Severus Snape
Canada
Nulli Secundus
One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew.
-
Introduction:
Although I have not followed the relevant threads in great detail, the designer of King Philip's War, John Poniske, strikes me as a earnest, sincere, and intelligent person, and a game designer with promise. However, I think his best work lies ahead and will not be found in King Philip's War.
Components:
MMP designs demonstrate a range of component quality running from the solidly serviceable (Case Blue), to the borderline snazzy (Warriors of God), to the mixed bag that is to be found in King Philip's War. The counters are among the cheapest looking I have seen in many a year, and seem retro in an Avalon Hill, 1960's sort of style. In short, they are usable but dreadful. The use of different colours for Colonies and Native tribes is good in theory, but not appealing in practice. Some of the choices, such as pink, work to distinguish the said units, but just look awful. Pink, and its kin, should be banned from wargame designs.
Even the dice provided--one red, one green, look and feel cheap.
On the other hand, the rulebook is well done. It is glossy--always a risk in my less than kind hands--but has a sturdy feel. The layout of text, headings, diagrams, and what not, is both serviceable and pleasing. At first glance, the rules were not entirely clear--I never like having to double-back to check out something that seems as if it belongs in a section where I later find myself--but a glance at the threads, and a second reading, seems to make everything fall into place.
The play aids--one per player--reflect the rulebook for layout and usefulness.
The map is a colourful point-to-point creation by one of my favourite wargame artists, Mark Mahaffey. So, why do I find it dull? I think it is because Mark has this style down so well that he could do it in his sleep. And this is the overall affect of this particular design; it looks as if he did do it in his sleep. He needs a new challenge--a real challenge--to wake him up and restore some of the luster I see lacking in KPW. However, my personal taste takes nothing away from how the design works for the game, as it works quite well. Perhaps if I liked the game better, I would like the map more.
The Gameplay:
This is the crux of the matter, for I find KPW to be a dull and dreary time. I understand, as best as I likely can without entering John's head and thinking, why he needed to make design choices that abstract this bloody piece of Colonial and Native American history. But I find the end product to be more along the lines of a two-dimensional experience. King Philip's War is neither fun nor enlightening for me. I neither enjoyed it, nor felt like I was one iota closer to grasping the desperate struggles of either side of this sad affair.
Why? Without calling KPW "Mediocrity Defined," as Derek Green does, the game is a dull repetition of a "hack n' slash/slash n' burn" dose a do that depends more on good die rolls than anything else. The game is all about burning down Colonial or Native settlements, and though you might have 6-1 odds or greater, there is no guarantee that your high numbers will allow you to raze your target. To justify such failure by stating that one side or the other was having an "off day," or some such thing, is hardly an incentive to continue rolling one bad toss after another. The game, more than anything, becomes a race to see who can raze the most, and don't be surprised if the two sides ignore direct combat with each other, to a large degree (as in one stack of units attacking another), while the practice a "scorched earth" campaign upon one another.
On the one hand, if the odds are high enough, no die roll should be necessary: the settlement should just be torched. On the other hand, this just seems to compound the problem that the only good strategy is to burn, and burn quickly, before you get torched. How exciting is this? And I find the rule that the attack is called off if doubles are rolled, not to be exciting in its randomness, but irritating instead.
The added element of using the random effects die is not a bad idea, in fact I like it, in theory. But in practice it needs some tweaking. For example, Derek Green is right to be critical of how a settlement, which has 1 SP, can roll a "massacre" against the other side. Seriously, if there is no combat unit defending the settlement, the "massacre" roll should have no effect. In fact, the random roll effects are often too gamey and that seem too difficult to justify from a historical perspective, though John will be the resident expert here, and thus may be able to make strong case.
Observations concerning the Historical aspects:
Okay. Whoop-de-doo, I have read one book: "King Philips War," by Daniel R. Mandell, and published by the John Hopkins University Press in 2010. From reading it, I have some questions:
1) The impact of Benjamin Church. On July 24, 1676, ChurchMwas commissioned to go anywhere in the colonies, except for Rhode Island, in his pursuit of Metacom (King Philip). Up until that time, his impact is important, as he lead small bands using Native tactics, but not game shaking or campaign breaking.
