A Few Acres of Snow - the Bruce Geryk review

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Hi,

Great article in which he touches on a lot of history of revolutionary
design elements in wargames - pc and board - in order to sketch where
this game is coming from and why it's so recognizable, yet so
different and downright brilliant.

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/01/10/a-few-acres-of-snow-you-say-vous-desirez-la-revolution/

"It takes an entire playthrough to really understand how brilliant the
design is"

I had to snigger when, in the notes below the article, he called one
of the French victory conditions "sneaky" because that's the way I won
my game last Thursday - Vive la France ! :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

Until I read that article I hadn't figured out that Martin Wallace was
the designer. I enjoyed a lot playing his multi-player boardgame about
the Peloponese Wars

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/21954/perikles

BTW, a good replacement for Clash Of Kings when that one gets too old ;)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 jan, 16:33, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Until I read that article I hadn't figured out that Martin Wallace was
> the designer. I enjoyed a lot playing his multi-player boardgame about
> the Peloponese Wars
>
> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/21954/perikles

Proudly sits in my collection as well :)

I'm a Martin Wallace fanboy because he's the only top-dog designer who
designs both wargames and pretty heavy economic games AND manages to
be innovative in both fields. His Waterloo and Gettysburg games are a
mix of wargames with Euro-game area majority elements thrown in. His
was the first Waterloo game that made me *really* think about unit
rotation and reserves.

The funny thing is that if you talk to a regular boardgamer, they do
know the name Martin Wallace, but they associate the name with heavy-
duty economic games like Age of Steam, Brass or Automobile. I love his
economic games even more than his wargames and our boardgame group
plays them all the time.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

> I'm a Martin Wallace fanboy because he's the only top-dog designer who
> designs both wargames and pretty heavy economic games AND manages to be
> innovative in both fields. His Waterloo and Gettysburg games are a mix
> of wargames with Euro-game area majority elements thrown in. His was the
> first Waterloo game that made me *really* think about unit rotation and
> reserves.
>

I was particularly impressed by Perikles ability to portray the
"political" game between the Greek polis... and how decisive - and risky
- are pitched field battles. Hats off to him, that was the first game
that portrayed that thing of "engaging in battle might not be a good
idea, even if you win" :-)

> The funny thing is that if you talk to a regular boardgamer, they do
> know the name Martin Wallace, but they associate the name with heavy-
> duty economic games like Age of Steam, Brass or Automobile. I love his
> economic games even more than his wargames and our boardgame group plays
> them all the time.
>

The big problem with wargames is finding those with strong multi-player
mechanics (i.e. engaging). Those boardgames you mention have very rich
interaction between the players. OCS split command system is nice, but
it's more borne out of necessity than by design.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 jan, 09:49, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The big problem with wargames is finding those with strong multi-player
> mechanics (i.e. engaging). Those boardgames you mention have very rich
> interaction between the players. OCS split command system is nice, but
> it's more borne out of necessity than by design.

Multi-player wargames with lots of player interaction do exist. Check
out Empires in Arms, Napoleonic Wars, Diplomacy and my current
favourite : A Game of Thrones.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

I know, I know. I can add Machiavelli, Republic of Rome, Angola and quite
few more. I was comparing the numbers of wargames built from the group up
with multi-player in mind, with the number of those which doesn't (though
can be played multi-player).

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <f962888b-878d-41c2-bf1e-
3aefa2...@m20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> "It takes an entire playthrough to really understand how brilliant the
> design is"
>
> I had to snigger when, in the notes below the article, he called one
> of the French victory conditions "sneaky" because that's the way I won
> my game last Thursday - Vive la France ! :)

Hmmm. You have to wait to do something until you pick a certain card?
How is that non-ridiculous?



--
Giftzwerg
***
"In short, the myth of Obama?s brilliance was based on his teleprompted
eloquence, the sort of fable that says we should listen to a clueless
Sean Penn or Matt Damon on politics because they can sometimes act
well."
- Victor Davis Hanson

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> "It takes an entire playthrough to really understand how brilliant the
>> design is"
>>
>> I had to snigger when, in the notes below the article, he called one of
>> the French victory conditions "sneaky" because that's the way I won my
>> game last Thursday - Vive la France ! :)
>
> Hmmm. You have to wait to do something until you pick a certain card?
> How is that non-ridiculous?

In my opinion it's a nice abstraction, that constrains things so they
don't get out of hand quickly.

Rather than having "upkeep" costs and stuff like that the make the
gameplay drag along, for instance. Note as well that you "build" the
deck, by using the resources you collect from the colonies. That allows
you a great degree of control about what you'll be able to do and what
not. However, it doesn't allow you to invoke these assets on a whim.

I don't think that BoA - or for that matter AACW or PoN - are such great
games. Who stops you from concentrating the whole of the English Army in
one single point in a Redcoat Amphibious Schwerpunkt and take those
colonies one at a time while annihilating the minutemen vermin who don't
run for the hills. Supplies, you'd say, but still, you can well
concentrate and dispose of them in a ahistorical, gamey way.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 jan, 12:57, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <f962888b-878d-41c2-bf1e-
> 3aefa23a2...@m20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > "It takes an entire playthrough to really understand how brilliant the
> > design is"
>
> > I had to snigger when, in the notes below the article, he called one
> > of the French victory conditions "sneaky" because that's the way I won
> > my game last Thursday - Vive la France ! :)
>
> Hmmm.  You have to wait to do something until you pick a certain card?
> How is that non-ridiculous?

Because *you* control what cards are in the deck. In essence you're
deciding on a strategy and build your deck accordingly. You can react
to what the other player is doing, but not instantly, as you have to
retool your deck and that takes time. None of that "let's all suddenly
march in *that* direction nonsense" you see in many wargames.

Of course the more flexible your deck is, the less focussed it is.
Also the cards have multiple uses. This leads to meaningful strategic
decisions - the deck building portion - and tactical ones - do I
raid .. but I need to fortify this place too ... and get some funds
somewhere ... what is my opponent doing ??? .... aaaargh. You can
reserve cards to build up for an offensive, but that costs money and
after the initial push things will slow down again. It's a total
design-for-effect game where the actual mechanics may seem weird, but
the end result is that if *feels* like you're fighting this slow-
burning war with occasional flare-ups, long-distance raids and sieges.

I realize this deck building mechanism, borrowed from Dominion, is
totally alien to most wargamers - the stuffy grogs in the forums are
even disputing it's a wargame at all - but this sure as heck is one.
Mark Herman's For the People, which introduced the card driven
mechanic, got the same initial hostile reaction, but is now considered
a ground-breaking game with many followers. It's hard to predict the
future but I can't believe none of the other wargame developers is
taking note of this commercial as well as critical success story that
is A Few Acres of Snow.

