Game: We the People

Thread: Re: Some General Strategy ideas... feel free to add

houjix — 2008-08-28T13:43:27+00:00

richardweir wrote:
Always go into a battle with a card or more advantage regardless of situation. ie 4 v 3 etc.... Last game I played we both hard 8 cards all the same and I only won by not taking up my option to counterattack. The roll of attacker changed 4 times.
The most important factor in a battle is not the number of cards but the battle rating of the defending general. If it's low then you absolutely can attack at a card disadvantage and still be a favorite to win the battle. We the People is incredibly attacker friendly due to counterattacks failing most of the time. Someone posted some stats on consimworld at one point.

Thread: Re: Some General Strategy ideas... feel free to add

Cosmid — 2008-08-28T13:18:28+00:00

Nice strategy guide. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Did I hear GMT is reprinting this?

Skadar — 2008-08-27T17:20:04+00:00

This thread messed me all up.

1) I'm really into Twilight Struggle as well as the American Revolutionary War... therefore I am really interested in We The People. I want a copy of this game, but I don't want to pay $150.

2) I sent an email to GMT and asked them to reprint We the People. They replied with: "Dude, it's not our game." And I was like, "Oh, that's right, sorry."

3) So then I started reading about this mythical "Washington's War". I'm not holding my breath... as no information has been whispered about this game for more than a year.

4) So understanding that a reprint or the phantom Washington's War would not emerge any time soon, I started monitoring eBay.

5) And I finally acquired an unplayed copy for WTP for about $75 (I think I beat the next highest bidder by $.03).

I'm still very interested in a new (or reprinted) Revolutionary War card-driven game, but I'm glad to have WTP for now.

Cheers.

Thread: Solitaire - Strategy Card play variant

5th_Para_Bde — 2008-08-26T17:03:17+00:00

I recently read this post by Tim : The Realist (catosulla)-
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/131779

A very helpful post indeed, which has led me to get some added mileage from WtP. I just picked up a copy last month, mainly as a game with fairly simple rules and shorter play-time, to get my girlfriend into it, which has worked so far (small miracles are great! ha ha...)

I use Tim's battle system (the CRT instead of cards)... but I have been doing one of two alernate 'hybrid blind/non-blind" strategy phase types:

Currently I'm using the 2nd, modified version I came up with:

1st card: draw one card for US (don't look at it), and one for the UK (check to see if it's a Major/Minor campaign). For now I let myself opt whether or not to use the Major/Minor campaign card to have the Brits go first... it may work better to force them to use it. I also give the US the option of letting the Brits go first.

2nd card: draw and play blind for both sides

3rd card: (from here on I'm assuming the US is going 1st as usual, but reverse it if not) draw TWO cards for US, play one, keep one. Do same for Brits.

4th card: draw two MORE cards, play one, keep two.

5th card: draw ONE more card, play one, keep one.

6th card: draw ONE more card, play one, keep one.

7th card: one card left from previous round, must be played.

Obviously there has to be a bit of role-playing with this method, i.e. "it's the USA's turn, and I saw that the Brits have a 3-card left, but I'm betting they won't be able to have Howe attack Washington so I'm going to use my 2-card to place PCs rather than have Washington fall back.

The role-playing isn't ideal, but I prefer it to playing all 7 Strategy cards blindly. This method lets you keep some of the hand management, without the spoiling that would come from seeing too many cards at once. It may even work better WITHOUT the one round where each side has 3 cards, I think I'll try that next time.

[NOTE: my original Strategy card sequence was the same except that I was waiting until round 5 of the Strategy phase to give 3 cards (with round 4 being a two card round).

I hope you find this to be helpful. I intend to do some 2 player games soon via Cyberboard but in the meanwhile this has helped me to more thoroughly learn the game and figure out some tactics.

Thread: Re: How are defeated combat units with no general handled?

5th_Para_Bde — 2008-08-26T15:15:08+00:00

And, you don't need to have a friendly PC to retreat into, you just can't retreat into an enemy PC or CU (but you can retreat into an enemy general that is alone, thus capturing him)

Thread: Re: Losing Battles and Winning the War

JackFlash — 2008-07-24T03:41:13+00:00

Great report! I love this game!

Thread: Re: Game balance

fubar awol — 2008-07-17T19:37:44+00:00

One Fat Pug wrote:
I don't think that there is any imbalance in Hammer of the Scots and getting bad hands is just part of the game. I actually enjoy trying to struggle through the adversity of 'lean' hands and coming out on top in spite of it (well, sometimes).

