Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Mr. Madison's War: The Incredible War of 1812» Forums » Rules

Subject: a couple of questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
JOE LIBRANDI
United States
Peoria
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
What are the 1st and 2nd division counters used for?

Incendiary Action: Why would you destroy a town and lose a VP?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Peacock
Canada
Montréal
quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
About destroying a town.
Say you have a town with a 1vp value, if you lose it to the enemi, it cost you 2 vp (you lost 1vp and your opponent gain 1vp). By burning it, you may have lost the vp, but at least your opponent didn't gain vp.


Nevermind me, I'm just raving and babling and have no idea whats happening.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Freddy Dekker
Netherlands
Friesland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The markers can be used if you don't like stacks.
Instead of a stack on the map you can replace it with a marker and keep the stack off map.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leevi Rantala
Finland
Oulu
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dyvdav wrote:
About destroying a town.
Say you have a town with a 1vp value, if you lose it to the enemi, it cost you 2 vp (you lost 1vp and your opponent gain 1vp). By burning it, you may have lost the vp, but at least your opponent didn't gain vp.


That is incorrect. If you lose a town, the opponent gains those points, but you don't also substract the points from the owning player.

The only exception are the lakes. If you control a lake and then lose, it produces a 4 point swing (you lose two, and the opponent gains two). But this is easily rationalized, as you had to gain control (and the vp's) of those lakes in the first place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Clifford
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joe6778 wrote:


Incendiary Action: Why would you destroy a town and lose a VP?


Joe,

Gilbert highlighted some of the issues with burning towns here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/897144/question-regardin... - posted towards the bottom of the thread.

Also, there's been a fair amount of discussion on ConsimWorld on the topic too: http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX/.1dd45653/1742 - search the forum for "incendiary".

Andrew
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JOE LIBRANDI
United States
Peoria
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm still confused.

Let's say the Americans play the card. British units occupy Plattsburg (enemy town to the British.) Americans occupy London (enemy town to the Americans.)

One interpretation:
The Americans destroy Plattsburg thus denying the 4 VPs to the British.

Second interpretation:
The Americans occupy London, an enemy town. They play the card to destroy London.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Clifford
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joe6778 wrote:
I'm still confused.

Let's say the Americans play the card. British units occupy Plattsburg (enemy town to the British.) Americans occupy London (enemy town to the Americans.)

One interpretation:
The Americans destroy Plattsburg thus denying the 4 VPs to the British.

Second interpretation:
The Americans occupy London, an enemy town. They play the card to destroy London.


Joe,

This is precisely the question answered by Gilbert Collins in the BGG thread I linked to:

Quote:
No, Joel has it correctly. "Enemy" is defined in the rules as the original towns, blue or red, that were owned at the start of the game. Buffalo will never be a British town, it can be temporarily controlled, but it is always an ENEMY town to the British.

This is not the American Revolution with its change of loyalties by area depending on who was occupying it. Canada is going to stay Canada, and the United States is going to keep its identity even if British forces occupy sections of it.

I can't imagine any American general burning a US town in a war that was one of the most unpopular in American History. This is not "Napoleon in Russia", with the Czar's army destroying peasant towns to deny them to the enemy. The political implications of an American general destroying a town in New York would have had nightmarish complications to the Madison administration. As is even burning a BRITISH town caused the American officer in question to be dismissed from the service.

Once you understand the repercussions of burning towns after you have done it you will see how realistic the rule is. The counter mix is a limiting factor and as you will see you don't see burning of towns too much, except for Buffalo and sometimes Ft. George (Niagara)

The one main advantage of destroying a town if you can't hold it is denying the enemy winter quarters. But don't forget this can be repaired by building a supply depot when the original owner returns. Yes, it does cost a card which is the whole point of the exercise.


Plattsburg is American and so can't be destroyed by the American player; the only option is to destroy London.

Andrew
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gilbert Collins
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Andrew has this correct. I'm quite amazed how such a simple card should cause so much confusion. American armies don't tend to burn their own towns when trying to win a war that was rather unpopular. Same goes for the British, you don't beat the enemy by destroying your own property. This is North America in 1812, not Napoleon in Russia!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JOE LIBRANDI
United States
Peoria
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

OK, but then it brings me to my original question: why would the American side destroy London and deny themselves the VPs- not to mention the fact that they would then have to find alternate winter quarters?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Evans
United States
Berlin
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you can't hold the town, you might burn it and run.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gilbert Collins
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Mark has it. You would only destroy a town like London if you felt you couldn't hold it. That way you would at least get the points for the card instead of nothing.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mayor Jim
United States
Fort Wright
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Vote Often!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xlegion wrote:
Mark has it. You would only destroy a town like London if you felt you couldn't hold it. That way you would at least get the points for the card instead of nothing.


You'll also deny winter quarters to the Brits there in that scenario whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gilbert Collins
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Yes, the loss of Winter Quarters down in that area of the country is critical. Burning towns is a big decision because once gone, that's it. You can't use the town for winter quarters for YOUR units either. The British can get around it by building a depot there. It does cost them a precious strategy card to do it, but sometimes you just have too.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.