Well, in the back story (of F.A) I believe CanaDUH was “Taken Out” of the fight immediately.
Let’s face it guys (Fellow CanaDUMB’s on here) we have NO fighting force to speak of. It has been said that the NYC and New York State police forces combined could conquer CanaDUH in an out-and-out military campaign, and that’s one BIG ice cube to take.
And you are “Sort of “ wrong…CanaDUH is a sovern nation-state with ties to England. We are part of what is called the “Commonwealth” , which is a giant street gang version of what’s left of the former British Empire. Other gang members include Australia, New Zealand, and Formally South Africa who told us to go “F” ourself’s when we tried to get them not to implement Apartheid back in the ‘50’s (and now they are a Republic).
But, we still are NOT a democracy…we are a “Constitutional Monarchy”, and yes, that means Queen Elizabeth II is the “Official” head of state here. The cool thing about this is the following; if the Queen ever removed her approval from a sitting government, and it resulted in Civil war…no “Rebels” would be rebels, ‘casue they’d be fighting for the Queen not the sitting Government. Which brings me back to Fortress Quebec, or should I say “Québec de Forteresse”, I totally think I’d like to do this using the F.A. rules…but play testers? I don’t even think I’d know where to begin.

“God save the Queen!”

During lots of Google searches, i've seen Mississippi Banzi, but that's still not the one I'm lookig for. It's N.S.D.A.P.U.S.A. vs. U.S.S.R. (lots of dots between letters), big grang strat game.

Just in case you can't find it the original fluff text later, it's here, along with my rant, feel free to comment.

http://miah000.blogspot.com/2011/12/fortress-america-causes-quite-stir.html

Well I have to say, that I own the "old" version of this game (with Saddam on the front side of the box why did they erase him from new box? ), and I liked the story used in the old version... I dont get it why they had to change it... the first version with "bad America" was still kinda good.... now the second is completely boring, no thrill, no excitement...

I will still buy it probably, I like the look of new figures (I hope this is not just some promo and that they will look like this in-game), and I am kinda curious about those changes in the rule set....

When I read version 1 of the fluff I thought "oh cool, we're the bad guys!". The old "Red Dawn" scenario needed to be updated anyway and version 1 was interesting / plausible. V2 of the fluff doesn't make much sense and isn't very interesting. I hope FFG didn't "cave" to a vocal minority (you're never going to make everyone happy) but that's sure what this looks like.

The victors write the history anyway - version 1's the story if USA loses (they were zapping us with doom lasers!), version 2's the story if the USA wins (we had unicorn rainbow lasers and the world was jealous!).

At this point, maybe they should just set this in the Twilight Imperium univese (ala Dune / TI).

You know, when it’s all said and done, I’m glad we can have a discussion like this. So far it hasn’t gotten too nasty. I did read the Tannenhauser blog and it did get pretty heated. I can’t remember the last time I’ve ever gotten this Excited or into a toy since I was a little child. But it’s not just the toy business. This is a political issue that has touched off some great (and civil) debate here.
Again, remember this game came out in the Regan era (30-23 years ago), and it DID have a different feel than it would today. Imagine the fervor that Fortress America would have cause if it came out 30-23 years before that? Nixon & Vietnam, with all the same three forces in the game (unchanged) attacking the US- Yikes!
I am happy they DID NOT change the three attackers from Communist-Socialist attackers to some thing more “Modern” like Irano-Arab’s from the East and (like someone else said) then Aliens and then zombies from the other two areas. Having CanaDUH attack from a different area would leave me with a big question mark over my head.
My derailed point is; what an incredible game/toy F.A. is to be able to initiate such discussion!!!

Well put LynchMob. If F.A. receives good reviews I'll pick it up regardless of the fluff. My one real worry is replay value. My gaming group got bored with Axis & Allies pretty quick. This seems very A&A like but then I never got a chance to play the original.

