Game: Napoleon's Triumph

Thread: Re: Another Solitaire Idea

521tiger — 2008-11-30T14:19:28+00:00

jkantor wrote:
...I'll come up with a couple of simple charts to help with that.
well, at least I'm standing by to read your experimental solution works...

Awaiting more,
Andy (521tiger)

Thread: Re: Another Solitaire Idea

jkantor — 2008-11-30T13:09:45+00:00

Actually, now that I have the game, I'm thinking that all you need to do is to use Fudge dice (d6 which give +1/0/-1). Roll one die for each Unit involved to determine its final strength.

For the solo aspect, give each corps written objectives - and each corp commander an aggressiveness rating that you can use to decide their actual tactics in any specific attack. Once I'm more familiar with the system, I'll come up with a couple of simple charts to help with that.

Here's a handy way to convert regular dice to Fudge Dice (half-way down):

http://www.fudgefactor.org/2001/12/01/babys_first_fudge_dice...

And here are some nice Fudge Dice:

http://dicepool.com/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=837

Thread: Re: The Triumph!

bowen — 2008-11-27T20:40:18+00:00

Robrob wrote:
greg60 wrote:
NT is truely a fascinating game; the shear physical beauty of it is worth the purchase.

Impressive I'm sure but judging by the pictures posted here on BGG the board is awfully washed out. Is that just glare or is there a reason (expense?) the publishers didn't use a more interesting palette? The homemade user boards posted on the BGG for the earlier game (BaM) are much nicer, I can't imagine the cost would have been that much greater. Perhaps there will be a reprint?

Photographs in general are iffy in reproducing color; photographs reproduced on computer displays are even more iffy. If you are particular about color tones, you should try to see the board in person. In general for the board I intentionally use a light palette. Doing so gives the strong red and blue of the game pieces visual pop, which I think makes for a nice effect. I can of course make no guarantee as to how well it will appeal to your own taste in these things.

Thread: Re: The Triumph!

Robrob — 2008-11-27T19:43:03+00:00

greg60 wrote:
NT is truely a fascinating game; the shear physical beauty of it is worth the purchase.

Impressive I'm sure but judging by the pictures posted here on BGG the board is awfully washed out. Is that just glare or is there a reason (expense?) the publishers didn't use a more interesting palette? The homemade user boards posted on the BGG for the earlier game (BaM) are much nicer, I can't imagine the cost would have been that much greater. Perhaps there will be a reprint?

Thread: Re: Two Questions.

tyvek — 2008-11-27T17:35:14+00:00

bowen wrote:

(2c) Not entirely correct. The defending 2-strength unit would not take a loss. Losses are inflicted according to the number of leading units for the other side, and in this case the other side has no leading units. The attacker in this case would nominally lose 3 strength points (1 for the enemy leading unit, 2 for the differential) but in fact would only lose 1 strength point because the attacker had only 1 strength point to lose and would lose 1 morale point as well. In this case the result is the same whether the defender is in reserve or blocking the defense approach.

Bowen, thank you for the clarity on this point. This game just keeps getting better, the more that I play it. I keep looking forward to the next word on The Guns of Gettysburg...any 'new' News?

Thread: Re: Two Questions.

bowen — 2008-11-27T17:19:41+00:00

tyvek wrote:

1) Can a cavalry unit, on a road, two locales away from an enemy, who is in a town, (cav restriction) make an attack threat to that locale?

I think yes, it can, as, 'if the unit were to defend,' it would be considered a feint, and if the unit retreated, the cav could move into the town as the locale is now vacant.

2a) Can an attack threat be made across an approach where only one unit is poised to attack. It's just that that one unit is a 1-strength infantry unit. This type of unit cannot lead...

(2b) so my take is that, yes, you could make an attack threat. If the opposing player orders units to stay and defend, then the 1-strength unit could then "attack" at 0-leading units, versus whatever is on the other side...let's say it is a 1-strength unit, that also has 0-leading units. The result would be 0 vs 0, but each side would lose one strength point as the other side has one piece in the attack, or in the defense, (even though there was no assault). Is that the way it would work?

(2c) However, if the defending unit was a 2-strength unit there would be no leading attack unit, and a 2 strength defending. If both were in the approach the result would be: 0 vs. 2 (-2) thus the 1 strength unit would be eliminated, and the 2-st unit would drop to 1, because of the one piece used in the attack. Is that the way this would work?

(1) Yes.

(2a) Yes.

(2b) If the defender is in reserve, your resolution is correct. The result is a lossless tie with the same number of units on both sides, resulting in a French win.

If the defender is blocking the approach, however, the defending unit could lead. In such a case, the attack would be resolved at (-1) for the differential. (NOTE: since there is no leading attacking unit, there is no -1 infantry attack penalty: that penalty only applies to attacks led by infantry units and in this case the attack has no leading units.) The attacker would nominally lose 2 strength points (1 for the leading defending unit, 1 for the differential) and the defender would lose 0, as the attacker had no leading units. Of course, the attacker in practice in this case would lose only 1 strength point because the attacker only had 1 strength point to lose. The attacker would then take a loss of 1 morale point.

(2c) Not entirely correct. The defending 2-strength unit would not take a loss. Losses are inflicted according to the number of leading units for the other side, and in this case the other side has no leading units. The attacker in this case would nominally lose 3 strength points (1 for the enemy leading unit, 2 for the differential) but in fact would only lose 1 strength point because the attacker had only 1 strength point to lose and would lose 1 morale point as well. In this case the result is the same whether the defender is in reserve or blocking the defense approach.

Thread: Re: Two Questions.

Henkka — 2008-11-27T08:26:49+00:00

edit: Go on read the post below, Bowen explained the questions correctly.

tyvek wrote:

1) Can a cavalry unit, on a road, two locales away from an enemy, who is in a town, (cav restriction) make an attack threat to that locale?

I think yes, it can, as, 'if the unit were to defend,' it would be considered a feint, and if the unit retreated, the cav could move into the town as the locale is now vacant.

Your assumption is correct.

tyvek wrote:

2) Can an attack threat be made across an approach where only one unit is poised to attack. It's just that that one unit is a 1-strength infantry unit. This type of unit cannot lead...

so my take is that, yes, you could make an attack threat. If the opposing player orders units to stay and defend, then the 1-strength unit could then "attack" at 0-leading units, versus whatever is on the other side...let's say it is a 1-strength unit, that also has 0-leading units. The result would be 0 vs 0, but each side would lose one strength point as the other side has one piece in the attack, or in the defense, (even though there was no assault). Is that the way it would work?

This depends on whether the defender is defending the attack approach or in reserve. If in the defence approach, then 1-strength infantry can lead the defence and the score would be -2 (defender wins). If the defender is in reserve, then neither side can have leading units, thus the score would be 0 and French player would win in this situation. I think in this situation neither player takes losses (or loses morale) as there wasn't any leading units to deal each other damage, but I could be wrong.

tyvek wrote:

However, if the defending unit was a 2-strength unit there would be no leading attack unit, and a 2 strength defending. If both were in the approach the result would be: 0 vs. 2 (-2) thus the 1 strength unit would be eliminated, and the 2-st unit would drop to 1, because of the one piece used in the attack. Is that the way this would work?

