I may give it a pass. I believe it only covers a single 24 hour period, so a short game in terms of game turns (for a TCS game).
@pmaidhof
Жыл бұрын
I'd love to see a GD'43 for the Rumyantsev battles.
@HistoricalConflict
Жыл бұрын
i guess i dont get how you can play this solo and yet write OPS that you know exactly what you are gonna do lol
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
There's no question playing solo is less satisfying than opposed play, but not much more so than other games like OCS (where you know the contents of each enemy stack). Except for the op sheets that are implemented at the start of a scenario, you don't know exactly when an op sheet will be implemented, allowing the units on it to begin executing the plan. So there's still a variable element to the game that prevents a player from having total control. You may know what the enemy is planning on doing, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to stop it (or stop it in time).
@HistoricalConflict
Жыл бұрын
@thetabletopsedge interesting. I recently got GD 42 (bagged yes) so maybe i will spend some time with it. I ordered Goose Green too
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
@@HistoricalConflict Opposed play is definitely the preferred method of play, but that's the case with any game. As I'll discuss in future episodes on TCS, one thing the command rules do very well is demonstrate how devastating it can be when one side can get inside the decision loop of their opponent. I'm unaware of any other games at this scale that do this at all, much less as well as TCS does. Goose Green should be a decent introduction to the system mechanics, but it's too small to really give you a feel for the full potential of TCS. GD'42 on the other hand, is one of the best games in the series so far. It has three maps, which makes it one of the largest games in TCS, but only three counter sheets, so it's not completely unmanageable (even when playing the big campaign scenarios). It's also a rarity in the wargaming industry, a game where the Germans are defending. 😁
@HistoricalConflict
Жыл бұрын
@thetabletopsedge off topic how do you think BCS will handle modern warfare
@thetabletopsedge
Жыл бұрын
@@HistoricalConflict I expect it should handle it as well as it does WWII combat. I know that the upcoming "Valley of Tears" game has been thoroughly playtested. A couple of areas that came in for a lot of scrutiny were the air power and Egyptian Sagger missiles. Several different iterations of rule were tried before the final version was settled on. If you are a fan of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, or BCS in general, VoT will be worth picking up.
Пікірлер: 82