Set-Up and Basics of Play = 2:38 Playthrough = 15:32 Rules error - Saxon "Ravage" feat prevents the Saxons from assaulting strongholds in the space, which would have prevented their win at the end of the first epoch.
50:15 Just in case anybody is watching this, half of one prosperity rounded down is zero. That prosperity cube should not have been placed in the region.
34:34 Saxon Feats 4.4.3 Ravage: In those Raid and Battle Regions, Plunder is not limited by the Region’s Population (only by carrying capacity, 1.7.4), but no ==> Saxon Assault is allowed.
CRAP! I got so distracted by the whole "no evade or withdraw" text on the player aid that I totally forgot about that limitation. That would have drastically changed results... those sneaky Saxons! Thanks for the catch @goran!
Wow... had to check and make sure I was on the right channel :). Didn’t know you liked these. It’s good cause play throughs of coin games are few and far between... ones that are explained well anyways.
They are VERY new to me. One of our Patreon supporters asked me to do Cuba Libre, and I enjoyed that enough to try one more. At this point I'm a big fan of the system.
Thanks for this great play through. I just got this game. Huge COIN fan. This video will help understand this complex beast. Please continue to make more war game videos, especially games from GMT.
Glad to see another coin game being covered. Been thinking about getting into the coin games, just don't know where to start and it's hard to find good playthroughs. So thanks.
Thanks for this play though, I really like your explanations and discussion! I am getting Cuba Libre and Ghandi in this week, so I am trying to get a grasp on the COIN system and how it will be for solo play.
Nice! Cuba should be a good intro, and I hear Gandhi’s new card-based AI is a better version of the system. If it helps, I also did a Cuba Libre play video you can watch.
Thanks for this play through, Mike. You got me turned onto COIN and GMT, but my bank account is now very scared. Haha. So I have this on order along with Falling Sky from GMT when my local OLGS gets in their next order (I’m in Australia). But I couldn’t wait so I’ve picked up Fire in the Lake and I’m wading through the intro playbook scenario. And loving it. I’ll be joining your Patreon next week thanks to you and Colin. Love this channel.
Thanks Justin, that’s really generous of you. And you named 2 of the 3 I want to play next. Gandhi is the 3rd, cause I’m really curious to see this new card-based AI everyone is talking about.
@@OneStopCoopShop I'd say the level of difficulty ranges form 8 to 10 out of ten, so they are all pretty much difficult. Cuba Libre and Andean Abyss must be slightly lower. I just want to mention that the volume of your voice is pretty low on that video, so I'll finish watching later, when the house is more calm ;)
Great video, thanks for sharing! Really interesting game, but I am not sure I would get it to the table very often. Fascinating historical period, and not well represented by many tabletop games. Maybe someday...
If this period of English history interests you, you might like episodes of The Time Team. Many of their excavations are focused on sites from this period. Good play-through, Mike!
I feel so embarrassed about that one :(. And the stupid thing is I was playing it correctly until this playthrough, and then I guess trying to manage everything made me forget. No wonder the Saxons steamrolled me! PS - FANTASTIC job on this design, and I enjoyed your interview with Liz.
@@OneStopCoopShop Don't feel bad: you did a most excellent job overall, providing IMO a very smooth and efficient presentation of the key game mechanisms in particular. This little mistake tipped your game into an early Saxon victory, but this scenario is designed to place all factions on the brink... And a lesson you may learn from this game is that Foederati must be used with moderation, especially if monies are in short supply (this initial Train in 8 locations hurt you big in the long run I think too... ;-) ). Anyway, I'm always delighted to see people enjoying this design :-)
Hi! Great job! Just one question. At 37:22. Raiders, per pre-tactic battle, decide to Battle (as they are able to remove the settlement, regardless the defender strategy). Then - considering nobody is ambushing -, the Foederati must now decide either to withdraw (up to 2 units), leaving one of them on the field, or stay on the field and battle with all 3 units. The Non-Player chart states that defenders withdraw (1.) if their defense could save the stronghold (not our case, as you played in the video) or (2.) if doing so, they would remove more enemies than fighting on the field. Well, the 3 Saxon Foederati could removed, by melee, 6 riders (1 loss each), and then suffer only 1 loss from Harass conducted by the 3 raiders left (1/2 loss each); and so ending the battle without any assault. So, I think nor of the (2) priority is met (in order to withdraw Foederati), just because, as we said, if they withdraw, they not only loose the stronghold but also kill less enemies than fighting on the field. Am I wrong? :) Thanks from Rome, Maurice
Well dang it, I forgot the Foederati would gain first strike in the field battle, which as you said would mean they wouldn't have been lost at all! So this has some bigger implications 1 - Not sure you realized, but the Foederati were MY soldiers, so the AI defense wouldn't apply to them. It was my stupid choice to withdraw :) 2 - That said, since the AI would look at the Foederati, and ASSUME they wouldn't be stupid like I was, they would never have attacked in the first place, because the assault would not have been successful! So great catch!
