Warhorse Simulations

Automated Card Tracking System: Home

Generic Module: Spouey’s shut-in Soldier Kings Journal

Number of entries per page:
  Sort order:
Most recent entries first
Oldest entries first

Filter on: (filter will search Player, Title, and Entry)

View elapsed game time

View game card play report

Next 100 entries

Entry # Time Turn Player Title Entry
110 4/5/2020 4:04:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Change Player 1 player Player 1 player changed from Mick Hayman to Steven
109 4/5/2020 4:02:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Frankly any request to join your game would be pointless. Any enjoyment that might have come from comraderie of playing in game would just be ashes. You’ve made it abundantly clear how little you value my presence and contributions. Good day to you.
108 4/5/2020 3:51:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Yes, but as I pointed out each and every time...there was a question that remained unanswered. Seems to me the Spanish player and his two mates were something you brought up. All of my “delays” were attempts to address questions YOU brought to the table.

Wtf!?!
107 4/5/2020 3:44:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message I asked 3 maybe 4 times for you to send in your initial unit placement.

You are welcome to join the new game as Russia. We are starting today.


106 4/5/2020 3:28:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Seriously, no one could bother to even email me?
105 4/5/2020 3:21:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Why don’t you guys just take your lack of patience and go frigging play by yourselves. I want no part of it...I think y’all have made it abundantly clear that I am not really welcome. Damned unfriendly I say..
104 4/5/2020 3:17:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message You guys are really something...
103 4/5/2020 3:17:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Wtf?
102 4/5/2020 3:12:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message Mick, we have actually moved on from the 5 player game and started a 4 player game. You are welcome to join the 4 player game as Russia. I have had to take Austria to get the game started.
101 4/5/2020 1:49:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Assuming GB still hasn't setup after a fairly diligent search in my email pile to see if I overlooked it. File is out, GB to setup.
100 4/5/2020 1:34:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Spouey, where can I edit how long your little rules pop-ups stay on screen? Iirc this is something that can be done personally but i may be just gettting mixed up with Vassal. They disappear way too quickly.
99 4/5/2020 12:22:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message did Great Britain send out a .gmv or do I need to keep looking for it?
98 4/5/2020 11:55:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message I found them. Spouey threw me off with a move file labeled 100.

Yall might find it is a whole lot easier in file sorting if the number of the .gmv occurs at the end of the game name. Think, boots, combat, black, one each...
97 4/5/2020 11:22:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message Got the new game file loaded, but I don't see any of the latest move files for each players setup...not sure if I accidently deleted them or overlooked it but I am sifting through my emails looking for one.

What is the latest word on Spain and his other 2 friends?
96 4/4/2020 3:33:00 PM Turn 1 Great Britain Message John, it looks like the ACTS game is set up without Spain. No slot exists on ACTS at this time. Let’s play.
95 4/4/2020 3:27:00 PM Turn 1 Great Britain Message Mick, I’m reading all posts. I’m not voting as I’m not an experienced player on this game (1st time playing).
With that said, please set up so we can go forward. I’m looking forward to playing (and getting my @zz kicked) so that I can learn the game.
Let’s go forward without Spain.
Dan
94 4/4/2020 2:49:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message Everyone else has written down where there units are to be placed. This is hidden from everyone. Austria borders the active Major Powers of Prussia and France and is 1 space away from Russia. Could Austria just write down her placement so the game can start?
93 4/4/2020 2:45:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message Steve, if we haven't heard from Spain one way or the other today I say we go ahead 5-player. I thing a Spanish player would really improve the game but we need to move forward.

How do we need to change ACTS?
92 4/4/2020 1:35:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message I see no need to hurry, we still need to change ACTS too. Haste makes waste.

