Nagging question: does anyone - ANYBODY - ever play a 3W game before it gets sent to the printer? Does anyone bother to even glance at it before shipping it off to the Art Department? Or does well-developed refer only to back-up singers at an MTV festival? These days, 3W games appear to fall into three broad, quasi-environmental but depressing, categories: Recycled Trash, Industrial Waste and Misguided Development Projects. Luckily, 3W's Give Me Liberty! , designed by gaming's Rabbit in Heat, Rob Markham, falls into neither of the first two categories. On the other hand, it is a major contributor to 3W's third, and final, group: Games That Could Be Interesting If Someone Bothered to Develop Them. Historically, AmRev games have not fared too well with the general public. The Revolution, as a whole, seems to produce massive consumer yawns, and this is only the second attempt to sell one in a box. (A third, We The People, from Avalon Hill, is due next year.) Previously, only Randy Reed's almost 20-year old 1776, a game that is virtually devoid of any hint of chrome or any history, other than geographical locations (although it's not a bad "game"), was readily available. The other two attempts - SPI/S&T's The American Revolution (a truly goofy, area movement game) and my own (TSR/S&T) 13: The Colonies in Revolt (well, I liked it did anyone else?) - are magazine games. Can you name an American Revolution battle game that either sold well or did well in a magazine? Can you name an American Revolution battle game? Slim pickings, indeed. So, give Rapid Robert a big hand for wading into these unknown waters. And, on the whole, he has produced a rather fun game I would usually say "little" game, but Liberty is anything but small except in the area of development. For those of you who shudder at the thought of opening a 3W box and gazing at components that would nauseate even Taurus Games - well, that's going some, but you get the idea - you can relax. Aside from the unnecessarily small box (which only serves to give the consumer the impression he's not getting much), the components are actually well done. The map is very green, very plain and very boxy, as it uses a House Divided box-to-box movement system. Initially, my reaction was, " there are so many boxes why didn't he just use hexes?" However, the box system, when combined with the fact that the two-map playing surface is BIG - about 3'x 4' - makes the game very maneuver oriented, reflecting the realities of the actual war. I think the maps could have been a little more detailed in terms of background ornamentation, and another color wouldn't have hurt (especially for the region and state lines), but it's clear to read and easy to play on. The counters are workmanlike, readable and moderately colorful. I'm not sure why the leaders weren't given a different shade from the troops, but they're better than much of what 3W usually defenestrates. I do note, however - and note with some disdain - that those awful leader portraits that 3W seems to revel in are back again, including Lord Montrose - direct from a six week run in Royalist & Roundheads LIX Meets Edward "X", The Black Prince - who here shows up as about a half dozen British generals. Busy fellow great agent. Even worse, though, is that these rather artless pictures actually confuse play! You see, leaders are divided into one, two and three star commanders (their terminology), according to what they can do. Instead of putting stars on the counter (heaven forbid such a simple solution should occur to anyone in Cambria), we get what appears to be Bach, Ichabod Crane and Doctor Demento. And Lord Montrose. So where's Dr. Loutsch? As for the rules, more anon except to note that the game's realtively few charts are stuck in the middle of the book, on two separate pages, each backed by rules. So, rather than dismantle the rules book, you leave them inside, where constant referal de facto dismantles them anyway. Why they weren't put on a separate sheet of paper is a fact known only to Keith's accountant, who was unavailable for questioning because of the 1-3 he's presently doing at San Quentin. As I said, this is a BIG game, but it wears its "largesse" quite handily. There are actually two, separate play sequences: one for each turn, and one rather extended one for quarterly interphases (turns are biweekly, which gives you some indication of game length here!). The Interphase Sequence handles all the political and chromatic mumbo-jumbo, such as militia melt-away, Indian alliances, a somewhat weirdly effective Lord Germain Table, exchange of prisoners, et al., none of which is overly complex, but all of which do provide the game with a sort of built-in breather and some nice flavor. However, it is Markham's rather interesting sequence-driving Command Table that lifts this system out of the ordinary and manages to give it much of the taste of the times. Most turns the Brits go first, and that means either opting for caution and choosing to undertake only one action - which means using only one "army" - or rolling the ten-sider and seeing whether you can garner from 0 to 6 such actions or give your gleeful opponent 1 or 2 of his own (a 20% Chance for Doom). As each action enables you to move only one hex's worth of units (if leader-led), this makes for much decision-making on the players' part. Good stuff, great fun. Actually, it makes the game. Unfortunately, some of the remaining rules seem intent on unmaking the game. As a rather striking