Another interesting episode. Moritz as always was great, that guy does a fantastic service to the community, I love hearing about games I don't know.

I also like ASLSK fan's midway segment, made me want to go out and buy it. It would be cool if he could talk about a few of the very well regarded modern air wargames (The Burning Blue, Downtown, Whistling Death etc....), but I do like that he is covering the classics :)

The review of Manoeuvre was good too. I wasn't even considering buying it, but you guys have swayed me a bit, although I generally disagree with your reviews, but this one made Manoeuvre pretty tempting, the interview helped as well. Also as an aside, scott mentioned he thought that it was the best filler that he has played, but I'd suggest that is because he didn't take up michael sosa's offer to play Race for the Galaxy

I know you guys don't really do medium heavy to heavy wargames, but it would be cool to maybe try a few for the show, didn't scott order the Devil's cauldron? A review of that would be awesome and current.

Thanks for your continuing work.

I take from your comments that only hex and counter games count as "medium" or "heavy", so you are probably right. I do have DC and even have a local opponent named Jerry Taylor. The main problem I have is how do I play it enough to do a proper interview?

Never say never, because I spent too much on that game not to play it. Still, the next reviews out of me will be FAB: Bulge and Asia Engulfed. After that, I may have played DC and will be willing to give it a shot.

Woohoo! I'll be listening to this on the walk home.

The episode has once again gotten top billing on Consimworld today 4/9!

http://www.consimworld.com/

Wade

Cool, well take your time, on the review of TDC, but it would be neat.

One more thing that occured to me. Why is point to point different than areas? I can't see any functional difference, other than they look different, the behave the same way, don't they? This is with regards to your scifi game discussion.

Good point and absolutely correct. There is no real difference between area movement maps and point-to-point maps.

A good example is the map for Tigers in the Mist. Originally it was point-to-point, but GMT wanted to punch up the graphics so they made it into an area map. But, since the road network from the P2P map was superimposed over top, and you still could not move off the roads, its Still a P2P map...it just looks like an area map!

I think there are subtle differences between area and point-to-point maps. War of the Ring, for example, has certain area borders that cannot be crossed. With a point-to-point map, there would simply be no connection between those points. This requires a specific rule if areas are used. War of the Ring also has the concept of strongholds within areas. In some ways these are areas within areas. You need to implement this idea differently with a point-to-point map, using Hannibal's idea of hiding under the city marker, for example. Another example where areas and point-to-point maps can differ can be found in Breakout: Normandy. In that game there are some unbridged, flooded boundaries that can not be crossed at all. Yet, the areas are still considered adjacent for purposes of artillery. I'm not sure how you would indicate that sort of "connection" on a point to point map without making it into a confusing mess. So, there are many subtle differences between the two types of maps, particularly when you consider how the concept of "adjacency" can have meaning outside of movement.

Rick Young mentioned this in his interview when discussing FAB: The Bulge. He specifically mentioned that it began as a point-to-point map but changed to areas, which required some non-trivial tweaks. He didn't go into any detail about what those changes may have been, though.

Quote:
This isn't different at all, this is what makes them the same. An area map can have a blocked boarder point to point maps can have no connection. Sure technically you have to include one line in the rules like mountain boards can't be crossed, but this doesn't change the game play in an way, you could replace one with the other.
Quote:
Have you played onward christian soldiers? They have stronghold in that and it uses point to point, the stronghold is simply another point connected to the original point. Sure hannibal does it differently, but there is no reason this has to be done, other than to save space. Again I'm not sure even in hannibal if it is functionally (in terms of game mechanics) really any different.
Quote: Again incorrect, point to points can and do have different sorts of connections. The forth coming clash of monarchs for example has two different sorts of connections, it also indicates river crossings. This is perfectly viable.
Quote: Again adjacency such as this can be covered using point to point or area movement, in point to point movement you simply have to make the connection look different, as you would make a boarder look different in an area map.
Quote:
I suspect that it had more to do with stacking of blocks and counters in an area. One of the issues with point to point maps is that they generally have a smaller area for counters, while this can work with blocks (crusader rex) I think in general block games work better with areas (since areas generally provide more room and blocks are larger). If you can think of functional reason they are different, I would definitely be swayed, but the more i though about it, the more i realized they are identical.

