Washington's War Review http://fortressat.com/ Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:38:36 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc34053 I have played WW three times, and found it a bit dry. I didn't realize this untl the third play, at first I fooled myself into thinking I was having a great time playing (something I do a lot...I guess cause the game cost $50 and I had built up my expectations so high!) This doesn't mean I won't give it more tries, but I haven't exactly been scrambling to get it back on the table. I agree with the reviewer's point regarding the events---so many of them amounted to placing or removing political control markers that after a while the historical flavor text felt a little tacked on. I guess all elements of historicity in a wargame must boil down to particular game effects which will ultimately and by necessity be abstract, it just didn't *feel* like I was doing war stuff/ political maneuvering stuff while I was playing WW. I just felt like I was playing themed Go. But I did like the battles! Even though it was just a single d6 roll with some modifiers, I liked the retreat rules, and the fact that it was pretty hard to eliminate combat units. And the asymmetrical rules for British and American generals were cool and very historical. I do agree about the rulebook. It's a tricky game to learn, especially the different rules for PC placement for the two sides---the rules are almost the same, but with relatively subtle differences. Had the differences been more dramatic, they would have been easier to learn. That said, the example of play is good and clarified most issues for me. I do think, say, Labyrinth is easier to learn though. Anyhow, there was enough I liked about WW to make me want to play again. I might be singing a different tune in a few months or so... Justin Hankins Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:58:50 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33651 I think there might be an optional dice based Hannibal CRT that someone devised around somewhere. Once you get the hang of it, the card combat system doesn't add a huge amount of time. True, you have to shuffle/deal the cards for each battle. But some games feature less than one battle per turn on average. Outside the stupid 5 hour timed rounds at WBC, this is a game that should take no longer than 3 hours, which is still in the ballpark for most CDG. I do prefer dice, but I think the detractors of the card system get carried away at times. Msample Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:38:16 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33646 one way it is definitively worse: PBeM is easier with dice combat. I still enjoy hannibal combat. lj1983 Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:00:00 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33644 Not necessarily strictly better, but when you play as many games as the folks here do, different is often just as good as better. Ken B. Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:18:43 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33642 [quote]That isn't to say I would mind a dice resolution system like WW has.[/quote] Exactly. Like I said, I have a love/hate thing going on with it. It certainly has its merits. But few - if any - people can put hand on heart and say that it's actually [i]better[/i] than a dice combat system. MattDP Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:18:31 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33641 Ken B, I also really like Hannibal's combat. Any unpredictability in it adds to the tension and can make you reconsider whether you want to engage or intercept or not. I also like the fact that there is a little bit of 'head game' play going into it as well, at least in the larger conflicts. That's something that can't be replaced with dice rolls. That isn't to say I would mind a dice resolution system like WW has. Hex Sinister Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:24:30 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33633 I know this is a despised practice by some, but I have a feeling GMT may print extra cards for Washington's War in the future. daveroswell Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:24:49 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33630 As a big fan of Washingtons War I totally agree with the points in your review. When I first played WWr I was slightly disappointed that there wasn't more cool events like Hannibal or Twilight Struggles but the more I play WWr the more I like the design. Even if there isn't conflict between event and ops a player still has number of big choices with each ops card. Ops can be used to place PCs, Recruit troops or move a General. KingPut Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:20:18 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33586 Yeah, great review Matt. I have passed on this one so far because it is missing the ops/events on one card thing (you guys know I love multi-purpose cards in games...delicioso) and I guess I'm the only one who *likes* the card combat in Hannibal. It's unique, plays up strengths of the "better" leaders while still having randomness of a different flavor. Any general can lose on any given battlefield, it's just less likely if you have more cards in hand. Still, this is a gorgeous production. You can't help but wonder, going back to Twilight Struggle Deluxe, if GMT didn't see the job Valley did on Hannibal (still on record as being one of the prettiest wargames of all time in my book) and decided to step up their game. Whatever the reason, I like it. Wilderness War, Washington's War, Here I Stand all shipping with mounted boards...it's awesome! Ken B. Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:45:53 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33585 I haven't played Washington's War but have played unhappy King charles. I agree, I missed the conflict between ops/events on the same cards. but as one of the strengths of Washington's War is its shorter play time, I remember reading for UKC that having Ops and Events on separate cards reduces playtime in a design, as the player's decision making process is reduced by 1 variable. as always it is a balance. lj1983 Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:39:03 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33582 I only played [i]We the People[/i] once before selling it (lack of opponents again) and that was my very first CDG so can't speak with much knowledge. I remember the game was OK and seemed easy enough for CDG noobs to pick up but the card combat annoyed us from memory, having to match cards else you lose - can't remember exactly but we didn't like it and there were comments similar on BGG. Think I'd like to try WW but since I have big trouble trying to find opponents for my current 2-player games ([i]Twilight Struggle, Tide of Iron, War of the Ring[/i], and now [i]Earth Reborn[/i] - that may become a costly impulse buy) I can't see myself buying this unless I win lotto. Southernman Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:22:37 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33576 [quote]Whenever I look at/play a historical card driven game, I love to look at the flavor text on the cards. Often, the flavor text can start discussions on historical events. I don't think I've ever come across a situation where flavor text accuracy has come into question. Not yet anyways.[/quote] I've always felt that this, alongside the strong historical narrative that the events generate were one of the strongest points of the whole CDG system. I learned more about the Punic Wars from playing Hannibal than I have from watching endless TV documentaries about it. Which makes it all the more unfortunate that it's not one of Washington War's strong points - but then again it makes up for it in pretty much every other department! MattDP Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:14:59 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449#josc33575 Nice review Matt. Whenever I look at/play a historical card driven game, I love to look at the flavor text on the cards. Often, the flavor text can start discussions on historical events. I don't think I've ever come across a situation where flavor text accuracy has come into question. Not yet anyways. daveroswell Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:04:04 +0100