Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

1775: Rebellion» Forums » General

Subject: Really suitable as 4-player game? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Peter Blaschke
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
mbmb
This came up in another (unrelated) thread so I am re-posting this here. I doubt that this game is really suitable for four players.

The "problem" I have with this as 4-player game is that the British player can always take with him the Loyalists in his turn and vice versa while the Continentals can always take the Militia with them and vice versa.

Therefore, if in the end you cannot agree within the team on the "right" approach, your team-mate can take your cubes to the grave without you being able to do anything about that. That is something I really feel uneasy with.

What does the community think and how are others dealing with this?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Veilleux
Canada
Levis
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1775 is a really good 2 players game

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
Preservation Hall Jazz Band - So It Is
badge
Severance - Ling Ma
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PeterBl wrote:
This came up in another (unrelated) thread so I am re-posting this here. I doubt that this game is really suitable for four players.

The "problem" I have with this as 4-player game is that the British player can always take with him the Loyalists in his turn and vice versa while the Continentals can always take the Militia with them and vice versa.

Therefore, if in the end you cannot agree within the team on the "right" approach, your team-mate can take your cubes to the grave without you being able to do anything about that. That is something I really feel uneasy with.

What does the community think and how are others dealing with this?
The community thinks it's a good game with the rules as written, which should be obvious from the ratings and the large number of positive comments and reviews. That doesn't mean everybody will like it; we all have our own tastes. If something bugs you about it you have two legitimate options:

1) The Variants folder: you can either write your own house rules and post them there, or look to see if any like-minded individuals have already done so.

2) Find another game that suits you better.

(Note that starting a new thread to re-hash a discussion that took place in an old thread isn't listed. You can do that until the cows come home, and it won't advance your cause. What it does is waste the time of subscribers who will repeat what they've said previously and/or eye roll while thinking "not this again".)

12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
If the commanders on one side sabotage one another, you are doomed. Just as doomed as if the spirits don't help each other in Spirit Island. That said, bringing at least some of your co-commander's troops along really helps in battle, so both of you will want to do some of this.

For a 2v2 team game where the co-commanders can definitely be at cross-purposes I recommend Pericles: The Peloponnesian Wars.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lewis Karl
United States
Vienna
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
PeterBl wrote:
This came up in another (unrelated) thread so I am re-posting this here. I doubt that this game is really suitable for four players.

The "problem" I have with this as 4-player game is that the British player can always take with him the Loyalists in his turn and vice versa while the Continentals can always take the Militia with them and vice versa.

Therefore, if in the end you cannot agree within the team on the "right" approach, your team-mate can take your cubes to the grave without you being able to do anything about that. That is something I really feel uneasy with.

What does the community think and how are others dealing with this?
First of all its a game. If you can't trust your team mate or can't bear to allow him to make his own decisions, then perhaps this game is not for you. I see nothing wrong with someone ordering "my cubes" when they take their turn. Afterall, I don't consider them "my cubes"; they are the team's cubes. I just happen to be a Continentals general and my partner a Militia general. We each get our turn. No one general should be able to control the outcome of either armies.
12 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Broggi
United States
Southwick
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have never had an issue with this and would rather play it as a four player game over a two player.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with broggi. While it's fine with 2, I like it better with 4. Yes, there is 'chaos.' That makes it fun. We have allies roll "their own" dice in combat, for the blocks they have involved. Deciding "whose blocks die" from hits received is normally a quick decision, based on the various factors of unit strengths, blocks in the battle, and situation in that part of the board.

And yes, mingling cubes is a vital part of the game. (Keep your cubes separated and I'll bet my house to win 9 out of 10.)

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I didn't enjoy it with 4. More fun with 2. But if the folks in your group don't mind sitting around more then 4 will probably work fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob S.
United States
Grand Rapids
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PeterBl wrote:
Therefore, if in the end you cannot agree within the team on the "right" approach, your team-mate can take your cubes to the grave without you being able to do anything about that. That is something I really feel uneasy with.
I prefer it as a 4 player game. The “problem” you identify is historical; not every commander agreed with their colleagues/subordinates/superiors. The game provides a simple mechanism that allows that to occur. (I haven’t experienced that myself in 4 player games, but the “threat” that it may occur isn’t enough to disuade me from playing the game.) To limit that strikes me as reducing the “historicity” (such as it is) the game has.
5 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I enjoy with either two or four players. With two players, it's a solid and engaging two-player strategy game. With four players, it becomes more of a FUN, light team game where all the players usually stand up for the die rolls!

If you have a team member that desires to screw the other through his own selfishness, then that's an issue which needs to be addressed beyond the game. Don't discount the game for that reason. We have an expression in the states (and it might be used around the world, I don't know)... "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Edit: And after posting this, I just read Bob's comment above. I gotta say that I agree with that as well.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Blaschke
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
mbmb
Sphere wrote:
PeterBl wrote:
This came up in another (unrelated) thread so I am re-posting this here. I doubt that this game is really suitable for four players.

The "problem" I have with this as 4-player game is that the British player can always take with him the Loyalists in his turn and vice versa while the Continentals can always take the Militia with them and vice versa.

Therefore, if in the end you cannot agree within the team on the "right" approach, your team-mate can take your cubes to the grave without you being able to do anything about that. That is something I really feel uneasy with.

What does the community think and how are others dealing with this?
The community thinks it's a good game with the rules as written, which should be obvious from the ratings and the large number of positive comments and reviews. That doesn't mean everybody will like it; we all have our own tastes. If something bugs you about it you have two legitimate options:

1) The Variants folder: you can either write your own house rules and post them there, or look to see if any like-minded individuals have already done so.