The more I think about it the more I think any area movement map could be replaced with point to point and the mechanics of the game would not have to change. It might be a pain fitting all those europe englufed blocks on a small point, but the game itself would be the same.

Going from an area map to point-to-point is trivial, as you point out. However, the reverse isn't necessarily the case.

For example, if you have a hub point adjacent to a large number of points with only one or two connections, you're going to have a devil of a time "explaining" that graphically with map areas. It might be done, but the result is going to look awefully twisted.

Quote:
I completely agree, this is the main reason certain games are point to point and certain games are area games, having said this there is no meanful difference in terms of pure game rules, that is all I'm saying. The results would be odd, but functionally the same (in terms of rules alone).

"Going from an area map to point-to-point is trivial, as you point out. However, the reverse isn't necessarily the case."

Yes. It is even possible to construct a point-to-point map that is even impossible to convert to an area map (have connections cross). An area map however can always be converted to a point-to-point map.

yes - fun with graph theory. Even if you start with a planar graph, the catch is the aesthetics of converting it to an area map. Too many "holes" or concave regions is going to make for a butt-ugly map.

I think you underestimate the impact of the "trivial" changes you mention when transforming from areas to point-to-point. I am not saying that fundamental changes to the game are required, just that there are subtle effects to the transformation that may not be apparent.

Take the BKN example. This map could be transformed to point to point with various types of connections, reflecting the different types of borders, as you propose. When you look at a flooded, unbridged border you may think there is no reason for any type of connection, since it cannot be crossed under any circumstances. You'll take your experience with War of the Ring mountains and apply it to BKN. No connection because units cannot move from that point to the other. But that would be wrong, because there is more going on, that is, artillery bombardments. So now you would have a connection between points that cannot be crossed? Clearly areas work better for BKN than point-to-point.

While I have not played Onward Christian Soldiers, the example of strongholds I think proves my point. A point off another point is very different than the "city walls" idea from Hannibal, or the strongholds in War of the Ring. While in the larger scope of the game there may be little difference in play, the mechanics of these options are different and a thoughtful decision is required to determine what works best for that game.

My ultimate point, though, is not that a game could only be produced one way or the other, just that there are considerations that may make one method better than the other and design decisions that must be made based on that choice. Certainly a game could be made either way, FAB: Bulge proves this. But the process of change is not trivial and we have Rick's comments as evidence of that.

Quote: Again no it makes no difference, you can easily have a connection in point to point that doesn't allow movement of a particular kind, it may look nicer to have an area movement or it may be easier for you, but there is no functional difference. I understand you may prefer one, but if you changed it to a point to point system it would function in an identical way, you can have connections that can only be used in certain ways, paths of glory even has these, as do most point to point games.

Quote: again incorrect, if you had played or read the rules of onward christian soldiers you would realize this. The besieged cities do have special rules. There is no functional difference. The reasons that some games use Point to point and some games use area comes down to, the look, the functionality of space vs counters/blocks/minis and the designers personal preference. Sure these may not be trivial decisions, but they make no difference to the actual game play, which is my point.

To state again point to point vs area move may have practical differences because of how they are presented, but they are functionally the same. The rules will effectively work the same way, regardless. I completely agree some games would be a mess because of physical limitations if they were one or the other. Europe Engulfed for example would be a nightmare if it was point to point, but making it point to point would not effectively change the game in a meaningful way.

edit: What I am trying to get at really is that it is disingenuous to call area movement and point to point a different sort of map type, they function in the same way. I agree that some things would be harder to play if they were area or if they were point to point.

