CSS also has one annoying thing about it that GTS doesn't do. GTS shows a graphic of what the different unit types the unit symbols refer to, CSS does not. They use non-standard, presumably more historically accurate, symbols than the typical NATO symbols and the game design is supposed to make the unit types irrelevant (except for engineers). They lean into this with CSS and almost get a little snooty about it. I find it much easier to function if I can identify units at a glance by understanding the symbol rather than having to interpret the numerous (and smaller) ratings on the fly. Even IF the ratings tell you everything you need to know, I don't understand why creating a quick guide to the symbols, which GTS does, would be such a problem. Except that they are, again, snooty about the elegance of their system. I would suggest that if the symbols are completely irrelevant that they would have been better off in CSS eliminating the symbol entirely and making the ratings bigger, but no one asked me :). Sorry, I easily get on the warpath on this issue lol.
No Question of Surrender is a good game and an interesting topic, but it uses an older version of the rules with a few differences from the current rules. Just enough to be annoying. Sort of the same as going back and forth between CSS and GTS, although there are more differences there. CSS is streamlined slightly from GTS and a little easier to play, but I actually prefer GTS. Basically very very close to each other though. I have never played one of the "monster" GTS games. Mostly because of cost, not size. GTS is a "stacking" system with all of the markers and is unit-dense to boot, so clipping is a must if you are into that sort of thing. Utah Beach must take a year to clip :).
That's not a game, that's a job!
Thirty or forty years ago I would have jumped at a monster like this. Now I just sigh and move on. Nice unboxing.
Same. I just don't have the stamina anymore.
Makes 3 of us. My brain just sizzles when I think of taking a game like this on. That was yesterday and yesterday's gone....beautiful though!!!
Isn't A/1/505 "A" Company, 1st Battalion 505th Regt?
Yes it is.👍👍👍
CSS also has one annoying thing about it that GTS doesn't do. GTS shows a graphic of what the different unit types the unit symbols refer to, CSS does not. They use non-standard, presumably more historically accurate, symbols than the typical NATO symbols and the game design is supposed to make the unit types irrelevant (except for engineers). They lean into this with CSS and almost get a little snooty about it. I find it much easier to function if I can identify units at a glance by understanding the symbol rather than having to interpret the numerous (and smaller) ratings on the fly. Even IF the ratings tell you everything you need to know, I don't understand why creating a quick guide to the symbols, which GTS does, would be such a problem. Except that they are, again, snooty about the elegance of their system. I would suggest that if the symbols are completely irrelevant that they would have been better off in CSS eliminating the symbol entirely and making the ratings bigger, but no one asked me :).
Sorry, I easily get on the warpath on this issue lol.
Invite a few friends over and have a clipping party :D
No Question of Surrender is a good game and an interesting topic, but it uses an older version of the rules with a few differences from the current rules. Just enough to be annoying. Sort of the same as going back and forth between CSS and GTS, although there are more differences there. CSS is streamlined slightly from GTS and a little easier to play, but I actually prefer GTS. Basically very very close to each other though. I have never played one of the "monster" GTS games. Mostly because of cost, not size. GTS is a "stacking" system with all of the markers and is unit-dense to boot, so clipping is a must if you are into that sort of thing. Utah Beach must take a year to clip :).