I would imagine the full-armed soldiers facing the hidden minefields of France and Belgium in ww2 or the pit traps, etc. in the jungle of Vietnam would hesitate to go anywhere without some sort of scout/point man going ahead and looking out for the rest of the squad.
Exactly. The rule makes sense. Remember Squad A is a squad, not a squad of riflemen and a squad of scouts. The scout for the squad is just the soldier tasked with recognotering. I think the game works well and this is an interesting aspect to be playing with. I, for example, always target scouts first because it stops basically that whole squad.
The point about the scouts being required to go to a location before the riflemen go to that location seems like a good question to me. Based on some of the designers' notes at the game's BGG page (forum post "Modeling the Rifle Platoon"), it was actually part of infantry doctrine at the time, at least for the US: "A leading platoon covers its zone of reconnaissance with scouts. They act as a screen to investigate possible danger areas, seek out the enemy, and prevent surprise hostile fire. The distance the scouts precede the platoon is governed by orders of the platoon leader and varies with the ground and with the probable position of the enemy. (FM 7-10, Infantry Field Manual Rifle Company, Rifle Regiment, pars. 106f and 142d.)" Others have already mentioned it, but I also noticed that you may have missed a few opportunities to use the scout's "recon" action, which allows you to remove-from-the-game any FoW card in your hand and then draw a card from your deck to replace it. Toward the end when you were seeking a rifleman card to take control of a VP location, but you were drawing lots of scouts and FoW, this may have helped your odds of pulling that rifleman.
Yes, that is something that I definitely missed. I think I was focused on defending the key VP locations I was in by trying to take out the baddies in those spaces. If those scouts had gone down because they were using the recon action, it may have also been a game losing move. But I definitely appreciate the help and will use that next time!
In that playthrough I didn't see one turn where you removed any fog of war cards from your deck. Did I miss something? Those cards kept filling up your deck, while your rifleman cards were being shot/discarded out of the deck by the enemy. If you had thinned your deck, I would imagine that you could have won a few turns before the enemy player did.
Normandy. There are no front lines. Scouting is essential so your squad does not fall into an ambush or a trap. You certainly do not just go ahead blindly. That would lead to the loss of many men unnecessarily.
It's possible - I don't know enough about the specific history, except that it was "hedgerow hell." I think there were front lines there as much as there are front lines in any conflict though, unlike, say, Vietnam. But if I am wrong on that I am happy to stand corrected!
Someone else already mentioned it, but you need to get the Fog of War out of your deck. I saw many turns early in the game where you used FoW for initiative when you could have held on to it and trashed it. Or times when you elected to attack with a scout instead of doing a recon action. It’s also a huge help to junk up the opponent’s deck with FoW. Something else I didn’t see you do. There are some scenarios where I barely move from the starting position for the first 7-8 turns with the exception of one or two scout actions. If you bolster 2 extra scouts, then you can easily balance the incoming FoW with getting rid of them and even do a few conceal actions to hurt your opponent. Once your deck is clean and your opponent’s is a disaster, hunker down some scouts and transition into whatever you need, be it riflemen or a good damage dealer depending on the scenario.
Interesting! This is exactly the kind of commentary that I was asking for, so I could learn more about the system and get some ideas on how to improve!
