Game: War of 1812

Thread: Re: Naval variant for "old" edition

drpetrov — 2008-11-30T00:44:09+00:00

kostek wrote:
Capturing enemy ships

When an enemy ship is caught in port, the captured ships are placed in the owner's unavailable pile.

The 'victor' then as two options. These cannot be saved. They must be executed immediately or not at all.

1. Transfer one (1) ship from the unavailable pile to the available pile, representing the captured materials. If the unavailable pile is empty, this option may not be taken.

2. Transfer one (1) ship from either the unavailable pile or the available pile to the map in the spot where the capture occurred. This represents taking over the ships in the same location. If both piles are empty, this option may not be taken.

Note that no matter how many ships are captured, the victor only gains a single ship.

I like this variant, but I'd suggest modifying it thus:

Firstly, when the town of York was captured by the Americans (in real life), the British burned the ships there to prevent their capture by the Americans. There should be some way you can destroy your own ships during an attack to prevent their capture, and it probably shouldn't be too expensive or difficult. Perhaps on a roll of 3+ the ship is destroyed, on a 1 or 2 it is captured. Operational ships might be able to escape to the lake if there are no enemy ships there.

Secondly, for your #2 option, to capture a ship you should probably limit it only to blocks which were in your available pile. As it stands people would always choose #2 unless their control of the current lake is secure.

Peet

Image

gittes — 2008-11-07T04:58:36+00:00

VASSAL - Things are Looking Grim in Canada.

Thread: Re: Difference between the first edition and current edition

flapjackmachine — 2008-10-24T11:34:37+00:00

My Gamma Two version doesn't have stickers for the land units. All the information on the blocks is painted on.

I've seen later editions of the Gamma Two game and never saw stickers. I believe they are only in the Columbia Games editions.

Thread: Re: Which version?

Jack Hooligan — 2008-10-08T14:56:52+00:00

Outstanding news!

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Which version?

Seth_Logan — 2008-10-08T06:59:40+00:00

hmm to make it more interesting: I got the second edition board with the second and third edition stickers

Thread: Re: Which version?

cannoneer — 2008-10-08T04:34:58+00:00

I got the older version in June 2007 from Boards and Bits. It was their last copy, and I had searched around a bunch and hadn't seen it anywhere else at that time. Certainly you got the new version!

Thread: Re: Which version?

rjpomeroy — 2008-10-08T02:40:09+00:00

The prior version was out of print and sold out at all the on-line retailers for at least a year. I think you can be quite confident that you will be receiving the 2008 version. Enjoy!

Thread: Which version?

Jack Hooligan — 2008-10-08T02:02:42+00:00

Hey fellas,

I recently ordered this game from an online retailer. Any idea if I'll be receiving the 2008 version or not? Does it say on the box?

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Replacing Losses

voynix — 2008-10-06T02:23:13+00:00

No repairing damaged blocks.

Thread: Replacing Losses

gittes — 2008-10-06T02:09:29+00:00

So I just played a game on VASSAL and it appears that neither side can gain more steps after an army block suffers hits. Did me and my opponent miss something in the rules or did we read it right?

Thread: Re: conquered but not occupied

voynix — 2008-09-17T19:03:00+00:00

You have to stay in an enemy town to keep it. The minute it is vacant it reverts back to the original owner. Under 1.1 Towns:

Blue towns, even if vacant, are friendly and controlled by the American player, except when enemy occupied.

Red towns, even if vacant, are friendly and controlled by the British player, except when enemy occupied.

Thread: conquered but not occupied

Seth_Logan — 2008-09-17T18:09:00+00:00

Hi,

If I conquer a British town with the US, let's say Port Dover, and then move on in the following round, does that town revert back to the British? Consequently denying the US the VP for Port Dover? Or do you maintain control of a town you conquer (and then leave)?

Thanks in advance!

Logan

Thread: Re: Is The War of 1812 Unrealistic?

shaveandahaircut — 2008-09-08T01:57:36+00:00

BROG wrote:
Why not? No one dies, you see everything, and know what happened before you play.

I understand the point you are trying to make, and agree with it in general.

However, one of the things I appreciate and enjoy about the block games is that you do not, in fact, "see everything".

Thread: Re: Simo-move

EvanMinn — 2008-09-06T16:11:51+00:00

That seems like a pretty good solution.

I was thinking more along the lines of folding part of the paper over so that opponent could see how many blocks but which specific blocks were covered.

But that has its limitations because if someone makes a mistake or cheats, you still wouldn't be able to tell right away unless if the move was questioned and not without revealing what all the blocks are.

