|
News from the Frozen North: Washington’s War by Mark Herman.
A Brief History of the World (Ragnar Brothers) was released last October and on the whole has been well received by the gaming world. No bones were made about it being a re-working of a classic, and on that basis it has been given a warm welcome. Martin Leathwood, reviewing the Eastbourne 2010 gaming weekend, writes:
|
|
”Not a new game but a great improvement, now taking about thirty minutes per person. An excellent blend of an ‘experience’ game coupled with good fun and the need to make wise choices. The luck of the dice plays a part but less so than in the original game. However, it is still a joy when a single Macedonian unit fights the Huns to a standstill or the Romans don’t turn up at all.”
|
|
In the eyes of the Ragnars, it does everything that they set out to make it do. And so tonight we shall see if Washington’s War can do the same for We the people.
We the people was Avalon Hill’s card-driven simulation of the American War of Independence. It has always been a Ragnar favourite, combining as it does an interesting unbalanced military campaign, a clever game system and some entertaining random events. For several years, Phil and Roger played it as their two-player game of choice, Phil being particularly pleased since Roger – being Roger – developed a penchant for trying to make the British win – something that the system seemed gleefully keen to frustrate. But on to the spawn of We the people - Washington’s War.
Washington’s War uses similar systems to its forefather. The game operates at two levels – the military and the political. A spread of cards offering 1, 2 or 3 operations points. British generals tend to require 3 points to move, the Americans 1 or 2 points. As a result, strong stacks of British regulars alternate sitting doing nothing with plodding around trying to do damage to small, manoeuvrable American armies. The political level uses one of those systems that feels gamey to begin with, but after a while becomes just part of the game. It is basically Go, in that you spread your Political Control markers out to try and cramp up the enemy and, if possible, surround, isolate and thus destroy him. The Go similarities are even more apparent in that you can survive if your markers connect to an empty space – a nice gaming mechanic but something that doesn’t seem to have a lot in common with the realities of 18th century colonial warfare.
Phil takes the Americans, Charlie the British. Early hands favour the British despite the Declaration of Independence being played early on in the proceedings (1776 oddly enough). Very soon there are lots of British troops on the map and precious few Americans. A turn of big British 3-operation point cards is followed by one in which the British are virtually catatonic. George Washington manages to take control of Rhode Island (a tiny state that still counts the same as Virginia or New York at the end of the game), but then gets crushed by General Howe. Phil’s invasion of Canada is successful for the second game running, and it looks like it will be tight. However, the wheels come off as three-quarters of the way through the final turn the British play a combat modifier card, and – to Charlie’s delight – replace it with the Major Campaign event. The lights go off throughout North America. Goodnight Philadelphia.
So how do the two games compare? Physically the board for Washington’s War is light years ahead. It is bigger, the various states are much clearer and it has an excellent chart for keeping track of the alignment of the various states. Combat has been altered significantly – the old card-driven system has been ditched (sadly in some ways because it was hugely entertaining) for a simpler, faster modified-dice system. Getting into a fight is still very luck-based, but it is faster and does give you a better idea of your chances. One common sense change is to allow all events to have an alternative effect – in We the people you could find that half your cards were useless; now, whilst they still might be of limited use, you can at least do something with them. Other changes include tougher winter attrition for the Americans, a British amphibious attack option, a less drastic penalty for lsong George Washington and a more demanding system for bringing the French into the war; individually they don’t make a huge difference, but added together they seem to bring the British onto an even par with the Americans.
Overall judgement? Mark has done a good job. It’s nice to see a good game being improved like this. Some might say it’s the gaming equivalent of a greatest hits album, but that would be very unfair. Unlike a novel or a piece of music, you can go back to a game and improve it as an experience. The knack is to leave the best things in place, to pick up on the weaknesses of the original and to add quality systems that enhance the original features. Now, get down off the horse, give it some oats and put it away in the stable.
Return to top
|