@@OneStopCoopShop :) ... but now I am a little bit confused, because something was wrong in my comment. I try to explain. I am not sure that the IA Saxons riders wouldn't have fight. In fact, the pre-tactic AI battle rule (8.4.2., 8.5.4 "play note", and 8.6.5.) for riders states that, regardless of the (next) strategy of defenders (real player or AI), attacker riders opt for Battle if their Assault for sure will remove the stronghold. Well, I think that this means that we take into account (1.) (by using the chart) only the number of enemy units that could withdraw (up to the stronghold capacity, in your case 2), and not considering the others (eventually) remaining in the field; and (2.) considering even the possibility of a coup de main (but unknowing the die result of it). So, in your game situation, I think that Riders will opt to fight. If fact, for sure 9 riders can assault a settlement with the 2 withdrawing Foederati units in it. Then it's defender turn. Assume for a moment that the Foederati Civitates are played also by AI. Will they withdraw (with 2 units, leaving one on the field to melee), or will they fight the field battle? The AI chart seems to conduct to a withdraw (and the lost of the stronghold and briton control of region!). In fact, the withdrawal rule for AI states that defenders withdraw (a) if they can save the stronghold (not our case, we know it), or (b) if, by doing that, they will remove more enemies than fighting on the field (our case). As I read it now, the AI will withdraw (with 2 units) because they will kill 7 riders total (1 in melee with the one not withdrawing unit, and 6 per escalade and storm); instead of 6 riders killed if they opt to do not withdraw and fight in field battle. If it is so, in the end, AI prefers to lose the stronghold but killing more enemies, than save it killing less. Tell me that I am wrong! Help me please ;)))))
@@mauriziogualdieri4001 I could be TOTALLY wrong, since I'm certainly not an expert on the game, but I interpreted the rules as saying that removing the assault needed to be a 100% possibility (or at least possible with a successful coup roll). That's certainly not the case here, since they would have to assume substandard play for the assault to even take place, so I think they would not attack. I think that's a cleaner rule in general. Separately, the number killed is identical. If 2 saxons withdraw, the one remaining will kill 2 raiders, then 2 will die storming the walls (2 defenders at 1/2), then 2 will die in the final melee. Since it's 6 dying in either case, I would assume the AI wouldn't be dumb enough to let the stronghold fall, like I did :)
@@OneStopCoopShop :) You are right. Settlement does not have garrison unit... I was wrongly counting it. And now, with your explanation, it sounds clear to me: The AI riders attacker, before battle, must check if at 100% they will be able to remove the stronghold, meaning that they also need to consider the presence of some not withdrawing enemy units that will strike before the (final) assault, reducing the number of riders able to do it. Thanks a lot, it was really helpful!
Kevin Erskine I think this was game #7 or 8. I try for at least 10 usually, but the longer playtime made that tough here. But I played all factions at least 2-3 times, and all scenarios except the full 6 epoch one (though the way I play it would probably be a 1-2 epoch game)
at 35 minutes he describes how the defenders would rather go into the fort (instead of the town) but then he's reading off the stats for the town? did i miss something?
I don't disagree. The prosperity cubes (little gold ones) are especially annoying to set-up and track and keep on raiders and such. It wasn't enough to make me dislike the game overall, but it's certainly a potential fiddly frustration.
Most wargames have about 50 different units of mostly different types. COIN instead has about 300 of mostly the same type, so actually it's less fiddly. Pendragon is a harder one though, if not the hardest.
Set-Up and Basics of Play = 2:38
Playthrough = 15:32
Rules error - Saxon "Ravage" feat prevents the Saxons from assaulting strongholds in the space, which would have prevented their win at the end of the first epoch.
50:15 Just in case anybody is watching this, half of one prosperity rounded down is zero. That prosperity cube should not have been placed in the region.
34:34 Saxon Feats 4.4.3 Ravage: In those Raid and Battle Regions, Plunder is not
limited by the Region’s Population (only by carrying capacity,
1.7.4), but no ==> Saxon Assault is allowed.
CRAP! I got so distracted by the whole "no evade or withdraw" text on the player aid that I totally forgot about that limitation.
That would have drastically changed results... those sneaky Saxons!
Thanks for the catch @goran!
Wow... had to check and make sure I was on the right channel :). Didn’t know you liked these. It’s good cause play throughs of coin games are few and far between... ones that are explained well anyways.
