Game: Napoleon at Waterloo

Thread: Bonne Chance du Napoleon

alibera — 2008-04-02T03:24:39+00:00

Napoleon at Waterloo is undoubtedly the best free game ever distributed, spawning vast multitudes of brother sister and cousin games. It is fun, fast and fairly well balanced, giving both sides great chances.

The British/Purssian (Allied) forces start with the Prussians offmap, entering in the East off the British left flank on turn 2. The British have a small unit (1-4) near Hougomont tying up a good part of the French left--he will die on turn one, but his stand has caused significant strategic issues for the French. The British right is a little scattered, but has small cities to fall back into to aid the defense. The right center has some strong units, but also some gaps while the center and left center are fairly strong. The British left, while slightly refused, is in the air.

The French far left is almost non-existent, while half of the left is tied down in a first turn execution. Most of the French strength is coming up the center or deployed slightly right of center.

To win, the French need to kill off 40 points of Allied units AND exit 7 units off the north edge of the map. The Allies need to kill off 40 French before the French can eliminate 40 Allied points. Once 40 Allied points are killed, the Allies are demoralized and cannot win, can only tie by preventing the French exit.

The most practical approach for the French is to move towards attacking the British right center or even the right, shifting forces from his left, putting more and more space between him and the Prussians. This is normally done while trying to somewhat pin down the British center.

Since that is the logical approcah, Napoleon acts bold and decisively. While some cavalry are sent west of H-mont to pressure the British right, others are sent EAST!!!! If the British are going to leave their flank in the air, they must be taught a lesson. At the same time, the massive British center must be engaged and attacks are launched up and down the line, using artillery to tie down some units so all mano-a-mano attacks are at least 1-1.

As the battles begin, both the massive British 5th division (7-4) and 6th (6-4) division are pushed back at 1-1 and a 2-1 (thank you artillery) kills off the now surrounded 5-4. In fact only 1 attack fails (not including the diversionary artillery) and most of the British left can suddenly no longer move, pinned down in French ZOC. Oh, and the execution south of H-mont takes place.

The British, while wanting to fall back into a steady defense, bolstered by towns, found themself having to counterattack on their left to try to save the line, while stretching out the right to cut off the potentially flanking French cavalry. Other attacks on the French left center mainly have goal of tying down French units. The attacks have some success, pinning some French, but getting more evenly divided results than mon general, although they do taste French blood.

Aware of the Prussians pending arrival, more and more pressure is placed on the British left, turning it with the ultraswift 3-6 Guard cavalry. A pair of bloody 2-1 exchanges is painful for the Army du Nord (the French lose one extra in each exchange), but the disappearance of both the 5th and 6th divisions opens the British left completely up. The French right center gets into the act, plowing into the British line and forcing more tie-ups as Napoleon continues to win most of the 1-1s. The pattern has been set. The Prussians come marching at the run, but they will be continually chasing the French. Meanwhile, the disintegrating front lines will cause lots of attacks, counters and surrounds, and, with just over 30 casualties themselves, the French push the Allies over 40 on turn 5. With the Allies demoralized, and column shifts now in effect, the Prussians desparately try to break to the North and block the exit. Although there is some initial success, and combined with British deparation the French are also pushed north of 40 losses, it rapidly turns ugly and Prussian units join their British cousins in the heaping dead pile. Nappy is having so much fun that he almost forgets to get off the board, but turn 9 (of 10) sees 13 of the 15 remaining French units head for Brussels...

There is good reason for most conventional wisdom. That is how it gets to be conventional. Attacking the inviting British left normally provides some gains, but also some push back, leading to slow progress. Slow progress on that flank means getting a crash course on saying we surrender in German as the Prussians hammer the French right against the British left. However, with a little luck (ok, a lot of luck), conventional wisdom is demonstrated to not be infallable wisdom. Napoleon's good luck on turn one, followed by bold French action on turn two, really sealed the Allied fate early in the game. By continually pushing the flank back, most of the Prussian force could not even engage until it was already demoralized. Unable to blunt the northernmost edge of the French sweep, the Allies were reduced to deparate attacks attempting to tie down enough units to eke out a draw...but not today.

Thread: variant sugestions

realgabriel — 2008-03-23T00:15:05+00:00

Does anyone have tried variants for this game? Using all the counters and the possibilities offered my the map? How do you play this game with 3 players?

Thread: Re: Surprisingly delightful

ahench — 2008-03-13T06:10:36+00:00

Let's give it a try.

Thread: Re: Surprisingly delightful

Makofan — 2008-03-13T03:21:05+00:00

I'll play you at Hexwars - same account name as I have here. NAW is free there - don't have to subscribe

Thread: Re: Surprisingly delightful

ahench — 2008-03-12T19:19:13+00:00

Looking to play a game on Cyberboard if anyone is interested.

Thread: Re: Surprisingly delightful

Bloodybucket — 2008-03-12T06:49:55+00:00

Nice review. NAW is a gret Grog intro game, and it's free to download!

Thread: Re: Surprisingly delightful

Mr Bassman — 2008-03-12T05:56:01+00:00

Similar mechanics were used in Borodino, which was also surprisingly playable for an SPI game.

Thread: Re: Surprisingly delightful

swandive78 — 2008-03-12T04:43:43+00:00

I just played this a few weeks ago for the first time in years, and was reminded what a neat little package this is. My opponents and I have been grognards for years, but still had a really good, tense time with this quick, easy-playing game. A lot of fun!

P.S. I won.

Thread: Re: Surprisingly delightful

bishuk — 2008-03-12T00:00:51+00:00

Thanks for the nostalgia. NAW was the first wargame I ever played; I still have the old brown and beige map although sadly not the counters.

One thing that always puzzled me at the time (being about 12 yr old) was why Wellington would put any troops in Hougemont. It always fell on the first turn and was just a waste of a unit for the Brits.
I believe the advanced game gave this position a bit more of a chance to hold out.

Thread: Re: Surprisingly delightful

JackFlash — 2008-03-11T20:02:07+00:00

Do you like Napoleon games? I love them. I just bought Wellington by GMT. It looks like a fun game.

Thread: Surprisingly delightful

Makofan — 2008-03-11T18:38:14+00:00

OVERVIEW
Napoleon at War was SPI's free introductory wargame, designed to teach the basis of IGO-UGO, Zones of Control (ZOC), combat ratios and how to effectively attack (CRT), and the effects of terrain (TEC). The rules are simple and clear, the pieces and board uncluttered, the game plays quickly, and both sides have a reasonable chance to win - it is a surprisingly excellent (but not flawless) game. Let's delve into the details

PHYSICAL COMPONENTS
The map is a representation of the area in Belgium south of Brussels, at a scale of about 400 metres per hex. The terrain is basically clear, woods (impassable) and towns (doubled defense). The map is about half the size of a normal SPI game. The counters have 3 colours: blue (French) red (English) and Dark Blue (Prussians), and contain a unit symbol (cavalry, infantry or artillery), a combat strength, and a movement allowance.