And that's why the digital version was my #1 pick in our WotY
election. Would make a killer iPad app as well.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <afd0d962-300f-4d24-ab0d-cc89d71f7007
@p42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Hmmm.  You have to wait to do something until you pick a certain card?
> > How is that non-ridiculous?
>
> Because *you* control what cards are in the deck. In essence you're
> deciding on a strategy and build your deck accordingly. You can react
> to what the other player is doing, but not instantly, as you have to
> retool your deck and that takes time. None of that "let's all suddenly
> march in *that* direction nonsense" you see in many wargames.

OK, so selection of cards is not random? You just pick out the ones you
want? Anytime you want?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 jan, 13:23, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who stops you from concentrating the whole of the English Army in
> one single point in a Redcoat Amphibious Schwerpunkt and take those
> colonies one at a time while annihilating the minutemen vermin who don't
> run for the hills. Supplies, you'd say, but still, you can well
> concentrate and dispose of them in a ahistorical, gamey way.

You simply cannot do that in A Few Acres of Snow. Even as the defender
you pick your own battles and don't need to commit any forces to a
particular siege if you don't want to. I'd argue that it's a very bad
strategy for the French to try to stand up to the English military
might. Sure, you can surprise him here and there, and you need to keep
the British player on his toes so he keeps sinking many resources into
building a big military force but in essence you're playing a
defensive game. Building a fortress is just as good as committing your
regulars - and less costly.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:18:16 -0500, Giftzwerg wrote:

> OK, so selection of cards is not random? You just pick out the ones you
> want? Anytime you want?

It consumes one of the two actions you've got allowed each turn, and you
have to pay its cost. Other than that, yes.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

That's precisely what I like from AFAS :-) AGEOD games have that "Leader
Activation" mechanic, but it's very random and too easy to run in circles
around it.

I'm having a game right now on Yucata with a guy that plays pretty
aggressively. He initiated a siege on Permaquid, and soon realized it
wasn't going to go anywhere since I could reinforce the siege easily with
my "ship" cards and still do other stuff.

I really like how the asymmetry of that war - or at least that's how I
perceive it - the English has plenty of ships and troops, the French
relies on fortification - to make the English waste resources by having
them tied down - and raiding - to snatch those extra VP's.

Very neat, I must say.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Just hold it for a minute - a big part of your strategy is not only to
get cards into your deck, but also to get rid of cards you don't want,
so that the ones you want recycle faster. This, in combination with
putting cards in your reserve means that planning becomes *way* more
important than the luck of the draw. It might not look that way from
my description, but luck, while a factor - as it should be in a
wargame - isn't a major factor at all. If you win it's because your
strategy was better adapted to the situation, not luck of the draw.

It's pretty hard to explain this in writing, especially as you're a
self-confessed pc wargamer only with little exposure to modern
boardgame designs. It's a bit like trying to explain why BFTB is so
different than Battleground games, but the things you like in wargames
are all there : command delay, historical and economical restraints,
multiple paths to victory, no single winning strategy, fog of war,
backhand blows, ...

It's no accident this game got voted wargame of the year on the #1
boardgame website you know. The core rules are just 10 pages, take a
look at them and maybe try a game on yucata.de - it's free after all.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 jan, 15:31, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> especially as you're a
> self-confessed pc wargamer only with little exposure to modern
> boardgame designs.

Ooops - thought I was adressing Mr. Giftzwerg in those paragraphs.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

I was dazed and confused :-)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> > OK, so selection of cards is not random?  You just pick out the ones
>> > you want?  Anytime you want?
>>
>> It consumes one of the two actions you've got allowed each turn, and
>> you have to pay its cost. Other than that, yes.
>
> Just hold it for a minute - a big part of your strategy is not only to
> get cards into your deck, but also to get rid of cards you don't want,
> so that the ones you want recycle faster. This, in combination with
> putting cards in your reserve means that planning becomes *way* more
> important than the luck of the draw. It might not look that way from my
> description, but luck, while a factor - as it should be in a wargame -
> isn't a major factor at all. If you win it's because your strategy was
> better adapted to the situation, not luck of the draw.
>
> It's pretty hard to explain this in writing, especially as you're a
> self-confessed pc wargamer only with little exposure to modern boardgame
> designs. It's a bit like trying to explain why BFTB is so different than
> Battleground games, but the things you like in wargames are all there :
> command delay, historical and economical restraints, multiple paths to
> victory, no single winning strategy, fog of war, backhand blows, ...
>

One concrete example might be useful at this stage of the discussion. In
the game, the player is allowed to have as many cards as he wants on his
hand, but never less than five (i.e. if a player's hand by the end of the
turn is less than five cards, then he draws cards for free). Besides
that, up to five cards can be placed on the table as a Reserve, which can
be inspected by the opponent player. As he plays cards, these go to the
discarded pile, where only the last card is visible.

Now, you have two "actions" each turn (with the exception of the first
turn). Actions are very varied. One basic actions is that of acquiring
new cards for the deck from the Empire pile (which models the economy,
manpower, naval power, etc. of each nation in the game). With this you
acquire regular troops, militias, siege weapons, ships, settlers, native
american bands, etc. There are also special cards which do not count as
an action when being played: and these are extremely important cards to
have in your deck, as by the end of the example I hope I'll show to you.

These cards usually cost you money. Another one is acquiring money, which
involves either playing single cards representing places - Location
Cards, such as Boston - or doing a combo with a "Merchant" card, that
allows to cash in several Location cards consuming one single action.

Another basic action is that of settling. To settle a new location you
need to have in your hand, a Location card connected to that location, a
card - either Location or Asset such as bateaux or ships - that provides
the infrastructure for taking the settlers there, and occasionally
another card that provides with the settlers themselves (not sure what's
modeling this, by the way). This allows you place a settlement "cube" -
representing a small colony - in the corresponding location and cash in
the VP's associated with that location.

Existing settlements can be built up, for this two cards are required in
your hand. The Location card corresponding to the settlement and a card -
Location or Asset - providing the settlers. The cube gets replaced by a
disc (the settlement gets larger) and allows you to cash in 2x the amount
of VP's shown on the map for that location.

That's the "peaceful" way to victory: each player has a limited number of
cubes, and when one of the sides exhausts them, the game is over and VP's
are counted.

So the point of warfare is to curb your opponent growth, first and
foremost (or so I understand it). There are two ways of doing so: one by
taking from him Locations with a formal siege, the other, sending a
raiding party (either Natives or "Rangers") to destroy a settlement.

If you do the former then you need to commit cards with military strength
- again Locations or Assets such as Regular Regiments - in order to tip
the scales of the siege in your favor. Each side can have at most one
siege active as the attacker and another as the defender.