Q: Does KPW do a reasonable job of demonstrating the affect of Benjamin Church for the Colonial side? I do not know. More research would have to be done.
2) Does Josiah Winslow's impact in the historical campaign justify his use in the game? Or is he just inserted so that the Colonial side can also have two 1+ leaders?
3) Is it reasonable for the Colonial side to continue recruiting at normal rates (according to the game rules) even as settlements go up in flames? The Native Americans are much more restricted in the game, which reflects the smaller population base, but the Colonials are only limited by the counter mix, and the need, it seems, to hold onto one settlement.
Take the case of Rhode Island. It suffers early, and often, from the Native blitz in many a game, but if you hold one settlement, you can continue to recruit. How is this justifiable?
In the Seven Years War/French & Indian War, it was often difficult for the British to recruit Americans to fight; not unreasonably, the future Yanks wanted to be paid well and regularly, to serve under their own officers and what not. Did the same problem exist in 1675-1676?
4) Native tactics versus Colonial tactics: just how different were those of each side when not following the likes of Church (and Colonial leaders)? Is it reflected in the game?
I do not agree with Derek's criticism of the Natives having muskets, with a 1+ effect, when the Colonials receive no such benefit. I figure that John is just balancing things out for both sides, and doing so in a way that does not complicate the game.
I imagine that I could come up with other questions, but this sample demonstrates my interest in the game as a reflection of the history, as I understand it; and my understanding is limited.
Conclusion:
I received KPW in a trade, and I must admit I am glad that I did not pay money for it; I just traded one game I for which I did not much care for another game, for which I do not care. Much.
I would recommend King Philip's War as a really good introduction to wargames. I will see if I can bring it to school in the new year and introduce it to students in the game club who like history. KPW reminds me of some of the Columbia block games that are quick and easy to learn, and are therefore good for beginners.
Though I do think there is much depth and promise to the designer of KPW, I think it is not found here. John's best work clearly lies ahead, and I would be more than happy to try his future designs, as long as I am interested in the topic.
I do doubt that I will order a half-dozen books on King Philip's War, as this is what I usually do, as long as I can afford it, when I like a game. I find KPW to be dull, repetitive and disappointing. Although I see it as highly playable, I also see it as having low replayability.
-
Jon Williamson
Canada
Calgary
AB
-
Thanks for the review, Prof Snape (actually, was Snape a professor?).
I think you raise valid points about the game. I would only caution that I do not believe it should be treated as a historically accurate opus, but rather as a simple, quick-ish, abstract-ish attempt to portray the conflict. It should come with beer and pretzels within the box.
However, even by looking at it as more game than sim, does it work for me? In many ways, I would answer "yes". I had fun playing it, there were options available to me regarding strategic direction, both sides had ample opportunity to be both attacker and defender and I felt a fair amount of tension.
There is a flip side to the coin though and you hit on several aspects that give me pause. In particular, the chaotic combat due to the event die. Even a highly one-sided battle can go awry whereas a settlement with no militia can inflict a massacre against a huge host, as you noted. I appreciate that no battle can have predictable results and that unpredictability helps to drive the game. In fact, I think that a fair amount of the tension that I mentioned above as a positive in the game derives from the event die. It just feels odd to me I must admit. Also, I am concerned that given the relative isolation of the units on the map, a few poor battle die rolls in one area can have a significant impact on the game since it can be difficult to reverse a .... well.... reverse with reinforcements. In addition, I too noticed the die rolling "raze or not raze" race in my playings, but found that this was dampened in my second session somewhat as new strategies were attempted.
At the end of the day I rather liked it. I treated it as a puzzle to be solved and in that context I could have fun with it. Is it for everyone? No way. The chaotic element would turn some away to be sure. However, with the "puzzle mentality" firmly entrenched in my mind, I can even overlook that and treat it as a parameter in my search for a solution.
Yeah.... I know I know .... I like everything and am, therefore, a poor critic. Too happy ass!
Thanks again for the review and for making me think a little this Christmas morning as I await the rest of the family getting up so we can get some present opening going on already! Happy Holidays!!