Dan, please let us know you are even reading this with a post here on ACTS.
91 4/4/2020 1:31:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message i think an active Spanish player might alter my initial setup. Let me know if we have one for sure and we can start.
90 4/4/2020 10:56:00 AM Turn 1 Russia Message Mick we are waiting on you to write down your initial unit placement. The game cannot start until then.
89 4/3/2020 6:40:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message Mick you can draw and write down the initial placement of your units. Spain does not need to vote on rules as it his first time. If Spain does not join we can proceed to play the game because you have placed your units.
88 4/3/2020 10:30:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message What of Spain?
87 4/2/2020 10:08:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message So if John has voted we need Mick to place his units. Dan is not familiar enough with the rules to probably make an informed decision. I am still waiting on the Spain player to respond.
86 4/2/2020 8:24:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message OK, I'll go along with ALL optional rules + one house rule - only one leader per side added in any combat round. I think I'm the last holdout on that, so we should have a deal

To clear up potential ambiguity, where there are multiple rounds, I think each side can chose a different leader in each round.

Can we all agree now and start the game? I say if no one objects in the next 24 hours the resolution is passed.
85 4/2/2020 5:25:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Novice players should be able to grok: “don’t lose your capital” you’ll lose.

We can always start a second game if someone gets kicked out early. We could in theory play it at the same time..
84 4/2/2020 1:33:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message Austria is right that the brief raid on Berlin would not count as control in the game because the fortifications were not reduced. Also -before someone calls me on it - my mention of Philadelphia was rather fanciful, since the US was a motley collection of rebels at the time, so it was not a true national capital.

My main reason for voting against the Capitals rule is because we have a lot of novice players & this is a learning game. As Prussia with two 4-3's & two 3 rated leaders, I deserve to be kicked out of the game if I can't hold Berlin
83 4/2/2020 12:42:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Has GB got an opinion of the house rules and optionals? Haven't heard a peep yet.

What about our new player taking spain? all though he hasn't gotten a spot in ACTS I presume he has a vote to cast.

The debate can still be read here by him even if he hasn't got an account.
82 4/2/2020 12:35:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message iirc Potsdam was the real capital of Prussia, No?

In any case the brief occupation of a capital city is simulated well within the confines of the game in the contested control of a province, which is quite possible. It is the final reduction of the fortifications in the game's province that represent the total loss of control of the capital. Kuestrin was probably more important than Berlin.
81 4/2/2020 12:23:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message My vote remains NO against the Capitals rule
As I mentioned the British campaign failed in 1777, but not because it was a bad plan. It failed because St. Leger was fooled by Arnold’s disinformation and his Indian allies were unreliable. But mostly because Howe thought the Capitals rule was in effect and took Philadelphia instead of sticking to the plan and heading up the Hudson to meet Burgoyne (“No, Philadelphia has captured Howe”- B Franklin).
Back to the capitals rule, Russian and Austrian forces briefly occupied Berlin in October of 1760 after Fredrick left it vulnerable by concentrating forces in Silesia (which he may not have done if the Capitals rule was in effect). And he may never have been called “Great” if Prussia hating Tsarina Elizabeth hadn’t died & put Freddy’s buddy Czar Peter III on the throne.
But I’m OK with the Capitals rule if everyone wants it. It may lead to more realistic strategies. In the last game we played, as the Brits I was more worried about taking the Leeward Islands than the French & Dutch marching through England. I really proposed not using it to keep players from being knocked out of the game before they get much of a chance to play.

80 4/2/2020 9:45:00 AM Turn 1 France Message The one think I hate about listening to others is that sometimes they can make you change your mind. Dammit Mick, you may be having that effect on me. If players intentionally abandoning their capitol is really a problem, then I am in favor of the rule. However, I note that the fall of Vienna in 1805 (only 50 years later) did not result in the immediate surrender of Austria.
John, I cannot believe you would use the British 1777 campaign as an example of attacking a single site along multiple axis. Two prongs were routed and did not make it anywhere near their supposed destination of Albany and the third didn't even bother, opting for Philadelphia instead. The question was never whether or not they could devise such a plan, the question is whether they could execute it. However, the battle of Prague proves they could.
79 4/2/2020 7:48:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message “ To me one of the best parts of war gaming is discussing and learning about history. A war I game becomes more real to me than a war I read about.”