This means that both sides might end up having significant resources tied
on a siege. You don't want to lose them - since one of your cards will be
back to the Empire and will need to be repurchased if Asset, or gets
discarded - and it will hurt your deck (i.e. your ability to act in the
game).

Remember those cards which can be played for free? One of them is the
"Home Support" card. This card allows you to draw immediately 3 cards
from your deck. Now comes the beautiful thing.

You can do two things with this card. One is to keep it in your hand,
hidden from the opponent, the other to put it as a reserve on the table.
If you do the former - and you've built your deck so you have troops and
ships - one very nifty thing to do is to "bait" your opponent into a
siege, at your convenience you can play the home support card, and put
two cards in play to reinforce the siege and probably winning it. But not
only that, you can also use those cards to both reinforce and give to
your opponent a crippling blow (such as Raiding a settlement).

When a settlement is raided - something that can be countered with
appropiate cards in hand in the boardgame, not on the on-line version -
the attacking player grabs the piece earning 1 VP if it's a square (small
settlement) or 2 VP's if it's a disc (big settlement).

I'm pretty sure Eddy will see some flaw in the strategic possibilities I
see, but really, with really simple elements, you can develop a really
complex gameplay, rewarding foresight and cunning. While at the same time
capturing startingly way the spirit of the struggle.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <43c1c7f4-9419-44b4-a283-
d8b81a...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > > OK, so selection of cards is not random?  You just pick out the ones you
> > > want?  Anytime you want?
> >
> > It consumes one of the two actions you've got allowed each turn, and you
> > have to pay its cost. Other than that, yes.
>
> Just hold it for a minute - a big part of your strategy is not only to
> get cards into your deck, but also to get rid of cards you don't want,
> so that the ones you want recycle faster.

But this is exactly the part that has us "stuffy grogs" nervous about
such things; the idea that we rely on chance to provide us with a card
where *only the lack of the card* prevents us from doing something we
could otherwise do.

General Bradley: "George! You said you'd have 4th Armored moving on
Bastogne by now!"

General Patton: "Dammit Brad, you know I need a fucking two-of-clubs to
start that division north. I keep drawing hearts!"

> This, in combination with
> putting cards in your reserve means that planning becomes *way* more
> important than the luck of the draw. It might not look that way from
> my description, but luck, while a factor - as it should be in a
> wargame - isn't a major factor at all. If you win it's because your
> strategy was better adapted to the situation, not luck of the draw.

OK, but help me wrap my wind around this. "Possessing cards" implies
two things: (1) You can do X if you have this card, and (2) You can't
do Y if you don't have this card. "Recycling faster" suggests that the
cards can't be obtained without regard to come random factor.

Suppose I have 5,000 British regulars in Albany, and plenty of supplies.
Can I just head out for Montreal? Or do I have to wait for some "card"
to appear?

> It's pretty hard to explain this in writing, especially as you're a
> self-confessed pc wargamer only with little exposure to modern
> boardgame designs. It's a bit like trying to explain why BFTB is so
> different than Battleground games, but the things you like in wargames
> are all there : command delay, historical and economical restraints,
> multiple paths to victory, no single winning strategy, fog of war,
> backhand blows, ...

And that's fine. But BFTB lets me move any and all of my troops any
which way I desire, regardless of possessing some "card."

> It's no accident this game got voted wargame of the year on the #1
> boardgame website you know.

*Argumentum ad populum* doesn't impress me overly, though. After all,
in 1976, ROCKY beat out TAXI DRIVER for the best picture Oscar.

Need I say more?


PS: I have issues with the title of the game. A FEW ACRES OF SNOW?
Say what? More like, 500,000 SQUARE MILES OF SNOW.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jenb9l$otv$3...@dont-email.me>, miquel....@gmail.com
says...

> One concrete example might be useful at this stage of the discussion. In
> the game, the player is allowed to have as many cards as he wants on his
> hand, but never less than five (i.e. if a player's hand by the end of the
> turn is less than five cards, then he draws cards for free). Besides
> that, up to five cards can be placed on the table as a Reserve, which can
> be inspected by the opponent player. As he plays cards, these go to the
> discarded pile, where only the last card is visible.

Guys. You have to see how I'm reading this:

1st player: "I go two pair - Vaudreuils and Montcalms."

2nd player: "Full house - Wolfes over Howes."

3rd player: "Read 'em and weep, boys. Four Tiyanogas."

Simple?!?!?! <boggle>

[Nine Train]

On Jan 12, 3:53 pm, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Suppose I have 5,000 British regulars in Albany, and plenty of supplies.
> Can I just head out for Montreal?  Or do I have to wait for some "card"
> to appear?
>
> > It's pretty hard to explain this in writing, especially as you're a
> > self-confessed pc wargamer only with little exposure to modern
> > boardgame designs. It's a bit like trying to explain why BFTB is so
> > different than Battleground games, but the things you like in wargames
> > are all there : command delay, historical and economical restraints,
> > multiple paths to victory, no single winning strategy, fog of war,
> > backhand blows, ...
>
> And that's fine.  But BFTB lets me move any and all of my troops any
> which way I desire, regardless of possessing some "card."

:) Well argued!

But BFTB doesn't model situations like not having the ability to
locate or contact one of your units.

Cards (or the lack thereof) model the frictions of war. And while
it's not "real" it is an effective way to stretch the abilities of a
"commander."

BTW, if your game hinges on having that one card exactly when you need
it, you are no Patton. So, in essence, the card mechanics impose
limitations on the commander. Just as Patton and his opposite number
had their own limitations.

>
> PS:  I have issues with the title of the game.  A FEW ACRES OF SNOW?
> Say what?  More like, 500,000 SQUARE MILES OF SNOW.

Quelques arpent de neige. - Voltaire's dismissive words when informed
of the loss of NA to the Brits.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1ac121ea-c02c-4a0c-91ac-
299f8f...@d10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, 09.t...@gmail.com says...

> > And that's fine.  But BFTB lets me move any and all of my troops any
> > which way I desire, regardless of possessing some "card."
>
> :) Well argued!
>
> But BFTB doesn't model situations like not having the ability to
> locate or contact one of your units.

... which was the rare exception rather than the rule in 1944.

> Cards (or the lack thereof) model the frictions of war. And while
> it's not "real" it is an effective way to stretch the abilities of a
> "commander."

Sorry, but I don't see how "cards" model anything except random chance.

Can I get a list of these "cards," and what they allow me to do - and,
by inverse, what I can't do if I don't have the proper card?

> BTW, if your game hinges on having that one card exactly when you need
> it, you are no Patton.

<laughter>

Exactly, since Patton didn't have to wait for the Magic Eight-Ball to
surface the right result; either he had the forces and supplies to
attack, or he didn't. Patton didn't have to twiddle his thumbs and pray
for a "Cross River" card to appear - he just *did it*.