No, the result would be -3. Remember infantry loses one point if the defender is blocking the approach. I think this reduction is in effect even if you have no leading units. The result of the battle would be that the attacking unit is eliminated and the defender takes no losses as the attacker had no leading unit.

Thread: Two Questions.

tyvek — 2008-11-27T05:41:52+00:00

I just had another rousing game of NT last night, and happily had my Allied Guards make an attack at the 4pm hour, following immediately after a grand bombardment across a double-wide approach! This was the first time, in 12 games, that I've seen Guards attack, and now, I hope, it won't be the last! (With this attack two corps moved into a blue star area, effectively winning the day).

On to my questions:

1) Can a cavalry unit, on a road, two locales away from an enemy, who is in a town, (cav restriction) make an attack threat to that locale?

I think yes, it can, as, 'if the unit were to defend,' it would be considered a feint, and if the unit retreated, the cav could move into the town as the locale is now vacant.

2) Can an attack threat be made across an approach where only one unit is poised to attack. It's just that that one unit is a 1-strength infantry unit. This type of unit cannot lead...

so my take is that, yes, you could make an attack threat. If the opposing player orders units to stay and defend, then the 1-strength unit could then "attack" at 0-leading units, versus whatever is on the other side...let's say it is a 1-strength unit, that also has 0-leading units. The result would be 0 vs 0, but each side would lose one strength point as the other side has one piece in the attack, or in the defense, (even though there was no assault). Is that the way it would work?

However, if the defending unit was a 2-strength unit there would be no leading attack unit, and a 2 strength defending. If both were in the approach the result would be: 0 vs. 2 (-2) thus the 1 strength unit would be eliminated, and the 2-st unit would drop to 1, because of the one piece used in the attack. Is that the way this would work?

Thanks for helping me piece together the subtle points of this game.

Thread: Re: Stuck on a Rule. (Declaration of the Defense).

tyvek — 2008-11-26T01:19:40+00:00

squonk wrote:
I think there may be a number of issues here, but I think the most direct answer to your question is that an attacker can declare the attack to be "narrow" even if he is attacking across a wide approach. In that case, the defender may have named 2 lead defenders in an earlier step. If that's the case, the attacker gets to choose one of those two units to flip back down, and he can only name zero or one leading pieces himself.

Does that help?

Squonk~ Yes, thank you that does help! I get it now.

Thread: Re: Stuck on a Rule. (Declaration of the Defense).

tyvek — 2008-11-26T01:18:53+00:00

tyvek wrote:

How can you have two units named for a narrow approach when only one is able to be named the leading unit?

"By naming two (or more) units as defenders when you chose not to retreat. If you had 6 units in a narrow approach, you would have to name all 6 as defenders, but could subsequently name only 1 as leading the defense."

This, is the piece that I needed to turn the key that, all along, was sitting in the lock...George, thanks for opening the door for me!

Thread: Re: Stuck on a Rule. (Declaration of the Defense).

Sphere — 2008-11-25T23:42:54+00:00

tyvek wrote:
So I've played this game a few times, and am still trying to completely "get it." (I'm closer.)

This question is directed to the wording of the rules for Defense Declaration, (11.4 *bullet #2*).

"The choice of leading units is resetricted as follows:

Bullet #2: Zero, one, or two units can be named if the defense is wide; zero or one if it is narrow."

Those are restrictions, and they remain in force.

tyvek wrote:

Then (11.5 ~ the 3rd paragraph);

"The attack width determines the number of leading units that can be named (for both sides). If the attack approach is narrow, the attack is narrow...."

So, suddenly, for the first time, it seems as though if the approach is narrow, there can be only one leading unit yet there can be two "named."

Nothing you've quoted leads to the conclusion that two units can be named leading in a narrow approach. How does "if the approach is narrow, the attack is narrow" get you to that point?

This entire section, including the part you didn't quote, basically goes in the other direction entirely, by explaining that even if the approach was wide, the attacker has the option of making a narrow attack and selecting only one of the named leading defenders as the object of the attack.

tyvek wrote:

It seems that I'm now stuck on the word "named." So in (11.2 paragraph #2), "Any or all of the pieces of the defense reserve may be >named< as defending pieces..."

You've confused named defenders with named leading units. The latter are a subset of the former.

tyvek wrote:

Then from this "naming" you then at (11.4) "name" the "leading units". >> Yet, only zero or one if it is narrow...

This is where you name leading units from the set of named defenders.

tyvek wrote:

Yet the restriction of leading units is "zero or one if the approach is narrow..."

Still true.

tyvek wrote:

How can you have two units named for a narrow approach when only one is able to be named the leading unit?

By naming two (or more) units as defenders when you chose not to retreat. If you had 6 units in a narrow approach, you would have to name all 6 as defenders, but could subsequently name only 1 as leading the defense.

tyvek wrote:

((This, before always seemed to be clear. The defender could choose any number of defenders, yet only one would be allowed to "do the actual fighting". Now, all of a sudden, I'm stuck on the word, "naming...")

Would someone out there be so kind as to guide me back onto the "straight and narrow?"

Thank you.

Sure. Hopefully I didn't confuse you further.

Thread: Re: Stuck on a Rule. (Declaration of the Defense).

squonk — 2008-11-25T23:30:30+00:00

I think there may be a number of issues here, but I think the most direct answer to your question is that an attacker can declare the attack to be "narrow" even if he is attacking across a wide approach. In that case, the defender may have named 2 lead defenders in an earlier step. If that's the case, the attacker gets to choose one of those two units to flip back down, and he can only name zero or one leading pieces himself.

Does that help?

Thread: Stuck on a Rule. (Declaration of the Defense).

tyvek — 2008-11-25T23:13:15+00:00

So I've played this game a few times, and am still trying to completely "get it." (I'm closer.)

This question is directed to the wording of the rules for Defense Declaration, (11.4 *bullet #2*).

"The choice of leading units is resetricted as follows:

Bullet #2: Zero, one, or two units can be named if the defense is wide; zero or one if it is narrow."

Then (11.5 ~ the 3rd paragraph);

"The attack width determines the number of leading units that can be named (for both sides). If the attack approach is narrow, the attack is narrow...."

So, suddenly, for the first time, it seems as though if the approach is narrow, there can be only one leading unit yet there can be two "named."

It seems that I'm now stuck on the word "named." So in (11.2 paragraph #2), "Any or all of the pieces of the defense reserve may be >named< as defending pieces..."

Then from this "naming" you then at (11.4) "name" the "leading units". >> Yet, only zero or one if it is narrow...

Yet the restriction of leading units is "zero or one if the approach is narrow..."

How can you have two units named for a narrow approach when only one is able to be named the leading unit?

((This, before always seemed to be clear. The defender could choose any number of defenders, yet only one would be allowed to "do the actual fighting". Now, all of a sudden, I'm stuck on the word, "naming...")

Would someone out there be so kind as to guide me back onto the "straight and narrow?"

Thank you.

Thread: Re: BGG Con 2008 - Allies Roll Back French Right for Decisive Victory

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-25T17:17:05+00:00

ExcitingJeff wrote:
Nice session report. I was actually the commander for our side, although I think we split the responsibilities pretty well.

No problem. I'll change that in the report... couldn't remember for sure.

Chris

Thread: Re: BGG Con 2008 - Allies Roll Back French Right for Decisive Victory

ExcitingJeff — 2008-11-25T13:28:48+00:00

Nice session report. I was actually the commander for our side, although I think we split the responsibilities pretty well.

