January Horizon's Broadening Project Thoughts - Birth of America II

I am far from qualified to evaluate the relative merits of any deep strategy game, no more the man for the job than I am to critique the existentialist themes of Sartre in its original French. Like French Existentialism though, the problem with grand strategy gaming is that I can understand perhaps the basic concepts, but the rabbit hole runs deep and I’ve only the faculties to reach in up to my elbow.

As my first Horizon’s Broadening Project game, Birth of America II may have seemed unapproachable at first, but was in fact an experience that scaled well. It did what I hoped — taught me something about the way I play.

I think the key concept here is also the cornerstone of Birth of America’s setting — the monumental improbability of a disorganized and poorly equipped militia successfully routing the world’s most powerful military force. Many of the battles that the game seeks to recreate lack the traditional symmetry of a Company of Heroes or Command & Conquer. In those games, even against what seems to be impossible odds, you have a certainty that victory is only a matter of properly organizing the tools you are given. You know the developers won’t give you a scenario where victory only comes with some degree of luck.

In Birth of America II however you may eventually come to a W.O.P.R.-like epiphany: sometimes the only way to win is not to play. So what do you do? You redefine the meaning of the word “play”.

In the scope of the colonial wars this title covers, whether the American Revolution, French & Indian Wars or the War of 1812, the fate of forces is inextricably tied to a component of luck. Overwhelming odds and a near certainty of defeat are sometimes simply par for the course, just as they were in the eighteenth century. Conversely, depending on which side you play, some of the simpler scenarios require nary a pulse to achieve victory.

In at least one session, I was barely able to lose even with a concentrated effort to do so. I might well have marched my divisions of British Regulars into the frozen North Atlantic and even then might still have held strong against my ill equipped and hapless opponent. My first reaction was, of course, to think what a pointless exercise, but that’s thinking in terms of symmetrical and traditional games thinking.

What was I to take away from the scenario? Was it simply an exercise, or was it a description? A virtual recreation? The more I modified my perspective, the more I took from it.

I didn’t realize this until I managed to eek out at least a draw in one of those Kobayashi Maru scenarios. To win the no-win situation, even if it has a component of blind luck because enemy forces were slowed and weakened by raging weather, and my forces bizarrely took a strategic location while outnumbered, is to understand what this game is showing you.

My time playing Birth of America II was not nearly as much about whether I won or lost the scenario I was playing, but how the events played themselves out. This game was a constant reminder of how fate can play such a strong role in the best laid plans of mice and men. Execute a genius strategy designed to intercept an army’s exposed flank while marching toward Albany, and the entire thing can hinge on the turn of the weather or the failure of the forces to encounter one another.

I saw grand armies wither against the entrenched efforts of far smaller forces in ragged towns with little supply. I watched my men succeed despite my failings as a commander, beating back the odds and surprise attacks I should have seen coming a mile away. I sat in frustration as commanders stayed firmly entrenched in even mild conditions. I saw garrisons a thousand men strong falter under sustained efforts by young commanders, and in every case I could imagine the urgency and uncertainty of the scenes. I realized the real game was not about these events, exactly, but how I reacted and adapted to them.

What Birth of America II may have failed to show me about the grizzly violence of war, it made up for by presenting an improbable and often unpredictable battlefield that seemed genuine. It reminded me that planning was a necessity, and that I must consider supply, morale, weather, leadership, position and timing to execute a successful campaign even in the smallest theaters, but that I must also be prepared to revise or completely abandon even the best strategy if the fates collaborated against me.

To be fair, this doesn’t always make for satisfying gaming.

There is no mentor to tell you that you did everything right, and that there was nothing you could have done to avoid an inevitable defeat, and I was surprised to find I spent significant time after scenarios thinking about how I might have improved and more importantly reacted. Birth of America II offers you more detail than mortal man is prepared to soak up, and some sort of advanced alien math under the hood to calculate everything. I don’t think I once executed a turn where I was confident that I had considered every contingency, every piece of vital information.

Even after a month, I was never fully equipped to fight a full campaign. The scenarios, sometimes only 8 turns long, were more than enough to gnaw on. In the full conflict of a revolutionary war, the truth is that a dedicated player could spend a day between each turn carefully considering the garrisoning of crucial towns, the marching of divisions through hostile environments, the supply of large armies, the morale of ten thousand men, the way that the enemy might react and expose an unseen weakeness, the resupply of diminished forces and a thousand other questions. Like an ocean, the further out you push, the deeper the water.

Merely wading in the warm tide pools where minnows pick at your toes belies the great depths and perils waiting further out. Yes, I could play a quick 8 turns, barely awake, and have the reward of a brief victory. That’s not the game; that’s the bait designed to lull you into the false confidence that you have the fortitude wade let the riptide wash around your ankles. That’s the illusion that the waves won’t drown you.

And make no mistake, they will drown you. Whether you will fight it is up to you.

February’s Horizon’s Broadening Project Game – The Witcher

Comments

If after reading all that, you're not sure whether I liked playing Birth of America II ... well, that's the point. I'm not sure either, but I'm glad to have done it.