THE FORCES AND THE SITUATION
Napoleon has 21 cavalry/infantry units to the British 14, and 13 artillery factors to the British 8, so it looks like a 3:2 advantage in manpower and forces. Unfortunately, Napoleon's infantry/cavalry forces only add up to 10 more factors than the British, so their average unit strength is lower. Add this to the fact that the British are getting reinforcements on turn 2, and that the French have to attack, and Napoleon's life is hard. The French player has to use his unit quantity advantage to pin down the English and maneuver with his free units, to get flank attacks and combat surround situations. The drawback with this approach is that the pinning troops are then quite vulnerable.

If the Allies eliminate 40 factors of French troops before they lose the same, they win. For the French to win, they must demoralize the Allies by eliminating 40 strength points (before they lose 40) AND then exit 7 units off the north map edge, all in only 10 turns. Achieving the first goal, and not the second, is a draw.

HOW IT PLAYS
Casualties are usually forced by surrounding an enemy with ZOC's and then forcing a retreat. A 2:1 attack has a 5/6 chance of achieving this result, while a 3:1 will always work. A 1:1 is 50/50 Attacker/Defender retreats, so you don't want to rely on them. Since all adjacent units must attack, frequently you use a 1-point cavalry unit to attack 12 points of enemy infantry, so that you can achieve local superiority in the neighbouring combat, and hopefully kill off a higher-factored unit. What complicates this is when you get above 1:1 you can sometimes get an inopportune Exchange result, where you both lose.

Typical games see a lot of shifting forces around, throwing pieces willy-nilly trying to get an advantage. The results are bloody, and the game is often determined by the 4th turn. I play it on Hexwars, and I lost my first five games as I learned the system and the strategy, but since then I am batting .500 - 3 wins, 3 losses and a draw as the French, 3 wins, 3 losses and 1 draw as the Allies. You can't ask for fairer than that

HISTORY
Is it historical? Cannons in melee, no line-of-sight problems, no differentiation between infantry and cavalry roles, no command control, swift flank maneuvers, no supply concerns or a need to keep a battle line, no square, column or line decisions - probably not. But, like Napoleon historically did, you can attack piecemeal, then do a frontal assault, then see the Prussians coming and throw in the Guards, and then see you army demoralize and run away, and achieve a historical outcome - a French loss. I think if Napoleon had know about Blucher earlier, he would have fought the battle differently. We know about Blucher, so WE can make different choices. It's historical enough for me.

SUMMARY
This is a quick game, with chances for both sides, that abstracts almost every detail, while still somewhat resembling Waterloo. Unless you have three days and a lot of space to play Wellington's Victory, it would be hard to find a game on the battle that works any better.

Thread: Re: Rules question

dirubin — 2008-03-03T19:20:51+00:00

The table columns are abbreviations; "3-1", e.g., applies to odds from 3-1 (inclusive) to 4-1 (exclusive). The "6-1" column applies to odds of 6-1 or greater. The shift is a *column* shift, not an *odds* shift, and "5-1" is the best a demoralized army can do.

Thread: Rules question

warhawk26 — 2008-03-03T17:39:57+00:00

If an army is demoralized, and thus has to deal with a negative odds shift, can it ever get a 6-1 odds result? My thought is no, since odds greater than 6-1 are treated as 6-1 and then when you factor in the odds col shift you end up with 5-1. My opponent feels that you can get a 6-1 by getting a 7-1. I'm curious how other people have dealt with this conundrum.

Thread: Winning approaches

wargamer55 — 2008-01-06T20:22:16+00:00

I got my copy of Napoleon at Waterloo when I first subscribed to Strategy & Tactics magazine in 1971. All new subscribers got a copy of the game as an "introduction" to wargames, complete with a letter from Jim Dunnigan explaining a bit how "simulation" games worked.
Of all the introductory wargames offered, NAW probably does the best job. It sticks to the basic mechanics common to the classic SPI/AH-style games without introducing any oddities like some other "introductory" wargames. It's well-balanced, with both sides having a good chance at winning. ( The latest version of NAW on Hexwar shows 6,264 French wins, 7,264 British wins and 1,162 draws). It plays quickly, allowing for several games in an evening and is quick and easy to set up with the initial deployment on printed on the map. This makes "restarts" easy to do, which is also a plus when you're teaching a game.
I didn't get to play it a lot back in the day, because my friends and I had already played a number of Avalon Hill games by the time I got NAW. It did manage to hit the table on occasion, however, and I always had a good opinion of it.
It was when I joined Hexwar that I got the chance to really explore the game, playing it a few hundred times now. For those who don't know about it, Hexwar.com is an online game-playing service that provides a very user-friendly way to play a couple dozen classic SPI/Decision Games titles. Napoleon at War is the free, introductory game and you can play that one game all you want without charge. If you're like me, however, it wasn't all that hard to persuade me to pay the service fee. It's allowed me to play literally thousands of wargames over the past couple of years. It's been just about the best value I've ever had in my career as a gamer.
Having several hundred games under my belt with a winning record ( 116-53-11 under the latest version of NAW on Hexwar, similar with earlier versions) lets me feel confident I can offer a few pointers on strategy. Like any good game, there are no "perfect plans" that will always produce victory in Napoleon at Waterloo, but there are strategies that will succeed more often than others.

The French
Overall
The initiative in the game rests with the French. The burden of victory lies with Napoleon. He must exit seven units off the opposite map edge through designated exit hexes while eliminating at least 40 combat factors of allied (Anglo-Dutch and/or Prussian) units before losing 40 factors of French. The French start with an 89-73 advantage in combat factors, but they receive no more reinforcements while the British player can look forward to another 34 combat factors of Prussians showing up on the second turn.
The primary French objective is to eliminate 40 factors of British units. That eliminates any chance of a British victory (the best they can get now is a draw) and demoralizes the British army putting it under a severe handicap. Once demoralized all British attacks are reduced one level and all French attacks are increased one level. (British 1-1s become 1-2s while French 1-1s become 2-1s for example.) This is usually a big enough edge that exiting seven French units is not a problem.
Both sides have a mandatory and specified setup, so the main strategic decision facing an erstwhile Napoleon is which way to go with his main effort.

Go Right
The French army can attempt to attack the British left flank and then drive towards the exit hexes near Mont. St. Jean. The disadvantages of this approach include slow development, the certain early intervention by arriving Prussians and a narrow, easily defended route towards the exit hexes. The only mitigating benefit is, perhaps, some astonishment on your opponent's part that you'd try it! Really, this approach is so obviously unpromising that it's rarely tried. I haven't seen a French player win going this way, although I did see a draw. once.

