Combat Commander? Love it to bits. Play it often. Plus news!

I got in a couple of good games of Combat Commander last night. I'm not going to be writing these up long form, so I thought I'd post my post-game enthusiasms here. My most played game since I bought it, Combat Commander is the most exciting wargame I've seen since the heady days of Up Front. I've 2 keen opponents- Badger and Tony. Last night Tony came round to play after a hiatus. Resolved to play the official scenarios through, we found ourselves moving to the first scenario in the new Combat Commander: Mediterranean, which was nice, since Tony hadn't played the Med expansion before.

Our 2 games took us first to Crete, where Tony's ANZACs won smoothly with a textbook demonstration of end-run breakthrough tactics, although my Fallschirmjaeger were in with a shout to the end. Tony's attempt to recreate his feat with Poles in 1939 fell apart in the face of my well-crafted and carefully played platoon MG nest. Eventful as CC ever is, our games saw airstrikes, heroes, attackers stumbling into unexpected wire and minefields, and surprise German reserves popping up with alarming frequency: my Fallschirmjaeger ended up with 2 medium mortars!- OK to be sure, but MG's would've been nice, since that was what they needed most and lacked completely!

Reading the CC boards elsewhere this morning after, I found this link - to previews of the impending CC Battle Pack #2: Stalingrad- on the CSW CC board. I'm a CC-sucker, so BP#2 was a must-buy when it was floated, but those previews really intrigue me. Urban snipers? Armed leaders? Sewers! Heh. If the BP#2 turns out to be an urban-scenario-special-rules plug-in as much as it is a pack of new maps and official scenarios, then its value to the CC enthusiast will be great.

Combat Commander is my #1 hot game right now. I read the BGG and CSW CC boards and get some use from them. But I won't pay for a CSW subscription, and BGG is just too staid a hangout for the CC talk I'm looking for. So I've opened my account here at F:AT. Got to go now- Badger'll be here for more CC soon.

I have CC: E and Battle Pack #1.

I haven't got to play it much, but I really like it. Some of my friends are turned off by card driven systems because they want perfect control and perfect information...which is fine but sometimes I want something a little more chaotic plus I've no qualms with Card Driven Games (as long as it's fun who cares about its mechanics?)

That said, I just pre-ordered Battle Pack #2 - Stalingrad from GMT. It sounds pretty awesome.

8 new maps sound sound great, as they'll mostly likely be dense Urban stuff (hopefully) with bombed out buildings, etc. The one Map they previewed of the Train Station looks pretty interesting.

I need to get CC:Med though.

Thanks for the report... I've been very tempted to buy CC:Pacific or CC:Europe. I love the sound of the sort of organic stories that get thrown together from games of CC. It really sounds like the perfect game for ATers to try wargames out with. I'm still trying to get a handle on the complexity of the game though. Could you say more about its complexity? I've read all the crap on BGG and CSW about it but I still don't get a clear picture of how much time it would take to teach and if it would be relatable to people playing it (wargame newbs, I don't have wargamer friends).

Also, I found this out a while ago--you can subscribe to CSW without paying! That's how I post on the boards (Steve M). They never tell you over there you can but if you just subscribe to the forums rather than becoming a member you can post without paying.

Gary Sax wrote:

Thanks for the report... I've been very tempted to buy CC:Pacific or CC:Europe. I love the sound of the sort of organic stories that get thrown together from games of CC. It really sounds like the perfect game for ATers to try wargames out with. I'm still trying to get a handle on the complexity of the game though. Could you say more about its complexity? I've read all the crap on BGG and CSW about it but I still don't get a clear picture of how much time it would take to teach and if it would be relatable to people playing it (wargame newbs, I don't have wargamer friends).

Also, I found this out a while ago--you can subscribe to CSW without paying! That's how I post on the boards (Steve M). They never tell you over there you can but if you just subscribe to the forums rather than becoming a member you can post without paying.

What, if any, wargames have you played or are you familiar with?

The Complexity seems to be on par with Tide of Iron, except that ToI's rulebook is way longer.

Lots of CDGs (POG, Shifting Sands, Here I Stand), some hex and counter (AVL) and some block games (Asia Engulfed, FAB: Bulge). Some other odd stuff I haven't played but am sitting on (Downtown). C+C Ancients as well.

Gary Sax wrote:

Lots of CDGs (POG, Shifting Sands, Here I Stand), some hex and counter (AVL) and some block games (Asia Engulfed, FAB: Bulge). Some other odd stuff I haven't played but am sitting on (Downtown). C+C Ancients as well.

You'll have no problem grasping CC with that experience I'd say Gary. The rules are famously clear, and I'd vouch for their qualities for learning and for reference.

Got to go; making breakfast before Badger and I get game #7 in...

Gary, as far as complexity, if you play through the scripted learning scenario first, you'll learn quickly most of the key rules of the game very effectively. I did this with my son (11)---he never read the rules--and from that point on he's actually remembered the rules better than I have (must just be less up there for him to remember, eh?). If you've played Here I Stand (which I have), then this is a no-brainer.

Its also relatively short and quick---with quite a bit of excitement and randomness of the battlefield thrown in--there's little downtime b/c you can play cards on defense as well, occasionally.

I concur that as far as exciting fun this trumps most other games that I own---esp for a two player game.

Lagduf wrote:

I have CC: E and Battle Pack #1.

