Great way to conduct a review - after producing a 13 episode playthrough series. Now that's real thorough! A genuine and complete review. Just brilliant, nice work!
Thanks SOLO! I've noticed that when you're making videos as you play, you definitely have to think in a lot greater detail than you would if you're just playing the game. I find myself analyzing the moves and mechanics more, especially because you're trying to avoid mistakes, which means that I'm really digging into the rules whenever something even slightly ambiguous in my head comes into play. The comments help too, as the "you decide" nature of some of the rules wasn't something I really gave much thought to until they became a point of focus with the videos. That got me thinking a lot more about how they were actually influencing play. It was really fun to do this, and I'm hopeful to do more as time allows. :)
Listening to the meaty review, it occurs to me that what this game represents is the experience of being in a movie about WWII. The enemy is always destroyed with one shot, and the hero's tank takes all kinds of glancing hits and near misses, despite being wildly outnumbered. Great review, thanks! :)
Yes, this is a great point. At some point in the long replay series I mention how the combat is like this. And it definitely creates that same sense of drama and tension. And thanks!
Hey Zilla. I played my 1st week last night. Starting at the beginning, Invasion of North Africa. 1st battle was easy. 4 armored car battalion on my side. I selected the minimal force I thought could handle them and it worked. Easy win. 2nd battle was everything else against a large assault lead by 2 pzrIII's. My Event card was that I could discard a hit and select another. I had an Average infantry leader next to a few germans take a wound. There was more german fire to come so I used the card so as not to lose an advanced leader. 2 turns later I pulled a KIA on a Skilled Armor leader. I was devastated knowing I already used my mulligan :) Had a blast. Next Friday i will set up week 2 and play it Saturday while watching the Wolfpack. Thanks for introducing me to this game.
Sounds like you're having a great time! Awesome! Those KIA's can be brutal at times, especially when they take our your best leaders. I can feel your pain. Good luck with the campaign! :)
Love this review! My answer to the board warping is to place a nice sized piece of plexiglass over it and then set up. It works perfectly for many other games I play.
Excellent review and video series. If I had seen these before I purchased Sherman Leader I would not have bought it. I am one of those who brought up some of the negative comments during the series. My main dislikes are: 1) The disparity in kill resolution (1 failed save for the enemy vs. many chit pulls for your own pieces) 2) The game does not take into account the weapon that fired when doing the saving rolls (A Stuart or mortar taking out a Tiger tank) I am also not sure about the logic of always rolling 2 dice when determining hit chances. Thant makes it especially difficult for the enemy to survive. It feels like they should have called this game 'Fury'. In doing my analysis I also found there is really less variety in the German tanks than it appears: the Stug and PzIV are the same, as are the Tiger and Panther. Another thing that really impacts the game for the player is the double-sided damage chits. Among other things, having the Suppressed and Casualty chits sitting on the unit card greatly affects the chances of later drawing Commander KIA, Destroyed or Explosion. I am going to print off copies that I can leave on the card and put the actual chits back into the cup. It is going to take a while to come up with modifications that don't bog the game down too much and yet get closer to simulating actual combat, but I do think it will be worth it. P.S. I totally agree with your comment about the city terrain - the art looks like something from an early 60s ad rather than a European town.
Good points, Peter. It'd be interesting to try a modded version of the rules that make it more of a simulation in a few places. I'm sure there are a number of people who thought the game would be more simulation heavy and would like to try an alternative ruleset that explores that angle. From a design perspective, like you mention, it'd be challenging to not have things bog down, and to also keep the balance and flavor of the RPG leader experience. Most computer games (Panzer Corps, X-COM, almost every RPG, etc.) that have "core groups" that go from battle to battle end up working in a similar way. The game mechanics keep the members alive and they end up a campaign with dozens of kills. So balancing a simulation mode with that mechanic in Sherman Leader would be an interesting design challenge, for sure!
