Title: 1776 Price: $10.00 Source: The
Avalon Hill Company, 4517 Harford Road,
Baltimore, Md., 21214 Subject: The
American War for Independence, the North
American theater Designer: Randy Reed
One receives Two 16" by 24" mounted boards. The hexagon mapboard covers an area that extends from Quebec to Georgia to Oswego in the west. 1776 is pretty much the standard high quality production that one has learned to expect from the Avalon Hill Company. Therefore I will not go into a detailed breakdown of what one receives. Suffice to say it is'your money's worth as far as a physical product, especially considering that one can without too much trouble get a discount off of the retail price.
The combat factors do not represent actual units, but instead represent strength points, a simulation, not a direct recreation. For example, "Therefore, even though it may look like a British '1-7' is not as good as a Continental Army '1-8' because it moves slower, it is actually a stronger unit, because it contains less men per Combat Strength Point."
For me this is one of the drawbacks of 1776 as I like the psychological knowledge that I am throwing in Tarleton's legion or the 1st Delaware. Also along these lines I really missed having command units, even if they were purely for ceremonial purposes. Somehow, having a game on the American Revolution without George Washington seems to lack a touch of class. One possible expansion or additional rule would be command counters along the lines of Atlanta.
One can maintain any number of troops in a given square and one has fleets, forts, supply counters, artillery, cavalry, garrisons, winter reduction, and many other varied rules which can allow the players to adopt any level of complexity and length of game desired. Avalon Hill has created a flexible simulation for anyone's taste. It must be the outstanding feature of this simulation. One can play a short scenario, say of Greene's southern campaign, lasting about an hour and half (and be tremendously exciting) or play the entire war out over many hours of play and thought.
In the former scenario, which I played twice, both games were decided on the last die roll on the last turn of the scenario. Few simulations on the market are that well balanced.
Play moves fairly quickly as there are usually only a few groups of units (armies) to move. Natural concentration is encouraged by the framework of the simulation. A twist to this is the need on the part of the British to maintain garrisons to control areas, which offers interesting possibilities to the American commander.
Each and every move must be thought out, not just by what the enemy may do that turn (including forced marches but the months ahead must be viewed in terms of reinforcements, winter, and supply. One must naturally think in Grand Strategical terms and not simply chasing the enemy. The ability of either army to suddenly turn around and inflict a "Trenton-Princeton" is always in the cards
One excellent feature of 1776 must be the great care taken in presenting the terrain features on the gameboard. The value of Ticonderoga, the Hudson valley, and many other fords, rivers, and hills are brought out and displayed quickly and thoughtfully. In other words, the terrain's influence on strategic planning is quite well done.
Tied in with the strategical planning aspect must be the historical translation of facts into game mechanics. This has been well done. While a bibliography is not included one realizes that a great deal of homework has been done and translated into sound playing mechanics.
Innovative?
Innovative? Yes. Randy Reed has established his credentials as a game designer. 1776 does not have an overwhelming number of new ideas, the combat matrix system (which is an excellent feature), strategical fleet movement, etc. have all been used before. The key point here is that Mr. Reed has synthesized all these ideas and rules into a near perfect mix. While 1776 has minor problems that could be improved upon, all in all it is a classic game. Playability, flexability, innovation and historical analysis are all combined into a work of art on a gameboard.
It is with this thought in mind that I felt a close examination of the extensive designer notes was required.
- "The aspect of French intervention
in 1778 should, for greater accuracy,
be keyed to an important victory by
the Americans ... Clearly the sheet
number of rules required to define
"important victory" in all cases makes
the above victory-criterion for French
intervention an expensive approach in
terms of complexity and verbosity. The
CUMULATIVE effect of these rules must
be taken into consideration. It is
easy for a player to say that an
aspect of the game could be made more
realistic by 'just adding this' or
'allowing' that. Yet what is not
realized is that certain elements
could be added to a design but are
purposely excluded because the design
is as complex as the designer wants it
to be. A handful of these "simple"
modifications could add 25% to the
length of the rules and leave
loopholes which allow clever (and
unscrupulous) players to misdirect the
purposes of the rules for their own
ends."
It should also be noted that there is a large degree of argument over what is realistic and what is not as far as additional "realistic" rules.
Mr. Reed goes on to say:
- The idea that "a game is a good simulation, therefore it is a good game" is not necessarily valid for all purposes. Certainly no one will argue the fact that no game available to the wargamer to pursue his hobby is a perfect simulation of real life events, or even an attempt at a pure simulation of events. Rather, the game is unto itself. The simulation game is a game which TENDS to operate as a simulation but is still a game as far as the uses to which it is to be put. The value of the simulation aspect of the game is in the number and kind of decision making interactions that the subject simulated generates."
I think the key point here is that Mr. Reed is stating to a large degree the philosophy of Avalon Hill. A game is produced and marketed by Avalon Hill to be fun. ONE aspect of fun are the "kinds of decision making interactions" that have been built into 1776 in such a way that just of decision making interactions" that take place. The element of "decision making interactions" has been built into 1776 in such a way that just about any length of play as well as level of complexity or simplicity can be achieved.
One can play the game so that it does not feel like working on a poor termpaper, but is actually recognized as being a fun game. I sometimes feel that wargamers are unwilling to admit they "play games" because of the social pressures involved by such a statement.
Yet every game has a flaw and it appears that even Mr. Reed realized it. As he states, "Playbalance also took it on the chin because the optimum 'win strategies' were not as obvious to the playtesters as they will be three years from now." I feel that he is referring to the early years of the Campaign level game and the 1776-77 scenario, as here the American player in the period 1776-77 must be excellent. He is almost forced to destroy one British army while maintaining a presence in the New York/New England area. This is against a sizable, nay immense, British army.
A vigorous and thoughtful British commander should be able to achieve victory within the first two years most of the time. Some players may find the need of a 'nickle and dime' rule here to at least inhibit the English player.
A few minor flaws crept into the simulation as well. I felt it was a bit unrealistic to have my Indians from the Mohawk valley burn, rape, and pillage Baltimore and Philadelphia in one game. Further, I've seen Washington's army appear at Fort Stanwix too many times. Supply and transport would be incredible problems in this area.
If one likes SPI style complexity, then 1776 has this aspect of play. However, it also has the simpler aspects as well. While I disliked Mr. Reed's first game, 1776 has turned my head and I for one look forward to his next game.
I would like to thank Larry Hoffman and Phil Seymour for their comments and assistance.
More Game Reviews
Back to Table of Contents -- Panzerfaust #64
To Panzerfaust/Campaign List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1974 by Donald S. Lowry
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com