Game: Price of Freedom

Thread: Re: Slow and painful gaming experience....

Zilver — 2008-11-27T18:46:37+00:00

Well, I got myself genuinely beaten as the Union early on. I invaded Kentucky and a series of battle took place in the south of the state. Suddenly I found myself outmaneuvered and the confederates zoomed up to grab enough Northern cities to claim the victory. Not my best game, of course, but it can happen.

I bought this game after having played Age of Napoleon and even if I found the game to be solid, it lacked some of the charm of Age of Napoleon. In particular the effect of Austria, Prussia and Spain constantly shifting allegiance. Price of Freedom is far more straightforward, but it is certainly not a bad game.

Thread: Re: Slow and painful gaming experience....

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-11-27T02:27:44+00:00

sduke wrote:
I said I'd post some session reports after some experience with this game. It has been puzzling to me that so little interest is present in this game, but now I may understand better why that is. I bought this game because I have enjoyed the designer's "Age of Napoleon" immensely over the years and thought Price of Freedom might be more of the same. I have been greatly disappointed, though.

I'd seriously like to hear any comments from fellow gamers who have played this a few times or from anyone from the company who might point out something I missed. While critical, my intent is not intended to be malicious. I'd certainly like to hear about someone else's positive experiences, especially as the Confederate, before I put this one on Ebay.

After Four FtF plays:

No Confederate victories

To think I was afraid the US would not win enough!

Every game massively impacted by the card "You Must Attack!"

First time I hear this.

There is a game there, but it needed more development. There is no listed developer. I'm not in the game business but there is a reason that almost all games have a designer, and a developer and this game seems underdeveloped to me.

Can you be more specific?

One positive is it completes in about 3 hours. One negative is, it takes about 3 hours to complete.

I really wanted to like it. The scale and game length fit my bill. But I really disliked it after playing it.

As is historical, the Confederacy is ever increasingly on the ropes throughout the game it is a slow inevitable death. There really is not a sliver of a chance that the Rebs can win this game, they can just lose better than they did historically. This is like playing a game about Pearl Harbor--as the American--and being happy that you "won" because the Arizona didn't sink.
Some other Civil War games handle southern possibilities much better, IMO, "For the People" being one of themm and "A House Divided" being another.

Well if the South can easily win the game other than by simply ending the game in a better shape than historically, I would surmise these games might not be all that historical...

As the Confederacy, if Kentucky doesn't come into play, the main spaces to defend are Richmond, the Shenendoah, and Memphis. You might be lucky enough to get about 8 units on the board. But your game might NOT be much more involved than those 3 spaces/ those 8 units and a gaggle of leaders.

While this can happen (esp. the limited number of units), I sense a lack of initiative with the South.

I think the game could be interesting if theater commanders could only command a maximum of 2 units and field commanders could command only one unit.

Meaning that a corps would now represent about 100,000 men? That would be a little coarse, no? And how would that result in having more units on the map? Or are you suggesting that the commanders should be demoted?

The War effort levels are the real crusher in the game. It's not hard for the Confederacy to have theirs shot down to 2 or 3 in a matter of a couple of turns.

Again that's the first time I hear this. Look at the war effort table and see how the South can lose 7-8 WEPs in 2 turns. It's a practical impossibility.

If the Confederacy withdraws from the Mississippi and Nashville (as it needs to do tactically to survive) this will be made even worse.

Perhaps then you'll get to lose 6-7 WEPs quickly, but why do that? I don't think it is a de facto tactical necessity.

It's like having to rip off a bandage to stop a wound that is bleeding faster than the one the bandage is on but realizing that the old wound will now bleed unchecked. It's bleed to death sooner or later as the Rebs, and not much decision making on your part to decide. If the South is lucky enough to have Kentucky be out of bounds for the Union player for a good while (and the Union player just doesn't simply violate its neutral status early) the Union player will certainly have enough resources to do just that later on in the game and plow right through Kentucky to Nashville. I found the West was virtually impossible to defend for the South. And its either a rapid or slow death for the South, but it is inevitable. Again, not much fun to lose less than your historical counterpart, IMO.