Agreed, the best part of a rule book are the designer notes, the more extensive the better. Shame that many games are no longer using them as much.
78 4/2/2020 7:42:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message The capital rule was added to the game to give players an incentive to actually defend their homelands and capitals. Without the rule the better play is to defend the high value colonies with the majority of forces. A very ahistorical strategy. Historically even the British had very strong worries about invasions, Quiberon Bay was about stopping a French invasion intothe British Isles not an expedition to the new world. Losing your capital really SHOULD lose you the game! The reason it didn’t happen in the real war is because all were so adamant about protecting them. Had Fred lost his, he might not have gotten the name “the great”.I vote we use the capitals rule.
77 4/2/2020 1:14:00 AM Turn 1 Prussia Message To me one of the best parts of war gaming is discussing and learning about history. A war I game becomes more real to me than a war I read about.
76 4/2/2020 1:12:00 AM Turn 1 Prussia Message I agree the Waterloo example wasn't really on point because both the time and distances were much shorter than the scale of the game. Maybe more relevant is the British campaign plan for 1777, when columns from the north, south and west were supposed to converge on Albany and split the colonies. Of course it was 13 years after this game ends, on a different continent and it didn't work. But it shows that it wasn't beyond the strategic thinking of the time.
75 4/1/2020 11:46:00 PM Turn 1 France Message I agree with optional rules minus capitols.
I disagree with all house rules other than limiting each side to only one leader in combat.

Your research on the Battle of Prague convinced me as to advancing down multiple paths. I was amused by the suggestion that the Battle of Waterloo should serve as the example. On June 16, the two commands were only 7.6 miles apart (Quatre Bras to Ligny) and then both moved along parallel lines until the 18th when they were 12.6 miles apart (Wavre to Mont St. Jean). I suspect the distances in Soldier Kings are slightly more.
74 4/1/2020 11:13:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message I was not proposing a rule change on armies entering an area from multiple areas. That is allowed in the rules already. I mentioned it because some players seemed to be proposing a rule that would prohibit it. I vote against any rule change prohibiting that.
73 4/1/2020 9:57:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message As for entering from different locations, that has never been proposed.

What has been proposed how generals are used.
72 4/1/2020 9:55:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message I will back John on voting against:
22.4 National Capitals
71 4/1/2020 7:20:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message My vote:

All optional rules EXCEPT national Capitals

Only one "house rule"; only one general can add to the strength of any stack in attack or defense in any one combat phase

Armies CAN enter an attack from multiple routes

everyone please vote, let Steve tabulate & declare the winners


The Battle of Prague (1757) may be more on point as to armies entering from different directions:


Prince Moritz advanced from Saxony with 19,300 troops. Frederick marched south by way of the valley of the Elbe with 39,600 troops. The Duke of Bevern advanced on Jung-Bunzlau with 20,300 troops while Field Marshal Schwerin moved south from Silesia and swung west to join Bevern with 34,000 troops.

https://www.britishbattles.com/frederick-the-great-wars/seven-years-war/battle-of-prague/

70 4/1/2020 6:11:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message If you have any controversy here it’s with Doug’s concern. I don’t think it’s a problem to allow multiple routes into a battle with the RAW, but I don’t think your justifications presented hold much water either You just oversold and failed to close! I think you’re looking for “a gimmick” that isn’t there.

Reminds me of why I don’t play Pax Romana, ahistorical tactics taking advantage of loopholes created by lazy developer/designers who don’t bother to use precise language or oversimplified their model.

Get your vote on the record about what rules we are going to use!
69 4/1/2020 5:49:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Besides if you think that it’s a specific choice of the designer to allow 4 generals with 4 separate armies and four separate routes to converge on one space so that the attacked army simply cannot retreat at all I want what ever you have been smoking. More likely he simply figured it’s a non-issue, that it never came up in the play test, and probably didn’t think about it at all.
68 4/1/2020 5:37:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message You can’t apply a an 1815 Napoleonic army maneuver to a Frederickian one. The armies are completely different in size, rates of March and philosophy of independent command. The concept of the Corps hasn’t even made an appearance yet. Besides as I point out even with three movement points Fred hasn’t got any roads into a space that can completely surround an opposing army, particularly if flank guards are there. The map just doesn’t have many cases where multiple armies are going to be able to converge on a single space, such that a retreat of some sort can’t occur. If it does, something is wrong. Fred’s high speed is meant to be able to shift from one enemy to another in another theatre quickly...ie go beat the Russians and then march back to fight Austria before they overrun Silesia again. It is not so that he can do a napoleonic sweeping end run to surround an army.
67 4/1/2020 5:08:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message The rule explicitly states Units may not retreat:

• Via land routes which enemy armies used to enter the battle area this action phase.

