Fort Sumter: The Secession Crisis Review

Read more...

So my concern about these games is that if you compress the push/pull tension systems like Twilight Struggle down to shorter and shorter lengths, you just naturally start to lose some of the tension. And the tension and stakes are what make these work. This is sort of related to your comment about cubes being pushed back and forth but is slightly different.

Good review. Reading it makes me want to play another CDG. I am not the best at them. I’ve never come close to winning Unhappy King Charles, but I always get something from the experience and I relish the early turns. I am a decent opponent at Clash of Monarchs, at least against my old gaming partner.

I guess I agree that it’s the slow burning narrative development I love and that might get lost in such a condensed game, not to mention the theme leaves me a bit unenthusiastic.

I find the box and game name misleadingly focused on the fort itself. A siege game! No... an exploration of the political machinations leading up to the war. Pass.

Gary Sax wrote: So my concern about these games is that if you compress the push/pull tension systems like Twilight Struggle down to shorter and shorter lengths, you just naturally start to lose some of the tension. And the tension and stakes are what make these work. This is sort of related to your comment about cubes being pushed back and forth but is slightly different.

Good point--even if there is some (effective) mechanical tension, it definitely feels like the stakes are lessened. I'm curious if this is something that can be addressed or if it's simply part and parcel of a shorter game experience.

Played this a number of times and, personally, it made the history live a little for me. As someone who knows next to nothing about the ACW, I found the game both stimulated and - with a little reading - also satisfied my curiosity about the events depicted.

I really like it. After the first few plays I decided it's a curious design which, while not deep, as such, with its limited mechanisms, takes a different tack instead. Games are often close only a VP or two between the players, but that difference is often down to care and attention: making sure you make the most of your cards and opportunities.

While the game didn't quite fire my imagination in the same way, it has caused me to look with deep longing at my nearly untouched copy of GMT's US Civil War, wishing I could materialize a willing opponent out of thin air.

I'm not the biggest fan of this game but I do find it enjoyable and respect the design. I'd be shocked if this is remembered much at all beyond being the first game in Herman's short playing CDGs.

AndrewMcAlpine wrote: While the game didn't quite fire my imagination in the same way, it has caused me to look with deep longing at my nearly untouched copy of GMT's US Civil War, wishing I could materialize a willing opponent out of thin air.

Same. I just tackled the rules on that one this week. They aren't bad except naval and supply rules.