Charles Cabell
United States
Fort Mill
South Carolina
www.facebook.com/HistoricalBoardGames
-
This thread began over on this thread and became its own entity, so I moved the thread to here.
Original thread
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/505905/winter-offensive
Here are some clarifications Ive been sent on isolation from another thread that seemed useful.
Mark Herman
Isolation is actually very simple, but you have to write the rules to handle all situations. So, I will paraphrase all of the isolation rules, but however I say it the rules are correct as written.
A PC marker has to be able to trace through friendly PC markers to an empty space, or a friendly combat unit. If not it is isolated.
1. The things that make this a bit trickier is the Americans can also trace to a friendly General and the Continental Congress, which is something the British cannot do.
2. The British can trace to a British controlled port. The Americans cannot do this.
That is all there is to it. Writing it out this way is near impossible in a rules set because of the inevitable questions around "what about this". This thread began with a question on what did the last card mean. A reasonable question, but it is why it takes so much effort to get complete and concise rules. I hope that helps.
Mark
-
Charles Cabell
United States
Fort Mill
South Carolina
www.facebook.com/HistoricalBoardGames
-
From Brien Martin
Mark,
Another way I found my friends dealt with PC isolation, back when we learned WTP, was to liken it to "supply" that you'd see in lots of wargames.
The following are "supply depots" for PC markers:
-- empty spaces (for both sides)
-- friendly combat units (for both sides)
-- American generals (Americans only)
-- The Congress (Americans only)
-- British-controlled ports (British only)
A PC marker is "in supply" if it can trace to any of its own "supply depots" as defined above.
PC markers that are "out of supply" must be removed, Americans first. Re-check "supply" after American PC removal to see if British are now back "in supply". If not, then the British PC markers are removed, as well.
Sometimes, putting an "unfamiliar" rule in terms of a familiar rule can clarify in a way that an example of play or re-wording of the unfamiliar rule can't.
Brien
-
Mark Herman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
charlescab wrote: From Brien Martin
Mark,
Another way I found my friends dealt with PC isolation, back when we learned WTP, was to liken it to "supply" that you'd see in lots of wargames.
The following are "supply depots" for PC markers:
-- empty spaces (for both sides)
-- friendly combat units (for both sides)
-- American generals (Americans only)
-- The Congress (Americans only)
-- British-controlled ports (British only)
A PC marker is "in supply" if it can trace to any of its own "supply depots" as defined above.
PC markers that are "out of supply" must be removed, Americans first. Re-check "supply" after American PC removal to see if British are now back "in supply". If not, then the British PC markers are removed, as well.
Sometimes, putting an "unfamiliar" rule in terms of a familiar rule can clarify in a way that an example of play or re-wording of the unfamiliar rule can't.
Brien
Another useful way for looking at isolation.
Mark
-
Andrew Fischer
United States
Berwyn
Pennsylvania
-
I don't understand why tracing to a friendly PC fails to prevent isolation. Why is an empty space better than a space with a like-minded PC? Losing 10 connected PC markers simply because there is no empty space to "flee to" seems absurd, IMHO.
-
Brien Martin
United States
DeKalb
Illinois
-
Andrew,
Joel explained it elsewhere, but let's see if I can paraphrase:
As long as a space is "open", its leanings in the matter are still open for debate. Once a space leans Tory or Rebel, that crystallizes locals. When you have a large cluster or chain of PC markers that cannot chain to an open area, then that cluster or chain is so crystallized that it now draws military and political attention, especially that it is now surrounded by those of an opposite opinion.
The isolation process, then, is the simulation of those crystallized clusters or chains "going underground" for fear of reprisals.
In other words, it was okay to admit to being a Tory ... unless you were absolutely surrounded by Rebels ... and vice versa.
Brien
-
Richard Pardoe
United States
San Ramon
California
-
The politics of the time time are like the game of Go. Surround the enemy and you capture them. As long as there is a hole - they stay on the board.
You will notice that some people refer to the uncontrolled spaces as liberties in their discussions of isolation.
-
Andrew Fischer
United States
Berwyn
Pennsylvania
-
Sorry, I see no real difference between a cluster of 10 connected cities with a hole in the middle and one with no hole. Perhaps any group over, say, 3 PCs should be exempt from isolation.
Brien Martin wrote: Andrew,
Joel explained it elsewhere, but let's see if I can paraphrase:
As long as a space is "open", its leanings in the matter are still open for debate. Once a space leans Tory or Rebel, that crystallizes locals. When you have a large cluster or chain of PC markers that cannot chain to an open area, then that cluster or chain is so crystallized that it now draws military and political attention, especially that it is now surrounded by those of an opposite opinion.