Thread: Re: BGG Con 2008 - Allies Roll Back French Right for Decisive Victory

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-25T11:55:13+00:00

David Ells wrote:
What is the website for BGG Con - where & when was it held?

Hi, Dave. The BGG Con is held once a year toward the end of November in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Every year since it's inception it has been held at the Dallas-Fort Worth Westin on John Carpenter Blvd. This year the Con took place on TH 11/20/08 to SU 11/23/08.

Chris

Thread: Re: BGG Con 2008 - Allies Roll Back French Right for Decisive Victory

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-25T11:53:21+00:00

Epee wrote:
did you guys remember you can freely detach 7 (I think) french units in the setup, up to 2 locales distant from their initial corps position?

Your starting setup as the french seems way to weak on your right flank - you need the independent infantry units spread out defending those approaches.

Yeah, we remembered we could do that, but my teammate, Jon, who was a great guy, was new to the game, and because of the team rules, I couldn't advise him on what to do--it was sort of a learning game for everyone, but especially for him, I think. And just FYI, it's 6 units, I think (plus the designated artillery grand battery).

Thanks for the comments!

Thread: Re: BGG Con 2008 - Allies Roll Back French Right for Decisive Victory

David Ells — 2008-11-25T04:35:51+00:00

What is the website for BGG Con - where & when was it held?

Thread: Re: BGG Con 2008 - Allies Roll Back French Right for Decisive Victory

Epee — 2008-11-25T04:22:10+00:00

did you guys remember you can freely detach 7 (I think) french units in the setup, up to 2 locales distant from their initial corps position?

Your starting setup as the french seems way to weak on your right flank - you need the independent infantry units spread out defending those approaches.

Thread: BGG Con 2008 - Allies Roll Back French Right for Decisive Victory

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-25T02:49:20+00:00

BGG Con 2008: Napoleon’s Triumph 11/21/2008

Disclaimer: This Session report contains bad photography. I apologize that I am not adept at snapping pictures, but I tried to focus on game play and not holding up the game, rather than BGG posting aesthetics. Most of the photos are skewed, but they are good enough to give you a sense of the sweep of the game. Finally, I should say that in the moment of the game, I try to remember and jot down the relevant details, but I forget some things, such as which Ally player was the commander, and so, to those players, I apologize, but it was a simple matter of just getting caught up in the sweep of the moment rather than any specific intent to “get it wrong.”

This is one of three session reports on games I played at BGG Con 2008. You can find the other two session reports at some point in the near future on those reports’ respective game pages (The Napoleonic Wars (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/358810) and Warriors of God (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/358923)).

This game was organized on the Wargamer’s Geeklist prior to the Con, and we had an overwhelming response with 12 players. Luckily, we had enough copies of the game, and three games were played side-by-side. Here you can see the boards set up with Rusty Ballinger (kuhrusty), explaining the rules:

]]>

With three copies of the game, team rules were used, giving every game two players on each side.

INTRODUCTION

With two players, the team rules require a commander-in-chief and then ranked subordinate commanders. If you’ve never played with team rules, you should--it’s a riot. Basically, the team divides up the corps between themselves. During that side’s turn, the chief commander goes first and uses as any orders as he wants. Anything left goes to the next-most-senior commander, and so on. If there are no orders left when your position (or rank) in the pecking order comes around, then you get no actions. The only other rule is that you get a brief conference before the battle, but once the battle starts, you can’t discuss strategy any more.

In our game, Jeffrey Dieterle (who I also played against in Here I Stand the following day) and Dave Thompson (who I have played Hannibal: Rome v. Carthage against at Wargameroom), were my opponents. As with all my opponents at the con, Jeff and Dave were great to play against. My teammate was Jon Wandke, who I met for this one game of Napoleon’s Triumph and never saw again.

Here’s a pic of Jeff and Dave (I didn’t get a picture of my teammate! Sorry, Jon!):

]]>

After some discussion, we decided that Jeff and Dave would play the Allies and Jon and I would play the French. I promptly foisted the Commander-in-Chief spot on Jon, who was reluctant to take it, but I convinced him that since he didn’t own a copy of the game (and I did), he should play with as much freedom as possible to see if he liked it; I’m already a Simmons Games fan and take no convincing to purchase his games.

In our two-player-per-side game, the team play didn’t cause much trouble for the French since we get an order for every corps and four independent orders. The issue of orders did create a tense moment for me toward the end of the game, which I’ll explain a little later.

During the initial conference, Jon and I decided not to bring on the reinforcements unless we absolutely had to, and the strategy would be, instead to wear the Allies’ morale down. Later in the game, this would prove to be a problem, but the choice to bring on the reinforcements lay with Jon, as the Commander-in-Chief.

If you’ve never played the game before, the set-up procedure forces all the corps to be in their historic locations but allows the players to alter the composition of each corps’ from a set pool of units. There are minimums and maximum numbers of units for each corps, but players could, for instance, give Kollowrath eight units of cavalry, or give their reinforcement corps two infantry and two cavalry, etc. In any event, the Allies set up first. Then the French.

Here’s the initial locations of the corps:

]]>

Now that introductions were done, set up was complete, and we had some semblance of knowledge about the rules, we began the game. Initial corps assignments were as follows:

ALLIES

Jeffrey Dieterle (Commander in Chief)

Bagration
Constantine
Kollowrath
Przybelski
Milokorvich

Dave Thompson (Subordinate Commander)

Keinmeyer
Doktorov
Lichtenstein
Langeron

FRENCH

Jon Wandke (Commander in Chief)

Legrand
St. Hilaire
Vandamme
Davout (Reinforcement)
Bernadotte (Reinforcement)

Chris Montgomery (Subordinate Commander)

Lannes
Bessieres
Murat

We then divided up our forces for the 8:00 AM turn, and here’s how we ended up dividing our forces and what the initial map looked like after all set up maneuvers:

]]>

Finally, the battle was pretty much held to each player taking one flank of his respective army, and so this session report generally narrates the battle from the perspective of each flank.

As an aside, I should point out that this Session Report is told from the point of view of the French, my side of the battle, since I have no idea of the composition of the Allies, and all my pics were taken from my side of the table.

THE 8:00 AM TURN

The Allies used their full allotment of corps commands (4) to advance the two corps on either flank against the French right and left flanks. The French appeared to have a relatively defensible position along the left flank . . .

]]>

. . . But the right flank was held by Legrand, and with four units, he looked pretty lonely against Kienmeyer’s and Doktorov’s large corps . . .

]]>

The French reacted by sending out cavalry screens on the left flank:

]]>

As you can see, Lannes sent out a cavalry screen to challenge Constantine and held the line to see how the Allies would approach.

On the French right, Legrand moved to block the approach against Kienmeyer’s Corps:

]]>

THE 9:00 AM TURN

As the battle progressed past its first hour and into the second, Bagration (Allies) advanced into Siwitz against the French left, still cautious, while the Lannes spread out his cavalry screen and Bessieres, with the French guard, moved to meet Bagration.

On the right, the Allies swept around Legrand and behind the French lines.

