The official web site of A.H. Lloyd

I’ve played Avalon Hill’s 1776 once since college, and that was close to 20 years ago.

But it’s the 250th, and I thought it would be fun to review it and see how it runs.  It’s a neat design, but I hate the cards.  

In a lot of ways, 1776 is like Imperium Romanum II – an outstanding strategic game that is something of a let down when you get to a decisive battle and it’s resolved by a single roll of the dice.  To solve the “D-elim” problem in Imperium Romanum II, you will recall that I allow leaders to survive on a die roll and escape with one unit, which allows (for example) Pompey to escape Pharsalia. A key test of a simulation is whether it can repeat history.

The CRT in 1776 is a bit better, and with more experience in game design, I’m grasping the designer’s intent on creating a situation where extra factors can push combat results outside of the normal d6 envelope.  That’s what I did with Conqueror: Fields of Victory’s morale system, and it works great.  A lot of the results in 1776 are just the loss of some factors, which (as the designer notes) is how many of the battles unfolded.  Another important point is that while giving battle wasn’t done lightly, if the CRT is skewed too much into “elim” territory, no one wants to fight, especially when the result is likely a coin toss.

The issue with 1776, is that it needs the extra variables of the cards to get historically accurate result, but the cards feel completely arbitrary and also bog down game play.  Battles are driven by many factors, with force composition and terrain being the most important.  One doesn’t just arbitrarily whip out “Enfilade Right” or “Refuse Left” without a reason.  Players have derided it as “rocks, paper, scissors,” but it’s actually worse.

There are eight cards( Frontal Attack, Reconnaissance in Force, Enfilade Right, Enfilade Left, Refuse Right, Refuse Left, Stand and Defend, Withdraw) but four of them are basically a circular argument.  If I guess the right flank, I win big, if I guess wrong, I lose big.  There is no strategy here.  It’s also a time sink, like rolling dice in The Brigade Series sequentially rather than all at once using different colors.

The challenge is therefore how to retain the upper/lower range of results while making the decisions more consequential.

Rather than create a new mechanic, I took a closer look at the cards.  First, I eliminated the right/left distinction.  I then considered what to do with the idea of “refusing” a flank.  One typically does that to take advantage of terrain or to respond to an enemy movement, effectively assuming a defensive posture.  There is a card for Stand and Defend, but I wanted to convey a more active defense, hence Hold Position, which would include refusing a flank.

The next thing that occurred to me is that force composition should impact how tactics unfold.  An army with an advantage of cavalry or artillery should expect to benefit from it in some way.

Dragoons in 1776 aren’t really that useful in battle, but they should be.  Cavalry is excellent at moving around a flank or screening a retreat, so I gave bonuses for both of those tactics, and that in turn creates a realistic bias among players.  “Hmmm, he has cavalry and I don’t.  If he does a flanking maneuver, I’m going to get crushed.”

Similarly, artillery doesn’t do much outside of sieges, which is not at all accurate.  So I created Artillery Barrage so that it becomes more consequential and to force players to deal with a specific form of attack.  If a player has both artillery and dragoons and the other side does not, there’s a neat tactical pickle to be solved, no?  It’s the classic “show cavalry, force infantry into squares, blast the snot out of them until they break” thing.  Hold Position would include this, which is why it is effective against Flanking Maneuver, but sucks against Artillery Bombardment.

Direct Assault is a no-brainer, and I changed the language to convey the fact that this is a classic deep-column attack expected to be resolved with the bayonet.  Because I want force composition to matter, I gave a bonus for when regulars do it.  

Reconnaissance in Force is something of a silly card, serving as “Frontal Attack Lite,” so I replaced it with Proving Attack, which would include the heavy use of skirmishers and maneuver.  A Direct Assault will blow through this, and it’s not going to make headway against an active defense, (who can throw out their own skirmishers) but those guys can torment artillery with harassing fire and evade cavalry by using broken terrain and woods for cover.

Last, but not least, I wanted to include a retreat-oriented card, and gave it an enhancement for dragoons being present, which is appropriate.

I’m running a solitaire campaign game and the differences are already being felt. Having artillery and dragoons makes a big difference because it gives the player more tactical options, which would make things a lot harder for a live opponent (As opposed to rolling a die for the defender as I am doing). Yes, that’s another advantage – no cards, just a d6.

In 1776, militia has limited value, but now dragoons make a big difference. For regions with low Tory Militia rating, that gives the Continentals a monopoly on cavalry, which is pretty cool.

The game famously skews towards the Americans, but that is historically accurate. If the British can’t win by 1777, it’s pretty much a lost cause as the Americans will win a war of attrition, especially after the French show up.

Still, not all wargames need to be balanced. They are often better history instructors than books because the players have to confront things like logistics (a big part of this game), which don’t get much space when compared to battles.