PRICE OF FREEDOM

Any of you bastards have an opinion on PRICE OF FREEDOM, that new-ish Renaud Velaque Civil War game? It's a CDWG, so I'm practically in love with it by default...just trying to decide if it's what I really want over PRUSSIA'S DEFIANT STAND.

I've actually been wondering about Price of Freedom vs. A House Divided. I figured I'd get it before the stock dries up from Phalanx, but if PoF is just as good, I'd consider that instead.

--Mike L.

Here's my take on the differences between Price of Freedom and A House Divided. I know it's a bit all over the place but I'm writting quickly while procrastinating at work.

Teaching:
AHD is much easier to teach, particulary to someone not familiar to CDG.

Rules:
PoF, related to the above comment, is much more rules dense. On the otherhand there is no guessing which rules you should use, like with the slew of Advanced and Optionals that AHD gives you.

Length of Game:
I love the beginning turns of AHD. There is so much uncertainty of how the game will evolve. The reult of the opening year means the game can end in 90 minutes or it can go for 7 hours, which can be a problem. PoF is one of the few war games that actually plays anywhere near the advertised price. It seems to be right on target of 3 hours for the whole war.

Fun Factor:
Both are fun but in different ways. AHD leads for me because it feels more tense. Both sides can feel like things are about to fall apart. A few unlucky command rolls can bring your campaigning from driving events to reacting to your opponent. PoF has the typical CDG decisions, like play the event, play the ops points, build here, move leaders there, you know, hand managmement. These decisions can be tough and make for a good game experience.

A drawback of AHD is that it can get into a drawn out seige in the last year. PoF speeds that right up with its very low unit density and quick combat resolution.

PoF gives each player several paths to victory. This builds in a nice replayability factor.

I don't have that many PoF games under my belt but so far the CSA player better be prepared to play (most of the time) a defensive game from the start. That ight not sit well with some gamers. In AHD, the opening years are more wide open for thrust and counter thrust.

There is a lot more dice slinging in AHD. I like it, but not everyone's cup'o tea.

Summary?
If you want to choose a Grand Strategy game of the ACW between AHD and PoF, you have to weigh to things I mention above. For me, I play AHD with those who aren't dedicated wargamers and PoF with the more experience gamer.


aahh crap...gotta run, I hear the boss

PCS

Wow, thanks so much for that, that's really exactly the kind of breakdown I was looking for- particularly since I really like AHD despite its intermittent goofiness.

AHD is a fun game. Is it a "great" ACW game. No. But it does have some fun gameplay and I really like some of the simple things in it- how units "upgrade" in battle, the simple tactical system, the grand strategy scale...but there are some "oldtimeyness issues" with it.

I looked at the rules to POF and it looks like I'm gonna bite. I liked AoN even though it was...quirky...and it seems that he sort of refined a lot of ideas in PoF. I also like the low density and the level of detail looks just right. Warm up the charge card, boys!

Yeah, that was a good differential between the two games. Since my primary gaming partners on this game are going to be more Eurogamers (my wife) or the kids, AHD might make more sense for me.

--Mike L.

I'd debate that. I think the CDWG system might actually be more appealing to them because AHD is kind of old timey- lots of dice rolling, tiny chrome rules, not exactly "watertight" design...PoF might be a little more approachable for Eurogamers, especially if they've played TWILIGHT STRUGGLE or 1960.

Yeah, but my wife plays Civ, Rail Baron, We the People and Talisman too. I don't think the chrome would necessarily put her off; we're not talking Squad Leader or anything.

--Mike L.

If "Price of Freedom" really uses an advanced "Age of Napoleon" system, it ought to be very good. I "rather liked" AoN, but it had minor quirks, i.e. Diplomacy cards too powerful, rules a little messy, etc.

I have both PoF & AHD(orginal & newest edition).and I consider PoF
the better game hands down.

It has leaders(a must for ACW Games)and a easy play in an evening time.
Like AoN its elegant in its ability to cover the the warfare of the era
without a ton of chrome.

OD

POF is a great game. My only complaint is that if the union plays conservative, there won't be anything for the CSA to do. You will just sit there. Of course, the Union will lose and you will win, but its an odd stalemate when the union guy gives it up.