From: paulha@sonic.net (Paul Haase) Subject: Some ideas for fixes for Rush to Glory, S&T 127 Pete, Here are some notes on my ideas to "fix" Rush to Glory. I'm very curious to see what you've done and what you think of my ideas. Note that I've only playtested them a few times, solitaire, so they should be considered highly suspect! These rules don't address my favorite Mexican strategy for the game, which is to take the best Jr. leader and head off into the west with a few SPs. Who cares how many Friction Points build up; the +2 leader can usually save enough from attrition to remain a constant headache to the USA player, forcing him to retain garrison forces in Texas to prevent the "instant win." These raiders usually avoid combat (because it's FPs can get up well into the 100s!), but if necessary they can used in a sort of "suicide" role to grab some strategic VPs if necessary. Perhaps this is realistic, after a fashion. Without such activity, I find the Mexicans in the game to be pretty much doomed no matter what they do. With this "western raider" approach they still are doomed in the classic military sense, but by annoying the USA, Mexico can sometimes still salvage a political sort of victory. Which, given the political nature of the whole war anyway, maybe is enough. Paul ---------------- Some attempted "meatball surgery" fixes for "Rush to Glory," S&T 127 4/8/98 Paul Haase 1. Map Add a movement line connecting Mt. Monclava and Mt. Monterrey (12 friction points) and a line connecting Parras and Chihuahua (17 friction points). At your option, only allow Mexicans to use these paths until American Units have occupied the cities at both ends (I prefer this--consider it to represent the limited knowledge of the western lands at the time). The movement lines to Salt Lake City are wrong--Salt Lake just being founded in '46 or '47--but they don't make too much difference so I leave them as is. Rename the "San Francisco" space "Monterey." (SF at the time had a population of about 20. Nearby Monterey was the capital of California, which was more or less in revolt from Mexico, and even the northern and southern parts of California were in revolt from each other). A minor change. Finally, there may a case for adding a port on the west coast of Mexico about 1/2 way up to San Diego. This makes it a little easier to send troops to California (maybe too easy) and gives the U.S. Navy something to capture once they finish off California. I can't recall the correct name and lost my notes--it might have been Acupulco though (an old galleon port). This location may be considered a swamp location. 2. Integrated CRT/Attack Quality Class Instead of rolling for each unit to figure combat class and then combining into an average combat class for the force and then rolling on the CRT for combat result, figure the average friction points of the force* and roll once on the following integrated table, adding leaders as usual (maximum adjusted roll of 7, minimum of 0). Note that this table is about 95% equivalent to the combat class/CRT process given in the rules, although some amount of randomness is lost (a 2-12 CRT would recapture it, I think, but I never got around to devising one. I have the odds of each combat class/result though, so it wouldn't be hard. Randomness was a big factor in this war it seems): 0 Friction Points ------------------- 1 to 1 odds 0-3 DR+1 4-7 DR 2 to 1 odds 0-1 DR+3 2-4 DR+2 5-6 DR+1 7 DR 3 to 1 odds 0-1 EX 2-6 DR+4 7 DR+3 4 to 1 odds 0-7 DE 1-5 Friction Points --------------------- 1 to 1 odds 0-2 DR+1 3-6 DR 7 C 2 to 1 odds 0 DR+3 1-2 DR+2 3-5 DR+1 6-7 DR 3 to 1 odds 0-1 EX 2-5 DR+4 6-7 DR+3 4 to 1 odds 0-5 DE 6-7 1/2 EX 6-10 Friction Points ----------------------- 1 to 1 odds 0-1 DR+1 2-5 DR 6-7 C 2 to 1 odds 0 DR+3 1 DR+2 2-4 DR+1 5-7 DR 3 to 1 odds 0-1 EX 2-5 DR+4 6 DR+3 7 DR+2 4 to 1 odds 0-3 DE 4-5 1/2 EX 6-7 EX 11-15 Friction Points ------------------------ 1 to 1 odds 0-2 DR 3-5 C 6 AR+1 7 AR+2 2 to 1 odds 0 DR+2 1-2 DR+1 3-7 DR 3 to 1 odds 0 EX 1-2 DR+4 3-5 DR+3 6-7 DR+2 4 to 1 odds 0 DE 1-3 1/2 EX 4-7 EX 16-20 Friction Points ------------------------ 1 to 1 odds 0-3 C 4 AR 5-6 