My point is not that there are functional differences, but that there are other differences that may make one a better choice than the other for a particular game. By your logic point-to-point has no "functional" difference from hexes. You simply have an arrangement of points each connected to six others. For that matter a hex map is really just an area map with regularly sized areas.

The example of FAB: The Bulge shows a simple aesthetic difference. The reason this game was not published as a point-to-point game was because there was a large group that thought the map as point-to-point looked lousy. I've seen both and the new area map does look much better. While they may function identically, there is a fundamental aesthetic difference that was important to those producing the game.

You are anchored in the fact that there is no functional difference. I agree with you here. I disagree that that is all there is to consider. There are many considerations outside of function. These areas are not insignificant and justify area and point-to-point maps as different classifications.

Yes I agree. You need to realize my comment was a response to the podcast in which they claimed Area movement and point to point were different sorts of games. My argument is that they are not in any functional sense. I don't think Paths of Glory would be a different game if it had areas instead of points. I completely agree for space reasons and sanity often one is better than the other, but if we talk about games in abstract than area games are functionally a subset of point to point movement games. So if a listener writes in and asks about point to point scifi games, area games in my opinion should be included.

I just thought that in the podcast the fact they claimed they were different was not correct. Now that I understand you are talking completely about aesthetic and functionality, I couldn't agree more, so forgive me for sounding overbearing. In a purely rational world the fact that a game might have points as opposed to areas makes no real difference to the decision making in game. I hope that clarifies what I am trying to say. Anyway forgive me if I came on too strong, I see your point and agree sir.

There's nothing to forgive...it's been a very interesting discussion!

Quote:

I am working my way through my list, more to come.

The best example of a point-to-point scifi game is Imperium, first published by GDW, then Avalanche. If I remember right, Dark Nebula was a mini game based on the Imperium system, also published by GDW, also point-to-point.

As much as I loved the games in the Panzer General system (Panzer General, Allied General, Pacific General, and Star General), Steel Panthers was the love of my life.

Quote:

Not around here it hasnt. I dont know anyone who uses the term.

Quote from Mike Sosa:

"About Panzer General: good times, good times! I loved that game. It rare that you can find a WWII computer game that let you kick ass as the Germans and receive personal congratulations from the High Command! I just wished that I had gotten a direct recommendation from Hitler when I took out the UK in hard difficulty! (I dislike political correctness in my historical games) Also played this online and it was an excellent challenge."

Old memories here. I LOVED Panzer General and PGII. Made a lot of online friends in the SSI chat room playing PGII. I designed a lot of scenarios for PGII and distributed them. PGIII came out and I lost interest. After a long time of not playing, I went back to PGII just to see if anyone was still doing it. I found out that people were still playing a lot of my scenarios. That was very cool. The friends I made playing PGII pretty much stuck together as a group after that and we'd all move on to the same games together. Sid Meier's Gettysburg was a great game which we probably played for at least a year. Then we went to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six and formed a team and joined a few leagues. For a few months we were number one on 2 leagues at once, but there were people out there writing hacks for the games and a lot of cheating involved. I got turned off to all of that and eventually just stopped doing the computer game thing. Good times, good memories, but back to board wargaming, which was my number one love anyway. During my hiatus from boardgaming I missed out on the evolution of game designs. Now that I'm back, games have changed so much from the old hex and counter games I was used to playing. I'm having fun trying to catch up on everything now, but I'm older and have less time.

I loved Scott's description of himself under the latest Poll thread where he says "Winning is just a happy consequence of mastering the game. You are right, I LOVE winning, but for games I really like, I will try to master them. I read and re-read the rules as I play, I research strategies, I stare at the map and imagine how I want to prosecute my game, etc. That is fun for me. Actually playing the game is also fun, especially if the opponent is challenging. That allows me to put my skills to the test. If I lose, I do more research and planning. If I win, I rejoice in the warm glow of victory."