They are VERY new to me. One of our Patreon supporters asked me to do Cuba Libre, and I enjoyed that enough to try one more. At this point I'm a big fan of the system.
Another COIN??? You're a beast!! Loved it, good job man
Yashar can’t get enough. These things are complex, but fun!
Thanks for this great play through. I just got this game. Huge COIN fan. This video will help understand this complex beast. Please continue to make more war game videos, especially games from GMT.
Will do! I think the next one I want to tackle is Fields of Fire, if I’m brave enough...
Glad to see another coin game being covered. Been thinking about getting into the coin games, just don't know where to start and it's hard to find good playthroughs. So thanks.
Ken Schuermans thanks! It’s definitely a series I recommend jumping into, at least once :)
Thanks for this play though, I really like your explanations and discussion! I am getting Cuba Libre and Ghandi in this week, so I am trying to get a grasp on the COIN system and how it will be for solo play.
Nice! Cuba should be a good intro, and I hear Gandhi’s new card-based AI is a better version of the system.
If it helps, I also did a Cuba Libre play video you can watch.
Thanks for this play through, Mike. You got me turned onto COIN and GMT, but my bank account is now very scared. Haha. So I have this on order along with Falling Sky from GMT when my local OLGS gets in their next order (I’m in Australia). But I couldn’t wait so I’ve picked up Fire in the Lake and I’m wading through the intro playbook scenario. And loving it. I’ll be joining your Patreon next week thanks to you and Colin. Love this channel.
Thanks Justin, that’s really generous of you.
And you named 2 of the 3 I want to play next. Gandhi is the 3rd, cause I’m really curious to see this new card-based AI everyone is talking about.
Ohhhhhh! Mike tackling the most complicated of the COIN games (as I've heard before).
Oh, I didn't realize it had that reputation. It's tough for sure, but I didn't find it drastically difficult to learn or anything!
@@OneStopCoopShop I'd say the level of difficulty ranges form 8 to 10 out of ten, so they are all pretty much difficult. Cuba Libre and Andean Abyss must be slightly lower. I just want to mention that the volume of your voice is pretty low on that video, so I'll finish watching later, when the house is more calm ;)
Sorry about the volume! I’m still messing around with a new volume balancer I’ve been using.
Great video, thanks for sharing! Really interesting game, but I am not sure I would get it to the table very often. Fascinating historical period, and not well represented by many tabletop games. Maybe someday...
It's definitely an undertaking, but worth it if you can make it happen :)
Very good video to get the perspective of the Britons playing solo
Thanks for watching! So far this remains my favorite COIN game o the ones I've played.
If this period of English history interests you, you might like episodes of The Time Team. Many of their excavations are focused on sites from this period. Good play-through, Mike!
Oh cool, haven’t heard of them!
@@OneStopCoopShop The personalities are almost as interesting as the digs, and usually at the end of the day they wind up (or down) in a pub. Fun!
Many thanks for a most excellent presentation 😊 (without mentioning the mistake on no Assault during a Ravage Feat)
I feel so embarrassed about that one :(. And the stupid thing is I was playing it correctly until this playthrough, and then I guess trying to manage everything made me forget. No wonder the Saxons steamrolled me!
PS - FANTASTIC job on this design, and I enjoyed your interview with Liz.
@@OneStopCoopShop Don't feel bad: you did a most excellent job overall, providing IMO a very smooth and efficient presentation of the key game mechanisms in particular. This little mistake tipped your game into an early Saxon victory, but this scenario is designed to place all factions on the brink... And a lesson you may learn from this game is that Foederati must be used with moderation, especially if monies are in short supply (this initial Train in 8 locations hurt you big in the long run I think too... ;-) ). Anyway, I'm always delighted to see people enjoying this design :-)
@@OneStopCoopShop Simply a labour of love after many years of dreaming of this game...
Hi! Great job! Just one question. At 37:22. Raiders, per pre-tactic battle, decide to Battle (as they are able to remove the settlement, regardless the defender strategy). Then - considering nobody is ambushing -, the Foederati must now decide either to withdraw (up to 2 units), leaving one of them on the field, or stay on the field and battle with all 3 units. The Non-Player chart states that defenders withdraw (1.) if their defense could save the stronghold (not our case, as you played in the video) or (2.) if doing so, they would remove more enemies than fighting on the field. Well, the 3 Saxon Foederati could removed, by melee, 6 riders (1 loss each), and then suffer only 1 loss from Harass conducted by the 3 raiders left (1/2 loss each); and so ending the battle without any assault. So, I think nor of the (2) priority is met (in order to withdraw Foederati), just because, as we said, if they withdraw, they not only loose the stronghold but also kill less enemies than fighting on the field. Am I wrong? :) Thanks from Rome, Maurice
Well dang it, I forgot the Foederati would gain first strike in the field battle, which as you said would mean they wouldn't have been lost at all! So this has some bigger implications
1 - Not sure you realized, but the Foederati were MY soldiers, so the AI defense wouldn't apply to them. It was my stupid choice to withdraw :)
2 - That said, since the AI would look at the Foederati, and ASSUME they wouldn't be stupid like I was, they would never have attacked in the first place, because the assault would not have been successful!
