Game: Napoleon - The Waterloo Campaign, 1815

Thread: Re: Road Limits

gittes — 2008-11-23T18:15:41+00:00

I'm not sure I understand your problem. You can get *any number* of reinforcements into a battle. 2 per round per major road, 1 per round per minor road. The number of rounds is not limited. So in fact, all units in towns adjacent to the battle are reserves. It just takes a bit of time to commit all of them.

Well, I did ask if I was reading something wrong before just assuming I was right. The problem was in my reading of the rules. Thanks for the clarification.

Thread: Re: Road Limits

gittes — 2008-11-23T15:08:08+00:00

What it also means is with any remaining 'blocks' still adjacent that were unable to immediately travel then for the "Battle" due to the ROAD 'restrictions', later they can be brought UP and into that with successive 'rounds'. In this manner, you'll have entire CORPS then committed eventually eh?

Okay, that was the answer I was looking for. Awesome. I misread the rules in the 3rd edition rule book and didn't notice that in reinforcing a battle you ignore the road limits (if 10 units came down a main road to attack Wellington, then more can come to fight as reinforcements).

Thread: Re: Road Limits

GROGnads — 2008-11-23T10:15:06+00:00

What it also means is with any remaining 'blocks' still adjacent that were unable to immediately travel then for the "Battle" due to the ROAD 'restrictions', later they can be brought UP and into that with successive 'rounds'. In this manner, you'll have entire CORPS then committed eventually eh?

Thread: Re: Road Limits

Niko Ruf — 2008-11-23T09:00:19+00:00

Thread: Road Limits

gittes — 2008-11-23T06:37:15+00:00

I encountered this problem in the 3rd edition (but my question was never answered) and wanted to know if it was problem in this version of the game:

By virtue of the rules limiting road movement you cannot fight the Battle Ligny with the historical forces used because the road from Charleroi to Ligny is a minor road. You'll never face Grouchy's dilemma at Wavre because there is no way he can make it to Waterloo. Nor will Blucher ever be able to reinforce Wellington at Waterloo with the same forces, once again because of road limits. Anyone else noticed this or had similar concerns? Or am I reading something incorrectly?

My guess is no due to their being fewer blocks, but I wonder if the road limits are even more severe in this game.

Thread: Re: Why We Play: Napoleon (2)

Iceberg1 — 2008-09-29T16:15:09+00:00

I just played Napoleon's Triumph this past week. That also might be a good follow up to this, albeit more complicated.

--James

Thread: Why We Play: Napoleon (2)

Cole Wehrle — 2008-09-21T17:11:16+00:00

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.

Thread: Re: Overall, which edition is best?

sdiberar — 2008-09-08T17:37:31+00:00

I think the biggest difference is that the base "hit" numbers go up quite a bit from 2nd to 3rd edition, which means the battles in 3rd develop far too quickly for my taste. The expansion in the number of blocks is also to the detriment of the game, in my opinion.

However, 2nd edition suffers from the Allies disincentive to engage. Typically, they can slow Nappy down for a couple turns then retire to their supply bases and the French will be unable to break both of them in time. How easy this is in dispute, but the whole strategy leaves a poor taste in one's mouth.

Overall I prefer 2nd edition, but some tweaks from the 3rd are welcome.

Thread: Re: Overall, which edition is best?

cfarrell — 2008-09-08T01:37:59+00:00

The two versions of the game - the Avalon Hill (2nd) and identical Gamma Two (1st) editions, and the later Columbia 3rd edition - are surprisingly different. The AH/G2 edition is low-density, quick-playing, and can be rather unforgiving. The Columbia 3rd edition has a much higher block-count and is a more forgiving game, although it takes longer to play. In general I feel like the 1st/2nd editions emphasize maneuver a little more, while the 3rd edition is a bit more of a knock-down, drag-out affair. It's a bit of a nit-pick, but from a historicity perspective, I think neither edition quite gets the balance of artillery vs. infantry vs. cavalry right, but the 3rd edition is a little better I think.

Both are in my opinion great games, although I find the elegance and the fast play of the earlier edition a little more appealing these days, and the Avalon Hill version is definitely the nicest presentation-wise. I haven't shopped around in a while, but the older editions never went for big money on eBay (I think I ended up buying three before I got a set I was totally happy with condition-wise, because they were cheap). Given that the actual rules differences are pretty minor, it's surprising how differently the games play, but I'm not sure I would say that one is definitely superior to the other. I'm certainly quite happy to own both.