Regarding the damage chits, I fully agree with that. I have got around this in two ways: 1) I have combined the damage chits from Sherman Leader and Tiger Leader into one pile so that one or two chits on cards during a Battle don't affect the chit draws quite as much (the ratios of the chits is the same in both games but Tiger has twice as many chits); 2) I have printed off copies of the chits that can be carried forward into the next Battles, so, Glancing, MG, Casualty, that sort of thing. Counters that cannot be carried forward would be things like Cmdr Wounded or Engine/Suspension hits, which prevent a Unit from starting a new Battle. Those chits I place on Units that begin a Battle with existing damage, so that teh chit ratios are unaffected to begin with.
That'd work, for sure. I like the idea of tossing in the damage chits from Panzer Leader, that's an easy way to compensate. I didn't think that deeply on this part, and just accepted that the odds would change as your units pick up damage. I mean, logically it doesn't make sense that your commander would be less likely to be wounded again because he was wounded already, but for whatever reason this element of the game didn't concern me too much. I suppose it'd be different if we had a huge battle and a dozen chits are sitting on units and then I draw two KIAs in a row. :) I bet I'd be getting those Panzer Leader chits out pretty quickly if that happened. :)
@@ZillaBlitz So now that I've gotten to sit and listen to the critism on the meaty review, I had been thinking about the AI system a bit during the playthrough. Too Many Bones also has thr players make choices for thr AI, but it is designed that way on purpose to give the players chances to game the system (which is brutal otherwise). I want to try and play the game with a simple rule in play for target acquisition. First attack goes to the highest value target available, with subsequent attacks going down the value list to spread out potential damage evenly. So in the example in the video the wolverine gets the first attacks and the Stuart the second attacks.
@@jaredlucev2705 Another way I was thinking to do something like that would be to just use a dice roll for the "you decide" options. That would be a way to get something similar to what you're thinking, but your system would be simple and effective too. Thanks for sharing! I'd be fine with rules if they said "you decide in a way that works to your advantage" for the "you decide" situations, as it sounds like Too Many Bones does. That would clarify the designers' intentions and let me know as a player what "level" the game is designed for. I mean, it does leave the aftertaste of making a bunch of sub-par decisions for the Germans when you win, but at least I'd have in my head that I was playing the game as intended. Ultimately, though, I like the idea of sharpening the AI rules to handle the impactful elements of the "you decide" situations, using some sort of mini-rule like you mention. :)
Great review and playthrough series. I am new to board gaming and your videos helped me tremendously. I ultimately settled on Tiger Leader 2nd edition. Referenced your videos throughout my first session. Keep up the good 👍 work!
I have NO experience playing wargames more complicated than Risk or Axis & Allies (and that was decades ago) but this review has me so intrigued I'm wondering if it's something I should try. I plan on watching your playthrough series, but in the meantime could you maybe just give me a heads-up? Is this a game a complete novice could have any hope of understanding, or would I be biting off way more than I could chew? If it were half the price, I'd just take the chance, but $110 is more than I can spend on something that will just collect dust. Anyway, I really love your enthusiasm and thoroughness, so I've subscribed.
By the way, Laughing Gravy is an awesome username. :) I guess I'd start with "Are you more interested in a solo game or a 2-player/multiplayer game?" I might have some other suggestions if you are thinking 2-player. For solo, I think this can work, for sure, although learning your first game in this category will probably take a bit of determination, and revisiting rules, etc. If you've watched some of these episodes in the Let's Play and things don't look overwhelming, I think you'd be fine. I usually play a "learning game" the first time I play, where I know I'm going to make lots of mistakes and I'm just wrapping my head around things, and I don't stress about anything. As for the price on this game, it seems like it's one of the more expensive Leader games at the moment, not sure why. DVG's Leader series is massive, though, and in terms of difficulty they are fairly similar. The prices can also vary a good bit. You might find a better deal for or other Leader games on Ebay, a local games store, or online shops like Miniature Market (they have Phantom Leader (supposed to be quite good) for under $70 at the moment). Also, for the next couple of days at least, the "Shopping" section for games on Board Game Geek might have some used or new copies of the game at cheaper prices. The quality of the Leader series has a range to it, so it might be worth checking on the forums at Board Game Geek (or asking here if you want) about some of the other Leader games. Be sure to get the latest edition (can be checked on Board Game Geek) before you buy. Hope this helps!