By the end of the hour, the battle positions looked like this:

]]>

THE 10:00 AM TURN

Battle joined on the French left as the Guard were committed to Siwitz expecting to throw back Allied infantry from the city. Unfortunately, it was an entire corp of Allied cavalry instead, who escaped unharmed into the open plains to the east of Siwitz. (I was sure it was infantry, but it was cavalry, so I lost the French four morale for no reason, but I now knew it was cavalry, I suppose). On the French right, two full corps (Doktorok and Kienmeyer) slipped well behind Legrand and into dangerous terrain, cutting off the French from any possible retreat. Kienmeyer took up positions threatening to outflank Legrand and attempt a whole-sale collapse of the French right:

]]>

After this display, I was sincerely hoping my erstwhile commander would commit the reinforcements to the battle to shore up the right flank, but alas, no commitment was to come. Because the rules prohibited discussing strategy, I didn’t say anything. It was at this point, however, about an hour into play, that the writing began to scribble across the wall.

THE 11:00 AM TURN

By the end of 10:00, the French right flank was in shambles.

During the 11:00 AM Allied turn on the French right, the Allies continued to move further behind the French flank, and focused most of their attention (and orders) on the French center and right. Legrand was pinned in, and Kienmeyer was now in position to pinch the center, while Doktorov tore Legrand apart piecemeal:

]]>

On the French left, the Allies held the line, but didn’t push too hard . . . instead, Murat came under heavy artillery fire in the left-center, taking two morale points.

]]>

During the French turn, the French attempted a few attacks on the right, but the Allies held, and Legrand found his corps scattered across several approaches:

]]>

Additionally, St. Hilaire’s attack faltered, and he was broken with his units now detached, he stood weakened with the Allies to the front and the rear.

During my teammate’s play, this is where the orders for the French mattered. We had four (4) independent commands, and I sat silently through the French turn, hoping that Jon would leave me with three independent commands. With those commands, I could surround the Allied corps on the French left.

Jon thankfully did leave three independent commands, and so, on the French left, Lannes’ cavalry surrounded the left-most Allied corps, and Bessieres committed the guard again to attack Bagration’s cavalry corps. The corps, having no retreat, surrendered, costing the Allies eight morale.

As you can see here, the French left looked promising, despite the dire situation on the right and right-center:

]]>

After the full 11:00 Turn, here’s a picture of the overall battlefield:

]]>

As you can see, St. Hilaire and Vandamme (in the center) are broken, and Legrand, though still fighting, is scattered about the French right. The capture of Bagration’s corps helped the French left, which looks wide-open, but to no avail.

THE 12:00 PM TURN

By the beginning of the next turn, the Allies attacked St. Hillaire’s broken corps, and it had no retreat and surrendered. Because of that, the French morale, already in dire straits, finally broke, to give the Allies a decisive victory and end the battle:

]]>

Here’s a picture of the Turn and Morale Tracks, showing the horrendous morale situation for the French, and the relatively fresh Allies:

]]>

FINAL THOUGHTS

I was a little disappointed that my teammate didn’t commit the reinforcements, but that was his decision to make. As one of my other opponents said at the Con when making a crazy move: "It's just a damn game," and laughing, made the move. The battle felt like two smaller battles as the Allies had first attempted to pincher-move the right and left flank. One of their attacks was successful and they broke through. The game was great fun, but I think Jon and I struggled a little with the combat system. By the time I figured it out, it was too late.

Congratulations to Jeff and Dave, who played a great game, and were gracious victors. I hope to play them again next year; if not at Napoleon’s Triumph, at something else. Unfortunately, I never saw Jon after the game, but he was a fun teammate and not oppressive with his command-position. I hope everyone else had as much fun as I did, despite the loss.

Cheers.

Chris Montgomery

:-)

Edit: Correct commanders, grammar issues.
Edit: Added links to other sessions for BGG Con.

Image

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-24T21:17:27+00:00

BGG Con 2008 - Final Turn Track and Morale Track Positions

Image

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-24T21:08:54+00:00

BGG Con 2008 Board Position After 10:00 AM Turn

Image

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-24T21:06:27+00:00

BGG Con 2008 Board Position After 9:00 AM Austria Turn

Image

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-24T21:03:52+00:00

BGG Con 2008 Initial Setup

Thread: Re: Re-clash! Allied march towards victory?

fauxia — 2008-11-23T15:26:45+00:00

It was a fun game, again. I don't know if it is my experience with Marengo or something else, but I never seem to get right all those details in the attack procudure. After the game, as I was walking back home, I realized that I could have forced even one more morale loss for French during my final turn. The relevant rule I forgot was that one step unit in reserve could not be used to lead defense (but I will not forget that anymore...). NT is really a great game, but I have never had so many problems with getting the rules right. And I'm used to complex wargamer and their rules.

Thread: Re-clash! Allied march towards victory?

Henkka — 2008-11-23T09:58:22+00:00

Napoleon's Triumph session - 22.11.2008

There was no doubt about a rematch after our last game as we both enjoyed the game tremendously. This is a picturesque story about that rematch, which turned to be quite a fabulous experience - again. My respect for the game system is growing after each game. It's ingenious.

The sides were reversed this time. I have pretty much always wanted to play with French side, but the lady luck has been keeping me at bay, until now. This leaves Miikka with Allies.

My strategy was a bit like last time, choose some general plan/objective and see what happens. This is especially why I like this game. There doesn't seem to be any obviously best strategies and whatever you plan will need serious remodelling soon enough anyway.. The strategy that failed this time was to plan on bringing the reinforcements in sometime during the game and trying to launch "massive" attack in north. It didn't exactly work as planned..

Miikka revealed after the game that His Plan was to break through in the south and force me to bring my reinforcements or take the morale penalty of getting my corps defeated there. Well, well.

I gave the other reinforcement corps two guard infantries, one 2-strength infantry and one cannon. The other got one 3-strength infantry and three 2-strength infantries. I put only one 3-strength infantry to south..

]]>

Miikka launches forward in north and drives my cavalry screen away. In north Miikka detaches few cavalries to annoy my advancing corps. My corps in the south is already feeling lonely and sorry for himself.

]]>

My answer is to ignore the south and its lousy situation for the time being and try to give Allied something else to think about, so I advance aggressively in the north. I did cause some havoc with my brave cavalry though. My center is quite weak, but I try to make it look stronger than it really is..

]]>

Miikka spends this turn reorganizing his troops and doesn't do anything too offensive. One of his corps advances in the middle but that's about it.

]]>

I continue my advance in the north, I'll be damned it Miikka can ignore this for much longer.. I actually forgot about my southern corps and took picture before moving it (and I was lazy enough not to take another shot), so that's why it has done things in the picture after this one..

]]>

Miikka is starting to get serious in the south, breaking through is just a matter of time. Looking back, I should have began a tactical withdrawal.. but I'm bad at this game. Miikka also answers my aggression in the north - to a degree. Allies also move more corps to the center, maybe Miikka was feeling good enough about the situation in south.

]]>

The south is lost, but who cares? Surely not this imbecile of a general. A withdrawal should have happened during this turn. On the other hand I continue to press forward in north as it seems Miikka hasn't assigned too much troops here. I must say my "massive" attack is progressing well, though the fact that I haven't seen much resistance is a bit distracting.