Have you checked out Napoleonic Wars by GMT? You might like it!

The Napoleonic Wars bears no similarity whatsoever to Napoleon. While I appreciate TNW has its fans, to put the spare elegance of Napoleon in the same bin as the lengthy and chrome-laden TNW isn't a great idea.

Thread: Re: Overall, which edition is best?

swandive78 — 2008-09-08T01:17:25+00:00

I like both of them. The Avalon Hill version has many less pieces, and plays a little faster, and has a unit type the Columbia version does not (horse artillery), but all in all, I like the Columbia version better.

The Columbia version has much nicer map art, and the larger number of blocks make for a better game, I think.

If you can get your hands on either one, do so; they are both great plays.

Thread: Re: Overall, which edition is best?

JackFlash — 2008-09-07T20:55:47+00:00

Have you checked out Napoleonic Wars by GMT? You might like it!

Thread: Re: Overall, which edition is best?

St_Jimmy — 2008-09-07T19:05:29+00:00

Pokke wrote:
I have the Columbia games edition. Not bad, but I prefer their Crusader Rex and Hammer of the Scots above this one.

If you're looking for a really good (and simple) wargame, do also check out Waterloo 20.
One of the biggest reasons I picked Napoleon is because it is a block wargame and can support more than 2 players.

Thread: Re: Overall, which edition is best?

itsmarty — 2008-09-07T16:47:42+00:00

The only edition I own or have played is the 1977 Avalon Hill version (2nd edition?), so I can't say how it compares to the others, but it's a lot of fun and is regularly available on ebay for less than $30 (less than $20 with patience and tolerance for box wear).

Thread: Re: Overall, which edition is best?

Pokke — 2008-09-07T16:42:09+00:00

I have the Columbia games edition. Not bad, but I prefer their Crusader Rex and Hammer of the Scots above this one.

If you're looking for a really good (and simple) wargame, do also check out Waterloo 20.

Thread: Overall, which edition is best?

St_Jimmy — 2008-09-07T08:55:14+00:00

I've been looking for another wargame to add to my very meager collection for some time now, and it seems Napoleon is my best bet. However, I am aware that this is the 3rd edition, and some reviews have said the latest edition is not the best one. So which is? What about availability? Would it be near impossible or substantially more expensive to acquire a copy of a previous edition?

Thread: Re: Variable FRENCH Starting Forces

GROGnads — 2008-09-06T00:28:39+00:00

Alrighty then! I've replaced the appropriate 'pages' with the amended denominations for where that applied on it all now.

Thread: Re: The Little Game With Delusions Of Grandeur

oneilljgf — 2008-09-05T21:11:25+00:00

I have both editions and I must admit that I have a soft spot for the mounted board and the "engraved" counters; my introduction to block games.

Jim
Est. 1949

Thread: Re: The Little Game With Delusions Of Grandeur

jens_hoppe — 2008-09-04T08:43:08+00:00

Great review!

The AH version of Napoleon was, if not one of my first, then at least one of the earlier wargames I tried. And yes, it's a fine block game. I sold the AH version many years ago in favor of Columbia's 3rd edition, but recently re-acquired the AH edition! As you say, in terms of simplicity and elegance, nothing beats it, but it took me some years to realize it.

Thread: Re: The Little Game With Delusions Of Grandeur

Rindis — 2008-09-04T06:48:32+00:00

A nice review of one of wargaming's enduring classics.

Thread: The Little Game With Delusions Of Grandeur

da pyrate — 2008-09-04T01:58:06+00:00

Napoleon: The 1815 Campaign (2nd Edition)

]]>
Two-player Block-game of the Waterloo Campaign
Designed by Tom Dagliesh, Lance Gutteridge & Ron Gibson
Published by Avalon Hill (1977)

Originally released by Gamma Two Games in 1974, the second edition of the game was published by Avalon Hill in 1977. I also have the third edition which was published by Columbia Games and has additional units, rules and turns. I personally consider the second edition to be superior to the third. Two of the beauties of the game are its simplicity and elegance – two factors that are diminished in the third and current edition of the game.

Napoleon was one of the first three wargames that I purchased back in the very early 1980’s. Not having live opponents, Napoleon was a wonderful selection as it lends itself so well to solitaire play. There are several reviews already posted so I will not spend much time describing the components or the rules and will concentrate on my personal impressions.

]]>
Napoleon is a block-game. By this I mean that the military units (infantry, artillery, cavalry and horse-artillery) are represented by wooden blocks. The blocks indicate the current strength of the unit (the starting strengths are either 2, 3 or 4) – the strength can decrease during the game as a result of combat and forced marches. The other important aspect of the blocks is that it creates a fog-or-war. The blocks are stood up on their edges (current strength at top) with their type and strength facing the owning player. The opposing player only sees the unit’s type and strength after he has committed himself to battle in their current location. In game terms this means that you know where the enemy is – you just don’t know exactly how strong they are until it is too late.

Normally games that have a fog-of-war focus don’t play out terribly well in a solitaire environment and yet, of the three wargames I first purchased, Napoleon was the one that received the most attention and time.

]]>
Set-Up – there are only 48 blocks. It doesn’t take long to set-up the game. When the other games you have are The War of the Ring and Air Assault on Crete it doesn’t take long to figure out that a five minute set-up time beats a 30 minute set-up time.

]]>
Choices – in The War of the Ring and Air Assault on Crete you can move every unit you have on the board. For a person new to wargames this is a massive challenge, especially when playing solitaire. Each unit can be move in an incredible combination of directions that it really can become overwhelming. Napoleon does not suffer from this problem. In their turn the French army can issue a march order to two groups of units. The Allied player can active one Anglo-Dutch force and one Prussian force each turn. In Napoleon movement is from point-to-point – something that makes the options much simpler. In Napoleon movement takes place along roads. Major roads allow the movement of up to 8 units per turn and minor roads allow the movement of up to 6 units per turn. If the road crosses a river then the number of units allowed to use the road is halved.

Planning – I know that a plan is a good thing to have regardless of the game that you are involved in. I find that in many wargames, despite having a plan, there is often a significant role played by opportunism – seeing your opponent make a mistake (or create an opportunity for you) and changing your plan as a consequence. I find that this rarely is an effective ploy in Napoleon. The French objective is to destroy both enemy armies – this is achieved by eliminating half of the Prussian blocks and half of the Anglo-Dutch blocks. There are two ways that the French can achieve this – either by eliminating them in battle or by occupying the Allied supply centres (Ghent for the Anglo-Dutch, Leige for the Prussians and Brussels for both armies). At the end of each Allied player-turn that the French occupy an Allied supply centre the appropriate Allied army will lose a block. The French have the choice of trying to eliminate one Allied army first – if the two Allied armies join up they then have a numerical advantage over the French. The French need to move fast and to keep their forces as concentrated as possible. The more spread out the French army the less effective it becomes. Because of the movement rules, moving fast actually makes the army more spread out. The Napoleon map lends itself to study to work out the most effective way to advance on one of the three axes – to Ghent, Leige or Brussels. At the start of each game the French player must have a plan.

The Allied objective is not to have both armies destroyed. The Allied plan will develop as a consequence of the French plan of attack. The Allies need to try to concentrate sufficient strength so as to be able to block the main French advance. At the same time the Allies need to have a covering force to protect all three Allied supply centres. The Allies also have the problem that if they defend too far forward the French will probably be able to attack before the Allied forces have concentrated. Alternatively, should the Allies defend too far back it makes it easier for the French forces to advance quickly and in a concentrated manner.

As a solitaire game Napoleon has the beauty that the Allies have limited units and conflicting aims and the initial plan should have sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to the French plan. The French plan should focus on wise use of roads so as to be able to deliver the ‘coup de main’ effectively. The game is, to a certain extent, a battle of two plans. From this point of view it works beautifully in a solitaire environment.

The Day/Night Environment – the game has two days turns followed by one night turn. This means that the French will move first on the first day and the Allies will move first on the second day, and so on. This has quite an impact upon the game. Units can only initiate combat during a day turn. This makes it tempting for the Allied player, during their first turn (the second day turn of June 15) to spread their forces out in positions to block the French. The French second turn will be a night turn and that means a single Allied unit in a town will totally block any movement by the French into or through that town during the second French turn. The problem with this plan is that it leaves the Allied forces spread out after their second turn due to their limited ability to activate units each turn (the Allied player can only active Prussian units in one town and Anglo-Dutch units in one town). While it is nice to thwart the French it is not so much fun to see your forces overwhelmed in the afternoon of June 16.

]]>
The Tactical Game – A battle can only occur if there are at least three units of each side present in a town. If only one side has at least three units the other side will withdraw before combat but will suffer pursuit fire. If the small force is made up of cavalry only cavalry units will offer pursuit fire.

The tactical resolution of combat is, in its own right, quite an interesting aspect of the game. Each type of unit functions differently during combat.

Initially each force is placed on the tactical display – either on the left or right flank, in the centre, or in reserve. During combat, if one of the flanks or the centre is emptied of enemy units the remaining units will retreat/rout and suffer additional damage. The object of the battle is to overwhelm one of the flanks or the centre.

I have participated in battles where one side has spread its forces evenly over the three columns where the other side has placed minimal forces in two columns so as to achieve overwhelming superiority in the third column. In this way it is actually possible for a numerically inferior force to defeat a numerically superior force. In the same way that in the strategic aspect of the game you require a solid plan at the start of the game, you need a solid tactical plan at the start of each battle.

Battles can be reinforced by units in adjacent towns. Fighting a battle can actually allow you to concentrate your forces in an effective and efficient manner. For this reason, amongst others, the Allied player should be very careful about where he decides to commit himself to battle against the French.

Regarding the tactical resolution of battle, units are placed in one of three columns – between the opposing columns there is what is called the middle ground.

Infantry can fire at enemy units which are advancing to engage their column. If they are not engaged they may move to reserve or to an adjacent column. They may form square which will reduce their firepower, make them more vulnerable to artillery fire and make them immune to attack by cavalry.

Artillery may fire over the middle ground at units in the opposing column.

Horse-artillery may move and fire in the same turn.

Cavalry may make a double move and uses double firepower on the first round of combat after they have charged and made contact with the enemy column.

There is a lot of flavour in this very simple combat system and the decisions made during the tactical resolution can have a significant impact on the outcome of the battle. It is a very subtle system with a very realistic flavour.

Playing Against A Live Opponent – while Napoleon plays well as a solitaire game it plays even better against a live opponent. The game should take less than 90 minutes so getting through 3 games in a session is quite possible. The game has a genuine element of bluff, but behind this bluff you still must have a solid plan. Even if your strategic plan goes well, you still need to have a solid grasp of the tactics of battle to be able to translate your strategic plan into tactical success.

The game has less than three pages of rules. It is one of those games where the very simplicity of the rules ensures that the player with the better plan should win. The longer the game goes the harder it becomes for the French to win. It is a very clever game design and the game comes jam-packed with tension. There really is a variety of options for the French player and part of the fun of being the Allied player is to come up with a plan that can respond to whatever the French decide to do.

“Dead Men Tell No Tales!”

Thread: Re: Combat Question - Engagement Boundaries & Limitations

Coffeebike — 2008-08-14T13:39:09+00:00

Merci, mon frere!

Thread: Re: Combat Question - Engagement Boundaries & Limitations

sdiberar — 2008-08-12T20:41:00+00:00

Ah, I see. In Avalon Hill terms, "withdraw from engagement" means to pull your troops back from having advanced on the enemy (i.e. returning to your side of the column). So units that have been engaged by advancing enemies would never "disengage". They can only move to Reserve or stick it out.

Thread: Re: Combat Question - Engagement Boundaries & Limitations

Coffeebike — 2008-08-12T20:37:54+00:00

sdiberar wrote:
When any number of your units advance to engage the enemy, all enemy units in that column are engaged by your advancing units.

Thanks, that's clear & easy!

sdiberar wrote:
Not sure I understand your other question -- disengaging is just another way of saying: moving from a column where you are engaged with the enemy to a location where you are not.

Using these lettered categories, the AH1977 rules say a unit's battle move options are:
A. Advance to engage
B. Withdraw from engagement
C. Redeploy (from friendly column to friendly column)
D. Reserve (movement to/fro)

So do you think option B, withdraw from engagement, can take the form of option C (redeploy)& D (go back to reserve)?

Thread: Re: Combat Question - Engagement Boundaries & Limitations

sdiberar — 2008-08-12T20:28:27+00:00

When any number of your units advance to engage the enemy, all enemy units in that column are engaged by your advancing units.

Not sure I understand your other question -- disengaging is just another way of saying: moving from a column where you are engaged with the enemy to a location where you are not.

Thread: Combat Question - Engagement Boundaries & Limitations

Coffeebike — 2008-08-12T18:32:19+00:00

Hi,
I have a question regarding the limits of engagement on the battleboard. I have the 1977 Avalon Hill version, but maybe it's the same for other versions.

Say your lone infantry unit faces three units (2 infantry, 1 artillery). You march it across to engage.

Do you thereby engage all 3 units? Just the two infantry units? Or just one of the two infantry units that you specify?

I understand that the artillery unit has one last shot with the close range bonus. And afterward, it can't fire, since friendly infantry is engaged with the enemy in the same column. My focus is on the limitations of engagement.

Could the artillery make an immediate move in a subsequent round without first needing to take a round to Disengage? & same question for the 2nd defending infantry unit.

Thank you kindly!

Thread: Re: Session Report

Coffeebike — 2008-08-05T16:56:03+00:00

A successful Right Maneuver! It can be done!

Thread: Re: My AH copy: pieces, board, rules...

franchi — 2008-07-17T13:23:37+00:00

Thanks Aiden,

I didn't expect many responses now, I guess many people are, like me, on holidays without easy access to internet!

This is the 1st time I hear about a real difference between 2nd and 3rd Ed maps. I thought they were just aesthetic ones... I heard many people play with their 3rd Ed copy following the 3rd-to-2nd conversion kits posted here, and none said a word on this...

Would be interested if someone could confirm, the pictures of the AH/Gamma2 maps posted here are not clear enough.

Thread: Re: My AH copy: pieces, board, rules...

Nxe5 — 2008-07-16T21:52:44+00:00

Bonjour Miguel,

Thats an excellent reproduction of the game. I'm surprised that there are not more complimentary responses to your well presented article.

I recall reading at consimworld that there are more town locations on the 3rd edition map than there are on the 2nd edition map.

Do you anticipate any imbalance in gameplay using a 3rd ed map with 2nd ed timetrack and 2nd ed units?

I doubt its a problem, but I'm curious about this all the same.

Thread: Re: Help with strategy (or a lack thereof)

Tom Jensen — 2008-07-11T22:48:20+00:00

I've got a couple things to add:

* IMO the French just don't have time to go to Liege then all the way back to the other side of the board. Going after all objectives only splits the French, something they NEED to do to the Allies. They should rush at Brussels/Ghent with at least one forced march to strike before the Prussians and the British can get their act togther. Sometimes I send some cavalry toward Liege to keep the Prussians worried-- but then rush them back where they might have a role in the big fight.

* Note that there can be NO combat during a night turn. So the Allied player should use their cavalry to "crowd" the French main body just before nightfall; it will cause a loss of a complete turn of movement! Then, hopefully, they can retreat without too much damage the next day. Position a couple cavalry units forward so you have this option.

* Remember that units adjacent to a battle are almost as good as units IN the battle. As reinforcements, they may give you enough staying power to win. So move along parallel roads and then adjacent when the big battle looms.

Hope this helps.

Thread: Re: My AH copy: pieces, board, rules...

swandive78 — 2008-07-07T02:06:08+00:00

And I really like the horse artillery...why did they take it out of the Columbia version?

Great project. I have both versions, and you make me want to build my own to get the best of both worlds.

Thread: My AH copy: pieces, board, rules...

franchi — 2008-07-06T23:37:50+00:00

Hi,

I have finally made my "AH copy" of Napoleon, and I wanted to discuss some details of the project, concerning practical details of the making and the rules I use, mostly the AH ones but with a few changes from the Columbia ones.

Why Napoleon - The Waterloo Campaign, 1815, and why the AH edition?

I have been wanting to try one "block" game for quite a long time, and recently I have been reading about Napoleon, so this was the right game to begin with. What I discovered was an almost perfect game, rallying elegance, simplicity, fast playing time, depth, strategic movement and tactical battles, fog of war...

I had previously experienced this large-scale strategical movement plus tactical board for battles in Alexandros, but most of the people agree to say that the tactical battles are the weakest point of this game. I thought it was a pity, because I would have really liked it to work. In Napoleon, it does!

The version in print is the Columbia one, but reading the several threads about the changes it introduced I felt that I would like the AH one more: I wanted something simple, playing fast, and I like simple maps (I found the Columbia one, like the VG reprint of Hannibal, too crowded).

The pieces:

There are good pictures of the Columbia labels here, and conversion kits towards the AH version, but these labels are easy enough for me to make, so I gave them my own design touch:

]]>
I ordered some blocks from Columbia, and these is how they look like:

]]>
I added the leaders to the AH pieces, just 3 blocks more in case I want to use them. And some markers, one for the turns and some for the battle boards:

]]> ]]>
The small wooden cubes work very well for the roads (blocked or leading to battle) and for DF units during battles. Sorry, but I won't use coins in my games!

The board:

The Columbia board is available here for people that want to print it bigger. I was going to use the AH pieces, so I thought I wouldn't need to print it bigger... but I finally did! I was looking for a not-so-crowded map, and the best one I found available was suggested by user Marvinrah in this thread.

I modified the time scale to the AH turns, added a Napoleon picture to fill the remaining gap, and printed on 8 panels:

]]>
The details: I print the 8 pages, glue them to thick cardboard with double-sided adhesive (by couples when I want them to fold "upwards"), cover the panels with a transparent adhesive film, and back all panels with adhesive black felt (by couples when I want them to fold "backwards").

I printed some tactical boards from Columbia on thin cardboard.

The rules:

I read both rulebooks and, since I was going to use the AH pieces, I thought that I would use as much as I could the AH rules. The only exceptions:

1) In battle, the AH rules say that units cannot disengage when they are one their side of the field (to reserve). I thought it was easier to be able to disengage all the engage moves, and since you can engage from reserve to your own line, why not the opposite?

2) The morale optional rule turned out to be quite complex. The final morale rule in Columbia was very simple: all engaged CV=1 units roll and disengage with 1-3. Since I am allowing disengage to reserve, it worked.

3) And the leaders. People criticizing this Columbia addition say that the Allies get 2 leaders as capable as Napoleon. I found an easy way to counter this: Wellington and Blucher add 1 to morale rolls in their column while Napoleon adds 1 to any column.

Some things I find much better in the AH rules are the supply rules and the use of horse artillery, very useful for a preliminary bombardment starting from reserve just before a charge!

The setup:

AH didn't have the historical deployment option, and I had read that if the Allies set up freely on both extremes of the board they are almost unbeatable. Two fixes:

1) The Variable FRENCH Starting Forces thread by user GROGnads helps to avoid this. Read till the end of the thread, there are some mistakes in the original pages!

2) I adapted the Columbia OOB to the AH pieces:

]]>
Now I can choose to set up freely, or historically:

]]> ]]>
or the Napoleon's Gambit option, or the variable French variant!!!

Conclusion:

I'm very glad I made this copy, and I hope it will become one of my most played games (summer holidays will help). Not more than Commands & Colors: Ancients, but this is impossible!

Miguel

PS: I have uploaded this file with the labels, the OOB, and a simple reference card.

Image

franchi — 2008-07-04T15:01:08+00:00

My home-made AH copy: Napoleon fights a battle at Charleroi.

Image

franchi — 2008-07-04T14:58:21+00:00

My wooden markers: cylinders for turn (black) and battle location (white), cubes for roads blocked (black) or leading to battle (gray) and for DF units (yellow).

Image

franchi — 2008-07-04T14:52:16+00:00

My home-made AH copy: historical deployment viewed from France.

Image

franchi — 2008-07-04T14:49:42+00:00

My home-made big map (50x73 cm). The blocks are in the bag!

Image

franchi — 2008-06-26T12:38:51+00:00

Allied OOB converted to the AH 2nd Ed (labels, summary and full OOB uploaded as file).

Thread: Re: Variable FRENCH Starting Forces

franchi — 2008-06-26T08:38:20+00:00

Well, that made me have a closer look, and there is another error:

Prussian Infantry is 2 x 2CV and 6 x 3CV

Plus something I don't understand. The variant is supposed to help the French, but if they roll 8 or higher they have to win the game as normal but with only 21CV infantry, instead of 25CV normally available? If this is an error, does it apply to the other two options??? (I would guess so, there is a loss of 3CV infantry between each of them, it should read 25CV, 22CV and 19CV infantry, respectively)

Miguel

PS: I have found the historical deployment on pages 7-8 of the Columbia rules (the ones on their site, not the ones here...), I have adapted it to the AH edition and have added it to my file with custom labels plus reference card. A preview:

]]>

Thread: Re: Variable FRENCH Starting Forces

GROGnads — 2008-06-26T01:23:16+00:00

nwhyman wrote:
I guess it's obvious but I'll point it out anyway . . .

The article has an error in the starting forces for the AH version. The French don't have 6 x 3CV cavalry, they have 3 x 3CV and 3 x 2 CV. Yeah, thanks Neil, as I forgot to mention it as well.

Thread: Re: Variable FRENCH Starting Forces

nwhyman — 2008-06-26T01:17:23+00:00

I guess it's obvious but I'll point it out anyway . . .

The article has an error in the starting forces for the AH version. The French don't have 6 x 3CV cavalry, they have 3 x 3CV and 3 x 2 CV.

Image

franchi — 2008-06-24T14:39:56+00:00

My custom labels for the AH 2nd Ed (plus leaders), applied on Columbia wooden blocks and shown on the Columbia battle board.

Thread: Re: 3rd to 2nd Edtion Conversion Kit

franchi — 2008-06-17T09:24:34+00:00

Hi,

do you have a conversion for the historical deployment too?

I'm making my AH copy and would be VERY interested in a historical deployment for these units...

Miguel

Thread: Re: Variable FRENCH Starting Forces

franchi — 2008-06-17T06:35:22+00:00

Thanks Robert,

I have almost finished my "AH copy" and have not played my first game yet, but I had already wondered if the 2 Allies sitting on the extremes of the board could be unbeatable by the French. Good to learn that this variant can "correct" for that.

Another possibility, that apparently came with the Columbia edition, is starting with the historical deployment, at least for the Allies. Do you know if somewhere there is such a deployment for the AH edition? It shouldn't be that hard to "reduce" the Columbia setup to the AH units (?).

Miguel

Image

Xookliba — 2008-06-11T15:47:28+00:00

cyberboard gamebox, 2d ed AH version

Thread: Re: Supply rule change between 2nd and 3rd Editions: does it "change" the game?

Herr Niemand — 2008-06-03T17:19:56+00:00

I also agree with your assessment.

TT

Thread: Re: Supply rule change between 2nd and 3rd Editions: does it "change" the game?

sdiberar — 2008-06-03T15:55:23+00:00

Miguel,

I agree with your assessment and prefer the 2nd Ed supply rules (though I don't have really extensive experience with both).

Thread: Supply rule change between 2nd and 3rd Editions: does it "change" the game?

franchi — 2008-06-03T12:19:53+00:00

Sorry if this was covered elsewhere, I didn't find it.
Reading through a thread, I saw:
GaryP wrote:
However, an experienced French player will be able to judge how many units to devote to one Allied city to capture it and start supply attrition, while advancing the rest of the troops towards the second Ally. Certainly, if the French send everything to Ghent, they are not going to have time to reach and wipe out the Prussians, given that the Prussians send a few units out to delay.
I'm "making" my AH version, I prefer the lower density of blocks and the shorter playing time, and I am planning to play mostly with the AH (2nd Ed) rules. I'll just add leaders.

But in Steffan O'Sullivan comparative review he says about the supply rules:
I think 3rd is better - taking Brussels in 2nd was too rich.

The 2nd Ed was Ghent(A)-Brussels(A+P)-Liege(P), while the 3rd Ed is Ghent(A)-Brussels(A)-Liege(2P). I was wondering if 3rd Ed supply rules favor a conservative Prussian play, and then the French would not have time to go from one extreme of the board to the other before the game ends.

It seems to me that Brussels in the 2nd Ed is the thing that forces both Allies to go to the center and fight, and not having the Prussians hiding around Liege. What do experienced players think? What supply rules do you find better concerning game play? Is the "Allies waiting at the opposite extremes of the board" a common strategy in 3rd Ed games?

Thanks!
Miguel

Thread: PURSUIT FIRE in 2nd Edition

franchi — 2008-06-03T12:09:48+00:00

A complementary question, concerning PURSUIT FIRE in 2nd Ed: are all units involved in the pursuit revealed, like in battle? Or do you just ask if there is retreating cavalry and then say "OK, I throw X dice"?

Thread: Re: Reveal Cavalry? Plus 3-player question...

franchi — 2008-05-28T18:58:01+00:00

Thanks Scott,

I had not thought about forced marches, and yes, if you had to show the blocks that force march too the fog of war would disappear! So from the number of forced march rolls you just get an idea of the cavalry-to-others ratio, good.

sdiberar wrote:
I don't recall the rules saying anything, but I think the allies should not be allowed to see each others' blocks either, nor discuss their setups. The less communication allowed, the better, in my opinion!OK, so 120 degrees, that seems right to me. Looking forward trying a 3-player game...