example of this - as well as printed proof that no one above the food-chain level of protozoa ever looked at this stuff - is the following, from §8.26: "Forts are destroyed if they receive 2 hits by opposing enemy artillery during step four of the land combat resolution [(see 9.0).] " Sounds reasonable, right? Deception, however, is in the air: There is no "step four"; the resolution sequence, such as it is, has only three steps! Is that 2 hits in the same Attack Phase, or are they cumulative? for which, by the way, there is no mechanism. If they suffer one hit are they reduced to entrenchments? Section 9.0 covers Reinforcements, so that reference is of no help. Can you rebuild forts? Nary a mention of that possibility. And that's only one sentence!!! The above is nothing compared to the instructions (or lack thereof) for resolving combat, which tell you to place units in the Combat Display, but fail to tell you what method to use for such placement. Granted, it's not too difficult to figure it out, or you can extrapolate the somewhat similar naval combat system (which is truly a waste of space/time until the French arrive). But still, a hint, a glimmer something! The combat system is actually the game's major - and tragic - flaw. It's sort of a variant on the Quebec, 1759 and Eastfront system. You place all your units down, and your opponent rolls the die for each one of his units. If the dieroll is the same as or lower than that unit's Combat Rating, the affected player applies a Step Loss (two of these and you're gone) to one of his units. Most units are in the 3-5 range, but Militia tend to rout when hit (nice touch) and the King's Men are about 20-30% more effective. After one round of this dierolling, if both players so choose, they can order another round. (Hey, barkeep two Burgoyne Lites for my Hessian buddies here. Put it on Arnold's tab.) And that's where things start to fall apart. Aside from common sense, which few gamers ever perceive as a rule, there is nothing to stop both players from beating each other into two piles of useless, ahistorical pulp. I think it was late in the 1777 turn when a rather large army - the game gives no scale, but it felt like about 10-15,000 men - under Burgoyne, Carleton and Grant challenged a heavily dug-in Washington and Gates with a similar number of rebels to a big set-to just south of West Point. Now, a 30,000 man battle was about as big as one gets in this war, a war that counts engagements totaling 5000 men as major, so it was obvious that this was going to be, if not THE Big One, certainly one of the bigger ones. Well, since the winner of such a fracas gets an important Major Victory, and since both of us quickly (and mathematically) realized that it was most likely to come down to a last dieroll, that's just what we did. Assuming our best, Henry Kissinger, He-Who-Blinks-Loses Face, we dierolled each other into oblivion. When the black powder had cleared, one, solitary (and step-reduced) British unit remained perhaps about 3-400 guys. Two armies totally annhilated equalled one Major Victory for the British. Fun? Sure, if you also enjoy watching things like TBS Friday Nite Boxing, wherein two sloppy, white monuments to Flab and Fast Food trade punches until one of their pre-Neanderthalic brains finally realizes that this is not a Good Thing. Historical? Arguable, in terms of what "eliminated" actually means. Stupid? About as stupid as those two boxers. What made it even more fun - and even more guffawingly dumb - was that the number of units killed off was directly proportional to the number of House Rules we had to come up with simply to get to that point, as only partially exemplified by the infamous §8.26, above. I have focused on combat, because that is the least felicitous of the game's mechanics, although most certainly not the only one riddled with The 3W Disease: Developinowaytosis. This is a great pity, because, under all the wrong references, lack of clarity, and does-this-really-mean-what-it-says rules e.g., the rules appear to say that Americans can automatically Retreat Before Combat, a great benefit, before any force except Hessians. Is that right? And if so, on what basis? Did the Merry Teutonic Mercenaries walk faster than Brits? Were they so feared that the rebels froze in place? Or was it all just an oversight? Understand, that this is not an insignificant question in this game where was I? oh beneath all the industrial waste that passes for rules writing is a pretty neat game. Granted, the game does not need to be two maps big, although I have no objection to it being so. It has some really goods movement rules - including a nicely interesting Reserve Movement that actually has to be pre-anticipated - that impart a true maneuver-oriented feel, which is what this war was all about. And the victory conditions are true to the topic: the Americans win simply by being around after everyone gets bored and leaves. The feel is right, in that the redcoats can deliver defeat after defeat against the Yankees and still get almost nowhere on the Victory Track. The British Player can get very frustrated playing this game. There are lots of leaders, most of whom have a curious set of individual (optional), but somewhat artificial, special abilities. Failure to keep your eye on that chart can cause more grief than a shipload of Crapauds. There are the usual militia-raising and disappearing rules, but I wonder why demobilization of these units was not, at least partially, linked