AESTHETICS
Board
The game board is big, in two parts that fold out. When looking at it spread out on the table you get the impression that you are looking at a large map of the area rather than a game board. The map is split into locales of differing shape and size, but the edges of these locales are faint, though still easy to see if you are looking for them, and so fade into the background. There are woods, rivers, hills, towns, minor and major roads etc marked on the board, as one would expect, but one of the great things about the board is that the game effects of these geographical features are shown by symbols on the locale’s borders (called approaches in the game), showing whether that approach is obstructed, impassable, or gives a penalty to attacking infantry, cavalry or artillery. This means that the effects of the terrain on fighting are easily seen just by looking at the map. All in all, I was greatly impressed by the board – as I said above, more of a map really than a traditional game board.
Pieces
There are two types of pieces: rectangular wooden blocks for regular infantry, guards, cavalry and artillery, and metal corps commander pieces, made of a flag attached to a flat metal shelf, that sits on top of the wooden army blocks. Each of the wooden blocks has printed symbols, showing whether it is infantry, guard, cavalry or artillery and how strong the piece is (measured in how many symbols are printed on the piece, from 1 to 3). The rules say that a full strength infantry unit (3 infantry symbols in game terms) is approximately 2000 men, a full strength cavalry unit about 1400 troopers and an artillery unit represents about 30 massed guns and crew.
One thing I noticed with my copy was that some of the printing of the symbols on some of the blocks was a little hazy and off centre. Not enough to make any real difference to game play though. In addition, the allies use red blocks and some of them were a slightly different shade of red. Luckily these were not all of one unit type, so it doesn’t give any information away to your opponent, and the colour difference is not large and so not apparent on the board unless looked for. Another slight quibble I have with the pieces is that the corps commander pieces need sticky labels attached to them for the flags and the commander’s name on the metal shelf, and with my fingers this was easier said than done, but I did get there in the end.
Overall
With the board (map) laid out and the unit and corps commander pieces in place the whole shebang looks fantastic, like some old fashioned map of a battle field. I felt that all I needed to complete the look was a stick to push my units across the map, like those used for moving ships and planes on maps in WWII, a suitable hat and some gold braid!
SYSTEM
Rules
There is a fairly large learning curve to these rules. It is not that the rules are badly written - in fact, I think the rules are very well written and elegant - but it is hard to see at first the effects of some them on your play and how they fit together. Over time you do get the hang of them and realise that they are logically laid out and clear, if you follow them closely (it took us only one full game before we understood them properly). So far as I am aware, there are no errata, not because they haven’t got around to them but because there is no need for them. The only complaint I have about the rules is that they need an index, but I think one is available here somewhere on this site.
Gameplay
I won’t go into too much detail of how the rules actually work, as you can download them from the files section, but I will give a brief overview. Each side has a limited amount of commands they can give per turn (each turn is 1 hour long). The French can issue one order for each of their corps commanders and have four independent orders as well. The allies can only give out 5 corps commands a turn and only three independent commands. An independent command is used to order a unit that is not attached to a corps. Units can be detached from a corps by giving a command to do so or are detached when the corps is forced to retreat in battle. Detaching units is relatively easy but it takes a whole corps command to reattach each independent unit, so it is very time consuming to bring a detached corps back together – keeping corps in one piece is a valuable thing in this game.
Units can move 1 locale per turn, unless moving by road. In a locale a corps / unit can either be in reserve or on one of that locale’s approaches (borders). The advantage of being on an approach is that it gives a defensive bonus if attacked across that approach, but it sacrifices the mobility of the unit to react if the locale is attacked from a different approach. Using units to flank the enemy and attack a locale from different approaches is one of the key strategies of the game.
The best description of how battles work, im my opinion, was given in another thread ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/233760) by Alan Paull, who signs himself BenthamFish(?), so I hope that he does not mind if I quote him here:
Quote:
I've not played B@M, but I have played a lot of wargames, and I've been through a couple of solo goes at NT. I found it very helpful to envisage attacks as a sequence of Attacker actions then Defender responses (which I think was a technique that Bowen used to explain it to someone else).
The action-response pairs (conceptually, rather than technically by the rules) are:
1A. Attacker states the direction of the attack threat (but says nothing about the units or corps involved). Note that no command is expended yet and nothing actually moves. All the Attacker has committed to is a movement of something in the specified locale which, if it is an actual attack, will come through the specified approach.