Go Left
More promising is to shift the entire French Army left and advance on a wide front through the villages of Merbe, Le Mesnu and Braine L'alleud towards the exit hexes. This delays any impact by the Prussians to the latter part of the game. It allows the French to attack on a wide front, making the most of their powerful offensive capability. The doubling effect of the villages is not as helpful to the British as it may appear at first because the French can usually arrange to advance units after combat into village hexes, pinning British units with zones of control and forcing the British in their turn to counterattack at poor odds. There's a big jump between 1-2 odds (1/6 chance of an attacker eliminated result) to 1-3 odds (2/3 chance of an AE), meaning that British losses can quickly be disastrous.
This strategy can be very successful against passive British players, especially if they're counting on those villages to help them stop the French. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it risks allowing an aggressive British player to seize the initiative. The British are not without offensive power and a vigorous counteroffensive can put the French in danger of losing the game outright on turn 3 or 4.
Generally this can be a winning approach, especially against inexperienced or less aggressive British players. Its pretty forgiving for the French, providing the maximum available time, so it can work well for less experienced French, provided the British remain passive.

Go Up The Middle
While appearing to lack subtlety, going up the middle does offer the French important advantages, so long as it's done aggressively enough. There are weak spots in the initial British deployment that can be exploited. It's important that the French turn end with as many British units stuck in French zones of control as possible to prevent the British from adjusting their line or putting together good counterattacks. The key ground is the small patch of hexes in the canter of the map between La Haye Sainte and Hougomont, inclusive. Whoever dominates these hexes during the first 3-4 turns is well on the way to winning the game.
The primary disadvantage of this approach is that there is a chance that the Prussians may arrive quickly enough to affect the outcome. The French will have to react to the presence of the Prussians on turn 3 and they will definitely be on the scene by turn 4, which doesn't give the French a lot of time to eliminate the 40 combat factors required.
This strategy provides the least opportunity for an effective British response and puts Napoleon's fate firmly in the hands of the French. It tends to result in an early decision. the game will generally be decided one way of the other before the end of turn 5. (It may take another couple of turns to exit the French units, but if the British army is demoralized the French should have little trouble pushing through the remnants to accomplish this while delaying the Prussians sufficiently that they can't stop it.

British

Naturally, a lot about British strategy can be gleaned from the prior discussion of the French. The British are usually forced into a reactive and opportunistic defense against whatever plan the French try. Keep in mind that the only way to win the game is to eliminate 40 combat factors of French units before you lose 40 yourself. Blocking the French from exiting units comes in second place. All that success there will do is salvage a draw.
The combat results table is not bloody enough in exchanges for the British to have a reasonable expectation of the French impaling themselves on your defenses. As the initiative player the French should be able to avoid many attacks at the bad odds of 1-3 or less or 4-1/5-1. Killing French units will require counterattacks.
If the French player doesn't press the attack strongly there's a good chance the British can seize the initiative. If the French allow it, I like to grab the central, Hougomont-La Haye Sainte position. This splits the French offensive into two, mutually unsupported attacks and puts the right half of the French army in danger of being caught between the British and Prussians, which often leads to defeat in detail.

Grouchy Arrives

This is an option that came with the NAW Expansion kit, examining some "what-ifs" involving Grouchy and the Prussians. Depending on pre-game die rolls, the French might get reinforcements from Grouchy's force and more or fewer Prussians could arrive. On average the French tend to benefit, with more results improving on their historical outcome than coming out worse. (Hexwar shows 2,858 French wins, 2,237 Allied wins and only 245 draws) While entertaining to consider, these outcomes should have surprisingly little impact on either side's strategy. It's a mistake for the French to slow down the game in anticipation of Grouchy's help and likewise the British are gambling if they hold back expecting that even more Prussians will provide them an advantage. The game will probably be decided on turn 4 or 5, which is before any of the optional reinforcements can intervene. It's always true that one side or the other will benefit more from the reinforcements and the other side therefore has a strong incentive to go for the early win.

Conclusion

Napoleon at Waterloo is far from the last word in simulations. The course of the battle will never follow history, mostly because Hougomont will always fall on the first turn, where historically it held out all afternoon and tied down a large part of the French army. ( That 7-4, 3-3 and 5-4 that start adjacent).
But it's an excellent little wargame. It plays quickly, it's balanced and there's more skill than meets the eye.

For more game comment see my blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

For Hexwar see: www.hexwar.com

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2007-12-31T04:21:37+00:00

Game played at CABS by Bud Saur & Jim Reasoner

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Mark_WH — 2007-09-03T14:50:50+00:00

The 2nd ed of NAW (i.e. the freebie one with the smaller map) suffered from a gamey strategy that that could be sprung on an unwary Allied player by taking advantage of the 'edge-of-the-world' effect on the Western side of the map.

My biggest problem with Napoleon at Waterloo, and other related SPI Napoleonic games such as Borodino and the Napoleon at War Quad, is that artillery units remain potent even when they find themselves on the front line. Hard to suspend disbelief at that point.

I suspect that of all the conflicts simulated by the descendants and variations of the basic NAW system (including many of the quads), the Napoleonic era was probably the least well served.

Image

bestbandis — 2007-08-30T14:06:06+00:00

And off up the road they go

Image

bestbandis — 2007-08-30T14:04:26+00:00

Enlarged homemade copy

Image

Xookliba — 2007-08-29T02:58:25+00:00

Updated cyberboard gamebox using original graphics

Image

Xookliba — 2007-08-29T02:56:35+00:00

Original cyberboard gamebox

Thread: Re: Attack through non road wood hexside?

haruspex — 2007-07-28T08:37:55+00:00

I also think you may attack but I am not sure if you may advance since you normally may not enter a woods hex except on a road.
However, if you read rule [6.7] "Retreats and advances are, technically, not considered to be movement", its not totally clear whether advances just do not cost movement points or whether you may advance into normally prohibited hexes as well.
I do play that way, i.e. you may attack and advance into woods-road hexes.

Thread: Re: Attack through non road wood hexside?

Eric Brosius — 2007-07-27T02:45:52+00:00

Yes, you can. Defender is doubled, as I recall.

Thread: Attack through non road wood hexside?

mateybob — 2007-07-26T23:54:35+00:00

Just one rules question. Can you attack through a non road wood hexside? I'm assuming yes as the rules specify you cant advance through those hexsides but its not entirely clear.

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

desertfox2004 — 2007-07-22T14:20:34+00:00

Jim Marshall wrote:
Dweeb wrote:
I've noticed over the years that simpler wargames are often derided as being "unrealistic" as compared to their more complex counterparts.

That's an excellent point. Hex'n'counter started to disappear up its own ass when a high degree of complexity (and a correspondingly high playing time) became, if not a selling point, a snob point in the late eighties. (I'd appreciate a view from a combat veteran as to whether a 30 page rulebook is a more realistic take on watching a buddy stand on a landmine than a 8 page rulebook).