Different folks, different folks. I like history in my game, however simple they are. I'm currently working on an ETO game (well, the hedge fund industry is not blowing up). While the Axis may win the real way with a bit of skill and luck, don't expect it to happen more than 10% of time if that.

For me, it was dreadful with no real interesting strategic choices to make and finishing a game was just suffering torment.

Sorry about that!

The games does represent the headaches of dealing with the red tape of commanding leaders.

Thanks - that was a personal goal of mine.

Given the disparity in 'fun', this game could possibly be better as a solo game, more like a historical CDG where you are just watching a movie unfold when you know what the inevitable ending is going to be.

Other than that I never want to play it again.

Maybe if we meet at a convention?

Thread: Re: Slow and painful gaming experience....

fatso — 2008-11-25T13:00:27+00:00

Sorry to hear it, but thanks for the heads up! I would have picked it up already but U.S. Civil War games tend to sit on the shelf around here.

Thread: Re: Slow and painful gaming experience....

sherron — 2008-11-25T06:41:09+00:00

I was disapointed with it too. There is not much for the Confederate player to do but to reorganize his armies. It maybe more historical but not much fun to play. In my post I felt it would have made a better solitare game with the right twixing. It did not make sense to me to leave out Longstreet and Jackson and have VanDorn. The only thing I liked was the art work. My favorite CW game is still For The People. A House Divided would be my choice for a quick playing CW game and for a better price too.

Thread: Re: So few reviews...questions...

sduke — 2008-11-25T02:29:40+00:00

I've posted a session report, pending approval by the BGG folks.

It is not pretty...

Thread: Slow and painful gaming experience....

sduke — 2008-11-25T02:28:09+00:00

I said I'd post some session reports after some experience with this game. It has been puzzling to me that so little interest is present in this game, but now I may understand better why that is. I bought this game because I have enjoyed the designer's "Age of Napoleon" immensely over the years and thought Price of Freedom might be more of the same. I have been greatly disappointed, though.

I'd seriously like to hear any comments from fellow gamers who have played this a few times or from anyone from the company who might point out something I missed. While critical, my intent is not intended to be malicious. I'd certainly like to hear about someone else's positive experiences, especially as the Confederate, before I put this one on Ebay.

After Four FtF plays:

No Confederate victories

Every game massively impacted by the card "You Must Attack!"

There is a game there, but it needed more development. There is no listed developer. I'm not in the game business but there is a reason that almost all games have a designer, and a developer and this game seems underdeveloped to me.

One positive is it completes in about 3 hours. One negative is, it takes about 3 hours to complete.

I really wanted to like it. The scale and game length fit my bill. But I really disliked it after playing it.

As is historical, the Confederacy is ever increasingly on the ropes throughout the game it is a slow inevitable death. There really is not a sliver of a chance that the Rebs can win this game, they can just lose better than they did historically. This is like playing a game about Pearl Harbor--as the American--and being happy that you "won" because the Arizona didn't sink.
Some other Civil War games handle southern possibilities much better, IMO, "For the People" being one of themm and "A House Divided" being another.

As the Confederacy, if Kentucky doesn't come into play, the main spaces to defend are Richmond, the Shenendoah, and Memphis. You might be lucky enough to get about 8 units on the board. But your game might NOT be much more involved than those 3 spaces/ those 8 units and a gaggle of leaders.

I think the game could be interesting if theater commanders could only command a maximum of 2 units and field commanders could command only one unit.

The War effort levels are the real crusher in the game. It's not hard for the Confederacy to have theirs shot down to 2 or 3 in a matter of a couple of turns. If the Confederacy withdraws from the Mississippi and Nashville (as it needs to do tactically to survive) this will be made even worse. It's like having to rip off a bandage to stop a wound that is bleeding faster than the one the bandage is on but realizing that the old wound will now bleed unchecked. It's bleed to death sooner or later as the Rebs, and not much decision making on your part to decide.

If the South is lucky enough to have Kentucky be out of bounds for the Union player for a good while (and the Union player just doesn't simply violate its neutral status early) the Union player will certainly have enough resources to do just that later on in the game and plow right through Kentucky to Nashville. I found the West was virtually impossible to defend for the South. And its either a rapid or slow death for the South, but it is inevitable. Again, not much fun to lose less than your historical counterpart, IMO.

For me, it was dreadful with no real interesting strategic choices to make and finishing a game was just suffering torment.

The games does represent the headaches of dealing with the red tape of commanding leaders.

Given the disparity in 'fun', this game could possibly be better as a solo game, more like a historical CDG where you are just watching a movie unfold when you know what the inevitable ending is going to be.

Other than that I never want to play it again.

Thread: Re: So few reviews...questions...

sduke — 2008-11-12T21:47:54+00:00

Ken,
thanks for the response. I wouldnt expect someone from the game company to say it's a dog, but I'm about to start my own session and will gladly add in my session reports as I explore this game firsthand myself.

Thread: Re: So few reviews...questions...

Wahoo — 2008-11-08T16:32:32+00:00

Steve,

Okay, so I'm biased. Folks can either pass on my comments or consider them...

Consider that the CSA was always going to lose the real war. However, The Price of Freedom gives the CSA a chance at winning the GAME, if not the war. Consider the scale, the fact that the game does pack in a great deal of historical flavor, and models many of the real constraints faced by both sides, and I'd say it's a great game for what it's trying to do.

Ken at Compass

Thread: Re: So few reviews...questions...

sduke — 2008-11-07T04:13:38+00:00

So, is it pretty dull to play the Confederates?

And is it only a matter of time before the South goes down? I've read both of those remarks on several occasions by folks with some games under their belts. Just curious.

Thread: Re: So few reviews...questions...

DUMASCLUB — 2008-10-31T15:43:03+00:00

The combat system seems to be very defender friendly. There are not a variety of cards that you think there would be and some are very devastating. The approaches from the North into South are limited. The supply rules are very liberal it seems to me but at the same time surprisingly convoluted.

The nature of the conflict on a grand strategic scale can be a bit boring, especially, early on in the war. The North should build a huge army in Washington and begin to strangle the C.S.A. with its navy. The Confederates must secure Richmond and stop the bleeding out West. There are no grand sweeping moves, at least not in the games we played.

Thread: Re: So few reviews...questions...

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-31T15:16:06+00:00

sduke wrote:
i was also hoping for some reviews as I've had my copy since May, sitting on a shelf, with other games in front of it to play.

I dont know if you have read the number ratings that 59 folks have given the game, but quite a few of their comments are useful to figure out how the game plays and if it is good or not.
After reading the rating comments, I'm thinking I will get rid of this game but I'd like to play it a few times myself just to see.

You do what you want, but it seems pretty silly to me. First of all, the game's overall rating is 7.05. Hardly a bad rating. The range goes from 4 to 10. Why pay attention to the lower ratings and not to the higher ratings? Among the lower ratings, there are two main criticisms: the South does not get to do enough and the rules are hard to understand.

The South indeed has fewer options at its disposal (well, if you want the game to have some decent historical underpinnings, it;s hard to do otherwise, especially at this scale), so it takes a certain frame of mind to enjoy this particular challenge, and I understand that not all players do (but then a lot of wargamers only play solitary, so if they have more fun playing the North, they very well can).

As for the clarity of the rules, I took in a lot of of the similar criticisms that had been directed at AoN and tried to do a better job with PoF. I believe there is very little left to imagination in the rules and there are very few errata or real unclear situations; however, there are many elements of the design that are not quite traditional and some people have a hard time understanding or accepting that and will look for hidden meaning where things are plainly stated. I make a professional living of explaining complicated things (hedge fund quantitative strategies), so while I may operate at a high level, I doubt I am all that obscure.