"routes" is plural. It you could only enter the are by one route it would read "via the land route"

Double envelopment is a common tactic. The British & Prussians arrived at Waterloo from different directions -in the space of hours, not months. I think we're inventing a controversy where there is none. I want to start playing before they invent a vaccine.

66 4/1/2020 4:48:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Spouey, “armies” in the entry regarding space the attacker entered battle from might not mean multiple spaces. It could just as easily mean multiple counters entering from a single allowable space. I think you are reading more into the rule than the limited avenues of aporoach already covers. You aren’t going to get an 1805 surrender of General Mack with a fredrickian army.
65 4/1/2020 4:31:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message What Frederick can do. He is supposed to be special. No, he is not going to have his abilities altered.

13.3 Army Movement (Generals).
All generals except Frederick have a movement allowance of 2. Frederick’s movement allowance is 3. All armies directed by a general have the same movement allowance he does, thus armies directed by Frederick have a movement allowance of 3. A general and the armies he directed must begin and end their movement in the same area to receive this bonus.

64 4/1/2020 4:29:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message What stops a land unit from moving.

8.3 Enemy Units.
Armies must stop moving upon entering an area occupied by enemy armies. They may not move again until a subsequent turn, except to retreat from a battle. Fleets are not stopped by enemy armies in coastal areas.

63 4/1/2020 4:28:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message What generals do.

8.2 Movement Costs.
It costs 1/2 movement point to enter a friendly or allied-controlled area, and one movement point to enter a neutral or enemy-controlled area. Thus, an army without a general may move into two friendly or allied-controlled land areas, or into one neutral or enemy-controlled land area, in one action phase.

62 4/1/2020 4:23:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message The idea of surrounding Austrians/o or Russians with a blitz by Fred through the rear area is unlikely. I don’t think you can move past a space you don’t control? No? If nothing else, a single small unit will stop Freddy from moving beyond the first flank province. I think it will be rare.
61 4/1/2020 3:59:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message This is the reason you want to be able to enter a space from more than one direction.

9.5 Retreat Before Battle.
After the attacker spends the Resources for the attack, the defender may (if desired) retreat to adjacent areas with some or all of his or her units unless they are restricted from retreating (see below). The defender may also retreat by sea if a fleet is present in the same area; place the fleet and the retreating army in the adjacent sea zone (transport limits (10.6) still apply). Units that retreat before battle avoid combat; those that do not must fight. In all cases the Resources for the attack are expended.
Units may not retreat:
• Into enemy-controlled land areas.
• Via mountain routes.
• Via land routes which enemy armies used to enter the battle area this action phase.
• By sea from a coastal area blockaded by enemy fleets.
• By sea if the retreating unit is an army and there is no friendly or allied fleet to transport it in the combat (it must retreat as well in this case) or in an adjoining sea area,
• Into land areas occupied by enemy armies IF the number of enemy armies there is greater than the number of retreating armies.
Note that the above allows the retreat of armies into neutral minor country areas.
Clarification: A retreat into a neutral major power played as a minor country (see 15.4) will trigger 17.7 immediately. No siege is needed.

9.8 Retreat After Battle.
At the end of each Combat Round, any units that were reduced to half-strength this round must retreat. Units retreat under the same rules as retreat before battle (9.5). Units forced to retreat that are unable to do so are eliminated. After all forced retreats and eliminations, first the defender and then the attacker may voluntarily retreat with any other units (subject to the same restrictions).