Gone were the (relatively) simple, playable games of old. Once upon a time Panzer Leader was considered super-complex. It is complex when compared to Thurn and Taxis (just selected as an example, it's a game I enjoy), but compared to the super monsters of the late eighties (Imperium Romanum? Longest Day?) it's an absolute breeze.

Consequences? A degree of self-satisfaction amongst the increasingly dwindling band of (often solo) players who had the time and motivation to wrap their heads around the mega games and complete a turn or two, and a feeling complete indifference as the youth of the day sought their kicks with Warhammer or (if that was too complex) Sonic the Hedgehog.

Rant over.....

I have to agree with Jim here. As a person who got started in hex-and-counter wargaming in the mid-70's, I grew up on AH classics like "Waterloo", "Afrika Korps", "Battle of the Bulge" and the like. These were relatively easy games for me and my friends and they got played A LOT! Later, we did "graduate" to "Third Reich" and "Panzerblitz" and enjoyed them, but that was pretty much the high-water mark. It seemed like most of the new games coming out after that were increasingly more complex (or, "realistic", depending upon your point of view) and less playable. Starting with "Squad Leader", our group were left shaking our heads at the rules and complexity and said "Enough already!" As a result, some of us got into Warhammer, and others into Axis and Allies, and, oh yes, we also continued to play our old favorites, the AH classics. I imagine that we were not alone in this regard. Sure, a hardcore group of wargamers ate up the increasingly complex fare, but I don't think it's a coincidence that wargaming's rise and fall in regards to sales figures overlapped the period where complexity increased to very high levels. The hobby shed a large number of gamers who were not interested in the longer rulebooks and longer playing times that the new games produced.

None of this is to say that complex wargames shouldn't be published. There will likely always exist that hardcore group who loves these games, and there is always likely to be at least a few game companies who will cater to them. That's great. But for the rest of us, and new, wanna-be wargamers, games like NAW 2nd Edition are just what the doctor ordered. Three cheers for simple, playable, fun wargames!!!

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Michael Erwin — 2007-07-22T12:18:11+00:00

SPI clearly modelled NAW on the AH classics, with certain changes:

1. the CRT is balanced at 1:1 instead of 2:1 and is not as bloody.

2. units cannot withdraw from EZOCs.

3. retreats are one hex, not two hexes.

4. units have only one combat factor (as in some classics).

5. stacking is forbidden (as in some classics).

6. advances are allowed into clear terrain (not just into doubling terrain).

7. rivers/streams are ignored.

8. artillery is added with two-hex ranges.

#1 & #2 make the attack far stronger, and the defense far weaker, than in the AH classics. In NAW, one force can tie down enemy units with 1:1 attacks while another force outflanks them, over two or three turns, while in the AH classics, the defenders would usually drive off the pinning force (since 1:1 attacks rarely work there) and turn on the flanking force (since ZOCs don't pin). #3-#7 are rather straightforward simplifications, and #8 the only real complication. Together, these give the game its flavor (including the excessive importance of the "front-to-flank" ZOC kill).

I think the game suffers because:

1. There is too much factor-counting, even without stacking. This gets worse because...

2. The CRT has some odd transitions, e.g. from the bloodless 1:1 to the bloody 2:1 column. B&G uses similar mechanics with bloodless 2:1 results, as does 4BAW with bloody 1:1 results. I'd suggest trying the 4BAW CRT to increase head-to-head losses and minimize the "front-to-flank" ZOC losses.

3. The map doesn't show the ridges which protected Wellington's center from artillery fire, or the streams which protected his left from flanking moves.

4. The Prussians arrive too early, and nobody has much reason to go to Placenoit in the game.

5. If the British are demoralized, the pursuit feels rather surreal.

6. It depends on the "conventional wisdom" of game design c. 1970/71, particularly the required attacks and the odds-based combat results tables. Both are good approaches, but probably not, in retrospect, the best approaches for an introductory game.

7. Hugeumont (sp?) always falls to the French on turn 1.

P.S. I quite agree that proper flanking attacks should have some importance, which the ZOC rules give them; but sequencing attacks so that one unit advances before another unit attacks is just too much...

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

blindspot — 2007-07-12T07:23:01+00:00

Very entertaining review, but I think I just might be that lout to which you referred.

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

wargamer55 — 2007-07-12T06:10:29+00:00

First, let me second the recommendations for hexwar.com. It's easily the most painless way to play traditional hex-and-counter wargames online. While it's a subscription service, NAW is free.
Secondly, in many ways I think it's the best purpose-built introductory wargame out there. It covers some very basic hex-and-counter characteristics that will be encountered repeatedly if players move onto more complex games. At the same time, it's not too simple, a mistake of Strike Force One for example, that leaves a newbie wondering why you'd play such a boring little trifle.
It has a famous theme, and just enough history to provoke any latent interest the recruit might have.
It's also a reasonably balanced game with both sides having a reasonable chance of victory.

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Bloodybucket — 2007-07-12T04:43:47+00:00

m:cafe wrote:
...snip...Well, I respectfully disagree. First off, Paper wargames represent troop movement and the like, usually on a scale much larger than man to man. As such, the feeling of watching your buddy step on a land-mine is not meant to be represented...nor would it be much of an enetertaining hobby if it did...Snip

May I shamelessly plug my review of one of the land-mine steppingest wargames ever designed, Patrol! http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/178262?

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Bloodybucket — 2007-07-12T04:22:03+00:00

Thanks for the kind remarks regarding the review.

It wasn't my intention to heap disrespect and scorn on more complex wargames (well, maybe a little). I do think that simpler wargames have merit that is often overlooked, but that doesn't render their more complicated cousins merit-less.

I'm as guilty of the next guy of impulsively buying the latest Magnum Opus, studying the reams of rules, clipping the countless counters (yep, I'm on of those) and gazing dreamily at the massive map, and then shelving the beast 'cause I'll never play it. I've even actually played a few, back in those long ago days before time became scarce.

There is a pleasure in merely having such a work of art, and generally speaking there were, and are, warning labels on the box about complexity levels and playing time, so it's my fault for having eyes bigger than my gaming schedule.

We need both types, although a geeklist that debates the merits of simple vs. complex would be a fine idea, as it would cause a lot of entertaining hate and discontent.

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

ibn_ul_khattab — 2007-07-12T04:09:15+00:00

m:cafe wrote:
Well, I respectfully disagree. First off, Paper wargames represent troop movement and the like, usually on a scale much larger than man to man. As such, the feeling of watching your buddy step on a land-mine is not meant to be represented...nor would it be much of an enetertaining hobby if it did. Although I guess some video game players might disagree with me, which leads me to my next point.

