NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/board/12695

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 3.5 KB | 65 lines

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!dxcern!vxcrna.cern.ch!casper
From: [e-mail] (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: 3W followup
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:56:00 GMT
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Well, I received a few E-mails in followup to my query about 3W games and
>coupons, so I thought I'd return the favor and post a few of the replies for
>others of you who may have been wondering about this deal.

I didn't see their new game "Give Me Liberty" (American Revolution) mentioned.
I have this one, although I have only played through 1 turn solo.  It is what
I would call a mixed bag.

Give Me Liberty is an area-movement game on the American Revolution.  The
first impression is of GDW's "A House Divided" moved back four score and seven
years.  The map covers a lot of area - from Savannah to Detroit to Montreal
and beyond.  Each turn is two weeks.  Miltary units are non-descript strength
points of various sizes.  There is a fair amount of chrome, including Indians,
naval rules, foraging, British politics, command, and leadership.  Optional
rules give almost every leader on either side (there are several dozen total)
some special characteristic.  The sequence of play is dynamic - which is to
say it is possible for the US player's move to end abruptly if he gets over-
ambitious, and there is a reaction movement mechanism whereby leaders can be
placed in reserve and react to enemy movement.  It is interesting to see the
"traditional" sequence of play (I move, I attack, you move, you attack) being
ever more frequently supplanted by more open and unpredictable systems.
Give Me Liberty is perhaps not as wide-open as World In Flames or The Civil
War, but it seems about right for the subject matter.

I found a couple annoying features in the rules, the most inexcusable
involving river crossings.  Rivers run outside the movement boxes rather than
through them as in A House Divided.  Places where bridges/ferries exist between
two movement boxes have a blue line crossing the river and connecting the two
boxes.  The rules say it is also possible to cross rivers where there is no
connecting line, at the cost of a unit's entire movement allowance.  The problem
is that there is no way to determine if two boxes separated by a river are
actually adjancent!  The boxes are laid out in a haphazard way, with no
notion of rows or columns of boxes.  The communications lines are the sole
determinant of connectivity.  In this case, there are no connecting lines,
so there is no means to tell if two boxes are disjoint or if they are adjacent
"across the river".  This is really annoying...it seems like they could have put
dashed blue lines connecting areas which are adjacent in this way.  Also, the
rules don't make it clear whether retreat is possible across rivers (I'd guess
not).

The recruitment rules for US units will look extremely familiar to players of
1776.  There are also clear cases where mechanics have been "borrowed" from
SPI's 13:The Colonies in Revolt.  Both these games are cited in the
bibliography.  Even so, there are quite a few new features in the games too.
The rules are what I would call short (~10 pages), so this has potential as
an entry-level game.  All in all, a good game, but one which could have been
better.  I'd give it a solid B.


Dave