Vassal Singles Bar

doctormabuse00 -> skype

Added you both

Good game gents!

Good times once the technology calmed down a little.

I enjoyed the game; not sure I would have played it otherwise. I think my beef now having played the game is the arbitrary nature of the initiative mechanism. It's like an intense balancing mechanism for the attacker to be able to fire first, as long as it was your space originally. I quite liked the interplay of the sides with their different levels of mobility and dice faces.

I could be reading this wrong, but it sounds like you guys used the 1775 initiative rules where the battle lines and favored terrain are a bit murky and the defender always fires first.

In 1812, with clearly established national borders, the Americans always fire first in the US and the Canadian side always fire first in Canada.

Also, in 1812 a command decision (blank die) means your choice is only stay or retreat. Except the natives who can advance into empty enemy territories.

No, we did 1812 rules right. What I'm saying is that "on your territory you fire first" is a pretty tiresome (IMHO) heavy balancing mechanism. The VP conditions are that you need to take enemy VP locations *in their territory.* It means that it's almost impossible to take territory in anything more than a very short term, so you need to basically just be ready to nip a VP or two right at the end.

This was a GREAT play.

I personally like true team gaming, so this was a treat for me. The Vassal module allowing you to see your teammates' cards and Skype letting you talk out loud in front of everyone and still have the private text channel was a great setup. I was walking around the house getting my shirts out of the dryer, grabbing a beer . . . between cheap small computers, WiFi, the Internet, Skype, and Vassal the concept of remote play has really changed in the last fifteen years. In 2000 this play would have taken three months via email and four copies of the game.

I need to remember though -- get the Skype call started early because they take ten or fifteen minutes to settle down, even if you just let it sit open to the room.

I got to bed around 2am last night, so I won't be doing it again this evening! But I think I may be open next Tuesday again. Anyone have a game suggestion?

S.

Gary Sax wrote: No, we did 1812 rules right. What I'm saying is that "on your territory you fire first" is a pretty tiresome (IMHO) heavy balancing mechanism. The VP conditions are that you need to take enemy VP locations *in their territory.* It means that it's almost impossible to take territory in anything more than a very short term, so you need to basically just be ready to nip a VP or two right at the end.

This is the reason I prefer 1775 over 1812. In 1812 its very difficult to hold ground in the enemies territory because the home team rolls first and because of the distance from reinforcements. In 1775 defender rolls first and reinforcements come in anywhere you have support so it's easier to hold territory. However, both games and NBA basketball suffer from everything being decided on the last turn (or last 5 minutes). But I don't take 1775 or 1812 as a serious war game. They're both fun and I'm with Sagilarus in being a big fan of team games.

I prefer Monday over Tuesday. I came home and took a nap and missed Wednesday game night with live people because of the late night on Tuesday.

From my limited knowledge of the 1812 conflict, it should be more difficult to hold ground in the enemy's territory. I understand there were lots of folks on both sides that were into defending their country, and not so many that were into putting their lives on the line invading the other.

Where you battle matters. Even moreso that there are specific muster points. Taking York or the Six Nations is huge and can have a big impact on the game. Also, having an army garrisoned in the opposing territory _feels_ like your army is in unfriendly territory. The locals don't want you there and any liberating army coming down the road is gonna get support and make you nervous.

All of this into account, sure taking enemy ground is difficult, but I see it as a feature not a bug.

I can see how 1775 is attractive to folks because all sides have the same sort of initiative, both can get natives, both have European support, both muster from everywhere, but ultimately to me all of this makes it a bit more bland.

All in all I like the system...I just wish they shipped multiple conflicts in one box. Make the board double sided, there's plenty of room for the faction decks, the games use the same dice and cubes, and 1812 and 1775 could have easily been in one box.

(I think their next game is on the French and Indian War. I hope they aren't phoning it in at this point. I'm curious about their 'Invasion of Britian' game, as it's going to be a race between that and the supposedly streamlined and updated Britannia for me.)

I'm free Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays plus I can start earlier if need be as I'm home and supped by 5pm PST (or 8pm EST).

I figured out how to use the mute button LATE in the gaming session, so that should cut down on dishwasher and family noises *embarrassment*