1B. The Defender is presumed to have noticed the enemy's movement. Owing to the relatively long time it takes Napoleonic formations to deploy, the Defender must choose either to retreat or to stay put, with little information. This is represented by the Defender either retreating or nominating defending pieces (but turning nothing face up yet). If there are Defenders already in the Defence Approach, then there's no decision to be made, because the Defender is already deployed for defence.
2A The Attacker decides whether the attack is a feint or a real attack. If it's a real attack, the attacker says so, but does nothing else now. If it's a feint, the "attack" is just a re-deployment or a fake attack, and the attacking unit(s) used in the feint are declared. The Defender recognises the movement, but must initiate defensive action, in case it's a real attack - hence the Defender must block the approach. An "attack" using road movement isn't really an attack, because attacking directly from road column isn't practical for Napoleonic formations; of course, if the Defender has retreated then the road movement could continue. [As an aside: it's really neat that road movement must stop if there's an enemy corps of 2 or more units in an adjacent locale - this reflects the gross danger of using road column close to an enemy.] If it was a feint, we skip to the 'After an attack' section, which specifies that commands are still expended for the movement.
2B If it's a real attack the Defender now knows it and has already decided to defend and with which units. At this stage the Defender has to specify the individual units that will stand directly in the enemy's way - the defense leading unit(s), so they're recognised by the Attacker and turned face up.
3A The Attacker now reveals his plan! Attacker nominates the attack width, the total number of attacking units and those that will lead (turn these up). Everyone's committed now, so we calculate the initial result (actually a separate phase in the rules). If the attackers are artillery, it's a long-range bombardment, so we go straight to losses, and the attacker cannot lose anything.
3B Defender has the option to counter-attack, if the attack leading units are not artillery. The counter-attack is a very important defensive measure for corps, particularly because cavalry can counter-attack even if the Defender won the initial result. This is where an attack can go seriously wrong.
4A Calculate Attacker losses.
4B Calculate Defender losses.
Finally work out retreats and associated losses.
The action-response pairs (conceptually, rather than technically by the rules) are:
1A. Attacker states the direction of the attack threat (but says nothing about the units or corps involved). Note that no command is expended yet and nothing actually moves. All the Attacker has committed to is a movement of something in the specified locale which, if it is an actual attack, will come through the specified approach.
1B. The Defender is presumed to have noticed the enemy's movement. Owing to the relatively long time it takes Napoleonic formations to deploy, the Defender must choose either to retreat or to stay put, with little information. This is represented by the Defender either retreating or nominating defending pieces (but turning nothing face up yet). If there are Defenders already in the Defence Approach, then there's no decision to be made, because the Defender is already deployed for defence.
2A The Attacker decides whether the attack is a feint or a real attack. If it's a real attack, the attacker says so, but does nothing else now. If it's a feint, the "attack" is just a re-deployment or a fake attack, and the attacking unit(s) used in the feint are declared. The Defender recognises the movement, but must initiate defensive action, in case it's a real attack - hence the Defender must block the approach. An "attack" using road movement isn't really an attack, because attacking directly from road column isn't practical for Napoleonic formations; of course, if the Defender has retreated then the road movement could continue. [As an aside: it's really neat that road movement must stop if there's an enemy corps of 2 or more units in an adjacent locale - this reflects the gross danger of using road column close to an enemy.] If it was a feint, we skip to the 'After an attack' section, which specifies that commands are still expended for the movement.
2B If it's a real attack the Defender now knows it and has already decided to defend and with which units. At this stage the Defender has to specify the individual units that will stand directly in the enemy's way - the defense leading unit(s), so they're recognised by the Attacker and turned face up.
3A The Attacker now reveals his plan! Attacker nominates the attack width, the total number of attacking units and those that will lead (turn these up). Everyone's committed now, so we calculate the initial result (actually a separate phase in the rules). If the attackers are artillery, it's a long-range bombardment, so we go straight to losses, and the attacker cannot lose anything.
3B Defender has the option to counter-attack, if the attack leading units are not artillery. The counter-attack is a very important defensive measure for corps, particularly because cavalry can counter-attack even if the Defender won the initial result. This is where an attack can go seriously wrong.