]]>

Miikka finally tests the ice in the south and finds that I have one 2-strength infantry blocking the approach to that big locale. The big attack will come next turn. Miikka also strengthens his attack in the center and slightly to my surprise, attacks (with detach move) in the north in addition to fainting with cavalry. I revealed 3-strength infantry and Miikka decides to run for it. (It was Miikka's turn for after thoughts and he left one unit behind to that locale in north, so see next picture for accurate situation)

]]>

My campaign in north is looking good. I drive the cavalry in the village away with the 2-strength infantry I detached in that cavalry's feinting action last turn, feint with another cavalry (3-strength) and attack with corps to test the waters, but dare not to try to break through yet. It's going to happen next turn anyway. In the center my couple cavalries wreck havoc with the one enemy corps there and I move Vandamme to a position that looks better for him (well, it was his grave in the end, though). I should have moved that cavalry to a different locale down in the south... that sure back fired later.

]]>

Miikka breaks through my line in south and prepares to attack in the center. Then he makes a weird move and tries to attack with one 1-strength infantry in the north. I tell him, "good sir, you can do that, but alas that unit cannot lead an attack." Miikka however wants to attack still, but changes his unit to 2-strength infantry instead. I guess Miikka dislikes taking moves back.

]]>

I decide to bring in the reinforcements. To tell the truth I have pondered on bringing them sooner, but wanted to keep Miikka guessing whether or not I'll bring them. My situation (I think) was pretty good otherwise, I already have plenty stars that Miikka would have to either cut off from my supply road or take back. Or, I can bring in the reinforcements and try to get one 3-star locale, which shouldn't be all that hard.

In the north I easily break through and am en route to 3-star locale. I attach that 2-strength infantry in the village to corps. In the center I make horrible miscalculations and plays. I decide to stay in that village with Vandamme and use him to feint along with pretty much everything I have in the center (well, maybe not with artillery). At south I decide to leave my bitter defeat with Legrand last and move my reinforcements first and feint with that one cavalry.

The to the battle of Legrand. It's clear that he will be surrounded and most likely killed before his next turn, so why not die with your boots on? I think I should plan on dying more often as I can fail even at that. The procedure went something like this:

Ok, I attack, it's not a feint.
Ok, so you have that defending.. you gonna counter-attack?
NO? WHAT? YOU ONLY HAVE CAVALRY THERE? WHY?

Perplexed, Legrand is watching cavalries retreat while wondering which god owed him favours..

]]>

But fear not, payback time was getting near. I bet perhaps a bit too much on the fact that Vandamme could hold out in the city. It turns out that he couldn't. 6 morale points down to drain due to not being able to retreat. Miikka also organizes his forces in the south, to better defend against my attacks.

]]>

It was getting more and more obvious that this game too shall end in demoralization. So I rush to help my forces in south with my other reinforcement corps (the 1x3 and 3x2 one), commit the guards in the other one, so 4 morale points lost there in addition to lost battle. I didn't guard attack yet, as I was saving it for later. Turns out it was too late. Nothing much happened in the north, the battle there was pretty much decided already.

]]>

I had severely underestimated the strength of Miikka's two corps in the south. These two were able to push my aiding corps back causing me to lose enough morale and the game. We actually played my turn too, because we had played counter-attack morale loss wrong. Namely, we didn't reduce the points from counter-attacking units from the morale. The funny thing is that I would have won the game on my turn, had I got it.

]]>

The turn that should have never happened. I start by making a guard attack and blasting through Miikka's defences in the south. Miikka loses just enough morale to demoralize.

]]>

I think this will be my last photo-commentary. Next time will be with 2 day scenario and taking snapshots slows the game down.. I once again had tons of fun. Some pretty weird things happened and the game progressed very differently to the previous one.

edits: I mixed north-south big time. I hope I've fixed all of them by now..

Thread: Re: Another Solitaire Idea

521tiger — 2008-11-21T12:16:54+00:00

jkantor wrote:
...I'm going to try resolving combats using some form of SCRUD (Simple Combat Resolution Using Dice). If that looks workable, I'll add some command and fog-of-war issues using matrix game arguments.
John,
this just sounds super! I'll always find myself in the position of lacking partner to play a descent wargame, what finally put me into the corner of playing it solitair.
So go ahead and try, AND THEN..., let us all know!!!

Cheers
Andy (521tiger)

Thread: Re: Four problems & ideas how to solve them

jkantor — 2008-11-20T11:08:43+00:00

G Haggerty wrote:

NT's level of resolution is really the corps. In that context, its combat model works and is internally consistent.

That is the important point - as well as the fact that NT is modelling that combat much differently than traditional hex or area combat games - in what I'd say is a much more historical manner for the scale.

The 3-1 "attacker automatically wins" approach of most wargames is both a bias and an abstraction of combat at a different level.

And it's "lose" - not "loose."

"Lose" the game. "Loose" the hounds. The rope is "loose."

Thread: Re: Sample game - armies moving like a knight piece in chess

jkantor — 2008-11-20T09:37:40+00:00

I've come across many boardgames which give good results when both players play historically - but which fall apart to varying extents when the players exploit the system.

I just ordered NT, but it seems to me that Dominik's first point (morale loss for taking an objective) could only help encourage historical play in an historical manner - by making the objectives valuable at all stages of the game.

But the second seems to be an arbitrary way of handling the situation. If the problem is exposing lines of supply and communication, why not add lines of supply and communication? Add HQ markers and Aides de Camp who have to move to deliver Corps commands, as well as creating a baggage train entry road that the HQ has to trace to. That should make protecting your rear area important for the same reasons it was historically.

But that sample game does look silly - more like Stratego.

Thread: Another Solitaire Idea

jkantor — 2008-11-20T07:07:23+00:00

I only just ordered this, but it seems to me that what you need for a decent solitaire solution is some uncertainty about combat results - without, of course, the problems of just randomly shuffling the opposing units and playing them blind.

I'm going to try resolving combats using some form of SCRUD (Simple Combat Resolution Using Dice). If that looks workable, I'll add some command and fog-of-war issues using matrix game arguments.

Thread: Re: Napoleon's Triumph (literally)... too bad I was the allies.

Henkka — 2008-11-18T10:12:52+00:00

G Haggerty wrote:
fauxia wrote:
...and I forgot to put one non-2 step infantry unit in both reserve corps...

You only need one unit (in each reserve corps) that's not a 2-strength infantry, so the corps with the artillery unit was fine.

Yes, but the other corps has only 2 strength infantry in it, so it's not fine as far as I understand the rules. But this was and is very minor detail and I don't think it had any effect on the game.

Thread: Re: Napoleon's Triumph (literally)... too bad I was the allies.

G Haggerty — 2008-11-17T20:03:56+00:00

fauxia wrote:
...and I forgot to put one non-2 step infantry unit in both reserve corps...

You only need one unit (in each reserve corps) that's not a 2-strength infantry, so the corps with the artillery unit was fine.

Thread: Re: Napoleon's Triumph (literally)... too bad I was the allies.

Henkka — 2008-11-17T19:10:57+00:00

fauxia wrote:

It was really a game worth playing, and I hope that I won't have to again wait for a year to play it again.
I dare say you don't. In fact, I want a rematch. Preferably soon. I'm also very much interested in trying EastFront as it didn't seem to last too long..

