Why We Play: Napoleon (2)

Introduction to the Series
The topic of “owning too many games” comes up from time to time on BGG forums. Games, for a whole host of reasons, spur one to keep on buying and collecting, sometimes regardless of how much table time they get. I have been very fortunate in consistently having several gaming groups over my middle/high school and college years, often resulting in at least 2 or 3 games a week, and have played almost every game I own more than two or three times. So, in this light, I have set about a semi-massive undertaking: I hope, over the coming weeks, to review every game in my collection with respect to the games playability and appeal in various gaming groups.

The rubric I have created (outlined at the conclusion) is sensitive to playability over my personal preference and does not reflect my own score for the game.

Personal History with the Game
Napoleon was not an important game for me, personally. I played it with a friend once and thought it was pretty sharp, and went about picking up a copy for myself. Little did I know that this game would be instrumental in getting my housemates into the idea of board games as a viable use of time. After playing through Napoleon, my friends rushed to learn new games and never shrank from an opportunity to try their hand at Napoleon again.

Overview
Napoleon is a wargame that recreates the Hundred Days Campaign. The game operates on two levels, and for its simplicity, recreates a fantastic amount of atmosphere without the usual trappings of “theme” (Eat your heart out Descent/Twilight Imperium/Agricola). Napoleon, despite its age (first published in 1974), displays a clean understanding of the dichotomy between strategy and tactics. This understanding manifests itself superficially into two maps: a strategic map of the campaign area and a tactical map for engagements.

The strategic map invokes a simple point-to-point style to establish distance and space. There are two different types of roads, major and minor, which inhibit movement. The locations themselves have no limit as to the amount of divisions that can be stationed therein. Already natural avenues of movement, owing to the difference in roads begin to surface. Beyond this a system of rivers crisscross the map. Roads that cross a river further limit the amount of units that may cross them in a turn. Now, here an important point needs made. Though there are exceptions, you can only move one or two groups of units per turn, and these units often can only move to adjacent locations. Given the amount of units players command, most of the game is spent dealing with the various logistics of keeping everyone together. This lends heavily to establishing the game’s strategic element and the value of long term planning.

It is also worth pointing out that this is a block game with fog of war that generates a sense of uncertainty on the strategic map, whereas uncertainly of the tactical element comes from the dice. However, because a player can still see the amount of units (just not their strength or type), each player can still build their plans without being totally blind to enemy movements.

The battles are played out in a wonderfully simple and thematic “mini game” which pauses the action of the strategic map to allow for the tactical engagement. Battles really showcase the characters of each of the different unit types without burying players in rules and exceptions. Combat also consists of a great deal of dice being thrown, but this tactical luck is offset by the game’s system of reinforcements. After each turn of tactical combat a player can bring in one or two (depending on the situation) units from an adjacent location into the tactical map as reinforcements. This mechanism really drives home the importance of planning and positioning on the strategic map and binds the two game systems together.

The forces moving behind the maneuvers, as with most games, are the victory conditions. The requirements for victory skillfully meld both a built in time limit and geographic objectives on the board. Ultimately both players are trying to rout each other by killing a certain amount of units, but by taking particular locations the French can force the removal of unit(s) per turn (and the Allies would obviously want to defend these same cities).

Napoleon is a wonderfully well-crafted wargame. It is more thematic than daunting always seems to create the perfect balance between luck and planning.

What brings it to the table?
Look, I love Memoir ’44 as much as the next guy, but I think this game provides a much better introduction to the magnificent and challenging world of wargames. It manages to teach players the logistics of supply as well as how to read a battlefield to setup engagements without sacrificing any interesting mechanisms for simplicities sake. This game is certainly not for everyone. I find it works best for folks who have played strategy computer games. If someone is not overly interested in wargames this still might be an okay thing to play, especially to introduce the genre, but only after they have tried other confrontational games (Bin’fa or Nexus Ops perhaps).

What makes players want to play it again (maybe even in the same night)?
This game is both exciting and fairly short. Both of those elements are sure to encourage players to come back to this one. Also, because it can be played equally well with 2 or 3, it is often played on a 2nd or 3rd table when we have game nights and someone isn’t feeling up for whatever other fares we have setup. Finally, for whatever reason, people love trying really audacious strategies that, regardless of their success for failure, establishes and exciting atmosphere around the game for those playing as well as those watching.

Components 7/10
I have the Gamma Two Games version. There is a newer Columbia version which I haven’t tried. It’s certainly playable, and is excellent when you compare it to its contemporaries, but doesn’t stand up to newer games. The wooden blocks are nice, but the map is a bit small and a battle board and player aid sheet (which I’m generally against) would have been helpful for first time players

Ease of Instruction 8/10
If the players are familiar with any type of wargames (board games or computer games) they shouldn’t have too much trouble learning the game. That being said, there is still a fair amount of rules to remember (particularly the differences between each unit), so it might take a few battles before they grasp the nuances.

Game play 10/10
It’s a wonderful game that does not show its age. The skillful design really gets you into the setting of the game and keeps you there long after the game has been put away.

Longevity
Despite presenting only one small campaign this game really encourages players to “think outside of the box”. Eventually players may start to tire of this game, but by that time they are probably playing all sorts of other war games and will probably want a copy of Napoleon to introduce their friends to wargaming.

Gaming groups this game would work for.
Any group that has an interest in wargaming should start with this game. Other groups that like confrontational games but don’t want to go the rout of Twilight Imperium might also want to check this out.

Also, this makes a great gateway game for folks used to computer games or chess. Its components are stripped down enough to appear more like an abstract game, and once they start playing they will realize, all too late, that they are involved in a historical wargame.

If you like it, try:
1812
For those who don't want get into harder wargames, but are starting to get tired of the Waterloo Campaign.
Bonaparte at Marengo
A little trickier to learn but definitely in the same vein. This game is a worthwhile step up, if you can find a copy.

My Other Reviews (and personal opinions) can be found in this list http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/35027.