60 4/1/2020 3:52:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message Heck, you know me, I'll play anything. I red the description & it sounds like modern economics:

"There is no money in the game, only Debt, and you only ever seem to get more of it"

Replying to:
"If this game is successful than maybe we can play:

https://hollandspiele.com/products/westphalia-1

It has to be exactly 6 players"
59 4/1/2020 3:46:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message I think France's concern would be on point if this were a tactical level game. However, since the turns represent 3 months, there would be plenty of time to combine columns and unify command.



replying to France's comment:

"I still question whether it was possible to coordinate armies from two approaches as, while the battles I looked at might use multiple approach columns, they started together and generally advanced along the same approach. I suggest all attacking armies must come down the same approach, but still only use one leader for the battle
58 4/1/2020 3:43:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message That was meant to be a joke. Unless ya'll want to consider it.
57 4/1/2020 3:40:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message We won't have to draw units again, will we? I like my two 4-3's!

It would be fun to have a Turkish player. Holland might be interesting. I wouldn't saddled anyone with Poland.
56 4/1/2020 3:38:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message If this game is successful than maybe we can play:

https://hollandspiele.com/products/westphalia-1

It has to be exactly 6 players.
55 4/1/2020 3:35:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message When the new player contacts me, which he said would be tonight, I will create a new ACTS module for us with 9 players. We will just move the game discussion to the new module and leave the current one up too.
54 4/1/2020 3:33:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message When I created our current Cyberboard game it was for 9 players. Start files were also generated for Spain, Turkey, Holland, and an Independent Poland variant that I am not interested in exploring. New players will just have to a card hand dealt to them. No need to restart.
53 4/1/2020 3:30:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message Having an independent player for Spain will really help the play balance. Lots of chance for intrigue with three powers competing for the rum trade
52 4/1/2020 3:28:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message That wording on leaders is fine with me (and due to Prussia's wealth of leaders I'm probably the only plater seriously affected) Can everyone agree to accept this as the only "House rule", and accept all the Optional rules EXCEPT the National Capitals?

Also, will the additional players cause us to redo setup, or can you just add them?
51 4/1/2020 3:17:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message I think the simplest language is; Only one leader present can add his rating to a force for combat. Additional leaders contribute nothing to the combat, but can still be one of the leaders randomly chosen to satisfy a casualty leader. Leaders movement function remains the same, a leader may move only a number of units equal to his rating +1 at the fast movement rate of the leader.
50 4/1/2020 3:05:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Doug, I think you will find that the low movement rates of the units, and the very restricted avenues of approach mean most armies will have to take the same route.

Too, remember the turn is actually several months, and a fight represents a whole lot of fighting (Kleiner Krieg) not a single major battle.

This is some of the weird chrome in this game. I don't think there were many instances of any large independent commands a'la Napoleonic armies other than the main army. The plethora of leaders are really just to add chrome for the sake of chrome...not to model anything, at least not on this scale, where the whole of a province is just a single space on the map. Austria probably did not do any fighting outside of Silesia and Bohemia (just 2 spaces) in the whole of the war. This is not a game of sweeping maneuver.


49 4/1/2020 2:41:00 PM Turn 1 France Message I have had a chance to do a quick and dirty look into Prussian operations in the Seven Years War, and realize now that some battles did involve more than one of the Prussian leaders. However, only one was in command at a time. Frederick would think the battle was lost, leave the field of battle, and then another leader would take over. Therefore, I suggest a rule similar to the one in Amateurs to Arms (War of 1812) where only one leader counts during the battle and the player can pick which one of his leaders is the leader.

I still question whether it was possible to coordinate armies from two approaches as, while the battles I looked at might use multiple approach columns, they started together and generally advanced along the same approach. I suggest all attacking armies must come down the same approach, but still only use one leader for the battle.
48 4/1/2020 1:57:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message As for the Capitals rule, it seems to be a way to expedite the game by knocking out players, which is very difficult without that rule because of the ability to sue for peace. I don't think its that realistic, because none of the major powers in the 7 Years War was totally conquered.

Also, we have no where to go. No need to expedite the game.