> So, in essence, the card mechanics impose
> limitations on the commander. Just as Patton and his opposite number
> had their own limitations.

Why not "arbitrary limitations." IE, nonsense limitations, so far as I
can see from the explanations forthcoming. Sounds to me like the
ultimate gamey silliness.

Heck, when I was four years old, my mother and I played UNCLE WIGGILY,
and the "Go to the 5 & 10 Cent Store" card virtually assured victory.
But I didn't ascribe some Advanced Game Design to the incorporation of
"cards."

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 jan, 20:11, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another basic action is that of settling. To settle a new location you
> need to have in your hand, a Location card connected to that location, a
> card - either Location or Asset such as bateaux or ships - that provides
> the infrastructure for taking the settlers there, and occasionally
> another card that provides with the settlers themselves (not sure what's
> modeling this, by the way).

It requires a card extra, hence that place is harder to settle, so it
differentiates between "easy" settlements and hard ones. There's some
streamlining missing here because the same rules do not apply when you
win a siege and want to settle it right away.

> That's the "peaceful" way to victory: each player has a limited number of
> cubes, and when one of the sides exhausts them, the game is over and VP's
> are counted.

<rules lawyer> provided there are no sieges currently going on.

> So the point of warfare is to curb your opponent growth, first and
> foremost (or so I understand it).

There is a straightforward purely military path as well - well, there
is if you're the British player :)

> I'm pretty sure Eddy will see some flaw in the strategic possibilities I
> see, but really, with really simple elements, you can develop a really
> complex gameplay, rewarding foresight and cunning. While at the same time
> capturing startingly way the spirit of the struggle.

The thing about this game is : nobody has come up with a surefire
winning strategy (yet). I wasn't even convinced the so-called "Halifax
Hammer" actually worked against a French player who knew what he was
doing and now with the 2.0 rules that strategy is dead and buried
anyway. You win this game by outsmarting your opponent, not by keeping
to a rigid strategy.

I'm pretty certain this game is one of those rare games that will
inflluence a great number of games down the line - someone please do a
AWI or ACW game using this - and over time the concepts it introduced
will be refined in other games and we will look back on it as a rough,
but flawed gem. But right here and now it's the best thing that
happened in wargames in 2011.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 jan, 22:04, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jenb9l$ot...@dont-email.me>, miquel.rami...@gmail.com

> says...
>
> > One concrete example might be useful at this stage of the discussion. In
> > the game, the player is allowed  to have as many cards as he wants on his
> > hand, but never less than five (i.e. if a player's hand by the end of the
> > turn is less than five cards, then he draws cards for free). Besides
> > that, up to five cards can be placed on the table as a Reserve, which can
> > be inspected by the opponent player. As he plays cards, these go to the
> > discarded pile, where only the last card is visible.
>
> Guys.  You have to see how I'm reading this:
>
> 1st player:  "I go two pair - Vaudreuils and Montcalms."
>
> 2nd player:  "Full house - Wolfes over Howes."
>
> 3rd player:  "Read 'em and weep, boys.  Four Tiyanogas."
>

> Simple?!?!?!  <boggle>

10 pages of rules, most of which simply explain in detail what a half-
experienced player could deduce anyway from the icons on the cards.

I can see why hex & counter wargame players go <boggle> - because it's
totally outside their comfort zone but if you have any experience with
games like Magic or Dominion or even "combo-card" games like Agricola
it's very much a case of having seen all of the ingredients before.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 jan, 21:53, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <43c1c7f4-9419-44b4-a283-
> d8b81ae3b...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > > > OK, so selection of cards is not random?  You just pick out the ones you
> > > > want?  Anytime you want?
>
> > > It consumes one of the two actions you've got allowed each turn, and you
> > > have to pay its cost. Other than that, yes.
>
> > Just hold it for a minute - a big part of your strategy is not only to
> > get cards into your deck, but also to get rid of cards you don't want,
> > so that the ones you want recycle faster.
>
> But this is exactly the part that has us "stuffy grogs" nervous about
> such things; the idea that we rely on chance to provide us with a card
> where *only the lack of the card* prevents us from doing something we
> could otherwise do.

In that case he should have put the card in his "reserves" which is
available at all times. Sure, this requires planning and you'll have a
hard time changing your strategy willy-nilly - but that's *exactly*
how I want my games.

> > This, in combination with
> > putting cards in your reserve means that planning becomes *way* more
> > important than the luck of the draw. It might not look that way from
> > my description, but luck, while a factor - as it should be in a
> > wargame - isn't a major factor at all. If you win it's because your
> > strategy was better adapted to the situation, not luck of the draw.
>
> OK, but help me wrap my wind around this.  "Possessing cards" implies
> two things:  (1)  You can do X if you have this card, and (2) You can't
> do Y if you don't have this card.  "Recycling faster" suggests that the
> cards can't be obtained without regard to come random factor.
>
> Suppose I have 5,000 British regulars in Albany, and plenty of supplies.
> Can I just head out for Montreal?  Or do I have to wait for some "card"
> to appear?

If you spend the time to build-up this force you'll have all the cards
- at a cost of course. Oh, sure, you might want to go *now* and due to
chance have to wait a turn , but that's pretty much how warfare was
back then - there were less certainties.

> > It's pretty hard to explain this in writing, especially as you're a
> > self-confessed pc wargamer only with little exposure to modern
> > boardgame designs. It's a bit like trying to explain why BFTB is so
> > different than Battleground games, but the things you like in wargames
> > are all there : command delay, historical and economical restraints,
> > multiple paths to victory, no single winning strategy, fog of war,
> > backhand blows, ...
>
> And that's fine.  But BFTB lets me move any and all of my troops any
> which way I desire, regardless of possessing some "card."

Ah, but it has command delay, which funnily enough triggers the same
sort of objections that you have for this game. In BFTB you can't just
have a division turn on a dime within a minute and change your attack
direction. Well, in A Few Acres of Snow the same careful planning is
required as well.

> > It's no accident this game got voted wargame of the year on the #1
> > boardgame website you know.
>
> *Argumentum ad populum* doesn't impress me overly, though.  After all,
> in 1976, ROCKY beat out TAXI DRIVER for the best picture Oscar.
>
> Need I say more?

The same argument was used by the stuffy old grogs in the BGG wargame
forum - that a lot of "non-wargamers" - whatever that might be -
voted A Few Acres of Snow into the #1 position. Well, I voted for the
game as my #1 pick and my wargame credentials are a lot better than
the majority of those geezers who haven't played a new wargame since
ASL came on the market.

Grab a plane, come on over this weekend and I'll show you why this
game is one of those very few milestone games that appear in a gamer's
lifetime.