The isolation process, then, is the simulation of those crystallized clusters or chains "going underground" for fear of reprisals.
In other words, it was okay to admit to being a Tory ... unless you were absolutely surrounded by Rebels ... and vice versa.
Brien
-
Richard Pardoe
United States
San Ramon
California
-
asfhgwt wrote: Sorry, I see no real difference between a cluster of 10 connected cities with a hole in the middle and one with no hole.
Or perhaps this isn't the game for you. Within the rules of the game, there is a difference between 10 connected cities connected to a liberty and 10 connected cities that have none, so I play to avoid that situation if possible. There are events (Declaration of Independance) that do have some risk, so borrowing from Go again - nice to try to leave two liberties for a group of PCs (without military support) to counter these threats.
-
Bill Wood
United States
Eden
North Carolina
-
asfhgwt wrote: Sorry, I see no real difference between a cluster of 10 connected cities with a hole in the middle and one with no hole. Perhaps any group over, say, 3 PCs should be exempt from isolation. Brien Martin wrote: Andrew,
Joel explained it elsewhere, but let's see if I can paraphrase:
As long as a space is "open", its leanings in the matter are still open for debate. Once a space leans Tory or Rebel, that crystallizes locals. When you have a large cluster or chain of PC markers that cannot chain to an open area, then that cluster or chain is so crystallized that it now draws military and political attention, especially that it is now surrounded by those of an opposite opinion.
The isolation process, then, is the simulation of those crystallized clusters or chains "going underground" for fear of reprisals.
In other words, it was okay to admit to being a Tory ... unless you were absolutely surrounded by Rebels ... and vice versa.
Brien
Their is a revolt going on - a bit of anarchy between the Loyalists and those seeking to break from The King.
You cannot pacify an area, for either side, and then leave it alone and expect it to stay quiet -
Now, if you are a careful player, you will leave that abstraction of a hole there and some military (or political support via an American General) in the region under your influence if you wish to keep them loyal to your side.
But, if you neglect them, and the enemy starts plugging those holes, your side will go quiet out of self preservation. they have got the news their region is under approaching enemy assault, and have gone less enthusiastic in the absence of protection.
Losing control does not give the enemy control; they now have to work for that region that is now in doubt. And so do you have to regain the trust of those you neglected - they need your protection to continue risking their necks.
===========
It is not so much that you lost the support, it just became unstable.
During the Real War, it was all 50/50 most of the time everywhere; it went up when you felt secure in being protected by forces in the area, but it went down when that support was missing and it became dangerous to be open about being on one side or the other.
This would manifest itself at war's end - Tories lost damn near everything, everywhere.
-
Charles Cabell
United States
Fort Mill
South Carolina
www.facebook.com/HistoricalBoardGames
-
RPardoe wrote: asfhgwt wrote: Sorry, I see no real difference between a cluster of 10 connected cities with a hole in the middle and one with no hole. Or perhaps this isn't the game for you. Within the rules of the game, there is a difference between 10 connected cities connected to a liberty and 10 connected cities that have none, so I play to avoid that situation if possible. There are events (Declaration of Independance) that do have some risk, so borrowing from Go again - nice to try to leave two liberties for a group of PCs (without military support) to counter these threats.
Thanks guys. I really like the GO comparison. I was pretty aggravated when I found out I was doing it wrong and got caught with my pants down. Then we tried working through the rules and the examples of play, and it was too late in the evening to make any sense :)
I was in the same frame of mind as asfhgwt at first, but now I understand. I really hate following a rule just because its a rule. Its gotta make sense to me
Bill, your explanation hit the nail on the head for me.
As for "Or perhaps this isn't the game for you.", it's just a matter of understanding why. I wouldn't say the game isn't for him because he doesn't get the history/rules relationship yet.
Ive never played a game with so many choices to make, and games within a game :)
-
Brien Martin
United States
DeKalb
Illinois
-
asfhgwt wrote: Sorry, I see no real difference between a cluster of 10 connected cities with a hole in the middle and one with no hole. Perhaps any group over, say, 3 PCs should be exempt from isolation.
Consider the hole a place where real debate is taking place, and that debate keeps the linked PC markers alive with activity as they try to "bend" that hole to their way of thinking.
Now, once that hole closes, then everyone in the chain or cluster is in it together. No one to sway. It's truly "us vs. them".
