British Generals overrated?

[PhilThib]

I'll see that the stringent original activation rule makes it back (as an option) in the next BOA improvement (the so-called BOA 2.00). Hold your patience for another few weeks

[Pocus]

and the cohesion rule...

[runyan99]

I'll see that the stringent original activation rule makes it back (as an option) in the next BOA improvement (the so-called BOA 2.00). Hold your patience for another few weeks

If an optional activation rule is applied, supply gets fixed so that it actually matters, and cohesion gets added so that battles get broken off more readily and casualties tend to go down, that will make for a radically different game. It might even start to resemble the actual war for the first time. That will be interesting.

[Carrington]

Great posts Runyan and Wilhammer. I'd been concerned about that, and you're right, there is a sort of Crusader feel to the game as it is...

I agree that your idea of planning points may be too deterministic... but have you played with the CDGs like Paths of Glory or, more relevant, For the People and Wilderness War?

In essence there, the high action cards (that will activate a slow leader like Gage) are often good for other uses as well -- these trade-offs tend to slow down the campaigns pretty radically.

It's not clear what the cards literally represent (beyond limited strategic resources), but they do a lot to keep slow movers enmeshed in the fog of war.

A cool trade-off for the game would be something like having a choice of activating Gage or bringing in earmarked reinforcements. I don't think a mechanic that forced that choice would raise as much of a player outcry -- it wouldn't seem quite