Hand homogenization just seems too watered-down for my tastes (in any game).

Bring on the bad luck!

I agree with you in principle.

In HoTS, you only get 5 cards per turn and if you get more than 3 ones, 2 threes and 1 event, it is a pretty big part of you hand. Also, given the small deck size, if one player gets one of these really good or really bad hands, then the other player usually has the inverse - which means the relative "goodness" and "badness" is magnified.

The objective of the variant rule is not to homogenize but to eliminate the possibility of wildly disparate hands - one of which at the wrong time can ruin a 3+ hour game.

In practice, I've seen such hands dealt at least once per game and occasionally more often. I won't play HoTS without the variant rule. It's too long a game.

In contrast, when I play Crusader Rex, since you are dealt 6 cards and that the game seems a bit less sensitive to cards, I don't use any such rule.

To each his own.

Thread: Re: Game balance

One Fat Pug — 2008-07-17T19:29:36+00:00

Part of the problem with WtP is that there are no 'big' cards for the British.

The Americans have the Declaration of Independance, Ben Franklin (French), and the European war.

The British have Arnold, and that's about it - and that card can even be discarded by the Americans.

There's not really a big British swing card. That may be historically accurate, but it sure makes it hard on the British. And once the American player gets it through his head that he is as good at combat as the British player (because even with less cards the attacker almost always wins) then life gets even harder for the British.

Thread: Re: Game balance

One Fat Pug — 2008-07-17T19:24:34+00:00

I don't think that there is any imbalance in Hammer of the Scots and getting bad hands is just part of the game. I actually enjoy trying to struggle through the adversity of 'lean' hands and coming out on top in spite of it (well, sometimes).

Hand homogenization just seems too watered-down for my tastes (in any game).

Bring on the bad luck!

Thread: Re: Game balance

fubar awol — 2008-07-17T15:27:22+00:00

I've only played one game, so do not feel qualified to comment on balance, but I do have a suggestion.

If the main concern is with the British getting bad hands early, then why not "fix" it with a mulligan rule?

I created such a rule for Hammer of the Scotts and call it the 1-2-3 rule. If either player is dealt more than 1 event, more than 2 "threes" or more than 3 "ones" in any turn then both players return their cards to the deck, reshuffle and re-deal.

If one were to create a mulligan rule like this for WtP, what would it be? Someone with more experience playing would need to create it... but perhaps it would be something like:

If either player is dealt:

- more than 2 negative or unplayable events
- no 3s (or major/minor campaigns)
- the French card before turn 3

Then both players return their cards to the deck, reshuffle and re-deal.

Thread: Re: Game balance

Bubslug — 2008-07-17T03:45:44+00:00

Whether the play balance would be addressed is hard to say but the fact that many of the event cards are "one-way" is something that characterized this first foray into the CDG genre. All subsequent CDGs (not counting The Successors) would feature cards where one had to choose between "Ops" or "Event." In general, the more "valuable" the event the more Ops points it would be worth - which makes sense if you think about it.

So, for a "useless" card (from one player's perspective) to be used as an Ops card it is not sufficient to give it a default value of "one," but rather some value comensurate with the event it represents. Have fun with that (but an exercise all CDG designers must now routinely undertake)!

If one really believes that the game is unbalanced, it would make more sense to me to choose one of the British Generals and make his strategy rating a "two" instead of a "three." It is likely that it would take no more than that to restore balance or to provide a handicap when pairing players with unequal experience. The 2PC idea doesn't appeal because the bad things that can happen to the Brits could still wipe out such a small initial difference in a heart-beat. The "two" General is in for the game...

Thread: Re: Game balance

houjix — 2008-07-14T23:01:52+00:00

One Fat Pug wrote:
I suspect that it would make matters worse.
Agreed.

Some other options:

The +2 British PCs actually helps a lot. It opens up some of the middle colonies, which adds some pressure.

I have heard of a variant where you shuffle the French Alliance back into the deck if drawn on turn 1.

I've considered trying a variant where the British always get a 3 op card each turn and then are dealt the remaining 6.

Even without these the game lends itself to lots of good decisions and tons of room for creativity, so it may be sufficient to suck up the really bad hands that occur every now and then and play again. It's true of Twilight Struggle as well.

Thread: Re: Game balance

One Fat Pug — 2008-07-14T20:03:24+00:00

I suspect that it would make matters worse. A useless card hurts both sides equally, but a 1 ops card would allow the Americans to add influence and move most of their generals while a 1 ops card for the British sometimes has to be 'discarded'.

