From: "Michael P. Nagel" Subject: Give Me Liberty Stuff Scenarios and Variants for 3W's GIVE ME LIBERTY Several articles from the multitude of wargaming journals have tried to answer the following question: What makes a game good? To this point, opinions have been extremely varied. Some feel that a good game should be realistic, and therefore complex, as the two often go hand-in-hand. Others feel that simpler systems are the best design approach. Some think that the physical bulk of a game determines its quality; the range of interests varying from maps measured in square yards and pieces counted in the thousands to games which can be played on a seat-mounted table in an airplane. The amount of time a complete scenario or campaign will take to complete is also an important factor to some players: more than a month or less than an hour? To me, there is really only one yardstick which can determine the true quality of a game: Does it capture my imagination? Can I visualize two mighty phalanxes crashing together, swords and spear-tips glinting in the early-morning sun; or a solitary American corporal heroically firing his BAR into an oncoming enemy squad? Perhaps more appropriately, can I understand and relate to the Command and Control problems faced by frustrated commanders during the struggle for American Independence? GIVE ME LIBERTY! is one game which successfully provides me that insight, and is fast becoming one of my favorite games of all time! GML offers a little something to everyone. The map is huge, and there are lots of counters, but not all are used at once. The rules are fairly simple and straight forward which should appeal to the advocates of simpler designs; yet there are also quite a few details (particularly the optional Leader rules) which would please those preferring a little complexity in their games. The game also includes several small scenarios which can be played in an hour or two, and a campaign which will take at least two sittings to complete (or one long one, if you're a real die-hard!). Most importantly, the Command and Control feature -- the real heart of GIVE ME LIBERTY! -- gives the players a realistic and edge-of-your-seat view of the war for American Independence. Upon reading the last paragraph, one might get the impression that GML is a perfect game. Well...it's not. If it were, there really wouldn't be much point in writing this brief article! Although it does come close to that ever elusive concept of perfection, it doesn't quite make it. Few are the games, however, that have so absorbed my interest and fascination enough to warrant creating a few patches which will bring them closer to my own concept of the 'perfect' game. After playing the game about a dozen times, I found two features of the game which I consider to be somewhat distressing. In this day of computer literacy, let's say that one is a hardware problem, and the other, software related. On the hardware side, I've found the layout of the map difficult to use at times -- in two ways in particular. First, although unit holding boxes have been provided for several of the major leaders in the game, there are not enough of them. A feature that I always enjoy seeing in a game is 'fog-of-war.' In GML, it is difficult -- nigh on impossible -- to keep your troops hidden from the prying eyes of your opponent. Fog-of-war played a very important roll during the American Revolution, particularly during the prelude to Yorktown. To rectify this problem, I created an off-board holding table for each side, providing holding boxes for every leader, which the players may keep hidden from sight. When in use, opposing players only know that there may or may not be troops in a particular area, until their own forces run into them! The tables have also been organized in such a way to make it a little easier to determine the ranks of the individual leaders. The second problem deals with the placement of the combat display. When playing the campaign game, one of the players will always find its location inconvenient, leaving the other player to move all the battling units from box to box. Call it an idiosyncracy, but I prefer to move my own units! I solved this problem by creating my own off-board combat display. Each player can use a copy to place and move his or her own units. I also took the liberty to include the combat modifiers, turn sequence, and both land and sea combat sequences on this chart, so that players will no longer have to flip through the rule book. The software problem is in regards to the short scenarios included with GML. Not that there is anything specifically wrong...there just aren't enough of them! After examining the scenarios provided, I was somewhat disappointed to find that there is no scenario involving the aforementioned Yorktown campaign, nor is there a scenario dealing with the New Jersey campaign and Washington's crossing of the Delaware (as I work almost next door to the building which housed the Hessian command post in Trenton, this is a personal bias!). Correcting this oversight required either waiting until someone else created the scenarios in question, or designing them myself. As I'm a rather impatient sort of person, and GML has seriously increased my interest in the period, I pulled out what limited source material I had on the subject and formulated the scenarios that follow this article. I found the exercise tricky at points as Mr. Markham never mentioned in his Designers Notes the scale of the units. One of his design sources was Avalon Hill's title: 1776, so I used that game to extrapolate the unit sizes, examined my limited sources (almost exclusively the book 'George Washington's War' by Robert Leckie), and hopefully didn't fudge history too badly! Finally, the small effort I took to examine the game system in depth so that I might create some truly useful play-aids and scenarios, prompted me to consider a few optional rules which aren't addressed in the system as it now stands. I can easily count, on the fingers of one hand, the number of games that have so absorbed my interest and provided so many hours of entertainment, as has GIVE ME LIBERTY! Rarer still are the games that have actually given me the incentive to read up on the events that they portray. I am not, nor ever will be, a student of history, as the thought of reading a non-fictional work more often than not sends a shiver up my spine. I've found that the game has not only provided outstanding competitive value, but is also an excellent frame of reference into the study of the American Revolution. It is very hard to improve on a good thing, and some might argue that it's better not to try. I certainly hope that the following variants and scenarios will be found as well worth the effort, and that they bring GIVE ME LIBERTY! that much closer to the 'perfect' game. Options for Give Me Liberty! 