Thread: Re: Napoleon's Triumph (literally)... too bad I was the allies.

fauxia — 2008-11-17T18:05:11+00:00

Yes, it was the one day scenario. And it was real fun. I think Henkka's excellent report misses one crucial point. I would have probably lost the game the next turn if my final attack didn't succeed. So the game came really close in the end.

I had played one test and one real game earlier but they were over a year ago. So I had forgotten some of the details, and the really taxing learning run of Here I Stand the day before meant that I didn't study NT's rulebook much the evening before the game. So I had completely forgotten how the screening cavalry worked and I forgot to put one non-2 step infantry unit in both reserve corps. So maybe Henkka should have won, we never know...

Like Henkka said, my plan was to decide to game in the north. I was even thinking about attacking Bagration if it seemed like that Henkka was going attack my very, very weak left flank. But as he came after my spearhead, the battle was going to be decided where my "endless supply of 3 power units" were (I think I had only one 3-step unit in south). And then I had some luck in being successful in both of my high stake attacks, while I was able to stand my ground in defense every time it really mattered.

It was really a game worth playing, and I hope that I won't have to again wait for a year to play it again.

Thread: Re: Napoleon's Triumph (literally)... too bad I was the allies.

Sphere — 2008-11-17T03:44:33+00:00

Given that start picture, it had to be the one day scenario.

A good report. What I really enjoy is how the pictures of your game look so much like a summary of an actual Napoleonic battle.

Thread: Re: Napoleon's Triumph (literally)... too bad I was the allies.

Iceberg1 — 2008-11-17T02:56:51+00:00

Did you play the two day game or the one day? I'm surprised you lost so much morale as the allies. It seems like there are so many ways to win (and lose) this game.

--James

Thread: Re: Napoleon's Triumph (literally)... too bad I was the allies.

kuhrusty — 2008-11-17T02:31:20+00:00

Henkka wrote:
Miikka had misunderstood how feint attacks work in his previous games (that you have to actually always have to move at least one unit to the attack approach)
I think this is what you meant, but just in case: the defender must move at least one unit into the defense approach; the attacker may stay in reserve.

Henkka wrote:
I was feeling pretty good at the time and even offering to restart the game, but Miikka refused and wanted to see it through.
Ha ha ha. Now, in future games, he will never surrender.

I really like how the mid-game pictures clearly show corps disintegrating as the two sides' plans run into each other.

Thread: Napoleon's Triumph (literally)... too bad I was the allies.

Henkka — 2008-11-16T21:01:00+00:00

Napoleon's Triumph (literally) session - 16.11.2008

First of all, I apologise for the pictures you are about to see. I'm about as bad in NT as I'm bad in the arts of photography. I tried using GIMP in vain hope of making my photos suck less, but it didn't seem to help much. Just don't zoom in..

The place for the fateful encounter was Maracon 21, a Role/Boardgaming.. maybe convention is pushing it, but a happening anyway organized by local role playing guild Cryo. We started our game pretty early -> not much people around yet, which is partly reason why you don't see anyone on the pictures.

But next to the actual session.

Initial setup

We decided who will play with which side randomly. I got the Allies. As this was practically my first (and Miika's second, not sure..) game I just decided setup quickly and not thinks too much about it. What I decided to do was to try to amass quite a punch to the middle and see what happens.. We discussed about the general strategy a bit after the game and Miikka revealed that he aim was to try to push in the north (my right side of the board). He also revealed that he had pretty much no intention to bring his reinforcements in..

]]>

Turn 1

I started my game as I had planned, by moving determinedly towards the French in the middle. I think I had quite a bit punch there and didn't want to give Miikka too much time to organize his defence. I also detached a couple cavalry units to harass the French troops. I was slightly surprised when Miikka boldly answered my moves by moving his corps in the right forward.. though he retreated with one corps, aiming to go reinforcing his centre.

]]>

Turn 2

Miikka had misunderstood how feint attacks work in his previous games (that you have to actually always have to move at least one unit to the attack approach), which eventually led to retreat of one of his cavalry corps (and to its breaking). Which is probably why Miikka had so little interest in cavalry screens. Now realizing his advancing corps could be in danger, he retreated them a bit. I still had some confidence in my plan and zoomed onward. Nothing too major happened yet, anyway.

]]>

Turn 3

Miikka's corps didn't get to retreat far enough and was torn apart by my feints. I was feeling pretty good at the time and even offering to restart the game, but Miikka refused and wanted to see it through. Well, I'll soon learn how to fall from that high horse of mine.. I still pushed forward as I thought I had upper hand here. Miikka simply repositioned his troops to defend better while trying to keep out of harms way.

]]>

Turn 4

On this turn I was able to once again rip one of Miika's corps to a bit smaller, but so was Miikka on his part of the turn. I was trying to surround the French on the right but doing so meant I had to go to their back, which I did. But Miikka was successful in pushing me back and I "lost" one corps in the process. I guess I was over confident. For me it looked like Miikka had an endless supply of 3 power units to throw on my way. I was still leading on morale, though not much. The situation in the middle was starting to look more grave.. Miikka's advance on my left also started to look a bit worrying (I had ignored it up until now and continued to do so this turn..)

]]>

Turn 5

I moved even more manpower to the centre, hoping it would hold. I had also attempted in guard attack which Miikka shrugged of by having one more 3 strength unit to spare. Again I think I was taking unnecessary risks.. Miikka also dug in in the centre.. On the other hand Miikka's crusade on the left was even more worrying and he could have actually forced my corps there to retreat if he had one more cavalry there.. time to do something about it, huh?

]]>

Turn 6, end

Turn 6 had some good moments as I finally was able to break through and surround the French in the right, how ever, Miikka was a bit later able to break my defence in the middle and I went to below zero morale. I haven't been as pleased to lose in a while. Napoleon's Triumph has that special charm that appeals to me greatly. I want to have my ass handed to me again, preferably very soon.

]]>

Thread: Re: Which side has the edge?

Tudeh — 2008-11-14T10:11:55+00:00

I resume the discussion of this thread, because now, after many NT games against my usual opponent, I believe the French to have the edge in the game.

In the beginning, I thought the two sides were equally strong, both with their respective strengths and weaknesses, but now I think the greater mobility of the French gives them the edge in the game.

Most of our games end with a French victory, and it doesn't matter who plays which side. The greater mobility of the French is of no consequence in the beginning of a game, neither in mid-game, but towards the end in the last four rounds or so, especially when the French reinforcements have arrived, the Allies often get bogged down and cannot react appropriately to the French movements. Some Allied corps usually just stand idle, far from the real action. Often in our games, this is the main reason that decides a game in favor of the French.
What are your thoughts? Any comments? Or do you disagree and think the Allies much stronger?
Greetings,
Michael

Thread: La Victoire est à Nous - music to play with Napoleon's Triumph

WalterLai — 2008-11-11T08:57:53+00:00

La Victoire est à Nous or "Victory is Ours" is my favorite march music. It captures the romanticism of the late 18th century and Napoleonic audacity.

Other Napoleonic French military music can be downloaded here. Three of the marches come with introduction in French.

Also found here is Marche de la Garde Consulaire, another of my favorites which I have mentioned at Bonaparte at Marengo page here.

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

2097 — 2008-11-07T18:54:11+00:00

Sphere wrote:
Random selection is optimal in rock paper scissors

Not really "optimal". Here's why RPS is so beautiful:

Let's agree that a random player has a 50% chance of victory. No more, no less - even vs "bad" (predictable) players.