@@LegendaryTactics You're welcome! In the first couple games I played I also ended up with a total mess of a deck. But then I thought I would try something silly and go a bit overboard and bolster 2 scouts, then prioritize the following: Recon, Conceal, then scouting objective tiles. If you have 4 scouts in an otherwise fairly clean deck (0 or 1 FoW) then scouting and adding another FoW or 2 can be cleaned up again quickly. Also, remember that using Recon not only removes FoW but also DRAWS you another card which, if your deck is clean, will almost certainly give you another action! All of this is of course assuming you don't absolutely need to block your opponent from landing an objective. But that's another reason why adding 2 scouts is great: they can move 2 spots for emergency blocks, and they have better defense than most units so they're more difficult to remove. After playing several matches I've come to realize that the game is as much about deck management (for your own deck, but also keeping track of what units are a threat from your opponent) as it is dudes on a map. But it's really difficult to see the rewards of good deck management because, well... dudes on a map are right there, so tangible and visible to what they're doing for you. And it's way more fun to push around dudes on a map versus manage decks. Another couple tips: 1) the Platoon Sergeant is such a powerful card. You almost always want to use it for Command 2, because in a clean deck that will give you 4 actions instead of 3. There are some exceptions obviously, especially in later scenarios where the Sergeant is the only way to Bolster non-squad cards like Snipers. Also, if you're in a bad deck state, then you may not want to trigger a bad shuffle. If you have 1 card in your draw pile, and 15 in your discard, then drawing 2 cards means you will now have 14 cards in your draw pile, and the Platoon Sergeant is not one of them. So it will be at least 4 more turns before you see it again, and could be as many as 9 or 10. This scenario just shows another reason why it's so important to have a clean and small deck. If you had only 6 cards in your discard, then it reduces to something more like 2-4 turns before you see the Sergeant again. 2) The opponent's supply is public information, and if you remember which cards you have attacked and hit, that tells you how many cards of each type they have in total in their deck. This allows you to figure out which cards are more of a threat than others. Sure, there may be an enemy sniper in a very good position, but if there are no sniper cards in their deck then it can't be a threat until more of them are bolstered. Similarly, if you know he only has one sniper is his deck and he used it on his last turn, then there is no way he can use a sniper again until going through the rest of the draw pile, so maybe prioritize other threats. 3) Regarding the choice of whether to use the Scout's Conceal action, keep in mind that this is much more effective when the opponent has very few cards left in their draw pile. If their draw pile is 20 cards, then a FoW you give them from conceal won't appear in their hand until about 6 turns later at minimum. So maybe there are better actions you could do. Doing a Recon on yourself is almost always a better choice than Conceal against your opponent.
Why I'm beginning to dislike Undaunted: Normandy - 1) I'm not playing it right now, 2) Nate's complaints about scouting which makes complete sense, 3) I'm not playing it right now.
Ha ha ha, maybe we will have to play a game next time I am up your way, and we will also have to try Academy Games' Conflict of Heroes, which might work for you as well.
I love Awakening the Bear. So many tense moments. Academy Games makes generally great games. Although as this a vid for an Osprey Games product, I'll add that their games have great production values and the games are pretty solid (even if you have to scout). Lost a nail-biter tonight. My opponent's machine guns just pinned me down for too long.
I like Memoir 44, another new war game player friendly game, and another game that uses cards to drive the game. I've had games where an opponent and/or myself will need just one card for a particular map section to activate a unit to make a certain game winning shot, and not get it. Very similar situation to what you have here in this video. To my way of thinking, these are entry level card games, and you just have to accept that you are subject to the luck of the draw in a card game. Kinda like Yahtzee and the luck of the dice. What this game does very well, is it makes a great gateway for players interested in the history to explore war gaming as a light war game. I frequently hear similar frustrating comments regarding the luck of the draw from people relating Combat Commander experiences. The answer to the frustration is for a player to explore more detailed games on the subject, that put more emphasis on player decision making and less on luck factors. This is the kind of game that a player new to the war gaming genre can use to test the water. I'm a long-time war gamer, and when I play games like this, I just focus on enjoying the experience. I still enjoy playing these games too, they have the added benefit of usually having shorter playing times, which is nice when you're looking for that option. Cards, like dice, are just sometimes not going to go your way! I feel like when players express this type of frustration, it is a signal to me that they are ready to try a more involved war game!
Thank you for that insightful comment. Maybe I am just overthinking the whole thing. I do like the fact that games can be completed quite quickly. I did enjoy the system in the Battle of Britain version as well.