-
John Poniske
United States
Pennsylvania
-
Designer's Reply
I have to admit Severus, this was not the Christmas present I was expecting this morning. Ah, but critics have no need for social gravitas. Then again, you have graciously separated your barbs from the author and concentrated them on his creation. Well done. I feel as if I have received a pat on the head while having my child slain in the body and spirit. All right then, to business.
COMPONENTS: Your comments regarding the cardboard components have merit. I, too, was disappointed with the quality and definitely expected better. I am confused as too your comment regarding separation of tribes by color scheme, particularly your disputation of pink. Don’t you know pink is the new blue?
I did have a few niggling comments about Mark’s map.I disliked the offset tracks, and was miffed at the deletion of period map symbolism that had been included in an earlier version. Obviously, all the settlements could not be included or the whole tenor of the game would have been skewed. The same with Indian villages, these were placed more with an eye to rough tribal boundaries as opposed to specific geographic location, even this is a bit off due to the size of the playable area. Still, I found the end product to be striking; simple but eye-catching and as faithful a representation of colonial settlements as possible for such a compressed and abstract game.
The rulebook was gorgeous, one of the nicest I’ve seen. And I was honored that MMP went to all the trouble … which, as you say, contrasts so much with the playing pieces.
GAMEPLAY: Your reaction to game play was “dull and dreary,” and I cannot dispute your reaction. Others cannot tell me I must like raw carrots. Why must I? Why must you like KPW? You mustn’t! You tried it (thank you for that). You didn’t like it and you want to warn others of its ability to waste immeasurable amounts of playing time, I salute you for spending your time for doing so. I’d be wasting everyone’s time if I claim how much fun I’ve had playing it (darn, did it anyway), but I would like to point out that I never claimed this to be a cerebral game. From the beginning I touted it as having a simple approach to an all but forgotten turning point in this country’s history. From what little I’ve learned about you, I would have been surprised if you admired KPW’s depth of complexity.
Take into account that this was truly a pivotal point in time, not that you dispute this. I felt the story needed to be told to our gaming community. I don’t claim this to be the best or final approach, merely my approach. I chose to use simple mechanics because the conflict was so bloody and barbaric – on both sides – that to do otherwise would have been to emphasize the scheming nature of both cultures. Players have hints of this through game play but those who take advantage of the bibliography provided, will get the full sordid picture. I am pleased that the game led to your reading one history on a topic in which you say you were otherwise uninterested. Again, good. Raising interest was my objective.
You reproach me, saying that the “only good game strategy is to burn and burn quickly.“ Yet again, good. You caught the spirit of the game. Destruction was key to this conflict, destruction and elimination. These were concepts my native opponents demanded I soften, but these were concepts that were absolutely integral to understanding the conflict and consequently to creating the design. One of my biggest difficulties was dealing with the numerous massacres that occurred. My answer was not to dwell on the actual act, but on the reaction of surrounding settlements/villages. It works well.
The event die is our answer to using cards. I originally wanted to use event cards to influence the game but I saw that there was actually a dearth of distinct events so the cards would lend little. Key points however: Guides, Massacres, Unexpected Reinforcements, Spies, Ambushes, etc. had to be included. The die was an elegant solution, and it has been one of the most popular aspects of the game.
The dice doubling mechanic which represents delays, drunkenness, timidity, bad weather … whatever, was Adam’s child. And I at first embraced it enthusiastically. It offers players that fog of war aspect that is difficult to achieve when playing with full knowledge of your enemy’s strength and position. Initial test play showed that it worked well. Since then, I have to agree with you. The mechanic can sometimes have too much influence on the game. Too many doubles is definitely frustrating. To mediate this, I have personally taken to counting only ODD doubles as “bad weather” influence.
HISTORICAL ASPECTS: First a general observation: If I might loosely quote Mr. Berg, ‘this is a game, it contains a measure of history, but it is not an accurate representation of history.’
CHURCH – Church was not as large an influence as the game indicates. He was however, a figurehead then and now. He did advocate depending more on Indian allies than his fellow colonists. He did advocate emulating Indian style warfare as opposed to the popular old world “open field running.” He ultimately became a model upon which our United States Special Services was founded.
WINSLOW: - You got me. Winslow is a +1 leader added to balance the fact that the Indians have two +1 leaders. Winslow is unique in that he was a man of wealth and importance who took to the field in an age when influence allowed a man of means to largely sit on the sidelines in conflict. For that reason I awarded him his +1.
