Topic: Empire of the Sun
Phil,
First off this is an interesting discussion, so I am happy to continue, but
understand I do not expect you to convert to the faithful, although at some
point CV may realized that he has been wasting his time with all that English
Civil War nonsense and see the light. I apologize for its length, so CV and
others please ignore this and move on. In point of fact I need to get into a
game of UKC soon as I want to play a good game for a change instead of this
tripe that I have been designing. ☺
I want to take your comments in a slightly different order as I think it will be
a more succinct reply although too long by half. You state that you like how
FITS handles air-naval. I agree with that since EoTS does not examine air-naval
combat at the Operational-Grand Tactical level. I think this is a significant
point. FITS, AE, PacFleet, and East Wind Rain are all the same kind of game.
They are one-map Operational level games with some blend of strategic (oil) and
tactical factors (air phases, surface combat phases, torpedoes and the like).
The reason that these games have an involved air-naval combat set of procedures
is that each of these designs is centered on the carrier-carrier battle. That's
fine, but it perpetuates a wargame myth about the Pacific War that it was
dominated by these kinds of engagement. There were 6 carrier-carrier battles
during the entire Pacific War, four of which are in 1942. As a player I
personally do not like having to play out a tactical battle board procedure
every time there is a naval encounter because of six, albeit very exciting,
carrier battles. When I want to play carrier battles I play flattop one of my
all time favorite games.
On the other hand carriers are essential to offensive operations in the war and
this is their major impact in EoTS. Supporting this is the fact that the Pacific
war was an air war. I continued to be amused and confused by the claims of
accurate PacWar OBs, when except for EoTS they treat the land based air portion
as air points of specific aircraft types. That is an operational-tactical view
of airpower. At the strategic level it is about the 13th AF and the Offensives
they are supporting not abstract airpoints.
When I sat down to design EoTS I wanted a strategic game focused on the Theater
commander level. I wanted to fight a war where the senior leadership gave me
some basic guidance and logistics and let me execute that strategic plan.
Nimitz, MacArthur, Mountbatten, etc. did not deal with torpedo planes, but
resourced offensives. Air-Naval combat is a necessary function that needs to
occur so we can figure out who is winning the war, not the battle. Another
design abstraction is the location of forces is not very important other than
what battle they are committed to. This is very much out of the mainstream and
has confused many, although players did not trust the rules. For me that has
been a big problem with EoTS. Folks do not want to accept what they say because
it is too different from what they expect. And it seems no one can follow the
sequence of play.
So comparing EoTS to any of the above games is an apples and oranges discussion.
They are at their heart different types of designs. One of the unstated
frustrations that people have with EoTS is it is not an operational one map game
masquerading as a strategic game, but a strategic game that eschews lower
echelon decisions. I make no apologies for that as that is what I was going for.
At the same time having someone tell me that they like how one of the
aforementioned games has a better treatment of air-naval combat misses the point
that EoTS does not deal with air-naval combat per se, but strategic offensives.
So, when I see this comment it is no wonder that you do not like EoTS because it
is not the type of game you want to play even though it is a one map Pacific
game.
So given these points, you wrote, "I agree with your assessment. But the naval
portion feels more accurate due to the oil points (which Asia Engulfed cleverly
copied, so what do you think about AE?).
Due to how FITS treats ground combat, which you agree with, I cannot play FITS
anymore and prefer USN over all of the newer games in this genre. I have not
played AE, so I have no opinion, except to say that each time I pick up the AE
rules and see the battle board operational treatment of the war, I put it away
and play EoTS.
I will lump the remainder of your questions into a broad answer. You wrote: "How
about what you see in many games, the Japanese player keeping his reaction
forces scattered? I think it's more of a 1943 issue than later. Is there any
real benefit to keep your forces concentrated?" Usually, Truk is in range
beginning of 1943, after the US has captured Buna and Lae, isn't it? Correct,
but attacking with Navy only is a risky business in 1943 for the Allied player.
I begin to feel that my many attempts to play EotS were not far enough into the
game?
