This is sort of similar to Shark vs Tornado or Batman vs Superman but with board wargames...
Having played both Blocks in the East (BITE) and Eastfront, i thought I'd give a very brief comparison:
> I love Eastfront, I did not like BITE.
> Eastfront is design for effect game. It limits its rule complexity and trims down the number of components by rolling air power and supply all into HQ strength steps and brings out the severity of the conflict through its weather rules and map design.
> BITE on the other hand goes the other way and has a more is more philosophy with more smaller hexes, probably three times the number of blocks and both air power and supply represented explicitly
> The base rules for Eastfront are marginally more complex however in practice its much easier to play than BITE. BITES core rules could be mistaken for an Axis and Allies evolution but it layers on a tonne of chrome and lots of resource management with the advanced rules. The final effect is a lot of work.
> In play I found i spent much less time hunting for units or counting things in Eastfront and much more time considering the merits of a break through to Moscow over piling more forces into Leningrad.
> Both feel like epic eastern front games.
> Eastfront has better map art.
> For me these two games taught me something about myself as a Wargamer. For a while I though that deep orders of battle and explicit simulation of oil supply were important to me. With BITE I found that they were better in my minds eye than in practice. I realise now I prefer games that make me think with clever mechanics and economy of components.
> In general I am far less inclined to put down cash on a game with more than 500 counters than I used to be. Sorting counters or blocks is becoming more effort than its worth.
> Kev over at the Bigboardgaming.com prefers BITE, and he knows his stuff. Check out his vids and posts if you want to muddy the waters, as there is no consensus opinion.
Having played both Blocks in the East (BITE) and Eastfront, i thought I'd give a very brief comparison:
> I love Eastfront, I did not like BITE.
> Eastfront is design for effect game. It limits its rule complexity and trims down the number of components by rolling air power and supply all into HQ strength steps and brings out the severity of the conflict through its weather rules and map design.
> BITE on the other hand goes the other way and has a more is more philosophy with more smaller hexes, probably three times the number of blocks and both air power and supply represented explicitly
> The base rules for Eastfront are marginally more complex however in practice its much easier to play than BITE. BITES core rules could be mistaken for an Axis and Allies evolution but it layers on a tonne of chrome and lots of resource management with the advanced rules. The final effect is a lot of work.
> In play I found i spent much less time hunting for units or counting things in Eastfront and much more time considering the merits of a break through to Moscow over piling more forces into Leningrad.
> Both feel like epic eastern front games.
> Eastfront has better map art.
> For me these two games taught me something about myself as a Wargamer. For a while I though that deep orders of battle and explicit simulation of oil supply were important to me. With BITE I found that they were better in my minds eye than in practice. I realise now I prefer games that make me think with clever mechanics and economy of components.
> In general I am far less inclined to put down cash on a game with more than 500 counters than I used to be. Sorting counters or blocks is becoming more effort than its worth.
> Kev over at the Bigboardgaming.com prefers BITE, and he knows his stuff. Check out his vids and posts if you want to muddy the waters, as there is no consensus opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment