Founding Fathers Forum Game: A republic, if you can keep it.


Pinckney resigned the office to become VP (sorry, I forgot), so we will need a new General.



@rho21, are you going to play in the next game? I can run again or hand it off to one of our current players.



Apologies for popping over from ancient Rome just to ninja your response. :)

I’m very much enjoying watching this, keep it up everyone.

Without having read the rules, I can see a number of mechanics that are obviously inspired by and improve upon those of Republic of Rome. It’s still not clear to me exactly why players vote as they do though; that’s probably because the role the player factions perform seems very odd to me. Are they attempting to represent anything? It feels a bit like playing a fantasy football team.

I’m interested in playing in the next game; I might have tried to join this one if I had had the brain space at the time to absorb the rules.



There is, of course, a considerable amount of behind the scenes stuff ;)

Hamilton appoints William Henry Harrison as General and gives him three influence to prosecute the Seminole War

The Clinton funeral takes on the character of a Federalist political event, and Hamilton takes the time to Appoint DeWitt Clinton special envoy to Spain



Interesting comment, and I sort of agree Rho. I am engaged by the game, love American History, and have really enjoyed this PBF. But I think the replay value for me may be degraded a bit based on the simplistic political schema imposed upon the statesmen with regard to voting and party politics. “Liberal v Conservative” seems overly reductionist, and seems to, in it’s sorting, to be imposing an ill-fitting modern nomenclature and grouping on the statesman and how players and parties align. This is a bit of feedback I provided @spotlightgames.

Basically, overall, I love the game. But I think replay value, historical granularity, and overall competitiveness in the game would be better served than with more than just “Liberal v Conservative” affiliation.

“Populism versus Fiscalism” (or somesuch) and Pro and Anti Slavery Expansion are needed as other factors in the Pre-Civil War era. Maybe as “Exclusionary Traits”. Namely, for example, stating that if a faction leader statesman is pro-slavery expansion, he can’t have a Party Leader or run with a Party leader, or something who is Anti-Slavery expansion.

Same with the Gilded age, regarding Populism versus Fiscalism. Third parties did abound from time to time in the 19th Century and allowing parties to morph and change say, aligning on the basis of populism v fiscalism rather than Liberal or Conservative would let fractures like the Mugwumps, or WJB’s splitting of the Democratic Party occur would make things a lot more interesting.

I’d use Pro and Anti Slavery purely as an exclusionary “I can’t work that guy” trait that goes away after the Civil War. Though it could have repercussions until reconstruction ends (“any living Pro-Slavery politicians cannot be elected to office, so they cannot vote, be appointed to Cainet positions or be elected Pres or VP until The Reconstruction Ends Issue is passed”).



There should possibly be some way for state governors to come into play, since so many presidents came up that way



Am I correct that we are waiting on @CF_Kane to update the tracker with the end of term results and then do the Treasury phase?



The Seminole Wars were a resounding victory for Hamilton and William Henry Harrison. The Seminoles were defeated, but no territory was claimed at this point, in a departure from standard practice.

(+2 Popularity to Hamilton and Harrison).

Treasury Phase:

Revenue of 56 increases the Reserves to 94. No collapse roll necessary.

Hamilton, completing his second term, retires. His extreme popularity and authorship of most of the Federalist Papers gives him a firm place in the Pantheon of American Presidents, but he is often criticized for his role in Indian Removal.

(Hamilton retires and scores 23 VPs for @Cuthbert).

The election of 1812 would pit Federalist John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (@Ironsight) against Democratic-Republican James Madison of Virginia (@Brooski).

The Conservatives have popular support, so Madison makes the first VP choice.



Definitely going to be on Mount Rushmore you guys.



Or at least a Broadway musical.



Not after the Indian Removal Act. Have you seen that “Jackson!” musical? It’s the darling this year with the New York Broadway set!



I just want zombeez



Nominate Aaron Freaking Burr again.




@Brooski are you sure you want to nominate someone in the same faction as the other candidate?



Wait, what? Oh yeah geez.

Ok guys, I am going to have to stop doing this on the phone from work. I can’t switch contexts fast enough.

Cancel my nomination and I’ll redo at home tonight.



I’d like to point out that I had both VP candidates in the last election (Burr and CC Pinckney) and played the best cube locations for each.



Why wouldn’t you? You’d get to be VP either way! :p



Nominate E. Gerry as VP





Elderly Elbridge Gerry, signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, is nudged awake brought back from deep political thought by a kind, young Andrew Jackson, seated next to him in the Congress. He clears his throat,

"I accepte ye nominashun for the good of these colonies!"



John Quincy Adams announces the formation of a new Conservative party called the Whig-National Party and is happy to offer the nomination of Thomas Pinckney as his Vice Presidential running mate.

@Panzeh to accept