|
Post by atomicfloozy on Aug 18, 2019 1:04:12 GMT
What is "completist disease?"
|
|
|
Post by stryderg on Aug 18, 2019 2:29:19 GMT
The irrational and uncontrollable desire to collect EVERYTHING related to a range or rule set. Have we met?
|
|
|
Post by atomicfloozy on Aug 18, 2019 2:33:16 GMT
I don't know. I live in the Dallas area, McKinney to be exact.
|
|
|
Post by paulcollins on Aug 25, 2019 23:42:17 GMT
I have all of the colonial sets, even the steam punk add on, and I would buy a new version of any of them. They were good enough to make me switch from The Sword And The Flame, and that is saying something.
|
|
|
Post by flashcove1 on Aug 28, 2019 11:07:41 GMT
Yep, good enough to switch from The Sword and The Flame, and The Soldier's Companion. I've recently set up 15mm Beja and Egyptian forces, using 2 to a base and 2 single mounted for "change" in casualties. I'll be running a game at MilliniumCon (someday I'll get the spelling right)
|
|
|
Post by Slorm on Aug 28, 2019 16:55:55 GMT
Yep, good enough to switch from The Sword and The Flame, and The Soldier's Companion. I've recently set up 15mm Beja and Egyptian forces, using 2 to a base and 2 single mounted for "change" in casualties. I'll be running a game at MilliniumCon (someday I'll get the spelling right) Please share with us photos, I love to see colonial armies.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 9, 2020 9:18:05 GMT
Yep, good enough to switch from The Sword and The Flame, and The Soldier's Companion. I've recently set up 15mm Beja and Egyptian forces, using 2 to a base and 2 single mounted for "change" in casualties. I'll be running a game at MilliniumCon (someday I'll get the spelling right) Please share with us photos, I love to see colonial armies. I'm sorry to resurrect this old thread, but I could use your input, as well as that of any others that have switched to Colonial Adventures from The Sword and the Flame or from The Soldier's Companion. I've played The Sword and the Flame for decades, and to a lesser extent, the Soldier's Companion since it came out. I've got my eye on Colonial Adventures, but I'd very much appreciate learning what were the reasons behind your switch.
|
|
|
Post by Shon Maxx on Apr 9, 2020 10:49:22 GMT
I’d definitely take a 2d6 version of LTL and MSM. Fortunes already uses those rules so I don’t know how it’d be updated. I love the pulp era though so bring on more of those!
|
|
|
Post by flashcove1 on Apr 9, 2020 12:18:14 GMT
Here are some of my reasons. I mostly run convention games with lots of players. TSATF is an excellent game with no more than 2 per side, but the endless melee in a game with 4 per side has 6 people sitting around doing nothing for quite a while, and uses up a lot of your 4 hour slot. Being an honorary member of the Jackson Gamers, and a friend of Larry Brom in his later years, I have nothing but respect for the game and its adherents. Soldiers Companion has the flawed initiative system in which in one game I did not get initiative for 23 turns. (We home fixed that with adding a point to whoever lost initiative last turn, and no one retaining initiative more than 3 turns in a row) I think the firing and melee is much better, streamlined as it is, from the 38 to 40 dice that a modern weapon unit gets at close range. That being said, I have run many very large Boxer Rebellion games with as many as 12 players, and we all enjoyed them. Sharing game mastering with another knowledgeable gamer is a great help.
I find that Colonial Adventures runs more smoothly than either of the others at a convention, and keeps more gamers involved more of the time. You have the initiative and fire a volley at a unit of Beja, who then pass 2d6 and charge immediately, instead of having to wait their turn.
Please remember that most of my time is spent in painting and that I play mostly at conventions with 4 - 8 people per side, each running at least 3 units.
|
|
|
Post by atomicfloozy on Apr 9, 2020 12:36:13 GMT
Several years ago, I was invited to join a group here in the Dallas area to play a weekly Colonial era game. The games ranged from the Indian Mutiny to the Mexican Revolution. The group chose Colonial Adventures as its rule set & what was great was that any questions which came up during a game, one of the members would text Ed & we'd have an answer usually within an hour. We had so many questions that Ed was inspired to go ahead & release a 2nd edition of the rules.
