From: Steve Sickels <steve@library.kirkwood.cc.ia.us> Subject: EoE-playing comments I have been solitairing the full American Revolution scenario and have gotten up to turn 10. (we had flooding in iowa, a perfect game to play while simultaneously pumping water every 30 min. now i know why a lot of you gamers are former Navy guys :-) Yes, the counters are a mess. but after only 2 hours of fixing the errata for counters/map i started. my only experience prior with this was playing the british invaision of 1776 scenario vs an opponent. the game is playable, rolling for initiative is frustrating but both sides seem to have plenty of leaders so that if you don't insist on having ALL the troops in one stack, you can generally get someone to move somewhere. the continentals are fortunate indeed to have washington, montgomery and greene. battles have been frequent and just as frequently indecisive. some have gove as many as 6 rounds though. the british at the current time possess every port from glouchester to new york, plus savannah. the main continental army under washington is skulking around new england and occaisionally will pounce on a lightly garrisoned port and take it, only to retreat when threatened by large armies under Howe or Cornwallis (from Boston and New York, respectively). the brits are trying for economic collapse obviously and i think that this might be possible at least up till mid 1778. no british steps lost so far towards french entry (at least no WHOLE units which are the only ones that count) Hessians die so well, why spend valuable British blood? But with all that, it looks to be virtually an impossible task for the british player (historical accuracy) but certainly not a game where the Americans can snooze. any other experiences out there? oh. my favorite game still is 13:Colonies in Revolt (i playtested on that one) but End of Empire does have its charm and an interesting focus. worth getting and playing, even with the counters. that wasn't the designers fault. steve "i love burning east-coast cities" sickels From: Paul Blankenship <PBLAN@LANDOLAKES.COM> Subject: EoE-playing comments -Reply >the brits are trying for economic collapse obviously and >i think that this might be possible at least up till mid 1778. no >british steps lost so far towards french entry (at least no WHOLE units >which are the only ones that count) Didn't the Americans attack the british in the first game turn or two? Every time we played the Americans managed to inflict up to ten dead units on the brits (early playtests were very bad, game was over in the first combat basically - designer added special ammo rules to cover that little problem.). The americans take lumps but by getting those first few kills the Brit player gets alot more cautious later on. >Hessians die so well, why spend valuable British blood? Yup! >But with all that, it looks to be virtually an >impossible task for the british player (historical accuracy) but >certainly not a game where the Americans can snooze. Memory is failing me on why it really isn't that hard on the Brits. Part of the problem being that we had to twiddle with the VC so much (usually just to make the British player more aggresive.). Designer notes do say to try and take out American entry points - every time I tried the British unit would get smacked around for being out of supply in Colonial territory... From: Steve Sickels <steve@library.kirkwood.cc.ia.us> Subject: Re: EoE-playing comments -Reply Paul..... On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Paul Blankenship wrote: > >the brits are trying for economic collapse obviously and > >i think that this might be possible at least up till mid 1778. no > >british steps lost so far towards french entry (at least no WHOLE units > >which are the only ones that count) > > Didn't the Americans attack the british in the first game turn or two? > Every time we played the Americans managed to inflict up to ten dead > units on the brits (early playtests were very bad, game was over in the the americans have attacked every single op phase in which they achieved initiative and have inflicted losses on the brits. they have nothing to lose with this strategy but you must always preserve a large american army somewhere (also very historical) . i don't recall if they got an attack on Boston in the first couple of turns. i think so, and i think they bounced. my strategy with the americans has been to attack all exposed brits AND pile into the big armies also. currently i think the main army with wash is at 140+ defense points and about 70-80 offense points. > > Memory is failing me on why it really isn't that hard on the Brits. Part of > the problem being that we had to twiddle with the VC so much (usually > just to make the British player more aggresive.). Designer notes do say i have played the brits aggressively. to make it fun and to see if the total collapse of the colonies is possible. also, i think its a valid strategy to pursue. neither side can just sit and wait to be attacked. > to try and take out American entry points - every time I tried the British > unit would get smacked around for being out of supply in Colonial > territory... supply hasn't been a problem for anyone, as long as the brits stick within 1-2 hexes of the coast or parked in a port. i mean, all of new england is one big line of port hexes. only those canadian continentals that appear just outside montreal attritted so far. those nasty Hurons blocked their supply. From: Paul Blankenship <PBLAN@LANDOLAKES.COM> Subject: Re: EoE-playing comments -Reply -Reply >supply hasn't been a problem for anyone, as long as the brits stick >within 1-2 hexes of the coast or parked in a port. Confused memories again, or your playing it wrong (not meant to be offensive in any way). Even one intervening hex between a port/coast and the Brits will be out of supply if they don't have units garrisoning the hexes inbetween. This might have been one of the rules that was changed before printing but I don't remember changing the designers mind about it. What would happen in our