I've been in the situation (more than once in only 4 games) where I was holding a 1 ops card that I couldn't use for influence (because the Brits get hemmed in early) and I couldn't move a general. Sometimes 1 cards are of no use to the Brits so the solution would just hose them more.

Thread: Re: Game balance

Hatricvs — 2008-07-14T19:55:23+00:00

I have often wondered if by allowing a 'non-playable' card to be valued as a say a 1 point ops card this could in part mitigate against having a totally useless card in a players hand hence the situation where out of 7 cards 5 were useless would no longer be the case.

It is a minor change and it would not help movement for the Brit but would at least allow the placement of the odd PC marker. Have yet to try this in an actual game and therefore do not know if this would make things worse allowing the Americans to move Generals about with additional ease whereas the Brits would still flounder!

Just a thought... has anyone else come up with a tweak like this which would help the useless card problem. A deck such as the Hannibal deck would be better where all cards are useful to both players to greater or lesser degree.

Thread: Re: Game balance

gamesgroove — 2008-07-14T18:30:42+00:00

I often use this as a gateway game for players new to war/historical gaming. As such, I'll usually take the Brits so the new player can be the good guy! Thus, any imbalance works against me - the theoretically experienced player. It truly is a great game. Other than the slightly goofy battle system, it's clear from this game why CDGs have become so popular.

Thread: Re: Game balance

One Fat Pug — 2008-07-14T18:21:03+00:00

Good to know that most of the problem is with 'hand issues'.

I've had this problem in Twlilight Struggle a couple of times and, though irritating, I've managed to tough it out. I still love TS and I suspect that I'll still love WtP through bad hands - the solution being to play a ton of games so the the bad hand events are lost in the abundance of good games.

Actually, the funny thing is that this has already happened to me. I was playing the Brits and my first three hands sucked. Hand one had 4 American events and crap ops cards. Hands two and three each had 3 American events and mediocre ops cards. I managed to tough it out though, and was rewarded with good hands toward the end and an ultimate victory. A couple good hands while my opponent had a couple bad hands allowed a radical turn-around mid-game (after which it ended). I'm sure that as my opponent and I get more experience that turn arounds like this may become less common, but it gives me hope that it was possible at all.

Thread: Re: Game balance

Armadi — 2008-07-14T18:19:06+00:00

Mark Herman has mentioned this imbalance on consimworld.

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@123.jTQ9erb5aCg.0@.1dd2e...

"One thing that I have added to the set up, based on conversations with WBC players over the years is the view that there is an American advantage and it is about worth 2PC to play them."

He is talking about his sorta remake of We the People here- Washington's War, but the bias he is talking about is in We the People.

Thread: Re: Game balance

citizen k — 2008-07-14T18:06:39+00:00

I think WtP is a great game, and usually plays very well. the sides face different challenges, and the colonials challenges are easier to master.

But the game can have issues if the first two or three British hands are relatively bad.

If the British aren't able to gain an upper hand in PC in the first turn, and can't move the their generals (because of poor hands with low Ops and too many American events) on subsequent turns there's little they can do to compensate. Once the board is covered by PCs, the only real way to change things is with moving armies, disrupting the continental congress, and then playing select events that allow Colonial PC to be removed. This is a tricky chain to pull off.

Personally, I have seen this in 3 out of the 30 odd games I've played. For example, I recently played the Brits over 8 turns, got no "3" ops cards for the first three turns, and only six "3" cards in the game. This hurt because (a) 3 of the Brits 5 generals can't move unless a 3 is played, (b) the American was getting a lot of 3 cards and playing them for PC and reinforcements. Worse still, some British hands had ridiculous numbers of pro American events (ie useless cards). One turn had 5 useless events out of the 7 cards, and another had 4, all others had at least 2.

So doing the math, in a 56 card game, only 1 out of 10 cards let me move a decent general and 40% of my cards were completely worthless.

No one wants to play a 2-3 hour game where it slowly becomes obvious that they never had a chance of winning.

WtP is a great game, I'd give it a 10 - except the bad British hand issue occurs too frequently - making me wary of pulling the game out and "always wanting to play it".

All that having been said, I just played a game as the Brits, won and it was a blast.

Thread: Re: Game balance

denverarch — 2008-07-14T17:39:27+00:00

Best unbalanced game out there
Seriously I'm considering some tweaks next time to help the British.