Your post about wargaming having its' head up its ass because it doesn't appeal to the average person is a common one, but not one that holds much water for me. I'm reminded of Louis Armstrong complaining about the new crop of Bebop jazz musicians because they were too sophisticated for people to dance to and jazz would lose its audience. Well, sure, but does that mean the world would be a better place if Charlie Parker had stuck to playing Swing?

In other words, I don't expect the average person to sit down and play a game of ASL with me...but that doesn't mean it doesn't have merit on its own terms!

I may be merely self-satisfied when I finish a highly detailed "Con-Sim", but my opponents usually seem pretty enetertained too...and for those few hours in the basement that was what mattered to us. Not mass approval.
Completely agree. And the Jazz example is spot on. Swing was pop music, Bebop was where jazz started to become classical (I mean this in the broadest sense, like indian classical, western classical, etc...). Anyway Great review

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Oakfed — 2007-07-12T00:26:14+00:00

I just have to mention that it's always bothered me that the ABBA song got the history wrong. 'At Waterloo Napoleon did surrender', the lyrics say - but he didn't. He retreated with the remnants of the army, abdicated 6 days later, and surrendered to the British over a month later after his escape efforts failed.

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

m:cafe — 2007-07-12T00:05:59+00:00

Oh, but entry level wargames are an important part of our hobby and this was a great review that made me interested in hunting down a copy!

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

m:cafe — 2007-07-12T00:04:58+00:00

Well, I respectfully disagree. First off, Paper wargames represent troop movement and the like, usually on a scale much larger than man to man. As such, the feeling of watching your buddy step on a land-mine is not meant to be represented...nor would it be much of an enetertaining hobby if it did. Although I guess some video game players might disagree with me, which leads me to my next point.

Your post about wargaming having its' head up its ass because it doesn't appeal to the average person is a common one, but not one that holds much water for me. I'm reminded of Louis Armstrong complaining about the new crop of Bebop jazz musicians because they were too sophisticated for people to dance to and jazz would lose its audience. Well, sure, but does that mean the world would be a better place if Charlie Parker had stuck to playing Swing?

In other words, I don't expect the average person to sit down and play a game of ASL with me...but that doesn't mean it doesn't have merit on its own terms!

I may be merely self-satisfied when I finish a highly detailed "Con-Sim", but my opponents usually seem pretty enetertained too...and for those few hours in the basement that was what mattered to us. Not mass approval.

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Jim Marshall — 2007-07-11T23:17:10+00:00

Dweeb wrote:
I've noticed over the years that simpler wargames are often derided as being "unrealistic" as compared to their more complex counterparts.

That's an excellent point. Hex'n'counter started to disappear up its own ass when a high degree of complexity (and a correspondingly high playing time) became, if not a selling point, a snob point in the late eighties. (I'd appreciate a view from a combat veteran as to whether a 30 page rulebook is a more realistic take on watching a buddy stand on a landmine than a 8 page rulebook).

Gone were the (relatively) simple, playable games of old. Once upon a time Panzer Leader was considered super-complex. It is complex when compared to Thurn and Taxis (just selected as an example, it's a game I enjoy), but compared to the super monsters of the late eighties (Imperium Romanum? Longest Day?) it's an absolute breeze.

Consequences? A degree of self-satisfaction amongst the increasingly dwindling band of (often solo) players who had the time and motivation to wrap their heads around the mega games and complete a turn or two, and a feeling complete indifference as the youth of the day sought their kicks with Warhammer or (if that was too complex) Sonic the Hedgehog.

Rant over.....

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Jim Marshall — 2007-07-11T23:05:21+00:00

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

bishuk — 2007-07-11T18:21:49+00:00

This was my first wargame(sigh!), great review thanks for the nostalgia.

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

bestbandis — 2007-07-11T16:46:53+00:00

I'll second hexwar. It's a great place to play classic SPI games. Unfortunately, my PC had a problem with one of the updates and I couldn't find a way around it.

Thanks for the excellent review. Will have to pull out my homemade copy again and give it another blast...

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

kimbo — 2007-07-11T13:48:52+00:00

Anyone interested in giving Napoleon at Waterloo a try can do so at Hexwar.com. Hexwar.com is a subscription based service but in the tradition of SPI, the Napoleon at Waterloo game is free. Create an account and challenge opponents from across the world. Games are played in a PBEM (Play By Electronic Mail) format. The computer program provides the board, pieces and enforces the rules. Games can be played as quickly or as slowly as your opponent responds to your moves (and vice versa). The Hexwar version of Napoleon at Waterloo also includes "The Grouchy Variant" where additional French (and Prussian) reinforcements can arrive on the field of battle.

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

moorwild — 2007-07-11T12:57:47+00:00

Just to tell you that while geekmodding your review I really got interested in trying this out.
Thank you!

Thread: Re: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Dweeb — 2007-07-11T12:24:08+00:00

Great review and very entertaining.

I've noticed over the years that simpler wargames are often derided as being "unrealistic" as compared to their more complex counterparts. But it's the simpler ones that actually get played, unlike their more complex counterparts.

I sometimes wonder if those "monster games" are really so "realistic", or if it's simply that nobody's played them often enough to find out.

Thread: ABBA, Nappy at Waterloo, and my secret shame

Bloodybucket — 2007-07-11T07:40:27+00:00

There have been quite a number of geeklists, forum posts and other forms of electronic ink on BGG spilled over the subject of “What makes a good introductory war game?” or “What war game should I start with?” or “Grognards are manly, wise and the ladies love ‘em, how do I become one?”

Ok, I made the last one up. The question in general is real enough, however, and it is an old one. How an introductory war game should look was a question pondered by Simulations Publications Inc (SPI) back in the age of EST therapy and one of the answers that they came up with is still with us today, and, like the best things in life (according to the song, anyway) it’s free.

I’m speaking of Napoleon at Waterloo, in particular, the 2nd edition of this game. Designed by Jim Dunnigan and developed by the late Redmond Simonsen, Napoleon at Waterloo (NAW) is a game simulating perhaps the most famous battle of all time, thanks in part to that catchy ABBA tune.

NAW was a giveaway game to ease new recruits in the arcane world of hexagons, zones of control and combat results tables that was wargaming in the ‘70’s. As wargames went back then, it was short, simple and painless. Apparently, however, some people found it long, complex and painful, for SPI later came out with a vastly simpler game aimed at toddlers and those damaged by glue sniffing called Strike Force One, but that’s another story.

Or is it? NAW was (and is) complex, compared to mass market family games, but because it was a simple, free wargame the grog community has always sort of dismissed it much like the really, really easy girl at school…not a serious challenge and sort of embarrassing to be caught, er, playing with. To continue this distasteful analogy, it got played a lot, but since only a grog with no standards or shame would be caught dead reviewing NAW, it has gone un-reviewed here until now.