> I have issues with the title of the game.  A FEW ACRES OF SNOW?
> Say what?  More like, 500,000 SQUARE MILES OF SNOW.

LOL - that's what some French politician called the loss of Quebec to
the British at the time - sure, it was a defeat, but they only lost a
few acres of snow :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 jan, 04:12, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I don't see how "cards" model anything except random chance.

Sorry, but that's because you've never played a deck-building game
like Dominion or Ascension or .. A Few Acres of Snow.

If it was just dumb luck, do you really think I would be fooled into
thinking this is a great game ?

> Can I get a list of these "cards," and what they allow me to do - and,
> by inverse, what I can't do if I don't have the proper card?

Sure, they're all in the rules, which I have posted links to multiple
times. Not that they're going to help convince you in any way as
you've got no experience with how to apply those rules.

Play against an experienced player and suddenly you'll see how this
game relies much less on dumb luck than many wargames where you roll
dice versus a CRT.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> If you spend the time to build-up this force you'll have all the cards
> - at a cost of course. Oh, sure, you might want to go *now* and due to
> chance have to wait a turn , but that's pretty much how warfare was
> back then - there were less certainties.

Did warfare even end being like that? I guess the introduction of radios
made things a bit easier, but there must be many other reasons than lack
of communication (too many to model even in a computer game) for units
not to move exactly when/where you want them to?

I don't mind games using cards or chits or random action points (or
rolling dice to be allowed to move where you want to, like in a few S&T
games) to limit the ability of a player to just order a unit to move
whenever he feels like moving it. The random end of turn mechanic used
in The Operational Art of War that has a similar effect.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 jan, 10:43, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> I don't mind games using cards or chits or random action points (or
> rolling dice to be allowed to move where you want to, like in a few S&T
> games) to limit the ability of a player to just order a unit to move
> whenever he feels like moving it.

I think this episode highlights why I think pc wargaming hasn't kept
up with the times. Unlike for boardgamers, for the average pc wargamer
the ability to move every unit every turn is almost carved in stone.
I've gone over the list of pc wargames released this year and A Few
Acres of Snow is the *only one* where you can't just move units at
will but have to plan for it and even then things can go wrong.

This also echos the complaints directed at BFTB - that you didn't have
full control of your units and to which the answer was : you have to
plan for command delay and that this more correctly models 1944
warfare than anything else on the market.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <e0dff109-a365-4ed9-b4ab-
6b623a...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > But this is exactly the part that has us "stuffy grogs" nervous about
> > such things; the idea that we rely on chance to provide us with a card
> > where *only the lack of the card* prevents us from doing something we
> > could otherwise do.
>
> In that case he should have put the card in his "reserves" which is
> available at all times. Sure, this requires planning and you'll have a
> hard time changing your strategy willy-nilly - but that's *exactly*
> how I want my games.

But you guys seem a bit cagey on the subject of how cards are acquired.
Can I just sort through the deck and pick whatever card I want? Or do I
have to await the random drawing of a card?

> > > This, in combination with
> > > putting cards in your reserve means that planning becomes *way* more
> > > important than the luck of the draw. It might not look that way from
> > > my description, but luck, while a factor - as it should be in a
> > > wargame - isn't a major factor at all. If you win it's because your
> > > strategy was better adapted to the situation, not luck of the draw.
> >
> > OK, but help me wrap my wind around this.  "Possessing cards" implies
> > two things:  (1)  You can do X if you have this card, and (2) You can't
> > do Y if you don't have this card.  "Recycling faster" suggests that the
> > cards can't be obtained without regard to come random factor.
> >
> > Suppose I have 5,000 British regulars in Albany, and plenty of supplies.
> > Can I just head out for Montreal?  Or do I have to wait for some "card"
> > to appear?
>
> If you spend the time to build-up this force you'll have all the cards
> - at a cost of course. Oh, sure, you might want to go *now* and due to
> chance have to wait a turn , but that's pretty much how warfare was
> back then - there were less certainties.

Again ... and again ... and again ... can I just explicitly pick the
cards I want? Anytime I want? Or do I have to wait until the luck of
the draw puts the card into my hands? I mean, if I can just pick any
card I want ... why have "cards" in the first place?!?

How - *exactly* - are cards doled out?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <7a4d751f-c43c-4a8e-9bb0-66ed521e3e45@
24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Guys.  You have to see how I'm reading this:
> >
> > 1st player:  "I go two pair - Vaudreuils and Montcalms."
> >
> > 2nd player:  "Full house - Wolfes over Howes."
> >
> > 3rd player:  "Read 'em and weep, boys.  Four Tiyanogas."
> >
> > Simple?!?!?!  <boggle>
>
> 10 pages of rules, most of which simply explain in detail what a half-
> experienced player could deduce anyway from the icons on the cards.

<shrug>

I'm not responding to the 10 pages of rules, but the 106 line post about
the mechanics of the game. Sure as heck didn't seem all that simple to
me.

> I can see why hex & counter wargame players go <boggle> - because it's
> totally outside their comfort zone but if you have any experience with
> games like Magic or Dominion or even "combo-card" games like Agricola
> it's very much a case of having seen all of the ingredients before.

Well, I've played many, many games of cribbage lo these 50+ years on.

And I wouldn't exactly call myself a "hex and counter wargame player,"
given the degree to which I've railed against both of those concepts
over the years.

And again, I'd like to see a list of the cards and what you can do if
you hold them - and what you can't do if you're missing them.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 jan, 12:43, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <e0dff109-a365-4ed9-b4ab-
> 6b623abc2...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > > But this is exactly the part that has us "stuffy grogs" nervous about
> > > such things; the idea that we rely on chance to provide us with a card
> > > where *only the lack of the card* prevents us from doing something we
> > > could otherwise do.
>
> > In that case he should have put the card in his "reserves" which is
> > available at all times. Sure, this requires planning and you'll have a
> > hard time changing your strategy willy-nilly - but that's *exactly*
> > how I want my games.
>
> But you guys seem a bit cagey on the subject of how cards are acquired.
> Can I just sort through the deck and pick whatever card I want?  Or do I
> have to await the random drawing of a card?

You have a number of decks. The "strategy" cards i.e. the Empire deck
is indeed one where you can sort through and pick whatever card you
want (cost = 1 action + money)

This then becomes part of your discard deck, which recycles into your
hand (i.e. command delay) after which you can either keep it in your
hand indefinitely (cost = less tactical options available) or transfer
it to the reserve deck (cost = 1 money upon retrieval)

The beauty of this is that you control recycling speed as well because
you can discard cards from your hand, making a particular strategy
stronger, but lessens your flexibility to react to your opponent.
Certain cards can force your opponent to show his hand and between
this, the visible reserves he's accumulated and the situation on the
map you have to "read" what his plans are and take counter-measures.
Haphazard play will gain you nothing, you have to look for combos that
will surpise your opponent. Convince an indian tribe to switch sides,
then raid his villages is one of my favourite ploys as the French. As
the British I build up my siege train and units in the reserves, thin
down my deck and then go stomp on the French.