games is good old George Washington would attack the garrison units and kill them, or the brits would have to split their army into roughly equal parts all of which were vulnerable to attack. Although the americans could not attack the major british groups they could defend well enough - and one slipup meant the end of an entire british stack due to being out of supply. I think I'm going to have to go over the published rules and see what is different. From: Steve Sickels <steve@library.kirkwood.cc.ia.us> Subject: Re: EoE-playing comments -Reply -Reply back to Paul On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Paul Blankenship wrote: > >supply hasn't been a problem for anyone, as long as the brits stick > >within 1-2 hexes of the coast or parked in a port. > > Confused memories again, or your playing it wrong (not meant to be > offensive in any way). Even one intervening hex between a port/coast > and the Brits will be out of supply if they don't have units garrisoning the nope, been playing it right. those hexes are garrisoned. it is so congested with ports/entry hexes that its hard not to garrison them. > What would happen in our games is good old George Washington would > attack the garrison units and kill them, or the brits would have to split their > army into roughly equal parts all of which were vulnerable to attack. > Although the americans could not attack the major british groups they > could defend well enough - and one slipup meant the end of an entire > british stack due to being out of supply. as i said the main american army is roughly 140pts def and 75+offense and each british army is around 70-90 points so that if the brits attack they do so at at least 1-2 (militia pop up) with generally a +1 to die modifier (wash has artillery and his own ability, thank god) whereas if the british are defending it is generally a 1-1 with a -1 die modifier if the americans tackle the "big armies" nobody has a clear advantage here at this point. its still 1777 though and LOTS can happen either way. > > I think I'm going to have to go over the published rules and see what is > different. no problems with that. any info is great. i love the game. its fun. it was probably that in my first play vs an opponent i took boston on the last turn of the scenario in a winter turn by rolling a six in a 1-3 attack with Howe. i thought..."i love this game" steve "send in the hessians" sickels From: Paul Blankenship <PBLAN@LANDOLAKES.COM> Subject: Re: EoE-playing comments -Reply -Reply -Reply >nope, been playing it right. those hexes are garrisoned. it is so >congested with ports/entry hexes that its hard not to garrison them. Sounds like the same rules I remember. I just don't ever remember having enough units with the brits to garrison that many places sufficiently (SP?) to keep George from grabbing a couple, probably also due to your not having lost any british units yet. >no problems with that. any info is great. i love the game. its fun. >it was probably that in my first play vs an opponent i took boston on the >last turn of the scenario in a winter turn by rolling a six in a 1-3 >attack with Howe. i thought..."i love this game" Getting Howe to do anything *is* entertaining From: Steve Sickels <steve@library.kirkwood.cc.ia.us> Subject: Re: EoE-playing comments -Reply -Reply -Reply further thoughts on this.... > > Sounds like the same rules I remember. I just don't ever remember having > enough units with the brits to garrison that many places sufficiently > (SP?) to keep George from grabbing a couple, probably also due to your > not having lost any british units yet. i have focused virtually all british combat power between boston and new york except for prevost in savannah and carleton in canada. the continentals have rapidly? (this is the 18th century!) concentrated as many units under washington and greene to oppose Howe and Cornwallis in Boston and New York respectively. this last two turns both sides have sidled back and forth, taking and retaking the ports inbetween. It seems to come down to a very delicate balance between using large armies with sufficient "detachments" available to occupy taken hexes. this seems to mirror what happened historically except that the tempo of activities is greater in this game. (just don't ask me about the turn in which cornwallis didn't get initiative and a smaller army of Greenes was lounging in the sun just accross the Hudson) As a player, its the challange of achieving this "balance" that makes the game fun to play. also, it probably helps to have a little sense of humor about an army of 20,000 men that can't seem to march 20 miles to obliterate some little pile of colonial rabble. > > >no problems with that. any info is great. i love the game. its fun. > >it was probably that in my first play vs an opponent i took boston on the > >last turn of the scenario in a winter turn by rolling a six in a 1-3 > >attack with Howe. i thought..."i love this game" > > Getting Howe to do anything *is* entertaining what i love is that even in the wintertime, washington and montgomery are only as bad as howe's best is, on a summers day. by the way, what is the story with the counters? looks like they got shrunk or something? also, is there a side list i could get of the senoirity of american generals, i think i have it correct but you never know..... thanks, steve From: Paul Blankenship <PBLAN@LANDOLAKES.COM> Subject: Re: EoE-playing comments -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply >by the way, what is the story with the counters? looks like they got >shrunk or something? The playtest counters were 7/8 inch suckers, the ones in the game are only 1/2 inch so yup they got squezed. More importantly the 7/8 inch counters were not offset or whatever when printed. They are also very different in actual design, which is probably why there are so many counters with errata problems. >also, is there a side list i could get of the >senoirity of american generals, i think i have it correct but you never >know..... There might be one in the playtest material - I'll take a look.