Bonuses for referencing Sartre, War Games, and Star Trek.

I have to say, the comment about how the game got you thinking between sessions is exactly why wargamers play. To learn, to deal with challenges, and to seek more than a gloss of some small part of history. It's very good to see that that came across to someone who had never tried the genre before.

I am glad you didn't try the ACW game they did, though. That one is an order of magnitude more complicated (but more fun, too.) Still... Never say never, eh?

I have a hunch that with The Witcher you are in for an unexpected treat.

wanderingtaoist wrote:

I have a hunch that with The Witcher you are in for an unexpected treat.

Wasn't that the one that Certis loved? I'm tempted to join in if that's the case, though I'm not positive if my somewhat aged laptop could take it.

wanderingtaoist wrote:

I have a hunch that with The Witcher you are in for an unexpected treat.

Seconded. I think you'll be more than pleasantly surprised. Make sure its the Enhanced Edition, though.

This actually sounds pretty interesting. May have to give it a try!

Nice write up Sean. Makes me not want to play this game:) Seems a bit daunting! Though, for all I have read about the Witcher, is that really a "Horizon Broadening" game? It seems more like a very well made, but generic, rpg. When I think of these articles, and based on this one, I imagine them to be about games that the "masses" would not play. Or at least games that involve deep thought and involvement. Maybe Im way off base here.

Poppinfresh wrote:
wanderingtaoist wrote:

I have a hunch that with The Witcher you are in for an unexpected treat.

Wasn't that the one that Certis loved? I'm tempted to join in if that's the case, though I'm not positive if my somewhat aged laptop could take it.

I'm playing on a four-year old computer (GeForce 6600GT) and it runs just fine. Also, if you have the "normal" edition, you can patch it to Enhanced for free.

is that really a "Horizon Broadening" game?

It is for me. The idea is to play games I probably never would have played before, not necessarily just to pick the obscure or less known.

Don't worry, though. There's plenty of more obscure games to come. Expect a blend.

Elysium wrote:

stuff about the game forcing you to put yourself in the shoes of the commander and do as he would have actually done it

I had a bit of an epiphany moment like that while playing Mount & Blade. At some point, I started thinking about the mechanics of mounted and dismounted combat and started to develop martial techniques to increase my--and that of my men--survivability. As that happened, I was struck by the realization that a simulation crossed some uncanny valley and actually made my brain start thinking in terms that it simulates. For a moment there, I actually felt what it's like to be a mounted troop on a medieval battlefield. Just as your article seems to imply you got to feel what a commander of an army simulated by BoA must have felt like.

wanderingtaoist wrote:
Poppinfresh wrote:
wanderingtaoist wrote:

I have a hunch that with The Witcher you are in for an unexpected treat.

Wasn't that the one that Certis loved? I'm tempted to join in if that's the case, though I'm not positive if my somewhat aged laptop could take it.

I'm playing on a four-year old computer (GeForce 6600GT) and it runs just fine. Also, if you have the "normal" edition, you can patch it to Enhanced for free.

Cool. If memory serves, that's pretty close to the power of my graphics card. Thanks!

Elysium wrote:
is that really a "Horizon Broadening" game?

It is for me. The idea is to play games I probably never would have played before, not necessarily just to pick the obscure or less known.

Don't worry, though. There's plenty of more obscure games to come. Expect a blend.

Thanks Mr. Sands, I look forward to reading more:)

I already posted my thoughts on this game in the original HBP thread, but I probably should have saved them for this one.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/4...

After reading this, I'm a little jealous I didn't get more out of this game.

Birth of America II offers you more detail than mortal man is prepared to soak up, and some sort of advanced alien math under the hood to calculate everything.

This makes me wonder at the validity of ever giving any one person too much credit for winning any one conflict. I mean, sure, it's convenient to hand a boatload of credit to General George Washington for coordinating as much as possible, but it probably did come down to relying on his men to make it all come together.

My horizon 'broadener' for February will be Commander in Chief: Geopolitical Simulator 2009. Picked it up on Inauguration Day, but I've been too cowardly to dig in yet.

There is no mentor to tell you that you did everything right, and that there was nothing you could have done to avoid an inevitable defeat, and I was surprised to find I spent significant time after scenarios thinking about how I might have improved and more importantly reacted.

That is the essence of leadership right there.

This makes me wonder at the validity of ever giving any one person too much credit for winning any one conflict.

I think that's a great insight. Honestly, it's the sort of thing I take away from the game.

That is the essence of leadership right there.

Again, tremendous insight. As a "game" I'm not sure BoA II will redefine how I play, but more than most games it has given me some meat to chew on in thinking about the real world.

This makes me wonder at the validity of ever giving any one person too much credit for winning any one conflict. I mean, sure, it's convenient to hand a boatload of credit to General George Washington for coordinating as much as possible, but it probably did come down to relying on his men to make it all come together.

Not just that, but as Ely mentions, the opposing forces and leaders, political considerations, funding and supply, weather, terrain, stubbornness and greed, all sorts of things tie together. There have been lives spent arguing about whether the American Revolution was won by the Americans, or lost by the British. It's all a lot of fun to learn about, and the game does a very good job simulating the military challenges faced by the various commanders.