So great catch!
@@OneStopCoopShop :) ... but now I am a little bit confused, because something was wrong in my comment. I try to explain.
I am not sure that the IA Saxons riders wouldn't have fight.
In fact, the pre-tactic AI battle rule (8.4.2., 8.5.4 "play note", and 8.6.5.) for riders states that, regardless of the (next) strategy of defenders (real player or AI), attacker riders opt for Battle if their Assault for sure will remove the stronghold.
Well, I think that this means that we take into account
(1.) (by using the chart) only the number of enemy units that could withdraw (up to the stronghold capacity, in your case 2), and not considering the others (eventually) remaining in the field; and
(2.) considering even the possibility of a coup de main (but unknowing the die result of it).
So, in your game situation, I think that Riders will opt to fight.
If fact, for sure 9 riders can assault a settlement with the 2 withdrawing Foederati units in it.
Then it's defender turn.
Assume for a moment that the Foederati Civitates are played also by AI.
Will they withdraw (with 2 units, leaving one on the field to melee), or will they fight the field battle?
The AI chart seems to conduct to a withdraw (and the lost of the stronghold and briton control of region!).
In fact, the withdrawal rule for AI states that defenders withdraw (a) if they can save the stronghold (not our case, we know it), or (b) if, by doing that, they will remove more enemies than fighting on the field (our case).
As I read it now, the AI will withdraw (with 2 units) because they will kill 7 riders total (1 in melee with the one not withdrawing unit, and 6 per escalade and storm); instead of 6 riders killed if they opt to do not withdraw and fight in field battle.
If it is so, in the end, AI prefers to lose the stronghold but killing more enemies, than save it killing less. Tell me that I am wrong! Help me please ;)))))
@@mauriziogualdieri4001 I could be TOTALLY wrong, since I'm certainly not an expert on the game, but I interpreted the rules as saying that removing the assault needed to be a 100% possibility (or at least possible with a successful coup roll).
That's certainly not the case here, since they would have to assume substandard play for the assault to even take place, so I think they would not attack. I think that's a cleaner rule in general.
Separately, the number killed is identical. If 2 saxons withdraw, the one remaining will kill 2 raiders, then 2 will die storming the walls (2 defenders at 1/2), then 2 will die in the final melee. Since it's 6 dying in either case, I would assume the AI wouldn't be dumb enough to let the stronghold fall, like I did :)
@@OneStopCoopShop :) You are right. Settlement does not have garrison unit... I was wrongly counting it.
And now, with your explanation, it sounds clear to me:
The AI riders attacker, before battle, must check if at 100% they will be able to remove the stronghold, meaning that they also need to consider the presence of some not withdrawing enemy units that will strike before the (final) assault, reducing the number of riders able to do it. Thanks a lot, it was really helpful!
Thanks for this! How many games had you played before you filmed this?
Kevin Erskine I think this was game #7 or 8. I try for at least 10 usually, but the longer playtime made that tough here. But I played all factions at least 2-3 times, and all scenarios except the full 6 epoch one (though the way I play it would probably be a 1-2 epoch game)
@@OneStopCoopShop haha I assume that means your win rate isn't great?
@@OneStopCoopShop Have you tried Liberty or Death? I'm wondering how that one compares in complexity and what I think of as vision of turns.
At 51:00. You took the event so they can't also take the event.
WOAHHH. This combined with my misplaying of the Ravage Saxon action really would have saved me in the end of the era. Thanks for the catch.
at 35 minutes he describes how the defenders would rather go into the fort (instead of the town) but then he's reading off the stats for the town? did i miss something?
I'm dreaming or is this video for real?
Haha, it's real. Liz from Beyond Solitaire is slowly pushing me into heavier war games :)
Too many cubes for me.
I avoid these type of games especially if they’re worker placement.
Not sure why just not a huge fan of that mechanic.
I don't disagree. The prosperity cubes (little gold ones) are especially annoying to set-up and track and keep on raiders and such. It wasn't enough to make me dislike the game overall, but it's certainly a potential fiddly frustration.
Most wargames have about 50 different units of mostly different types. COIN instead has about 300 of mostly the same type, so actually it's less fiddly. Pendragon is a harder one though, if not the hardest.
I replaced my cubes with 10/15 mm miniatures