The Game Box

I was thinking about the peculiar pulsed movement system of VG's Civil War game,
and how similar the way you pay for actions in it is to some less restrictive CDGs
(actually I was looking at Amateurs to Arms at the time).

The things that the VG game does differently, appeal to me more though. In particular,
you can't be certain you'll get enough points to move a cautious leader. Many CDGs give
a mechanism by which you can store up for an expensive action - but at the least, you
usually know what your hand of cards is for the current turn. In ACW (and earlier) eras,
it seems to me it was a lot more difficult to be aware of all that your forces were likely
to actually do.

Of course, there's also no silliness about trying to stack the deck - whatever that's supposed
to mean in those CDGs which allow for it.

I have an easier time mentally justifying storing up low OP cards for a more expensive action (queuing) than I can in stacking the deck (culling, but I am not sure that this is what you are referencing).

With queuing, I tend to think of it as knowing you have a bad harvest, lack of political will, etc and so concentrate the meager resources in fewer, more critical directions. Besides, without queuing some games like Washington's War or FtP (which I think has it) would be pretty tough for one side to do much of anything.

Culling though .... I am not sure about. PoG is a good example. I understand the concept and desire from a game perspective, but less so from a historical one. Again, one more reason why I slide PoG more towards "game" rather than "simulation". Not that it isn't a hoot to play mind you.

Depends on the war really. When you're talking about getting McClellan to move, you are overcoming more than just materials.

I think FtP was one of the worst games and biggest disappointments. The hideous point to point map (that channels movement and removes maneuver ) , the horrible rulebook, the complete lack of history. I rated it a 4 or 5 on BGG out of kindness.

It's been awhile since I played The Civil War, but it seems like the system forces you to choose between activating 1 "good" leader or two lesser leaders. Most CDGs that have leader activations don't seem to present such a choice. If the card you play has more ops than necessary to activate a particular leader, many times you just burn the extra ops.

It's the opposite - often one lousy leader vs. a couple good ones. But yes, many CDGs don't let you use a
card for more than one leader. That's why I used the 'less restrictive' qualifier, because there are some (like
Here I Stand, IIRC), that allow you to just spend your ops as you wish.

New thread: http://thegamebox.gamesontables.com/index.php?topic=27.0