So glad you're doing videos on this game series. It doesn't get the attention it deserves. Finished a campaign of Canadian Crucible not so long ago and was one of the best war game experiences I've ever had. Love the spotting and overwatch rules.
Nice! CC is one of two TCS games I do not yet own (along with Semper Fi!), but it is at the top of my "To Buy" list. I hope to be able to grab a copy within the next month or so. Glad to hear you had a blast playing it! As for TCS in general, one of the main reasons I decided to start this series was because I thought it was not getting enough coverage. Kev at Big Board Gaming has some nice videos, but a lot them are a few years old now. The lack of new games being published in the series is hurting its popularity. Only two games in the past 14 years is not good (although it'll jump to three when Goose Green is released, hopefully later this year). I'd love to see this system regain some momentum, but without new titles being published on at least a semi-regular basis, it's going to be tough. I'm hoping my humble channel can start creating enough noise for MMP to notice there is still a good sized fanbase for TCS.
@@thetabletopsedge Just thinking about the Fire Table, one of the things I really like is that TCS gives heavy weapons their due, especially when firing at range and against unspotted enemies. They are critical supporting advances.
@@IRLBemused Very true! The fact that MG's can fire overwatch even when marked Fired is a big deal. And for mortars, it's not just the HE fires they can provide, but also their smoke capability. Being more reactive than off board artillery has allowed my mortar sections to save my bacon more than once with some well placed smoke (and HE)! I probably should have mentioned the Spotting rules in the video. I really like how they function in TCS. Simple, yet effective, and they provide a nice historical feel. They also make things a lot easier on a referee in a double-blind game.
Boy, the more I listen to your game/system comparisons between tactical level offerings, the more I find myself in agreement with you. You and I have strong, mirrored interests (complexity/narrative/simulation) and share the same leanings and favorite series. Great videos. Thanks!
Thanks for this. On the interpretive challenges of orders systems (TCS, CWB, LOB or whatever), perhaps the key is to understand that the games will generally not make for great competitive/tournament play. A player who wants that should probably avoid them. For solo, on the other hand, or even for versus play between the right people, you can get a great narrative experience. One way to do that is to get away from "what I want to happen here" during interpretation. When you recognize a situation with some ambiguity, define 2-3 options that seem like possible choices for a commander on the scene. Then roll dice to see what they do. To make it more interesting you can roll more than once. With three companies, as here, the first one might skedaddle back to the failure position. That might make the company on his flank more likely to fail back as well, but maybe that captain decides to hold. It comes down to whether the players think about rules as a framework for figuring out who's won the game, or a framework for telling an interesting story. Either is fine. Just depends on what you want. 🙂
I didn't/don't know much about the TCS series of games but I have just pre-ordered Goose Green to help it get to the number and see if it's another series that I'll need to collect in the future. Thank you for doing all these videos showing off the system.
Fantastic! One of my goals with this series (and my channel in general) is to help spread the word about games that I find fun and enjoyable. Of course, tastes will differ among gamers, so I try to give folks an idea of where I'm coming from, so they can take my recommendations in the proper context. If you haven't seen Lee Forester's short preview video of Goose Green, I highly recommend you check it out. He gives a nice overview of the historical situation as well as the components in the game. If you find yourself enjoying TCS, you start to expand into other titles that pique your interest. Stay tuned for more TCS content going forward!
Very cool to hear! I recently acquired a copy, but have not yet had a chance to try it. The dated graphic design (and knowing it had an older set of series rules) is what kept me away back in the day, but having had a chance to look inside the box and get a good look at the situation, I regret not picking up back in the '90's when I had a chance.
This is a great series of videos so far. I have 3 or 4 TCS games which I have yet to get to the table. This series of videos has rekindled my interest in the series. Not to take attention away from TCS, but I would recommend trying out Operation Dauntless from GMT as another entry in the list of platoon scale games. It has some very interesting and unique mechanics, including the way vehicular combat works.
Below the "tactical level" of gaming is a level known as "skirmish gaming". These games usually feature individual soldiers and vehicles, with turns lasting anywhere from 30 seconds to a few minutes. These are usually small games with no more than 10-50 units per side, often covering a very small slice of a larger battle. The tactical level games often have enough detail to give your mind's eye a vivid picture of the action occurring during your turn. The smaller the scale, the closer you get to the chaos of combat, and many good tactical games portray this quite nicely. I happen to like the feel of TCS best.
So glad to hear that! I think BCS is a great system that does things no other system really does. TCS has some very nice features to it as well. The 4th edition series rules are really well done. I find the rule book to be well written and clear, and if there's anything I'm a bit confused about, Lee Forester's tutorial series clears it up nicely. Thanks again for watching, and stay tuned for more content!
@@thetabletopsedge I have been reading over the rules and watched Lee's videos. But I can't for the life of me find a detailed playthrough of a few turns, either written or on video. Does it exist anywhere?
@@davedangelo533 Not yet. 😉 One of the reasons I decided to do some TCS content on the channel is that I have found the system to be woefully underrepresented on RUclips. I've not found any detailed playthroughs anywhere. The closest I've come is some videos at Big Boardgaming, but even those are just a fraction of a turn, and most are more like After Action Reports than actual playthroughs. I plan on doing at least some playthrough videos on TCS (to help address the issue raised with your comment). I don't know if I'll do entire games, because TCS games can be pretty big, but I think there are some smaller scenarios that would be pretty doable. Right now, I've got another Op Sheets video filmed, but need to find time to edit it. I'm hoping to get it uploaded within a week. Beyond that, I'm open to ideas, and am leaning towards doing some kind of playthrough to give folks like yourself a more detailed look at how TCS plays. Stay tuned!
@@thetabletopsedge Big boardgaming's vids are unfortunately after actions/summaries, I don't know how he got from A to B. Scenario 5.5 from Canadian Crucible seems small enough? I honestly would just be happy with one turn of an attack that shows most elements.
