We the People 2.0 http://fortressat.com/ Sat, 25 May 2013 11:42:10 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1816#josc19461 Mark had to walk a fine line when doing this game in that he couldn't change it too much from the original or he would have alienated the existing fan base . I think ditching the battle cards was a good move . Not only did they make the game longer, but they don't add as much as the Hannibal cards IMO . Mechanically, making OPS cards double as Events would work . In game play though, it could have the effect of accelerating the game play in terms of things happening faster vs history . Lets face it, the game started an entire genre of wargames . Subsequent card driven games definitely made improvements to the idea of CDGs because designers were able to build on the concept . Leave it for what it is . And I like having something this quick - more and more CDG coming out are at the opposite end of the complexity and time spectrum ( Pursuit of Glory anyone ? ) . As a side note, Hearts and Minds from Worthington is a nice addition to the CDG family and worth checking out, once you get past the rather poorly thought out components ( small map, large counters ) . I do agree that there is room for a more detailed CDG on the AmRev . David Docktor, designer of Triumph of Chaos, was working on one . Msample Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:52:06 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1816#josc19450 I was thinking about what would make Washington's War great last night. 1. The combat system. What would be more fun is if you counted CUs (combat units), Generals ability and other dice roll modifiers than rolled 1 dice for each point and hit on 5-6s. The side with the most 5-6s wins. The difference in hits ends up the number CUs lost by the defender (up to 3) on ties both sides lose 1 CU and Americans retreat. 2. Add events to all Ops cards. The events could be small. Some events give battle bonuses. Other add or subtract CUs. Many of the events would be to add CUs that could be Indians, Tories or state or local Militia. CUs could be popping up all over the board. In the revolutionary war many of the campaigns in the South, West and near Canada were about sending Leaders to recruit Indians, Tories and Militia. Players could play out there hand in the game to recreate these events. I would eliminate the current way the Americans recruit units. In the 18th century more men died of diseases than battle wounds so the number of events could be the dreaded disease cards. Players could play a disease card to knock down a pile of CUs and then on the next card play they could attack. Mark Herman had the opportunity to redesign the game and make it great but he missed the boat by keeping the events / ops cards too much the same. KingPut Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:38:32 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1816#josc19439 "I am *really* not enjoying the We the People game I'm playing with Joel and it has nothing to do with my opponent or anything like that. I don't know why people like this game so much besides its amazing legacy." I remember you saying that in Atlanta---but is it mostly b/c it mimics the Continental Army's "run-away, run-away" approach unless it has overwhelming odds? Major battles in the American Revolution was relatively rare, too---very sporadic. Merkles Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:19:39 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1816#josc19427 I am *really* not enjoying the We the People game I'm playing with Joel and it has nothing to do with my opponent or anything like that. I don't know why people like this game so much besides its amazing legacy. Gary Sax Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:54:27 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1816#josc19413 Stormseeker75 - F:AT mail or Geekmail me. We can probably get a game set up by next weekend. Walterman - I think Washingon's War is a very good game but it's not a great game for a combination of 2 reasons you've mentioned. The combat system in WWr isn't very exiting unless perhaps you've trapped a General Washington or British General with 4 or 5 units. The combat system consists of adding up units, plus some DRM than having each side roll a dice. It's basically the same combat system as Talisman. I also think newer card driven games like Twilight Stuggles and Hannibal have more interesting and game changing cards in the strategy event deck (except for the Declaration of Independence and the Ben Franklin must play cards). That all said I think in 5 years I'll look back and say Washington's War is one of my most played games in collect because of the 90 minute game length, it is easy to teach, I like the subject matter and it should be a excellent game to play on Vassal. KingPut Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:20:23 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1816#josc19407 Why do you think the greatness is gone from WWr? Is it swapping dice for cards? Is it that we have 10+ years of games based on WtP to compare it too? Or is it just the shortened play time? Walterman Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:14:47 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1816#josc19406 I am! My copy should be here soon now that GMT has games out to distributors. I'll bone up on the rules and we can start a PBEM if you want. stormseeker75 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:02:22 +0100