cathar1244 -> RE: Call to Arms (4/4/2019 12:07:55 PM)
|
It sounds like it recreates the limitations of the combatants well. A useful playtest might be to run a game in which the American player deliberately runs the colonials into the ground and see if the British player can then handily win, or if he gets bogged down in fights with colonial militia and wilderness. If the latter case is true, that might indicate a need for tuning. I was curious about the map. It looks like it shows Florida under British control -- I had thought it was still Spanish Florida at that point, but may easily be mistaken. Cheers quote:
ORIGINAL: Raindem December 1779 A few emails back, Ian and I were discussing one of the attributes of this scenario that may turn some players off to it. And that is: no matter what you do, you can’t seem to get the upper hand over the other player. The British can bounce me around all over the coast, but as soon as they venture too far inland they are overwhelmed by militia. For me, it’s even worse. To conduct any kind of offensive operation I have to save up units and supplies for several months. Move them into position. Wait a couple more months to recover supply again, and then attack. My attacks succeed for one, maybe two turns. Then the British come out and destroy everything I was attacking with. I run away. And the cycle repeats. I think this tedium is quite historical for the conflict being simulated. Letters between various British commanders and London showed a fatigue setting in by 1780. Redcoats kept killing Patriots but there were always more gathering up over the next hill. Parliament was becoming concerned with the cost. And the British public were just getting tired of it all. One might draw some parallels with the U.S. experience in Vietnam, but I’ll leave that for another discussion. I know Ian will see this through, win or lose. But I imagine many players would get bored by this point and move on to FITE or something. This scenario isn’t for everyone.
|
|
|
|