COLONIAL RECRUITMENT: Yeah, buddy. It is certainly acceptable for the colonial side to continue recruiting even after devastating losses. The colonials were well entrenched along the coast by then. Their population did outstrip the Indians who were still smarting from decades of devastating disease. They were also still receiving a steady stream of colonists even during the raging conflict.
RHODE ISLAND: Rhode Island actually receives more brutal attention early in the war than it did historically. Plymouth received more attention from the Indians and from a historical perspective, deserved it more than equitable Rhode Island did. So, taking this into consideration as well as the fact that threatened colonists would have moved to safer quarters where many of the menfolk would have thirsted for revenge, Rhode Island would absolutely have continued to recruit up until the fall of the final settlement and then even after.
NATIVE TACTICS VS> COLONIAL TACTICS: Early in the war tactics were very different. The Indians by then had fully accepted the use of firearms, but remained wedded to woodland small force ambushes. Europeans however were wedded to large scale set-piece battles and felt that the Indian way of warfare was “dishonest.” Just as the British would find many of the American tactics during the Revolution. After Church (and others) saw the devastating effects of Indian ambuscade, they came to embrace it as their own, and once they learned to trust their Indian allies (Indians having bones to pick with neighboring tribes), the worm turned.
MY OWN CONCLUSION: Severus is a highly intelligent and obviously talented writer and critic. Although known for his negativity, he brings interesting points to the table some of which I wish I could overlook, particularly the component aspect. He does not like King Philip’s War. Oh well. I don’t particularly like For the People, but I have huge respect for Mark Herman, and apparently Severus has a measure of respect for my own limited abilities. I will grant him that my design approach is to center around simple mechanics and not overwhelming depth for several reasons: Playing time, and the creation of a “historic” game simple enough to interest newcomers to the hobby. I’m pleased to see that Severus is using it thusly.
Severus speaks to his critic’s ambition in BGG’s personality page.
“I write reviews because I enjoy entering in to discussions of the history relevant to the war-game in question. I like discussing aspects of historical “accuracy,” and how well, or unwell, the design matches my, and your, understanding of the history in question. I like tweaking the egos of the ego-centric, while having mine tweaked in return. I enjoy pulling a face at the humorless, and testing the thin-skins of certain designers, my preference for which should be clear to anyone who cares to follow my passions and peeves.”
Well said. I have been duly tweaked and in my own fashion have tweaked in return. Odd as it seems, I welcome your approach as I do tend to be overly optimistic about most things, a kaleidoscopic view helps me better understand what I create.
Merry Christmas, everyone! 
-
Ty Wyman
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
This thread is some of the best that BGG can be. Thank you all.
-
Knut Grünitz
Germany
Bremen
-
@John,
as far as I remember the first version of the game was more economoly based with counters for crops and cattle included. Why did you take this out?
@Severus,
if you want to read another fine book about the conflict (seems to me that you like intelligent people so you will also like intelligent books  ) I recommend "The Name of War" by Jill Lepore. It has a very good analysis about the war.
-
John Poniske
United States
Pennsylvania
-
Knut, so good to hear from you again !!! Yes, I had planned a moderately complex mechanic to indicate loss of supply but in the interest of simplicity we reduced this to two markers that could be integrated into the existing scoring track. I actually think it works better this way.
Happy Evergreen Day to you.
-
Knut Grünitz
Germany
Bremen
-
Merry Christmas to you all
-
United States
Fall River
Massachusetts
This is how I spent my supporter bonus Geek Gold. With more support I could have had both Over Texts.
-
Poniske wrote: I am confused as too your comment regarding separation of tribes by color scheme, particularly your disputation of pink. Don’t you know pink is the new blue? Merry Christmas, everyone!
John I hesitate to call anyone a heathen on Christmas but your disparagement of the only true player color can not go unremarked. There is no need for a "new" blue.
Hope your Christmas was otherwise good.
As to the thought of a 1 sp village causing a massacre you could think of it as a response by the neighboring forces to the attack.