We are not obligated to like every game we play.....I own a physical copy but my wife has no interest in trying it so I keep it around for solo play (two handed). A big sign the game might not be for you is frustration when playing.....it's supposed to be fun, remember? :)
Very true - I guess I had high expectations as the system is so popular and everyone else seems to love it. Based on comments here, I will stick with it and focus especially on the later scenarios, which sound like they could be more interesting. I will certainly let you all know what I discover!
As a simple system that attracts new people to the genre, I think it works well. But for those of us already into the wargaming hobby, it might be best to stick with other designs....
I just thought of a rule change: Instead of scouts generating FOW, what if other units could walk into unscouted territory and each time they do, they generate FOW. (Maybe each time they leave an unscouted territory too). I’ve no idea if this could work but there might be something to it. I have to believe DT and TB thought of this when they designed the game so there probably is a good reason why it doesn’t work.
You need to do an interview with DT! In reality you are too good for this game. A game player who has made about 60 videos each covering a single card for Twilight Struggle and about 30 for Diplomacy find Undaunted kind of simple....DUH! This is a gateway game. It is designed to be simple but allows the players to do anything and go anywhere they want. It is bringing a lot of new people into wargaming and a lot of women love this game. This is a very good thing. Did you play later scenarios against a good opponent? Perhaps the new Stalingrad Campaign where you will have a lot more units on a board 3 times bigger might make it more challenging for you?
Agreeing with the above. The first few scenerios are more like tutorial missions as they slowly add the different units to the mix. They also seem unbalanced when one side has a unit that the other doesnt (machine gun, sniper). The game doesnt really open up until the later scenerios when you can select from any of the options.
I will reach out to DT and see what he says - I would be happy to meet/interview him! And I am happy to see it is introducing new people to the genre, and there are people excited about it and talking about it. I will keep going with the game regardless (I am told the later scenarios are great), and see how the Stalingrad campaign works at some point. Thanks for the suggestions!
OK, I will keep trying the system until the later scenarios, as you suggest. I am certainly going to give such a popular system a fair shake. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Going back to my original post, you are aa very skilled player, you are not the person the game was made for. By all means try a late scenario against a good human opponent. If it is just the system you don't like, that will not change. That is why I suggested a Zoom interview with DT. He has been on quite a few podcasts and videos. You can ask about the thing that don't seem right. BTW anyone who says Netrunner is the best game is OK in my book. Great channel keep up the good work.
Doesn't digital version follow the updated Control rule? CHANGES TO SUPPORT ACTIONS Control Take control of the tile that the unit’s combat counter is on by flipping the control marker to its controlled side. If your opponent controls that tile, flip their control marker back to its scouted side. If your opponent controls that tile and has a unit there, you cannot take control of the tile. This means you may take control of a tile where your opponent has a unit, but only if they do not already control the tile. This replaces the rules for the Control action as written in the Undaunted: Normandy rulebook and applies to all scenarios in Undaunted: Normandy and Undaunted: Reinforcements, whether you are playing with one, two, or four players.
Apparently not - the rules require a riflemen squad to be in the space (with no enemy units) and it requires a control action in order to take control of the empty square. It is not automatic
Well with the new rule, there is no automation as well, you will still have to play the Rifleman card in order to use the Control action. With the updated rule at 7:33 in the video, you could have taken control of the 2VP tile your Rifleman were in, instead of moving it to the above tile.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I would imagine the full-armed soldiers facing the hidden minefields of France and Belgium in ww2 or the pit traps, etc. in the jungle of Vietnam would hesitate to go anywhere without some sort of scout/point man going ahead and looking out for the rest of the squad.
Exactly. The rule makes sense. Remember Squad A is a squad, not a squad of riflemen and a squad of scouts. The scout for the squad is just the soldier tasked with recognotering. I think the game works well and this is an interesting aspect to be playing with. I, for example, always target scouts first because it stops basically that whole squad.