47 4/1/2020 1:52:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message this is a copy of a response I sent to Steve's email:

I concur (even though I used it to great advantage in our last game) that 4 generals shouldn't be added to 2 armies. My proposal is that in your example with 2 armies I could add 2 generals (on the theory that each general could add his initiative & tactical skills to aid one army, while two generals can's add to the same army). Your proposal, as I understand it is that because each general has the ability to command 3 or 4 armies, only one general could participate in the attack. Should the group vote on this?
46 4/1/2020 1:43:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message You should do info via posts here and emails just to pass the attachment. No other way to get a log—-or even that a file /email needs to get looked for.
45 4/1/2020 1:23:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message The reason I sent the email was because ACTs cannot attach files or display pictures.


44 4/1/2020 1:19:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message If anything is settled it needs to be done here. This the only space with a log.
43 4/1/2020 11:58:00 AM Turn 1 Russia Message John does have a legitimate concern about the optional Capital rule. Maybe the part about a Major Power being eliminated from the game could be removed.

22.4 National Capitals.
Each Major Power has a national capital (listed below). If this area is conquered by another Major Power, the Power that lost its capital suffers several restrictions with its capital is enemy-controlled: it may not give Resources or Manpower to another player, it may not play Minor Country Alliance, Debase Currency, or Buy Back Debased Currency cards, and it loses one victory point (even if it recaptures the capital later). During the Peace Phase a Power whose capital is enemy-controlled rolls one die. On a result of 1, it must surrender to the Major Power occupying its capital. A Major Power cannot be forced to surrender its capital unless it is the only home area remaining to it on the European map; if this occurs, that Major Power is out of the game (the Dutch player needs to be even more careful with this rule in place).

42 4/1/2020 11:22:00 AM Turn 1 Prussia Message I also thing the Capitals rule is a little harsh, as it could force someone out of the game early, but whatever the group wants is OK with me. I want to start the game.
41 4/1/2020 11:20:00 AM Turn 1 Prussia Message Steve told me it was settled - all optional rule and one hose rule: a second leader's strength can only be used if there are more armies than a leader can command by himself. I think that's a little harsh & would say 2 leaders cant ad strength to the same army. That is to use 2 leaders strength you need 2 armies.
40 4/1/2020 11:12:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message Spouey can correct me if I am wrong but there is at least one house rule he supports.
39 4/1/2020 9:12:00 AM Turn 1 France Message If I understand Steven's vote, its all optional rules and no house rules. If so, I concur.
38 4/1/2020 8:47:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message Still need votes on the optional rules and house rules.
37 3/31/2020 9:23:00 PM Turn 1 Prussia Message Prussia's setup is done. I sent an email to all players
36 3/31/2020 5:46:00 PM Turn 1 France Message I have e-mailed French setup to all players as 002
35 3/31/2020 6:26:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message I wouldn’t call this a fight in the valley. A spirited debate on what constitutes a good simulation and what tweaks are necessary, sure. As for playing another game, although this would not have been my first choice, Spouey has put a lot of effort to start this game and it would be quite a shame to discard it completely.

The start has been rough, mainly because of too many scattered emails and texts, with cross-threaded conversations and overlooked info with a rush to start, that exacerbated a lack of familiarity with both the specific game and general online play by email procedure. I think that is behind us.


34 3/30/2020 9:14:00 PM Turn 1 France Message Why must there always by fighting in the valley? Perhaps we should play another game.
33 3/30/2020 8:49:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Three other players have yet to weigh in. Are you guys reading these posts? Those of you not familiar with ACTs, you have to turn on the setting to get these posts as emails, and a reply by email to an ACTS generated email goes into a black hole.
32 3/30/2020 8:45:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message What dya mean, you were the one who brought up the problem with 4-3’s in the new world And asked for house rules in the first place! Flawed yes, broken probably not, dull game with minimal decisions of relevance, maybe but all easily fixed. Ymmv.

Vote on the house rules and let’s get on with it.
31 3/30/2020 7:57:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message I did not realize the game was so flawed and broken.
30 3/30/2020 7:33:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message That argument for Canada relative to the sugar isles still doesn’t rule out the value of India in comparison to the sugar isles. As for the higher cost to defend Canada vs the Caribbean, that is already a factor in the game. It is the lopsided weight of gross profit as opposed to net profit that is wrong here. In the game, There is no profit at all tin defending Canada But yet the French put nearly all their new world effort there anyway. Why would they do that? I think the stats are skewed way out of reality.