Thread: Re: So few reviews...questions...

sduke — 2008-10-31T03:00:40+00:00

i was also hoping for some reviews as I've had my copy since May, sitting on a shelf, with other games in front of it to play.

I dont know if you have read the number ratings that 59 folks have given the game, but quite a few of their comments are useful to figure out how the game plays and if it is good or not.
After reading the rating comments, I'm thinking I will get rid of this game but I'd like to play it a few times myself just to see.

Thread: So few reviews...questions...

shadow9d9 — 2008-10-27T02:44:21+00:00

I was hoping over the months some more reviews would have come out.. why the lack of interest?

My biggest question is how luck driven the game is... Will the more skilled player win most of the time?

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thread: Re: Reorganize twice?

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-22T21:46:36+00:00

Let's say MAM is +1. The army's starting MA is 3 (standard) - 1 (spent) + 1 (MAM) = 3.

#1:

Army first reorganizes. MA = 3 - 1 (reorg) + 1 (fresh) = 3.
Army moves 3 regions, which is a cause of march attrition, causing it to become spent. Since it has spent 3 MPs to move, it cannot reorganize and remains spent.

#2/#3:

Starting MA is 3 (standard) - 1 (spent) + 1 (MAM) = 3.
Army moves 3 regions, which is a cause of march attrition, causing it to roll for losses since it is already spent when entering the 3rd region. Naturally, having spent 3 MPs to move, the army cannot reorganize and, provided it survived the die roll for losses, remains spent.

So #1 is still a bit better (no march attrition loss possible). The same is true if the leader has a MAM of 0 and the army moves only 2 regions. Under #1, it is still fresh after moving while under #2/#3 it is still spent (no MP left to reorganize).

Thread: Re: Reorganize twice?

camustafa — 2008-10-21T17:51:13+00:00

camustafa wrote:
To illustrate the problem I am having, please explain if there is any difference between these three scenarios. Assume an army with 1 spent and 1 unspent corps, with a leader modifier of -1 MP. I play a 2 OP card for my impulse.

I spend 1 OP to move the army. During the move, I reorganize the spent corps with the second OP. How many MP will my army have and why?

Renaud Verlaque wrote:
The army starts with an MA of 1 (3 - 1 for being spent - 1 for the leader). It moves 1 region and has no MP left. It cannot reorganize while moving from 1 region to the other if that's what you meant.

camustafa wrote:
I spend 1 OP to move the army. After I finish moving, I spend the second OP to reorganize the whole army. How many MP will my army have and why?

Renaud Verlaque wrote:
As per the above, it has no MP left to reorganize after having moved 1 region even though it does have 1 OP left, so it is hosed.

camustafa wrote:
Logic says that there really should not be a difference between the outcomes of these three scenarios.

Renaud Verlaque wrote:
Well, #2 and #3 are really the same scenario; #1 is different and a better option. Intuitively, that seems correct to me.

OK, so maybe the example was not a great one. How about the case where the leader has a 0 or +1 MA modifier. Does this distinguish cases 2 and 3 from case 1? Case 2 from case 3?

Now the army has the option to reorganize before it starts to move, after it spends the 1st MP and after it spends all but one MP.

Is there a difference, and if yes, why?

Thread: Re: Reorganize twice?

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-18T19:51:09+00:00

camustafa wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. I am still confused about one thing -

Does reorganization always cost 1 OP + 1MP?

Only relevant if the reorganization takes place in the same impulse as movement. If so, yes; if not, no.

To illustrate the problem I am having, please explain if there is any difference between these three scenarios. Assume an army with 1 spent and 1 unspent corps, with a leader modifier of -1 MP. I play a 2 OP card for my impulse.

I then:

I spend 1 OP to reorganize the spent corps. When I spend the second OP to move, how many MP will my army have and why?

