Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Lincoln's War» Forums » General

Subject: Impressions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Johannes Schäfer
Germany
Koblenz
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
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?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon J
United States
Eagan
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Print and Play Gamer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
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.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Der gluecklose Mack wrote:
In my games the two armies massed and did nothing for a long time,


Were you playing solo? This doesn't sound right at all. The Union is forced to put some forces on the move, which exposes them to the CSA army. It just doesn't add up that there would be relatively little action.

The scale of the game "fits" for the map & action. With resources & CSP running around, someone should have been up to something. The games that I've played haven't lacked for activity.

Quote:
And finally I think (?) there is no penalty for losing the capital except its supply value. Or did I miss a rule?


You have this very wrong. If DC falls, there's no Emancipation Proclamation possible, ever. And British Intervention immediately kicks in. Richmond is less critical, but IIRC if it goes, there can't be any BI, ever.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Johannes Schäfer
Germany
Koblenz
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for pointing out the results of Washington captured.

I did not play solo but the Union was hesitant in invading KY.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Der gluecklose Mack wrote:
I did not play solo but the Union was hesitant in invading KY.


You have to stage well, but a campaign makes invading KY exceptionally worthwhile. You telegraph the move, but that's the breaks.
1 
 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.