AR+1 7 AR+2 2 to 1 odds 0-1 DR+1 2-7 DR 3 to 1 odds 0-1 DR+4 2-5 DR+3 6-7 DR+2 4 to 1 odds 0-1 1/2 EX 2-7 EX 21-25 Friction Points ------------------------ 1 to 1 odds 0 AR 1-3 AR+1 4-6 AR+2 7 AR+3 2 to 1 odds 0-1 DR+1 2-5 DR 6-7 AR 3 to 1 odds 0 DR+4 1-3 DR+3 4-6 DR+2 7 DR+1 4 to 1 odds 0-1 1/2 EX 2-7 EX 26+ Friction Points ---------------------- 1 to 1 odds 0 AR 1-2 AR+1 3-5 AR+2 6-7 AR+3 2 to 1 odds 0-1 DR+1 2-5 DR 6-7 AR 3 to 1 odds 0 DR+4 1-2 DR+3 3-5 DR+2 6-7 DR+1 4 to 1 odds 0 1/2 EX 1-7 EX * to figure average friction points of a force, you can either use an approach that reproduces the somewhat silly way that is described in the rules (take the average of all the friction point totals that are repesented in the force without regard to the number of strength points existing at each friction point level) or take a weighted average based on friction points and the number of strength at each friction level. I prefer the latter, but either works, of course. Figure average friction point level for both defender and attacker, and, if the attacker has the lower average, subtract the friction point difference from his total (0 is lowest). If the attacker has the higher average, add the difference to his total. 3. U.S. Navy in California Historically, northern California (Monterey) was captured without a fight by U.S Navy Marines and sailors in July '46. The Navy then teamed with some Americans already in California (Fremont's "Bear Flag revolt" party, Sutter's volunteers, etc.) to attack southern California, taking LA and San Diego in Aug '46. The local Californio (Mexican) militia recaptured LA in Sept '46, and a Navy attempt to retake LA was repulsed the next month. Kearny's overland party arrived outside of San Diego in Dec '46 and was trapped there by the Californios, until the Navy drove them off. California surrendered for good in Jan '47. Later the Navy captured a number of ports in Baja California. The game provides for almost none of this, perhaps in favor of play balance. I've tried a random entry of the Navy (say 1 in 6 beginning with the first turn, perhaps adding one additional chance/turn until they arrive. Thus on turn 2 there is a 2 in 6 chance, on turn 3 a 3 in 6 chance, etc. Optionally on a six you may consider the Navy to be "eliminated" and never show up. This reflects the very real chance that the British or even French forces hanging about nearby arrived at SF/Monterey first. In this case consider Monterey/SF off-limits to both players and no one receives VP for the space. It is consideres lost for Mexican morale, however). The Navy has something like 1 seasoned infantry and 1 artillery. (maybe just the artillery?--I seem to recall that this worked better). It can move freely from any port to any other port on the west coast, at no cost in friction points (travel by sea), and carry up to 6 (maybe just 2?) additional SPs. Once SF/Monterey is captured, add 1 regular strength point, to represent Americans already in California (Fremont, etc. It should probably be a conscript unit, but the Americans don't have this class. Maybe it could just have 10-15 FPs assigned to it right at the start). No friction points may be removed from these forces at any time--they just build up (representing the limited supplies and reinforcements available to these forces). The Navy force(s) may not move inland; the Fremont militia may. VPs for California may only be scored once a force from the "mainland" USA has reached California and "link" it to the Union. This is a rough attempt to recreate the Navy's role, but it may destroy play balance. The idea is to enable the Navy to seize one or maybe two ports, but not be able to take on the whole of the defenders in all of California. If the optional British/French capture of Monterey rule is used, too much may be decided on a single die-roll, making matters too random for a game. Obviously the California situation still needs some tweaking... 