KPW was brought up as a suggested game for my monthly wargame group's January meeting. Hopefully it will get to the table and I can meet my fellow playtester across cardboard. Since we will be in Bridgewater I hope it doesn't get massacred.
-
John Poniske
United States
Pennsylvania
-
Hey Spizio, your remark
"As to the thought of a 1 sp village causing a massacre you could think of it as a response by the neighboring forces to the attack."
was exactly what I was getting at.
Yesterday I played my scond game of A Few Acres of Snow with my son (He is a wizard tactician so as the French I was horribly outclassed and pummeled in record time). while playing, I was pleased to see the name of Deerfield. I was recently asked to travel there as the town was memorializing an historic raid by the French. I and King Philip's War were given a place of honor in their museum. While there, my wife and I visited the site along the Connecticut R. where the Indians were massacered as they prepared fish after the Spring Salmon run. It was a sobering visit all around.
-
Severus Snape
Canada
Nulli Secundus
One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew.
-
John, you have given a thoughtful and gracious reply to my review; this hardly comes as a surprise.
1) Mark's Map:
I don't want to be misunderstood because I like Mark's design; I am just getting tired of the style. I have on the table "No Peace Without Spain" as my next Christmas-break endeavour, and the map is another done by Mark. Although it is also point-to-point, it seems more colourful and "jazzed up." Perhaps I was hoping for the same with King Philip's War, but Mark's map certainly accomplishes what is needed for KPW, and I could understand how others would be enamoured with it.
2) Gameplay:
Here we have a clear, understandable, difference of opinion, for why would you not like your design? And you have other intelligent geeks like Jon (Capt S) who will play and enjoy it.
As for your "simple approach" to this period of Colonial history, I would be at a loss as to how else you could design it. John, since you know the period better than most, if you were to imagine a more complex design, how might you go about it? Could you use action cards that limit or expand what each side can do? For example, instead of having a set number of attacks allowed, a card would decided each turn. And could there be event cards that would allow a tribe to enter the game (and perhaps on the Colonial side!), or that could negatively affect Colonial relations?
Okay, maybe I am not at as much of a loss for ideas as I first thought, but would anything I suggest be practical or work?
King Philip's War reminds me of Columbia games like Quebec 1759 and their take on the War of 1812. In elementary school, I found these good introductions to the topics, and easy to teach and learn; why, I even had girls beating the boys. Imagine that? KPW has that kind of appeal for me if I want to teach someone a wargame. However, it does not "stick" with me in terms of historical satisfaction. KPW easily takes but does not last.
3) Hackin' and Slashin'
John, you write the following:
You reproach me, saying that the “only good game strategy is to burn and burn quickly.“ Yet again, good. You caught the spirit of the game. Destruction was key to this conflict, destruction and elimination. These were concepts my native opponents demanded I soften, but these were concepts that were absolutely integral to understanding the conflict and consequently to creating the design. One of my biggest difficulties was dealing with the numerous massacres that occurred. My answer was not to dwell on the actual act, but on the reaction of surrounding settlements/villages. It works well.
I have no problem with the inclusion of massacres and what not--the kind of statement that sounds so Orwellian--and the need to simplify and abstract. I just agree with Derek Green that a settlement, by itself, should not be able to massacre anything, though it can be massacred in turn. If you want us to "imagine" the wider conflict around the struggle for a settlement--this being how the massacre is abstracted--okay, but it is not much fun for the imagination because it seems gamey. And again, that a massacre is not much fun also sounds Orwellian!
4) The Son of Adam known as the Random die/dice:
You write the following:
The dice doubling mechanic which represents delays, drunkenness, timidity, bad weather … whatever, was Adam’s child. And I at first embraced it enthusiastically. It offers players that fog of war aspect that is difficult to achieve when playing with full knowledge of your enemy’s strength and position. Initial test play showed that it worked well. Since then, I have to agree with you. The mechanic can sometimes have too much influence on the game. Too many doubles is definitely frustrating. To mediate this, I have personally taken to counting only ODD doubles as “bad weather” influence.
John, I am not a fan of all of Adam's choices, though I liked Warriors of God enough to buy two copies of it. Adam just has a way of speaking about people in the room as if they are not there, while ducking the hard questions that such people, like me, ask. I took him to the woodshed in my Warriors of God review and haven't heard from him since. The name I have for such behaviour will earn me a suspension on BGG so I would think it, but not say it.   
