Game: Wellington's Victory - Battle of Waterloo

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:25:27+00:00

TSR_Wellington's Victory - Relative Firepower Table & Own Informations

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:23:48+00:00

TSR_Wellington's Victory - Shock-CRT

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:21:15+00:00

TSR_Wellington's Victory - Map D - Southeast Map

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:16:59+00:00

TSR_Wellington's Victory - Map C - Hougomont-Area

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:15:14+00:00

TSR_Wellington's Victory - Map B - Papelotte & Smohain-Area

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:12:10+00:00

TSR_Wellington's Victory - Map A - La Haye Saint & The Sandpit-Area

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:09:19+00:00

TSR_Wellington's Victory - French OOB

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:07:07+00:00

TSR_Wellington's Victory - Allied OOB

Image

521tiger — 2008-08-01T21:03:39+00:00

SPI_Wellington's Victory - TSR-Rulebooklet-Cover

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

geira — 2008-05-29T02:26:37+00:00

dirubin wrote:
Artillery -- Speak for yourself! *Never* exhaust your ammo; the threat of artillery fire is an important element in combined arms tactics, and one should not deprive oneself of it.

Artillery ammo shortage was not an issue in the Napoleonic wars. The only episode Haythornthwaite finds worthwhile to mention is at Leipzig, where some units began to get low after three days of battle.

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

hohenlohe — 2008-03-20T21:58:36+00:00

Thanks for the well thought out and informative response. You shouldn't think that I despise the system or the design. I agree that it was a breakthrough in design. As usual with large SPI games, game development and playtesting let it down. In fact, this one is better than most SPI monsters in that respect.

In terms of the skirmishers, I was describing the mixed, fire shock approach rather than the specifics of each. The outcome is worse than one-for one which still seems odd to me. I guess that was unclear.

Certainly detaching skirmishers was a nifty idea, but I am not entirely convinced by your proposed explanation. Noting that even the Old Guard are affected by the morale drop, Line Grenadiers and Voltigeurs operating detached didn't seem to leave line troops too discomfited. I note that converging Grenadier companies (Oudinot's Corps in the middle of the era or the Castiglione reserve for example) doesn't seem to have left the fusiliers noticeably impoverished.

Mind you, elite companies were formed as reserves to stiffen deployed battalions in some circumstances so it may be the case. Perhaps it is just the 20% or so reduction that bothers me.

I'll have a thorough read and a bit of an experiment as you suggest.

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

Crackaces — 2008-02-19T17:28:53+00:00

First. Wellington's victory was a breakthrough of sorts for 1976. There were a few grand tactical games to come out during that period. Terrible Swift Sword was one of them. Wellington's victory abstracted the concepts of an effectiveness rating as opposed to strictly using strength points to evaluate combat effectiveness.

Wellington's victory also made a breakthrough of sorts in that the commander had restraints on combat units and casualties. Though it is hard to get emotional at the loss of little cardboard counters -- Wellington's victory made the commander think about the cost of achieving objectives. Is 15 points of morale loss to the enemy worth 22 points against me? The concept of reserve rather than just march all my units into battle until both armies are reduced into something more akin to the end game of chess. No, now 20% - 30% casualties and 4 hours of combat will cause your troops to think of things better to do.

When we look at a game there are three things the designer has to consider.

1. The game mechanics. How things move, do things, and how results happen.

2. Special mechanics. Once you establish the norm -- the designer has to point out the exceptions. Skirmishers cannot move next to formed units for example.

3. Special rules for the situation. In the early assault guns and horses are disordered for example.

Sometimes the special rules can get carried away. Did "Napy" just roll too many "sixes" for morale checks that day, or do you really need a special rule that if the Guard fails a morale check the entire Army will more than likely rout? One needs to be careful in writing rules that ends up producing an historical result. What you want is to create the environment so the players can ask "what if?"

What makes an innovative game in my opinion is using what works, and change the things that do not work. Strength points for morale did not work and Wellington's victory introduced a workable system. However, when you think of a game in terms of the above there are tried and true rules that everybody knows and uses. It makes the game easier to learn. When you change everything just to be innovative or unique you are going to have problems. Wellington's victory is such a game.

LOS rules for example. The designers thought of a very unique system, but is it really better than just taking the distance between two points and if the obstruction is closer to the observer than the target -- OS is blocked? Why all the math and complexity? Yes one has to consider how high the target is and make approximations but the rules are far too complex.