That's the way I USED to be when I was younger with little other responsibilities. I would get a game, go through the rules before I ever played against anyone and stare at that map and counters for hours everyday. I used to keep a logbook with sections on each game and write down all of my strategies, best opening setups, moves, defenses, figure out how these little obsure rules that didn't make a lot of sense at first could be applied to my advantage in certain situations. I would study The Avalon Hill General or other gaming mags where people would write about "the perfect offense" or "the perfect defense" about a certain game and I would try to make them better. Those were good times. I don't have the time for that now but still enjoy the gaming time I do have. If I ever get to retire (HA!), perhaps I will be like that again........if my brain still functions at that time. It is my desire to do that.
Wade

Yeah, I bought Close Combat when it came out and a couple of the other modues as well. Hated them all.

I played a lot of panzer general II and close combat III, IV and V. I enjoyed all of them. It is funny I think I enjoyed Close Combat III the most, but in hindsight it probably was the weakest one, army selection generally breaks a game.

Panzer general was fun, if somewhat silly especially when the germas decide to invade america and capture the nuclear weapon prototype... sigh, still provided hours and hours of enjoyment. You pretty much had to win every battle as a brilliant victory as the Germans.

No no...it wasnt a Brilliant Victory;

it was an Incredible Victory!

Please delete.

I've read all the comments above and they all praise this episode, but I found it really boring. The interview was ENDLESS. Moritz and ASLSKFAN seem to know what they're going to say before they say it and that makes their segments clip right along. But Jason and Scott? It's 20 minutes of content that rambles along for an hour!

Would it be too much to ask for you guys to work out your ratings for the game you review before recording the episode? Does the audience have to listen to you go through your thought process during the show?

Overall, I really enjoy Point-To-Point and I've listened to a lot of episodes, but this one...sheesh.



Dan

yeah...and not only that, but my name never came up either!

But seriously, I was rather surprised no mention of the latest poll was made by our intrepid duo. Even if the show was taped before it ended, the results were lopsided enough to comment on.

Wow! Boring?

And Tim's name should have come up. Will do in the future.

I understand what you guys are saying about the rambling, but I thought that kind of thing was what our listeners liked!

As for the poll no-mention - we actually lost about 5 minutes of content somehow and I had to salvage something in the editing.

Thanks for the feedback.

Jason

Well I didn't find it boring, so it was ok for me. I don't think I've found any of too boring, but I guess everyone has their opinions and taste.

The review thing is hard Jason. For me there are two strong things about your podcasts, the chemistry between you and Scott and your interivews (which even though some people don't like them are really well done). I like your informal style, but I guess this can border on the uninformed at times, espcially compared to Moritz. Having said all that I love your chatty informal style, I think it suits you guys and keeps it interesting. If i were to suggest one thing, it would be do your research (like you do for your interviews). While you don't have to like a game, if you at least knew what other people thought about games before you reviewed them you might be able to use some of the criticism or issues as discussion points. For example Manoeuvre has gotten reasonably good press, but there are definitely some dissenting opinions out there about it.

Anyway I love the podcast and I always look forward to new ones. So please don't think you should change anything. If your reviews improve great, if not I will still love the podcast. If you want to listen to a show that gets wargames and get the reivews right, listen to into the gamescape.

I like the fact in this episode you did the interview with the designer of the game and then reviewed it, great format for future shows. And please, please don't move to a format where you simply read a script for the entire 2 hours, I love the spontineity.

Keep up the great work and thank you for continuing to support our hobby.

P.S. Stop the Euro hate.

"I understand what you guys are saying about the rambling, but I thought that kind of thing was what our listeners liked!"

It is! I have yet to listen to the latest episode, but I look forward to a long rambling game review (as always).