@@davedangelo533 Agree. I hope to have an opportunity to film a playthrough of at least a couple of turns in the next few weeks. If I tried to do a whole scenario, it may take longer, but I think I can do a sort "extended example of play", that will hopefully give folks a decent look at how exactly TCS unfolds on the map during the course of a typical game.
Great presentation that gives a good idea of the game system and how it is different from many others. I like the way you discussed how the game handles some very difficult to simulate aspects of combat in this period. Close combat and artillery are very complicated and you can make or break game systems by what rules you create. I agree that close combat is an all or nothing fight, and contrary to popular belief is not something fighting men liked to do, hand to hand is even rarer except for the Japanese and certain units fighting them. Most of the time one side will "break" before being engaged, so very few actions resulted in contact. Considering how deadly this is explains much of that reluctance. The system seem to get it right. The planning and orders system is also well adapted to the CCC problems of a commander of this level, and seems to work well in spite of possible confusing game interpretation. This apparent flaw can easily handled if you require more specific orders. In your example you could define a depth for the holding line, say x number of yards, or hexes. Unit will hold line to a depth of x, and then retire if forced back, or defend the reverse slope for 500 yards, then revert to reserve. Other units can then be ordered to advance when a forward position is reached by you enemy. This forces more rigor on the players, but that is his job after all, and when badly done should result in bad things happening. I played the Panzer Britz in the day, even enjoyed the later Arab-Israelis module, but then I passed from SL to ASL and that filled my interests in tactical games. What I find missing in ASL is a reflection of the OBs at this level, for instance what are you commanding, and how it is structured. I have a very good understanding of the components these armies fought with. I think that TCS is great for that. Few players except experts can tell you what an American armoured infantry platoon was composed of, and how it changed from 1942-43 to 1944. BTW my favorite unit in the American army is the 1942-43 cavalry mechanized platoon. All in all this system's designers have a good idea of what role they place the player in, something many don't seem to achieve. Looking forward to more on this. I'm also into monster games, but lack interest in the operation level of command, but I do like constructing OBs.
One of the things I find really compelling about TCS is how easy the game mechanics translate into fantastic narrative. So evocative and easy to picture in your mind's eye!
I've not had any time lately to get more content uploaded due to work. However, I anticipate having a lot more time between now and the end of the month. I've got another WiF playthrough video that is nearing completion, as well as another TCS video.
Artillery understated? Have you using fast firing battalion fires? In my CC game artillery did a huge amount of work, including against tanks (something I think most other tactical games don't reflect well). Say 19 strength battalion. This is 38 in attack zone (7 hexes) or 76 if fast firing. That's 7 hexes attacked on third from top chart! Another 12 hexes hit on 38 chart. Assuming unit in Fire mode in protective terrain that's a loss on 21 or more in attack zone. Even dug-in infantry in protective terrain will be hit on the 21-25 chart taking losses on a 31 or more. If you catch a battalion on the move in open ground with this,....
I think I overstated my issue on artillery being "understated". 😁 It's really not even an issue. It should have been phrased as more of a question than a declarative statement. For the record (and I think I did say this in the video, I hope): I have no problem with artillery in TCS. In fact, I like how they differentiate between a normal battery fire and a continuous battery fire, for instance. If you want that barrage marker to stay on map for the whole turn, then you're going to need to fire that as a continuous barrage. I also find artillery ammo conservation a constant calculation for me in TCS, unlike a lot of other tactical games. Too many games let players fire off their arty endlessly and without thought. In TCS, you usually don't have that luxury, which means you really need to think about what you are going to need to do with your arty and prioritize its missions. There's an awful lot to like about the arty system in TCS, so I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't like it. Artillery can indeed be deadly in TCS (including to vehicles, which you astutely pointed out). The only response I would have to the example you give is how many times can you afford to do that? The battalion fast fire mission would consume 9 HE ammo points. In GD'40, the Germans only have 10 HE ammo points at the start of the campaign scenario (but do receive more as additional batteries come into play). That would allow for only one battalion sized fast fire mission (although in fairness, that mission would be able to cover the entire village of Stonne and would almost certainly inflict at least 1 step loss, and likely 2-3, per hex in the village). Artillery is absolutely vital to assaulting dug in defenders, as well as stopping assaults in their tracks. Even without a fast fire, I've seen well placed battalion Good Shoots decimate tightly packed attacking forces as they try to cross exposed ground. Regarding vehicles, I think gamers (and maybe designers, too) think a step loss to a vehicle means the vehicle is destroyed (and probably brewed up). In reality, most vehicle kills were "mission kills", where the vehicle suffered some type of damage that rendered it combat ineffective, and it either withdrew from the fight or was abandoned by the crew. Frequently, these vehicles were recovered (if abandoned) and the relatively minor repairs were made, getting them back into action within a day or two. An artillery barrage could easily damage vision ports or periscopes on tanks, damage the tracks, or wound/incapacitate the crew through concussion or spalling, rendering the tank out of action without necessarily blowing it up or causing major damage. So it is nice to see artillery having an effect on vehicles that isn't necessarily common among other tactical games.
@@thetabletopsedge That's a fair point about ammunition but if it's available it is a game changer. In Canadian Crucible for example I think each side has 100+ rounds of HE each day.