What a passionate and energetic review! Pretty much agree with every point, especially with the "player's decision" case. I thought DVG was pretty dismissive with that reply, but oh well. Is that Target for Today (or as I like to call it, "B17: Queen of the Skies" on steroids) on your shelf? Still looks wrapped. And now I just noticed you also have Atlantic Chase, Stalingrad '42, RAF and Fields of Fire. Man, you have good taste in wargames. Thanks for the video!
Thanks, Hex! To be fair, I mischaracterized their response if it sounded like it was dismissive. It didn’t come across that way to me. ~ And thanks on the games. I’ve been trying to build up a small library of games that I missed over the last 25 years, so yeah, I’ve added a few that have been recommended to me lately. I’m looking forward to digging in to them, and a good number are still wrapped. :)
@@ZillaBlitz And I see 'Storm above the Reich' there too. Now that one is really new; I just received my P500 copy about two months ago. I'm looking forward to playing it.
Yes, I've enjoyed what I've seen of Storm so far. I did an unboxing video a while back on it and have played through the tutorial mission. I was hoping to have played more of it by now, but the Sherman Leader campaign took more time than I anticipated. :) Eventually I'd like to do a series on it, but I need to be smoother at playing the game first.
Excellent review. I have played the game and agree with your pros and cons. While I want some historical context for a game I am not looking for a hard core simulation. To one degree or another every game has some luck factored in either with dice rolls or with card draws. It is entertaining and fun to play with a strong narrative component.
Thanks, Mike! Yeah, the narrative component here is so strong, such a fun thing to experience. I'm probably in both camps with regards to the game vs. simulation. Depends some on the mood I'm in, sometimes I'd like this sort of experience, but at times I can see myself really digging into a simulation game. Thanks for stopping in!
Love the distinction between a simulation and a game. I look at it another way when I need to forget it's not a simulation: I see each campaign as a series of puzzles to solve (the Battles). Part of what gives this game its immense replayability is that no two Battles (puzzles) are ever the same, even against the same Battalion, because of the differences in terrain and player forces. And the terrain Expansions make that even more the case.
Yes, the terrain tiles and how they lay out do make each battle a mini-puzzle on their own, don't they. That's a good point. I should pick up the terrain tiles expansion at some point, or at the least mix in the tiles from Tiger Leader.
I think the two games are very similar, yes, with almost identical rulesets. I know that Tiger Leader has an upgrade kit, that I think is highly recommended. I'm not sure of the differences in gameplay.
Great review really enjoyable/informative. Overall sounds like a superb system. For the AI issue allowing the player to select which unit to attack. A possible fix would be to release enemy commander cards that determine the ‘personality’ and dictate the choices of the AI within the game. For example a strategic and experienced enemy commander may always choose to attack the unit that would be the most devastating to you, whereas a less experienced commander may let you decide…just a thought that could add a flavorful fix.
Hi Zhao, thanks! I love the idea for commander cards. They'd make for an interesting twist on those ambiguous situations, for sure. You could even take that concept a bit further to include other decisions as well. Really good idea!
Thanks, MrSuperphil! I don't mind the luck element either, especially as you have so many ways to reduce the damage a bad run of luck can have. Thanks for stopping in!
I would have rolled a die and let the fog and randomness of war. Maybe a puff of smoke obstructed the view finder and only tank could be seen 1-3 good deal 4-6 bad deal. What do you think of that? As far as getting "Diced" "Its not the round with my name on it I worry about, its all the ones with to whom it may concern on them.