Since I have no standards or shame, let’s start off things by looking at the components of NAW, consisting of an unmounted paper map, the usual die-cut cardboard counters, and the rulebook. The map is smallish but attractive, as big as a magazine laid open, and the single sided countersheet features some pleasant looking cardboard squares representing the units of the French, British and Prussian forces that fought at Waterloo in 1815. There are 18 British counters, nine Prussian counters, and 26 French counters, with additional Prussian and French counters for a variant (Yes, even in an introductory game, those compulsive rules lawyers at SPI couldn’t resist adding options).

The counters have simple NATO type symbols superimposed, two numbers, combat and movement rating, and a historical unit name. You can earn bonus trivia points while trying to recruit new gamers by pointing out to them that the “X” for infantry comes from the belts they wore, as does the “/” for cavalry, but the “o” for artillery is for the round shot, not a big good ol’ boy type belt buckle that artillery guys used to wear. At this point if they don’t get up and leave, you may have a gamer on your hands.

Cavalry and Infantry are the treated the same, with cavalry having a higher movement rating. Artillery can fire at range, adding power to attacks or “soaking off”, performing low odds attacks, since the rules dictate that after movement, everybody next to somebody has got to fight somebody, unless somebody else does it, then they can fight somebody else. Got that?

The starting positions for this modestly populated contest are printed on the map, and the game is vintage SPI in function: Movement phase, combat phase, rinse and repeat. The Combat Results Table (CRT) that is cross indexed with a die roll rewards attacks made at three to one odds. The rules for Zones of Control (ZOC) retreats and advances after combat reward the basic tactic of attacking the flanks to force retreats, surrounding the center and delivering the killing blow to the now cut off defender in the middle. That, gentle reader, is what it’s all about, not that damn hokey-pokey song.

The strategic situation has Napoleon outnumbering Wellington’s Brits at the outset, but the French have to get moving or the arrival of Blucher’s Prussians on turn three could spell Le Trouble. The game is won by inflicting enough casualties to demoralize the enemy army while preserving your own, and the French have to exit the map, going through the Brits to do it. Since the Prussians come from the side, the French should attack the center or the side opposite of Blucher’s entrance. See, that’s stategery! After ten turns, it’s over, unless somebody loses first, that is.

There really isn’t anything too fancy here, no getting in squares, forming for road marches, no weather rules, no rally, no supply or command and control, no Chistopher Plummer and Rod Steiger hamming it up, no anything else that could be added for flavor or authenticity in a Napoleonic game. It’s so, well, basic! And it’s small, and it’s over pretty fast! Beyond all these damnable attributes that no respectable wargame should have, NAW was, and is, cheap. Free, gratis, no charge, on the house, nada, zippo, null, cheap.

All these awful things that make the lip of the grognard curl in that condescending sneer usually reserved for history gaffes in Hollywood movies (“Magic marker in “Saving Private Ryan? The nerve of that Spielberg punk!”) make NAW endure.

As of this writing, NAW has about 530 total plays listed on BGG and that colossal mother of all Pacific war grogfest Omigod look at all them counters on them big maps super duper monstergame War in the Pacific has…one.

I’ve got scads of NAW games under my uncrossed belt. I’ve taken it to Japan and Iraq, played it under canvas and on airplanes. My copies have recruited gamers, doing what it was designed to do, and the games played were enjoyable, too.

Yes, the situation gets somewhat repetitive with repeated play, but you can play it repeatedly, not the case with many classic wargames, and it has surprising replay value for something that simple.

There are flashier gateway type introductory wargames available today, but even by today’s standards NAW isn’t too ugly. Redmond did well here. The basics learned, while requiring some effort to grasp, will hold true through a lot of different wargames, so the time spent isn’t wasted if you want to go on to the hard stuff.

Let’s face it, if the potential wargamer you are trying to sucker into the hobby with NAW is such a lout that he slips in a coma when presented with a game that doesn’t have cute mini figures or rules that read like something written by a self-esteem coach on Prozac, then maybe you should consider that a sign from the great Hexagon maker in the sky that this hobby isn’t for everyone and move on.

Check out the NAW page on BGG, follow the links to the freebies, then play it. Just don’t tell anyone, OK?

Did I say it’s free?

Image

haruspex — 2007-07-09T09:11:18+00:00

my homemade version of the game

Image

calm — 2007-03-26T01:27:57+00:00

Game cover

Image

klaytonz — 2007-01-27T02:45:26+00:00

Flat tray edition contents listing. Includes 2nd edition, expansion kit and Grouchy scenario.

Image

moxtaveto — 2007-01-12T17:35:04+00:00

the Prussians waiting to enter game in turn 2

Image

moxtaveto — 2007-01-12T17:26:48+00:00

self made counters (cardboard glued on wooden bingo pieces)

Thread: Re: Fast, Fun, But No Surprises.

wargamer55 — 2006-08-19T01:50:41+00:00

Ive played almost 200 NAW games now on Hexwar, winning more than I lost with both sides After all these plays I'm still impressed how many valid strategies are available, not to mention tactical nuances.
In my opinion, borne out by Hexwar stats, there's a slight bias against the French, which seems appropriate. But both sides can win and the French side is a little more fun to play, I think, because you're the initiative player. The Anglo-Allied player basically has to react to what the French player's strategy is. (If the French player makes the mistake of NOT driving the action then he's pretty much doomed.)
There are two approaches that hold promise of success for Napoleon. The first is to make your main effort along the left. I've seen it used successfully quite often, although I don't personally use it. The advantages are that you're hitting the weaker part of the British line, it's farthest away from the Prussians (so far that the game should probably be won or lost before they can affect the action) and it allows the French to mass the strongest attacks.
The disadvantages are that it can take a while to develop, it's predictable and it leaves open the possibility of losing the initiative. When I'm the Anglo-Allied player and I see someone try that approach I usually try to ATTACK and seize control of the center part of the board near Hougoumont. This can split the French army into two parts that can't easily support each other, constricts the left flank approach and could lead to early demoralization of the French army.
My favored approach is strong attack in the center, attempting to control the area between Hougoumont and the road. This often leads to a breakthrough in the center and an early demoralization of the British army. Don't forget that often the best way to kill a unit is NOT by attacking it but by setting thing up so it is forced to attack YOU at very poor odds. The biggest danger of this approach is that there's some chance that bad luck will stymie your attack and cause it to bog down. One way or another, this approach usually leads to a quick decision (by turn 4 or 5). Either the French are demoralized and lose or they demoralize the British, which almost always leads to a French win as they have plenty of time to exit 7 units and the demoralized British are too crippled to fight.
The one approach NOT worth trying is attacking on the French right. It takes too long to make significant headway and will definitely allow the Prussians to be a factor. I've never seen it work.
As Napoleon you have about 4 or 5 turns to defeat the British army, which you significantly outnumber. Don't pay any attention to the Prussians. You will have won or lost the game beforfe they can play much of a role.