So "bad" players have equal chance against random players,

who have an equal chance against "good" (either using psychology or statistics) players,

who have a better-than-equal chance against "bad" players.

"bad" > random (since it's less effort for an equal chance)
random > "good" (again, since it's less effort for an equal chance)
"good" > "bad" (since they have a greater chance)

Now where have we seen that wheel of outcomes before?

RPS becomes even better when you add social layers into the mix, like the "Choose rock if you don't care about the outcome" tradition that some groups have ("I know she does care, for once... but is she going to choose rock anyway, to double-trick me?") or lying (or truthing) about what you're going to choose, in order to psyche the opponent.

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

wargamer55 — 2008-10-23T02:14:01+00:00

I agree with George that these discussions appear every so often in BGG and always end up going over the same ground, but I do think it's a disservice to readers and potential players of NT (or Bonaparte at Marengo or even Stratego) to suggest that these games include "luck" as people commonly understand it.

The number of potential setups in NT is countless, but they will be driven by a player's strategic plans and therefore will not be random except insofar as some indecisive player might be tempted to use a die roll or other random result generator to help him choose among some final set of possibilities. This isn't an inherent part of the game. An indecisve chess player could do the same. Most players will not, however, and their choices will be driven by their strategic style, peronsal preference and perhaps some judgement about his opponent.

There';s actually a small random element in Bonaparte at Marengo involving the French setup, but other than that the game does not include luck. Neither does Stratego. All these games use a deterministic system to resolve conflicts, although often the players involved will not know the result ahead of time. This may resemble luck, espeically to novice players, but it really isn't. It's simply uncertain information.

That's not to say that game theory may not help. Game theory includes all sorts of considerations that may help a player decide among alternatives, but I'm not sure that those insights are not more useful than similar insights one might derive from works of classic strategy or psychology.

Many traditional conflict games have neither luck nor hidden information. Chess is the classic example, but there have been a few others since.

Most wargames have luck but do not have hidden information. Simple and classic examples of this are Napoleon at Waterloo or Drive on Metz which do have luck in the form of die rolls but have no hidden inforamtion (except for the inscrutability of the opponent's mind).

Quite a few conflict games have both luck and uncertain information. The block games of Columbia and GMT fall into this category, but so so such diverse approaches sucha s card-driven games, Commands & Colors games and even games like Cosmic Encounter.

NT, BaM and Stratego are members of a far smaller group that skip the luck part but keep the uncertainty.

I don't think it's useful to confuse the two concepts. In actual play they will sometimes have similar effects, especially in the early going and among less experienced players, but over the long run they are different animals.

As a game of Stratego, BaM or NT progresses you gather information about the opponent and this affects your own decision-making. Good strategy involves creating a board situation that is clear enough for you that there's minimal uncertainty, meanwhile keeping things as unceratin as possible for your opponent. In theory success will mean you know exatcly what can happen.

In a game with luck there are limits on what one can know simply because you can't predict how the randome elements will play out. All you can do is try to manage them. For example, in Wizard Kings you may (and should try) to determine the exact composition of an enemy force before attacking it, but you cannot know how the battle will turn out until you fight it. Indeed, a good strategist in that game will need to have a backup plan in case the battle goes awry.

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

andylatto — 2008-10-22T20:30:53+00:00

The whole rock paper scissors thing is a poor analogy. Random selection is optimal in rock paper scissors, but it most certainly is not in NT.

Choosing a setup by choosing randomly, with equal probability, from all possible setups certainly is not correct in NT. But it's also the case that choosing the same fixed setup every game is not correct, either, since it would let your opponent choose the setup that is optimal against your fixed setup. Given that, the optimal strategy is to choose one of a number of different setups, with appropriate probabilities, as dictated by game theory. And the optimum play for our opponent is a similarly mixed strategy. In any given game, you will choose one of the good setups, and so will your opponent. Sometimes your opponent will choose a setup that is very effective against the setup you have chosen; other times, he will choose a setup that is less effective against the setup you actually chose, because it is more effective against other setups that you might have chosen, but did not on this occasion, purely through random chance. And I see no significant difference between this sort of random chance and the sort provided by an explicit die roll.

Of course, unlike Rock-Paper Scissors, NT also has a huge amount of skill in it, and the most skillful player will in fact win a huge percentage of the time, even when they get "unlucky" in their random choice among the good setups. That doesn't change the fact that there is luck in whether your hidden setup and that of your opponent happen to match up well or poorly for you.

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

Sphere — 2008-10-22T18:43:37+00:00

There are probably five hundred "is it luck" threads on BGG that go through all the same arguments, and I try to avoid them, but I feel strongly about NT so I'll take my shot.

The whole rock paper scissors thing is a poor analogy. Random selection is optimal in rock paper scissors, but it most certainly is not in NT. If both players selected their deployment randomly, and selected their moves randomly, luck would determine the outcome. But unlike in rock paper scissors, if one NT player did that, he would consistently get butchered.

NT players organize their forces with a plan in mind, and reveal information about that plan by their actions. If a single unit moves independently around my flank, I know it isn't artillery.

The inability to gauge your opponent's strength and intentions in a given situation is not bad luck, it is failed judgement. Even in cases where you have no way of predicting if a unit is a 2 or a 3, and the difference will spell success or failure, a good commander will decide whether taking the risk is a good or a bad idea based on his assessment of where he stands in the battle as a whole.

The guy who makes the best choices is the guy who wins in NT, time after time.

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

malloc — 2008-10-22T18:16:10+00:00

andylatto wrote:
I think the distinction you make between luck and uncertainty is not a useful one. For example, the game of Rock-Paper-Scissors has no luck in it by your definition.

Not True, There is randomness (luck) in the choice made by the players. it is the same as a die roll of 1-3

In your second example you did not remove the luck, you simply changed the method of randomization.

-M

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

malloc — 2008-10-22T18:10:18+00:00

It all depends on what you consider luck, I think the better word is randomness. (or at least that what people tend to mean when they say luck)

There is a small amount of Randomness in NT, and that is the deployment and movement of the opposing troops. It is random since the player is free to mix up the units in any fashion, exactly like stratego. This is also hidden information, so the combination of these things are what create suspense around decision made by the players.

In NT, after a time, a lot of this information becomes less hidden. (I.E. I saw the blocks there last turn and they have not moved. Now I don't know who is in reserves but I do know there are no str. 3 blocks.)
So as the game progresses there is less guess work required when making decisions.

I would maintain however, that there is not Luck in this game, since the combat has a predetermined outcome. In battles where there is less hidden information then a player can be certain of the outcome. In battles where there is more hidden information the payer is less certain, but the outcome is still predetermined.

In a more traditional wargame there would be no or at least fewer, certain outcomes. The classic example of 3 defenders who roll enough 6's to beat 10 attackers in risk comes to mind, but even games with less randomness have armies taking higher than expected losses when making a randomized selection on a CRT.

So I will side with Dr. Cody on this one, there really in not any luck (random outcomes) in NT.

-M

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

andylatto — 2008-10-22T17:53:19+00:00

I think the distinction you make between luck and uncertainty is not a useful one. For example, the game of Rock-Paper-Scissors has no luck in it by your definition. But if both players use the optimal strategy of making their choices at random, the winner is determined by the luck of the random choices the players make.