Thread: Re: Game balance

Windopaene — 2008-07-14T17:35:01+00:00

I think there is a tactic which CAN make the game favor the Colonists hugely. I think a rule was introduced with the expansion set cards, and a specific card as well, which made this much less severe. I don't play with the expansion cards, nor do I abuse the tactic, but I always suggest using the rule.

And even with imbalance, one or two bad hands, along with a good british hand, can totally turn the game around.

Thread: Re: Game balance

mickmick — 2008-07-14T17:32:41+00:00

I think the game favors the Americans if one plays enough games but luck and strategy make every game interesting. Great game!

Thread: Re: Game balance

One Fat Pug — 2008-07-14T17:19:49+00:00

I'm not really concerned about the reinforcement thing, just the balance issue itself.
(The quote has been edited to make this more clear)

So you don't find that the imbalance is severe enough to hamper your enjoyment of the game?

Thread: Re: Game balance

gamesgroove — 2008-07-14T16:40:10+00:00

This is one of my more played games. IMHO, there is a slight advantage to the Americans, but I don't think the reinforcements matter as much since the Americans rarely need to seek a decisive battle to win. The card-based combat system is a bit unpredictable so I generally avoid big battles after the first couple of turns. It's more profitable to move American armies around to gain/flip Political Control markers than to chase British armies.

Thread: Game balance

One Fat Pug — 2008-07-14T16:14:40+00:00

I've read a fair number of comments on this game and many of them indicate that there is an American bias to the game. Statements like this...

In fact, you may never see the British win again.

...worry me a bit, but the fact that the game is still popular is reassuring. I've played the game four times now and though the British play has to be more careful and well-considered than the American play, I've not seen a huge imbalance yet. But I'm new to the game.

So to all you more experienced players out there, what's the story? Is there a bias and how bad is it?

edited to clarify quote

Thread: Re: Yet another discussion of the Battle Card System

houjix — 2008-07-05T22:54:26+00:00

Consimworld has some talk about proposed combat systems for Washington's War, though I don't know much about them off hand. I'm curious to see what the end up going with.

Thread: Re: Yet another discussion of the Battle Card System

fubar awol — 2008-07-05T17:12:55+00:00

houjix wrote:
I agree that shuffling up the cards is annoying considering how abbreviated the battles are. A CRT would be a nice change, if you could get it to mirror the attacker advantage in combat. You can't change the attacker advantage without substantially altering the rest of the game, and there's no reason to do that. Battles in We the People are almost always a near certainty, and I think that's important lest you undermine the tactical aspect of the game.

Well said.

As I discussed this with my friend whose copy we play - we came to a similar conclusion. If we were to make the changes I suggest it prolongs the battles and also benefits the defender. There is a CRT (posted here on the geek) that may work. We will probably use that next time we play. It's in excel and rather clunky-looking when you print it out, so I just made it pretty and reposted it to the files area as a pdf file. It's in the approval cycle and should be posted here any day. I'll edit this post to add the link once it is available.

Here is a link to the "prettyfied" CRT:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo/33613

Foob

Thread: Re: Those who like We the People, tell me why you do.

kduke — 2008-07-05T12:17:05+00:00

Well, let's keep in mind the game came out 14 years ago, when AH was teetering on the edge of collapse, and no one had ever seen a card-driven game before...

Both points might explain the choice of text on the box which suggested it was more like a Milton Bradley game. (As I recall, I had some "store credit" I was trying to find a way to spend, looked at the box, started to put it back down and the FLGS owner said, "Don't let that 'beginner' stuff put you off-- it's an interesting and very different kind of game.'"

I thank him for that.

What works?

Yes, it is basically simple in mechanics and-- my opinion-- the rules are actually very complete. Simple means giving up some things, but when I compared WtP to the hundred pages of FAQ items that were part of AH's FtP, I like the giving up.

Fwiw, at the time, I was vastly more interested in ACW than AWI... and yet I really liked WtP from the very first and just couldn't climb into FtP.

I even like the notion that the cards are not "dual purpose." While I know gamers always want to be able to control everything-- the early flak against CCA was proof of that-- I actually got into the notion that some cards I play just aren't going to do me any good... so the question is WHEN do I do that and cause the least harm? I also like the idea of the multi-use ops card. It meant you really had to think, much of the time, on how you wanted to use them when you had them... and another nationality difference, as the Brits could spend a 1 Ops for their reinforcements but the Patriots generally spent the higher cards because that impacted how many troops they got.But of course, that impacted movement or PC placement too.