The randomness of Warriors of God divides the people who play it. If I approach the game as history, the die rolls invite me to throw myself under the next bus. If I play it as a game, I take 'em as they roll and just have fun. I can see why the dice in KPW will be enjoyed, and, as I said, I like it in "theory." If I teach the game to students, I would simply have fun with the idea.
5) These guys:
John, the following was helpful:
CHURCH – Church was not as large an influence as the game indicates. He was however, a figurehead then and now. He did advocate depending more on Indian allies than his fellow colonists. He did advocate emulating Indian style warfare as opposed to the popular old world “open field running.” He ultimately became a model upon which our United States Special Services was founded.
WINSLOW: - You got me. Winslow is a +1 leader added to balance the fact that the Indians have two +1 leaders. Winslow is unique in that he was a man of wealth and importance who took to the field in an age when influence allowed a man of means to largely sit on the sidelines in conflict. For that reason I awarded him his +1.
This is clear and enlightening explanation that justifies your design choice. It is a model of design note writing.
6) Crunching the Colonial Numbers:
Here is what you have:
COLONIAL RECRUITMENT: Yeah, buddy. It is certainly acceptable for the colonial side to continue recruiting even after devastating losses. The colonials were well entrenched along the coast by then. Their population did outstrip the Indians who were still smarting from decades of devastating disease. They were also still receiving a steady stream of colonists even during the raging conflict.
RHODE ISLAND: Rhode Island actually receives more brutal attention early in the war than it did historically. Plymouth received more attention from the Indians and from a historical perspective, deserved it more than equitable Rhode Island did. So, taking this into consideration as well as the fact that threatened colonists would have moved to safer quarters where many of the menfolk would have thirsted for revenge, Rhode Island would absolutely have continued to recruit up until the fall of the final settlement and then even after.
Perhaps it is in the rules, but if the Native Americans do raze all RI settlements, would its colonists just go to Plymouth? Your answer seems to downplay the actual importance of settlements for colonial recruitment because, among other things, they are "well entrenched along the coast." None of this downplays the importance of razing settlements for victory points, since homes and livelihoods and people are being eliminated. And how many Quakers and other non-conformists would actively take up arms? Maybe many, given the stakes.
7) Say it ain't so:
Your conclusion is witty:
MY OWN CONCLUSION: Severus is a highly intelligent and obviously talented writer and critic. Although known for his negativity, he brings interesting points to the table some of which I wish I could overlook, particularly the component aspect. He does not like King Philip’s War. Oh well. I don’t particularly like For the People, but I have huge respect for Mark Herman, and apparently Severus has a measure of respect for my own limited abilities. I will grant him that my design approach is to center around simple mechanics and not overwhelming depth for several reasons: Playing time, and the creation of a “historic” game simple enough to interest newcomers to the hobby. I’m pleased to see that Severus is using it thusly.
I have been "nice" to Mark lately, and he was at his best--he is often at his best--in the discussion for A Few Acres of Snow. But Mark knows that I loath Washington's War. As for For the People, Mark's take on ACW leadership is stereotypical and wrong, but he justifies it because it works in the game. A lot of lousy things work in games and that does not make them any less lousy.
So, John, your mission with Lincoln's War, if you chose to accept it, is to improve upon For the People, while breaking the stereotypes surrounding ACW leadership.
When will Lincoln's War be in our hands, by the way?!
8) Pink is the new Blue!
  
Thanks much for the good giving and taking.
Edited to add/correct this that and the other thing.
-
Severus Snape
Canada
Nulli Secundus
One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew.
-
Quote: Thanks for the review, Prof Snape (actually, was Snape a professor?).
Jon, Snape spends most of his teaching time as the Professor of Potions at Hogwarts. It is only in Harry's sixth year that Snape gets the position he really wants as Professor of Defense against the Dark Arts. And, Jon, you need to read the books and see the movies. Or, as Ron would say, "you git!"
-
Jon Williamson
Canada
Calgary
AB
-
Thanks for the clarification, o'Dark Arts Maestro.