to how far away they were from their home "state". The supply rules, complete with foraging, are simple yet effective - a rare achievement in any game. Even with all of this good work, there's still a difficult to explain, yet definitive, dopiness to all of it. There is hardly a rule section that doesn't require the players to come up with some sort of Appellate ruling. And, despite the fact that individual turns take about 10 minutes to complete less, if nothing's happening this is a monstrously long game in its full, campaign version. Given that the four-a-year Interphases take a bit of shuffling and rolling, to play all the way to the end would take at least 30 play hours not counting breathing. And, barring a series of unfortunate dierolls on the Command Table (like having your opponent get to move 6 consecutive times during your turn, a specialty of mine), the American Retreat rule plus the difficult victory conditions for the Brits virtually assure both of you will stagger into that December 1781 turn. There are shorter scenarios, to be sure, the best of which are the Southern Campaign stuff. Because of the small size of the forces involved - the biggest battle therein, Guilford Court House, involving not much more than 6000 men - and the rather large expanse of space, this makes for a very interesting, maneuver-oriented situation that shows off the game far better than the full war. Liberty, in many ways, is the quintessential Markham/3W product. Bottom line, it's fun to play. But it's put together in such a slapdash manner - from both sides - that you just know it could have, nay, should have, been a lot better than it is. Some of the oversights are so egregious that even Decision Games would have spotted them. Markham, as designer, has got the military focus about right, with a good feel for the quasi-guerrilla aspects of the campaigns. But he drops the ball by insisting on yet another of those pseudo-tactical battle play-outs that serve only to indicate a total lack of creative insight (and a similar lack of energy) on the dedigner's part. Why bother attempting to come up with a CRT that will resolve combat in a quick but meaningful and evocative manner - something that will require a bit of thought and experimentation and, dare I say, playtesting - when you can have the players just roll a bunch of dice endlessly. Can we have a moratorium on this method-sans-portfolio, please! Markham also manages to instill some of the political problems with which both sides, but mostly the British, had to deal. Praiseworthy as these efforts are, the political end of the war is still overlayed chrome, rather than the driving force behind decisions. Then again, at least it's there. What's NOT there is a complete game. Once again, 3W insists that simply hiring what they eupahmistically call a Glitch Detector - here, one Don Gilbertson, who, if he played the game even one turn, should resign from his office for taking money under false pretenses although anyone who can get a check out of Keith these days should get two points for heroism above and beyond - solves the problem. 3W doesn't need a Glitchmeister. What they need is three guys with back hoes to roll into the 3W parking lot and dig a mass grave for the rotting corpses that 3W insists is its inventory. Angry? You bet your CRT I'm angry. I'm angry because this was (and still is) an interesting design that should have been a nice little/big game. I'm angry because I've known Keith for years; I like him. He's highly intelligent, witty, he likes games and history, and he has done some very good things with some of the games I have done for him. He knows better. That he doesn't want to DO better is very sad. Give Me Liberty, indeed. Give HIM a swift kick in the ass and tell him to get his act in gear. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Good. Time for Lord Montrose to retire, though. Playability: A fairly simple game that moves along right smartly and requires the participants to make some interesting decisions. Players will have to provide some rules, many of them in rather important spots. Solitaire is good because of the Command Table system. Each "year" of play should take about 4 hours. Replayability: Once you've penned in your House Rules, pretty good. Several scenarios, and the full war has many different strategies available. Historicity: Within the designer's stated goals, acceptable, if not detailed. Lots of leaders, but no OB. Best is the feel of what the war was like militarily. Forget combat (which is something Markham seems to have done, too). Comparisons: I was never a fan of Randy Reed's 1776, which gets little of the war right. Good maps, though. SPI's old American Revolution was goofy fun, but not much else. Liberty is far better than those two. As for my own 13, that was a game that truly suffered (although I don't think that much) from being jerry-rigged into magazine format (S&T #104). Although I think I did some things better, overall Liberty is probably more fun to play. Then again, at least 13's rules were finished. Overall: Fun, but Flawed, albeit not Fatally. And if KP doesn't get his act in gear soon, he's gonna be on the same state office waiting line as Mike Crane. from 3W Games Two 22"x34" maps; 400 counters; Rules booklet; die. Boxed. From 3W, Cambria CA 93428. $30. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 7 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1992 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com