What's on your table right now?

[BanzaiCat]

That's another one I've been ogling.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Yup, we used the alt rules. 

Time of Crisis is fairly popular here but I didn't really care for it during my few attempts.  Goes on a little too long for a game that's a little too light imo. 

Going to try Washington's War tonight.

[Bison]

Washington's war is a great game.

[Ubercat]

I'd love to try WW out. Either of you up for some live play over Vassal in the near future?

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I've never played before.  I expect to get slapped around.  I hope I at least get a powdered wig and some tight pantaloons though.

[Staggerwing]

my P500 esploded...

But Ricky...!

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Washington's war is a great game.

Decidedly in the "meh" category for me.  I'd much rather play Star Wars Rebellion I think.

[Ubercat]

That's too bad. I'd have thought that trying to outmaneuver each other while grabbing colonies would be fun. I'm not a Star Wars fan so I haven't tried Rebellion but I guess grabbing planets is even more fun.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Wasn't that much maneuvering really.  It was mostly me as the Rebels slapping down political control makers everywhere and the Brit player trying to play whack-a-mole to stop me.  In the end, it felt more like we were playing Go than a wargame.  Really odd supply rules in effect once the map fills up.  I ended up winning even though I only won one battle and lost 4-5.

[Bison]

What did you expect?  The American Revolution was not fought and won through large decisive battles.  It was an insurgency.

[Cyrano]

"Rebellion" is the better game, but it does sound like you're criticizing "WW" for being a game about the AmRev.

[bayonetbrant]

Wasn't that much maneuvering really.  It was mostly me as the Rebels slapping down political control makers everywhere and the Brit player trying to play whack-a-mole to stop me.  In the end, it felt more like we were playing Go than a wargame.  Really odd supply rules in effect once the map fills up.  I ended up winning even though I only won one battle and lost 4-5.

From Globalsecurity.org

Giap's nearly fatal mistake in the anti-French war was the too-early challenge of French forces in open battles during the first half of 1951. In three battles, the Viet-minh were defeated each time and Giap almost lost his position as Viet-minh commander in chief. The Viet-minh immediately went back to stage II - smaller battles on their own terms in scattered areas.

The basis of this fame is Giap's leadership of the Viet Minh in their victory over the French in the Indochina War. Giap's fame as a tactician and strategist were exaggerated, that neither his tactics nor his strategies were new or imaginative. Giap's greatest ability was an organizer of the masses in a total effort behind the war. Giap successfully combined the roles of civil organizer, politician and battlefield leader in achieving his victory over the French.

simple word replacement

Washington's nearly fatal mistake in the anti-British war was the too-early challenge of British forces in open battles during the first half of 1777. In three battles, the Colonials were defeated each time and Washington almost lost his position as Colonials commander in chief. The Colonials immediately went back to stage II - smaller battles on their own terms in scattered areas.

The basis of this fame is Washington's leadership of the Colonials in their victory over the British in the AWI. Washington's fame as a tactician and strategist were exaggerated, that neither his tactics nor his strategies were new or imaginative. Washington's greatest ability was an organizer of the masses in a total effort behind the war. Washington successfully combined the roles of civil organizer, politician and battlefield leader in achieving his victory over the British.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I know the history.   I'm criticizing the game because it just wasn't very interesting to play.  The mechanics are rather dull.  Play a card for an event, recruit, move a single general, or (most commonly), simply place a political control marker on the map.  If you have more markers in a colony than the other guy, you have control of the colony.  Americans can place markers in any empty space. Brits have to place theirs adjacent to one they own. Armies can flip ones they're camped on at the end of the turn.  If your marker is surrounded and there are no adjacent blank spaces, it's out of supply and goes away.  Most of the game was just spending cards to slap markers down with very little in the way of anything else.  To me, it just didn't make for engaging gameplay and the tension just never really built up.  The opposite was true.  We had some big fights and manoeuvres at the start but once I realized the importance of popping down markers, that's pretty much all I did.  Get the Congress somewhere out of the way (can't place markers if the Brits take their location and send them scurrying which the Brits managed 3 times) and just start throwing down markers and discarding events to strip Brit ones until the game ended.  Never even managed to get the French involved.

[Bison]

The card actions you describe are generally true of all the CDGs similar to Washington's War like The Wilderness War, For the People, and Paths of Glory.  You are correct that a major consideration of the game is political control of the colonies which does shift often.  I think the game models the political uncertainty during the war fairly well with simple mechanics.  Anyway, I can understand why it does not appeal to you but I do think there is more to the game that perhaps another playthrough or two would expose.

It's the beauty of the hobby.  Not every game is for every player but every player can find a game that provides fun and excitement for them.

[Bison]

Damn it.  I just negotiated for the Age of Sails starter kit and the HMS Britania expansion ship.  I need an intervention!