I think your solution would work well: just decide at the start of the game whether 'block 1' is closest or farthest from the player (or left to right might even be better), keep the blocks lined up and have people write block 1 to..., block 2 to..., and so on.

It solves the problem without revealing any information about what the units actually are and even honest mistakes can be caught.

Thread: Re: Simo-move

Sphere — 2008-09-05T19:50:33+00:00

I think the simultaneous move method is by far the best way to play. Your orders definitely specify blocks, not strength points. The idea is to increase the fog of war elements, not hamstring them.

If you feel a need to enforce 'original intent' as to which blocks should move, the players can organize blocks at locales when writing orders, and agree that the ordered number of blocks closest to the player are always the ones to be moved. If you're going this route, be sure to sometimes fiddle with blocks at locals that aren't being ordered, just to sow confusion.

Thread: Re: Simo-move

GaryP — 2008-09-05T19:13:55+00:00

But the flip side is if you only specify number of blocks is someone could wait until they saw if there was going to be a conflict before declaring which city their strongest blocks were going to.
Quebec 1759 always uses simultaneous move orders. In those rules they specify that the choice of specific blocks after orders are revealed represents a level of tactical control by the commanders in the field. Or something like that. I do not recall if War of 1812 specifies it that way, but a player is most certinly able to choose which specific blocks to move after seeing orders (presuming there is a choice). However, you may NOT choose to move less blocks than stated.

Thread: Re: Simo-move

ljw74us — 2008-09-05T18:36:11+00:00

I see your point. Since I have never played the simo-move version myself, maybe someone who has can give a definitive answer.

Thread: Re: Is The War of 1812 Unrealistic?

BROG — 2008-09-05T18:34:32+00:00

"It seemed too simple and lacking in realism."

David . . .no two-dimensional boardgame has ANY reality. You mean accuracy of historical detail. But not Reality. Why not? No one dies, you see everything, and know what happened before you play. That negates any sense of Reality.

Accurate simulation is, um, more accurate.

RHB

Thread: Re: Simo-move

EvanMinn — 2008-09-05T18:11:25+00:00

That was going to be my response if someone said it was strength.

But the flip side is if you only specify number of blocks is someone could wait until they saw if there was going to be a conflict before declaring which city their strongest blocks were going to.

For example:

If there are 2 blocks in a city, one strength 4 & one strength 2, they could say 1 army to [empty] city A & 1 to [empty] city B. If they see the other player is also moving to city A but not city B, they can wait to decide to move their strength 4 block to city A until they know that.

It is also odd syntax to say in the rules 2 Army and not 2 Armies if it is specifying the number of blocks. If it were saying 2 [strength] Army then singular Army makes sense.

Thread: Re: Simo-move

ljw74us — 2008-09-05T17:40:30+00:00

It means number of blocks. Think about it...If you specified army strength, how would you maintain the "fog of war" offered by a block game?

Thread: Simo-move

EvanMinn — 2008-09-05T16:02:48+00:00

When playing simo-move, the rules say this:

]]>
11.1 Writing Orders

For Campaign Turns both players
write their army and naval moves and
orders are revealed simultaneously. Orders
written must specify which blocks are
moving to which town or lake.

Examples:

(a) Build warship at Kingston.
2 Army: Montreal to Malone
2 Army: Montreal to Lacolle.

]]>

When it says to specify blocks, they mean strength of the block too (i.e., "2 army" in the example means strength 2 army as opposed to 2 army blocks)?

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-09-05T06:58:08+00:00

Labels

Thread: Is The War of 1812 Unrealistic?

da pyrate — 2008-09-05T02:11:08+00:00

The War of 1812 (2nd Edition)

]]>
Two-player Block-game of the War of 1812
Designed by Tom Dagliesh & Lance Gutteridge
Published by Columbia Games (1973)

I first played the War of 1812 in 1982 or 1983. I was fairly unimpressed with it at the time. It seemed too simple and lacking in realism. I may have been a ‘wargame snob’ at the time and I may have looked down upon games that used wooden blocks and had less than four pages of rules. I wanted games that had hexes on the map, I wanted hundreds of counters rated for movement and combat strength (at the very least) and I wanted to immerse myself if realism and simulation value.

I underestimated the War of 1812. I played it 5 years later and was stunned by what an excellent game it really is. This review relates to the second edition of the game rather than the more recent third edition. I have not played the third edition, but from what I have read it has more detail in the rules and more differentiation between troop types. I am completely happy with the second edition of the game. It plays quickly and is well balanced. Both players have interesting challenges. There are a variety of strategies to choose from. It has great replayability. I also believe that that it is a realistic game in as much as it mirrors some of the strategic choices available to commanders at the time.