The real litmus test is this : are people complaining about luck of
the draw being the cause of their defeat ? By and large the answer to
this is no - if you lose it's your own damn' fault.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 jan, 12:49, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <7a4d751f-c43c-4a8e-9bb0-66ed521e3e45@

> 24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > Guys.  You have to see how I'm reading this:
>
> > > 1st player:  "I go two pair - Vaudreuils and Montcalms."
>
> > > 2nd player:  "Full house - Wolfes over Howes."
>
> > > 3rd player:  "Read 'em and weep, boys.  Four Tiyanogas."
>
> > > Simple?!?!?!  <boggle>
>
> > 10 pages of rules, most of which simply explain in detail what a half-
> > experienced player could deduce anyway from the icons on the cards.
>
> <shrug>
>
> I'm not responding to the 10 pages of rules, but the 106 line post about
> the mechanics of the game.  Sure as heck didn't seem all that simple to
> me.

The rules do a better job at explaining things, they have good
graphics as well. IRL I could explain this game to you in 10 minutes
if I could just show you stuff.

> > I can see why hex & counter wargame players go <boggle> - because it's
> > totally outside their comfort zone but if you have any experience with
> > games like Magic or Dominion or even "combo-card" games like Agricola
> > it's very much a case of having seen all of the ingredients before.
>
> Well, I've played many, many games of cribbage lo these 50+ years on.
>
> And I wouldn't exactly call myself a "hex and counter wargame player,"
> given the degree to which I've railed against both of those concepts
> over the years.
>
> And again, I'd like to see a list of the cards and what you can do if
> you hold them - and what you can't do if you're missing them.

All described in detail in those 10 pages of rules. Cards have
multiple uses as well, so a) no card is really useless and b) you have
to make tough choices how you're going to use it, hereby simulating
limited resources.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 jan, 04:12, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> Sorry, but I don't see how "cards" model anything except random chance.

Cards and randomness ... completely off-topic but to make a point :

One game-night almost everyone could make it and there were 7 of us.
We could have broken out Battlestar Galactica or Bang or any other
game suitable for large groups but I convinced them to try a simple
card-game that gets played a lot in my village. Standard deck of
cards, everyone gets dealt 7 cards, trick taking whist style, score 1
point per trick and 10 points if you can predict how many tricks
you’re going to take that round. Then the deck gets thinned and now
only 6 cards get dealt, etc. all the way down to 1 card. One guy in
our group was going on about the game being “entirely random”,
“depending on luck of the draw” etc. That’s when I made the prediction
that at the end of the game my wife and me would hold the two top
spots (we had played this before, the rest hadn’t). If the game were
random this would be highly unlikely – right ? Sure enough, that’s
what happened. And to show it was not a fluke, we played again – same
result. Sure, there is an amount of luck involved, but this evens out
and in the end it’s the best player who comes out on or near the top.

Same thing here. Luck : yes. Luck determined : no

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[David]

Deck building games are not determined by luck, although there is some
luck in the mechanics. I know because there is a guy I play with and
I have never beat him in any deck building game and we have played a
lot. I did come close a few times, though.

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 13/01/2012 10:43 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<e0dff109-a365-4ed9-b4ab-
> 6b623a...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...

>[snip]

>
> How - *exactly* - are cards doled out?
>

I don't get the excitement either. It might be a fine game, might, but
it seems only distantly related to wargames.

Saying it uses cutting edge techniques aimed at getting 12 year olds
to buy packs of expansion cards doesn't seem like much of a drawcard
to me.

(Drawcard. Boom tish.)

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com

[Giftzwerg]

In article <4f13f290$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> > How - *exactly* - are cards doled out?

> I don't get the excitement either. It might be a fine game, might, but
> it seems only distantly related to wargames.

I finally troubled myself to read the rules, and found the same
complaint I do about all these "deck" games - they're incredibly
generic. I look at the available cards and simply observe that one
could cross out "Military Leader" and insert "Wizard" and the effect on
the siege of Fort Ticonder^h^h^h^h^h^h The Castle of the Skull would
differ not one whit.

And as you point out, the relationship to what I would call a wargame is
tentative. Not to get into some sort of definitional flame-war, but
shouldn't a wargame have, like, military forces represented on the map
which can be manipulated and maneuvered? Not that it's inconceivable
that a decent game could be so constituted ... but it's not really one
I'm all that interested in playing.

> Saying it uses cutting edge techniques aimed at getting 12 year olds
> to buy packs of expansion cards doesn't seem like much of a drawcard
> to me.
>
> (Drawcard. Boom tish.)

What annoyed me about the original review by Bruce Geryk is that the
thing reads like a mash note to the designer - heavy on the "ooooooh,
it's so brilllllliant," and light on the nuts and bolts mechanics of the
game that *make* it so gawrsh-darn brilliant.

When I read this sort of pablum I start to feel like the characters in
"The Emperor's New Clothes" - I guess I must be one of the woodenheaded
traditionalist mossbacks who just can't wrap his limited mind around the
magical wonders of "cards."

Po' dumb ol' Giftzwerg; forever pining away for games with masses of
counters and numbers ... like BFTB.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 jan, 13:25, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Po' dumb ol' Giftzwerg; forever pining away for games with masses of
> counters and numbers ... like BFTB.

Well, maybe you're more a traditionalist than you care to admit.

It's not just here that I watch in amazement the lukewarm reception
this game gets in grognard circles so the inevitable conclusion is
that I'm the odd one out and that grog-level wargaming will continue
on its merry 1970 way.

I'm even more disappointed that, even though it's free, I can't even
get people to *try* the damn' thing before they form an opinion about
it.

C'est la vie I guess.

Think I'll take a break.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:25:15 -0500, Giftzwerg wrote:


> Po' dumb ol' Giftzwerg; forever pining away for games with masses of
> counters and numbers ... like BFTB.

You should check better, Giftzwerg.

Those counters and numbers are just an illusion Giftzwerg. Behind that
façade there's a slimy guy with oiled hair, moustache and in a cliché
wild west croupier attire dealing cards with numbers and that look like
counters ;-)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:25:15 -0500, Giftzwerg wrote:

> I finally troubled myself to read the rules, and found the same
> complaint I do about all these "deck" games - they're incredibly
> generic. I look at the available cards and simply observe that one
> could cross out "Military Leader" and insert "Wizard" and the effect on
> the siege of Fort Ticonder^h^h^h^h^h^h The Castle of the Skull would
> differ not one whit.
>

[...]