I haven't got to play it much, but I really like it. Some of my friends are turned off by card driven systems because they want perfect control and perfect information...which is fine but sometimes I want something a little more chaotic plus I've no qualms with Card Driven Games (as long as it's fun who cares about its mechanics?)

I know it might seem obvious, but it's the cards which make or break these games for people. Some people just hate them. There's nothing you can do about taste. But please don't try to pretend that the card-driven command rules pioneered by Up Front aren't one of the most significant innovations in board wargaming since the hex and the counter.

I don't mean you Lagduf, naturally enough. It's just that complaints about the randomness of the cardplay don't really stack up against reality, and so they bug me. I mean to say: here is a CSW post which shows exactly why card-driven command rules make sense. I'd go on about how it amazes me that people still just don't get it, but that rant wouldn't really help others persuade their friends to give CC a go.

That said, I just pre-ordered Battle Pack #2 - Stalingrad from GMT. It sounds pretty awesome.

8 new maps sound sound great, as they'll mostly likely be dense Urban stuff (hopefully) with bombed out buildings, etc. The one Map they previewed of the Train Station looks pretty interesting.

I need to get CC:Med though.

You do. But you need to get your keen regular players in place too!

PS. I finished 6-1 up. Grins.

Playing time is not necessarily that short. Generally set aside 2.5 to 3.5 hours for a session of CC:E

JMcL63 wrote:

I don't mean you Lagduf, naturally enough. It's just that complaints about the randomness of the cardplay don't really stack up against reality, and so they bug me. I mean to say: here is a CSW post which shows exactly why card-driven command rules make sense. I'd go on about how it amazes me that people still just don't get it, but that rant wouldn't really help others persuade their friends to give CC a go.

A lot of people don't get it though and that's when you hear the cries of "I never had the right card" and while I grant that, yeah, you're going to get bad draws or a series of bad card draws occasionally. But their opponent is working against this too.

In a game like CC:E managing the flow of cards in your hands and waiting until you have a couple good cards to actually do something effective on the gameboard is as much a part of the game as is the moving and shooting.

I just think a lot of people don't like hand management.

I agree with you with regard to cards representing that chaos and command confusion in battle - I don't really buy the arguments against this. Arguments against the card management meta game are fine.

Ever since I first played Commands and Colors: Ancients i've had a soft spot for CDGs. I've always liked some CCGs as well.

What I really like about CC:E is secret objectives. Granted that you know where the key points on a map are - but wouldn't any good leader (who was familiar with the local terrain) know where the locations in area are that you'd want to control? The only question then is which one is the enemy trying to get...

Is Battle Pack #2 here yet?

Care to talk about CC: Med at all?

Are the scenarios featuring the nations that have a discard limit of 1 particularly tough?

How many scenarios are their featuring Poland?

How are the scenarios when compared to CC:E?

Hmmm...I just read the rules preview for the Stalingrad Special Rules. Looks pretty cool. The Sewer Movement is pretty cool, and simple.

I love these neat gameplay additions that aren't overly complicated.

This game really is in a sweet spot between realism/complexity/chrome and playability.

You get the prize for being keen to froth then Lagduf- just what I was hoping from the F:AT!

I won't add any more about the cardplay, saving that rant for another time. I share your fondness for the secret objectives, which mean that different plays of the same scenario could hinge on a (different) minor objective, because players drew different objective chits in each game. This is clever and makes for much improved replayability. And events mean that scenario objectives will occasionally end up very different from how they began, which is fun.

As for CC:M? I've seen all 3 decks- British, French (Allied minors), and Italian (Axis minors)- in action. But I've only played a few games so far, so I can't really comment much on how the different decks play. The 3 scenarios I've played so far were interesting, even the one played on the empty map, so I'd say that's good compared to the CC:E scenarios.

There's only 1 Polish scenario. I played that the other day- my Germans cut the Polish advance to ribbons, and I plan to try it as the Poles tomorrow. You could always create Polish scenarios of your own using the updated RSG though.

The Stalingrad rule which I currently like the most is the Urban Snipers rule. I thought it might serve to make snipers more effective by increasing the distance between the sniper hex and the target unit. But no, it's a discretionary bonus of +2/+4 to your fire attacks. And its value adjusts when the sniper misses. Calling in the snipers when you make your decisive attack? Now that's a dangerous urban environment! I'm impressed.

I'm thinking about picking this one up once the reprint goes back on the P500. I mean, I could probably find it sooner, but I've already blown more than enough money on games and gaming lately. I have ToI, but I've only gotten one game in. One of the draws of CC:E for me is somewhat greater portability (so my friend from work and I could probably break a game up over several sessions) and VASSAL play, which means the game might actually get played.

I'd like to trade ToI honestly.

It's a good game but I feel that it's too close to CC:E for my tastes and I prefer CC:E.

Granted, both games are fairly different, and I love all that wonderful plastic in ToI, but I already also have Panzer Grenadier and some ASL stuff for my tactical WW2 gamer needs.

I bet I could trade it for CC:M.

With the RSG in CC:M does it just have a list of "Allied Minor" forces or does it specifically have Polish forces listed?

I've always had a soft spot for playing as the Poles in WW2, given historically what they had to go to. Is that Polish scenario set in 1939 or is it later in the war when the Poles were basically equipped with British/American equipment?

I agree on that Urban Sniper rule. Very cool.