Suggestions on tcs to try the system? GD42, canadian crucible? Having a hard time finding a decent game at this level and this may scratch the itch. Thanks for your very detailed gaming videos, as always
Because of the anemic publication schedule over the last decade, this is a trickier question than it should be. Currently, there are only 2 games still technically "in print" and available new from MMP (with a third about to hit its pre-order number). The budget conscious choice would be Goose Green, the current pre-order game. It is quite small (roughly one reinforced battalion on each side) and therefore very manageable for new players. There is a tiny bit of armor, if you use the optional units, which can also give one a taste of that aspect of TCS. However, even if it hits the pre-order number in the next month, I'd be surprised if it shipped before the end of this year. And ultimately, it is roughly the equivalent of an appetizer, or even an amuse bouche, for the 5 course meal that is TCS. Ariete is also inexpensive, but is almost entirely armor, and I don't think it would give one a good first look at the series. Not enough combined arms, or terrain for that matter. GD'42 is a phenomenal TCS game. It includes the 4th edition rules and charts (which are definitely the ones I would recommend starting with). It's an interesting situation with plenty of combined arms and good terrain to deal with. It's also only $54 from MMP. The downsides are that they only have ziplock versions left (no dice included and you'd have to figure out a storage solution). The other potential downside is that it is a big game. It is 3 maps and 3 counter sheets. However, there are smaller scenarios, including several 1-mappers that can be good learning scenarios. If you have the space, I think GD'42 is a great game. Fortunately, many of the older games are readily available on the secondary market, some at very reasonable prices. The only problem with the older games is that you would need to download the current rules and charts from the TCS support page. Also, any of the games before Black Wednesday do not have the current arty markers, so you'd have to make your own or find a copy of the 1996 Variant & Replacement Counters Christmas mailer from The Gamers. So while something like GD'40 or even Objective Schmidt might make my recommendation list, there is too much extra work involved to get them to a playable state with the latest (and best) version of the TCS rules. I guess I'd have to say GD'42 would be my recommendation for someone looking to try out TCS. A quick check of ebay and BGG Marketplace shows copies of it available for anywhere from $50-$150. Or if you don't mind ziplocks, you can pick up a copy directly from MMP for $54.
Thank you for a very Informative video of TCS, and for the on going video series for this system. Very much appreciated! I have GD 42 and Force Eagles War, although this last one Is never talked about. I really like the system but I struggle to find a way to play It solo. I thought of making three op´s sheets for the OPFOR and picking one blind but haven´t tried that yet. Again thank you and looking forward to you´re next TCS video. Good care
Unfortunately, you won't see any Force Eagles War content on the channel, mostly because I have no firsthand experience with it. I did not play it back in the early 1990's when it was released. One factor that has kept me from acquiring a copy is that it is the only TCS game that the current rules edition is not backwards compatible with. I do not know the reason why that is so. I'm sure Force Eagles War is a solid game, and who knows, I may try to track down a copy one day to see just what the box contains (and hopefully figure out why it isn't forwards compatible with the current rules).
@@thetabletopsedge Thanks for you´re reply. No worries with regards to Force Eagles War. The title didn´t get to much love, and even Dean Essig tries not to remember It to much either so In that sense It´s like It´s been cursed. I remember reading someone´s comment that the game as It Is was to lethal In It´s warfare. Which makes me wonder how Goose Green will be. I started reading the rules last night and I kind of understand why the 4.00 rules, or any other rules (except the first edition) wont bolt on this title, and that´s due to the fact that the Modern Expansion Is a addition to the rules. They fit the rules written In 1989. In other words, the first edition rules. I hope to get my head around them and hopefully do a video and at the same time get my channel back up and going. You´re recent TCS videos have made me get back Into the hobby. Not only that, I saw you´re basement video and knowing you´re a 767 pilot well you sure got my attention now! Not that I am a pilot but I would have loved to! To old now and all I can do Is put In (which I have) all the hours I can In MSFS 2020, as I did with FSX, Prepard 3D and DCS World. Which brings me to, when are you gonna crack open For The Motherland? Have It, along with Whistling Death, Buffalo Wings, and The Speed of Heat by CoA.
@@hex2redonealpha102 Glad to hear you're "back in the game"! I was unaware that FEW's game specific rules were tailored to 1st edition TCS. That does make more sense now as to why the later editions aren't backwards compatible with it. If you haven't checked out Lee Forester's tutorial series yet, I recommend it. It'll serve as a nice compliment to your reading of the v4.0 rules. The examples he provides can be helpful in understanding how certain subsystems work. I recently flew with a First Officer who, during a break in his initial training with my company, used MSFS 2020 to practice for his upcoming sim training. From what I've seen of MSFS 2020, it's as close as you can get to being in the plane without actually leaving the ground. I actually filmed a review of WotML some months back, but wasn't happy with how it turned out so I didn't upload it. I would love to put some Fighting Wings content on the channel. I still have the raw footage, so maybe there's a way I can edit it together (and maybe film some supplementary stuff) and salvage something from it. I am really impressed with WotML. It's beautiful game with a ton of content. And the latest iteration of the FW rules is outstanding. I don't know if you are aware of the FW online community. They have a discussion group over at fighting-wings-games.groups.io/g/main. I think you have to request to join, but that's just a formality. JD Webster is very active on the site and he's always running PBeM games (including a lot of teaching games for FW newbies and old farts returning to the system for the first time in awhile). In fact, I'm in a PBeM game that JD just started and is running with 8 players (4 newbies). It is a scenario recreating the fight where Herschel "Herky" Greene and his flight jumped a dozen Ju 52's over Italy. The experienced guys are each flying 3 of the Tante Ju's, while the newbies are each flying a P-47 to get some experience with the system. In addition to JD, there are several other experienced FW players who regularly run PBeM games. If you enjoy the FW series of games, this is a fantastic resource!
No question that TCS doesn't get the attention it deserves, from both the community and MMP. That the series has sometimes chosen topics that maybe don't illustrate it at its best is probably a factor, but MMP's limp support also doesn't help. At any rate, I have preordered Goose Green, and we're probably gonna play it when it does arrive.