>
> When I read this sort of pablum I start to feel like the characters in
> "The Emperor's New Clothes" - I guess I must be one of the woodenheaded
> traditionalist mossbacks who just can't wrap his limited mind around the
> magical wonders of "cards."

This cuts both ways, and could make for a nice discussion.

Could you point us to a traditional hex-and-counter wargame that got XVII
and XVIII siege warfare *absolutely* right and was *playable*
simultaneously? :)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:25:15 -0500, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I must be one of the woodenheaded
>traditionalist mossbacks who just can't wrap his limited mind around the

>magical wonders of ..... /whatever/

That's the impression I've gained over the years i've been here.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <87b460b0-c8b7-4139-b423-
786741...@d10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > Po' dumb ol' Giftzwerg; forever pining away for games with masses of
> > counters and numbers ... like BFTB.
>
> Well, maybe you're more a traditionalist than you care to admit.

I'd argue that it's more a question of "not throwing the baby away with
the bathwater." I think we're both agreed that hexes and turns should
go, I'm just not sanguine about a system that doesn't afford me the
opportunity to express conventional avenues of logistics, force
selection, and maneuver.

> I'm even more disappointed that, even though it's free, I can't even
> get people to *try* the damn' thing before they form an opinion about
> it.

I can't form an opinion about a particular boardgame, for the simple
reason that I don't play boardgames.

And I'm poisoned by the fact that I've seen COMMAND OPS. No hexes, no
turns, no cards ... it's the best thing going.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jf166n$8a9$1...@dont-email.me>, miquel....@gmail.com
says...

> > Po' dumb ol' Giftzwerg; forever pining away for games with masses of
> > counters and numbers ... like BFTB.
>
> You should check better, Giftzwerg.
>
> Those counters and numbers are just an illusion Giftzwerg. Behind that
> façade there's a slimy guy with oiled hair, moustache and in a cliché
> wild west croupier attire dealing cards with numbers and that look like
> counters ;-)

Are you currently looking in a mirror? <g>

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jf17g4$eoj$1...@dont-email.me>, miquel....@gmail.com
says...

> > When I read this sort of pablum I start to feel like the characters in
> > "The Emperor's New Clothes" - I guess I must be one of the woodenheaded
> > traditionalist mossbacks who just can't wrap his limited mind around the
> > magical wonders of "cards."
>
>
> This cuts both ways, and could make for a nice discussion.

Fire away, and fall back.

> Could you point us to a traditional hex-and-counter wargame that got XVII
> and XVIII siege warfare *absolutely* right and was *playable*
> simultaneously? :)

First off, I don't know of a single historical wargame ever invented
that gets *anything* "absolutely right." So far as I'm concerned,
that's a term so subjective and (therefor) meaningless as to be beneath
discussion. To find something someone imagines is "absolutely right," I
think you'd have to canvass the teachings of religious prophets and quiz
only the die-hard faithful.

Secondly, this notion of "playable" is similarly too subjective to be
worthwhile. I happen to think that WITE is unplayable, due to serial
monsteritis. But people I respect find it perfectly playable. I don't
have a problem arguing with them over specific reasons why I find it
unplayable, but I would never argue that their viewpoint was invalid.

To do so would be to re-create a famous Monty Python skit:

"WITE is unplayable."

"No, it isn't."

"Yes, it is!"

"Look, a playable game has less that 247 zillion hexes and 3,000 units!"

"No, it doesn't!"

"Yes it does!"

"This isn't an argument."

"Yes, it is."

"Argument is an intellectual process, not just the automatic gainsaying
of anything I propose."

"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."

"But that isn't just saying 'No, it isn't'."

"Yes, it is!!"

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1cr8h7l88uvdqf559...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> > I must be one of the woodenheaded
> >traditionalist mossbacks who just can't wrap his limited mind around the
> >magical wonders of ..... /whatever/
>
> That's the impression I've gained over the years i've been here.

I'm sure that's as far as you can get.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 17 jan, 00:32, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <87b460b0-c8b7-4139-b423-
> 786741f26...@d10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > > Po' dumb ol' Giftzwerg; forever pining away for games with masses of
> > > counters and numbers ... like BFTB.
>
> > Well, maybe you're more a traditionalist than you care to admit.
>
> I'd argue that it's more a question of "not throwing the baby away with
> the bathwater."

More a question of trying a new kind of tub. It might look a bit odd,
but I found out it can hold water, and the baby is happy with it as
well.

> I can't form an opinion about a particular boardgame, for the simple
> reason that I don't play boardgames.

There's the rub. Cards have become a staple of the board wargame
genre, but the last computer wargame which used cards was the Tin
Soldiers series and even there it was just a minimal bonus you could
purchase and use in a later game.

The brilliance in this game is not that it uses cards - though I
realize how shocking that might be to pc wargamers - but that it uses
them to force strategic and tactical choices on you as the commander,
to simulate what Clausewitz called "friction" - the uncertainties of
war. And not in the what's in the boardgame world already tradional
CDG way, but with a deck building mechanic. At this point I know I'm
talking gibberish for most of you, but deck building emerged on the
scene a couple of years ago with a game called Dominion and has
managed to carve out a niche for itself, create a genre of games which
is a pretty rare thing.

And here comes this famous designer and he does - of all things - a
wargame using this mechanic - and you know what : this mechanic
*works* for wargames, it almost feels like it was designed all along
for it and I fully expect other wargame designers to take note and
start tinkering with deck building for their own designs. Not pc
wargame designers of course, they're more concerned with making sure
ammo expenditure is properly acccounted for. Computers are made for
counting lots of stuff you know.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:33:50 -0500, Giftzwerg wrote:

> Are you currently looking in a mirror? <g>

hahaha, not really :-)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> Could you point us to a traditional hex-and-counter wargame that got
>> XVII and XVIII siege warfare *absolutely* right and was *playable*
>> simultaneously? :)
>
> First off, I don't know of a single historical wargame ever invented
> that gets *anything* "absolutely right." So far as I'm concerned,
> that's a term so subjective and (therefor) meaningless as to be beneath
> discussion. To find something someone imagines is "absolutely right," I
> think you'd have to canvass the teachings of religious prophets and quiz
> only the die-hard faithful.
>
> Secondly, this notion of "playable" is similarly too subjective to be
> worthwhile. I happen to think that WITE is unplayable, due to serial
> monsteritis. But people I respect find it perfectly playable. I don't
> have a problem arguing with them over specific reasons why I find it
> unplayable, but I would never argue that their viewpoint was invalid.
>

Gift, you didn't answer my question :-) Perhaps I should change
"absolutely" for "just about", and "playable" by "reported to be
enjoyable by a substantial number of people".

