Hey everyone! I hope you liked the video. If you did, I'd love to think I earned your subscription. It really helps me to get more of these great games to show off! You can also help by subscribing to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/wargaminghansen OR making a one-time donation: paypal.me/wargaminghansen

Very nice video. Appreciate your thoughtful review of the pros and cons of the game.

@WayneHansen

5 ай бұрын

If there's one thing I love, it's sharing my opinion on a game. Glad you enjoyed it!

I also felt that I encountered way too many fighters based on the reading I've done. I also felt I shot done way too many fighters. You're correct that the fan made materials make it a better game.

I agree with much of what you said in your review. I have been learning and playing this over the last couple of weeks and the more content I plug in as optional rules the more I enjoy the game. The narrative that it creates is really fun.

Thanks Wayne for the tip on the long missions, probably not my cup of Coffee.

@WayneHansen

5 ай бұрын

Glad to help!

I fully agree Wayne, a game needs to be playable (and fun) right out of the box. The poster child for failing egregiously to do that was Devil Boats: PT Boats in the Solomons (Compass). This is not a game for me, but I always appreciate your perspectives.

@WayneHansen

6 ай бұрын

Devil Boats was a nightmare and huge disappointment out of the box, and in comparison, Target for Today is far better. I just wish it felt more balanced out of the box.

Could you provide a link to the bgg files that speed up the game? I can't seem to find them.

Are the missions significantly shorter in 1942 than in 1944/45? I think this game system could work for bombing campaigns that covered shorter areas, such as the Battle of Britain, with more manageable mission length.

@WayneHansen

6 ай бұрын

They are generally shorter, but I wouldn't say significantly. The number of times you resolve certain processes, particularly German fighter and combat resolution, is the main problem causing excessive mission length.

I’m so conflicted between this and b17 queen of the skies. I like the amount of detail target for today has but I don’t want to play a mission in three hours. The length kills a little bit of the narrative. I think you might like b-29 a little bit more. Not as much fighter combat (accurate for pacific operations) but man is it a lot of navigation rolls and potential mechanical issues

Good review Wayne, how long did it take u to learn this one?

@WayneHansen

6 ай бұрын

The core of the game isn't hard to learn, since it's so procedural. Once you become comfortable with the sequence of play, which finding or creating a player aid really helps with, it's more about knowing which tables you will use most frequently and where to find them. You don't have to memorize any of them or anything.

Where did you get those tweezers? Are they commonly available?

@WayneHansen

6 ай бұрын

I could tell you, but then I'd have to... well, you know 😆

@StackingLimit

6 ай бұрын

@@WayneHansen I can't understand the great secret behind this. I am a fellow creator. Are they available or not?

@coryhoggatt7691

5 ай бұрын

Just a heads up, I ordered two pair of tweezers from a third party vendor on the Walmart app that were supposed to be 9.5”, about the size Wayne is using. They sent tweezers half that size. Next time buying from a store.

Not sure it's flawed. Long missions might not just be your cup of tea... The play is the thing and if you want something shorter, less detailed and can generally finish in a shorter time frame, B-17 Queen of the Skies just might hit your sweet spot. TfT was designed to be something more detailed and differentiated from it's predecessor. That makes it different, not flawed. Flawed is something really wrong with the design, something that doesn't work as intended. I contend this game works as intended- just not your playing preference. The nice part of this hobby is you can have several games on the same topic with different perspectives and so here on this subject we have that luxury!

@WayneHansen

6 ай бұрын

Here's my rebuttal: The onerous mission length has little to do with the presence of details. Instead, it's primarily due to the unrealistic number of encounters with German fighters. In a particular 3 hour mission, I encountered 18 German fighters. That's not only historically inaccurate, it drags out the playtime. Having you continously generating German fighter waves, filtering out survivors, then resolving multiple rounds and waves of combat, is not an example of a more detailed or complex game. It's just repeating one process over and over, too often, during a mission. I appreciate your opinion, but I stand by my review.

@blastpop

6 ай бұрын

@@WayneHansen As a bomber you might actually see more than 18 fighters though your ability to engage them all is moot a point. The system in essence weeds them out through the various encounter/disposition/fire combats. Gunners would see those angry hornets pass by going after other bombers and maybe get some desultory shots and such. I enjoy the play and don't find it onerous. Again it's not flawed if doesn't meet your personal expectations, it means it's not for you. One mans treasure is another's trash. It's like holding up an Orange and criticizing it for not being a good Apple. Opinions vary and I stand by mine as well.

@WayneHansen

6 ай бұрын

That's the wonderful thing, blastpop. We are all allowed to have different opinions and even disagree from time to time!

@blastpop

6 ай бұрын

@@WayneHansen Amen Brother!

@WayneHansen

6 ай бұрын

You should post a rebuttal/counter-argument video to your channel. Give people a different perspective on the game.

Who in this industry and hobby calls a bf.109 a Me-109?? Why? 😮

@WayneHansen

5 ай бұрын

Both are valid ways to refer to the same aircraft.