Dan Raspler - 11:58pm Jul 11, 2003 PST (#64 of 89) "Tempus edendum est tempus non lusendum." Before I begin what has turned into a HUGE post about Asia Crossroads and Joe Miranda, I want to offer kudos and thanks to Brian Train for a terrific job of development. With a paltry couple lines of errata, Asia Crossroads might be the cleanest Miranda S&T game yet. Is it seamless? No. But you have to remember that this is a magazine game, and make allowances. (Old Hands Note: the last Miranda game I remember as rock-solidly complete as this one is Austro-Prussian War, which I think Mike Benighoff developed.) Anyway, I want to state for the record that I think I'm starting to finally "get" Joe, after all these years. Basically, the one thing that Joe's critics always mention is that he recycles some of his mechanics from time to time. In my opinion, though, the mechanics Joe recycles are incredibly original, imaginative ways to compress tons of information and historical detail into extremely playable, bite-sized chunks. Both the Roman Wars series and the Age of Enlightenment series used march tables, for example. For my money, march tables are a lot more original, evocative and playable than simply giving units movement allowances, like every other game in the world. So I'm starting to think it's as if every new game Joe produces in a series is just the latest draft of a grand-design-in-progress... a continuing journey towards greater chrome + playability. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if over the years Joe hasn't earmarked one cool mechanic from every single system he's perfected, for later placement in some amazing "all-star" integrated system in a game to come. Okay! Glad I was able to make that at least moderately coherant. Now, for thoughts on Asia Crossroads. The square grid is delightful. It's so much more interesting to have certain units be able to take advantage of the diagonal than it would have been to simply use a hex grid and give the irregulars more movement. Bravo! Giving the agents two ratings (for politics and military), and then simply adding the numbers together to derive their "saving throw" was a terrific idea. The 0-3 agents are amazing generals. The 3-0 agents are brilliant diplomats. And the 1-1 guys are great utility fielders. I also love that each side has two generic leaders that are 0-1, and two that are 1-0. Using cash to influence diplomacy is a regular feature of Joe's games. But restricting that cash to the local agent's political rating encourages bold use of the units on the map, rather than simply rewarding the more frugal player. Also, using the regional VP value as a negative modifier in diplomacy is a neat way to balance things (so the juiciest regions are the hardest to convince). It's strange how having two combat tables is so much of an improvement over the three tables (as used in Byzantium). Yes, there is incrementally less choice... but with less necessary calculation, it makes it easier and more exciting to have units engage in combat. And the results on these two tables are a lot more polarized than previous attempts. In Asia Crossroads, it's very likely than nearby irregular units can sneak through your "front" and attack your garrisoned trading posts in your rear. But because the irregulars can only use the raid CRT, they'll usually only destroy one enemy unit (the garrison) before they're forced to retreat (thus saving the trading post from destruction). Very subtle, very evocative! Forcing the player to buy supply at the start of the turn, and save it through five operations rounds, so he can support larger stacks and expeditionary forces is also a clever way to evoke the "friction" of campaigning in that era. Here's another cool touch: we've all seen games in which cavalry can retreat from infantry before combat. In Asia Crossroads, the most cost-effective combat unit -- the unit with the biggest "bang for your buck" -- is the elephant group. But elephants are so slow that even foot infantry can retreat before combat if the elephants attack without support. Is there a special rule for this? No, it's just built into the standard combat system. No need to weigh things down with special cases. Elegant, integrated design. I appreciate the Balance of Power track, too, because it influences events, income, negotiation and victory, but it's, well ...balanced. Its influnce is much subtler, say, than the similar tracks in 1812 or Seven Years War. Also: thanks for giving us a game in which the "flying column" is the most elite unit of all. My only negative comments regard the counter graphics, really. I find it very disappointing that Larry Hoffman -- the extremely talented guy who really revolutionized counter artwork in wargaming for XTR some years ago -- produced this sad lot of awkward pieces. I don't care for NATO symbology in general, and I particularly don't like it in pre-WWII games. Yes, the British are a nice combination of white on red... but where are the redcoats in pith helmets, I ask? Why not show scimitars and muskets at least, instead of that dreadfully familiar, omniversal infantry X? Also, coloring all the native units tan and distinguishing them solely with tiny initials and a small color box was a bad decision, especially considering that several adjacent regions have identical colors! This makes it needlessly difficult to read the strategic situation on the map. The natives could very easily have been two dozen different colors, rather than a single, monolithic mass. And I don't want to act like too much of a back seat art director, but why is the typeface a contemporary font? Why not use a serif face, in order to evoke the period so much more dramatically? And my final gripe, which echoes a previous post: blue for the Russians? Not to get too personal about this, but I'm forced to assume that Larry was given an impossible deadline, and so was rushed... or that he's just tired doing counter art, and so he sort of hacked it out. If it's the latter, I hope he gets fresh inspiration somewhere soon, because he's a gifted graphic designer, and it's a shame that such a great example of an ideal magazine game got below-par work. End of gripe. Now, two questions (if anyone's still reading): 1) players get Balance of Power shifts if they occupy capital cities at the end of a turn. Must occupying units be European regulars, or do controlled natives generate shifts also? Same question in regards to Russians occupying Southern ports: can a Russain-controlled Persian unit sit in Bushire and generate balance shifts and VPs? 2) Considering that the Russian agents are inferior to the British, the Russian military units are inferior to the British, and the Russian income is inferior to the British (North India + Nepal generate 34, while Western Siberia + Persia generates 24), is it really intended for the Russian garrisons in Western Siberia to be treated as Expeditionary Forces during the Provision phase? If so, the supply burden basically equals the income for that province, and there's nothing to be done about it since there's only one Western Siberian garrison unit (the only unit cheap enough for garrison purposes). Eagerly looking forward to rolling out AC:tGG again this weekend. Joseph Miranda - 05:04pm Jul 12, 2003 PST (#71 of 89) 1) players get Balance of Power shifts if they occupy capital cities at the end of a turn. Must occupying units be European regulars, or do controlled natives generate shifts also? Same question in regards to Russians occupying Southern ports: can a Russain-controlled Persian unit sit in Bushire and generate balance shifts and VPs? Can be native units. Note that for Victory Conditions, though, it has to be either a "red" colored British unit or "blue" Russian, not controlled natives, for 25.12 and 25.13. The idea is that Balance of Power reflects the political situation as well as the military, but the final Victory means having "imperial" troops on the ground. 2) Considering that the Russian agents are inferior to the British, the Russian military units are inferior to the British, and the Russian income is inferior to the British (North India + Nepal generate 34, while Western Siberia + Persia generates 24), is it really intended for the Russian garrisons in Western Siberia to be treated as Expeditionary Forces during the Provision phase? Yes. You have to find some way to raise the cash. Historically, financing these things was a big magilla. I wanted to get around the usual mechanic of: Conquer territory; collect taxes; build units; conquer more territory; etc. But also note that in Scenario 2, the Russians start the game with better agents in play. The Russians made their real advances in Scenario 2.