Surrounded now on all sides by the opposition, with partisanship clearly in play, the cluster/chain is drawing a more complete attention from "the neighbors". Reprisals are commonplace in the absence of a military presence. Supporters now have to go underground to avoid such reprisals.
By going underground, those spaces are no longer actively in the political struggle. But they haven't gone over to the other side.
That's what PC isolation represents, and it does it well. You may find the concept "absurd", but it works, and it works very well. Each player wants to be sure they don't lose the support that they have spent precious OPS cards on to build. And, of course, the opposition is doing all it can to close those holes so that they can drive the opposing points of view underground.
To each their own, so I'm not going to try and convince you that you need to find the system as elegant as I do. But there is a good, solid, logical reasoning behind PC isolation, and because the logic is sound, I'm okay with the game mechanic.
Brien
-
Arnold Daly
United States
Harrisburg
North Carolina
-
Well I'm the "other"player that tanks a lot is playing WW with.First off I REALLY LOVE THIS GAME!!!!The pc isolation rules were at first to me hard to wrap my head around but with the explanation of a "supply" chain it really helped me understand it.But now I am kinda lost on the removal of the PC markers.If my pc markers are isolated but after removing one of them in the chain then I can lead back to the now open space.So do all of the pc markers get removed or just enough to re-supply the chain???
-
Richard Pardoe
United States
San Ramon
California
-
StreetBGFW wrote: So do all of the pc markers get removed or just enough to re-supply the chain???
All simultaneously (Last line of 10.31 B for the Americans / 10.32 B for the British)
-
Brien Martin
United States
DeKalb
Illinois
-
StreetBGFW wrote: Well I'm the "other"player that tanks a lot is playing WW with.First off I REALLY LOVE THIS GAME!!!!The pc isolation rules were at first to me hard to wrap my head around but with the explanation of a "supply" chain it really helped me understand it.But now I am kinda lost on the removal of the PC markers.If my pc markers are isolated but after removing one of them in the chain then I can lead back to the now open space.So do all of the pc markers get removed or just enough to re-supply the chain???
Arnold,
Although I had absolutely nothing to do with the development or design of the game, I'm glad you're enjoying it!
With PC isolation, you remove *all* of the American markers first. The removal is considered to happen simultaneously. At *that* point, you check for British isolation. In essence, the British may benefit from the removal of the PC markers ... they may have "looked" isolated at first, but with the Americans gone, they may no longer be so.
It may be that some of the British markers will remain isolated even after the Americans are removed. In that case, the British markers are all removed simultaneously.
Each side then gets to have the fun of having another PC battle over the now-empty spaces left behind.
Brien
-
Charles Cabell
United States
Fort Mill
South Carolina
www.facebook.com/HistoricalBoardGames
-
"Each side then gets to have the fun of having another PC battle over the now-empty spaces left behind"
LOL thats for sure. Again going back to the "Go" mentality.
Alos there is a demo on GMT for "For the People" which is the next game in this series if anyone is interested.
http://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTVentrilo.aspx
On Tuesday, March 16 at 7:00pm Eastern Time: Robert Sohn will be demonstrating Mark Herman's For the People! You can download the VASSAL module from this link.
-
Mark Herman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Brien Martin wrote: Andrew,
Joel explained it elsewhere, but let's see if I can paraphrase:
As long as a space is "open", its leanings in the matter are still open for debate. Once a space leans Tory or Rebel, that crystallizes locals. When you have a large cluster or chain of PC markers that cannot chain to an open area, then that cluster or chain is so crystallized that it now draws military and political attention, especially that it is now surrounded by those of an opposite opinion.
The isolation process, then, is the simulation of those crystallized clusters or chains "going underground" for fear of reprisals.
In other words, it was okay to admit to being a Tory ... unless you were absolutely surrounded by Rebels ... and vice versa.
Brien
This is a reasonable rationale, but I would also add that a community of like political minds needs to be supported. If you have a large group of PC markers that is unsupported by any combat or political figure, it is at risk of folding if assailed by the enemy. The empty space does represent, albeit very abstractly, a situation still in flux, but once hard lines are drawn that community needs to be linked into the rest of the rebellion (counter-rebellion) or its morale collapses due to being isolated from its political leadership.
