Liberty

Prisoner Exchange: Up in Smoke

Reviewed by Charles Vasey

On Consimworld I raised the matter of the prisoner exchange rule which seems to me to bring back into action veteran units that are more likely to disappear than to return considering the time required to train them. This caused a remarkable piece of self-immolation by Mark Kwasny who seemed to think I required a complete redesign of the game (RTFQ). However he did reveal his views on the game’s historicity as being very low. (This, it must be noted, was on the simplistic ground that what is a game cannot apparently be very historical, and the only alternatives are a historical dissertation and a historically suspect game). This is abject tosh of course much on a par with Richard Berg’s “Join your local phalanx” argument. But it represents an interesting take on design from a new designer.

    [On unit strengths]

    MK: It's a game, and thus units were varied for game's sake. I can't imagine too many people saw a simple game, with 50 blocks and about 6 pages of rules, as some historically accurate assessment of such a complex war as the American Revolution. Since all units takes hits the same, all British regulars are built and disbanded the same, etc., then allowing them to be returned the same makes a lot of game sense. After all, a 3 strength cavalry is built the same as a 4 strength infantry unit. German soldiers arrive the same as British (totally ignoring the terrible logistical problems entailed in getting those troops from Europe and across the ocean). A 2 step American militia is built the same way as a 4 step infantry, or a 3 step rifle unit. There is virtually no distinction between units in terms of composition, building, and dying. So to say that it doesn't fit history or the game's rules to allow a unit to be returned using a generic system doesn't follow.

    [I then raised the point that irrespective of the history involved the game preferred certain units over others – bigger factors, better combat values and that these would be returned from the POW cages before any others. This was a game feature not a historical one.

    "However, as long as the blocks have elite units then in playing the game we need to have regard to that, irrespective of what now appears to be its inaccuracy." ]

    [MK] No unit is labeled elite. Is a 3 step unit at C4 more elite than a 4 step unit at C3, or a 4 step unit at C2 for that matter? Why are French 3 step, whereas British and some Germans 4 step? Purely game play. Do you think anyone actually sat down and mathematically calculated that regular infantry hits twice as often as militia, and guards hit 3 times as often, or rifles 4 times as often? It's called flavor. Indians hit twice as often at home, yet they never defended their homes. They tended to avoid combat when larger forces invaded their homelands. This is a simple game, and the new optionals are simple rules that are offered for those who believe certain aspects do not work as well as they would like, and who don't like trying to make rules on their own. So they are offered by the designers for those gamers' enjoyment. This game isn't a historical dissertation on the war.

    [It is true no units are labelled as elite, yet oddly enough all gamers know which the best units are and they also know which ones to return from prison irrespective of the design intent.]

    [MK] There is no historical evidence to suggest Continentals hit more [than militia]. In fact, as I said above, there is more evidence to suggest the militia inflicted more casualties than the Continentals did. See, I suspect this is the problem. The facts of the Revolutionary War are very complex. The commonly accepted clichés, which I have been reading a lot here, just aren’t true. This game, alas, does indeed reflect too many of these. So before one decides which way this argument should go, all of the facts need to be pointed. From someone who has spent his adult life studying the war, I can promise you, we don’t have the time or space. So if you don’t mind, with all due respect, I will bypass your historical arguments, since they are largely inaccurate.[CHV: Needless to say I had adduced no historical arguments, mine concerned game play, but since when did that matter]

    [In response to my suggested change to the optional rule he went off into what else was wrong with the game]

    [MK] How does that in any way reflect anything even remotely historical? For that matter, how does disbanding a unit at the end of the year in Montreal, and rebuilding it at the start of the next in Charleston, reflect history? Yet I don’t see you complaining about this? If you really want to pick the game apart on history, again I suggest there is neither time nor space to do so adequately.

One might almost think there was an element of contempt for the game (anything even remotely historical) and audience in this. However, we can all be in complete agreement that the mechanisms are not very historical as Ed’s expert view above confirms. Disbanding, recruiting, combat and movement are all developed not with an eye to tedious accuracy but simplicity of play. The unit design is a caricature and it may even be the result of a “commonly accepted clichés” yet I cannot help but think the overall effect is a great deal more than a mere game. Absolute accuracy is not there, but I think much more than absolute inaccuracy is present.

Playing the two sides in Liberty gives me much of the feel that I got from reading Stephen Conway’s book on the war. Is this luck or is it the magic touch of Columbia? I rather think it is, they have avoided the anal retentive maunderings of the lovelorn academic but not thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Liberty is quick and ferocious (if you avoid nannyish optional rules). It might tempt you to the meatier 1777 Year Of The Hangman but it will not waste your time. Bravo Columbia.

Liberty Review and Analysis

Back to Perfidious Albion #104 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
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