You know my preference for larger games rather than smaller ones (although for some reason I really enjoy a lot of the smaller ASL scenarios...), but I too have pre-ordered Goose Green. Lee's preview of it actually has me interested in giving it a try. It's certainly small enough to be played in a single evening. While it appears to be a straightforward assault down the peninsula, the Brits are under pressure from time and the need to limit losses. I don't know that there's a ton of replay in the game (which is the case with most small games), but it does look like it might make a decent intro for new players to TCS, and given the variability in combat I can see multiple playthroughs unfolding differently each time. My bigger concern is the future of the series. It's been 7 years since MMP released a "full sized" game for TCS. I don't know if it's a lack of quality submissions, or a lack of interest/support from MMP (or both). I would dearly love to see what Wig Graves could come up with for GD'43 and GD'44.
I should have clarified that the "unit size" metric of squad/platoon/company applies to the post-1900 era of warfare. This is primarily because of how units of various sizes were employed based on the technology available. Turn scale and time scale, though, are pretty consistent for tactical level gaming across eras. And the rule of thumb regarding the presence of supply/logistics rules in a game design also holds up well no matter the time period.
Based on this video I believe we are like-minded individuals as I too prefer more complicated games over the simpler, less detailed ones. Perhaps a reason for my preference for the older artillery rules instead of the new ones. I liked the ability to fire in patterns and the direct vs general support batteries. An other cool feature is the ability to mount infantry on a tank and drive into the enemy's hex, dismount and start shooting. Two questions: do you think that on a Prep Defense Op Sheet, with all platoons dug-in, some units could move to a threatened sector, thus loosing their dug-in positions, in what might be called a local counter attack? I did that in GD '41 once. Second: how does one keep track of vehicle impulses? All have 3, or just armour? One way of playing TCS is have a friend who is familiar with the game draw up the Op Sheets for one side. This increases Fog of War, at least in the beginning. I also like GTS, have you tried Mercury and compared it to Hunters from the Sky? Thanks for this great video series, appreciate all your efforts. PS: How is GOSS coming along, do you still enjoy it or have you aborted?
I, too, thought the arty patterns you could call for were a unique aspect to TCS, and certainly nothing I had seen in other tactical games. As for your Prep Defense question, I absolutely think it is permissible under the intent of the rules for a unit on a Prep Defense sheet to redeploy within the defined defensive position/sector to conduct a local counterattack to retake a lost position. As you point out, the moment the unit leaves its initial hex it will lose its "dug in", and cannot regain it until/unless it becomes part of another implemented Prep Defense op sheet. Losing the dug in benefit can be a big deal, but sometimes that's the only option to preserve a defensive position. The 4th edition informational marker set comes with some markers labeled "Impulse 1", "Impulse 2", etc. You simply place these markers on the vehicles that have used their 1st or 2nd (or 3rd) impulse during the turn. If you don't have any 4th edition markers, you could easily come up with an ersatz solution (perhaps placing the appropriate loss marker on top of the vehicle, since I don't believe multi-step vehicle counters appeared prior to GD'42 and 4th edition TCS). All vehicles, except carriers, may use the 3 impulse rules. In practical terms, this will be tanks, assault guns, tank destroyers, self propelled artillery, and so on. Trucks, jeeps, and Commonwealth universal carriers do not get to use the 3 impulse rules. I am a big fan of GTS. In fact I'm currently getting a buddy up to speed on it with TGD. I have OM and it is, like most GTS games so far, quite large. The entire map area of Hunters from the Sky fits on a small slice of one of OM's many maps. HftS is also much shorter in terms of how much of the battle it covers. HftS is very much focused on the efforts to take, or defend, Maleme airfield. It wraps up on 23MAY. One of the things I enjoy doing is comparing map coverage and OB's of games that cover the same topic, but at slightly different scales. I may do a short video on this with some examples I have. It is quite interesting to look at the maps for Atlantic Wall (in the GOSS series) and compare them to the maps for TGD in GTS. Speaking of GOSS, I would very much like to get another video out on it. I want to discuss the supply/logistics system, as well as the artillery. I also plan on discussing the lessons learned from my big game at Winterfest. While I haven't given up on GOSS, there are a few red flags popping up. I'm not sure if they are due mainly to the unique situation of Wacht am Rhein, or if they are systemic problems. GOSS has been a frustrating game in many ways. There are some excellent elements to the system, but learning it was a real bear, and there are a number of very questionable decisions that have been made by DG with the designs. I need to explore it further, and intend on producing some videos to document that exploration. Thanks for watching!
@@czujnywilczek6832 Don't worry, I'm still here! Real life issues (like work) have severely limited the time I have to keep creating videos. However, I do have the M/J'39 WiF turn filmed in its entirety and am now working on getting it uploaded. I have also begun filming the J/A'39 turn. So there will be more to come as soon as I can get the time to finish the videos.
Just fine. Thanks for asking! Work and real life stuff haven't been giving me the time I'd like to do some video work. I'm hoping to be able to get something edited and uploaded before the end of the month.
While you are talking about Close Assaults, I see the images of the recent videos from Ukraine, where the Ukrainian heroes are assaulting trenched russian occupiers.
So glad you're doing videos on this game series. It doesn't get the attention it deserves. Finished a campaign of Canadian Crucible not so long ago and was one of the best war game experiences I've ever had. Love the spotting and overwatch rules.
Nice! CC is one of two TCS games I do not yet own (along with Semper Fi!), but it is at the top of my "To Buy" list. I hope to be able to grab a copy within the next month or so. Glad to hear you had a blast playing it!
As for TCS in general, one of the main reasons I decided to start this series was because I thought it was not getting enough coverage. Kev at Big Board Gaming has some nice videos, but a lot them are a few years old now. The lack of new games being published in the series is hurting its popularity. Only two games in the past 14 years is not good (although it'll jump to three when Goose Green is released, hopefully later this year). I'd love to see this system regain some momentum, but without new titles being published on at least a semi-regular basis, it's going to be tough. I'm hoping my humble channel can start creating enough noise for MMP to notice there is still a good sized fanbase for TCS.