Tangential to this, I've reduced a lot of gamer depression related to games that are kicking my ass (like Warcraft III on Hard currently is) by realizing it's okay to take a multi-year approach to a game. I don't have to give up or reduce the difficulty (in this case I've already played through on Normal and my enjoyment comes from learning the game better by playing on Hard), I can just step away, maybe think about it, and come back at a later time to see if I can find a way to get past my current hurdle.

In this way, some gaming can be about improving how my brain works.

And then, some gaming is just about killing zombies...

Robear wrote:
This makes me wonder at the validity of ever giving any one person too much credit for winning any one conflict. I mean, sure, it's convenient to hand a boatload of credit to General George Washington for coordinating as much as possible, but it probably did come down to relying on his men to make it all come together.

Not just that, but as Ely mentions, the opposing forces and leaders, political considerations, funding and supply, weather, terrain, stubbornness and greed, all sorts of things tie together. There have been lives spent arguing about whether the American Revolution was won by the Americans, or lost by the British. It's all a lot of fun to learn about, and the game does a very good job simulating the military challenges faced by the various commanders.

These are all excellent points and observations. I think my main barrier was the games opacity. I knew all of these variables were floating around in the background, but I never felt like I knew why something happened.

Why did my commander just retreat? Why did I lose that battle? Why did I just mop the floor with this army. I never felt I knew "why". The battles resolve so quickly. Sometimes I'll fight one battle over the course of a turn, and sometimes I'll fight five. I also felt it was hard to track unit movement. I'm sure some of this comes from familiarity and experience, and I just wasn't willing to invest that kind of time, but is this a common issue? Did anyone else run into this?

Lex Cayman wrote:

These are all excellent points and observations. I think my main barrier was the games opacity. I knew all of these variables were floating around in the background, but I never felt like I knew why something happened.

Why did my commander just retreat? Why did I lose that battle? Why did I just mop the floor with this army. I never felt I knew "why". The battles resolve so quickly. Sometimes I'll fight one battle over the course of a turn, and sometimes I'll fight five. I also felt it was hard to track unit movement. I'm sure some of this comes from familiarity and experience, and I just wasn't willing to invest that kind of time, but is this a common issue? Did anyone else run into this?

This is also why I have a hard time getting into some TBS games. I often find the stories surrounding TBS games interesting; someone will play a game and write a detailed, action-packed session report about the wheres and whys of a campaign or engagement, and after my playing the same game I am left wondering did they pull those reasons out of their butt for the report to rationalize why an outcome was the way it was? Or am I missing something that clearly demonstrates to me WHY General Chunky left the field of battle, or that my men were high on aggression juice and slaughtered an ill-prepared army?

The combat reports that come up after a fight tell the story. You can see how many troops were committed, what phase they fought in, how many were lost, what the modifiers were, whether one side broke and retreated, which troops did well, all that stuff. You can also examine your troops and leaders to tell who is good, and who was "socially promoted" lol.

Haven't finished the whole article yet, but spotted this:

grizzly violence of war

The right to arm bears!

You almost certainly wanted 'grisly'.

You don't play deep fantastic WRPG's ala Baldur's Gate?

I find that hard to believe.

Elysium wrote:

It reminded me that planning was a necessity, and that I must consider supply, morale, weather, leadership, position and timing to execute a successful campaign even in the smallest theaters, but that I must also be prepared to revise or completely abandon even the best strategy if the fates collaborated against me.
To be fair, this doesn’t always make for satisfying gaming.

Europa Universalis 3 (which I love) seems to be much the same way. For me, in this type of game when things come together it's extremely satisfying. That chance to fail -even when you do things right- can lead to some frustration, but I think it also makes success even sweeter.

Great writeup, Elysium.

...the monumental improbability of a disorganized and poorly equipped militia successfully routing the world’s most powerful military force...

With a bit of help from the French, Spanish and Dutch, of course

Zelos wrote:
...the monumental improbability of a disorganized and poorly equipped militia successfully routing the world’s most powerful military force...

With a bit of help from the French, Spanish and Dutch, of course :-)

What? In my history book, the 12 story tall George Washington takes on the British army singlehandedly. He kicked them in half, and ate their brains. America, fsck yeah!

Poppinfresh wrote:

What? In my history book, the 12 story tall George Washington takes on the British army singlehandedly. He kicked them in half, and ate their brains. America, fsck yeah!

This should be made into Sam & Max episode. Abe Lincoln Must Die! needs a successor.

With a bit of help from the French, Spanish and Dutch, of course

Ok, that's fair. But I don't remember LaFayette leading forces across the Delaware to kick the Hessians' collective asses one cold winter's night.

Poppinfresh wrote:
Zelos wrote:
...the monumental improbability of a disorganized and poorly equipped militia successfully routing the world’s most powerful military force...

With a bit of help from the French, Spanish and Dutch, of course :-)

What? In my history book, the 12 story tall George Washington takes on the British army singlehandedly. He kicked them in half, and ate their brains. America, fsck yeah!

George Washington was a zombie!