4. Revised Reinforcements for Mexico This revision allows reinforcements to build up slowly in Mexico City instead of all at once. U.S. reinforcements are unchanged (optionally could allow them to build up at say 2 pts per turn in either Texas or New Orleans beginning after turn 2 or so). For this modification, treat turn 1 and turn 2 reinforcements as usual. Then on turns 3-6, enter 2 Conscript and 2 Regular infanty per turn at Mexico City (with Santa Ana on turn 5, as usual). Then for turn 6-15, add 2 conscripts to Mexico City per turn (1 per turn once Mexicaon morale falls below 100). To "activate" these forces to move them outside of Mexico City requires a major leader (Santa Ana or Ampudia). Optionally, allow any leader to collect these forces. An alterantive might be to have a "recruitment table" that can be rolled on each turn Santa Anna or Ampudia spends in Mexico City. This table would give something like 2-12 (?) recruits initially and 1-6 later, with declining numbers each time it is used. I never developed this--it would take some work to have the averages work out to be equivalent to the original rules. The idea here is to remove some of the lumpiness and predictability from the game. I don't know how historically accurate this change is. 5. Easier Bookkeeping To simplify bookkeeping, get a set of numbered chits in two colors. You'll need about 100, numbered 0-9. Use these to keep track of strength points (to the right of the unit, in one color) and frictions points (to the left of the unit, in the other color), reading them as digits instead of totals (i.e. to represent 23 FP, place a 2 and 3 side-by-side to the left of the unit counter. If there were 7 strength points, place a 7 chit of the other color to the right of the unit). There is usually enough room in the force displays for this sort of arrangement; if things get crowded use the labeled sections of the roster sheets as holding areas. I find this approach works much better than the annoying writing and erasing. I also half-devised some special numbers counters (similar to rotating "Pollard" markers) and a force display for the game, but never finished it. This would make bookkeeping even easier. > > >---------- >> From: Paul Haase >> Newsgroups: rec.games.board >> Subject: Re: The Mexican-American War >> >> I have to differ with Gerry3 regarding Rush to Glory. Yes, the >> bookkeeping system is annoying, but you can devise any number of play >> aids to get around it. (I use numbered chits to the right of the unit >> counter to record strength points and different colored number chits >> to the left to indicate friction--there's almost always plenty of room >> in the displays). >> >> Once you get past the clunky bookkeeping, RtG is an interesting (if >> maybe not too historical) simulation of the period. It teaches quite a >> bit about why thewar went as it did (although I suspect some of the >> map may have been fudged a bit too much to force the desired results). >> >> >> I started on some "meatball surgery" fixes for this one--simplified >> combat/bookkeeping/friction (it's all intertwined), a couple of map >> changes, something about the U.S. Navy in California, etc--but gave it >> up from lack of time and playtesters. If you're interested, I'll dig >> it up and forward it to you. >> >> In any case, it's the only game on the war as a whole and has to be >> somewhat recommended on that point alone. >> >> Paul Haase >> San Rafael, CA >> > >Dear Paul, > >If you get a chance, I'd be curious to see what your fixes for >Rush were. > >I've done my own screwing around with the game and I'd >be willing to compare notes. > >Pete de Rosa pldr@gis.net From: paulha@sonic.net (Paul Haase) Subject: Re: Meatball Surgery Fixes for S&T 127 Rush to Glory (Mexican/American War) Pete, When going back through my RTG revision materials, I came across my old notes. Now I remember why I gave up on the "meatball surgery" project, the map! There are so many seeming errors that a reasonable fix appeared hopeless. I've listed them below. Maybe they all aren't errors, but "design decisions" (such as to limit the total number of locations, or to force combat here or there, or to give players more options for strategy, etc). Still, there are many blatantly wrong connections! Changes in the West of North America (I'm quite confident about these, having access