The episodes are always great. I don't find them boring at all. I love the "rambling" if that's what you want to call it. I really enjoy the interaction between you guys. The sole reason I started playing Napoleonic Wars and Manoeuvre was due to the reviews you guys did on the games and I love em both. Keep up the great work!
Wade

Sorry, just in case I wasn't clear, I love the informal banter, etc... I agree I never find it boring.

Boring, no way. How you do your reviews is part of your unique flavor.

I rarely buy a game based on a single review, but Manoeuvre is going to be one of them.

Contrived discussions are not what we want. The banter and impromptu discussions between the two of you adds to the show. They also help us hear what you are thinking about a game, which gets us thinking on other games and experiences and aides us in making a decision about a game.

It's interesting to note that if you have listened to the shows from beginning to end, Scott has gotten softer on his judging and has become more open to various games. Like a journal one can actually hear your tastes and preferences change over time. Not greatly, but certainly toned down from your first couple of shows.

I also disagree with Dan. The banter and the 'thinking out loud' are part of the charm. I am reminded of the chatting that goes on after my group finishes a game.

I don't mind the chatty style at all. And overall I find P2P much easier to listen to than The Dice Tower, which seems to try too hard, if you know what I mean; the humor can be rather sophomoric, and that Sam Healy guy seems to say stuff just to be argumentative. Makes me want to fly over to Korea and slap him.

Now, for what I consider a podcast with great banter, there is Roll2D6. The two guys on that one are really funny, IMO. One time they were talking about painting miniatures, and one of them said that he was horrible at it; no matter how hard he tried, all his armies ended up looking like the Blue Man Group! I literally LOL when I heard that! And I was on a bus at the time...I dont listen to that show on the bus anymore .

But they only seem to do a show every 2 to 4 months, and its usually all about one game, or one con they've been to. Nice, but I prefer the veriaty of P2P.

Don't get me wrong or anything now! P2P is still my fav. podcast. I'm just saying I like Roll2D6 too.

I have to say that as much as it surprised me, I enjoy the extemporaneous feel of the show too. It makes it flow better and feel less stiff. So, my vote is to keep the show mostly unscripted. My favorite segments are probably the interviews. I enjoy hearing from game designers and publishers.

I would like to suggest a topic for a future podcast might be monster wargames, my personal favorite-of-the-minute topic. I'm still making my way through the backlog of episodes, but I'm quickly catching up. I haven't heard one that covers this area of wargaming yet.

Thanks for the great podcast, and keep doing what you're doing, it sounds like you have most of the community on your side. :)

I didn't realize it was time to choose sides!

I'll second Cthulhu's suggestion that you guys look at monster games a little bit. Personally, I love them. The bigger and more complex the better.

And what, really, constitutes a monster game? THE SEVEN DAYS is a nine-map monster, but on the complexity scale, it's not that high. PACIFIC WAR is only two maps, but it's a skull cracker that takes quite a lot of effort to learn and play well...


Dan

(And, yes, I think it's a little odd to be agreeing with Cthulhu, a world-devouring cephalopod from another dimension, but there you have it.)

What is a monster game? Great question! It seems to me that the usual definition would be a game with at least 2 maps and 1,000 counters. The term started with games that where Phycisally big, either in terms of the number of maps, the number of counters, or both.

But I will contend that complexity should also be part of the definition.

Given that, I would say that the ultimate Monster game is ASL!

The physical size of the game certainly should be part of the definition. EUROPA comes to mind. The game -- well, all the games, collectively -- is gigantic. But the rules? They're not all that complex, really.

A WORLD AT WAR? Definitely a monster. Big and complex. The RSS games (THIS HALLOWED GROUND, THIS TERRIBLE SOUND, A FEARFUL SLAUGHTER) are all large undertakings and moderately complex.

Of course size, as they say, isn't everything. PROUD MONSTER is a two-mapper with a lot of counters, but it can be played in one sitting. There are TCS game (LEROS comes to mind) that could also qualify. That game is three maps, but the counter density is fairly low and the game can be played in a reasonable amount of time.

Interesting question to ponder...