Following the reorgization, the army is fresh, so it's MA is 3 before the commander's modifier (-1) and the cost of the reorganization (-1), therefore 1. The army can move 1 region, just the same as if it had not reorganized. So why reorganize? The army will fight better and will resist campaign attrition better being fresh.

I spend 1 OP to move the army. During the move, I reorganize the spent corps with the second OP. How many MP will my army have and why?

The army starts with an MA of 1 (3 - 1 for being spent - 1 for the leader). It moves 1 region and has no MP left. It cannot reorganize while moving from 1 region to the other if that's what you meant.

I spend 1 OP to move the army. After I finish moving, I spend the second OP to reorganize the whole army. How many MP will my army have and why?

As per the above, it has no MP left to reorganize after having moved 1 region even though it does have 1 OP left, so it is hosed.

Logic says that there really should not be a difference between the outcomes of these three scenarios.

Well, #2 and #3 are really the same scenario; #1 is different and a better option. Intuitively, that seems correct to me.

What about the -1 for having half spent corps? Does it apply in scenario 1 as well?

An army is considered spent if half or more its corps are spent, so a 2-corps army is spent whether either or both corps are spent.

Thread: Re: Reorganize twice?

camustafa — 2008-10-13T14:11:19+00:00

Thanks for the clarification. I am still confused about one thing -

Does reorganization always cost 1 OP + 1MP?

To illustrate the problem I am having, please explain if there is any difference between these three scenarios. Assume an army with 1 spent and 1 unspent corps, with a leader modifier of -1 MP. I play a 2 OP card for my impulse.

I then:

I spend 1 OP to reorganize the spent corps. When I spend the second OP to move, how many MP will my army have and why?

I spend 1 OP to move the army. During the move, I reorganize the spent corps with the second OP. How many MP will my army have and why?

I spend 1 OP to move the army. After I finish moving, I spend the second OP to reorganize the whole army. How many MP will my army have and why?

Logic says that there really should not be a difference between the outcomes of these three scenarios. It's clear to me that - 1(leader) - 1 (reorganized) always applies (does it even for scenario 3)? What about the -1 for having half spent corps? Does it apply in scenario 1 as well?

Thread: Re: Reorganize twice?

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-10T00:14:44+00:00

Sorry that's not quite right. You always spend 1 OP to reorganize whether you're reorganizing before you move, while you move, or after you move. If you reorganize and move (regardless of the order) reorganizing ALSO costs you 1 MP. So if you reorganize, move and reorganize, you spend 3 OPs, the 1st reorganization costs you 1 MP, the 2nd reorganization costs you 1 MP, which leaves you with your army's MA minus 2 MPs to move. In practice, however, it can't happen because in order to need reorganization after a move an army must move 3 regions, so reorganizing/movin 3 regions/reorganizing would require an army with an MA of 5, which can only be achieved with a +1 leader AND force-marching, but reorganizing is not possible while force-marcing, therefore, this sequence of actions is not achievable (intentionally so, I might add).

Thread: Re: Militia card requires leader in pool?

Feralkoala — 2008-10-09T21:08:50+00:00

Look at it as being troops organized by a 'political' general or faction as a favor to the administration. The Union army certainly had plenty of instances of that going on.

Thread: Re: Reorganize twice?

camustafa — 2008-10-09T20:47:20+00:00

Thank you, I think I finally get how actions, OPs and movement interact.

Here's the key I think I was missing:

To reorganize you can spend either:

One OP and this is not part of a movement, OR
One MP during movement, which does not require an OP.

So just to make sure I got this right, here's an example:

I am moving a an army made up of two corps, one spent, one fresh.

I spend an OP to activate.

I then spend an MP to reorganize and it has no effect on how far I can move since now I do not suffer from the "half spent" penalty. I force march (get an extra MP) and become spent when I enter my third space. My movement is over.

I now spend an extra OP to reorganize.