Let's first discuss the history, because at the root of the criticism of EoTS is
the notion that it plays ahistorically. Said another way it fails as an
historical simulation. Obviously I disagree and I also do not care to change
anyone's mind. CVs and others comments indicate that they also agree, so I write
this as an answer to a question, but it is one that I have written to many times
and I expect the same result. Let's take the 1943 set up as an historical
moment.
Truk has 5 naval units and is as large a fleet concentration as the Japanese had
anywhere and at any time during the war. Rabaul has 3 CA and lighter units with
3 more at Kure. This represents the entire IJN in 1943. There are two schools of
thought on the best way to deploy the IJN fleet, concentrated and dispersed. All
I can say is if you go for dispersed (viewed as ahistorical) you will have your
IJN fleet destroyed in pieces and accelerate the Allied timetable whereas
keeping it concentrated makes it very hard to destroy or severely damage until
the Allies get a major delivery of Essex class carriers in late '43 to'44. In my
view, this makes it obvious that concentrated (historical) is the only way to
go, but it is not dictated by the system, you just lose the fleet faster if you
disperse. In my mind historical deployments are followed not due to rules, but
due to desired outcome.
The same situation prevails for ISR where you do not have to segregate your army
and navy assets for either side, but if you do not you will find yourself tied
up in knots. So, again no rules to make you do smart things, but smart things
work much better. As you point out Truk is in range of Buna at the beginning of
1943, but note that the Allies are also under Interservice Rivalry, so they
cannot coordinate the land based air assets with their weak naval assets. This
is the period of time when the Army and the Navy are going their own way, so
Truk remains a viable naval base, but just barely. A design is more than its
separate parts, so it is the combination of command control issues and assets
that prevents the Allies from taking advantage of the situation. Once ISR is
lifted the fleet base is still somewhat secure from direct attack, but will have
its operations hampered by having its infrastructure wrecked (see monograph).
Once this becomes evident it is time to move the fleet back as they did
historically, without any special rules. I wrote an entire article in c3i on the
1943 scenario, so all of the nuances of how to play this scenario well are
available in deep detail.
Regarding PoW victories, they happen, but not once during any of the CSW team
games. I have found that it is a claim made by folks who do not play much and if
you do not know how to respond it can happen. I would also note that I won a
team match while spending much of the war with a very negative WiE situation and
ISR, which supposedly an automatic Allied defeat situation. The real issue is
the morale of many players breaks when they are in this situation, but that just
shows they are wimps.
Mark
--- In perfidiousalbion@yahoogroups.com, Philipp Klarmann <philipp.klarmann@...>
wrote:
>
> Good points, let me address them a bit.
>
> 2010/4/1 markherman50 <MarkHerman@...>
>
> >
> >
> > We now are descending down into how to play well, which I am happy to
> > address. But it is clear that you have not played in a while. The notion of
> > scattering your fleet to avoid pinning, does not work well in the game
> > because it allows the JP fleet to be defeated piecemeal.
> >
>
> How about what you see in many games, the Japanese player keeping his
> reaction forces scattered? I think it's more of a 1943 issue than later. Is
> there any real benefit to keep your forces concentrated?
>
> > I have no problem defeating a JP player who plays this way, so I'm good
> > with it. What I do is keep three or four concentrations of ships, which was
> > the historical deployment. A Japanese concentration of three or four JP
> > naval units is a large concentration of ships in EoTS and as big a
> > concentration as the JP usually had at any one fleet base like Truk. The
> > monograph I wrote is about Truk, so to avoid repeating what I wrote there,
> > another game myth is Truk. Truk was abandoned by the JP, because it was in
> > range of Allied bombers at the beginning of February 1944 because of its
> > vulnerability to US air power. When that happens in EoTS varies by the
> > situation, but once it does occur you need to move the JP fleet back to
> > Palau, which is what they did historically.
> >
> Usually, Truk is in range beginning of 1943, after the US has captured Buna
> and Lae, isn't it?
>
>
> > The other issue is Interservice rivalry. You can only do the smothering
> > operations that you speak of when their is central agreement, otherwise you
> > cannot coordinate in the same manner.
