- Posts: 274
- Thank you received: 275
Coming the Week of January 18th (17 Jan 2020)
First Impressions of Return to Dark Tower.
Reviews of Clank!, On the Underground, Cover Your Kingdom, and Arkham Horror LCG: Circle Undone Core Box.
It Came from the Tabletop's take on Sanctum.
Part 3 of The Others.
And more TBA
Birth of America Series
I've played 1812 on vassal, and am thinking of picking one of them up. They're usually pretty expensive here (australia) but they're on sale at a few places. I'm a sucker for the period, for maps and bits of wood, for hand management.
Anyone have experience with these? A preference for any of them?
1754 looks a lot more interesting to me - a bit more fluid and dynamic with the forts and the muster points that can be changed, but still with a defined border to fight across. The 1812 map kind of always felt a bit too static although I didn't play it too much. Like, it was all about the muster and then tramping across the empty bits. But I don't know about the NPC native americans.
Most likely going to be played 2 player, or with teams of teenagers yelling at each other.
I've heard 1754 is very good. I've almost bought it several times just because I love the box art. I'll be interested to hear what other people have to say on the subject.
Regarding the wargamey nature of these titles -- they're as much Risk as they are wargame. That's good. Risk has energy to it and these games inherit that. But they also paint a broader picture and give you a little more to work with on how to proceed. If you're looking for something more in the wargame pocket you could give a look to Washington's War which is in a similar vein and subject matter.
But for my money VIKINGS, which uses a slightly modified system, is the best of the lot. It has minis, kids will love it. The two sides are very asymmetric, which I find more appealing. The other neat twist is that there is some deck building possible; you can either play with the standard 13 cards, or swap some out for the supplemental ones provided. Excellent replay value as a result, esp when you consider each faction has unique cards.
I haven't played with the expansions but I've heard good things. About the only downside is that I think it plays better 2 player than multi; reason being is that the Berserker Viking faction doesn't have that many units so I think that player would have less stuff to do.
Overall its a fun system and very DoaM like.
I personally would opt for Washington/wilderness, both of which could be had pretty cheaply. But the reality is they would end up croaking at me, and i know I can get one of these done regularly and in a couple of different situations.
878 looks good too, but that one isn't on sale heh.
I'm giving it to the weekend to mull it over. If I pick one up I'll offer some thoughts, especially if it's 1754.
Does it say something about US attitudes to history that there aren't, especially when compared to the ACW?
Or is it just "mechanical" - i.e., in terms of boardgaming, the revolutionary war is just kind of less interesting/more opaque to gamify/less grand or something?
Msample wrote: For a hex and ZOC treatment, AWI is a design challenge. You had not many actual armed forces spread out over huge distances.
Yeah, that was my understanding. Plus, it's less about conquest etc - a bit more complicated. And all the desertions and everything. Native alliances.
I guess COIN needs to be mentioned (it's Liberty or Death, right?).
And while we're mentioning games about the wider era, A Few Acres of Snow, which i'd totally grab it were available.
But I think 1754 is the better version. The ports make naval moves make a little more sense, and the Indians are more dynamic in this one, popping up in different places. I just got the Indian expansion which gives factions different special abilities related to different tribes but haven't played it yet.