I think there is a lot of room to play with how to interpret those rules, for sure. Randomness would definitely be one way to do it, and would lie halfway between what's best for you and what's best for the enemy. ~ Nice quote on the dice, for sure! :)
My biggest beef with the Sherman and Tiger Leader games is that all the Commanders start out as rubbish, and many of the campaigns are too short to get them promoted all that much so you're stuck with them. Your choices of Commanders are that you fill the ranks with Recruits first, then Greens, then Averages, and so on. While some may see this as a challenge, I see it as a total ball-ache and, while I appreciate that you can promote your Commanders at the start of a Campaign, when you're playing a Japanese campaign most of your SO's are confiscated before the game even begins. So it's rubbish forces, rubbish Commanders and generally little enjoyment. There's no fun in getting pasted every game and you don't get to experinece the fun of having a decent Commander. I have a simple solution: I pick a Recruit Commander, then a Green, then an Average and so on, right up to the highest level available (usually Veteran), then I begin again at Recruit. So if I have six units and the Commander list is R4, G4, A3, Sk2, Vet1, the game would give me 4 Recruits and 2 Greens. My system would give me 1 Recruit, 1 Green, 1 Average, 1 Skilled and 1 Vet, then reset to the start and I get an additional Recruit. Yes it makes it easier, but my games are so much richer for it. Sherman and Tiger are the only two of the Leader games where I think they have been particularly stingy in this regard; Zero, Corsair, B-17, Hornet and most of the other Leader games are fine; Thunderbolt/Apache being the best in my opinion.
That sounds like an interesting modification for that. I haven't played the longest campaign yet, but "doing the math" it does seem like on average, assuming you knock out the battalion you're fighting, you'd pick up 12 points of XP on a 6-week campaign. It seems like some of the event cards add XP too, but you're not always going to knock out the enemy battalion, either. So for sure, that's not possible to get most commanders more than 2-3 promotions. I enjoyed the level-by-level changes along the way, so I didn't mind the fact that the commanders weren't going to get to the highest levels. The way the game plays makes it feel like getting the highest level commander would be fairly rare, and that they'd be pretty deadly if they reach that level. The "paying SO points" for promotion might be away around that, but those SO points are so precious, as you mention. I have Zero Leader, I'll have to give that a try soon to see how that feels in comparison. Thanks!
Those are good points. The early campaigns probably should have "rubbish commanders" but the later ones should be more experienced and handled like you suggest.
tbf your solution for playing the Germans by making decisions for their best benefit - at least in case of tie-breaking targetting dilemmas - is nothing more than adding another tie-breaker, making the list of priorities something like: 1)easiest target 2)worst defense 3)most dangerous attack (or, as attacks are different against various targets, and range is also a factor, you could use "highest value") Otherwise, in a combat game where enemy units are moving on a typical grid map, where they are mostly able to move in any direction, an "AI" system that would really make ALL decisions for the enemies, without leaving any space for interpretation or putting decisions on the player, would be most probably monstrous, and/or bound to produce bouts of ridiculous stupidity ("Combat!" by Compass Games, anyone?). I'd say there's a sweet spot: a system that does provide the player with the clear short-term goals that completely remove the aspect of having the player "plan" for the enemy, only leaving the fine details of execution for the player, which are just impossible to include in a fast-working "AI" system meant to work in a free-moving hex-based environment. There's, of course, a simple housemade way for ambiguous situations - if an enemy unit, after determining the "AI", still has more than one option to choose, *roll.*
Great thoughts! In many ways I feel like the design of solo systems for more complicated hex games is in its infancy, but I'm encouraged by things like the Enemy Action series, which really does attempt to create a playable system for the AI in a complicated hex/counters game. Other companies are working in this area as well, like Lock 'N Load's solo systems for their games. I expect we'll seem more attempts in the upcoming years. I think we still have much to learn in the area, but I'd like to think it's not impossible to accomplish. :)
@@ZillaBlitz never owned or played Enemy Action games, but I do know that those use fixed maps that are actually marked for the "AI" - this definitely makes designing a proper/logical AI system, that doesn't offload decisions on the player, possible - because in those games the "AI" always "knows" the board, as it was tailor-made for playing on it (or the map was tailor-made for that system).