4A Calculate Attacker losses.
4B Calculate Defender losses.
Finally work out retreats and associated losses.
Overview
There is a step learning curve to this game, but it is more about learning the correct ways of utilizing your commands and how the battles operate then to do with the complexity of the rules themselves. One thing I have not mentioned above is that there is no randomness in the combat. If you could see all the units taking part in an individual engagement then you could predict the result. On my first play I thought I might have a problem with this, but because you can’t tell what your opponent has and there are so many possibilities of what he might have that it is impossible to guess, I have not found it a problem at all. In fact, the simplicity and elegance of how the battles are worked out I think is fantastic.
GAME EXPERIENCE
The experience you have while playing a game is where it succeeds or fails. It doesn’t matter how great the mechanics are or how beautiful the pieces, if it does not hang together into an enjoyable experience then it is a failure in my book. The enjoyment of a game comes down to the types of decisions you have to make and how they relate to the theme of the game. I think this game succeeds in spades.
A game of this scale should encompass both strategic and tactical decisions and this game delivers on both fronts. When you set up your forces at the beginning of the game you have to form some kind of grand strategic plan. You don’t have the forces to be strong on both flanks and in the centre, so where are you going to concentrate your forces? If you are weak on one side, how do you plan to deal with an enemy that attacks there in strength? In addition, the French have two reserve corps that start off the board, so the French player must make a decision on how much of his strength he wants to assign to them. Do you want to have reserves that are strong and can really pose a threat when, or if, they enter or do you want your strongest units on the board from the beginning? Decisions, decisions, decisions. So, even during set-up, you are faced with some really interesting problems to sort through.
The strategic decisions you make on set-up do influence the course of the battle but, as any good commander knows, once battle is joined plans can quickly become obsolete. Once your enemy starts acting you will, almost invariably, have to adjust your strategy to take it into account. Do you want to commit your reserves to counter an enemy’s thrust, or do you think that you can hold, or do you think that it is just a feint to draw your reserves away? Although these decisions can be nerve wracking to make, they are enjoyable and do make you feel like you are a proper general, even if not a particularly good one!
So on a strategic level the game works, but it also works on a tactical level. As I have said above, one of the keys to a successful attack is being able to flank opponents by attacking a locale across more than one approach. For example, if the defenders are committed to defending two of that locale’s approaches but don’t have any reserves to defend the third, then, if you can attack there, they will be forced to retreat. By threatening to attack a locale’s approach you can draw the defenders out of reserve and onto the threatened approach. Taking this into account the defender must either allow for it by having enough units to successfully defend each approach reachable by the enemy, which may mean breaking your corps down as parts of it rush to defend different approaches, or you must consider falling back and giving up ground. The effects of possible flanking lead to the need to manuever and to be aware of what your opponent might do. Defensive lines must be created across more than one locale and it can often be a good tactical choice to split off units into independent commands to pose or neutralise threats. Tactical manuevering is vitally important and presents the player with many hard decisions to make.
In addition, the action and response nature of combat presents continual tactical decisions. What might be the opponent’s strength? What units do you use to lead the attack or defence? How wide a front on the approach do you want your attack to use? Does your opponent have troops capable of counter-attacking? Is it time to commit your guard? etc. All in all, the game is excellent at presenting the player with interesting and difficult tactical decisions.
From all this, you may be wondering about action paralysis and down time between moves. While it is true that there are many decisions to be made, I never found that a turn dragged on to an annoying length. Waiting for my opponent to make his move was never a drag, as I was always using the time to figure out what I should do and then reworking my plans as I saw his moves and attacks begin to take shape. In any game where you are faced with a wide range of possible decisions there will be pauses where you try and figure out what is best, but because you never quite know what forces your opponent has at each position, it is impossible to figure out the best move, so eventually you just have to bite the bullet and go for it. So, while there is some thinking time inherent in this game, I did not find that it lead to action paralysis or to over long down time waiting for your go.
CONCLUSION
If you have read the above, you can tell that I think this is a great game. If you are interested in the period then I think this would be a must buy. If you like war games then I think you owe it to yourself to have a go at this one. If you don’t like war games, then I would still suggest you give it a go; after all, it may be the game to change your mind!
Posted Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:49 am
