Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 From: Dave Townsend Subject: REVIEW: We The People (Avalon Hill) WE THE PEOPLE is Mark Herman's low-complexity strategic game of the American Revolution. I picked it up last weekend (a Christmas present to myself) and played through it solitaire enough times to get a handle on the system. COMPONENTS o mapboard (mounted, smallish, divided into areas) o 1 counter sheet (big circular change-type armies, a dozen bigger rectangular leaders, but mostly political control markers) o 1 Strategy Deck o 1 Battle Deck o 14 plastic stands for the leaders o Rules Folder o Historical Background/Example Turn Folder The component quality seems good to me. The cards are closer to UP FRONT than to REPUBLIC OF ROME. Of course, the game does cost $40.... SCALE Each game turn is one year. Sorry, I don't remember how much each combat unit is supposed to represent, but leaders can't control more than 5 of 'em. The colonies are divided into 1-10 areas (Delaware and Rhode Island are a single space, Virginia and New York are the biggest.) GAMEPLAY Although I'd call it a wargame, the primary game mechanic revolve around cardplay and political control. Each turn, each player gets seven Strategy cards; they then take turns playing one card each. Many of the cards are special events that add a lot of period flavor (Declaration of Indepence signed, Francis Marion guerilla raids, Tories active, etc.). But the majority of the cards are operations cards with values 1, 2, or 3. Each ops card can be used to either move a general with that strategic rating or lower, bring in reinforcements, or place that number of political control (PC) markers. PC markers are the keys to victory: the player with the most friendly PC markers in a colony controls it. At the end of the game, the British need control of 6 colonies to win; the Americans need to control 9. Draws are obviously possible. Movement is simple; leaders can take along up to five units and move up to four areas. Moving into an enemy-occupied area causes combat. The combat system is different from anything I've ever seen. Each combatant gets a number of combat cards based on # of combat units, leader ratings, and a number of special conditions. Each combat card has a manuever on it (Flank Left, Flank Right, Double Envelopment, Frontal Assault, etc). The attacker plays a card; the defender tries to match it. When the attacker plays a card that the defender can't match, he wins; if he runs out of cards, he loses. There is also an opportunity each round for the defender to seize the initiative (roll die vs leader rating), in which case _he_ becomes the attacker and now forces the original attacker to respond to his card plays. Of course, the original attacker can roll to counterattack, and ... The loser automatically retreats to an adjacent area and rolls for losses (1-3: 1 unit 4-5: 2 units 6: 3 units). Relative strengths have no effect (except for the number of cards that each side receives at the end of combat). Certain combat cards will affect losses; if you win with a Frontal Attack, you automatically suffer one casualty (the only way the attacker loses), Bombardments reduce the loser's casualties by 1, etc. At the end of a turn, generals with armies automatically gain political control of the area they occupy. You can also _lose_ PC markers if they can't trace a path to one of your armies or an empty area. There are simple mechanics to represent the dispersal of the Continental Congress, British naval support (combat and transport) the French fleet, winter quarters, militia, Washington's winter offensive, British line training (and loss thereof), interception, and retreat before combat. The game can end automatically if the British can kill Gen'l Washington, but the more likely method is to run out of time. There are five "Lord North Resigns" cards, each with a date from 1779 to 1783. If you've 'em in your hand, you've got to play them. The game ends on the date of the LAST card played, so it takes a few turns before you know exactly when the game ends. IMPRESSIONS I like this game a lot. There's a lot of interesting decision-making on every turn. Example: o As the British, all your leaders are all rated 2s and 3s. Should you use a scarce "3 Operations" card to move a 3-rated leader or to place 3 PC markers? o As the American, is it better to use that "3" card to place PCs or to enter 3 reinforcements (a sizeable contingent in this game)? o In a large battle, you may be dealt four Probe cards; since that's more than half of them, as long as you're attacking you'll eventually win when your opponent runs out of Probe cards. But Probes reduce the enemy casualties; might it be better to try to win another way? And what if the enemy counterattacks before he runs out of Probe cards? I also feel like the game does a good job of showing the players the problems faced by the combatants. I suspect the British have a bit of an uphill battle, but I'd have to have more experience against a real person to make a definitive assessment. Control freaks won't like this game. If you can't stand the idea of Howe with 5 units losing to Gates with a single unit because Gates counter- attacked and Howe's enormous hand of Battle Cards doesn't happen to have a "Double Envelopment" card, then you'll find this game frustrating. For my part, I can buy the abstraction, and I find the chaos entertaining. And I think it helps the solitaire player -- just pick cards at random and do the best you can with what you have. It's still hard to figure out the best thing to do. It's my impression that the game is slightly harder than advertised. There aren't any difficult rules, but there are enough special cases that I don't think I'd try to teach the average 8 year old. The rules for the isolation of Political Markers bear particularly close scrutiny, and naturally are the worst-writted rules in the manual. There's also the price; I think it's high. It's great that TAHGC is reaching out to beginning gamers, but I'm not convinced that people who see the game in a museum gift shop are going to shell out $40 for it. Like most board games, the box is mostly air with a cardboard filler to take up lots of space. COMPARISONS I used to play "1776" a lot, and although I liked it, I never thought it was particularly realistic. The political control rules were very schematic, and you'd never see a Saratoga-like surrendering of a British army in the field. I find WtP much more realistic, even though it's a much simpler game. I tried 13: THE COLONIES IN REVOLT once or twice, but was bored by the tediousness of the die rolling to figure out the status of each militia unit. WtP only has a die to resolve casualties and counterattack possibilities. I haven't tried GIVE ME LIBERTY, so can't do any direct comparisons there. So of the games on the American Revolution that I've tried, WtP is the clear winner. In spite of the price, I'm happy with it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 From: Dave Townsend Subject: We the People redux A while ago, I posted a write-up of this game to consim-l, and now having played it through a couple of times I'm still very enthusiastic about it. Two things I'd mention, though, if I were doing another review... On the positive side, it makes a great e-mail game (although you need a gamemaster or computer assistance for the card decks). Since there's not much to do on any given turn -- just play a card and adjust a few pieces -- you can really whip through a game quickly, especially if you've got a responsive opponent, On a slightly negative note, most political events are random rather than tied to conditions in the game. This is most noticeable with the two best (for the American) cards in the game: French Intervention and the Declaration of Independence. In the game where I was the British, the French intervened in 1775 (and to add insult to injury, it was in *my* hand). In the other AmRev games that I've seen, French intervention is usually tied the Colonials winning some type of major battle. But this is certainly supposed to be more game than simulation. [Since someone's bound to mention it, yes, it's expensive.] - DaveT; townsend@capitol.com