The game certainly doesn’t come with a highly detailed order of battle nor does it come with highly accurate and well researched information regarding the strengths and weaknesses of individual units involved in the war. It does put you in a situation where you have limited resources and you have to use these limited resources to capture enemy territory while defending your own territory and eliminating enemy units while maintaining your own forces. Luck can play a part in the outcome of battles but I believe that good strategy will win the war much more often than luck in battles will lose it. The more even the forces involved in a battle the higher the impact of luck. Good generals try to avoid an even battle. Often times you can force the enemy to respond by the use of threat rather than direct action and this use of threat to gain the initiative is one of the delightful elements of the game.

As I am reviewing the second edition of the game I think it is appropriate to give a quick summary of the rules and play of the game.

The game is divided into three years – 1812, 1813 and 1814. The game can finish at the end of any of the years if one player has 10 or more victory points than his opponent. You receive two victory points for control of each of the three lakes. You receive victory points equal to the value of enemy towns that you occupy at the end of the year. You also receive a victory point for each army unit you have on the map at the end of each year.

Each year is made up of ten turns, followed by a winter turn.

At the start of each turn players roll two dice. The player with the higher number has the initiative and chooses to move first OR second – sometimes moving first is better while other times moving second is advantageous.

Each player then has their own player turn, having their naval phase (building/repairing a naval unit or moving naval units on one of the three lakes) and then their land phase (selecting units in one friendly town and moving these units to any adjacent towns). Alternatively a player may combine their naval and land phases and have an amphibious phase instead (land units adjacent to the lake are transported by ships on the lake). Finally there is a combat phase if there are lakes and/or towns containing units of both armies. Naval combat is resolved simultaneously while land combat is resolved sequentially (defender first and surviving attacking units return fire). In both cases each player throws a number of dice based on the strength of the units involved. For each ‘6’ thrown an enemy units loses a strength factor. Battle continues until one side is eliminated or retreats.

At the end of each year units need to find winter quarters to avoid loss of strength. If you have too many units seeking winter quarters you will lose excess FACTORS in towns initially friendly and excess BLOCKS in towns initially hostile.

]]>

Strategic Options

There are several significant factors that players need to consider when formulating their strategic plan.

Both players have a similar set of blocks. Army units have a strength of 2, 3 or 4 factors. There is the same quantity of each strength in each side’s block mix. Units are selected randomly. The United States player initially deploys 12 units – they must be spread around so that there is at least one unit in each of the eight towns that have a value of 2+. The British player then deploys 10 units – they must be spread around so that there is at least one unit in each of the 6 towns that have a value of 2+. The Americans have the advantage of more units at the start. The British player has the advantage of deploying second after having seen the American deployment.

Each player has only 10 moves to make during each year. For this reason some serious thought should go into formulating a plan. Ideally the plan should allow you to take and retain control of a particular geographic area (east, west or centre for want of better names – I guess you could name them after the three lakes Erie, Ontario and Champlain).

The British cities of Montreal and Quebec are worth 4 points and 5 points respectively. This means that if the American forces can take them in 1812 it gives the Americans a good chance of getting an automatic victory at that time. The British receive three reinforcements at the start of 1813 and seven more at the start of 1814. As time goes on the British chances improve due to receiving concentrated reinforcements in the east.

American reinforcement appear in Pittsburgh (west) and Albany (east). Pittsburg receives two units in both 1813 and 1814. Albany receives two units in 1813 and three units in 1814.

If the British take control of Detroit, in the far west, they receive an immediate once-only reinforcement of a four-strength Indian unit. This makes Detroit a desirable objective.

Because of the fog-of-war element of the game it is nice to look weak where you are strong and where you expect to be attacked. Also, you can try to look strong where you are really weak, hoping to deceive your opponent not to attack you. There is a lot of bluff in this game.

The American militia will not automatically cross the border into Canada. You roll a die for each unit and if you roll a 6 the affect unit remains in America. For this reason it can be risky to attack directly across the border – sometimes it is better to cross the border where it is not defended.

The use of the initiative adds to the excitement of the game. There are times you would like to move first to either attack an adjacent enemy force or to occupy a significant location before it is attacked (so that you get the benefit of defensive first fire). Other times you might like to move second to take advantage of having seen where your opponent has moved. Alternatively, you might like to move second, hoping to then follow up with the next move, giving yourself two consecutive turns.

