Just finished the videos of this game being played out. The flow and result is pretty close to the first time I played 1754: Conquest (Academy Ganes) as the French player. Full bore petal to the metal and then hang on for the inevitable Brtitish riposte. Good stuff here. Seems a bit faster to play then 1754 and certainly feels more historic with named units, rather than abstract cubes. Both have their place. But this is much closed to my heart. Good job and keep at it!
Man I've been eyeing this one. I gotta say seeing it played really takes a lot of the out of the box rule reading away. Thank you for the play through!
Ok, I haven't completely thought this out.. but to get the idea on the thought board. I'm ok with moves not being certain (requiring a die roll). But allowing leaders to to choose to move, roll, then the next leader to repeat the process, etc .. I do have a problem with that. Essentially leaders get to wait to see how the others have fared. I would suggest having arrow markers to mark the final spot a leader plans to move to. A player declares all leader moves before rolling the "successful die roll". Or some such. Maybe and advanced rule, but I would do something like this from the first game.
That's not a bad idea. The game is essentially simple and I'm wondering if the 'rules overhead' to explain the concept is worth it. And, really, how much difference will it make? The one thing about the French and Indian war is that the avenues of approach are very few. Their virtually only three avenues approach the far west the Hudson Valley and campaigns in the east. I can see some potential problems, though in that you are announcing to your opponent, your intended move and if it fails, he knows in advance your plans. Something to think about though thank you.
I am really impressed with the quality of your graphics for what is a basic working rough draft of your game. Do you have the ability to print your maps and counters on your own pc, or did you go to a graphics shop for this work? The game has a better look to it than a lot of the finished products I've seen over the years.
Thank you Fred. I do the counters on my own home printer because I can't get them done at Staples or any other 'copy shop'. After I do a 'hand drawn' map, I do my own computer version and when I think it is ready, I go to Staples and they print it out. It's about $30 here in Canada but it's a lot better than the ones I can first print out for play testing. That takes about 9 sheets of paper, sometimes 12 which I have to cut on 4 sides and then tape them together. For me its worth the $30!!!
Question.. yes it is a game. Got that. With regards to the number of land and sea actions... what exactly is being modeled? It appears just to be random, which is not a good thing without some explamation why one side gets 1 or 6 turns (or anytning in between). Some thing or things in history must be accounting for the possicle variabilities. Attitudes of the french and english courts? weather? economy? Let's say it's just those 3 factors that we make as key deciders based on historical notes. at the start of the game, each side is at 3 actions, Roll a die for each factor (political support, weather, economy) - 1-2 one less action, 3-4 no change, 5-6 one more action. this also mitigates a single die from giving a radical result (1/6 really bad) across multiple dice, making it harder to get super bad or good actioms, as well as not moving so radically from one end of the track to the other. It also allows players to resonably plan ahead - if they have 4 action this turn, they know they will likely have 3-5 actions next time. may be throw in a +1 bonus of they do well in the previous turn if thet started with less than 3 actions (morale pick up). Really looking forward to this game.
To answer that properly would take paragraphs and a lot of commentary. However, after my play test yesterday I have abandoned the dice differential system and gone with a less number of 'chit pulls'. I tried it yesterday and it played out much better. The variable between '6 moves and 1 move' was just too great. It just didn't work for strategic movement in North America during the period.
I like the feel of this game. You might consider tuning the combat tables... you had a lot of "no results" for both sides, sometimes for two or three rounds of battle in a row... Not that the battles should be exceptionally bloody or anything, but you just end up rolling repeatedly to get where you end up in the end. Also, I may have missed it, but what kind of supply rules are there?
I have already abandoned the CRT from the video. The new one is much better and I'm going to 'fine tune' it even more. I have lines of communication that are simple but effective. For example, Indian villages cannot get their 'Trade Goods' if they are not somehow connected in to where the goods would come in at French ports. I'm also going to tweak the 13 Colonies militia. It was too free before.
I appreciate your efforts; the period is difficult to illustrate. "A Few Acres of Snow". shows a brilliant, if abstract, feel for the period with seiges, sea power, and Indian raids. This would make a fine block game. You dislike chit pulls- ("Battle Hymn," video). Rather than a battle board, tactical cards as in "1776," seems it might have more flavor. Morale? Militia and the savages were unknown factors in combat. Garrisons? Why as in "Mr. Madison's War," just give them an automatic strength? No Rogers' Rangers? Bon chance. As previously stated, difficult to simulate and difficult to please gamers.
It didn't show up in the video, but I have 3 Ranger units and of course one of them is Rogers. I'm still going with the Battle Board, nothing special about it, it's merely a place to put the units when you have a battle. I loved the cards for '1776' but it gave much too wide a variation with the combat results table. It was also completely a-historical with entire armies being wiped out. Still, I loved that game for years. I may have 'garrison counters' but I would rather not. Still working on that one.