Everyone keeps talking about how much better HRvC was because of the dual use cards-- has anyone tried playing WtP with dual use? As a simple exercise, you could make any non-Ops card worth 1 Ops.Or maybe only the cards with an event that does not benefit you. If it is a 'must play" card, the event still happens but, ala TwiStrug, if the event benefits the other side, you still get your 1 Ops to use. Or maybe the "must play" cards are worth 2 Ops when the "other" guy has to play them....

I'm not suggesting variants-- I don't think the game needs them-- but pointing to where it seems people are saying the game comes up short. Try it-- I think it will change the game enormously and I doubt that the changes will all be for the better.

Decisions decisions.

Why do I like it? It works. It is exciting. It is easy to get into an exciting game and then turn around and play another one. This is not just applauding the game for being 'short." It is applauding it for being game that I can play two or more times in an evening, AND ENJOY DOING SO.

Thread: Re: Yet another discussion of the Battle Card System

houjix — 2008-07-05T07:24:07+00:00

I agree that shuffling up the cards is annoying considering how abbreviated the battles are. A CRT would be a nice change, if you could get it to mirror the attacker advantage in combat. You can't change the attacker advantage without substantially altering the rest of the game, and there's no reason to do that. Battles in We the People are almost always a near certainty, and I think that's important lest you undermine the tactical aspect of the game.

Thread: Re: Yet another discussion of the Battle Card System

Bubslug — 2008-07-01T01:22:39+00:00

Another option is to reverse engineer the Hannibal battle deck to more closely resemble WtP. Remove all the "wild" cards and half (rounding up) the number of cards you are dealt in Hannibal. Since Hannibal's death no longer loses you the game I might consider taking his "wild card" ability from him as well. The keys to battle would then become having a significant card advantage and a decent "intiative seizing" General. One or two rounds to decide the issue sounds great to me. Personally, I always preferred the WtP implementation (but intensely dislike the concept in both).

The shorter one can make this lame way to decide battles the better for my money...

Thread: Yet another discussion of the Battle Card System

fubar awol — 2008-06-30T16:36:27+00:00

The thing that I found most dissatisfying about the BC system in WtP (when compared to Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage) was that the battles were so short and that the attacker almost always won. In Hannibal, that simply is not the case for two reasons:

1. In Hannibal each player almost always has more Battle Cards in hand because the forces involved are larger. Hannibal allows twice as many CUs to move with a general – 10 in Hannibal vs. 5 in WtP. In my experience, Hannibal Battles usually involved more than 10 cards in hand for each player and often over 15. In WtP, it was usually in the 5-10 range which means that it is much more difficult for a defender to have a card in hand that will counter the attacker’s play.

2. Both games have 6 different types of cards, but in Hannibal, one of those 6 types is “reserves” – a wild card that can be used to counter any other card. In WtP, all 6 types of cards must be countered by exactly the same type (there is no “wild” suit) so once again, it makes it harder for the defender to counter the attacker’s play.

In another post on the geek, citizen k quoted the designer’s explanation:

citizen k wrote:
The Battle Card system is based on two premises. First, I would mathematically recreate a Combat Results Table based upon the number of cards a player received and the use of multiple suits (e.g. the Battle maneuvers). What it all boils down to is that if both players get ten cards each (one to one battle) then there is a 51.9% probability that they will both have any one particular card. In a two to one battle the average probability that the small hand will meet this criteria is around 30% and at three to one it is less than 20%. In this manner the player is rewarded for decisions that get him more cards relative to his opponent and achieves an effect similar to rolling the die on a conventional CRT. The frustration of rolling a bad die roll, even when you have the advantage, was preserved. The same goal of a CRT was accomplished, but the non-gamers wouldn't be intimidated by the process.

The second premise was based on historical fact. The attacker usually won the battle during the war. A brief examination of the battles is found in the accompanying chart. The intention of the cards wasn't to have the hand played out ala bridge, but that a battle would usually go no more than two rounds.

Mark Herman, "An American Revolution in Design", p 27 "The General", vol. 29 no. 2, The Avalon Hill Game Company, 1994.

Link to the post is here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/254270

Whether you prefer a CRT or not, I think that the designer’s (outcome-based) intent as stated above has been achieved.

