What Next?

[judgedredd]

I would've been excited for any one of those to be selected...it's why it was my shortlist.

I did forget to add Armageddon War...but never mind...it's not got a Use By date on it 

[judgedredd]

I've just setup the 1861 Scenario. I thought I would do a 3 turn scenario to see how I go.

Man - this is a tough game to setup. Took me an hour...for the short, 3 turn scenario!

Whilst the map is beautiful,  the states are hard to read. They aren't easily identifiable (text and borders are quite subtle) - particularly where a rivers forms part of the border. Also the hex numbers are very difficult to see...I mean, stupidly difficult to see

On top of that - honestly - I think I may be in over my head. Just as an example, the Scenario 1 (1861) setup states the N Atlantic Blockade is 5, S Atlantic is 7 and Gulf is 8....but I have no idea what those numbers mean.

Admittedly I am still reading the manual...I'm at page 14 of 20 so I haven't got to the naval section yet...but I have browsed through that and can't see any mention of what these values mean.

And...I've read the scenario victory conditions and - I'm lost.

I'm keeping with it. I'll finish the manual and watch a couple of videos...see if they fill in some of the blanks.

[bbmike]

Hmm, so the question is...What Next?

 

[judgedredd]

lol - no - I'm gonna stick with it. I have real love of the US Civil War - I've got to stick with it

[bob48]

Reminds me a lot of the old game by 'Victory games' which looks to be about the same scale. That was not an easy game to play IIRC.

[judgedredd]

I think I'm just overwhelmed. Not just with the rules...but what I have to do. It's not like other games where there's a victory hex or two...or destroy the enemy.

You have to think about victory points  preventing bonus points etc...who owns what and where.

And as I said the map is beautiful but it is lacking definition. Especially for someone not overly familiar with the lay of the land

[Martok]

I don't know, JD.  If the game is honestly that much of a struggle, maybe think about setting it aside -- at least for now -- and play one of the other ones in the poll.  OST sounded interesting... 

[judgedredd]

Don't think I didn't think about it - but...I do like the Civil War and I wanted to at least give the 3 turn '61 scenario a go...even just to try and reinforce what I've read. Doesn't matter who wins...understanding movement, combat, resources etc will help immensely for next time it's out .

I don't want it to slink away and never come out...and if I do that, there's a good chance I'll look at it in the future and just remember how difficult it was - rather than how much fun I had

I'm going to stick with it...it sets a dangerous precedent putting a game away because things got tough.

[Barthheart]

...it sets a dangerous precedent putting a game away because things got tough.

Not always... sometimes a game is just not for you. No shame in that. Not every game can be for everyone.

[bob48]

I agree with Vance; put it on one side for a while and go on to something else on your list. You may find that you go back to it after a while and it'll all click into place.

[judgedredd]

You know....I wonder if this is the same issue I have with computer games of similar scale. Grand strategy stuff with no "clear" direction often throws me.

War in the Pacific. War in the East. War in the West.

Compare this to my enthusiasm for a battle like Battle Hymn:Gettysburg that I really did love.

Tactical might just be my thing. Manoeuvring across a big map that encompasses 2000-3000 miles doesn't do it for me as much as manoeuvring across 100 miles using the terrain.

Ok - I'll give it some thought...maybe I'll bite the bullet on this one just now. 

[judgedredd]

I decided ya'll might be right. Sorry to those who voted for the civil war...I know I want doing an AAR anyway...but still you voted and I dumped you

I hope to get back to it one day

[Barthheart]

 

[thecommandtent]

And as I said the map is beautiful but it is lacking definition. Especially for someone not overly familiar with the lay of the land

I've never thought about this before but I wonder how much not being familiar with the local geography or vice versa can help or hurt our understanding of the map we are gaming on.   JD's example above intrigues me. I've never played this game or had a close look at the map but as someone who's grown up knowing the map of America I wonder if the lack of definition would bother me or if I would even notice it..

[judgedredd]

It depends I guess on your level of understanding. Honestly, it would be up to each individual

Regardless of knowledge, some people would be bothered by it and some wouldn't. It would obviously hurt someone who doesn't know the geography more than someone that does - hence why I found it difficult.

And I do have some knowledge...I'm not ignorant to the US layout - but state lines were lost on the map to me. The issue for me was particularly place names. I knew where Richmond "would be roughly", Washington, Baton Rouge, Montgomery. But other places too some time to search for. I can't remember the name of the place, but it took me at least 15 minutes to find it.

One last thing about the map was the central states. I found that confusing because they really were not distinguished on the map.

So the map was a block. Beautiful - but not overly helpful with regard to definition.

But lets not just blame the map for me boxing it back up. I was almost through the 20 page manual and I was lost. I don't think that was a problem with the manual but more about grand strategy games. I just didn't really know what I was doing.

I'm not selling it yet. I do want to get it back on the table and give it a go - but like I said, grand strategy might not be for me (so Empire of the Sun might join it if I do sell!)