Print and Play Gamer
Der gluecklose Mack wrote:
After my first two games of Lincoln's war I am happy with some aspects but encountered problems too.
I like the indecisive generals rule and the resource management of PC, CSP and force activation.
The individualized values of promoted generals is fitting too. Lincoln's war is also nice in representing not only generals with independent command like for the people which ignored second line jewels like Cleburne.
But ... the scale of the game sees the eastern theater reduced to very few spaces. In my games the two armies massed and did nothing for a long time, the Union just tried to avoid the eastern penalty. On the other hand the eastern theater in the point-to-point game for the people is represented by more points than for example space in Arkansas. This leads to more maneuver and forces trying to outflank each other.
I also have the impression that there is just not enough action. Forces can only move two spaces + attack with each activation and you usually can't play all of your cards for activation (seditionists, reaction to IT placement). Cavalry generals have the same movement rate (?) and are exposed to counterattack if raiding alone.
The political aspect is more a question of resource assignment via cards than making decisions (like who should be in the cabinet).
And finally I think (?) there is no penalty for losing the capital except its supply value. Or did I miss a rule?
I think there is plenty of action. The first turn/year of the game probably won't see much action. You should be trying to build up PCs on the first turn. Once someone takes Kentucky or moves in the West, there is a lot of back and forth. The Union can't afford to turtle around as if things stay status quo the South will win.
Yes taking the capital doesn't end the game, just PC loss and VPs in the end of the game. But A southern army staying in Washington for the long run is not sustainable since you can't use CSPs.