The point about the scouts being required to go to a location before the riflemen go to that location seems like a good question to me. Based on some of the designers' notes at the game's BGG page (forum post "Modeling the Rifle Platoon"), it was actually part of infantry doctrine at the time, at least for the US:
"A leading platoon covers its zone of reconnaissance with scouts. They act as a screen to investigate possible danger areas, seek out the enemy, and prevent surprise hostile fire. The distance the scouts precede the platoon is governed by orders of the platoon leader and varies with the ground and with the probable position of the enemy. (FM 7-10, Infantry Field Manual Rifle Company, Rifle Regiment, pars. 106f and 142d.)"
Others have already mentioned it, but I also noticed that you may have missed a few opportunities to use the scout's "recon" action, which allows you to remove-from-the-game any FoW card in your hand and then draw a card from your deck to replace it. Toward the end when you were seeking a rifleman card to take control of a VP location, but you were drawing lots of scouts and FoW, this may have helped your odds of pulling that rifleman.
Yes, that is something that I definitely missed. I think I was focused on defending the key VP locations I was in by trying to take out the baddies in those spaces. If those scouts had gone down because they were using the recon action, it may have also been a game losing move. But I definitely appreciate the help and will use that next time!
In that playthrough I didn't see one turn where you removed any fog of war cards from your deck. Did I miss something? Those cards kept filling up your deck, while your rifleman cards were being shot/discarded out of the deck by the enemy. If you had thinned your deck, I would imagine that you could have won a few turns before the enemy player did.
If he had used reckon to thin and cycle deck he would have came out on top.
Normandy. There are no front lines. Scouting is essential so your squad does not fall into an ambush or a trap. You certainly do not just go ahead blindly. That would lead to the loss of many men unnecessarily.
It's possible - I don't know enough about the specific history, except that it was "hedgerow hell." I think there were front lines there as much as there are front lines in any conflict though, unlike, say, Vietnam. But if I am wrong on that I am happy to stand corrected!
this game is the perfect gateway to wargaming, should not be reviewed as a simulation because is not his design goal. I love it
Yes, it works well as such. I guess I lean more towards heavier games
Picard said it best. "It is possible to commit no mistakes, and still lose."
True, but here I feel I didn't make many egregious mistakes, but was a victim of dumb luck....perhaps I missed something?
Someone else already mentioned it, but you need to get the Fog of War out of your deck. I saw many turns early in the game where you used FoW for initiative when you could have held on to it and trashed it. Or times when you elected to attack with a scout instead of doing a recon action.
It’s also a huge help to junk up the opponent’s deck with FoW. Something else I didn’t see you do.
There are some scenarios where I barely move from the starting position for the first 7-8 turns with the exception of one or two scout actions. If you bolster 2 extra scouts, then you can easily balance the incoming FoW with getting rid of them and even do a few conceal actions to hurt your opponent.
Once your deck is clean and your opponent’s is a disaster, hunker down some scouts and transition into whatever you need, be it riflemen or a good damage dealer depending on the scenario.
Interesting! This is exactly the kind of commentary that I was asking for, so I could learn more about the system and get some ideas on how to improve!
@@LegendaryTactics You're welcome!
In the first couple games I played I also ended up with a total mess of a deck. But then I thought I would try something silly and go a bit overboard and bolster 2 scouts, then prioritize the following: Recon, Conceal, then scouting objective tiles. If you have 4 scouts in an otherwise fairly clean deck (0 or 1 FoW) then scouting and adding another FoW or 2 can be cleaned up again quickly. Also, remember that using Recon not only removes FoW but also DRAWS you another card which, if your deck is clean, will almost certainly give you another action! All of this is of course assuming you don't absolutely need to block your opponent from landing an objective. But that's another reason why adding 2 scouts is great: they can move 2 spots for emergency blocks, and they have better defense than most units so they're more difficult to remove.