I arrive at this conclusion because I would never spend an additional MP to reorganize after the force march since there would be no advantage to force marching then. (Gain one MP, lose one MP). I could always get to where I ended up without force marching in the first place.

Thread: Re: Militia card requires leader in pool?

camustafa — 2008-10-09T20:35:25+00:00

Thanks.

I suppose I should not wonder why Militia need to be led by a field commander or they won't deploy?

Thread: Re: Militia card requires leader in pool?

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-09T17:56:03+00:00

Correct. The only standard deployment ules "broken" by Militia are: no OP to deploy; can be deployed even if the number of corps on the map exceeds WE; can be deployed in an enemy-occupied region. All other standard deployment rules apply IIRC.

Thread: Re: Reorganize twice?

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-09T13:13:55+00:00

If there's no battle, you could potentially reorganize twice.

Thread: Re: Reorganize twice?

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-09T13:12:41+00:00

You can't reorganize after you attack. All battles take place after all OPs have been spent for the impulse (17.1).

Thread: Re: Riverine connection between Washington and Fredericksburg?

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-09T13:05:46+00:00

Indeed. At the game scale, the riverine connection represents the Potomac. Some argue that the CSA historically would not have had a chance to make it towards Washington this way - I wanted to leave it as a possibility but considering the pro USA modifiers that an attack on Washington via this riverine connection entails it has little chance of succeeding.

Thread: Re: Grant victories

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-10-09T10:47:38+00:00

Correct.

Thread: Re: Riverine connection between Washington and Fredericksburg?

sherron — 2008-10-07T17:52:56+00:00

No but the Potomac is and the Potomac river is only a few miles east of Fredericksburg and was used to supply the Union army during Burnside's operations in 1862.

thanks, your the CW man!

Thread: Re: Riverine connection between Washington and Fredericksburg?

mrbeankc — 2008-10-07T17:18:05+00:00

No but the Potomac is and the Potomac river is only a few miles east of Fredericksburg and was used to supply the Union army during Burnside's operations in 1862.

Thread: Re: Riverine connection between Washington and Fredericksburg?

sherron — 2008-10-07T17:07:26+00:00

It looked like that to me. I am not sure they could justify that in other CW games don't think The Rapppahanock is navagiable to river traffic. At least in other CW game I can't remember it being so, but will admit I could be wrong about it.

Thread: Re: Grant victories

sherron — 2008-10-07T16:55:49+00:00

That would seem possible to me, I think they meant the west but didn't specifiy it had to be in the west. He would have to be deployed to the west at the start of course.

Thread: Grant victories

camustafa — 2008-10-07T16:35:27+00:00

Grant must win two victories before he can be promoted to Western theater commander.

The rules do not say that these victories have to be in the Western theater, however.

So, is it possible to use Strategic Transfer to wheel Grant into the East, win two victories, and then promote him to Western Theater command?

If yes, I assume that he would need to be wheeled or marched back to the Western theater before the promotion, yes?

Thread: Riverine connection between Washington and Fredericksburg?

camustafa — 2008-10-07T16:33:08+00:00

I just want to make sure that I get this right - it looks like there is a riverine connection between Washington and Fredericksburg. Is that so, or am I just looking at a piece of ocean?

If this is correct, then that means the Union can play Gunboats while defending in Washington, yes?

Thread: Militia card requires leader in pool?

camustafa — 2008-10-07T16:30:12+00:00

I just want to confirm that in order to play "Militia," there has to be a leader in your force pool.

Further, if the only leader(s) in your pool has not been previously deployed, you can only play Militia in the right theater, since you could not deploy a leader in the other theater.

Correct?

Thread: Re: Is "You Must Attack" subject to all movement rules?

camustafa — 2008-10-07T16:27:10+00:00

I had thought as much, but just wanted some confirmation.

Thanks!

Thread: Reorganize twice?

camustafa — 2008-10-06T23:55:39+00:00

May I reorganize a corps twice in one impulse?

For example, I play a 3 op card.

