Birth of America Series

With apologies if this isn't wargamey enough!

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.

Thoughts anyone?

Well nobody else has chimed in so I'll give you what I know based on limited knowledge. I've played two -- 1812 and 1775. I enjoyed both but of the two I think 1775 is the better pick. There's a chance for some real strategy but the dice rolling is still present and has an impact on how you proceed. I also like that it stirs discussions on how the war played out in real life because the hot-spots on the board match the hot-spots in the actual conflict.

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.

1812 was innovative when it came out, but it is by far the weakest of the series IMO. The situation is rather static and the combat system of having the "home field" side fires first seems wrong. I have not played 1754 yet, but that's partially due to being such a fan of WILDERNESS WAR I've never seen the point and I think the irregular warfare aspects of the conflict get lost in this sort of vanilla system. 1776 is pretty decent and probably the best regarded of the three.

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.

Thanks everyone.

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.

Independent of your needs, which run lighter, I do wish there was another good strategic or grand operational take on the revolutionary war besides Washington's War. Maybe a hex and counter rather than CDG a la Simonitch's U.S. Civil War.

It does seem crazy that there aren't more.
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?

For a hex and ZOC treatment, AWI is a design challenge. You had not many actual armed forces spread out over huge distances.

Absolutely, it would have to be seriously creative.

Best take on this era of warfare imo is Clash of Monarchs, which is a CDG as well. Though a much more operational CDG.

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.

I got into the series with 1775 and really enjoy it. It does a couple of things that I need wargames to do - be accessible to non-grognards and play more than 2. My 10 and 8 y.o. sons play, and my wife even plays in the tournament at WBC!

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.

Let us know how that goes. I read about it - looks like I can only source it from academy and the postage is outrageous to here, especially for what it is. I'm thinking if I pick up 1754 I'll probably proxy it.