We had a couple of guys who kept pleading to use The Sword and the Flame, so we did one weekend. To me, the two games seemed similar in many ways, but the main difference (and the one I didn't like) was the card activation system of The Sowrd & the Flame. It seemed as though I spent way too much time just waiting for my turn. By this point, so many of us were used to the reaction system of Colonial Adventures which kept all players engaged, that we immediately switched back to Colonial Adventures the next week. I think there were two things that Colonial Adventures had over The Sword and the Flame, one was the reaction system's ability to keep players engaged in every turn regardless which side was active & the second was the army lists. Colonial Adventures had a large number of army lists without having to buy supplements.
I still play Colonial Adventures, outside of a local convention, I play mostly solo games & the reaction system really shines in solo play. I also play the other Colonial era titles - Mission St. Mary and Fortunes Won & Lost. Mission St. Mary is more of a RPG & Fortunes Won & Lost is more of a skirmish game, but larger mass battles, it's Colonial Adventures.
|
|
|
Post by claudiasboris on Apr 9, 2020 16:08:24 GMT
Another +1 for any and all of them!
|
|
|
Post by paulcollins on Apr 9, 2020 20:54:06 GMT
I’m in. Colonials is my primary period, and no doubt I would buy updates of all.
|
|
|
Post by Ed the Two Hour Wargames Guy on Apr 10, 2020 3:03:17 GMT
It's been eight years since Colonial Adventures 2nd Ediotn was released. Lots has changed. They are on the list of updates.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 10, 2020 5:52:54 GMT
Thanks to Flashcove1 and to Atomicfloozy for your thoughtful responses. Very helpful!
Flashcove1, yes, in a convention environment, I can see where TSATF can be improved upon. And, yes, the initiative in the Soldier's Companion has always been a sore spot with me. I've always wondered why Frank Chadwick would have implemented it; did he not playtest it and see the problem?
Atomicfloozy, I very much appreciate your specific reasons for why you preferred Colonial Adventures. When I first started playing TSATF 30 years ago, I found the card activation odd (as a long time wargamer, both mini and board). I've grown used to it now, I suppose, and have actually found that it lends itself to player involvement, since it definitely isn't IGOUGO. You just don't know who's coming up next!
I appreciate your saying that Colonial Adventures keeps the players engaged through its reaction system. I've read through the rules now over the last two days and my one big concern is just the opposite, that there's a loss of player engagement because of the reaction system, insofar as the player's units might end up taking actions that the player doesn't want the unit to take. That was my initial take on reading the rules through, and your comment adds a different perspective. I well know that there's quite a bit of difference sometimes between what a game seems like through its rules and what it's actually like when it's played, so your comments as a veteran player of Colonial Adventures is quite helpful. I guess I'm just going to have to play it and see for myself!
|
|
|
Post by atomicfloozy on Apr 10, 2020 14:59:39 GMT
Often when a unit takes an action or reaction that the player didn't want them to take makes the game much more interesting. For instance, trying to coordinate an attack with two units & one unit gets drawn in early; or you're charging with your most elite veteran unit & a well placed volley breaks the charge; or you fire a tremendous volley at a green unit & they shrug it off & keep coming; or one of your units has broken the end of the enemy's line & you're ready to roll up their flank, but instead they're enticed to attack the baggage guard. Sometimes a unit not doing what is expected can help win a battle - for instance, a unit that should break stands firm turn after turn giving you time to reform & move troops to where they're needed.
Most of the time your units will do what you want them to do, but those times when they don't are the times that give you a bit of a test..
Plus, as a solo player, the reaction system helps in keeping my opponent from cheating!
|
|