If you occupy the same town as enemy naval units they will be destroyed. As each player is limited in the number of naval units that may be constructed during the game, destroying enemy naval units is quite powerful.

Towards the end of each year it is possible to calculate the current point score and know if you, or your opponent, have the chance of achieving an automatic victory. The scoring of points should be a factor in your choice of moves. Sometimes saving an extra block or capturing just one more enemy town can be the difference between winning and losing.

Players can’t be strong everywhere. You need to decide where you want to be strong and where you have to be weak. Often there is a real dilemma between having to choose to be aggressive where you are strong to weaken the opposing units and capture towns or to be defensive by moving weak forces to avoid their destruction.

Fighting to the death is rarely a good option. Often having even a weak force in an area limits what the opposing units can do.

The overall impression from the game is that both sides can win. Both sides have a many choices regarding their strategy and so there is a lot of replayability in the game. It really is very much a game of manoeuvre and also a game of deciding where and when to employ your military resources. I feel that superior play in this game involves avoiding even battles where possible and taking strategic locations by manoeuvre rather than direct confrontation. I suspect that this is a very realist aspect combat of the period and this aspect is well represented in the game

I feel that although it feels quite opportunistic with the impulse mechanism, overall both players need to have a sound and solid plan at the very start of the game and try to stick to it. If you change your plan in this game it is very easy for armies to just move around in circles without actually achieving anything on a lasting and positive nature.

]]>
I find the map to be a quite attractive artistic rendition of the area. The rules are clearly written. It has the trademark quality of a Tom Dagliesh design where the rules and mechanisms in the game appear simple and yet the strategies that can be employed are far from simplistic. Of the many Columbia block games that I have played I quite enjoy Napoleon, Crusader Rex and Rommel in the Desert, but the War of 1812 is the game that I have played the most.

“Dead Men Tell No Tales!”

]]>

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

BFoy — 2008-07-29T01:40:21+00:00

Peteloaf wrote:
BFoy wrote:
Wes Robiinson wrote:
If the battle of New Orleans was the definitive battle for the US

Hmmm, I'd say the battle of New Orleans was the most well known battle. But I don't see how a battle which happened after the war was over, could be considered 'definitive'.

I am not sure if I would call it definitive but it had an enormous impact on US history. .

Agreed.

Peteloaf wrote:
The battle of New Orleans created the a new national hero in Andrew Jackson who rode his fame to a presidency. His brand of nationalism really pushed the Monroe doctrine forward and led to the notion of manifest destiny.

Thats the short list. But Jackson's legacy is definitely mixed. He was directly responsible for some atrocities yet he also empowered the American voters as never before.

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

Peteloaf — 2008-07-28T23:23:40+00:00

BFoy wrote:
Wes Robiinson wrote:
If the battle of New Orleans was the definitive battle for the US

Hmmm, I'd say the battle of New Orleans was the most well known battle. But I don't see how a battle which happened after the war was over, could be considered 'definitive'.
I am not sure if I would call it definitive but it had an enormous impact on US history. The battle of New Orleans created the a new national hero in Andrew Jackson who rode his fame to a presidency. His brand of nationalism really pushed the Monroe doctrine forward and led to the notion of manifest destiny.

Thread: Re: Rules Question

HeavyGear — 2008-07-25T00:33:02+00:00

Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

G Haggerty — 2008-07-24T20:15:49+00:00

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

G Haggerty — 2008-07-24T16:37:42+00:00

BFoy wrote:
I am from Baltimore and I can't tell you who commanded the troops that defended Baltimore in that critical battle.

Samuel Smith (a major general of the Maryland State Militia) was overall commander. Brigadier John Stricker led the delaying action against the landing at North Point.

It may be that their names are not better known because the main battle was never fought. As the Royal Navy was unable to neutralize the American defensive batteries, the assault was called off (with the assault column standing "patiently in the rain" only ten minutes away from the American line).

Thread: Re: Rules Question

GaryP — 2008-07-24T15:21:51+00:00

The wording is not terribly clear there. The "if alone" follows the sentence before it and refers only to combat. That is, if the Indian is attacked when alone (or if all other British blocks there are eliminated), it is immediately removed from the game, ending the battle.

The Indian block can move on its own and can control a town by itself, but that's very risky if the Americans have a path to reach it. (Watch out for amphibious attacks!)

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

BFoy — 2008-07-24T13:51:46+00:00

Wes Robiinson wrote:
If the battle of New Orleans was the definitive battle for the US

Hmmm, I'd say the battle of New Orleans was the most well known battle. But I don't see how a battle which happened after the war was over, could be considered 'definitive'.