- Perhaps the lack of a perfect shuffle creates imperfect distributions.
- Perhaps there are funky distributions

But usually – the battles are short and the attacker has a distinct advantage – which is entirely consistent with the designer’s intent. I suggest that the WtP’s BC system produces precisely the result intended and that Hannibal’s tweaked the system enough to create a consistently different likely outcome – longer battles with less advantage to the attacker (while still retaining a significant advantage in order to encourage fighting!).

Since I played Hannibal many times prior to playing WtP - I found the outcome of WtP battles to be very unsatisfying.

In Hannibal, the play of the cards often goes on for a while and feels like a worthwhile sub-system that prolongs tension and suspense and occasionally allows for bluffing and gambling in ways that a simple die roll on a CRT does not.

After Hannibal, in WtP the play of cards seemed silly. Spending the time shuffling, dealing and then playing for a nearly completely predictable outcome seemed pretty pointless to me.

As much as I like the implementation of the Battle Card system in Hannibal, it does seem that a CRT would have been better in WtP.

Or, we can throw out the designer’s intent and history as he sees it and “tweak” the WtP BC system to make a better (sub) game of it. I’d do the following:

WtP Battle Card Variant

- After tallying up how many cards should be dealt to each player
before each battle – deal each player twice as many as are called
for in the WtP rules.

- Remove two of the “Bombardment” Cards from the deck (leaving 4) and
declare them to be wild-cards that can counter any other card or be
declared by the attacker to be whatever they want when played.

Image

mdu2boy — 2008-06-06T02:08:16+00:00

Opening a sealed copy

Thread: Re: My First Game of We the People

JackFlash — 2008-05-28T22:39:04+00:00

1776 is a good game. Check it out and see if you would like to play it!

Thread: Re: My First Game of We the People

Ori Ironarm — 2008-05-28T11:03:54+00:00

Woo-hoo! Thanks for the tips, everybody! Now I just hope Fred doesn't see any of these posts before the next time we play. . . .

Nope, I don't recall ever playing 1776, though I think a friend of mine had it about 30 years ago. Is that another game I need to start trolling eBay for?

Thread: Re: My First Game of We the People

dirubin — 2008-05-26T16:57:14+00:00

citizen k wrote:
As the American player, I often felt overwhelmed by the British reinforcements, which made me feel I had to use my cards to raise reinforcements of my own.

After a few more plays you'll see how much of a reinforcement advantage the Americans have. In fact, you may never see the British win again.

That won't happen until he learns to leave American CUs scattered about the map as road bumps, restricting British mobility. Trading an American CU (worth 1 CP) to spoil a British move (worth 2-3 CPs) is almost always a bargain.

Thread: Re: My First Game of We the People

citizen k — 2008-05-26T15:18:28+00:00

As the American player, I often felt overwhelmed by the British reinforcements, which made me feel I had to use my cards to raise reinforcements of my own.

After a few more plays you'll see how much of a reinforcement advantage the Americans have. In fact, you may never see the British win again.

Thread: Re: My First Game of We the People

Sphere — 2008-05-26T05:54:52+00:00

Ori Ironarm wrote:
(despite the fact that Boston is not designated as a harbor city on the map--which has to be a glitch).

You're right, Boston is supposed to have a port symbol. That's in the errata.

Thread: Re: My First Game of We the People

JackFlash — 2008-05-26T04:58:41+00:00

Have you ever played 1776?

Thread: Re: My First Game of We the People

JackFlash — 2008-05-26T04:57:44+00:00

Congratulations on winning the game We the People! Hope you didn't have to pay too much for it. I love We the People! It's a cool game!

Thread: My First Game of We the People

Ori Ironarm — 2008-05-26T04:12:29+00:00

I am recently coming off a wave of game-buying which netted me, among other things, a coveted copy of We the People. I had at least one game covering some aspect of the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, but nothing about the Revolutionary War. I wanted to fill this gap in my collection, and also wanted something playable in a few hours. While I appreciate detail and depth, now that my gaming buddies and I are all grown up and have real-world responsibilities, I have really come to value a game that doesn't take several sessions to model a conflict. Gone are the days when we could meet several times to play one game of Risk or Civilzation! And finally, I was very keen on owning and playing the game that started the card-gaming revolution.

So I was happy to finally win a copy of We the People on eBay. That said, my first game came as something of a surprise, in two ways: (1) It wasn't my first choice for that evening's session: I was hankering for a rematch at Ancients: Command & Colors (my Carthaginians had lost to Fred's Greeks by one flag in our previous contest), or thought we might try my other recent acquisition, Queen of the Celts. Clearly I was in a classical mood--but I was hosting the session and I let my opponent choose the game, and he chose We the People. (2) It took me a long time--too long--to get it through my thick head that the game is really political, not military. Yes, yes, I know--aside from the bit about this game kicking off the card-driven model, the political aspect is the thing you most hear people talk about when discussing this game.