Thread: Re: Reveal Cavalry? Plus 3-player question...

sdiberar — 2008-05-28T15:13:18+00:00

1) Most Columbia Games (nee Gamma Two Games) come with an unwritten rule: if you can't trust your opponent to play by the rules, given the hidden information elements, then you should get a new opponent.

That is to say, I don't think there is a stipulation that requires disclosure of cavalry to move two towns. Of course, since infantry can force march two towns, if your opponent is making straggler rolls for some blocks, that tells you something.

2) I don't recall the rules saying anything, but I think the allies should not be allowed to see each others' blocks either, nor discuss their setups. The less communication allowed, the better, in my opinion!

Thread: Reveal Cavalry? Plus 3-player question...

franchi — 2008-05-28T06:52:26+00:00

I have been reading the 2nd and 3rd edition rules posted here, and I have two questions:

1) Cavalry moves 2 towns. Does one have to reveal the moving units, like in Bonaparte at Marengo, to demonstrate they are cavalry? I know you don't need to if you trust yourselves, but just wanted to know what is the rule, for those who play this game in tournaments, for example. Knowing the CV of the units moving will diminish the fog of war.

2) In 3-player games, do blocks (and players) face at 120 degrees from each other? If the Allies cannot communicate during day time (this is written in the rules), why should they see each other's units? Again, I know you can choose what you wish, but I like to play the way the designer expected the game to be played...

Thanks,
Miguel

Thread: Re: 3 Player?

franchi — 2008-05-26T13:41:48+00:00

Bushido Bob wrote:
Presumably its Napoleon vs Blucher and Wellington but are the allies able to see each others blocks (and confer) or do you all have to sit at 120 degrees to each other and not peek?!!
I have been browsing through all the threads and the two (AH and Columbia) rulebooks, and I didn't find an answer to this.

Is there an official ruling for this, or is it completely up to the players? I guess it has a big impact on the gameplay...

Miguel

Image

sbarrera — 2008-05-24T18:43:04+00:00

French cavalry attacking on the right

Image

sbarrera — 2008-05-24T18:42:07+00:00

A large battle underway

Image

sbarrera — 2008-05-24T18:41:03+00:00

Combined Battle Cards

Thread: Re: AH map

franchi — 2008-05-22T14:47:43+00:00

Thanks Brian, this one looks great!

The problem I see with the 3rd edition map is that thin red over almost orange background is hard to see. This one is much clearer, you don't "see the houses" of the towns but you see where they are. I like it.

Thread: Re: AH map

Marvinrah — 2008-05-22T14:02:35+00:00

Here is another alternative. It was created for 3rd edition.

http://napoleon.muster-roll.com
(It still might be too busy for your tastes.)

Thread: AH map

franchi — 2008-05-22T12:17:14+00:00

Hi,

I'm planning to make a 2nd copy of the game to play with the AH rules and unit numbers. I guess the lower block density and the shorter time will make it easier to introduce non-gamers and my kids, before going for the 3rd edition.

I was going to use the scan of the 3rd edition map uploaded here, but from a few pictures on the gallery it seems that the 2nd edition map was not so busy and much easier to read (light background with very clear roads).

Could any of the AH edition owners upload a scan of their board? Since this edition is OOP and the 3rd edition map is already uploaded, I don't think it should be a problem.

I have some accumulated I don't know what to do with!!!

Miguel

Thread: Re: High Res Map Scans

franchi — 2008-05-21T13:53:57+00:00

I've heard comments saying that the AH map was not so busy and the roads were easier to read. Is anyone owning the AH edition willing to upload a scan of their board?

I would like to print the map bigger, but if I had the choice I would prefer doing so with the AH map...

Thread: Re: Targeting infantry squares

icheyne — 2008-05-09T12:08:47+00:00

I got a reply from Jeff Cornett who referees the Napoleon championship at the WBC and wrote the FAQ.

Each of your blocks is activated in sequence. Therefore, in your turn, you choose one at a time which block to fire and do get to see its effects before choosing what to do with the next block.
It would be an impossible mess in a big battle to do it any other way.
Jeff Cornett

Thread: Re: Targeting infantry squares

icheyne — 2008-05-08T19:36:57+00:00

Sorry I didn't realise it did that. I have my sound turned down, so missed it.