> >
> Correct, but attacking with Navy only is a risky business in 1943 for the
> Allied player. I begin to feel that my many attempts to play EotS were not
> far enough into the game?
>
>
> > Again every game plays out differently, so there is no common way to handle
> > the situation each time. Lastly, there is the issue of the JP fleet reacting
> > to every allied offensive. So which is it, it is either pinned or it is not.
> > It has been my personal experience with playing the game that what you speak
> > of is theoretical not practical. In my games the ships get sunk, so if the
> > JP is using their fleet to react to every Allied move, they tend to not have
> > it very long. Even a poor rolling Allied player by late '43 has more than
> > enough naval factors to make this a short lived strategy.
> >
> Indeed, but what about up until then? Progress of War is needed early on.
> So, how many PoW losses the Allies can afford?
>
>
> > But let me ask a question in return Fire in the Sky, which I believe you
> > like better. Or someone else said that several posts back. One of the big
> > issues in a strategic Pacific game is the JP strategy for inflicting heavy
> > Allied ground casualties to bring the US to the negotiating table. On the
> > Allied side it was a bloody business to take the various islands and in the
> > end it was the bloodbath of Okinawa that contributed to the expanding
> > estimates of anticipated casualties for invading Japan that made the A-bomb
> > decision an easy call.
> >
> > So, with that preamble, when you play FiTS and you invade an island once
> > you get past the air-naval stuff and you hit the beach there is NO
> > possibility of taking any land casualties for the attacker. Now in EoTS
> > invading an island is a major Nimitz level decision, but when I play FITS
> > and I have the ships no worries as the Marines are not going get hurt, so
> > not much pressure there. And yes I know you can lose in the counterattack
> > during the next JP turn, but if you send sufficient ground forces you never
> > lose anyone. For me that was a an interesting way to portray ground combat,
> > but it does have oil points.
> >
> I agree with your assessment. But the naval portion feels more accurate due
> to the oil points (which Asia Engulfed cleverly copied, so what do you think
> about AE?).
>
>
> > Anyway, check out my various articles in c3i on JP strategy where I
> > specifically deal with how to deploy fleets and such.
> >
> > Over to you... :-)
> >
>
>
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > --- In perfidiousalbion@yahoogroups.com<perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Philipp Klarmann <philipp.klarmann@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I appreciate this conversation very much! Trust me, I still harbour good
> > > feelings for EotS and I am not ready to give up as there are lots of good
> > > things in the game.
> > >
> > > I am with you on historical grounds, but so far, what I have seen
> > happening
> > > is, that a typical Allied offensive involves activating the pinning
> > forces
> > > and then go in for the kill. This means, the Japanese player should
> > rather
> > > spread out his forces, isn't it? And if you keep a large stack in range
> > of
> > > Long Range air, you will not be able to react at all...granted, in 1943,
> > > this does not happen too often as the Allied player will not have enough
> > air
> > > to always block you. But it happens.
> > >
> > > So, if I put a Long Range into Buna after having conquered it, you block
> > > Truk. No big fleet there ever afterwards, if the Japanese player is not
> > > stupid.
> > >
> > > But that's just the old pinning discussion. How about the oil issue (and
> > > let's revisit that). Correct, the Japanese player sortied his big boys a
> > few
> > > times. In EotS, however, they not only threat you with an attack, they
> > > occasionally do this. But, they can do it as a reaction to every card
> > play
> > > if interception occurs. Ok, you might say, it would be bad for the
> > Japanese
> > > player to sortie on every reaction but especially in 1943, the odds are
> > > pretty even and the Allies are under immense pressure.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2010/4/1 markherman50 <MarkHerman@>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well you answered the question on oil as I would. It is why the
> > Japanese
> > > > start the game with 7 cards and by mid game or so are down to 4. Think
> > of
> > > > cards as oil points like in FiTS if you like points more than
> > activations.