First OP - reorganize spent corps.
Second OP - move and attack - become spent.
Third OP - reorganize again.

Thread: More C-in-C card play questions

camustafa — 2008-10-06T18:10:21+00:00

Two more questions on the C-in-C card:

1) Rule 12.3 states that there is no limit to the number of C-in-C cards that can be played as events only (during a campaign phase round).

Since any number of commanders can be added/promoted/transferred with a single C-in-C event, why would anyone want to play multiple C-in-C events in one round? In other words, is it not redundant to state that multiple C-in-C events may be played in a round since there is no reason to do so?

2) If I use an enemy C-in-C to sack a defeated enemy commander (17.5.7), do I have the choice between returning them to the pool or removing them from the game?

I assumed yes, but I ask because the rule states that you can sack an enemy commander only if there is a replacement available in the enemy force pool,so the wording is different from sacking your own commanders.

If the answer is no, what must be done with the enemy commander? Return or remove?

Thread: Re: Is "You Must Attack" subject to all movement rules?

perfalbion — 2008-10-06T01:21:22+00:00

I believe the answer is "yes" to all of the above.

Thread: Why play the C-in-C card during reinforcement?

camustafa — 2008-10-06T00:03:32+00:00

As far as I can tell the C-in-C card has exactly the same effect on commander placement regardless of whether you play it in the reinforcement or campaign phase. If it is played in the campaign phase, it gives 3 OP on top of the ability to assign/transfer commanders. You don't get any OP if you play it in the reinforcement phase.

If this is correct, why would anyone ever play a C-in-C card in the reinforcement phase? The only reason may be if you really want to have a commander present in the first campaign impulse and you either know or suspect that you will not be the active player until the second impulse. Even then, this should be a very rare occurrence.

What am I missing here?

Thread: Is "You Must Attack" subject to all movement rules?

camustafa — 2008-10-05T22:11:09+00:00

In other words, if I play You Must Attack on an enemy army, may I also play Mud March on it so that it never makes it to its target?

May I intercept it?

Thread: Re: How come my favorite general sucks while this bum shines?

camustafa — 2008-10-05T18:22:30+00:00

Has anyone thought about a variant which would rate the generals across a +2/-2 range for battle purposes (not MAM since that would be too great a change from a base of 3)?

I sadly do not know enough about the generals to contemplate such a project.

Thread: Re: Playing the South in PoF

camustafa — 2008-10-05T18:16:21+00:00

Renaud Verlaque wrote:
The South does have better command, at least for the 1st half of the game, and while cavalry is not represented as such, the South's early cavalry advantage is still represented in some ways (movement allowance modifier; cavalry raid card usable from the get go). Nothing prevents the South from raiding north, but the lack of supply will usually make those short-lived.

I just got the game and am reading through to better understand the system, which I am finding as a little more opaque than it needs to be. I must say that I do not understand this comment:

What is the movement modifier you refer to as an advantage for the South that depicts their superiority in cavalry?

Thread: Re: Rules Index

buffmeister — 2008-09-25T11:39:42+00:00

Brian

Totally agree.

Anyone out there got the time to help us prospective PoF players out?

Thread: Re: War Effort Spaces Unexplained?

Sol Invictus — 2008-08-12T07:15:59+00:00

Thank you both. For some reason, I didn't see that section upon my reading of the rules.

-Alex

Thread: Re: War Effort Spaces Unexplained?

RPardoe — 2008-08-12T04:33:17+00:00

Have you checked the player aide where the factors that go into the CSA and USA War Effort are explained? This is on Side "1" with Turn Phrases at the top left. Look at the bottom of that left most column. (Of course, this is also detailed in 4.1 (CSA WE) and 4.2 (USA WE) of the rules.)

The USA loses 1 WE per confederate controlled Union resource region (square city) except Washington. Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and Columbus are all Union Resource Regions.