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

Wes Robiinson — 2008-07-24T13:18:06+00:00

If the battle of New Orleans was the definitive battle for the US then the battle of Chryslers farm was the same for Canada.
http://www.cryslersfarm.com/battle.htm
Great review and a facinating part of North American history.

Thread: Rules Question

HeavyGear — 2008-07-24T04:10:24+00:00

I have a question about the version 3.0 rules:

The first paragraph of section 9.0 states, "The Indian block (Tecumseh) enters play at Detroit if the British player captures this town. Once in play, this block will only fight if accompanied by at least one British block. If alone, or if accompanying British blocks are eliminated in battle, the Indian block retires from the game (permanently)."

Later in the same section is this: "VPs are never awarded for this block, but it can hold and count VPs for an American town it solely occupies."

How can VPs be awarded when this block holds a town it solely occupies, when it is immediately removed if it is ever alone?

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

BFoy — 2008-07-23T11:13:35+00:00

voynix wrote:
Our national anthem was spawned from this war.

Spawned? What a curious word to use. I think the whole situation surrounding the battle of Baltimore is very interesting and important. But we want larger than life heros and though there was obviously plenty of heroism in the battle, no great hero emerged.

I am from Baltimore and I can't tell you who commanded the troops that defended Baltimore in that critical battle. The only person who is identified with that battle is Francis Scott Key. Maybe its good that we laud our poets instead of our generals. From what I understand, the Battle of Baltimore wasn't won by some clever tactic or strategy but by a bunch of people who refused to give up.

Though historians point out the huge logistical problems the British faced, if the people of Baltimore hadn't stood fast against the British onslaught, Britain might have prevaled.

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

voynix — 2008-07-23T02:17:19+00:00

For a little piece of history near my house.

Joey, that is really cool. Thanks for sharing that.

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

voynix — 2008-07-22T16:27:29+00:00

Yes, I have the new addition. Unforutantely I have no frame of reference, since the new rules are my only exposure to the game.

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

DrFlanagan — 2008-07-22T06:27:38+00:00

Was your game with the new 3.0 rules and labels?

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

MonteCristo23 — 2008-07-22T05:52:35+00:00

http://www.nps.gov/jela/chalmette-battlefield.htm

For a little piece of history near my house.

Thread: Re: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

Sphere — 2008-07-22T05:29:13+00:00

War of 1812 is one of my favorites, if played with the optional simultaneous movement rules. It's OK without them, but the simove makes it something special.

Thread: Boring War? Boring Game? ....Quite the Contrary

voynix — 2008-07-22T02:53:28+00:00

For some reason, the War of 1812 doesn't get a lot of attention in US History. I guess its because it is wedged between the War of US Independence and the American Civil War. I guess it is also because it is a unique war in that a whole lot wasn't gained or lost, except of course the tragic loss of lives of those noble people who fought for their cause and country. Our national anthem was spawned from this war. Canadian patriotism was solidified. Otherwise, not a whole lot seemed to change otherwise. Nonetheless, I feel like the War of 1812 is a very intersting slice of history. The events leading up to the war are interesting; the battles and campaigns were interesting. Even the huge repulse down in New Orleans fronted by our very own Andrew Jackson (for which he is accredited as being a great hero of the time) occurred 3 weeks after the peace treaty between the Brits and Yanks was signed....go figure. I guess that spawned another song..."In 1814 we took a little trip, Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip," you get the idea (I never liked that song by the way).

The Game in Short
1812 is a 2-player block game, one player controls the Brits, mainly on the defensive in Canada. The other player controls the USA, who is mainly on the offensive. The map is a rectangle depicting the area between Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, with Lake Ontario in the middle.

]]>

Each player gets 25 blocks, most of them land troops. There are 6 naval blocks (warships per player). Most land units are either military or militia. Note the US militia blocks have to roll to see if they will enter canada. Historically, they were reticent to do so. A few blocks are artillery, which hit on dr6=1-2 as opposed to dr6=1. Some blocks are cavalry units, which can move 2 spaces instead of the standard 1. The game also comes with a rulebook and some blue d6's.

The map contains towns which are connected by roads, so movement is basically point to point. Each town has a supply number, which serves 2 purposes: VP value if captured and wintering limit (i.e. 2 blocks can winter safely in a supply 2 town without suffering attrition). There are 3 distinct lakes where your warships will operate. The main purposes of these ships are to a)control the lakes (each worth 2 vp) and to take part in amphibious assaults (attacks that allow land units move from across a lake).