Well, I can only say this; in my gamer groups, it is a well loved game by all. If we haven’t played it in a long time, someone will always say; “Hey, let’s do Fortress America again!” I think it does have replayability, and a small learning curve- we made some small mistakes that made for replay get better and better. We don’t play it a lot because (and I suspect it’s the same with almost everyone here) between the lot of us we have a massive library of games that we want to do, and may not even ever get to. But, just recently (before I even found out about the re-make), it came up again… “Let’s do Fortress America!” Plus, if you look around the internet there’s some interesting variants that will co$t you nothing to print off.

People need to re-read Mr. Petersen's post. FFG did not "cave-in" to the minority or chage the backstory due to "pressure". He said that the marketing department misunderstood the notes/plan for the backstory when they created the original copy that was released. The initial released copy, although interesting and different, was an incorrect interpretation. If you look at the two backstories and their commonalities, you can see how they might have gotten confused.

I expect that the notes for the backstory were somewhat brief. Something like:

"The US gains superior weapon technology which threatens other nations. The other nations band together and invade the US."

The marketing department reads #1 and thinks "US attacks and beats up other nations, which causes them to ban together and invade the US". They run with that idea and create copy #1. However, the intent of the designers is a much more politically moderate backstory. The US isn't "bad" but it isn't "good" either. The US technology threatens the other nations, and when all negotiation has failed, military force is all that is left.

Hence, once incorrect copy #1 was released, FFG heads (and game designers) notice the discrepancy and re-release a backstory that fits with the actual design intent.

Honestly, the second copy makes much more realistic sense to me, and is a much more plausible backstory.

As an example, consider, if the UN decided that the US should dismantle all of their nukes (for whatever reason). Would the US do so? Possibly not, depending on who was in the government and the threat the government felt. If neither the UN nor the US would budge, negotiations would fail. Trade and political sanctions are enacted, but fail to force capitulation by the US. At some point, use of military force would become inevitable to forcibly destroy the nuclear weapons.

Still a series of unlikely events and decisions, but more likely than the initial copy.

So I'm pretty stoke to hear about this game as well. I played it before - back in the late 80s and had a blast, but never managed to get a copy. I was hoping Eagle Games was going to get the liscense as I like what they did with Conquest of the Empire, but FFG is great too. And you know the quality is going to be awesome!

Anyway, my 2 cents on the ad campaign thing. The big thing in the FFG apology is this:

" Our marketing department misread certain key thematic elements of the game, and took unauthorized dramatic liberties with the text ."

Hence the revised ad. I just don't get why there is such a need to "update" a background. The original game was set in the near future, so much like a lot of FFG games, why not just make it a retro future. Have it set in an alternate future of 2003 where, as in the original setting, the US becasuse of SDI has reduced it's armed forces, gone isolationist, eliminated it's navy and the Soviet Union has upset the balance of the world and created 3 regional coalitions all who attack the US.

The thing that was annoying for me wasn't that the ad made the US look like the bad guys and world was trying to stop them - be all you can be with grey area, alternate future, etc. in a game or story etc. But rather they changed the original premise of the game - especially when there was no need to, because when you do that, you not producing Fotress America, instead you're just using a brand name.

LynchMob said:

Seconded. God bless America for freedom of speech and the dignity that can come with it.

I loved this:

It is the early 21st century. Having suffered a series of devastating terrorist attacks, the U.S. wields a newly developed and horrifyingly destructive weapon technology with desperate fury, lashing out mercilessly at any government suspected of harboring its hidden enemies. Entire nations are erased from the map. The world is stunned by the brutal display. Facing few options, an unlikely coalition of nations joins forces to attempt one final plan: the invasion of America.

Then they changed it to this:

In the 21st century, the United States unveiled a military defense system that completely changed global politics. Through a series of satellites and powerful lasers, the U.S. gained a flawless defense against intercontinental missile attacks. The rest of the world feared that this defensive network might be used to launch an attack, and they united to demand that the U.S. dismantle it. A lengthy diplomatic stalemate gripped the globe. With the world at a crossroads, coalitions of nations were formed unlike any that had ever existed before. A plan was devised to destroy this perceived technological threat through military action. It involved attacking from three directions at once, for the nations of the world knew that every army dreads fighting a war on two fronts... and America was about to face three.