Thread: Re: Fast, Fun, But No Surprises.

Eric Brosius — 2006-08-18T18:26:39+00:00

I've played Napoleon at Waterloo 26 times. I've played both sides about equally often. In these games, we've had 11 French wins, 15 British wins and one draw when the French couldn't get the units off.

That's close enough for me to have no problem with the play balance. Perhaps there's a small advantage for the Allies, but if so, the fun of being Napoleon makes up for it.

You mention that 1-1 attacks are useless. This isn't true. They are useful both for surrounding enemy units and for tying them down. If you force a retreat and advance into the vacated space, you'll often force the enemy into a course of action that is undesireable. If you're relying totally on high-odds attacks you don't have nearly enough force to prevail.

Thread: Re: Fast, Fun, But No Surprises.

Ron Stuckel — 2006-08-18T17:25:55+00:00

As French,

I consistantly leave only a right flank screening force (1 or 2 strength cavalry), tie up the middle with 1:1 attacks, advancing when necessary to tie down british units and then get my mobile and bigger units to the left to pound a way through. All it takes is one or two attacks to get to 3:1 or a 4:1 and get a DE result to break open a hole. Massed artillery is your friend. Keeping your big units not tied down and mobile also help you pick the attack point. Hopefully by the time the Prussions are closing, I'm exiting units on turn 8 or so.

As British,

I immediately try to swing any unit not tied down by the French to my right flank, utilizing the small city defense bonuses on that side of the map. I'll try to get my front shrunk down to the bare minimum and counterattack only to save my or pin enemy key units.

Thread: Fast, Fun, But No Surprises.

powwowdancer — 2006-08-18T14:02:59+00:00

There's a reason that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo. The cirucmstances were such that he had little or no chance of winning. "If he could have [insert reason here]," or "If only he had waited until [insert reason here]," things might've gone differently. If "Napoleon At Waterloo" is accurate in any sense, then Mssr. Bonaparte was doomed. I've tried, both at HexWars and at home in solitaire play to make Napoleon's prospects a bit brighter, and I'm at a loss. Obviously, folks at HexWars have beaten me like a gong when I was playing the anglo-prussian forces, but this is more due to my inexperience and lack of skill than to any great possibilities that Napoleon missed. Or is it? This last time, playing solitaire, (see pictures which I posted), I realized that the mistakes I've been making at HexWars involved several factors, for these things became startlingly apparent after this session of solo play. Those mistakes include, but are not limited to, (a) Mis-apportioning resources, in that I would use, say, 20 attack strength of French to attack 7 of British, effectively wasting 6 points of attack strenth that could've been used to better effect elsewhere. (20-7 basically renders 2-1 attack odds, which could just as easily be accomplished with the minimal force of 14 points of attack strength). (b) Unfamiliarity with the CRT breeds many attacks that cannot possibly result in a kill. 1-1 odds are completely and utterly useless. The best you can hope for is to cause your enemy to retreat a hex. Granted, this could be tactically advantageous, but I've been content with 1-1 odds far too often. (c) Failure to take advantage of the inherent weakness of the initial deployment of British forces in the first two turns. The Brits have strong units, just not very many of them, and somewhat divided at that. If you, as Napoleon, haven't bloodied his nose by turn three, when the Prussians show up, (The Prussians are coming!! The Prussians are coming!!), then you've got both hands full of all kinds of bad mojo, and you'll be handed your head. This was my experience... again. I'm going to keep hammering away at this, because it's a great system, a great game, and a truly difficult tactical challenge. If anyone has a French tactic or tactics which can beat the Anglo-Prussian forces, could you PLEASE share them in some detail? I'd be curious to see what could work, and even more eager to put them to use. I will continue to assume the blame for consistent French defeats until... I don't know... I guess until I despair of anything ever working! Who knows when that will be? Contrary to the tone of this session report, I did enjoy the session, in which I kicked my own ass, and in which Napoleon had his metaphorical bikini area completely waxed by turn 5. (Hint, if you, as Napoleon, want to give the Brits the slip with an "end run," DON'T go round his left flank, 'cuz you'll find yourself SQUEEZED between the limeys and the Prussians on turn three.) Oh, well... future play will inform my decisions on tactics with these lessons of hindsight taken into consideration.

powwowdancer out

Thread: Re: Review Summaries

shawn_low — 2005-05-16T14:46:46+00:00

I have the 'advanced game expansion'. It's basically a countersheet and rules. No info here on BGG> Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thread: Session Report

theaney — 2004-11-08T17:25:19+00:00

I recently played a game of Napoleon at Waterloo with “waringgibbon” via the online gaming service Hexwar. This was my third or fourth game on Hexwar, and I have really come to respect their system and how it operates. Hexwar is a program not unlike Cyberboard that allows play via email, but it completely streamlines the entire process by automatically enforcing the rules and executing all combat (i.e. rolling the dice and enforcing the results). For example, when you wish to move a unit, you click on it with the mouse and Hexwar highlights all the hexes to which this unit can move given its movement rate and the terrain as well as the presence of ZOCs and friendly units. I suspect that it would be a great way to learn the basics of hex-and-cardboard wargames. Anyway, on to the game.

Gibbon took the Wellington’s army and I took on the task of smashing the Allies with Napoleon’s crack Army du Nord. The game begins at 1:00 in the afternoon with both armies lined up for battle and the early French attack on Hougomont already in full swing (which pins down much of Napoleon’s left wing. Having just lost my last game as the French, I was a bit more wary than usual and decided to maneuver a bit before deciding when to attack. However, one must keep in mind that the French player is under great pressure to attack and attack hard since he must both eliminate 40 Allied strength points AND exit 7 French units off the north edge of the map in only 10 turns, so I was basically wasting a turn. Nevertheless, I shifted the main weight of my army to my left, throwing the cavalry on my far flank while moving the Guards and other divisions both around to the left of Hougomont and to between Hougomont and La Haye Sainte. My right moved forward into the towns that would form an anchor. I then transmitted my finished turn (after wiping out the small British unit in the Hougomont).

Gibbon responded with a maneuver I’d never seen before. He pulled his right wing around until it was 90 degrees off of his main front while pulling the left in a bit as well. The overall effect was that of a horseshoe shape. This opened th road north but of course would also keep me from outflanking any part of his line! Examining his deployment I couldn’t find ANY weak spots at all to attack. But I thought it might make his deployment of the Prussians (who arrive on the Allied turn 2) a bit difficult – the horseshoe gave me room to move and put more space between me and the Prussians. So, I shifted the entire army to the left and northward toward Merbe-Braine with the intent of getting all the way around his flank at Mont St. Jean. My right would be limited to a delaying action against the guys in gray. I launched a couple fo indecisive attacks, but this had the effect of forcing Gibbon to curl up even more, and when the Prussians arrived, they didn’t really have anyone to fight since the battle had moved so far westward.

