I recently had a
chance to play Avalon Hill’s American Revolution
wargame 1776
and discovered I fulfilled several of James Dunnigan’s
statements about wargamers in The Complete Wargames
Handbook: How to Play, Design & Find Them (revised edition).
Playing the basic game revealed to me that I not only fall into what
he considers the majority “favorite mode” of play – solitaire –
but that I do so for one of his two major reasons (“lack of an
opponent” instead of “preference to play without an opponent”)
and that I particularly enjoy exploring the historical aspects of the
situation in “that the player may exercise his own ideas about how
either side in the game should be played without interference from
another player.”
A month or two ago I acquired a small
pile of well-used but mostly complete wargames for $10 (thanks to my
wife’s sharp eyes perusing Craigslist). The haul included several
Avalon Hill games I was keen to try given my varied historical
interests, primarily Panzer Leader and 1776 (and one of
Dunnigan’s own games, Empires of the Middle Ages,
from the company he founded,
SPI). Most
needed a bit of attention: some tape to repair the boxes, a good deal
of sorting punched chits from numerous plastic bags, and some online
research to find and print out some missing chart inserts. But
overall these activities and my rulebook reading have rekindled an
enjoyment and respect for these classic games often overlooked in
today’s flashy marketplace.
So I finally sorted out the pieces for
1776, read the pleasantly brief “Basic Game Rules,” (about
three pages), and sat down to play the beginner scenario, covering
the last seven months of 1776 in New England and the mid-Atlantic
colonies of New York, New Jersey, and eastern portions of
Pennsylvania. Each side began with relatively equal combat strength,
the British concentrated in New York and a few outposts in Canada,
with the Continental Army gathered in Morristown, NJ, and some
adequate forces at West Point and Albany, and a few stray bits
scattered in Philadelphia, Boston, and the Mohawk Valley. To win one
side had to occupy several key locations with at least one point of
combat strength to gather victory points exceeding the opponent.
Since I was playing both sides in this
solitaire affair I decided beforehand to establish general strategic
objectives for each side and carry them through at least the initial
turns. The second and third turns would bring sizable reinforcements
for the British, first in New York and then in a port of the British
player’s choosing; the Patriots got about half the number of
reinforcements in dribs and drabs allocated to Albany and
Philadelphia. I decided the British would go for a very
non-historically accurate aggressive strategy, leaving token forces
in their Canadian towns and heading down Lake Champlain to take Fort
Ticonderoga and then march on Albany, all while the New York forces
sought to hold the Continental Army at bay and send a second force
north to aid in Albany’s capture. The Patriots decided on a bold
strategy to try taking New York. Both sides had aggressive agendas,
but only the British had the strength to successfully undertake
theirs. The British smeared the Continental Army outside New York,
marched down from Canada to take Ticonderoga and West Point, then
spent the rest of the game mopping up token Patriot resistance.
Luckily for America the historical British were not so aggressive.
I’ve discussed Dunnigan’s book at Hobby Games Recce before; it’s helped guide me in looking at
board-and-chit wargames in a new light and in examining my own gaming
preferences. In reading and playing 1776 solitaire I came to a
few realizations:
Basic Game Rules: These days I
prefer basic rules to more complex fare. I have less time and focus
to read, comprehend, and play out fully advanced games, but enjoy
dabbling in ones with simplified rules that still impart some sense
of the gameplay and historical context. I really like games that
provide basic rules to enable newcomers to play with advanced rules
to add levels of complexity later if players wish to continue (a subject I’ve covered before). I’ll admit, after trying the
initial basic game scenario I’m tempted not only to try it again
but to read ahead in the rulebook and incorporate more advanced rules
into my gameplay.
Scenario Replay Value: 1776
comes in Avalon Hill’s famous “bookcase” game format, that
sturdy two-inch-thick box that holds all the quality
components...which means it’s not a cheap game to purchase new.
Anytime someone pays a large price for a game – whether miniatures,
board, Euro-style, or roleplaying game – they expect to get some
good gameplay out of it beyond a simple game or two. 1776
provides four “scenario cards” listing the starting disposition
of forces and victory conditions for several campaigns during the
Revolutionary War as well as rules for the “campaign simulation
game” so players can play out the entire conflict starting in
January 1776. Combined with the solitaire wargamer’s urge to replay
scenarios to “exercise his own ideas about how either side in the
game should be played” as Dunnigan suggests, 1776 (and
probably any similarly presented board-and-chit wargame) offers a
solid replay value.
Combat Resolution Table:
Dunnigan summarizes the concept of a table on which each side
compares its fighting strength in a ratio, then rolls to determine
the exact outcome of the battle within a range of outcomes based on
that ratio. Although the results 1776 primarily include
elimination of all or half of the attacker and/or defender strength,
other games incorporate other effects, including retreat. In gameplay
I realized the limited options provided by a six-sided die roll often
seemed arbitrary without overwhelming differences between combat
strengths, but I understand this is a wargame-design convention of
the time that also allows players to quickly transition to other
wargames, particularly those from the same company. In perusing the
materials for Avalon Hill’s Panzer Leader I found
encouragement that the game uses a similar “combat resolution
table” based on ratios of unit strength values. Along with similar
design in unit counter stats (such as combat value and movement
allowance points) it provides a comfortable framework to wander from
one game to another. Using the “rules master” system Dunnigan
described in his book – in which many companies used similar rules
text templates customized to historical and situational detail – as
well as similar design concepts allows players to easily port their
attention from one game to another.
Small Components: Playing 1776
also helped me realize the game’s components, while nice, aren’t
quite suited to the older gamer. I often fumbled the half-inch-square
chits of thin cardboard across a hex map and had some difficulty
interpreting place names and terrain features on the board. It
started me thinking about larger “showcase” game versions of
board-and-chit wargames with oversized maps and counters...something
akin to Steve Jackson Games’ massively impressive (and expensively
Kickstarted) OGRE Designer’s Edition (I imagine...I’ve
only seen the game once at a convention).
Overall I enjoyed by brief solitaire
encounter with 1776’s basic game rules; with a little more
time and focus I hope to revisit the beginner scenario, quite
possibly incorporating some of the advanced rules options for a
deeper game experience. A more realistic strategy for the Continental
Army might help, too.
Comments....
Want to offer
feedback? Start a civilized discussion? Share a link to this blog
entry on Google+ and tag me (+Peter Schweighofer) to comment.
