Portico's Birth of America Review

<strong>[ Game -> Review ]</strong>

<p>Troy Goodfellow gave Birth of America, an American Revolutionary War TBS game from <a href="http://www.ageod.com/" target="_self" title="ageod">AGEOD</a>, a recent <a href="http://uticensis.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-site-review-birth-of-america.html" target="_self" title="review">review</a> on Portico. He found some faults, mainly in the presentation.</p><p> </p><blockquote>Birth of America is not
perfect. Turn results could be displayed more prominently and the
rollover tooltips are often in too small a font. The entire game could
be written with larger print, in fact. The music is forgettable and
there are enough bugs and glitches to mean that we are now on a sixth
patch - with still more to come.</blockquote><p> </p><p>He was more positive about the level of strategic thinking that goes into the game. </p><blockquote><p>Take the issue of reinforcements. Each side is reinforced based on
historical exigencies. This poses a problem for the British in the
French and Indian War. They have too few troops in place to be strong
everywhere they need to be and are faced with a colonial levy system
that means some forces get disbanded once their service is up. They
will eventually be reconstituted, but back at colonial capitals. So,
the British player has to plan his/her early movements with this in
mind. A stream of Redcoats will soon arrive, though, meaning that the
French player has the opposite problem - he/she has to move quickly.</p></blockquote><p>Spotted @ <a href="http://uticensis.blogspot.com/">Portico</a></p>

I don't like his sentiments about how the game won't win over any non-wargamers. I thought the game was very streamlined and accessible, while still retaining a heck of a lot of depth. He says the game doesn't pack enough "chrome" to be appealing. Bullshit. The game may not have soopah-doopah 3D shaders but it certainly looks good to get one's attention, and the gameplay will certainly suck them in. I'm thinking of trying this game (once I get it, that is) on some of my dirty filthy plebian friends and help them onto the path of Enlightenment.

It's really the perfect game to start people on for wargames. You got the intricate system that's all behind-the-scenes, but if one wants to see it all he can. You have the seemingly simple battle system (Click and drag!) but once you get into it's very deep and you can utilize a variety of strategies to win each battle. You've got the pretty graphics, the clean presentation, it's like the gateway drug of wargaming.

Naked Lunch:

I agree that if you set a non-wargamer down to this game and walk them through it they might be attracted, but just as likely not. People who are not into wargames need a compelling reason to become interested - either they like the history or they get to do something cool. It's sad, but it's true.

As an example from another genre, look at Battle for Middle Earth II. It's actually a very subtle RTS about counters, hero management and resource spending. But it's an excellent intro RTS because there is no economic micromanagement (therefore no frustration about peons), no aging up (so no push to see everything in every age) and, most importantly, lots of jaw-dropping moments. People who hate RTS because of all the stupid stuff they have to do in order to get to an army worthy of their skills should love BfME2.

I like BoA a lot, but I think - despite its simplicity - it doesn't have enough oomph to get new people in the door. Wargames are a tough sell, even to wargamers. Non-wargamers need a reason to become interested. If there's one thing I've learned as a history teacher it's that something isn't interesting just because I think it is.

Mind you, I sincerely hope I am wrong in this. The BoA system is simple enough to be transferred to any number of pre-industrial battle settings. I'd love a BoA style game on the 30 Years War or Ottoman Expansion.

BFME2 is deep.

Llyranor said:

BFME2 is deep.

Click to expand...

A lot deeper than it looks. Rise of Legends will have to be very good to beat it out as the best RTS of 2006.

@Troy:
I agree that BOA might not be a great way to draw new people in, mainly because it looks just like a boardgame. It sounds like I'm being shallow (and I usually am), but many folks don't dig playing a game on their fancy $1500 computer that looks like something you pulled out of Grandpa's closet. But then why is Paradox is so popular? Their games pretty much have the same problem (boardgame-itis), but they seem to have a large, rabid following that's a mix of wargamers and just gamers in general. What are they doing that's right?

As for your BFME2 example, I don't see it. I'm not a regular RTS player so I should have been ripe pickings for its charms. It was entirely the opposite. I got about 2 battles into the demo before I got bored and switched to the other computer to check my email. It was done automatically, like something I'd do when a game is loading or the computer is booting. It's not a good sign when that reaction is evoked in the middle of a battle and it guarantees I will never buy that game. I think the instant appeal the BFME games may have is the LotR setting and not in the tactical gameplay.