The US player sets up first, placing 12 blocks drawn randomly from the draw pool in any of his towns, as long as at least one block is placed in a town rated 2 or higher. The Brits then set up 10 blocks in a similar fashion.

]]>
USA Blocks

]]>
British Blocks

Game Turn Structure
A game turn consists of a US player turn and British player turn. Roll for initiative before each game turn. The high roller decides who goes first this turn. After 10 turns (a campaign year), wintering occurs, then a new year starts. The game ends after the third year. Wintering is easy; just apply attrition step losses to blocks located in towns where the supply number is exceeded.

A Player turn consists of:
1. Naval Phase: build up a warship or move some warships.
2. Army Phase: Move army blocks
3. Combat: This occurs if army blocks move into an enemy occupied town or if enemy naval blocks are together in a lake.

Combat:
Blocks are revealed during battle. Each block rolls a number of dice equal to their strength (usually 1-4). 1's usually hit, though a few blocks hit on 1 or 2. With land combat, defenders fire first and incur hits upon the attacker, then the attacker fires. Combat keeps going until someone retreats or is defeated. Naval blocks fight in a similar fashion, but combat occurs simultaneously. When a block takes a hit, it is rotated to its next lower commbat strength. Most eliminated blocks simply re-enter the draw pool.

The combat is typical of most standard block combat. Of note, there is no priority of who goes first (i.e., A,B,C blocks of Hammer of the Scots) or there are no blocks possessing fire superiority over other blocks (i.e. Double fire with Tanks verses unsupported infantry in Rommel in the Desert). If ground units retreat, they are subject to pursuit fire.

Reinforcements arrive at the beginning of a new year, which are randomly drawn from their draw pools. VP's are calculated based upon a) enemy towns occupied, b) lakes controlled c) number of friendly blocks on the map.

That is a quick outline of gameplay, though there actually aren't that many additional rules.

My Overall Impressions

Theme: 7.5 This depends on your interest in the War of 1812

Mechanics: 7.5 I really like block games in general; this game is more simplified than most other block games/

Rulebook: 8.5 quick, to the point, not many ambiguities

Asthetics/Component Quality: 8.0 Nice attractive map on heavy cardstock (like Twilight Struggle)

Overall Fun Factor: 8

This is one of the more simpler block games. Though to me, it is a nice alternative to some of the more arduous, lengthy block games. I find this a refreshing change. It sets up in no time and plays relatively quicky. Despite its ease of play, there are plenty of tough decisions. If you play the US, you have to decide where to focus your campaigning. There are far too few blocks to cover all fronts. When you control the brits, you are mainly on the defense. However, you definitely have to make jabs and skirmishes, enough to make the US player think twice about sending all his troops north, leaving vital areas undefended, especially naval bases.

Pros:
- a great intro to block games
- Unique theme
- may be able to bribe spouse into playing
- easy rules
- quick set up time; quick play time
- Nice components (if you like blocks), very pretty map.

Cons:
- May be too simple for some folks tastes
- Unique theme
- frustrating that most blocks hit only on 1; you helplessly roll bad results as your opponent slowly chips away at you, making your dice pool dwindle, yet out of frustration, you keep rolling and rolling instead of making a hasty, sensible retreat. Next thing you know, your once mighty army that instilled awe and fear now resides back in the draw pool

Thread: Re: Stealing Warships

voynix — 2008-07-21T21:33:13+00:00

In case anyone was wondering, I emailed Grant Dalgliesh about this question. Here is his response:

If there is no battle (no friendly defenders), the ships get 1 chance to run before round 1 (they get captured in round 1 if they fail to leave).

Maybe phrasing it as before each combat round would tighten up the ambiguity.

Grant

Thread: Naval variant for "old" edition

kostek — 2008-07-19T20:35:33+00:00

The "Problem"

In the old edition, you have 7 ships, and once eliminated they are gone for good. Furthermore, there is no way to move them among the lakes. This rule combo has a trade-off. On the one hand, it creates really tough decisions about immediate benefit vs out-lasting your opponent in the long-term. Also, the fact that ships cannot be moved between lakes means that you need to carefully consider when and where to deploy a ship.

OTOH, about the last 1/3 of the game has no meaningful naval action. Neither side has any new ships to build, and all the ships are permanently deployed to one of the lakes.While I like the way the rules force hard decisions on the player, I don't like the way part of the game shuts down early. Also, it seems both unrealistic and too severe to say that ships cannot be moved between the lakes.

Also, there's a strange thing in the rules about capturing enemy ships. It doesn't feel right to be forced to capture a ship.

The "Solution"

I think these "problems" can be addressed by adding a new concept to the game. I proposed to create a distinction between ships available to be built and unavailable to be built. Players must keep these two piles separate from each other.