@@thetabletopsedge Just thinking about the Fire Table, one of the things I really like is that TCS gives heavy weapons their due, especially when firing at range and against unspotted enemies. They are critical supporting advances.
@@IRLBemused Very true! The fact that MG's can fire overwatch even when marked Fired is a big deal. And for mortars, it's not just the HE fires they can provide, but also their smoke capability. Being more reactive than off board artillery has allowed my mortar sections to save my bacon more than once with some well placed smoke (and HE)!
I probably should have mentioned the Spotting rules in the video. I really like how they function in TCS. Simple, yet effective, and they provide a nice historical feel. They also make things a lot easier on a referee in a double-blind game.
My favorite tactical WW2 wargame.
Boy, the more I listen to your game/system comparisons between tactical level offerings, the more I find myself in agreement with you. You and I have strong, mirrored interests (complexity/narrative/simulation) and share the same leanings and favorite series. Great videos. Thanks!
Great minds think alike! 😁 Thanks for watching!
Thanks for this. On the interpretive challenges of orders systems (TCS, CWB, LOB or whatever), perhaps the key is to understand that the games will generally not make for great competitive/tournament play. A player who wants that should probably avoid them. For solo, on the other hand, or even for versus play between the right people, you can get a great narrative experience. One way to do that is to get away from "what I want to happen here" during interpretation. When you recognize a situation with some ambiguity, define 2-3 options that seem like possible choices for a commander on the scene. Then roll dice to see what they do. To make it more interesting you can roll more than once. With three companies, as here, the first one might skedaddle back to the failure position. That might make the company on his flank more likely to fail back as well, but maybe that captain decides to hold.
It comes down to whether the players think about rules as a framework for figuring out who's won the game, or a framework for telling an interesting story. Either is fine. Just depends on what you want. 🙂
I didn't/don't know much about the TCS series of games but I have just pre-ordered Goose Green to help it get to the number and see if it's another series that I'll need to collect in the future. Thank you for doing all these videos showing off the system.
Fantastic! One of my goals with this series (and my channel in general) is to help spread the word about games that I find fun and enjoyable. Of course, tastes will differ among gamers, so I try to give folks an idea of where I'm coming from, so they can take my recommendations in the proper context. If you haven't seen Lee Forester's short preview video of Goose Green, I highly recommend you check it out. He gives a nice overview of the historical situation as well as the components in the game. If you find yourself enjoying TCS, you start to expand into other titles that pique your interest. Stay tuned for more TCS content going forward!
My first TCS game was Objective Schmidt. If you can get it, it has great replay ability. I’ve never had a game go the same way.
Very cool to hear! I recently acquired a copy, but have not yet had a chance to try it. The dated graphic design (and knowing it had an older set of series rules) is what kept me away back in the day, but having had a chance to look inside the box and get a good look at the situation, I regret not picking up back in the '90's when I had a chance.
This is a great series of videos so far. I have 3 or 4 TCS games which I have yet to get to the table. This series of videos has rekindled my interest in the series.
Not to take attention away from TCS, but I would recommend trying out Operation Dauntless from GMT as another entry in the list of platoon scale games. It has some very interesting and unique mechanics, including the way vehicular combat works.
I am not familiar with Operation Dauntless. I'll have to keep an eye out for it.
I didn't even know there were games with a scale involving 15-20 min turns! That must give a very interesting narrative experience
Below the "tactical level" of gaming is a level known as "skirmish gaming". These games usually feature individual soldiers and vehicles, with turns lasting anywhere from 30 seconds to a few minutes. These are usually small games with no more than 10-50 units per side, often covering a very small slice of a larger battle. The tactical level games often have enough detail to give your mind's eye a vivid picture of the action occurring during your turn. The smaller the scale, the closer you get to the chaos of combat, and many good tactical games portray this quite nicely. I happen to like the feel of TCS best.
Your videos on BCS made me get into it and now am a die hard fan of it. Will now look into TCS.
So glad to hear that! I think BCS is a great system that does things no other system really does. TCS has some very nice features to it as well. The 4th edition series rules are really well done. I find the rule book to be well written and clear, and if there's anything I'm a bit confused about, Lee Forester's tutorial series clears it up nicely. Thanks again for watching, and stay tuned for more content!
@@thetabletopsedge I have been reading over the rules and watched Lee's videos. But I can't for the life of me find a detailed playthrough of a few turns, either written or on video. Does it exist anywhere?
@@davedangelo533 Not yet. 😉 One of the reasons I decided to do some TCS content on the channel is that I have found the system to be woefully underrepresented on RUclips. I've not found any detailed playthroughs anywhere. The closest I've come is some videos at Big Boardgaming, but even those are just a fraction of a turn, and most are more like After Action Reports than actual playthroughs.
I plan on doing at least some playthrough videos on TCS (to help address the issue raised with your comment). I don't know if I'll do entire games, because TCS games can be pretty big, but I think there are some smaller scenarios that would be pretty doable. Right now, I've got another Op Sheets video filmed, but need to find time to edit it. I'm hoping to get it uploaded within a week. Beyond that, I'm open to ideas, and am leaning towards doing some kind of playthrough to give folks like yourself a more detailed look at how TCS plays.
Stay tuned!
@@thetabletopsedge Big boardgaming's vids are unfortunately after actions/summaries, I don't know how he got from A to B. Scenario 5.5 from Canadian Crucible seems small enough? I honestly would just be happy with one turn of an attack that shows most elements.
@@davedangelo533 Agree. I hope to have an opportunity to film a playthrough of at least a couple of turns in the next few weeks. If I tried to do a whole scenario, it may take longer, but I think I can do a sort "extended example of play", that will hopefully give folks a decent look at how exactly TCS unfolds on the map during the course of a typical game.
