Game: Eagles: Waterloo

Thread: Re: Eagles Waterloo review

Mild Seven — 2008-05-30T15:08:20+00:00

Yup I think this is a great game. I love the idea of a wargame in card format. Gives the feeling of being in command of a huge army without an enormous cash/time outlay .
My introduction to this battle system was http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2749 and I only later found out something similar had previously been used-I don`t know if that should be` introduced ` as I`m not so well versed in wargaming lore-by http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1662
So I was delighted to discover the more detailed versions in card format were available.
I find that both Eagles and Dixie are straightforward and unambiguous to learn and play . Luckily they fall in historical periods that I enjoy reading about and gaming.

Highly recommended. Although it must be said, I`m inclined to like almost anything wargame that I buy.

Thread: Re: Eagles Waterloo review

scribidinus — 2008-05-30T12:44:57+00:00

I have all the Dixie sets and Eagles. I collected them all the hard way, one deck at a time.

The unified Dixie Rules make Dixie a better game. Some of those rules, leader casualties, for instance, come straight from Eagles. I suspect Gettyburg would be a better game if some additional rules from Eagles were ported over.

Eagles covers the Waterloo Campaign, so it is possible play out the four battles with the results of one having an affect on the next. Like Gettysburg each card has it's parent Corps noted on the card so it behooves players to attempt some level of command continuity.

The Campaign can be played with four player with Quatre Bras and Ligny being played simultaneously followed by Wavre and Waterloo or, depending on the results of the first day's battles, one hypothetical battle for all the marbles.

BTW, I've always reversed the CV values to the more intuitive 1, 2 or 3 for hits.

Thread: Eagles Waterloo review

wargamer55 — 2008-05-30T02:05:46+00:00

Eagles: Waterloo was the last in Columbia Games' short-lived foray into collectible card games.

Like Dixie, it plays rather more like a boardgame than a card game, with most of the cards being used as unit and leader counters or terrain markers. Only the few "special" cards are played, card-like, to influence the action.

This isn't surprising, as the game system is an elaboration of the tactical battle subsystem used in Columbia campaign games like Bobby Lee and Napoleon.

Compared to the Dixie series, Eagles: Waterloo is more intricate, as befits the style of Napoleonic warfare, which involved richer interactions than the Civil War battlefield. Combined arms effects and differentiation between units is more important in Eagles. The Civil War battlefield was an infantry fight, with artillery and cavalry playing subordinate roles. Most of the infantry was armed and trained the same as well, so Dixie could treat all of them as similar, with the only differences being size and (at Gettysburg) morale.

In Eagles there are significant differences between types of cavalry and infantry, with the effects of lancers, Guards and other elites, British firepower and horse artillery being among the factors considered.

Units have a "Combat Values" based on their size, which controls how many dice they roll in combat. A CV 4 unit rolls 4 dice, for example. The effect of those dice depends on its "F" (firepower) value or "S" (shock) value. Eagles rules have never been revised, so they missed out on the recent rationalization of Columbia rules which universally switched from high being good to low being good, so an F3 still means 4-6 succeeds instead of the more intuitive 1-3 of newer games. Firepower is used for most fighting, while shock is reserved for certain special cases such as cavalry charges or infantry column assaults.

Rules factor in the effects of formations such as columns and squares and the more open nature of Waterloo compared to the American battlefields. In Eagles terrain cards can only hold one or two units and don't count for stacking, which creates a very different environment from the section-wide effect of Dixie terrain.

The battles in Eagles tend to be short, brutal affairs because of a major change in victory conditions. In Eagles a side wins the instant it controls one enemy sector, instead of the two required in Dixie. This also allows Eagles to dispense with the flanking rules of Dixie because the game ends as soon as the flanking condition is achieved.

Units also tend to be a little more fragile than Dixie units because there are a lot more low morale units, especially among the Prussians and Dutch-Belgians. Some of these are large CV4 or CV5 units that have morale levels of C or D, meaning they fail morale on a 2 or a 1, respectively. The "rally" special card has also been weakened. Instead of an automatic success, playing the rally card just gives you another chance to pass morale, not much of a benefit for a D unit. (It's best saved to mitigate a bad roll by one of your elite units.)

Eagles: Waterloo includes all four battles of the Waterloo campaign as well as a campaign version, so it actually covers about as much gaming ground as the Dixie series.

It plays enough like Dixie to be easy to learn while being different enough that you don't feel like you're just playing Dixie with prettier uniforms.

The collectible aspect of the game is very secondary, merely consisting of different colored borders to reflect rarity: Gold is rare, silver uncommon and bronze is common. This has absolutely no effect on play and, frankly, little effect on collectibility. I was quite satisfied collecting a complete set of uniforms/units without worrying about the color of the borders.

