From: Todd Wilson Subject: Re: Worst Game (Guilford Courthouse and 1942) Trevor, I'm not sure I can enlighten you, but as a lover of the Series 120 games I'd like to add my two cents. This month I played three quick solitaire games of Guilford Courthouse and as you and Dav have pointed out it has a problem. The victory conditions dictate the that British must attack three successive lines of infantry (each of progressively better quality), and that this task is made well nigh impossible by rules that allow the American player to pepper the Brits then fall back before they can close for combat. However I don't think this fault makes it one of the all-time "worst" games. Firstly, when playing solitaire, abusing the rules so the Americans have an easy victory makes for a pretty boring playing experience (at least for me), and thus one is likely to play in a more historical manner. Secondly the fighting withdrawal strategy is not a perfect solution. Carried too far the Americans will eventually surrender the town hexes giving away 10 important VP's. As well, since the militia units do not count toward victory calculations, I think their role is to inflict as much damage as possible without regard for their safety. They're cannon fodder. Withdrawing them prevents their offensive fire that phase, and when they eventually make a stand to protect the Guilford Courthouse hexes (worth 10 VP's), they will be routed and move off the map edge before getting a chance to rally. I used them early, and most often they can be rallied by Greene and sent back to inflict some more pain before being routed decisively. I even had some militia hold their ground and give some extra casualties to the Brits in melee combat! My third point is that this game "feels" like a game of a revolutionary battle. I will admit that I know _very_ little about this era, but from what I know of it, and of this battle, I thought the game did provide the right feeling. Maybe it's the way I played it? Lastly, and as Dav pointed out, it's not that difficult to fix. For my next game I going to try rolling an "iniative die", that sees the player turns reversed on a roll of 4, 5 or 6. Thus one side would occasionally get two player turns in a row. This could allow the Americans to really pepper their attackers, while the Brits could move twice before the Americans could withdraw. I think it will add some enjoyable tension, then again it might not. But it's one possible solution (Dav mentioned two or three) and if I can think of one, then the game can't be "that" bad!:-) As for 1942 I must admit I only played it once. I traded an extra 1941 for a 1942, but the game I received was missing some counters so it wasn't a real game. It may not be that good but I thought the premise was interesting, even if terribly abstract, and I'd love to have a proper go at it. So, if you or anyone else wants to sell a _complete_ 1942 game please contact me directly and we'll talk price/trade. Take care, Todd > >My vote for worst game is tied between two from GDW - Guilford >Courthouse and 1942 that I bought together. The rules for both were >brief and confusing. In Guilford Courthouse IIRC it was suicidal for >the English to mount any kind of attack and the American rebels could >just sit back and accrue VPs for holding the objectives. 1942 was a >crude strategic level treatment of the Japanese opening offensive in SE >Asia that was horribly abstract and did nothing to explore the >strategies open to the parties involved. About the best the Allies could >try was to run and build a monster stack in the Singapore with the >unlimited stacking rule for fortresses. > >Of course if anyone can enlighten me with a dissenting view on these >I'd be grateful. > >Regards, >Trevor Wood, >Melbourne, Australia =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= K. Todd Wilson Box 2412, Golden, B.C., CANADA, V0A 1H0. towisd18@rockies.net Work: 250-344-6317 Home: 250-344-7295 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=