The battle started in earnest on turn three when I finally at a chance to attack his line with some sort of advantage. Most of this type of SPI game is dependent upon attacks that eliminate or retreat one unit to allow the attack to advance a unit into the vacated hex. A second attack is then made upon an adjacent unit which is now cut off from retreat. What one wants is to get the magic 3-1 ratio; unfortunately, Gibbon’s excellent movement choices left most of my attacks at 2-1 and they did not go well at all. Indeed, I ended up with a couple of exposed units and accomplish little or nothing. Gibbon took advantage of my bad position at counterattacked. But his attacks went just as badly and now left a few 6-4 and a 7-4 in a precarious position.

Finally, I was able to do some real damage to the Allies. The battle line was now vertical in front of Merbe-Braine which was very strange, but I was able to eliminate about 8 Allied points for only 4 French points and capture La Haye Sainte as well as advancing some of my units into spots that would force old Welly into some no-so-good attacks. Gibbon attacked, but the combination of bad position and some nasty virtual die rolls left him down a few more points and exposed. Finally, on turn 6 (6pm) I had my chance to push the number of lost Allied units over 40; not only does this satisfy one of the French victory requirements, it also demoralizes the Allies and shifts the combat one column in favor of the French (e.g. a 2-1 French attack becomes a 3-1 and a 1-1 Allied attack becomes 1-2). Basically, there was a British 6-4 that had become completely cut off and a couple of small cavalry pieces that were in exposed positions. I gobbled them up and Gibbon’s army was now demoralized. But could I get my 7 units off the map in time?

Gibbon’s left wing including all those Prussians, was still strong and he tried to attack the remainder of my right, but the CRT was against him and the attacks were repulsed with losses to the Allies. He did launch an attack at the northern edge of the mapboard that seriously scared me. He manage to push some units partially in the way of my advance as well as lock down a few others in his ZOCs. But my cavalry made it off followed by enough infantry to make it to 7 and complete the French victory.

Gibbon’s strategy was innovative and his deployment thoughtful and strong, but I think the horseshoe shape gave the French a little too much wiggle room. That combined with what seemed to be two turns of bad CRT rolls gave me the chance to chew up a few English pieces and ultimately win the game. All in all, it was well played and fun.

If you have any interest at all in trying hex-and-cardboard wargames or if you’re an old SPI’er from way back, I cannot recommend Hexwar highly enough. There are plenty of opponents and the software works very well, guiding the players through the process of the game. It is certainly worth the free download and a trial run.

Thread: Review Summaries

The Maverick — 2004-07-09T20:33:30+00:00

Napoleon at Waterloo
SPI (1971, 1979, free)
Designed by James F. Dunnigan

Players: 2
Playing Time: 1 to 2 hours
Period: Napoleonic
Scale: Operational
Turn: 1 hour
Map: 500m (1971), 400m (1979)
Unit: divisions

Box: envelope?

[1971 edition]

Components: 17x23" unmounted mapsheet, second edition rules
folder, die-cut counters.

Counter Manifest: 18 red units, 26 blue units, 2 blue blanks, 9 green units, 1 green turn marker. (Note: The unit count is correct, but there may have been additional blank counters for a total "guesstimated" counter mix of 60.)

[1979 edition]

Components: 100 die-cut counters, 24 page booklet with rules and 17x11" paper mapsheet bound in. The rules include a Marshal Grouchy Variant by A.A. Nofi which is not found in the earlier release. Several other articles are included in the booklet: Note to the New Gamer, History of Wargaming, Introduction to Wargaming, Solitaire Play, Military Unit Symbols, and Master Index to S&T (#19-75) and Moves (#1-41).

Counter Manifest: 18 red units, 2 red blanks, 16 blue units, 4 blue blanks, 39 white units, 1 white blank, 18 numbered markers (3 different colored sets each numbered 1 through 6), 1 game turn marker, 1 demoralized marker.

[Both editions]

SPI says: "The basic purpose of this game is to serve as an exemplary introduction to the essentials of game simulations. A game-simulation strives to symbolically re-create a particular set of 'real-world' events and, through this re-creation, give the players the opportunity to manipulate the decision-making forces behind those events. Napoleon at Waterloo is, specifically, an historical, military-conflict game-simulation which re-creates the climactic Battle of Waterloo that occured in June of 1815 between the forces of the French, commanded by Napoleon, and the forces of the Anglo-Prussian Allies, commanded by Wellington."

The reviewers say: "Napoleon at Waterloo as a game is nearly flawless. She is quick, enjoyable, easily learned, and has the allure of [Avalon Hill's] Waterloo. More importantly, her rules are concise, comprehensive, and, wonder of wonders, consistent . . . As a simulation, Napoleon at Waterloo is not as successful . . . The Grand Batteries cheerfully fire over the heads of their own troops, the only command control is in a player's fingertips, and the Guards are the most heavily committed soldiers on both sides." From a collaborative article in Fire & Movement #24.

"[V]ery simple standard stuff. Artillery has ranged-fire capability, and morale for both sides is a function of cumulative losses. The French win by exiting units toward Burssels, and the Allies win by preventing this . . . Despite its simplicity, a good deal of tension is generated during play." The Complete Book of Wargames by Jon Freeman.

"[O]nce a give-away game to the new S&T suscribers, it has been re-released in a cleaner, more colorful version for the give-away again but it's still the same old game underneath . . . By today's standards, the game simply is not adequate for the average or better gamer, but it is excellent for introducing the young neophyte into the art and science of wargaming." Ian Chadwick in Moves #53.

Comments: Napoleon at Waterloo was released in a couple of other formats. A flat tray edition ($12) added advanced game rules and used brigade scale units. In 1981, SPI released a booklet titled Introduction to Adventure Gaming which included Napoleon at Waterloo along with two other introductory games: The Creatures That Ate New York and The Tower of Azann.

A variant titled Enhanced Napoleon at Waterloo was published in Moves #53. Designed by John Scarbeck, the variant was intended to increase the realism of the game and offered a revised order of battle along with additional rules.

Collector's Notes: The Napoleon at Waterloo entry in Boone's Internet Wargames Catalog simply lists a 1971 copyright and does not specify whether this refers to free editions, flat tray editions, or both. Players will want to go with the attractive 1979 edition which reflects eight years of improvments in SPI's graphics. Boone's Internet Wargames Catalog 4th lists low/high/average auction prices of $6/$23/$15. In Boone 3rd, auction prices were $4/$10/$6 and sale listings were $8/$35/$18.

Other free introductory games: Attack of the Mutants folio (Yaquinto), Battle for Basra (GDW), Battle for Moscow (GDW),
Strike Force One (SPI).