Take any game that has die rolls in it, and therefore has luck. Replace each die roll by the following procedure:

1. Player 1 chooses and writes down a number between 1 and 6, inclusive.
2. Player 2 chooses and writes down a number between 1 and 6, inclusive.
3. Reveal the 2 numbers, add them, and if the result is greater than 6, subtract 6. Treat this as the though it were the number rolled on the die.

Since any number you write down can lead to any of the 6 results with equal likelihood, there is no useful strategy in the writing down of numbers. You may as well choose randomly. So the strategy in the modified game will be exactly like the strategy in the original game, and the game will play and "feel" exactly the same as the original.

So we've transformed a game with luck into an essentially identical game that has none of what you call luck, only what you call "uncertainty". This makes me feel that the distinction you make between luck and uncertainty is not a useful one.

In a game with hidden information, the optimal strategy will often be a mixed strategy; that is, the optimal strategy is for the players to use randomness in making their decisions.I don't think that the distinction between the randomness of a die roll dictated by the game rules, and the randomness of a die roll that is part of the optimal player strategy is a useful or interesting one.

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

wkover — 2008-10-22T17:37:23+00:00

I'm not sure what prompted this thread, and I hate to quibble, I consider luck and uncertainty to be two different concepts. I would define luck as necessarily involving random elements (shuffling, dice, etc.), and uncertainty as a measure of whether perfect information about the game state exists.

To me:

Poker has luck, in that it involves shuffling and dealing cards. It has uncertainty, too, in that you don't know which cards the other players have.

Stratego does not have luck, in that players are free to set up and move their pieces as they see fit. However, Stratego has a great deal of uncertainty in that a player doesn't know the location of his/her opponent's pieces.

Similarly, Napoleon's Triumph does not have luck. But it does have a great deal of uncertainty, which is part of what makes NT (along with many other games) quite interesting.

Thread: Re: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

thorndor — 2008-10-22T17:27:06+00:00

WalterLai wrote:
Luck is the most misunderstood factor in games.

No dice doesn't imply no luck. Poker has no dice but it is one of the most luck-dependent games. Luck plays a big part in Stratego, not so much in NT but it is there nevertheless.

What is luck in a wargame? It is the representation of factors not foreseeable and not controllable by the players. In NT, you don't know the enemy exact disposition and have no control over his movement, yet you are making plans against him. By doing so you are submitting yourself to luck.

No luck, no risk. And without risk, you don't have a war simulation. Whenever two non-cooperating parties clash, luck is involved. Anything could happen since you have two actors, each playing by his own script. "Iacta alea est" said Julius Caesar before crossing the Rubicon. That does not make him any less a general than the gambler that he was.

While I agree with you that no dice does not imply no luck, the example of poker is not particularly useful because you have just exchanged one random outcome generator with a known distribution for another.

I have yet to play NT, but it is on my wantlist because I read that it did not use any random outcome generators (dice, card draws, coin flips etc.) It does have hidden information and therefore would not be considered an abstract strategy game. Still, I am not sure that hidden information implies luck. But, then, it is possible that I am using a different definition of luck.

Thread: Luck and Napoleon's Triumph

WalterLai — 2008-10-22T17:06:33+00:00

Luck is the most misunderstood factor in games.

No dice doesn't imply no luck. Poker has no dice but it is one of the most luck-dependent games. Luck plays a big part in Stratego, not so much in NT but it is there nevertheless.

What is luck in a wargame? It is the representation of factors not foreseeable and not controllable by the players. In NT, you don't know the enemy exact disposition and have no control over his movement, yet you are making plans against him. By doing so you are submitting yourself to luck.

No luck, no risk. And without risk, you don't have a war simulation. Whenever two non-cooperating parties clash, luck is involved. Anything could happen since you have two actors, each playing by his own script. "Iacta alea est" said Julius Caesar before crossing the Rubicon. That does not make him any less a general than the gambler that he was.

Thread: Re: Minor variant musings

wargamer55 — 2008-10-20T17:36:59+00:00

WalterLai wrote:
wargamer55 wrote:
...To represent Tsar Alexander borrow a kid brother, spouse or distracted player from another nearby table to issue overall instructions that Kutusov is honor-bound to execute, at least partially...
I will play the Tsar any day, Seth. I will give philosophical and religious insights, provide Dogbertian analogy of the situation. Elucidate, enlight, and inspire. I will macromanage, command from up there, set the principle, and authorize. I will provide leadership and set example as a moral beacon in the darkest hour. I will visit the front lines, cheer the boys up, make great speeches, crack champagnes, and making sweeping gestures with my hands. Just don't ask me to actually do the dirty work, please? I haven't finished the rules.

That's the proper spirit!

Thread: Re: Q&A with the designer

ChemEng — 2008-10-20T08:31:00+00:00

Somehow I missed this the first time through. I really enjoyed reading this interview. I think Bowen did a good job at explaining how he got to the point to design BaM/NT, the comment on innovation is especially true, and the challenge to war gamers and publishers alike was well spoken.

Great interview Bowen!

Thread: Re: Q&A with the designer

WalterLai — 2008-10-20T07:33:32+00:00

Thanks, I love the subject of your very in depth interview.

Wargame publishing has never been anything other than a marginal business. Nobody would ever do it to get rich; you do it because you love it and you hope to be able to get enough compensation for it that you will be able to continue doing it. I don't sell games at a loss, so it is a real business and not a hobby. I don't know that I can really answer your question though: not because I have any big secret but because I don't have enough insight into the cost structure of other companies to know why they don't offer better components. From having read their customer comments, though, I can say that one big part of it is that their customers don't seem to press them for more: why should a publisher pay for mounted boards if their customers are willing to buy games with paper ones?

I have been trying repeatedly to tell people: consumers should stop trying to find excuses for poor quality. Try complaining about poor components in some of the wargame page here and you will likely get chided for being "light weight".

Thread: Re: Minor variant musings

WalterLai — 2008-10-20T04:28:47+00:00

wargamer55 wrote:
...To represent Tsar Alexander borrow a kid brother, spouse or distracted player from another nearby table to issue overall instructions that Kutusov is honor-bound to execute, at least partially...
I will play the Tsar any day, Seth. I will give philosophical and religious insights, provide Dogbertian analogy of the situation. Elucidate, enlight, and inspire. I will macromanage, command from up there, set the principle, and authorize. I will provide leadership and set example as a moral beacon in the darkest hour. I will visit the front lines, cheer the boys up, make great speeches, crack champagnes, and making sweeping gestures with my hands. Just don't ask me to actually do the dirty work, please? I haven't finished the rules.

Image

mdu2boy — 2008-10-16T23:15:33+00:00

From Bobby Tweak's game night

Image

mboschbo — 2008-09-30T03:13:36+00:00

Too much red for a corps of four...

Image

mboschbo — 2008-09-27T20:00:17+00:00

Lannes trying to crush the enemy from the rerguards

Image

RayGuns — 2008-06-01T04:51:34+00:00

You get 140 wooden playing pieces. Here is a close up of the ones that came with my game.

Image

MattDP — 2008-05-19T21:17:26+00:00

Napoleon's Triumph right out of shrinkwrap

Image

MattDP — 2008-05-19T21:15:22+00:00

Scans of the corps commander stickers