Hey, I have "Half Blood Prince" (?) on my PVR and I saw the second to last movie on a long flight some time back. That leaves only the very last movie to watch before I get my badge. LOL!
-
Severus Snape
Canada
Nulli Secundus
One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew.
-
Quote: That leaves only the very last movie to watch before I get my badge. LOL!
Capt S, you muggle: you must see the last movie. Although my bias is clear, it is one of the best action/adventure movies of all time. The pacing is incredibly tense and truly Alan Rickman steals the show.
And as for o'Dark Arts Maestro, I rather like that. I wonder if I can get my students to call me this--they call me a lot of things, most out of earshot. But this would be cool.  Okay, now I've gone and added it to my profile. I live a sheltered life. Instead of people old with twenty cats one day, I'll be very old with twenty Guinea pigs. Sigh.
-
John Poniske
United States
Pennsylvania
-
LINCOLN'S WAR PLUG.
Severus, Thank you for your interest in LINCOLN'S WAR. This is truly a labor of love and ... I have no doubt it will be picked apart by sharp critics such as yourself. It is so far afield from the typical Civil War game most folks will have difficulty classifying it.
My beef with For the People (which has a grand following, so I can't fault it much) largely has to do with its cramped map. It is also more complicated than I prefer, nor is the game length inviting to me. I am also tiring of towering stacks of tiny units. Therefore much of my disdain derives from peripheral issues. Mark's initial approach to command structure is good, but for me makes the game drag. I designed Lincoln's War in tandom with For the People and it has evolved a great deal over the years It looks absolutely NOTHING like its first edition, nor anything like For the People.
My design revolves around speed of play and a unique approach to the Civil War, one which encompasses combat but does not rely on it. I deal with conflicting Civil War personalities, simplified command structure, political influence, naval influence and a completely new combat system. Preorders seem to be lagging because of the mistaken belief that it is the same ol' same ol.' It is not.
As to when it will see the light, this is dependent on the perennial preorder system and even then, MMP has games that have reached their goals yet are still waiting in the queue. Your guess is as good as mine. Happy to take you (or anyone) for a spin here at home, at the upcoming MMP Winter Offensive, or next summer at the Lancaster WBPA convention.
If you haven't yet seen the Youtube introduction to Lincoln's War
go to http://www.youtube.com/ and type in LINCOLN'S WAR BOARDGAME.
-
United States
Fall River
Massachusetts
This is how I spent my supporter bonus Geek Gold. With more support I could have had both Over Texts.
-
John
Glad you got to play AFAoS I hope you liked it. I think it is my most played game this year.
Glad to hear you were back in the area and as a guest of honor no less. I may have to stop at the museum if I'm out that way.
-
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
HRC - His Royal Cheekiness, Rajah Babu
-
Damn, I hate them insincere games...
-
Severus Snape
Canada
Nulli Secundus
One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew.
-
Ashiefan wrote: Damn, I hate them insincere games...
You mean like A Few Acres of Snow? 
-
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
-
Poniske wrote: Severus, Thank you for your interest in LINCOLN'S WAR. This is truly a labor of love and ... I have no doubt it will be picked apart by sharp critics such as yourself. It is so far afield from the typical Civil War game most folks will have difficulty classifying it. My beef with For the People (which has a grand following, so I can't fault it much) largely has to do with its cramped map. It is also more complicated than I prefer, nor is the game length inviting to me. I am also tiring of towering stacks of tiny units. Therefore much of my disdain derives from peripheral issues. Mark's initial approach to command structure is good, but for me makes the game drag. I designed Lincoln's War in tandom with For the People and it has evolved a great deal over the years It looks absolutely NOTHING like its first edition, nor anything like For the People. My design revolves around speed of play and a unique approach to the Civil War, one which encompasses combat but does not rely on it. I deal with conflicting Civil War personalities, simplified command structure, political influence, naval influence and a completely new combat system. Preorders seem to be lagging because of the mistaken belief that it is the same ol' same ol.' It is not. As to when it will see the light, this is dependent on the perennial preorder system and even then, MMP has games that have reached their goals yet are still waiting in the queue. Your guess is as good as mine. Happy to take you (or anyone) for a spin here at home, at the upcoming MMP Winter Offensive, or next summer at the Lancaster WBPA convention. If you haven't yet seen the Youtube introduction to Lincoln's War go to http://www.youtube.com/ and type in LINCOLN'S WAR BOARDGAME.