My limited experience in this game has shown that the sugar islands are literally the only place on the board that matters. Who ever holds them will probably win.


29 3/30/2020 6:16:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message The only problem I see with the game is multiple leaders being used in combat. Prussia has 4 leaders that add up to 10 points. That would be 10 more dice rolled in combat with just one army.

Mick has a good suggestion about the use of multiple leaders in combat.

There is a specific rule about leader casualties, which has been addressed by the designer on Consimworld.

13.5 Leader Casualties.
At the conclusion of each combat round, each player rolls two dice if any leader present and adds the number of step losses suffered by that leader’s side. If the total is 12 or more, the leader is killed in action and removed from play. Only one leader from each side can be killed in a single round (stop rolling for other leaders once one dies).
Leader casualty is then picked randomly if it occurs.

Q: Is a leader dead if you roll 12?
A: 13.5 "removed from" play means removed from play for the remainder of the game.

28 3/30/2020 6:09:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/seven-years-war

The Treaty of Paris 1763
The first minister of the French government, the duc de Choiseul, was determined to regain the valuable sugar colonies of Martinique and Guadeloupe, and to retain a base for the Grand Banks fisheries. He also wanted Cape Breton, but had to settle for the tiny islands of St-Pierre and Miquelon as a fishing station. To force the stubborn Spanish king to agree to peace terms, France ceded the vast Louisiana territory to Spain to compensate for the surrender of Spanish Florida to the British.

France also left Canada to Britain, as it was less valuable commercially than either the sugar islands of the West Indies or the fishing islands of the north Atlantic; Canada’s size and location also made it an expensive colony to defend and maintain. In addition, Choiseul was convinced that the American colonies, which no longer needed British military protection, would soon strike out for independence. The French loss of Canada would be as nothing compared to Britain’s loss of its American colonies.
27 3/30/2020 6:07:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message As for economic values. I cannot find the information but I recently read that the Caribbean provided half of English income or taxes during the Seven Years War. Yes, the Caribbean is that economically important. There is no need to change economic values.
26 3/30/2020 6:05:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message As for fleets. I have not seen any fleets dominate. There is no need to change any fleet values.
25 3/30/2020 6:04:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message As for the 4-3 armies. After email exchanges, I realized that the 3 player games I played had influenced my view of the 4-3 armies. In those games Prussia was allied with England and both countries received 5 cards each and the cards could be passed between both Major Powers freely. In essence Prussia could have ended up with 10 cards. This probably made Prussia more powerful than she should have been. In a 5 player game I don't see a dominant Prussia. Prussia has 2, 4-3 armies, England 1, 4-3 army, and France 1, 4-3 army. I see no need to alter the value of any armies in this game.
24 3/30/2020 4:59:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message One alternate approachmight be to track hits on a individual unit. Say if a 4-3 or 3-3 gets two hits it still doesn’t flip, but in the next round of combat it only needs one more hit and it will then flip. All hits are retained until a unit is restored. 2 defense units obviously do the same.
23 3/30/2020 4:55:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message I doubt seriously the single island of Martinique provided as much income as nearly the whole of India, or for that matter the mines of Silesia that were so fought over. If they were so incredibly valuable historically why wasn’t the fighting solely in the Caribbean and not decided by the side show (in game terms) of Quebec?


The 4-3 issue is not just armies but fleets. As for game balance I don’t think that’s the issue as much as the historical inaccuracy of very resilient forces. Armies and fleets were just not that tough. Even marching or sailing on campaign costs some combat strength through attrition even before a musket is fired.
22 3/30/2020 4:43:00 PM Turn 1 France Message I don't understand the problem with the 4-3's. It seems that everyone has one except for Prussia who has 2. How does this imbalance the game?
Second, what is wrong with the Sugar Islands? It sure seems correct from a historic standpoint and I thought "realism" was the banner being raised for all of these changes. Will get back to you on all of the other optionals when I have had a chance to consider them.