Why FFG? Why? The first scenario was better? I've always liked dystopian futures, like Dust, Android and Pandemic. Why did you have to say that people in FFG took the wrong liberties and altered the game in the wrong way? I liked the first one, but not the second. PS. I'm an American and I have no objections to the first scenario, but greatly object to the second "santized" one.

Just so my opinion is seen as an opinion and not pontificating to anyone why it is 'right":

I like the original backstory. Shame they dropped it.

Though in an era where people genuinely beleive that "Fox News" is an actual news channel, it is hardly surprising.

I'm with Hellfury. See my post.

Sorry btw. I misspelled sanitized early. LOL

And btw, Hellfury is right. Fox News is not news. They don't even have a fox. They should at least have that.

"Though in an era where people genuinely beleive that "Fox News" is an actual news channel, it is hardly surprising."

So...what exactly do mean by this comment and how does this relate to Fortress America?

TheMetal1 said:

He means that FOX is widely regarded as a thinly veiled engine of right-wing propaganda. He's correct, but off topic.

Yanma said:

Which is similar to saying that MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC are all widely regarded as thinly veiled engines of left-wing propaganda. Which is correct, but off topic.

sepayne7l said:

That's a stretch. Off topic, of course, but still a stretch.

Hi:

...Gotta love the original Saddam Hussein cover... Redo it!

Go FFG go & be controversial - it rocks!

...I'd still like to know what Fortress Québec is all aboot.

L

I never did get the Saddam Hussein reference. Yes, I have the original box and lid. But, again, this game was put out during the Regan era when Iraq were “Our Good/Bad Gus”. So I don’t think it was really supposed to be Saddam, just something someone thought it looked like after the Gulf war I.
As for Fortress Quebec. Someone mentioned it here as a passing comment, and I as a Nova Scotia -Canadian said that “you don’t eve want to think of opening htat can of worms in English or French CanaDUH. But, then I went on to say, that I’d llike to make one of those many, many A&A rip-off’s using FA rules + pieces to do a Fortress Quebec game. I looked into dividing the Province (or nation at this point) into areas based on their counties. Bad idea, there are just too many of them. Some are tiny, and others are Hugigantic. Also, with my limited knowledge of Quebec soverenty /Separatists, I was trying to think of amusing cards the Quebecois player could use.

sepayne7l said:

What an absurd backstory. I mean, how completely unbelievable that the good ol' U.S of A could develop a "horrifyingly destructive weapon technology" and "lash out mercilessly"... I mean, except for using the A-bomb in WWII...completely unbelievable.

Asking people who play board games to grow up sounds pretty unrealistic, so I wont waste my time.

But I will say that I'm a born and raised U.S. citizen and I had no problem with the original text.

FANTASY Flight Games. Key word being fantasy people.

V0RTEX said:

rofl... just, wow. Hey, the victors of history get to proclaim themselves the heroes. That's the bragging rights.

My God! Some people are real pieces of work. If you don't want to buy a game cause America is the fictional bad guy in the game, then don't buy the game! Sit at home, watch CNN, kiss the screen when Tucker Carlson comes on, and belive you rule the universe. It's a game! Get over yourself. I'm Canadian and I wouldn't ***** if there was a game where Canada was the ideological enemy. Hell, I'd even play it! It's about time there was a game where America isn't the "hero". Then again, that's just my opinion. I am allowed my own opinion right?

P.S. I only read the first few postings on this thread before I got pissed off. So if the whining yank corrected himself since then, I apologize and ignore this post. hahahaha

LynchMob said:

This makes me think of the background to then-FASA's "Crimson Skies" universe where the US & Canada fragment and realign in inter-war period with a multiplicity of successor states, including Quebec, "The Empire State" and "The Industrial States of America."