17.1 Only One Life to Give... Each player should use the leader holding boxes to the extreme (if possible, only Leaders and units without leadership should be on the board), and examination of opposing stacks on the board is forbidden. During each turn, the phasing player may use one of his Command Points, select an area occupied by an enemy leader, and roll a die. If the result is less than or equal to the Command Rating of his overall (three-star) commander -- but greater than one -- the opposing player must inform the phasing player of the number of units in a single location, what types of combat units (infantry and/or artillery, but not leaders), and which nationalities are in that area. ("Five Infantry, One Artillery, British and Hessian") If the result is equal to one, the opposing player must inform the phasing player of the types of combat units in an area, their nationalities, and the exact numbers of each, as well as the identity of one additional Leader present. ("Three American Infantry, One French Infantry, One French Artillery, and Lafayette") If the roll is greater than the Command Rating of the overall commander, the opposing player need only inform the phasing player of the number of combat units in an area, and may inflate or deflate that number by up to 50% ("Twelve Units" But there's really only eight). Opposing players need not divulge the quality or type of infantry units. Once two opposing forces come together in an area (even if one is entrenched or in a fort) the make up of each force should be made public. 17.2 Head-of-Elk For some odd reason, Mr. Markham's design only allows units to be transported through naval movement from port to port. Yet several of the more important troop landings during the Revolution are not marked as ports on the map, like Head-of-Elk, Delaware, or New London, Connecticut for instance. Of course it wouldn't be feasible to make every coastal area a port, as this would take considerable challenge out of naval transport and British supply! I optionally propose that at the cost of a Command Point, units may be moved from a friendly port to a clear (non-swamp, non-port, enemy free) coastal area by naval transport. A coastal area is defined as a box which is at least partially touching water (including "Ft. Toronto"). Units which burn a Command Point to move in this manner may not move after they've landed! 17.3 Monckton's Sword Even after the errata for GML was released, there was still some confusion concerning the fate of Leader units in combat when the piece(s) they are supporting are routed/eliminated. To clear this up, I offer the following option: Whenever a Leader unit applies all of his attack or defensive bonuses to a single unit, the Leader is physically attached to that unit. If the unit is eliminated in combat, the leader is removed from the battle and a survival check should be made immediately. Any unit assisting two or more units is considered to be commanding from the rear and need only make survival checks if the entire force is eliminated. If a Leader is specifically commanding an Experience Militia unit which is forced to retreat because of a failed Morale check, the Leader will retreat with the unit. If the Leader is specifically commanding a standard Militia unit which routes from the game, the unit is considered destroyed, and the leader must make a survival check as previously specified. Leaders need only make one survival check per battle, and those Leaders on the victorious side who make their survival checks stay with the victorious army in the battle area. 17.4 Not Yet Begun to Fight... Privateers like John Paul Jones made a successful campaign of preying on shipping near British shores. To simulate the activities of these marauders, the American player may optionally make a die roll during an Interphase in which British Regular reinforcements have been acquired. If the result is greater than or equal to six, one of the British Regular reinforcements is eliminated (determined randomly). If the American player has any naval units in play, he may return one or more to the reinforcement pool before rolling, and add two to the roll for each ship removed. The cost of this tactic (whether the die roll is successful or not!) is a shift in the Political Track marker of one space to the right! Washington's Crossing, scenario Historical Commentary: After several unsuccessful attempts by Lord William Howe to form a peace with the colonies (General George Washington in particular), he formed a plan to invade New York. On 22 August 1776, with the assistance of his brother, Admiral Richard Howe, Lord Howe began landing a force of roughly 20,000 men outside of New York, outnumbering it's defenders by nearly four to one. So began the New York - New Jersey campaign of 1776, in which 'Old Buckskins' Washington proved himself to be a master of the strategic withdrawal, and possibly the best Commander-in-Chief in American history. Under the pressures of low morale, poor supply, and the political machinations of his own senior officers, Washington was able to keep his army intact and on the move, while under the guns of a vastly superior force. The campaign culminated in the brilliant and morale raising victories at Trenton and Princeton, before retiring to winter quarters. These victories solidified Washington's role as the head of the Continental Armies in the eyes of the Continental Congress -- who where considering replacing him with Charles Lee. Unfortunately, however, these victories also might have made 'Old Buckskins' a tad too cocky -- a valuable lesson which would be driven home nearly six months latter at Brandywine Creek and Germantown. Scenario Length: August I, 1776 to January, 1777 (10 Turns) British Setup: Invasion Force * : 10 