> > > >
> > > > As far as the Yamato moving around it did move around, but if the JP is
> > > > sending it to a continuous stream of offensives/reactions, why is it
> > not
> > > > dead. Note that any naval unit loses a great deal of its value when it
> > is on
> > > > its reduced side, so the Allies need to wack it and then it stops
> > moving
> > > > around a lot. As far as the fact that the Yamato was very expensive in
> > oil,
> > > > which is the point that you are making, it did not matter so much once
> > it
> > > > was located near the oil.
> > > >
> > > > But here is where wargaming myth gets in the way of historical fact.
> > The
> > > > Japanese used the Yamato and the Mushahi as the centerpieces of several
> > > > reactions in 1943 and in 1944 (Leyte). For example the Yamato sortied
> > from
> > > > Truk on September 18th with the Nagato in response to American raids.
> > On
> > > > October 17th the Mushahi with six battleships and carriers sortied from
> > > > Truk. My point being is the Japanese did move the big boats out on
> > several
> > > > occasions to meet Allied attacks and they were always the centerpiece
> > of all
> > > > of the reaction forces. Sure it cost them lots of oil, but these
> > movement
> > > > had priority over mama san getting cooking oil. The home front
> > suffered, but
> > > > the fleet was moved when they wanted it to move. My advice in EoTS is
> > if the
> > > > JP are enamored with the Yamato focus hits on reducing the Yamato when
> > it is
> > > > used, once hit you will not see it again for at least 1 turn (4 months)
> > and
> > > > usually longer. It is usually only impressive once.
> > > >
> > > > As far as the 1943 scenario being a very tense scenario where one
> > mistake
> > > > costs you the game. What's wrong with a tense scenario, I thought that
> > was
> > > > the point of good gaming. The same could be said for a Japanese
> > mistake.
> > > > Each situation is unique in a game where based on probability you will
> > not
> > > > see the same hand twice in your lifetime. As they say in chess for
> > every
> > > > chess brilliancy there is a reciprocal chess blunder.
> > > >
> > > > But this is how all my EoTS conversations go. I do not expect you to
> > change
> > > > your views and quite frankly it does not bother me that you do not like
> > the
> > > > game. What you will find is I have lectured at the US Naval War College
> > on
> > > > this topic and I have studied it in great detail. Folks are always
> > telling
> > > > me that this is unrealistic and this is not historical, but I have
> > reams of
> > > > data that says that most of what I am hearing are wargame myths not
> > concrete
> > > > facts. EoTS is a strategic game not like all the other Pacific games
> > > > mentioned (Pacific Fleet, Asia Engulfed, East Wind Rain, etc.) an
> > > > operational game on one map. That is what I was going for and that is
> > why I
> > > > play it. Nimitz never concerned himself with air points and wave
> > attacks
> > > > etc., which are considered the standard for this type of game. EoTS
> > goes its
> > > > own way on purpose and is not everyones cup of tea. I am fine with
> > that.
> > > >
> > > > But I love the debate...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > --- In
perfidiousalbion@yahoogroups.com<perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > Philipp Klarmann <philipp.klarmann@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the pinning issue is resolved (at least for me), but what
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > oil issue? I see that you argued many times that the cards display
> > the
> > > > > logistical limits on major movements by the Japanese, but it's often
> > the
> > > > > case in EotS that Yamato scurries around reacting to offensives. I
> > find
> > > > that
> > > > > EotS especially in 1943 is brutally tough on the Allies, mostly one
> > > > mistake
> > > > > will cost you the game.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2010/4/1 markherman50 <MarkHerman@>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is the point these days. There are lots of games out there and
> > > > many
> > > > > > calls upon people's time. The fact that there is an active EoTS
> > group
> > > > is
> > > > > > much better than most games have these days. Most games generate no
> > > > long
> > > > > > term enthusiasm so I am glad that EoTs still is actively played.
> > The
> > > > fact
> > > > > > that a game does not reveal all of its mystery's immediately is a
> > two
> > > > edged
> > > > > > sword. If it does not catch your fancy you move on because it is
> > too
> > > > much
> > > > > > effort to play well, if it does you stay with it and the experience
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > get old even after many playings. No free lunch there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as the rules go, people deal with rules of games they want
> > to
> > > > play.