Anyway, the upshot is that I focused too much on military victories and started paying attention to politics too late. Fred's British proved unbeatable in the North, thanks to their navy, which allowed them to dominate the ports (despite the fact that Boston is not designated as a harbor city on the map--which has to be a glitch). When I realized that I was not going to dislodge the British from the North, I turned my attention to the South, and managed to lay down quite a few PC markers--but not enough. Fred ended up winning 7 colonies for the British.

Despite going down in defeat, I found the game enjoyable, even though my usual preference is for games focusing on one battle rather than on a whole war or campaign. There is considerable tension as each player confronts the choice of how best to use resources (militarily or politically). As the American player, I often felt overwhelmed by the British reinforcements, which made me feel I had to use my cards to raise reinforcements of my own. Set-up was not too burdensome or time-consuming, especially considering that neither of us had played before or even read the rules until that evening. All told, the game (rules reading, set-up, and play) consumed about 4 hours.

I look forward to playing again and to one day playing the campaign version of Fields of Honor to see how the two games compare.

Thread: Re: Question about DIY We The People

OlorinsCousin — 2008-05-21T02:48:57+00:00

If you open the gamebox (.gbx) in CyberBoard and open the map window, you should be able to right-click on the map and copy it. (If "Copy" is greyed out, click on the map to select it first.) Then open any paint program and paste it.

HTH

Thread: Question about DIY We The People

the_great_dalmuti — 2008-05-21T02:02:11+00:00

Hi folks, thanks for looking. I'm trying to make my own copy of this out-of-print gem. Unfortunately, I'm having a little trouble with the board.

I opened up the Vassal module to grab the board image, but it's dark and the colors are off a bit, so I don't think it's going to look so good when printed out at full size.

I'm wondering how to go about obtaining the image file for the board that is the basis of this photo here - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/124585?size=large.

I downloaded the .gsx file for the Cyberboard version of WTP, but can't quite figure out how to extract the individual image files from it.

Any suggestions? Or does anyone want to lend this geek a hand and email me a high quality, full size scan of the board?

Thanks!

- Mike

Thread: Re: Clarification upon who goes first!

Hatricvs — 2008-05-11T17:39:43+00:00

Hi Rich,

That's sort of what I thought it should be. I haven't played WTP for quite a while and when my opponent sprang this change part way through the year it kind of phased me. When I checked the rules I could kind of see it working either way but, it seemed to allow for the back to back move which would be particularly strong. As I said above I let it go and decided that it seemed plausible at the time so he got a freebie from me this time; never again though!

Cheers for the feedback

Thread: Re: Clarification upon who goes first!

richardolen2 — 2008-05-11T17:20:54+00:00

The order for one turn is either:

American
British
American
British
American
British
American
British
American
British
American
British
American
British

or

British
American
British
American
British
American
British
American
British
American
British
American
British
American

(assuming each player is playing all of their cards one at a time)

It's up to the American player as to how the whole round will go.

Thread: Re: Clarification upon who goes first!

Hatricvs — 2008-05-11T16:33:59+00:00

Thanks for that Ken, I think my opponent got away with a freebie this time. Just to be sure I understand; are you saying that the American has to give up the right to go first from the very first strategy card play for the full year or that he can choose to make the British go first part way through the year and then must stick with that sequence thereafter for the remainder of the year?

Cheers for the help!

Thread: Re: Clarification upon who goes first!

perfalbion — 2008-05-11T16:13:23+00:00

No. Once the player order is set, it's alternating card play until cards are exhausted. No double turns permitted in the manner you've laid out.

Thread: Clarification upon who goes first!

Hatricvs — 2008-05-11T16:04:35+00:00

I know that usually the American is allowed to go first during the strategy phase of the game. Also that if the British choose to and have a Major or Minor Campaign Card they can opt to go first at the beginning of the turn.

What I am unlcear about is that the American can usually choose to go second in the strategy phase but, does this mean that the sequence for that whole year will always be British play/ American play for the whole turn OR is it that the American gets to choose between each and every strategy card play thus allowing him the potential for a back to back go.