After playing several matches I've come to realize that the game is as much about deck management (for your own deck, but also keeping track of what units are a threat from your opponent) as it is dudes on a map. But it's really difficult to see the rewards of good deck management because, well... dudes on a map are right there, so tangible and visible to what they're doing for you. And it's way more fun to push around dudes on a map versus manage decks.
Another couple tips: 1) the Platoon Sergeant is such a powerful card. You almost always want to use it for Command 2, because in a clean deck that will give you 4 actions instead of 3. There are some exceptions obviously, especially in later scenarios where the Sergeant is the only way to Bolster non-squad cards like Snipers. Also, if you're in a bad deck state, then you may not want to trigger a bad shuffle. If you have 1 card in your draw pile, and 15 in your discard, then drawing 2 cards means you will now have 14 cards in your draw pile, and the Platoon Sergeant is not one of them. So it will be at least 4 more turns before you see it again, and could be as many as 9 or 10. This scenario just shows another reason why it's so important to have a clean and small deck. If you had only 6 cards in your discard, then it reduces to something more like 2-4 turns before you see the Sergeant again.
2) The opponent's supply is public information, and if you remember which cards you have attacked and hit, that tells you how many cards of each type they have in total in their deck. This allows you to figure out which cards are more of a threat than others. Sure, there may be an enemy sniper in a very good position, but if there are no sniper cards in their deck then it can't be a threat until more of them are bolstered. Similarly, if you know he only has one sniper is his deck and he used it on his last turn, then there is no way he can use a sniper again until going through the rest of the draw pile, so maybe prioritize other threats.
3) Regarding the choice of whether to use the Scout's Conceal action, keep in mind that this is much more effective when the opponent has very few cards left in their draw pile. If their draw pile is 20 cards, then a FoW you give them from conceal won't appear in their hand until about 6 turns later at minimum. So maybe there are better actions you could do. Doing a Recon on yourself is almost always a better choice than Conceal against your opponent.
Scouting is what made me hesitate. I decided to stick with Memoir '44 instead.
The command/control system in Memoir 44 seems better to me, although I haven't played Memoir 44 in a long time.
Why I'm beginning to dislike Undaunted: Normandy -
1) I'm not playing it right now,
2) Nate's complaints about scouting which makes complete sense,
3) I'm not playing it right now.
Ha ha ha, maybe we will have to play a game next time I am up your way, and we will also have to try Academy Games' Conflict of Heroes, which might work for you as well.
I love Awakening the Bear. So many tense moments. Academy Games makes generally great games. Although as this a vid for an Osprey Games product, I'll add that their games have great production values and the games are pretty solid (even if you have to scout).
Lost a nail-biter tonight. My opponent's machine guns just pinned me down for too long.
I like Memoir 44, another new war game player friendly game, and another game that uses cards to drive the game. I've had games where an opponent and/or myself will need just one card for a particular map section to activate a unit to make a certain game winning shot, and not get it. Very similar situation to what you have here in this video. To my way of thinking, these are entry level card games, and you just have to accept that you are subject to the luck of the draw in a card game. Kinda like Yahtzee and the luck of the dice. What this game does very well, is it makes a great gateway for players interested in the history to explore war gaming as a light war game. I frequently hear similar frustrating comments regarding the luck of the draw from people relating Combat Commander experiences. The answer to the frustration is for a player to explore more detailed games on the subject, that put more emphasis on player decision making and less on luck factors. This is the kind of game that a player new to the war gaming genre can use to test the water. I'm a long-time war gamer, and when I play games like this, I just focus on enjoying the experience. I still enjoy playing these games too, they have the added benefit of usually having shorter playing times, which is nice when you're looking for that option. Cards, like dice, are just sometimes not going to go your way! I feel like when players express this type of frustration, it is a signal to me that they are ready to try a more involved war game!
Thank you for that insightful comment. Maybe I am just overthinking the whole thing. I do like the fact that games can be completed quite quickly. I did enjoy the system in the Battle of Britain version as well.