British Regulars, 2 British Artillery, 4 Hessian Regulars,W. Howe, Cornwallis, Grant, Heister, Knyphausen American Setup: New York: 4 Continental Army, 1 Artillery, 3 New York Militia, Washington, Putnam, Sullivan American Reinforcements: September I**: Charles Lee and 2 Continental Army in the box between West Point and Trenton or, if occupied by enemy units, any unoccupied box adjacent to Trenton or West Point. Victory Conditions: The British Player must occupy (with one or more combat units -- not leaders) New York, West Point, and Trenton at the end of the game. Alternatively, the British may win by eliminating all Continental Army units. Any other result is an American Victory. Special Rules: * On the first turn, the British Invasion Force may either conduct an amphibious assault on New York, or they may land their forces in the adjacent Long Island box. If the latter option is chosen, roll a die. If the roll is an eight, one Hessian Infantry unit is eliminated; if the roll is a nine, one British Infantry unit is eliminated; if the roll is a ten, two British Infantry units are eliminated. ** On the September I turn, roll a die. If the result is greater than or equal to six, Charles Lee enters the game with his reinforcements. If the roll is less than six, move the reinforcements to the next spot on the turn track. Continue this process until Lee enters the game, or the scenario ends. Design Notes: The trickiest factor in designing this scenario was determining which leaders would be available. Even though just about all the big names were in or around New York when the invasion began, I tried to limit the selection to those which had a measurable impact on the campaign (based on my source material). Using all the leaders would have been overkill. The British had a keen ability to chose poor landing sites for their troops, which is why they run the risk of losing units when landing adjacent to New York. In one case, they lost a significant amount of men and equipment to sink holes hidden beneath the breaking waves! General Charles Lee is viewed as the black sheep of the American commanders, who seemed to be much more interested in increasing his own political standing than helping the cause of freedom. While Washington was trying to stay one step ahead of the British, Lee was campaigning independently in northern New Jersey. When Washington requested Lee move his forces to Washington's assistance, Lee ignored the pleas. It was extremely fortunate that Lee was taken prisoner by the British on Friday, 13 December 1776. Cornwallis in Virginia, scenario Historical Commentary: By April, 1781, Charles Lord Cornwallis' army, sent to subjugate the southern colonies, had been drawn out of supply and decimated by Gen. Nathaniel Greene's brilliant strategies. Instead of finishing his opponent's army for good, Greene turned south toward Camden, leaving Cornwallis to his own devices. Cornwallis chose to head north, as his tattered army was in no position to relieve Lord Rawdon at Camden. It was Cornwallis' theory that the subjugation of Virginia would result in the surrender of the Carolinas, and the eventual and guaranteed subjugation of the south. As Greene was heading for South Carolina, he felt the opportunity to important (if not opportune) to pass up. Although strategically sound, the operation ended in disaster. The history of this period during the American Revolution shows that poor command control, underestimation of an enemy's forces, and paranoia concerning an enemy commander's intent can only lead to Yorktown. Scenario Length: May I, 1781 to November II, 1781 (14 Turns) British Setup: Portsmouth: 3 Experienced Regulars, 1 Experienced Militia, 1 Artillery, Cornwallis and Tarleton New York: 3 Regular*, Arnold, 5 Ships American Setup: West Point: 3 Experienced Continentals, 2 French Regulars, Washington, Rochambeau, and 2 American Intitiative Chits British Reinforcements: June I: 1 Regular in Portsmouth, 2 Regulars in Warrenton October II: 4 Regulars and H. Clinton in Any Friendly Port American Reinforcements: June II: 1 Continental and Lafayette in Guilford Courthouse; 1 Continental and Lincoln in Baltimore August I**: 3 French Regulars, 1 Experienced French Regular, 1 French Artillery, 2 French Ships, and duPortail in the Carribean September I: 3 Continentals in Baltimore Victory Conditions: The British Player must control a majority of the Victory Point Towns in the Central South Region (five of eight) at the end of the scenario. Special Rules: Only the Mid-Atlantic, Central South, and South Regions are in Play. Militia Reinforcements are rolled for on the 'Some VP Towns Controlled' column. British Ship Interception rolls automatically incur a -1 penalty. The American Initiative chits are used normally. * In order to move the British Regulars starting in New York, the British player must first roll a 7-10 for each unit, subtracting one from the roll for each Continental Army and/or French Regular unit occupying West Point. Units failing these rolls are stuck in place. ** The French Reinforcements are subject to 'variable entry.' During Setup, remove 3 'In Fort' markers and one American Initiative markers, mix them up and place one each - inverted - in the August I, August II, September I, and September II spaces on the Turn Track. At the beginning of the American Players turn in one of these spaces, reveal the marker. If it is the American Initiative chit, the French may enter as Reinforcements on that (or any subsequent) turn. Design Notes: I've taken a few liberties in designing this scenario, particularly in the placement of Lafayette. The limited source material I have available only states that he was sent to harass Cornwallis, but not how he went about doing so. Guilford Courthouse seemed to be a good a place as any to start his mini-campaign. I use variable entry for the French, because nobody seemed to know when deGrasse would arrive with reinforcements, if at all. The British naval forces incur a negative interception modifier because of very poor command decisions allowing deGrasse to land his forces. And finally, the British regulars are stuck in New York because of Clinton's conviction that Washington would attack Staten Island, and another one of Washington's brilliant withdrawals kept Clinton guessing until it was too late.