For example American allows British to go first:
Britsh card play
American card play

American card play
British card play

If the American can choose between strategy card play segments I assume he would be allowed to do this at any point in the year?

Thread: Re: Those who like We the People, tell me why you do.

Rhand — 2008-05-03T22:42:14+00:00

I have played this game 100x over the last 15 years. Though the rules were a little confusing (not in terms of complexity, but clarity) I loved its novel approach to the war. I am looking forward to GMT's WASHINGTON'S WAR(in fact I'm starving to know more about it--anyone?). I'm a fan of the CDGs simply because I find them fun and that's the bottom line. I've played Hannibal more because its game system is more evolved; however, WTP will always be a favorite because it was the first of its kind.

Thread: Re: Those who like We the People, tell me why you do.

cfarrell — 2008-05-02T16:40:55+00:00

I know you wanted reasons to like it, but ...

We the People is one of those games I too want to like. It sits on my shelf because it's highly regarded. I could sell it (I have the variant event cards too), but I can't do that either.

I think the overwhelming virtue of We the People is its simplicity and brevity. When you look at it critically, Hannibal is superior in every way - more tension, more tactically interesting, deeper, more historically evocative ... and not just by a little, by a lot. But, and it's a big but, you can sit down and teach your buddy to play We the People in 10 minutes and play a game in a couple hours or less. In my experience, Hannibal sort of requires your buddy to do some up-front work and at least skim the rules ahead of time.

I think maybe Hannibal is the wrong game to compare it to. Hannibal is just plain better, but it's also just plain more complicated and just plain longer. For me, the right comparison is with Twilight Struggle. For me, We the People is a much more interesting game than Twilight Struggle, more multi-dimensional (the political and military games both work and interact) and more historically evocative, and with better rules and cards.

Every second-tier game has its issues, and the potential show-stopper for We the People is the battle card system. The battle cards in We the People do not, in my opinion, actually work. There are a large number of categories (the usual suspects plus bombard, minus reserve) and you get many fewer than you do in Hannibal - usually under half as many - so the battles are usually decided by initiative die rolls since you never have depth in a suit. There is no tactical flexibility and little interest, in my opinion. Like a lot of Mark Herman games, there are elements of it you have to either like or at least be willing to accept to enjoy the game (like the odd CRT in For the People). In We the People, it's the battle cards. If you can't at least make peace with them, it's never going to work for you.

Thread: Re: Those who like We the People, tell me why you do.

Gamedeity — 2008-05-02T15:55:32+00:00

I haven't finished a game yet, but so far I'm not impressed. WTP doesn't seem to have the tension that FTP, or Hannibal has. It seems more like a waiting game till the war is nearing completion and a grab for colonies. Battles aren't very important, you lose 1 or 2 guys usually and move one space. Then some event takes away 2 PC's anyway, so events seem stronger than battles.

I have never liked the "it's a short game" argument as evidence to like a game, if that were really a driving factor then wouldn't we all be playing "category 5"? or someother party game? No a games' length can make the game harder or easier to finish but should have no bearing on the quality of the game.

I'll finish the game and see if my opinion changes.

Thread: Re: Those who like We the People, tell me why you do.

Nappy — 2008-04-10T02:59:48+00:00

I taught my son how to play this game when he was 8. His appreciation and understanding of the American Revolution went up tenfold. A quick playing, tense, fun game. We have both won with the British and the Americans. What is there not to like???

Image

locarno — 2008-04-07T03:26:37+00:00

my new cards meant to add flavour to the original text.

Thread: Re: Washington's Winter Offensive

Monkie — 2008-03-04T19:01:27+00:00

Thanks for the replies, it didn't occur to me what an advantage it is for the Americans to go second in this case.

Image

Jasonofindy — 2008-01-22T14:59:31+00:00

The back of the Strategy cards and red and black.

Image

Jasonofindy — 2008-01-22T14:58:46+00:00

The back of the battle cards are blue and black.

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-01-12T22:44:18+00:00

Box Front Avallon Hill

Image

lhfreak — 2007-12-03T02:58:25+00:00

Things are heating up in the northeast!

Image

lhfreak — 2007-12-03T02:57:39+00:00

Early in turn two against my 10 yr old daughter..(she's the americans of course!)

Image

West2 — 2007-10-10T04:35:10+00:00

My custom We the People map.

Image

potts_games — 2007-09-26T22:46:21+00:00

Close up of boxes, showing front and back

Image

potts_games — 2007-09-26T22:44:48+00:00

My custom tuck boxes - developed using Visio