On the other hand the turn sequence is very unique and provides interesting game decisions. You cannot just march troops up and melee the same turn. Yes reaction fire is deadly, but you should get at least one shot off before the troops get in shock range. The turn sequence has other side effects too. It manage simultaneity. The other rule paradigm is impulse movement which is very cumbersome. But then again ....

I do think the designers got too cute with the turn sequence. They wanted to really point out the advantages of French combined arms and British fire. So the turn sequence leaves French units disordered at weird times and British units other times. To solve the British cav are exposed to fire before charge but the French cav are not and other designer induced gaming .... just include an additional fire sequence at the end. This balances things and both sides are exposed to disorder for a complete turn sequence through shock and/or fire equally. I have play tested this twice with fair results.

One way to manage this is to give the French a +1 on he die roll for who fires first on the first fire phase and he British a +1 for the second die roll. This gives the player moving troops a slight disadvantage in the upcoming fire phase.

There is a variant out there which allows for l'order mixed and clarifies that ALL UNITS in the cav shock area take a morale check. I think this was the original designers intent. There are two places in the rules that movement or formation change is specifically mentioned and other places it is not. If you can get agreement that all units in the cav charge zone take a morale check -- it solves some problems mentioned in the quotes below. This is because a disordered unit will rout. That means that at least 33% of the skirms in medium range are heading rearward. If that is not enough -- An additional rule is to subtract -2 from the die for all disordered units. This will cause more skirms to rout. BTW) There are no casualties for engaging a routed unit.

There is a need to add some rules for cav to prevent players from gaming the system. One thing is to send a small cav unit to entice a counter charge. Then the rules state that once a charge ends the unit is in disorder. Well you can see a way of sending junk up to entice an elite unit into a charge and then rout it. One simple rule is to place all cav units engaged into a charge into disorder at the END of the shock phase. Allow couter-charging units to pass the turn over for the next unit's charge but still continue the charge as a well formed unit. This discourages "gaming the system."

The decision for game designers is often between creating an accurate simulation or sometimes foresaking realism for a really fun "what if" game. These decisions make the game fun and playable or a historical re-creation. Some of the comments I see on this list point to the re-creation part. It is also a great game if you learn something new.

For example, The question of going around to the right. At Gettysburg historians point out that Lee should have going around Big Top to the right. What is shown in Wellington's victory is that if reinforcements are coming that way you will be caught in a sandwich. There lies a problem -- Knowing the results ahead of time. Wellington's victory points out what happens if you blindly apply tactics. Hey Lee might have been thinking about this battle at Gettysburg?

One thing. I think some of the negative comments are from the fact that the initial setup forces the French into the original failed battle plan. The Early Assault leaves much more to the French player and makes a much more exciting game. I would agree that it is easier to watch a graphical simulation than set up Wellington's victory and do the exact same thing.

I will comment below to the review:

Skirmishers – the system makes these far too powerful with no obvious way to clear them. The systems are designed so that it is more expensive to clear skirmishers than to place them. Allowing for fire and shock and cavalry combat a skirmisher will usually cause more casualties than it takes and very rarely fewer (simply because it is stacked one high the excess hits from the other units are wasted).
Amusingly, detaching skirmishers from a main body actually lowers its morale so having guys out fighting for you and taking hits intended for you makes you more likely to rout. The game seems to degenerate into a race to break down as many units as possible into skirmishers.

Attacking skirmishers using shock should not be causing the causality count you are seeing. I am assuming you mean trading fire combat. The skirmishers should be routing from being disordered.

But .... If you are playing a skirmisher Kubota dance as the French you are in trouble. In the regular game you have 3 hours to get formed units up and over the hill on section A. Shooting it out with skirmishers only means high casualties and time ticking away.

There are two very key places on Map section A. 4823, 5621. These two points represent the weakest point in the line. Yes you have to weaken the defense with skirmisher fire but the French will need to take formed units at these two points rather quickly. Especially Cav.

There are nuances like Section A hex 4924 where the cover is pointing toward the French side. That means soft cover for the French and no cover for Pictons 5th. This hex is also reachable by French Guns.

So there has to be a very detailed plan rather than run skirmishers and exchange fire. It is very very possible to get formed units into the right places and move the British off the ridgeline.

Now your comment on the skirmishers detaching from formed units weakening those units. Let us take the French, but the English were similarly organized. A battalion consisted of 2 or 3 companies of regulars with one company of Light troops -- Fusiliers and Grenadiers. These elite troops could and would detach to fight in open order. Needless to say the Regulars did not have the same discipline. With the
Fusiliers and Grenadiers detached these units often did not have the same fighting or will power.