to pretty good period maps of the area and having driven over most of the paths): Rename San Francisco "Monterey." Only a few dozen people lived at SF in '46, whereas Monterey was the capital. One could also add a site NE of SF/Monterey called "Sutters Fort" or "Sacramento Valley", ~3-4 FP from SF/Monterey. It's probably a 4/2 site. Not too important for the game though, but it does make California tougher to take. Rename Salt Lake City "Great Salt Lake." Nobody lived there yet, but it was a good site for resting. Add link Santa Fe to Salt Lake, about 20 FPs. This is a connection between the "California Trail" (Indepedence to Salt Lake to SF) and the "Old Spanish Trail" (Santa Fe to Los Angeles). Add link Salt Lake to San Francisco (or Sacramento, if added), 31 FPs. Actually, the link should consist of two sections of about 20 FPs each, with the Mexican location "Carson Sink" (restore 2 FP, 0 morale pt ?) between them, but it might not be worth the trouble. This represents the "California Trail," which was just opening up to travel (re: Donner Party, etc). Add link Independence--Fort Bridger (20/10?, USA), ~26 FP, and link Fort Bridger--Salt Lake, ~26 FP. This is the rest of the California Trail. It is probably not important for the game. Delete link Santa Fe--Santa Barbara, which is topographically and geographically inane. Replace with link Santa Fe--Los Angeles, 26 FP. (Old SPanish Trail) Delete link Las Vegas--Santa Barbara (see above. If it must be kept for play options, change FPs to 13. But maybe the high FPs represents a really stupid direct path across Death Valley? It's possible.). Replace with link Las Vegas--Los Angeles, about 10 FP. Nobody lived at Vegas either, but like Salt Lake it was a key spring on the trail. Change FPs for Las Vegas--Santa Fe link to 21 FPs. I think this was mixed up with the Las Vegas--Santa Barbara link (but see above). Changes in Mexico and Texas (I'm not so confident of these, as I only have a few general sources and topology to go on. Here goes anyway): *Add link Mt. Monclava--Mt. Monterrey (12 FP). This link might go to Parras from Monclava instead, depending on whether the game designers included Saltillo/Beuna Vista with Monterrey or Parras, for the road to Monclava started at Saltillo (Saltillo is about 3 days--3 FP--west of Monterrey, less than a week east of Parras). I find it odd that the key site of Saltillo was left out, but perhaps it was needed to make the game play correctly. *Add link Parras--Chihuahua (~17 FP). Delete link San Antonio--Chihuahua and replace with link San Antonio--Monclava (a few less FP). I can't find any trail between SA and Chih. on any old map, but the Monclava route is well established. Delete Monclava--Chihuahua link (same reason as above) Perhaps add the town of Guaymas 1/2 way up the western coast between Mazatlan and San Diego. It is probably a 4/2 location, maybe a swamp. This is the place I was thinking of in my earlier note, that the U.S. Navy took (before Mazatlan). Note that there should be a direct Mexico City--Victoria link, but I don't know how to add it without crossing other paths (a no-no display-wise). Perhaps the other links have been eased a little to represent this option. Now we come to the point where I gave up. Probably there should be added the border town of Laredo to the NW of Mier. Links are to San Antonio, Goliad, and Mt. Monterrey. I have no idea why this important location was left out--perhaps it played little importance in the war? Maybe there was some kind of local truce there?--but it was on one of the two or three main paths between Mexico and Texas. I never figured the values for Laredo or its links, as here was where I gave up. Perhaps it should be a neutral location? So you see that with this many changes to the map, the game becomes something else indeed. Plus the pretty map is uglified completely. But to not go so far as making a whole new game, one could just apply the most significant map changes, which I've indicated above with a * (these are the two I noted in my earlier piece. They give important and realistic movement options to the Mexican player). What do you think? Paul