Mike Siggins - 04:44pm Nov 12, 2001 PST (#512 of 523) Although I didn't expect to be gaming on a Monday afternoon, I managed to get a game of Warfrog's Liberte. The experience, as far as multi-player-sort-of-historical-gaming goes was quite positive. This is not a wargame, in fact it almost entirely an election game and seems to be scoring points on that basis among the Euroboys. We get plenty of historical veneer in the shape of political group cards, leaders in three main power groups, generals, events (many Black Fingernail jokes as emigres departed) and a frighteningly deadly Terror. The historical stuff is driven off iron maiden locations (the Vendee is worth extra victory points, so spookily there is lots of action there; other areas are marked as Royalist objectives, so the white counters turn up in droves) and determinist battles (there will be a battle in turn two, and it will be called... Valmy). Essentially it is a game of placing power bases, using your hand of cards, into regions (all of France is depicted) which are then contested in a species of election. The resulting government, and your share in same, dictates your VPs, and on we go. Later on, there is an abstract military aspect where the enemies of the revolution have to be fought - very much like Svea Rike and that EU game where you had to squash the trouble spots and the map turned blue. Your role is a little fuzzy - one turn you could be backing the revolution, the next being Royalist, and the third as a moderate and often a mix of all three. I think the cards are party/regional aligned, but I would need to check. The placing, contesting and elections are clever as game mechanics (a tip of the hat) but I am not sure they bear much relation to reality, and my big worry is over exactly how much control you have - the rules allude to this, and assure us that there are "many tactics to discover". Alarm bells for this old cynic. My initial hunches are a) I should really play it three or more times before making a statement because it could so easily have deeper problems (and because I am cautious with Warfrog) b) the game swings seemed just that little bit out of control and subject to good/poor card draws c) I ran out of control markers which scuppered my initial 'spread wide' strategy - we could not find a rule either limiting (though this is implied) or not limiting these crucial pieces. A bit long at two hours+, even with three players. It takes up to six. The result was a Royalist automatic victory in turn 3 of 4, which robbed me of my healthy lead in traditional VPs. By that time we had seen enough, but I would play again. No one was able to say or even spell Feuillants. "David Brain" wrote in message news: ... After being disappointed by both Empires of the Ancient World and Way Out West, I hoped that this game would be a return to form, and I think that, on balance, it is. The game is based around the revolutionary period in France when power swung between different factions and no-one was quite sure who'd be next for the chop. We start with a large board, showing France divided into several coloured regions and a number of different scoring tracks. Each player has a set of markers, and there are also Red (revolutionaries), White (royalists) and Blue (neutral) markers. Using cards depicting prominent personalities of the time, the players try to ensure that they are supporting the winning faction in the various regions of the board as well as being a part of the Government when the elections are held. (VPs are gained for having the most votes in the Government or in the Opposition.) In addition, they can choose the risky path of military involvement which may gain them a lot of VPs or none at all (watch how often those Generals get guillotined just before they are going to score!) There are a lot of mechanics in Libertie, but as with Knizia's Stephenson's Rocket, they fit together amazingly to form a game that requires foresight and strategy together with a little bit of luck. The simple device of splitting the cards into two blocks ensures that the first part of the game is dominated by the Blue and White parties, but the Revolutionaries gradually get stronger as the game goes on. There are also "Special" cards which have swing effects at crucial moments. Although there are only four turns in the game, a neat touch provides for the possibility of a "counter-revolution" victory by the White party and a total Revolutionary victory by the Red party ending the game prematurely. Both of these endings seem to have been well calculated to keep the game balanced as it seems to be rare for a player to be in a position to ensure one of these outcomes (and if they are, then it is likely that they have won already.) The game moves along at a fair rate, since there are often only a few choices for the player but this doesn't mean that it is always obvious what to do - spread your influence thinly to gain lots of short term votes in the next election, or concentrate in one place to ensure a continued presence? I don't think this will suffer from "analysis paralysis" too badly - yes, players are often counting votes, but the Special cards can mess these calculations up enough to dissuade the compulsive counters. It's perhaps a little on the long side for a game of this weight - we're coming in at around 100 minutes - but the role-playing fun of silly French accents is easily equal to that, if your group is so inclined. This game scores a 1 on the Duke Ellington scoring system. -- David Brain London, UK