3 thoughts on “Quick Comments : Washington’s Crossing

  1. Kevin–nice video. I was mildly interested in this title but the book keeping you mentioned has me concerned. If you want to try it later once you get back let me know.

  2. Your comments are interesting: sounds like most of your neutral-to-negative reaction to the bame is based on the inordinate amount of effort needed for the administration, not the administration itself. I’ll note your demonstrated affinity for OCS, so it’s clear that you’re not adverse to the ‘keeping track’ side of gaming.

    And to the same point, you’re clearly not put off by complexity (can you say “Case Blue”?). So, perhaps what we’re talking about here is the need for a well designed set of play aids that would absorb the extra tracking effort and allow more focus on the gaming experience.

    That all said, I’ve failed miserably to appreciate the leader-only / hidden-strength-display game systems: the few I’ve tried I just didn’t “get”, and lacking interested opponents I’ve not gotten to further explore. But, oddly enough, your comments have motivated me to try again. I’ll be looking for a chance to acquire a copy of Washington’s Crossing and will see what I think … look for comments on your blog or on the Wargamers FaceBook page.

    • This game would have been well served with larger hexes, and perhaps a smaller play area as a consequence. Then having the stacks of SP on the map with the leader would be possible. You remove the need for the chart all together or use it just for fatigue etc. The rules to the game and the rest of it are excellent , I found it just breaks down with the tracking of leaders, would we not put them on alphabetically? Or by some other method.
      I get the impression that Revolution likes to do inexpensive games, this perhaps leads to some corner cutting or design choices you might otherwise make.

Hey!! At least say something! ;)