Great presentation that gives a good idea of the game system and how it is different from many others. I like the way you discussed how the game handles some very difficult to simulate aspects of combat in this period. Close combat and artillery are very complicated and you can make or break game systems by what rules you create. I agree that close combat is an all or nothing fight, and contrary to popular belief is not something fighting men liked to do, hand to hand is even rarer except for the Japanese and certain units fighting them. Most of the time one side will "break" before being engaged, so very few actions resulted in contact. Considering how deadly this is explains much of that reluctance. The system seem to get it right.
The planning and orders system is also well adapted to the CCC problems of a commander of this level, and seems to work well in spite of possible confusing game interpretation. This apparent flaw can easily handled if you require more specific orders. In your example you could define a depth for the holding line, say x number of yards, or hexes. Unit will hold line to a depth of x, and then retire if forced back, or defend the reverse slope for 500 yards, then revert to reserve. Other units can then be ordered to advance when a forward position is reached by you enemy. This forces more rigor on the players, but that is his job after all, and when badly done should result in bad things happening.
I played the Panzer Britz in the day, even enjoyed the later Arab-Israelis module, but then I passed from SL to ASL and that filled my interests in tactical games. What I find missing in ASL is a reflection of the OBs at this level, for instance what are you commanding, and how it is structured. I have a very good understanding of the components these armies fought with. I think that TCS is great for that. Few players except experts can tell you what an American armoured infantry platoon was composed of, and how it changed from 1942-43 to 1944. BTW my favorite unit in the American army is the 1942-43 cavalry mechanized platoon.
All in all this system's designers have a good idea of what role they place the player in, something many don't seem to achieve. Looking forward to more on this.
I'm also into monster games, but lack interest in the operation level of command, but I do like constructing OBs.
Just before you said Audie Murphy I was thinking of the same Man…What a great example.
One of the things I find really compelling about TCS is how easy the game mechanics translate into fantastic narrative. So evocative and easy to picture in your mind's eye!
So true
🎉your videos really good thank you lol forward to what’s next
I've not had any time lately to get more content uploaded due to work. However, I anticipate having a lot more time between now and the end of the month. I've got another WiF playthrough video that is nearing completion, as well as another TCS video.
@@thetabletopsedge gnash awesome I’ve been sharing your stuff it’s very good. I do hope you get back to Tsww
Artillery understated? Have you using fast firing battalion fires? In my CC game artillery did a huge amount of work, including against tanks (something I think most other tactical games don't reflect well). Say 19 strength battalion. This is 38 in attack zone (7 hexes) or 76 if fast firing. That's 7 hexes attacked on third from top chart! Another 12 hexes hit on 38 chart. Assuming unit in Fire mode in protective terrain that's a loss on 21 or more in attack zone. Even dug-in infantry in protective terrain will be hit on the 21-25 chart taking losses on a 31 or more. If you catch a battalion on the move in open ground with this,....
I think I overstated my issue on artillery being "understated". 😁 It's really not even an issue. It should have been phrased as more of a question than a declarative statement. For the record (and I think I did say this in the video, I hope): I have no problem with artillery in TCS. In fact, I like how they differentiate between a normal battery fire and a continuous battery fire, for instance. If you want that barrage marker to stay on map for the whole turn, then you're going to need to fire that as a continuous barrage. I also find artillery ammo conservation a constant calculation for me in TCS, unlike a lot of other tactical games. Too many games let players fire off their arty endlessly and without thought. In TCS, you usually don't have that luxury, which means you really need to think about what you are going to need to do with your arty and prioritize its missions. There's an awful lot to like about the arty system in TCS, so I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't like it.
Artillery can indeed be deadly in TCS (including to vehicles, which you astutely pointed out). The only response I would have to the example you give is how many times can you afford to do that? The battalion fast fire mission would consume 9 HE ammo points. In GD'40, the Germans only have 10 HE ammo points at the start of the campaign scenario (but do receive more as additional batteries come into play). That would allow for only one battalion sized fast fire mission (although in fairness, that mission would be able to cover the entire village of Stonne and would almost certainly inflict at least 1 step loss, and likely 2-3, per hex in the village).
Artillery is absolutely vital to assaulting dug in defenders, as well as stopping assaults in their tracks. Even without a fast fire, I've seen well placed battalion Good Shoots decimate tightly packed attacking forces as they try to cross exposed ground.
Regarding vehicles, I think gamers (and maybe designers, too) think a step loss to a vehicle means the vehicle is destroyed (and probably brewed up). In reality, most vehicle kills were "mission kills", where the vehicle suffered some type of damage that rendered it combat ineffective, and it either withdrew from the fight or was abandoned by the crew. Frequently, these vehicles were recovered (if abandoned) and the relatively minor repairs were made, getting them back into action within a day or two. An artillery barrage could easily damage vision ports or periscopes on tanks, damage the tracks, or wound/incapacitate the crew through concussion or spalling, rendering the tank out of action without necessarily blowing it up or causing major damage. So it is nice to see artillery having an effect on vehicles that isn't necessarily common among other tactical games.
@@thetabletopsedge That's a fair point about ammunition but if it's available it is a game changer. In Canadian Crucible for example I think each side has 100+ rounds of HE each day.
Just uploaded the 7 page update for Hunters from the Sky to play with Op sheets and new landing rules…Can’t wait to get it up again.
Great! I'm looking forward to an opportunity to try HftS with the new updated rules as well.
Suggestions on tcs to try the system? GD42, canadian crucible? Having a hard time finding a decent game at this level and this may scratch the itch. Thanks for your very detailed gaming videos, as always
Because of the anemic publication schedule over the last decade, this is a trickier question than it should be. Currently, there are only 2 games still technically "in print" and available new from MMP (with a third about to hit its pre-order number).