We are not obligated to like every game we play.....I own a physical copy but my wife has no interest in trying it so I keep it around for solo play (two handed). A big sign the game might not be for you is frustration when playing.....it's supposed to be fun, remember? :)
Very true - I guess I had high expectations as the system is so popular and everyone else seems to love it. Based on comments here, I will stick with it and focus especially on the later scenarios, which sound like they could be more interesting. I will certainly let you all know what I discover!
You have to use your scouts to remove the fog of war cards. Otherwise, those cards will kill you.
Yes, I have seen that suggestion in the comments here - thanks for your help! I'll hopefully post a playthrough of a victory at some point soon!
@@LegendaryTactics Excellent. That's what the AI bot prioritizes for a lot. So, if you don't, the bot will have a big advantage over you.
Agree entirely. I am not a fan of the game system.
As a simple system that attracts new people to the genre, I think it works well. But for those of us already into the wargaming hobby, it might be best to stick with other designs....
I just thought of a rule change: Instead of scouts generating FOW, what if other units could walk into unscouted territory and each time they do, they generate FOW. (Maybe each time they leave an unscouted territory too). I’ve no idea if this could work but there might be something to it.
I have to believe DT and TB thought of this when they designed the game so there probably is a good reason why it doesn’t work.
You need to do an interview with DT! In reality you are too good for this game. A game player who has made about 60 videos each covering a single card for Twilight Struggle and about 30 for Diplomacy find Undaunted kind of simple....DUH! This is a gateway game. It is designed to be simple but allows the players to do anything and go anywhere they want. It is bringing a lot of new people into wargaming and a lot of women love this game. This is a very good thing. Did you play later scenarios against a good opponent? Perhaps the new Stalingrad Campaign where you will have a lot more units on a board 3 times bigger might make it more challenging for you?
Agreeing with the above. The first few scenerios are more like tutorial missions as they slowly add the different units to the mix. They also seem unbalanced when one side has a unit that the other doesnt (machine gun, sniper). The game doesnt really open up until the later scenerios when you can select from any of the options.
I will reach out to DT and see what he says - I would be happy to meet/interview him! And I am happy to see it is introducing new people to the genre, and there are people excited about it and talking about it. I will keep going with the game regardless (I am told the later scenarios are great), and see how the Stalingrad campaign works at some point. Thanks for the suggestions!
OK, I will keep trying the system until the later scenarios, as you suggest. I am certainly going to give such a popular system a fair shake. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Going back to my original post, you are aa very skilled player, you are not the person the game was made for. By all means try a late scenario against a good human opponent. If it is just the system you don't like, that will not change. That is why I suggested a Zoom interview with DT. He has been on quite a few podcasts and videos. You can ask about the thing that don't seem right. BTW anyone who says Netrunner is the best game is OK in my book. Great channel keep up the good work.
Doesn't digital version follow the updated Control rule?
CHANGES TO SUPPORT ACTIONS
Control
Take control of the tile that the unit’s combat counter is on by flipping the control marker to its
controlled side.
If your opponent controls that tile, flip their control marker back to its scouted side.
If your opponent controls that tile and has a unit there, you cannot take control of the tile.
This means you may take control of a tile where your opponent has a unit, but only if they do not
already control the tile.
This replaces the rules for the Control action as written in the Undaunted: Normandy rulebook
and applies to all scenarios in Undaunted: Normandy and Undaunted: Reinforcements, whether
you are playing with one, two, or four players.
Apparently not - the rules require a riflemen squad to be in the space (with no enemy units) and it requires a control action in order to take control of the empty square. It is not automatic
Well with the new rule, there is no automation as well, you will still have to play the Rifleman card in order to use the Control action.
With the updated rule at 7:33 in the video, you could have taken control of the 2VP tile your Rifleman were in, instead of moving it to the above tile.
Thank you for your honest thoughts!