2) Find another game that suits you better.

(Note that starting a new thread to re-hash a discussion that took place in an old thread isn't listed. You can do that until the cows come home, and it won't advance your cause. What it does is waste the time of subscribers who will repeat what they've said previously and/or eye roll while thinking "not this again".)

Wow, geez... Thank you for explaining to me how the world works. Really appreciated. The world really needs more posters like you. I was asking a specific question, but your post does not even try to answer it.

As regards your last point: I was not re-hashing an old discussion. I do not know whether you have looked for the thread I was referring to, but you should have looked it up before posting. It is the recent post about the issue whether team-mates should exchange card information. There I was making a mere statement in reply to another post. Then I got interested in what the community might think and instead of hijacking the other thread (I explicity stated that the other thread was unrelated) I just opened a new one. What is wrong with that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James C
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just adding my voice to the chorus of those who prefer playing 1775 as a 4-player game over a 2-player game.

That said, I think it's great at both counts.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
RMN Gamer
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Definitely 4-player.

I find 2p a bit boring because the tension between allies is lost. If I want to play a 2p American Revolution game then it’s Washington's War.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad B
United States
Van Buren
Arkansas
flag msg tools
badge
Deus Ex
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My family usually plays as four players, and enjoy it quite a bit.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PeterBl wrote:
Therefore, if in the end you cannot agree within the team on the "right" approach, your team-mate can take your cubes to the grave without you being able to do anything about that. That is something I really feel uneasy with.

What does the community think and how are others dealing with this?
In 4-player games, we talk to each other and have a good time. I've never had an issue with it.

The tournament I've played in is 2-player, which is probably the way to go there.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
Preservation Hall Jazz Band - So It Is
badge
Severance - Ling Ma
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PeterBl wrote:
I was asking a specific question, but your post does not even try to answer it.
I think your worry comes from a perspective that makes little sense in the context of a historical wargame. The American Revolution was fought over very large distances with generally poor communications. Troops were going to follow orders from the senior commander who was present; they weren't going to wait for a letter from orders to arrive from somebody a thousand miles away, who couldn't possibly have a detailed understanding of local conditions anyway.

The idea that one commander should have perfect control of all militia and another should have perfect control of all regulars, when those units are strung out and intermingled across thousands of square miles of mostly wilderness, stems from a perspective I don't understand. Maybe you're wanting it to be some kind of abstract or military chess?

1775 is a wargame, albeit a rather simplistic one, and it's portraying an actual conflict from a high level. Militia in the south had very little idea what militia in the north was up to, and vice versa; news of battles in the west might take days or weeks to reach some parts of the country. That's the sort of game it is, and that's why I suggested that if you don't like it, you'd do best find a game better suited to you, or consider developing your own variant.

The community you addressed up top consists primarily of wargamers who were drawn in large part to this game because of its subject matter. Collectively, they aren't likely to embrace a change that would shift play in such an ahistorical direction. People that worry about having control generally dislike games with dice; you won't find many of them in this particular forum.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Blaschke
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
mbmb
Sphere wrote:
PeterBl wrote:
I was asking a specific question, but your post does not even try to answer it.
I think your worry comes from a perspective that makes little sense in the context of a historical wargame. The American Revolution was fought over very large distances with generally poor communications. Troops were going to follow orders from the senior commander who was present; they weren't going to wait for a letter from orders to arrive from somebody a thousand miles away, who couldn't possibly have a detailed understanding of local conditions anyway.

The idea that one commander should have perfect control of all militia and another should have perfect control of all regulars, when those units are strung out and intermingled across thousands of square miles of mostly wilderness, stems from a perspective I don't understand. Maybe you're wanting it to be some kind of abstract or military chess?

1775 is a wargame, albeit a rather simplistic one, and it's portraying an actual conflict from a high level. Militia in the south had very little idea what militia in the north was up to, and vice versa; news of battles in the west might take days or weeks to reach some parts of the country. That's the sort of game it is, and that's why I suggested that if you don't like it, you'd do best find a game better suited to you, or consider developing your own variant.

The community you addressed up top consists primarily of wargamers who were drawn in large part to this game because of its subject matter. Collectively, they aren't likely to embrace a change that would shift play in such an ahistorical direction. People that worry about having control generally dislike games with dice; you won't find many of them in this particular forum.
Thank you for the time and effort to type up this detailed response. Having considered all the responses, I agree with you that the issues I described are not really linked to the game itself, which I like very much, even though I have to admit that my post may have conveyed a different picture. Iagree with you that seen from the historical perspective everything makes perfect sense.

I am a wargamer by myself and it is perfectly fine for me to have rules reflecting chaos on the battlefield, like rules on command chains, units being in and out control and the like. To play in a team and to accept that decisions might be taken which do not correspond to how you have done it maybe is the best real life implementation of such issues anyway.

Next time I will play the game in a team I will try to adopt this attitude.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
adam wilson

Oklahoma
msg tools
PeterBl wrote:
This came up in another (unrelated) thread so I am re-posting this here. I doubt that this game is really suitable for four players.

The "problem" I have with this as 4-player game is that the British player can always take with him the Loyalists in his turn and vice versa while the Continentals can always take the Militia with them and vice versa.

Therefore, if in the end you cannot agree within the team on the "right" approach, your team-mate can take your cubes to the grave without you being able to do anything about that. That is something I really feel uneasy with.

What does the community think and how are others dealing with this?
That's the nature of the beast. If the commander's aren't on the same page, their strategies won't work. I think it adds a lot of tension to the game and if you want to up the ante, don't let the factions talk at all. I do mostly play the game 2 player but 4 is fun for me as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls