One of SPI/S&T's most successful games - and one of its best - was Frank Davis' Frederick the Great. It contained several novel system features - combat came before movement - and a maneuver-skill oriented situation that wouldn't quit. Avalon Hill picked it up in the 1980's, diddling around with it to no good purpose or effect, but no one else came forth with another design on the topic. Granted, the Seven Years' War was never atop the Most Wanted lists of game subjects, but most aficionados were aware of the "goodies" inherent in this situation. Well, that dearth of design has come to an end, and with a convincing, and rewarding, bang. As 1993 drew to a close we saw not one, but two, games on this subject come tumbling out of the hopper into our laps: The Campaigns of Frederick the Great, by the ever-busy Rob Markham, and The Seven Years' War, an S&T issue game from the peripatetic Joe Miranda. Two of the hobby's most prolific and creative designers have set their sights on the same subject, at virtually the same scale and the results are most revelatory at what each of these notables think is important, historically, and perhaps even more insightful what makes a good game. Both products are quite handsome. The S&T issue for 7YW is one of the best-looking in recent memory, both in terms of cover, article content and the game, although I am not crazy about the symbology Joe chooses for his counters. They look more like pieces for a jigsaw puzzle on semaphore code than what I prefer. 3W's production for Freddy is equally good. Of most interest, however, is the maps. They both look good - the spare, clean Simonitch style pervading both - and they both cover virtually the same area of Europe. However, it is in the difference of detail that they merit closer examination, as here is where we start to see what is important to the designers as well as to the structure and raison d'κtre for the game. The basic terrain features are about the same, although the Freddy map gives us a bit more mountain. Markham also gives us roads which, in the game's movement scheme, are quite important. 7YW has no roads, although, with its seasonal turns - as opposed to biweekly in Freddy!! - and the rather large movement capabilities of Miranda's men - roads, whether accurate or not, are a moot point in terms of play. What they do serve is notice of where the designers are heading. The most detailed aspect of Miranda's map is its political divisions, features you almost have to look twice to find with Markham. They also diverge when it comes to which cities are fortified, although, in terms of actual play this turns out to be unimportant. E.g., in Freddy, Dusseldorf is a fort and Hanover is a fortress; in 7YW both cities are neither. And both designers do manage to Zuckerize the map a bit by placing cities on the wrong side of the river: e.g., in Freddy it's Coblenz, in 7YW its Mainz (among others). Perhaps the most quaint item is on the 7YW map, along the easternmost edge, a simple notation, "To Russia". Thanks, Joe, we never would have guessed. 7YW is also working under a magazine counter restriction, here at 240, while 3W gives Markham 400 to fool around with, and fool he does. Miranda's use of 240 seems to be far more sagacious and usable than Markham's 400, mostly because Rob has opted for a pure Strength Point Under the Leader system, whereas Joe gives us actual brigades. Well ,at least he says he does, although they just seem to be consecutively numbered units, all with the same strength. (They differ by training levels.) Freddy provides far more "named" leaders, but, as most of these are Poster Boys for the Perils of Inbreeding, the number of useful leaders is about the same. Another indication of where the designers are heading is that Markham is far more interesting in the spread of ratings he gives the leaders, and their effect on the game is far greater than in 7YW. And just where ARE we heading? Well, they - and we - are ostensibly heading in the same direction, but the games use divergent tracks, much like the famous "Escape from the Mine" scene in "Temple of Doom". Both designers are simulating the adventures of Frederick the Great, and the massive Everybody into the Pool war - the Seven Years' War - that ensued. But whereas Markham seeks to portray the military aspects of this event, Miranda's eye is focused on its political ramifications. While you're still pushing the same cardboard soldiers around the same map, going after the same fortresses, Rob wants you to do this to beat up on the other guy. Joe? Well, every move has political ramifications, as the extensive rules for Diplomatic Points, Alliance Levels and Balance of Power Indices reveal. Miranda has always been a "Hearts & Minds" designer, a historian more interested in the ramifications of events, what they mean to the Big Picture, more than whose socking it to whom. Rob? He lets you grab those socks and start swinging. The result is that, even though the subject matter is theoretically the same, it's almost as if you're playing two different games. (Well you are, but you know what I mean.) For "players", Freddy is the best bet. I'll even go so far as to add that, as a pure "game" Freddy gives you a lot of play bang for your gaming buck. Markham makes the most out of the inherent situation and the feint-oriented aspects of 18th century warfare, where big armies stumbled all over the lot both looking for, and fearing, the ultimate Big Battle. Freddy manages to capture a lot of that feel with a heavily maneuver-laden system that still provides a nice combat payout. Markham's basic system revolves around the use of chits to activate leaders, based on their Command Rating. For example, a Prussian '2' chit would allow the player to move any/all Prussian/Allied leaders with a '2' or higher rating. (I assumed, by the way, that the chits, numbered 1-4 for the Coalition and 1-5 for the Prussians - as Frederick is a '5' - were selected totally randomly. In true Markhamesque fashion, the rules do not say.) This places a great premium on the few good leaders in the game, who are free to move at almost any time in the turn, a mechanic which forces the player to make choices the benchmark for any interesting game. Freddy's system also places combat after all movement is completed by all units on the map. However, there is a lot of move and counter-move within the Movement Phase, as units can Force March (move a second time), try to leave an enemy-occupied hex, or simply react to an approaching enemy army by moving before it can get there, all using the Leader ratings and a variable Movement Point system also based on ratings (and force size, et al.). Here we reach the Sticking Point between the two games, one that has been - and still is being - argued back and forth on the GEnie network, in the Halls of Design Fame, and wherever such conversations of merit take place. Markham's system includes mechanics for avoiding combat; Miranda's does not and therein lies the crux of the design differences between the two men. Joe Miranda has argued long and hard that there is no Retreat Before Combat, as he puts it - I prefer to see it is Battle Avoidance - because he says the sources say it never happened. Once two armies met, they went at it with little - or no - opportunity to break away. That approach is, perhaps, true in a literal sense. But that is NOT what the mechanic would be portraying. What Reaction Movement in Freddy does is what happened time and again during this era: it allows well-led armies to use their scouting ability to "see" an army coming 50-100 miles away and, if they felt that this was neither the right time nor place, move elsewhere. Of course, Frederick did this a lot better than, say, Zweibrucken of the HRE (Haplessly Run Empire). But it is the focal point of this, the era of feint and maneuver, and that is where Miranda's basic, Igo-Hugo, Let's Get It On system fails to reflect the philosophical approach that military thought took in those days. The result is that Frederick the Great, even with its host of "What Does He Mean Here?" mechanics and open invitations to House Rules - one I heartily suggest is that armies designate where they are going before rolling on the Movement Table - is a far better "game" than Seven Years' War. For once, the round-oriented combat system works, and works well. This was best shown when Frederick and Daun got into two huge battles outside Prague (1760), both of which Daun "won". But because of supply and LOC problems, guess who ended up with Prague? On the other hand, Freddy has little time for the Big Picture, which is where Miranda's version excels. The political mechanics, complete with Random Events, changing alliances, diplomatic pressures, and a host of other goodies, are where Joe is The Master, possibly the best in the industry. No designer is better than Miranda at showing the players that war and campaigning was not just marching hither, thither and yon. There was a purpose to it all, other than slashing and bashing, and 7YW forces you to use that mentality. Which is good, because the underlying "military" system is not overly evocative. There is far too much movement, probably a result of the seasonal turn approach, which, together with the lack of avoidance rules, conveys a picture of 18th century campaigning totally out of line with Markham's - and my - perception. Combat is one dieroll and out, although loss results are pretty much the same in both games, including dependency on Morale (leader-attached in Freddy, per unit in 7YW). It all comes down to what you want out of a game in this area. Seven Year's War is a far meatier, far more intellectual, but far less militarily evocative design than the player-oriented Frederick the Great. I found the former to be an exercise in intellectual enlightenment, but a game that was missing something probably Avoidance rules, despite Joe's fervent cries to the contrary. Freddy, though, was just a lot of fun, a really good "game". It certainly isn't the Game of the Century, as Keith Poulter crowed in "Schwerpunkt" - with as much self-aggrandizement and as little humility as he could muster - and several of the mechanics - especially those in the Campaign version - appear to have been, shall we say, "borrowed" from some articles Joe Balkoski did on Davis' design for "The General" about a decade ago. But it is a tense, challenging game. I think what someone needs to do is to take Rob's system and overlay it with Joe's political rules. Now, THAT would be a Great Game!! CAPSULE COMMENTS: Graphic Presentation: Both very well done. Playability: Freddy somewhat more accessible than 7YW, mostly because of the political ramifications in the latter. Replayability: Good for both, although Freddy has far more scenarios. Creativity: Again, quite good, although I think Joe got a bit too creative! Historicity: Depends on how you view the era. I think Joe nails it politically, but misses the boat militarily. Rob isn't as insightful, but the feint/move feel is far better. Comparisons: While 7YW has a better grasp of the Behind-the-Scenes politics, Freddy is a better military simulation and game. Overall: Both are worth looking into, but you'll get more fun from Freddy. The Campaigns of Frederick the Great (3W) by Rob Markham The Seven Years' War (S&T #163/Decision Games) by Joe Miranda FtG: "22" x 33" map; 400 counters; 4 Charts & Tables Cards; Rules Booklet; Scenario Booklet. 3W, Sacramento CA. $28 7YW: Magazine game. 22" x 34" map; 240 counters. POB 4049, Lancaster CA. Either $12.50 or by subscription. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 12 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com