inconsequential ruminations

I did some research about the optimal scenario for A House Divided. I emailed Daniel Broh-Kahn, who ran two A House Divided tournaments at the World Boardgaming Championship.

Basically, the Advanced rules were used, with no optional rules, unless both players agreed.

There are three session reports at the WBC website:

• 1999
• 2000
• 2001

All the games were 10 turn scenarios.

The “rule of 7”, was used to minimise luck:

The sum of your marches die roll and your recruiting die roll in a month is always seven. As all scenarios start with a 1 for marches for both sides, things get bloody quickly.

In 1999 and 2000, they tried to follow the campaign game over the rounds – in other words, 1861 for the first round, 1862 in the second round, 1863 in the semis and 1864 in the final.

In 2001 they abandoned this in favour of the 1861 scenario throughout as it had proved the most balanced.

By 2001, there were concerns that the short scenario favoured the Confederates, as they can play suicidally on the last turn:

A possible addition to next year’s tournament would be a variable ending chit for the scenario, preventing the Confederate player from end-gaming the situation and picking up easy cities with no chance of retaliation, as the Confederate always has the last player turn. In this possible tournament addition, the Confederate player rolls to end the game on turn 9 (33% chance) then again on turn 10 (67% chance) and finally on turn 11 (100% chance).

I’ll give this ruleset a try, once we are up to trying the Advanced Rules.

I crossposted this to the Geek.

A House Divided is an excellent introductory wargame. It is still popular after 28 years, which says it all.

I went over to my b-i-l’s last night and we played the short 10-turn 1861 scenario using the basic rules. We played with all the pro-Union optional rules, to give Tully an advantage. He didn’t need them as he won comfortably.

The components are top-notch, however, we were a bit caught out by some map errors. Atlanta and New Orleans should be victory cities, but the map is printed wrongly and caused confusion. I hope Phalanx send me stickers for the board, otherwise I’ll print and stick the corrections myself.

People complain that the game is too simplistic, but Tully has not played any wargames other than Risk before and hates my monotone rules explanations, so it was perfect. It is also a flexible system, with two rules sets – Basic and Advanced, and many optional rules, with the impact on game balance shown. There are also different scenarios, for 10, 20, 30, 40 or more turns. It means you can customise the game for the situation. As we play more, we’ll ramp up the rules complexity.

Maybe if Mikko had tried a 20 turn scenario he would have enjoyed it more?

Hardcore Twilight Struggle fans will know this already, but there’s a new, free, print and play game that uses almost the same mechanics to depict the Democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989, called 1989: Dawn of Freedom.

Ted Torgerson is an interesting designer. He seems to be disinterested in professional games publishing, but just wants to do it as a hobby. I have come across a couple of his old games in the past:

• Free At Last – another card driven wargame, this time simulating the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s.
• Sharks and Jets – a “tactical combat game based on the musical West Side Story” – really.

There is a positive review at the Geek and all the materials required to play are available at Consimworld. Most importantly, it’s available for play at Wargameroom, so you can be sure it has had some tough playtesting.

I’ll have to muster the time and materials to assemble 1989 and give it a try.