The budget conscious choice would be Goose Green, the current pre-order game. It is quite small (roughly one reinforced battalion on each side) and therefore very manageable for new players. There is a tiny bit of armor, if you use the optional units, which can also give one a taste of that aspect of TCS. However, even if it hits the pre-order number in the next month, I'd be surprised if it shipped before the end of this year. And ultimately, it is roughly the equivalent of an appetizer, or even an amuse bouche, for the 5 course meal that is TCS.
Ariete is also inexpensive, but is almost entirely armor, and I don't think it would give one a good first look at the series. Not enough combined arms, or terrain for that matter.
GD'42 is a phenomenal TCS game. It includes the 4th edition rules and charts (which are definitely the ones I would recommend starting with). It's an interesting situation with plenty of combined arms and good terrain to deal with. It's also only $54 from MMP. The downsides are that they only have ziplock versions left (no dice included and you'd have to figure out a storage solution). The other potential downside is that it is a big game. It is 3 maps and 3 counter sheets. However, there are smaller scenarios, including several 1-mappers that can be good learning scenarios. If you have the space, I think GD'42 is a great game.
Fortunately, many of the older games are readily available on the secondary market, some at very reasonable prices. The only problem with the older games is that you would need to download the current rules and charts from the TCS support page. Also, any of the games before Black Wednesday do not have the current arty markers, so you'd have to make your own or find a copy of the 1996 Variant & Replacement Counters Christmas mailer from The Gamers. So while something like GD'40 or even Objective Schmidt might make my recommendation list, there is too much extra work involved to get them to a playable state with the latest (and best) version of the TCS rules.
I guess I'd have to say GD'42 would be my recommendation for someone looking to try out TCS. A quick check of ebay and BGG Marketplace shows copies of it available for anywhere from $50-$150. Or if you don't mind ziplocks, you can pick up a copy directly from MMP for $54.
Thank you for a very Informative video of TCS, and for the on going video series for this system. Very much appreciated! I have GD 42 and Force Eagles War, although this last one Is never talked about. I really like the system but I struggle to find a way to play It solo. I thought of making three op´s sheets for the OPFOR and picking one blind but haven´t tried that yet. Again thank you and looking forward to you´re next TCS video. Good care
Unfortunately, you won't see any Force Eagles War content on the channel, mostly because I have no firsthand experience with it. I did not play it back in the early 1990's when it was released. One factor that has kept me from acquiring a copy is that it is the only TCS game that the current rules edition is not backwards compatible with. I do not know the reason why that is so. I'm sure Force Eagles War is a solid game, and who knows, I may try to track down a copy one day to see just what the box contains (and hopefully figure out why it isn't forwards compatible with the current rules).
@@thetabletopsedge Thanks for you´re reply. No worries with regards to Force Eagles War. The title didn´t get to much love, and even Dean Essig tries not to remember It to much either so In that sense It´s like It´s been cursed. I remember reading someone´s comment that the game as It Is was to lethal In It´s warfare. Which makes me wonder how Goose Green will be. I started reading the rules last night and I kind of understand why the 4.00 rules, or any other rules (except the first edition) wont bolt on this title, and that´s due to the fact that the Modern Expansion Is a addition to the rules. They fit the rules written In 1989. In other words, the first edition rules. I hope to get my head around them and hopefully do a video and at the same time get my channel back up and going. You´re recent TCS videos have made me get back Into the hobby. Not only that, I saw you´re basement video and knowing you´re a 767 pilot well you sure got my attention now! Not that I am a pilot but I would have loved to! To old now and all I can do Is put In (which I have) all the hours I can In MSFS 2020, as I did with FSX, Prepard 3D and DCS World. Which brings me to, when are you gonna crack open For The Motherland? Have It, along with Whistling Death, Buffalo Wings, and The Speed of Heat by CoA.
@@hex2redonealpha102 Glad to hear you're "back in the game"! I was unaware that FEW's game specific rules were tailored to 1st edition TCS. That does make more sense now as to why the later editions aren't backwards compatible with it. If you haven't checked out Lee Forester's tutorial series yet, I recommend it. It'll serve as a nice compliment to your reading of the v4.0 rules. The examples he provides can be helpful in understanding how certain subsystems work.
I recently flew with a First Officer who, during a break in his initial training with my company, used MSFS 2020 to practice for his upcoming sim training. From what I've seen of MSFS 2020, it's as close as you can get to being in the plane without actually leaving the ground.
I actually filmed a review of WotML some months back, but wasn't happy with how it turned out so I didn't upload it. I would love to put some Fighting Wings content on the channel. I still have the raw footage, so maybe there's a way I can edit it together (and maybe film some supplementary stuff) and salvage something from it. I am really impressed with WotML. It's beautiful game with a ton of content. And the latest iteration of the FW rules is outstanding. I don't know if you are aware of the FW online community. They have a discussion group over at fighting-wings-games.groups.io/g/main. I think you have to request to join, but that's just a formality. JD Webster is very active on the site and he's always running PBeM games (including a lot of teaching games for FW newbies and old farts returning to the system for the first time in awhile). In fact, I'm in a PBeM game that JD just started and is running with 8 players (4 newbies). It is a scenario recreating the fight where Herschel "Herky" Greene and his flight jumped a dozen Ju 52's over Italy. The experienced guys are each flying 3 of the Tante Ju's, while the newbies are each flying a P-47 to get some experience with the system. In addition to JD, there are several other experienced FW players who regularly run PBeM games. If you enjoy the FW series of games, this is a fantastic resource!
No question that TCS doesn't get the attention it deserves, from both the community and MMP. That the series has sometimes chosen topics that maybe don't illustrate it at its best is probably a factor, but MMP's limp support also doesn't help.
At any rate, I have preordered Goose Green, and we're probably gonna play it when it does arrive.