Thread: Re: War Effort Spaces Unexplained?

rayito2702 — 2008-08-12T04:26:31+00:00

In section "4.2 Union War Effort" on page 7 it has a list of Union War Effort modifiers. One of which is "-1 Per Confederate-controlled Union resource region other than Washington".

Thread: War Effort Spaces Unexplained?

Sol Invictus — 2008-08-12T04:07:26+00:00

Hello, all -

We've been playing POF and enjoying it, however I've run into a bit of a snag.

I'm playing the CSA in our current game, and for the first time I noticed that there are War Effort markers in Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and a few other Union cities. However, there's no explanation of this in the rules.

The group opinion has been that it probably means the control of the city would shift war effort in favor of the CSA if captured (capturing Indianapolis is a big deal in the 1860s... major rail hub, factories, etc, not to mention Pittsburgh, among others).

As there is "no Errata" for the game... can someone please explain what the War Effort effect of these cities is, if any?

-Alex

Thread: Re: withdrawing and intercepting

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-07-31T21:57:43+00:00

benjamic wrote:
16.4.6 and 16.5.5 say that withdrawing and/or intercepting more than once in an impulse is not allowed - I'm thinking that applies per army and not for the entire side? (that is - if you are attacked in 2 different regions, both of your armies in the different regions could withdraw...)

Ben

Per army (effectively, per corps)

Thread: Re: reorganizing and garrisoning while moving

Renaud Verlaque — 2008-07-31T21:56:43+00:00

benjamic wrote:
When an army has been activated for 1 OPs point to move and it re-organizes or garrisons, does this cost 1 MP and another 1 OP, or just 1 MP? OK - I think from the examples that it costs both...sorry about that.

Both.

Another question refers to 12.8 - does this rule mean that re-organizing and garrisoning can only happen with moving armies, or just that moving an army and doing these actions cost both 1 OP and 1 MP?

The latter (though you keep track of these actions, so if you do them first, and then decide to move, your abaility to move is reduced).

Thread: withdrawing and intercepting

benjamic — 2008-07-30T17:22:05+00:00

16.4.6 and 16.5.5 say that withdrawing and/or intercepting more than once in an impulse is not allowed - I'm thinking that applies per army and not for the entire side? (that is - if you are attacked in 2 different regions, both of your armies in the different regions could withdraw...)

Ben

Thread: reorganizing and garrisoning while moving

benjamic — 2008-07-30T17:13:42+00:00

When an army has been activated for 1 OPs point to move and it re-organizes or garrisons, does this cost 1 MP and another 1 OP, or just 1 MP? OK - I think from the examples that it costs both...sorry about that.

Another question refers to 12.8 - does this rule mean that re-organizing and garrisoning can only happen with moving armies, or just that moving an army and doing these actions cost both 1 OP and 1 MP?

Ben

Image

BobRoberts — 2008-04-26T06:57:55+00:00

A heated game of Price of Freedom at GMT West 2008.

Image

BobRoberts — 2008-04-26T06:54:37+00:00

Price of Freedom being played at GMT West 2008

Image

Cleitus the Black — 2008-03-10T00:11:59+00:00

Unit and map closeup

Image

Cleitus the Black — 2008-03-10T00:09:53+00:00

Game Contents (not inc. the small Plano box)

Image

Ladislaus — 2008-02-19T21:07:10+00:00

Everything in the box (excluding the one advertisement).

Image

Ladislaus — 2008-02-19T20:20:52+00:00

Box still in shrink-wrap.

Image

Jasonofindy — 2008-02-11T19:34:12+00:00

The back of the box (and the back of the rulebook)

Image

Ladislaus — 2007-11-12T14:15:58+00:00

Card Preview (Final): "Trans-Mississippi Campaign". (Publicly available from publisher.)

Image

metor2 — 2007-11-12T12:54:16+00:00

Map from Publishers Website (with kind permission by Compass Games)

Image

Ladislaus — 2007-11-11T20:58:18+00:00

Card Preview (Final): "Draft". (Publicly available from publisher.)