Back to BOA:
" I'd love a BoA style game on the 30 Years War or Ottoman Expansion."
Why not a WWI game? Too fast paced?

I want WW1 games too

I was thinking of you, sweetheart.

baby arm said:

@Troy:
I agree that BOA might not be a great way to draw new people in, mainly because it looks just like a boardgame. It sounds like I'm being shallow (and I usually am), but many folks don't dig playing a game on their fancy $1500 computer that looks like something you pulled out of Grandpa's closet. But then why is Paradox is so popular? Their games pretty much have the same problem (boardgame-itis), but they seem to have a large, rabid following that's a mix of wargamers and just gamers in general. What are they doing that's right?

Click to expand...

Paradox's popularity is world wide and is based on a huge dedication to community building. They produced a huge hit in Europa Universalis and have parlayed that into independent publishing. But their big seller? A World War II game. Why? Immediately interesting to a lot of people who really don't care about Ivan the Terrible or Wallenstein or Aurengzeb.

What they did right was produce a great game that filled a niche. Maybe BoA will be that game for AgeOD. It's not like there's a lot of Revolutionary War stuff filling shelves. I know that I'm recommending it to wargamers, and historical strategy buffs.

As for your BFME2 example, I don't see it. I'm not a regular RTS player so I should have been ripe pickings for its charms. It was entirely the opposite. I got about 2 battles into the demo before I got bored and switched to the other computer to check my email. It was done automatically, like something I'd do when a game is loading or the computer is booting. It's not a good sign when that reaction is evoked in the middle of a battle and it guarantees I will never buy that game.

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that. I love the game. Play it almost non-stop in between long bouts of Civ 4 and games that I have to play to get paid.

[qutoe]I think the instant appeal the BFME games may have is the LotR setting and not in the tactical gameplay.[/quote]

Well, the movie/book link is, of course, HUGE. So obvious I thought I could leave it unsaid. It's the big reason that the games are big sellers. I think that they also provide a link to other RTS since they have enough wow factor to keep people hooked but also enough strategy to make people think about what they are doing.

Why not a WWI game? Too fast paced?

Click to expand...

Heh. I don't think the campaign model fits the total war era very well, but I could be wrong.

World War I is a hard war to do, IMO, because people know the Western Front best and that's where the war was (except for the beginning and end) not especially interesting as a series of military feats. Plus, the player walks in knowing the costs of attacking trenches and the "lessons of the war" so they are more likely to do an end run around history - and then inevitably complain that the game has ahistorical results. Wargamers are a funny bunch.

The Eastern Front lacks the familiarity of the Western Front, even though there is a lot of interesting stuff going on.

Spring 1918 would make a great scenario, since both sides have problems analogous to those the British face in the French and Indian War scenario of BoA - one side has to quickly make ground, the other has to hold on until reinforcements arrive.

I like BoA a lot, but I think - despite its simplicity - it doesn't have enough oomph to get new people in the door. Wargames are a tough sell, even to wargamers. Non-wargamers need a reason to become interested. If there's one thing I've learned as a history teacher it's that something isn't interesting just because I think it is.

Click to expand...

It depends on the person, really. The "hardcore" gamer who runs around in a "CORTANA LIVES" t-shirt and plays Counter-Stirke all day probably won't be attracted to it, but the newcomer who'd like to get into strategy games might enjoy it a lot becuase of it's superficial simplicity at first, and then once they get the gist of it they'll be able to utilize all the background factors and depth.

I honestly can't think of a better game to start people off on if they want to get interested in wargames (or if I want them to try to get into them). Seems like you know your stuff, so what would you recommend?

Naked_Lunch said:

Seems like you know your stuff, so what would you recommend?

Click to expand...

I'll take that as a compliment.

What would I recommend...there's the 64 dollar question. Most people come to wargames either through native interest in the subject matter or through a beer and pretzel game that tweaks their interest in this sort of thing.

If this was five or six years ago, I would say Sid Meier's Gettysburg. It is still the best Civil War game ever made, I think (mostly because Take Command doesn't have MP). If this was ten years ago, I'd say Panzer General.

The thing with wargames is that the beer and pretzel entry point is almost completely gone. Shattered Union works better as a wargame than a strategy game, and has an interesting modern setting. Too bad the strategy part is so poorly done. Birth of America may, on further consideration, be the best of a bad lot intro wise.

Let me think on this...maybe blog on this...

Does the game have tactical battles at all? Or is it primarily strategy?

There's no tactical battles, it's pure strategy.