You know my preference for larger games rather than smaller ones (although for some reason I really enjoy a lot of the smaller ASL scenarios...), but I too have pre-ordered Goose Green. Lee's preview of it actually has me interested in giving it a try. It's certainly small enough to be played in a single evening. While it appears to be a straightforward assault down the peninsula, the Brits are under pressure from time and the need to limit losses. I don't know that there's a ton of replay in the game (which is the case with most small games), but it does look like it might make a decent intro for new players to TCS, and given the variability in combat I can see multiple playthroughs unfolding differently each time.
My bigger concern is the future of the series. It's been 7 years since MMP released a "full sized" game for TCS. I don't know if it's a lack of quality submissions, or a lack of interest/support from MMP (or both). I would dearly love to see what Wig Graves could come up with for GD'43 and GD'44.
I think Ardwulf is right. What's tactical depends on the era - as well as the unit size.
Tactical means something different in ACW than it do in WWII
I should have clarified that the "unit size" metric of squad/platoon/company applies to the post-1900 era of warfare. This is primarily because of how units of various sizes were employed based on the technology available. Turn scale and time scale, though, are pretty consistent for tactical level gaming across eras. And the rule of thumb regarding the presence of supply/logistics rules in a game design also holds up well no matter the time period.
Based on this video I believe we are like-minded individuals as I too prefer more complicated games over the simpler, less detailed ones. Perhaps a reason for my preference for the older artillery rules instead of the new ones. I liked the ability to fire in patterns and the direct vs general support batteries. An other cool feature is the ability to mount infantry on a tank and drive into the enemy's hex, dismount and start shooting. Two questions: do you think that on a Prep Defense Op Sheet, with all platoons dug-in, some units could move to a threatened sector, thus loosing their dug-in positions, in what might be called a local counter attack? I did that in GD '41 once.
Second: how does one keep track of vehicle impulses? All have 3, or just armour?
One way of playing TCS is have a friend who is familiar with the game draw up the Op Sheets for one side. This increases Fog of War, at least in the beginning. I also like GTS, have you tried Mercury and compared it to Hunters from the Sky? Thanks for this great video series, appreciate all your efforts.
PS: How is GOSS coming along, do you still enjoy it or have you aborted?
I, too, thought the arty patterns you could call for were a unique aspect to TCS, and certainly nothing I had seen in other tactical games.
As for your Prep Defense question, I absolutely think it is permissible under the intent of the rules for a unit on a Prep Defense sheet to redeploy within the defined defensive position/sector to conduct a local counterattack to retake a lost position. As you point out, the moment the unit leaves its initial hex it will lose its "dug in", and cannot regain it until/unless it becomes part of another implemented Prep Defense op sheet. Losing the dug in benefit can be a big deal, but sometimes that's the only option to preserve a defensive position.
The 4th edition informational marker set comes with some markers labeled "Impulse 1", "Impulse 2", etc. You simply place these markers on the vehicles that have used their 1st or 2nd (or 3rd) impulse during the turn. If you don't have any 4th edition markers, you could easily come up with an ersatz solution (perhaps placing the appropriate loss marker on top of the vehicle, since I don't believe multi-step vehicle counters appeared prior to GD'42 and 4th edition TCS).
All vehicles, except carriers, may use the 3 impulse rules. In practical terms, this will be tanks, assault guns, tank destroyers, self propelled artillery, and so on. Trucks, jeeps, and Commonwealth universal carriers do not get to use the 3 impulse rules.
I am a big fan of GTS. In fact I'm currently getting a buddy up to speed on it with TGD. I have OM and it is, like most GTS games so far, quite large. The entire map area of Hunters from the Sky fits on a small slice of one of OM's many maps. HftS is also much shorter in terms of how much of the battle it covers. HftS is very much focused on the efforts to take, or defend, Maleme airfield. It wraps up on 23MAY. One of the things I enjoy doing is comparing map coverage and OB's of games that cover the same topic, but at slightly different scales. I may do a short video on this with some examples I have. It is quite interesting to look at the maps for Atlantic Wall (in the GOSS series) and compare them to the maps for TGD in GTS.
Speaking of GOSS, I would very much like to get another video out on it. I want to discuss the supply/logistics system, as well as the artillery. I also plan on discussing the lessons learned from my big game at Winterfest. While I haven't given up on GOSS, there are a few red flags popping up. I'm not sure if they are due mainly to the unique situation of Wacht am Rhein, or if they are systemic problems. GOSS has been a frustrating game in many ways. There are some excellent elements to the system, but learning it was a real bear, and there are a number of very questionable decisions that have been made by DG with the designs. I need to explore it further, and intend on producing some videos to document that exploration.
Thanks for watching!
Is there any chance for a new video in some time?
Just finished work for the month (except for perhaps a couple days), so I'll have time now to put together a few videos over the next couple of weeks.
@@thetabletopsedgeis there any chance for your return to youtube? XD
@@czujnywilczek6832 Don't worry, I'm still here! Real life issues (like work) have severely limited the time I have to keep creating videos. However, I do have the M/J'39 WiF turn filmed in its entirety and am now working on getting it uploaded. I have also begun filming the J/A'39 turn. So there will be more to come as soon as I can get the time to finish the videos.
Great voice!
Havent seen anything for a while, everything ok?
Just fine. Thanks for asking! Work and real life stuff haven't been giving me the time I'd like to do some video work. I'm hoping to be able to get something edited and uploaded before the end of the month.
@@thetabletopsedge Glad to hear, mostly for you being well and a little because I really enjoy your videos
While you are talking about Close Assaults, I see the images of the recent videos from Ukraine, where the Ukrainian heroes are assaulting trenched russian occupiers.
Yes, TCS games do an excellent job of providing a vivid narrative as you are playing them. it really adds to the excitement and enjoyment of the game.