If, however, you do want all the borders to match, complete sets are still available from Columbia.

Eagles: Waterloo is a good light wargame providing the flavor of Napoleonic battles with an attractive presentation of uniform and OB details usually seen only in miniatures games. It plays brutally fast.

I think the game plays best without using the point system, as the point values don't match the game-effect value very well on many cards. Segregating the cards by the historical battle and then drawing randomly from that group provides a good mix of cards that's usually balanced enough. And if not, you can play again shortly.

From my blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Image

RayGuns — 2007-12-25T20:48:53+00:00

Eagles card number 001 of 300 - a GOLD Napoleon card. Eagles cards come in Gold (10%), Sivler (30%), and Bronze (60%) cards. The color of the cards themselves do not effect game play. Just value for a set.

Image

RayGuns — 2007-12-25T20:42:28+00:00

Eagles: Waterloo - Box top

Image

RayGuns — 2007-12-25T20:41:35+00:00

Eagles: Waterloo - box front, sides and back.

Image

RayGuns — 2007-12-25T20:39:39+00:00

Each box of Eagles: Waterloo cards comes with one sheet of counters for marking hits and to mark Column and Square formations.

Image

sikeospi — 2007-10-12T07:50:26+00:00

"Eagles: Waterloo" game using five columns instead of the typical three columns.

Thread: Latest version available

kentreuber — 2007-09-03T15:36:13+00:00

I recently traded for a bunch of decks of Eagles decks. The rules included are version 1.0. Are there any more recent rules available?

Thread: Suggestion for more fun!

sightreader — 2007-01-17T05:12:06+00:00

I know it's ahistorical, but I suggest that you HIDE any formations you use underneath the unit when playing, revealing it only when an enemy is shares the unit's location. Much of the luck in the game then gets mitigated by bluff, and the game becomes a riot of psychological brinksmanship!

Thread: Re: Seeking an English guy named Simon who is a Roman historian.

Hatricvs — 2006-09-22T21:41:10+00:00

E-mail sent regarding a possible contact!

Cheers

Andy B

Thread: Seeking an English guy named Simon who is a Roman historian.

kduke — 2006-09-22T03:02:19+00:00

Long shot here, I know.

Back in the earliest days of the internet, Columbia games ran a forum for folks trying to trade cards to complete their sets.

I made the acqaintance of an English guy, and in exchanging notes found that he does some Romans in UK historical work.

My wife and I tried to link up with him on a trip to England but his household had just turned over and that didn't work.

Later, I found a note from him to me on the Columbia site (before it shut down) but I did not get the address.

So, maybe he still checks out Eagles.

Contact me if you can see this-- we're looking at another trip in 2007 to hit Roman sites in Wales and western UK.

kevin

Image

blucher — 2006-05-24T05:30:16+00:00

A French victory with only three units left!

Thread: Re: Confusion about general casualties

Skobra — 2005-07-20T14:17:22+00:00

As I understand rules - if your general is alone on position and any enemy troop is present or move to that position, general is eliminated with out any need for fire or shock attack

Thread: Re:Confusion about general casualties

Da Black Gobo — 2005-01-20T00:14:51+00:00

tarheel (#78633),

Generals can't be normally targeted. If a general is in a position say with 3 infantry cards and enemy fire or shock on these units had 4 ones rolled, then the general will have to roll 4 dice and if any 6's are rolled he removed.

In other words Generals take one hit for each 1 rolled during enemy fire or shock at his POSITION, (the friendly cards that are targeted are in his position.)

The only other way to remove the general is to fire or shock him while he is alone. In that case he is removed immediately.

Thread: Confusion about general casualties

tarheel — 2005-01-19T20:36:27+00:00

Confusion mounts:

Not clear at all about general casualties. Pamphlet says if any roll of '1' occurs in the position a general is present there may be a casualty.

Does this mean that any 1 rolled against ANY TARGET in that area may have a coexisting general casualty?

Does this mean that you must target the general directly?

If the first case, the book seems to indicate that hits only occur against units on a roll of high numbers, so not clear at all about why a '1' would cause leader casualty.

Help!?

Image

JaggedTech — 2004-08-23T18:19:38+00:00

Some card fronts and backs (Prussian)

Image

JaggedTech — 2004-08-23T18:19:38+00:00

Some card fronts and backs (French)

Image

JaggedTech — 2004-08-23T18:19:38+00:00

Some card fronts and backs (English)

Image

alcazar — 2003-12-06T16:37:53+00:00