Initial Deployment

At the beginning of the game, players have 3 ships on the map, 3 available to built, and 1 unavailable to be built.

Reinforcements

Each winter turn (twice during the game), a player may move one (1) ship from their unavailable pile to their available pile. This represents new equipment, sailors, etc. If the unavailable pile is empty, the player gets no reinforcements. This cannot be saved; it must be used immediately.

Building

Building occurs per the rules, but building can only come from the available pile, never the unavailable pile.

Barring captures, these rules help assure that players will have units to build in both 1813 and 1814.

Scuttling ships

Players have a new option for naval building: scuttling. The most valuable parts of the ship are saved, the rest is destroyed. This moves one (1) ship from the map back to the available pile.

A desperate player may scuttle more than a single ship, but the second and subsequent must go the unavailable pile. There is not time to salvage all the materials. This would at least prevent the opponent from capturing the ships.

This rule allows ships to be moved between the lakes. The ship can be scuttled one turn, then built as a non-op in a different lake, then finally completed as fully operational.

Battles

When a ship is sunk in a naval battle, it is placed in the unavailable pile.

Capturing enemy ships

When an enemy ship is caught in port, the captured ships are placed in the owner's unavailable pile.

The 'victor' then as two options. These cannot be saved. They must be executed immediately or not at all.

1. Transfer one (1) ship from the unavailable pile to the available pile, representing the captured materials. If the unavailable pile is empty, this option may not be taken.

2. Transfer one (1) ship from either the unavailable pile or the available pile to the map in the spot where the capture occurred. This represents taking over the ships in the same location. If both piles are empty, this option may not be taken.

Note that no matter how many ships are captured, the victor only gains a single ship.

Summary

The goal of these rules is to create more decisions and strategic freedom in the naval war. The method is to remove a little tension from the rules, but only a little.

Comments welcome.

Offers to playtest these with me over Vassal will earn my undying friendship.

Thread: Re: VASSAL module "War of 1812" available for PBEM or live games

kostek — 2008-07-19T18:30:30+00:00

I have used this for several solo games, and I can confirm it works well.

If anyone ever wants to play a game of this classic, drop me geek mail, and we'll schedule something.

Thread: Changes in the new edition of War of 1812

wargamer55 — 2008-07-19T00:48:10+00:00

The War of 1812 is a venerable senior citizen in the wargame world, having been more or less continuously in print since 1973. Unlike it's slightly older sister game, Quebec 1759, the War of 1812 has seen some significant rules changes over the years, although nothing so drastic as to change the character of the game.

That character is a game that's an excellent introductory level wargame with quite a bit of scope for bluff and strategy, although kept tense by a fairly high luck factor. Unlike most Columbia block games, which mitigate the luck factor through a high volume of rolls that tend to make things even out, War of 1812 is subject to wild swings of fortune. It's not uncommon for a critical battle that may determine the status of a large swath of territory to be battled out between a single pair of blocks. When you're just rolling a few dice there's less chances for luck to even out. While the odds still favor a strength 4 block against a strength 2 block, all it takes is one "snake eyes" to suddenly change it into a free-for-all.

The biggest change in the newest (2008) edition of the game is in the naval rules, which scrap the unique system that's been used in the game virtually unchanged for three-and-a-half decades in favor of a new system that's consistent with the combat system used in all the other Columbia games. Now fleets are built a step at a time and each step fires at "F1" (which means it hits on a roll of a 1) in a simultaneous exchange of broadsides. Gone are the two-step building process, distinction between "operational" and "nonoperational" ships and deciding the battle with one grand roll of the dice.

A smaller, although still significant change in the naval rules, provides fleets an option to escape capture if an enemy army attacks its port. Under the old rule the fleet's fate depended entirely on the outcome of the battle, but now the ships can attempt to sortie while the ground forces cover them. Of course, a proper tactic is to make sure a powerful fleet is already on the lake waiting for the escapees, but they at least have a hope of doing some damage.

Changes in the land game are more incremental. The dragoons introduced in the last major revision have now been expanded in number and now fight at F2 all the time, making them more powerful. Their strength of 2 keeps them from being too dominant.

A new branch is introduced, with each side having a couple of artillery units in their draw pool. These also fight at F2 and have a CV of up to 3, so they provide a bit of punch these small armies. Rolling hits on a 1 or a 2 is a big edge when there are so few dice being rolled.