The way I was thinking about it is similar to Joel's well stated view, but I would put an additional spin on this concept. The American Revolution is at its core a war of ideas. The PC markers are an abstract way of taking a Revolutionary War gallop poll. A group of PC markers in a colony represents this war of ideas and a low level conflict that is pitting neighbor against neighbor. The side that is dominant in the colony has sufficient residual energy to generate a militia on occasion. The political energy of a group of PC markers is either expanding, stagnant, or contracting. If it is still expanding, as represented by additional populace open to the political war of ideas (as represented by an empty space), it continues to gain energy. Once it can no longer grow because it has run up against a wall of political opposition, the issues begin to change. The group needs to begin to govern and protect its community, which requires the trappings of government. This is where many local revolts falter and collapse. Once the exciting moments of protesting and public debate have passed the issues change. The new revolutionaries now have to become a governing body, which at its core is ensuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense (you might recognize that last phrase from somewhere). Failure to do so drives the situation in the other direction and morale collapses and the situation is once again up for grabs as simulated by the fact that isolated markers are removed, not converted.
Looking at it from a game risk-reward perspective, a one PC investment that is isolated is probably not worth the investment to save, but a multi-colony sized grouping starts to represent a major constituency that is clamoring for support and represents a sizable investment in political capital. The value of the investment should draw enemy attention and at this point the investment is at risk unless you invest in actual military forces to support it. For example a 10 PC marker now requires a one card investment to garrison. Failure to do so is a calculated gamble on your part.
Given this is the big picture of the hearts and minds war you have two main tactics to protect your community of political allies. As the Continental Congress or the British Parliament you need to show your constituents that you care about them and support them. This means troops, so sending even one CU solves the entire isolation issue or for the British connecting them to a port and the British navy. Failure to support your 'political capital' as represented by the PC markers puts your people or said another way your level of political support at severe risk.
The other important tactic is the discard for the removal of a PC markers. This is meant to show, as cited in my design notes, the low level combat that was the essence of the war. The ability of a surrounded cluster to put the situation in flux again by attacking adjacent spaces puts the group back into a potential expansion mode that generates another wave of revolutionary energy.
So remember, especially when playing your last card; make sure that the battle or maneuver that you are planning is more valuable than just removing one enemy PC marker and preserving a large concentration of PC markers. Another similar tactic for the Americans is saving the second reinforcement for a late turn play and just stick a 1 CU army in the middle of a key PC concentration.
Enjoy,
Mark
-
Mark Herman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
RPardoe wrote: asfhgwt wrote: Sorry, I see no real difference between a cluster of 10 connected cities with a hole in the middle and one with no hole. Or perhaps this isn't the game for you. Within the rules of the game, there is a difference between 10 connected cities connected to a liberty and 10 connected cities that have none, so I play to avoid that situation if possible. There are events (Declaration of Independance) that do have some risk, so borrowing from Go again - nice to try to leave two liberties for a group of PCs (without military support) to counter these threats.
Note that there is a difference between the Americans and the British in this regard. Trying to use the GO tactic of leaving two MEI (or eyes) is very vulnerable in Washington's War. Unlike GO you have maneuver forces, so if a PC concentration had an empty space, or two, in its midsts, an army could just move into those empty spaces which would convert during the political phase. The new PC just placed is not isolated because it is supported by an army and the surrounding enemy PC markers, assuming that they were surrounded by a set of enemy PC markers would collapse due to isolation.
The GO mechanic that I used is significantly modified so GO strategy does not translate smoothly into WWR. Think of yourself in the game as the Continental Congress or Parliament. The PC markers represent political constituents who are all clamoring for support. As a group reaches critical mass its voice is louder than the others and if you fail to support them they can go silent.
Mark
-
Richard Pardoe
United States
San Ramon
California
-
Yes, the GO analogies fail due to the movement and maneuver in the game. Which is why I didn't want to press it very far. Was hoping it would help (indirectly) the original questioner think of the situation a bit differently. Your explanation (and Brien's) do a much better job. Thanks for posting!
-
Robert Crawford
United States
Chester
New Hampshire
-
I find the isolation rules fascinating. I agree with the rationales other posters have used to explain what the isolation rules are simulating, but I came up with something a little different that helps me understand what's going on.
I see the PC markers as indicating spaces that have become politicized. By that I mean spaces where economic transactions have declined and political actions have increased. People in spaces with a PC marker are too busy going to meetings, tarring and feathering their neghbors, riding around looking for spies, and coming up with cash/goods to payoff the local thugs (frex, The Sons of Liberty), to make contracts, paint their houses, and mow the lawn. When politicized spaces still have a functioning neutral market to trade with--sometimes abstracted to a single unpoliticized space or port--they can continue to devote their energy to politics. Politicized spaces also continue to function when there is a visable reason to continue to "pay the piper": friendly armies nearby to provide security. When those two things are absent the spaces revert back to a neutrality that represents a more normal economic life for the citizens in those spaces.