But I must admit this is a rethorical question: I already know the answer
for both formulations of the question. And the answer in both cases is
the same: no.

You could make a whole wargame devoted to such a siege. There are very
few ones which ever attempt to get near to the topic. The most recent
example I can recall is this one:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38763/11-de-setembre-setge-1714

But in this game they just model 10% of the whole affair, the assault
once the walls have been breached.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 18, 5:22 pm, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You could make a whole wargame devoted to such a siege. There are very
> few ones which ever attempt to get near to the topic. The most recent
> example I can recall is this one:
>
> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38763/11-de-setembre-setge-1714
>
> But in this game they just model 10% of the whole affair, the assault
> once the walls have been breached.

Stronghold

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/45986/stronghold

Saw a giant sized demo game of it a couple years ago in Essen - looked
awesome - the game's got a good rating as well

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

Well, I'm pretty sure XVIII century siege engineers - a very lucrative
profession at the time - would have loved to have a couple of Orc
Grenadier regiments to storm the gates at hand :)

I had in mind something along the lines of establishing trench lines,
mines, mortars, etc.

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 12:00, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure XVIII century siege engineers - a very lucrative
> profession at the time - would have loved to have a couple of Orc
> Grenadier regiments to storm the gates at hand :)

Well, in the Tolkienesque fantasy worlds there's very little to
distinguish those battles from pure historical medieval battles.
Replace the wizard's fireball with a trebuchet and you're done.

As to 17th and 18th centure siege warfare : I'm not sure there's a
game in there as they were rather methodical and technical engineering
affairs with a fixed playbook, almost a science.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

> As to 17th and 18th centure siege warfare : I'm not sure there's a game
> in there as they were rather methodical and technical engineering
> affairs with a fixed playbook, almost a science.
>

There's no science without fancy and there's no art without fact ;-)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jf6rjj$81l$4...@dont-email.me>, miquel....@gmail.com
says...

> >> Could you point us to a traditional hex-and-counter wargame that got
> >> XVII and XVIII siege warfare *absolutely* right and was *playable*
> >> simultaneously? :)
> >
> > First off, I don't know of a single historical wargame ever invented
> > that gets *anything* "absolutely right." So far as I'm concerned,
> > that's a term so subjective and (therefor) meaningless as to be beneath
> > discussion. To find something someone imagines is "absolutely right," I
> > think you'd have to canvass the teachings of religious prophets and quiz
> > only the die-hard faithful.
> >
> > Secondly, this notion of "playable" is similarly too subjective to be
> > worthwhile. I happen to think that WITE is unplayable, due to serial
> > monsteritis. But people I respect find it perfectly playable. I don't
> > have a problem arguing with them over specific reasons why I find it
> > unplayable, but I would never argue that their viewpoint was invalid.
> >
>
> Gift, you didn't answer my question :-) Perhaps I should change
> "absolutely" for "just about", and "playable" by "reported to be
> enjoyable by a substantial number of people".

SQUAD LEADER does seem to have been fantastically popular over lo these
many years - and I'm as suspicious about "just about" as I was about
"absolutely" right.

Perhaps you have a set of digital calipers which can objectively gauge
"rightness?"

> But I must admit this is a rethorical question: I already know the answer
> for both formulations of the question. And the answer in both cases is
> the same: no.

It's "no" for cardgames, too.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> >
>> Gift, you didn't answer my question :-) Perhaps I should change
>> "absolutely" for "just about", and "playable" by "reported to be
>> enjoyable by a substantial number of people".
>
> SQUAD LEADER does seem to have been fantastically popular over lo these
> many years - and I'm as suspicious about "just about" as I was about
> "absolutely" right.
>
> Perhaps you have a set of digital calipers which can objectively gauge
> "rightness?"
>

No, but I have read enough about certain subjects to spot non-sense :-)

>> But I must admit this is a rethorical question: I already know the
>> answer for both formulations of the question. And the answer in both
>> cases is the same: no.
>
> It's "no" for cardgames, too.

Seems like besieging your fortress is pointless. Will try again in 200
years, when I get 1kt tactical nukes. In the meantime, I will take
discretion as the better part of valor, just in case your field army
shows up when I'm least expecting it :-)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> >
>> Gift, you didn't answer my question :-) Perhaps I should change
>> "absolutely" for "just about", and "playable" by "reported to be
>> enjoyable by a substantial number of people".
>
> SQUAD LEADER does seem to have been fantastically popular over lo these
> many years - and I'm as suspicious about "just about" as I was about
> "absolutely" right.
>
> Perhaps you have a set of digital calipers which can objectively gauge
> "rightness?"
>

No, but I have read enough about certain subjects to spot non-sense :-)

>> But I must admit this is a rethorical question: I already know the
>> answer for both formulations of the question. And the answer in both
>> cases is the same: no.
>
> It's "no" for cardgames, too.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jf9fu2$2oh$1...@dont-email.me>, miquel....@gmail.com
says...

> > SQUAD LEADER does seem to have been fantastically popular over lo these
> > many years - and I'm as suspicious about "just about" as I was about
> > "absolutely" right.
> >
> > Perhaps you have a set of digital calipers which can objectively gauge
> > "rightness?"

> No, but I have read enough about certain subjects to spot non-sense :-)

OK, but my point is simply that "rightness" is an un-word, meaningful
only to the speaker, and music only to his own ears.

[Miguel Ramirez]

> OK, but my point is simply that "rightness" is an un-word, meaningful
> only to the speaker, and music only to his own ears.

Man, if I was rich and didn't like my day job, rest assured I would
devote my time to write in-depth analysis of game mechanics as those in
the "Battles!" magazine. Alas, I'm not rich and I like my day job, so for
now, note it, just *for now*, "YOU WIN!" ;)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/68/sf22px3.jpg/#


Now seriously. I really appreciate your informed skepticism, makes me
think hard :)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 17, 9:09 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"

<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> And here comes this famous designer and he does - of all things - a
> wargame using this mechanic - and you know what : this mechanic
> *works* for wargames, it almost feels like it was designed all along
> for it and I fully expect other wargame designers to take note and
> start tinkering with deck building for their own designs.

I think I need to back this up a bit. GMT, the big daddy of board
wargames, usually has print runs of 2500. A Few Acres of Snow had a
first print run of 7000 and it's sold out at the publisher level.
Meanwhile the game has been steadily climbing in the BGG ranks and is
now #38 in the overall game ranking and #11 in the wargame rankings -
right in between Combat Commander : Europe and Conflict of Heroes,
both classics.

You can bet your bottom dollar that other wargame developers are
taking note of this commercial as well as critical success story and
are working on similar stuff. Martin Wallace himself said he's working
on multi-player games using this mechanic.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx