Ignore. It will just lead to overpriced housing in a perpetually rainy climate, filled with whiny tech workers complaining about crunch time while sipping lattes. Let’s leave it to the fine trappers, mountain men, loggers and fishermen.
Next issue, @CF_Kane
The final issue of King’s presidency, and the game, is the Mexican American war.
The Mexican American War has multiple options to resolve:
Option 1, Difficulty 7 War/General: Resolved (Fight) Reserves -97. 1IP to Liberal Party. Public support 1 away from President’s Party. Popularity +3.
Option 2, Difficulty 3 State/Congress: Resolved (Negotiate): Only available if Oregon Treaty resolved (which it was). Reserves -35. Popularity +2.
Failed/Ignored: Texas removed from play. Popularity -3.
@Navaronegun, Fight, Negotiate, or Ignore?
…so in response to these repeated border violations, all your Mexicos belong to us.
—Diplomatic Correspondence from US President William Rufus King to Miguel Gregorio de la Luz Atenógenes Miramón y Tarelo, President of Mexico.
Option 1. Fight!
Name William Tecumseh Sherman, young Military Genius, Secretary of War.
Grant accepts the orders as well. Sherman and Grant have more than enough combined ability to successfully prosecute the war.
William Tecumseh Sherman Accepts.
The United States rallies behind the flag. Former President Dallas todders into the War Department and offers to fund and lead “Dallas’ Legion” in the field. Sherman demurs, kindly, but President King backs the request.
Zachary Taylor is sent with with a force to land at Vera Cruz, but it is a diversion. Sherman orders General Ulysses S. Grant (@Ironsight) to take Mexico via the land route from Texas.
We don’t need any IP. Sherman and Grant have a combined 9 ability which is more than enough. @CF_Kane
So I believe @Navaronegun wins, once the six points from the war go out?
I believe there is one final election to go.
@Navaronegun to appoint a Secretary of Treasury and Envoy.
R. Taney is named Secretary of the Treasury
J. C. Breckinridge is named Special Envoy to Papua New Guinea
@CF_Kane
Yep, that gives him 88, five points ahead before the election.
Also, Taney is the conservative nominee, so he is going to be hard to catch, as Panzeh isn’t within 4. Only action cards can change the outcome at this point (through reallocating VPs or causing a civil war).
Current VPs, Votes, Total Influence:
@Navaronegun – 88, 8, 10
@Ironsight – 83, 10, 4
@Panzeh – 81, 10, 14
@Brooski – 30, 15, 4
@Cuthbert – 27, 24, 1
FYI, I am working on creating the new card manifest and revising the tracker for the next game. I know @HerbertHoover wants in. @CraigM, are you interested?
I’m willing to concede the win to @Navaronegun at this point. Even if I played Secession and triggered Civil War, unlikely, I believe @Navaronegun would still win. Congrats.
Well played by all and a huge Thanks! to @CF_Kane for all the hard work that went into moderating the game. Hope it was a much fun for you as the rest of us!
Thanks all for playing! I had a blast running the game and would be happy to do so again.
Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my Forum will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five days of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
And of course a big Thanks! to @spotlightgames for making the game. :)
Thanks everyone. I honestly had no idea I was gonna win. Frankly, I thought 7 Difficulty was required for both SecWar & the General each for the Mexican War and was saving my IP to give each what was needed. My goal was to have cheeky fun with History and I did.
Lots of fun! Two observations are that this game probably plays better face-to-face, and that it needs an even number of players.
@Brooski, definitely agree that this probably a better game face to face, although I certainly enjoyed running it on the forum. The election and people phases do take a while this way.
I was surprised at the dynamics of this five-player game. Ironsight and Navaronegun formed an early Conservative power-block, first with Cuthbert and then with Panzeh as a partner. I was surprised that they managed to hold on to their third coalition partner for so long, especially near the end, where it seemed to me that Panzeh had the chance to gain a lot of VPs from defecting and joining with Brooski and Cuthbert. I think that varying levels of commitment makes this really hard on a forum, as Ironsight and Navaronegun seemed to ultimately out-organize everyone else.
I’m going to start a new thread and see if we can get a group together for game 2. Thanks again everyone for playing!
This I agree with. In any political/negotiation game, you gotta negotiate and coordinate. If the format is PBF, that the medium used for that is communication via interweb device. If that is too much of a time sink/not possible for someone, or not someone’s cup of tea, then they are definitely playing at a disadvantage.
Having said that, 5 players was too few, IMO. @Cuthbert was very communicative. He just…ticked off the Coalition Partners. :) That’s politics.
But in a six player game, he could have made common cause with another player. That extra player then could have been the tide that lifted all the non-late game Coalition Players’ boats.
Personal preference-wise, I think a four or fewer game would be kind of boring. Six seems like the number for this.