> > > > > > I break out in hives when I think of ASL rules or most of the more
> > > > popular
> > > > > > CDGs and just about any of the magazine games. The ones on topics
> > that
> > > > I am
> > > > > > interested in I deal with, if I am less interested then any set of
> > > > rules is
> > > > > > too much. My take is we all take in information differently and if
> > a
> > > > game
> > > > > > has many nuances to add historical richness, which I wanted for
> > EoTS,
> > > > which
> > > > > > makes the rules more involved. What I find is experienced gamers
> > seem
> > > > > > incapable of following the EoTS sequence of play. All wargames have
> > > > > > sequences of play, so why is this one so hard. It is what it is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as the wtf moments that you mention regarding 'pinning' of
> > > > fleets
> > > > > > all I can say is WTF! I wrote an entire monograph that anyone can
> > get
> > > > on my
> > > > > > website about this very point with all of my research. It would
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > > easier to write a rule that states that historically fleets
> > abandoned
> > > > their
> > > > > > anchorages when they were in range of enemy land based air. Of
> > course
> > > > then
> > > > > > people would try and get around this rule. Instead I chose to
> > > > incorporate it
> > > > > > into the system. You do not have to move your fleet back, but if
> > you
> > > > choose
> > > > > > to ignore the historical facts thats the players business. I just
> > set
> > > > the
> > > > > > table, but if you want to eat your dessert first, go for it. The
> > > > monograph
> > > > > > comes with the post war interviews establishing their thinking on
> > this
> > > > > > topic. So, WTF...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, Washington's War is appealing to a broader audience due to
> > its
> > > > > > lower complexity. I went out of my way not to make the game more
> > > > complex,
> > > > > > just more interesting, at least for me. Over time I had issues with
> > WTP
> > > > that
> > > > > > kept me from playing it. That has now been addressed in
> > Washington's
> > > > War and
> > > > > > due to its short playing time it gets a lot of play around my
> > house.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Break, break... One of the annoying things about Yahoo groups is I
> > find
> > > > it
> > > > > > hard to get to the original message in a thread if it is set within
> > a
> > > > > > subthread etc. So to CV...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I may be a cheap bastard, but if you had asked, I would have been
> > happy
> > > > to
> > > > > > send you a copy of Washington's War. One of the unfortunate aspects
> > of
> > > > my
> > > > > > later years is I have lost the ability to read minds. And if you
> > ever
> > > > get to
> > > > > > DC, I will buy you dinner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
perfidiousalbion@yahoogroups.com<perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > >
> > > > > > Philipp Klarmann <philipp.klarmann@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your comments. I think Empire of the Sun suffers a bit
> > due
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > fact that there is small group of excellent players giving you
> > > > feedback
> > > > > > > while leaving out the large rest of the gaming population. I do
> > not
> > > > doubt
> > > > > > > that EotS is a great brain exercise and therefore, fun for some,
> > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > fear
> > > > > > > that most of the players like me are put off by the complexity
> > and
> > > > some
> > > > > > > mechanisms which make sense after a dozen or so playings.