Dan

It is funny, every one has a different idea of monter, I guess it is perspective. For me ASL is not a monster, it lacks the play time and map size and density to be considered on in my books, but it is complex. I also generally don't include linked campaigns in the monster set (so it rules out some of the longer ASL campaigns). Anyway it is more to do with how we view the world I guess ;)

I think Jason and scott should look seriously at monsters, but first I think they should try normal hex and counter games. I can't really think of any that they play a lot (asl maybe?). One of the nice things about the pod cast is they cover light to medium wargames, so it appeals to wider audience. I do think that maybe at least considering playing some of the well regarded hex and counter games could be interesting, think of it as a gateway to larger things to come (Hints, The Burning Blue, Red Star Rising).

If they ever do want to try monsters, my suggestion is to get Tunisia from OCS, learn to play it and then take on something like DAK2. Tunisia is short and easy and a nice gateway. Also TDC might be a good intro fron the sounds of things.

Is a new podcast coming out anytime soon?

Yep. Very soon. Recorded Tuesday, in post production.

Sorry for delay, Scott had to go on a business trip then got sick...

Soooo, by "very soon", I'm hoping you mean "before the end of the month"?

Hi and greetings from a fellow NoVa gamer!

I just recently stumbled across the P2P podcast and I have to say it is very entertaining. I've only gotten through about half a dozen episodes so far, but I'm definitely hooked. I guess that makes me a "first time poster - short term listener".

I started with the episodes that have reviews of games I'm familiar with and interested in (C&C:A, CC:E, TS) only to see how close my interests and tastes matched that of your's (Jason and Scott's). What became really clear was that I'm much more in Jason's camp than in Scott's. Games I love for the social interaction and storytelling aspects, Scott completely panned.

The more I listen the more I realized that Scott was really much more of a puzzle oriented gamer. Yet it surprises me that he doesn't like some of the luckless Euro games more. Heck, just re-theme Puerto Rico into a multi-player WW2 game and the boy ought to be happy. It was only after finishing episode 3 last night when I got the rest of the picture: he's a complex puzzle with some luck component gamer.

Anyway, now that I've figured out where both of you are coming from, I can better figure out if I'm going to like a game based on your reviews and not just feel disgruntled when you don't like the same games that I do. You have me now looking at some games I'm less familiar with (PoG and Napoleonic Wars) to see if they might help itch my gaming scratch (assuming I can find some people to play with). So thank you.

I'm looking forward to hearing the new show and spending some time with the older stuff...

Michael

Welcome to the P2P forums Cathan! If you're up for some face to face gaming shoot me an email. I have 2 other wargamers in my area that try to get together semi-regularly to push some counters around. Would love another member. Write me at whyett@frontiernet.net. Look forward to hearing from you.
Wade

Thanks, Wade. I appreciate the offer. Now how do we get Charlestown to switch their jingle to "Charlestown: Races, slots wargame chits?"

That would be nice Chathan, but I think the track runs half of this country, oooopps...I meant state. I don't really consider West Virginia as being part of the U.S... Damn Yankees rigged the voting and split up the wonderful State of Virginia and made the Western part a third world country. One of our guys lives in Purcellville and works in Leesburg. You should get in touch. We've been playing some Avalon Hill oldies lately like Luftwaffe, Victory in the Pacific and France '40. Also a lot of Manoeuvre and the occasional Wilderness War and Napoleonic Wars.
Wade

I'm actually at the other end of Fairfax County (near Springfield) so it's a bit of a haul. But I know someone who may be interested who lives in Berryville (sp?). That's pretty close to your neck of the woods. I'll drop him a line, and contact you via email. Thanks again!

And in P2P news, I made it through episode 3 finally. Sooo glad that the sound quality improved. Now onto #4. Great stuff guys!!

Yes, have your buddy in Berryville drop me a line. It's very close to here. Thanks. Enjoy the rest of the shows! Thanks.