Just finished the videos of this game being played out. The flow and result is pretty close to the first time I played 1754: Conquest (Academy Ganes) as the French player. Full bore petal to the metal and then hang on for the inevitable Brtitish riposte. Good stuff here. Seems a bit faster to play then 1754 and certainly feels more historic with named units, rather than abstract cubes. Both have their place. But this is much closed to my heart. Good job and keep at it!
Man I've been eyeing this one. I gotta say seeing it played really takes a lot of the out of the box rule reading away. Thank you for the play through!
Thanks for the compliment.
Ok, I haven't completely thought this out.. but to get the idea on the thought board. I'm ok with moves not being certain (requiring a die roll). But allowing leaders to to choose to move, roll, then the next leader to repeat the process, etc .. I do have a problem with that. Essentially leaders get to wait to see how the others have fared. I would suggest having arrow markers to mark the final spot a leader plans to move to. A player declares all leader moves before rolling the "successful die roll". Or some such. Maybe and advanced rule, but I would do something like this from the first game.
That's not a bad idea. The game is essentially simple and I'm wondering if the 'rules overhead' to explain the concept is worth it. And, really, how much difference will it make? The one thing about the French and Indian war is that the avenues of approach are very few. Their virtually only three avenues approach the far west the Hudson Valley and campaigns in the east. I can see some potential problems, though in that you are announcing to your opponent, your intended move and if it fails, he knows in advance your plans. Something to think about though thank you.
I am really impressed with the quality of your graphics for what is a basic working rough draft of your game. Do you have the ability to print your maps and counters on your own pc, or did you go to a graphics shop for this work? The game has a better look to it than a lot of the finished products I've seen over the years.
Thank you Fred. I do the counters on my own home printer because I can't get them done at Staples or any other 'copy shop'. After I do a 'hand drawn' map, I do my own computer version and when I think it is ready, I go to Staples and they print it out. It's about $30 here in Canada but it's a lot better than the ones I can first print out for play testing. That takes about 9 sheets of paper, sometimes 12 which I have to cut on 4 sides and then tape them together. For me its worth the $30!!!
Question.. yes it is a game. Got that. With regards to the number of land and sea actions... what exactly is being modeled? It appears just to be random, which is not a good thing without some explamation why one side gets 1 or 6 turns (or anytning in between). Some thing or things in history must be accounting for the possicle variabilities. Attitudes of the french and english courts? weather? economy? Let's say it's just those 3 factors that we make as key deciders based on historical notes. at the start of the game, each side is at 3 actions, Roll a die for each factor (political support, weather, economy) - 1-2 one less action, 3-4 no change, 5-6 one more action. this also mitigates a single die from giving a radical result (1/6 really bad) across multiple dice, making it harder to get super bad or good actioms, as well as not moving so radically from one end of the track to the other. It also allows players to resonably plan ahead - if they have 4 action this turn, they know they will likely have 3-5 actions next time. may be throw in a +1 bonus of they do well in the previous turn if thet started with less than 3 actions (morale pick up). Really looking forward to this game.
To answer that properly would take paragraphs and a lot of commentary. However, after my play test yesterday I have abandoned the dice differential system and gone with a less number of 'chit pulls'. I tried it yesterday and it played out much better. The variable between '6 moves and 1 move' was just too great. It just didn't work for strategic movement in North America during the period.
I like the feel of this game. You might consider tuning the combat tables... you had a lot of "no results" for both sides, sometimes for two or three rounds of battle in a row... Not that the battles should be exceptionally bloody or anything, but you just end up rolling repeatedly to get where you end up in the end. Also, I may have missed it, but what kind of supply rules are there?
I have already abandoned the CRT from the video. The new one is much better and I'm going to 'fine tune' it even more. I have lines of communication that are simple but effective. For example, Indian villages cannot get their 'Trade Goods' if they are not somehow connected in to where the goods would come in at French ports. I'm also going to tweak the 13 Colonies militia. It was too free before.
I appreciate your efforts; the period is difficult to illustrate. "A Few Acres of Snow". shows a brilliant, if abstract, feel for the period with seiges, sea power, and Indian raids. This would make a fine block game. You dislike chit pulls- ("Battle Hymn," video). Rather than a battle board, tactical cards as in "1776," seems it might have more flavor. Morale? Militia and the savages were unknown factors in combat. Garrisons? Why as in "Mr. Madison's War," just give them an automatic strength? No Rogers' Rangers? Bon chance. As previously stated, difficult to simulate and difficult to please gamers.
It didn't show up in the video, but I have 3 Ranger units and of course one of them is Rogers. I'm still going with the Battle Board, nothing special about it, it's merely a place to put the units when you have a battle. I loved the cards for '1776' but it gave much too wide a variation with the combat results table. It was also completely a-historical with entire armies being wiped out. Still, I loved that game for years. I may have 'garrison counters' but I would rather not. Still working on that one.