> > Compared to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > easy approach Washington's War offers, one dreams about a similar
> > > > playing
> > > > > > > experience with EotS which it simply isn't.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2010/3/31 markherman50 <MarkHerman@>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
perfidiousalbion@yahoogroups.com<perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Steve Crowley" <steve@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Good news about Washingtons War - just arrived here and
> > you've
> > > > saved
> > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > job of getting out WtP to do a comparison.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > EoTS is a game I desperately want to like but every time I
> > play
> > > > it I
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > too
> > > > > > > > > many wtf moments. The pinning of fleets (mentioned oft times
> > > > here)
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > doesn't seem right.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Not everyone's cup of tea I know but I prefer Fire in the Sky
> > at
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > Of course, I'm still waiting for the reprint of Pacific
> > Fleet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We should probably kidnap Mark and not release him until he
> > has
> > > > > > produced
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > CDG game on the Pacific which we really want - and no remarks
> > > > from CV
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > LBW about EoTS being the game MH wanted to design if you
> > please.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From:
perfidiousalbion@yahoogroups.com<perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > >
[mailto:perfidiousalbion@yahoogroups.com<perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Behalf Of Philipp Klarmann
> > > > > > > > > Sent: 28 March 2010 8:11 AM
> > > > > > > > > To:
perfidiousalbion@yahoogroups.com<perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <perfidiousalbion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [perfidiousalbion] [Games] The Herman night
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Two games of Mark Herman back to back, and it's certainly
> > > > enlighting
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > go backwards in terms of the evolution of the CDG genre.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The first half of the evening is spent setting up and playing
> > > > through
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > turn
> > > > > > > > > of Empire of the Sun's tournament 1943 scenario. Lot's of
> > > > complicated
> > > > > > > > rules,
> > > > > > > > > intertwined with bean counting and hex counting, odd rules
> > > > > > exceptions,
> > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > cards appearing at the wrong time (just witness the cards
> > that
> > > > need
> > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > taken out in the scenario instructions, almost all card
> > numbers
> > > > are
> > > > > > low)
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the US losing it's will to fight in 1943. Huh?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > After so many tries, I consider this a valiant failure. It's
> > over
> > > > > > > > > complicated, ignores oil as the major factor in the naval
> > warfare
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > strategic consideration of the Japanese and forces in my
> > opinion
> > > > > > > > unrealistic
> > > > > > > > > behaviours (just look at the Yamato BB running around). I
> > know
> > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > defends
> > > > > > > > > his game with vigour and it's, if you have understood the
> > > > horrible
> > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > book, a brain exercise par excellence. But is it fun outside
> > of a
> > > > > > circle
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > insiders and enlightened readers? The current playthrough in
> > the
> > > > CSW
> > > > > > > > folder
> > > > > > > > > sees the Philippine scouts landing in Korea for lack of Air
> > ZOC
> > > > in
> > > > > > Japan.
> > > > > > > > > Double huh? I think given time and effort spent to learn it
> > to a
> > > > > > degree
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > perfection, I rather pull out another Pacific War title or
> > Mark's
> > > > > > older
> > > > > > > > PW
> > > > > > > > > title for a campaign.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The second half of the evening is reserved for Washington's
> > War.
> > > > And,
> > > > > > > > boy,
> > > > > > > > > given the tedious exercise of the previous three hours, this
> > game
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > shines even more. It's fast, exciting, close and runs
> > smoothly.
> > > > The
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > combat system is easy to learn and poses great trouble for
> > the
> > > > > > American
> > > > > > > > > player so he is even more reluctant to go head-to-head
> > against
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > British.
> > > > > > > > > The British steamroll the coast but have troubles controlling
> > the
> > > > > > > > colonies.
> > > > > > > > > A near perfect 10 for this redux of We the People. Better
> > cards,
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > map,
> > > > > > > > > better counters, tense gamplay, a must buy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > > > > > > > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2775 - Release
> > Date:
> > > > > > 03/28/10
> > > > > > > > > 07:32:00
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have not been here in a while, good to see you got a chance
> > to
> > > > play
> > > > > > > > Washington's War. It is not a reprint as you have already
> > surmised.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as EoTS goes, its not everyones cup of tea, but I design
> > the
> > > > > > games
> > > > > > > > that I want to play and this is the one that I play the most. I
> > > > guess
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have different tastes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as the Philippine Scouts ending up in Korea, this is
> > just
> > > > part
> > > > > > of my
> > > > > > > > design philosophy. I could just write a rule that says you
> > cannot
> > > > do
> > > > > > stupid
> > > > > > > > things, but why bother. The first stupid thing was the Japanese
> > > > emptied
> > > > > > > > Japan of every air and naval unit. Would the real Japanese do
> > that,
> > > > no,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I hate writing garrison rules and other such nonsense. If they
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > > play
> > > > > > > > badly let them. As a consequence there was nothing stopping the
> > > > Allies
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > raiding the coast. The Allies are out of supply and will
> > quickly
> > > > > > disperse,
> > > > > > > > so it is more about pissing off the Japanese.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyway, enjoy Washington's War...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Posted by markherman
at 9:38 PM EDT