21 3/30/2020 2:35:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Alrighty then, I see that Steven has sent us the compiled rules and I trust we are on the same page. I even saw the yellow fever rules I couldn’t find elsewhere. So now we just need to get a proper vote on which to include. Spouey has stated he wants all, so do I do one of you who haven’t can say “yea” here on record then that will be a procedure checked of.

We still have house rules to hammer down:

1)Spouey was concerned about multiple leaders in a space adding too many dice. My suggestion is that only one leader present can add its dice but others present might randomly absorb a leader casualty even if it contributes no dice.

2) Spouey had a concern about 4-3 and or large army supply in the new world. How do we want to address it?

Additionally I think naval support on coastal land battles should be reduced by half dice, and limited to one round of combat

3) Spouey raised the issue of omnipotent 4-3 units and I concurred. I propose that any unit with a 3 Defense rating be reduced to 2. I would also offer that Newbie players should get a automatic 4-2 unit instead of one of their initial draws during the setup.

5)I think the sugar islands are a tad high in value relative to other spaces. I propose the money of those spaces in the Caribbean over 4 be reduced by 1.

Please vote on each item here on ACTs so it gets logged and not lost. After that we can redo/finish setup, roll for turn order (here on acts) and get on with playing.
20 3/30/2020 10:20:00 AM Turn 1 Austria Message Steve, I politely ask everyone use ACTS for communications about this game and only use email to pass attached files and to use texts for promptings requiring speedy action and private diplomacy later. It is really quite impossible to follow what is going on in this game with the confusion of rushed multiple threads over so many multiple channels, before essential actions have been addressed. Our signals are being lost to too much noise. At least with ACTs answers and questions are logged in one place and easy to review. Sequentially addressing one problem at a time will make this go much smoother.


19 3/29/2020 4:24:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Getting a bit ahead of yourself there, Steve. Let’s get the rules established, yes?
18 3/29/2020 3:38:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message As we look at our 5 cards do realize they are all you will get for the year. That's Spring, Summer, Fall Campaign turns and Winter turn.

4.2 Winter Turns.
Event Card Phase: All players discard all event cards. Shuffle all the cards and deal each player five cards.
17 3/29/2020 3:23:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Message I have sent out everyone's start file.
16 3/29/2020 3:05:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message One last optional rule to vote on: Doug, due to his novice nature and general lack of military prowess due to being dropped on his head as a small child( or maybe it was the rum)...gets an automatic 4-2fleet as his first draw.
15 3/29/2020 2:59:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Grand, everyone is now on the module. Pipe in on the house rules and optional rules—here, not by email!

I still haven’t located the source for the yellow fever rules and I assume a bunch more that are in the same doc but I am sure that Spouey can point me to it. I think these may end Spouey’s concerns about 4-3 armies in the new world.

1) I vote for all the optional rules to be used...
2)I recommend any unit with a defense of three be considered a two instead.
3)Any fleet providing support for land combat gets half dice and can only be used in the first round
14 3/29/2020 2:58:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Message Grand, everyone is now on the module. Pipe in on the house rules and optional rules—here, not by email!

I still haven’t located the source for the yellow fever rules and I assume a bunch more that are in the same doc but I am sure that Spouey can point me to it. I think these may end Spouey’s concerns about 4-3 armies in the new world.

1) I vote for all the optional rules to be used...
2)I recommend any unit with a defense of three be considered a two instead.
Any fleet providing support for land combat
13 3/28/2020 6:02:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Change Player 2 player Player 2 player changed from JOHN RUBIN to dakjck
12 3/28/2020 4:36:00 PM Turn 1 Russia Change Player 4 player Player 4 player changed from Mick Hayman to D A Marshall
11 3/28/2020 4:33:00 PM Turn 1 Austria Edit vp/auto victory threshold Russia: from 0 to 0.10
Austria: from 0 to 0.15
France: from 0 to 0.20
Prussia: from 0 to 0.15
Great Britain: from 0 to 0.20

Next 100 entries

Copyright 2005 Warhorse Simulations