Each of the army blocks has an individual name, now, which is also a change and should make PBeM easier. The game also distinguishes between militia and regular troops. This has no game effect for the Anglo-Canadians but a significant impact on American operations, in a Good New/Bad News way.

The Good News is that now the American player knows ahead of time which of his pieces are militiamen who may balk at crossing the border into Canada. The Bad News is that now there's a 50% chance the militia will hew closely to their military obligation to serve only in the US. Under the old rules there was a 1/6 chance for any US unit to refuse to cross.

It doesn't appear that these changes will change game strategy much and they have the virtue of being a bit more realistic at a very low cost in complexity. Indeed, I think the new naval rules are simpler than the old ones, so the net change may very will be nil.

From my game blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Thread: Re: Pursuit fire before battle

kostek — 2008-07-17T17:37:26+00:00

My concern is not cheating, but rather honest mistakes. I think it's easy to forget little differences, and non-block games let us help keep each honest. There have been lots of times in non-block games where either I or my opponent said reminded the other that they get to roll *more* dice.

In the interest of accuracy and consistency, not to mention high-stakes competitions (are there any?), I propose a uniform system such as this for pursuit fire.

The basic assumption is that the 'victor' has a force consisting of 1 arty plus regular troops. This gives n-1 pursuit dice, where n is the # of blocks.

All modifications must be "purchased" by revealing information.

To get a bonus for Indians or dragoons, reveal them.

To cancel a bonus due to defending dragoon, reveal it.

To get that last extra die, reveal your whole force and prove there's no arty.

I think it works on a mechanical, game level. From a simulation standpoint, it sort of represents how hard the 'victor' wants to push the pursuit.

Did I miss anything? Any glaring errors?

Thread: Re: Artillery Forced March: Aye or Nay?

GaryP — 2008-07-14T14:19:43+00:00

The online PDF rulebook has been modified to remove the incorrect text in 2.23. However, it still has the same revision number. (I'm not sure if there are any other changes yet.)

Thread: Re: Stealing Warships

voynix — 2008-07-12T02:03:31+00:00

I do like the idea of giving warships a chance to retreat in a town without friendly army units.

On the one hand, I could see why it makes sense to garrision at least one army unit in a town with ships to protect them. However, you get so few blocks, it is ashame to have to leave them behind to guard ships behind your lines. Therefore, I would rather play that ships get a chance to escape. An official answer would indeed be nice.

Thread: Re: Size of blocks in new edition

Jim Marshall — 2008-07-08T22:25:31+00:00

voynix wrote:
I just got the new edition. Blocks are 20mm

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Size of blocks in new edition

voynix — 2008-07-08T22:22:56+00:00

I just got the new edition. Blocks are 20mm

Thread: Re: Size of blocks in new edition

GeoMan — 2008-07-08T22:22:27+00:00

When you order the stickers from Columbia, ask them to add matching blocks.

Thread: Size of blocks in new edition

Jim Marshall — 2008-07-08T22:07:45+00:00

Can anyone let me know the size of the blocks/stickers used in the new 2008 edition?

I have an old 1980's set and am tempted to try out the new rules/units, but I'd prefer to keep my original blocks and stickers as well as it makes a good intro wargame with the simpler, original rules.

Consequently, I'm considering buying the new stickers and some new blocks to go with them, but I'm not sure if the stickers are for Columbia's 20mm or 25mm blocks.

Thanks in advance,

Jim

Thread: Re: Meaning of "Eliminated"

loosegravel — 2008-07-08T00:53:03+00:00

You guys are probably right -- your interpretation is the most natural. I just wish the rules were more explicit.

Thread: Re: Meaning of "Eliminated"

rderderian — 2008-07-07T22:53:53+00:00

The rules say that eliminated blocks are block that are removed from the board. Of those eleminated blocks, all are available as reinforcements except Indians and Ships. I beleive you are trying to make a distinction that does not exist.

Image

voynix — 2008-07-02T21:58:24+00:00

Another Map Close-Up

Image

voynix — 2008-07-02T21:55:01+00:00

British Blocks

Image

voynix — 2008-07-02T21:53:20+00:00

United States Blocks

Image

voynix — 2008-07-02T21:51:31+00:00

Brand-New '08 Edition Box Contents

Image

Knut Krummnacker — 2008-01-13T23:22:42+00:00

Official map variant to 1812 by Mark A. Campbell wich Youngstown and Cleveland to the map.

Image

Knut Krummnacker — 2008-01-13T22:20:03+00:00

Selfmade turn marker (for different years) and vp marker (us flag on the backside)

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-21T13:48:36+00:00

close-up of the board

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-21T12:34:24+00:00

the indians come into play