I realize that is unecessarily complicated, and not based on specific research, but it helps me justify the removal of a large number of PC markers in one fell swoop.
I really like Washington's War. I appreciate the fact that a proven game design was polished and improved. Thanks Mark!
--Robert Crawford
-
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Wan Chai
Hong Kong
-
I think if you can put the PC isolation in the overall context of all the other rules, it make more sense. If you leave a hole, your enemy will fill it up asap anyway. So the point is not to leave a hole in order to avoid isolation. The point is to sustain your area political support with either military might, charisma of the general or the call of the continental congress for the American or naval supplies from the Imperial back home through coastal ports for the British.
Perhaps people are rather more annoyed by the sudden oops when they found a large piece of cake was cleared away from your watering mouth.
-
Adam Ruzzo
United States
Vernon
Connecticut
-
I'm with Andrew. The concept that 5 American PCs + a hole in the middle is more stable than 6 american PCs is not something that sounds realistic, or even plausible. All of new england is openly in favor of the American Colonists because Spingfield is undecided. But as soon as Springfield decides that they too, support the revolution, they and all the cities around them stop supporting the revolution openly? Shouldn't greater numbers of support make people bolder, not shy?
I'll probably play the game as written (though I might experiment with the concept that 3 or 4 PCs will support each other), but it will lessen my enjoyment of the game. Every time we get to isolation it will bug me.
-
Edward Wehrenberg
United States
Unspecified
CA
-
I'm a firm believer of not adding House Rules or changing things without having a dozen or two plays under my belt. There's also a side to me that is a strict Rules Guy, that knows that a LOT more playtests went into the game before I ever showed up. And if a Rule reads a certain way, there's a dang good reason for it.
However, I DO like your idea of 4+ PCs providing a "Safe Anchor" for avoiding PC loss. I will consider that for experimentation after I play it a bunch more times.
Bridger wrote: I'm with Andrew. The concept that 5 American PCs + a hole in the middle is more stable than 6 american PCs is not something that sounds realistic, or even plausible. All of new england is openly in favor of the American Colonists because Spingfield is undecided. But as soon as Springfield decides that they too, support the revolution, they and all the cities around them stop supporting the revolution openly? Shouldn't greater numbers of support make people bolder, not shy?
I'll probably play the game as written (though I might experiment with the concept that 3 or 4 PCs will support each other), but it will lessen my enjoyment of the game. Every time we get to isolation it will bug me.
-
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
-
It is a bit unituitive. I was playing with my friend the other day and in this game (his third, my fifth) he'd grasped the idea of using Ops to place PC markers. He'd hadn't quite grasped Isolation though, so he was filling up all the empty spaces around him. He did have a connection through to the Continental Congress (and also to an American Army, which was useful given the Congress got dispersed later on) but the connection went though a single space channel of Fort Chiswell-Point Pleasant-Basset town.
As it happened I didn't get round to sending an Army to one of those spaces and removing all the American PCs in the Southern states, because the game ended unexpectedly early (with a British victory for other reasons). I did point it out to him after the game ended. We will see if he has understood on our next match...
-
Mark Herman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
See my upcoming article in c3i magazine where I cover all of this but here is a simple tip. Try a virtual maneuver for the Americans. Use your last 1oc to raise a one SP army in New England. People with no military support are not going to follow your cause. See current US thinking in Afghanistan. No soldiers no government, no government no control. Not much has changed.
Mark
-
Mark Herman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Bridger wrote: I'm with Andrew. The concept that 5 American PCs + a hole in the middle is more stable than 6 american PCs is not something that sounds realistic, or even plausible. All of new england is openly in favor of the American Colonists because Spingfield is undecided. But as soon as Springfield decides that they too, support the revolution, they and all the cities around them stop supporting the revolution openly? Shouldn't greater numbers of support make people bolder, not shy?
I'll probably play the game as written (though I might experiment with the concept that 3 or 4 PCs will support each other), but it will lessen my enjoyment of the game. Every time we get to isolation it will bug me.
All are welcome to play anyway they please but just try using a 1oc to either raise a 1 SP army or discard an event and eliminate one enemy PC.
Works just as well. If you cannot support your PCs you will lose them.
Mark
-
|
|
www.facebook.com/HistoricalBoardGames