Hi John
My reading on the politics of the ACW is no larger than Gore Vidal's LINCOLN, what would you recommend as book number 2?
Actually, I read most of the brick-sized book on the British in the ACW but then lost it somewhere in the games room.
-
John Poniske
United States
Pennsylvania
-
Lincoln's War Bedtime reading
On top of my list is Goodwin's TEAM OF RIVALS which ties in beautifully with the theme of LINCOLN'S WAR AND it's fun reading. I was already playtesting LW when the tome was released - it warmed my heart to see my ideas fleshed out so well.
I am also fond of Shelby Foot's writing. His 3 volume panoramic view of the war is as good as it gets. His dramatic approach to the Battle of SHILOH is superb.
To better understand individuals from the common soldier to the housewife to the politician, I'd also suggest the VOICES OF THE CIVIL WAR series published by Time-Life Books. Most such series just scratch the surface of what others have done. This series approaches battles and the homefront on a personal level. Each is cram-packed with the text of actual letters, mispellings, misunderstandings, misjudgements and all. From time to time I read from them in the classroom; they can be quite moving.
I can offer dozens more, like GRANT'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, Slade and Alexander's FIRESTORM AT GETTYSBURG and Pollard's highly partisan history, THE LOST CAUSE, but the former books are my top choices. I envy you as you are entering into a fascinating new world, a time at once more civil AND uncivil than our own!
-
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
-
Is that Doris Goodwin's book?
I have lots of military stuff on the military but the politics can be drowned out and one can forget how many major players on both sides were related to those on the other. It's like a family feud.
-
Jon Williamson
Canada
Calgary
AB
-
I really enjoyed Doris Goodwin's Team of Rivals as well. Particularly the pre-war section. I was amazed to read about the history of the slavery debate and the various attempts to reach compromise. Wow, the US was certainly broken at that time. And of course the political wheeling and dealing was fun to learn about. It was an entertaining read.
I will second Foote's trilogy and throw in Catton's centennial trilogy as well. Foote is the more elegant writer though I feel.
-
David Zammiello
United States
Libertyville
Illinois
-
reading suggestion
The first third or so of James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom has some fascinating stuff on the pre-war period, such as plans to invade Cuba and elsewhere to extend slave territory, that I hadn't read elsewhere.
-
Robert Shifflett
United States
Virginia
-
This has got to be the worst review I've ever read. I'm usually a lurker around these parts, but this one drew me out. I can't believe that Mr. Poniske has been as gracious as he is here. Too bad they don't still have a thumbs down option on BGG.
Quote: The counters are among the cheapest looking I have seen in many a year, and seem retro in an Avalon Hill, 1960's sort of style.
Full color icons are not retro. For retro icons, see ASL: black silhouettes on a plain background. That's cheap.
Quote: Even the dice provided--one red, one green, look and feel cheap.
What in the heck are you talkin about??? They're standard dice- what is your problem? And you get a custom die for the game, too!
Quote: Some of the choices, such as pink, work to distinguish the said units, but just look awful. Pink, and its kin, should be banned from wargame designs.
This has more to say about your lack of confidence in your own sexuality than anything else. When you need a bunch of colors for unit ID stripes, light red is a perfectly acceptable option, just like light green or light blue. Yes, light red is pink.
Seems you jist had it in for this game from the start. Then you pulled your punch with all that stuff about the designer's future games.
[edited for the Big Brother lovers]
-
Jon Williamson
Canada
Calgary
AB
-
I normally refrain from childish internet crap and respect the rules of this site regarding code of conduct, but I must state that simply noting the rules violation here does not feel adequate.
Personal attacks are rude. You owe the OP an apology. Critical game comments here are very welcome as are the debates they create, but you crossed a line.
I hope that upon reflection you will realize that.
-
Jon Gautier
United States
Rhinebeck
New York
-
Capt_S wrote: I hope that upon reflection you will realize that.
My bet is that he won't. But I think the admins will soon teach him that passive/aggressiveness is the BGG way.
-
|
|