The Class One units represent whole units composed of Fusiliers and/or Grenadiers

Formed infantry – it's actually hard to see a role for these and the designer's notes suggest stacking them up in single hexes at improbable and unhistorical densities to shelter them (they're vulnerable to everything and not superior to anything really).

I am not sure how much the game was play tested before the notes were written.

There are two very key places on Map section A. 4823, 5621. As I have stated in details above -- these two points represent the weakest point in the line. Yes you have to weaken the defense will skirmisher fire but the French will need to take formed units at these two points rather quickly.

Artillery – limited to just six to eight shots in a game you'd like to save those shots for something worthwhile (presumably the designer's intent) but given that skirmishers can outshoot artillery and that you are restricted to firing at the nearest unit players actually race to spend those six shots on the first six targets they see.

As the French I have a strategy for my Artillery. I place batteries on 5028, 4929, 4730 to place fire on hex 4824. If the skirmisher is still there I get penetration on 4823. Two chances per shot 3 shots per fire phase to clear the hill.

As you see these are not random placements but an overall strategy of getting formed units to 4823 and 4923.

There are other such place for Artillery that soften an area for an attack.

Six-sided dice – there is insufficient variability in the combat system. For example, skirmishers stacked one high need a six to hit other skirmishers whether or not those skirmishers are lining a wall or defending a wood outside Hougomont. With a 10 sided die you'd be able to account for skirmishers in cover.

There is a variant out there that does just this. It adds a greater degree of variation and what if's

On the whole I'd struggle to invest the time to see another game all the way through, but if you are a mad keen Napoleonics fan or enjoy modifying games to suit you may enjoy it.

The early Assault game with a few rules clarifications and the l'order mixed variant makes for a very very interesting game. Adding the additional fire phase makes the game flow better in my opinion.

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

noelgames — 2008-01-05T23:47:24+00:00

Actually I think Wellington's Victory is an excellent game of the battle of Waterloo, with its Grand-Tactical map scale and long length giving a real feel of the factors involved in the battle. You genuinely feel the time pressure on the French to attack before the Prussians can get into play.

The map contours and resulting line of sight rules aren't easy or simple. The generally accepted problem with skirmishers has several suggested "fixes", some of which are referred to in the forums here on BGG. Even with the existing rules they can be taken out with cavalry or infantry melee, but they block line of sight too easily for my taste.

Overall I think it is a very attractive and atmospheric game of the battle, and not a bad simulation.

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

RaffertyA — 2008-01-05T20:05:15+00:00

Exactly my experience in Ney vs Wellington with respect to skirmishers. Not nearly enough cavalry to deal with the absolute swarm of French skirmishers. Comes off as totally ahistorical (and too darn complicated for an issue game).

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

hohenlohe — 2008-01-05T20:03:38+00:00

Yep, there are lots of views of games and mine is as subjective as anyone's I think my friends and I agreed that it worked as a game and it does emphasise combined arms. It just didn't feel much like napoleonics.

Skirmishers - Actually they are cleared by cavalry charges. The most effective approach seems to be to feint, rout some and then send in your own skirmishers to overwhelm those that stand.

Skirmisher morale is very high (it's always a 5 - the old guard are 6). So being the shock troops they are, a few tend to stand in front of cav unless you can sneak up on them. If they stand and the cav continue the skirmishers inflict 1:3 of a hit in fire phase and 1:3 of a hit in shock combat (which is an absurd result) so 4/9 they inflict one hit and 1/9 they inflict 2. Further, the cav are now stuck deep in your lines and subject to more fire in your turn.

Skirmishers are a dime a dozen and cav are precious and few. As it only takes a few hits to render units pretty much useless I always found myself overjoyed when cav charged skirmishers.

Formed infantry - yes, I think my point was that if you protect them, shelter them from skirmishers and artillery and cavalry they'll be ok. This is not their historical role.

Artillery - yes, it is always open to keep them in reserve. I think my problem was that artillery actually firing was the biggest cause of casualties in the Napoleonic period not the threat of it firing.

Since you have to fire at the closest target you can't fire through skirmishers. From time to time you can clear the skirmisher cloud, reveal a target and pound it but where is the standard relatively long range bombardment that was the normal tactic of the period?

Cheers

Sheldon

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

dirubin — 2008-01-05T14:52:01+00:00

Skirmishers -- They are quickly and efficiently cleared by cavalry charges.

Formed Infantry -- Game emphasizes combined arms. Formed Infantry (in isolation) get the worst of it, but so do isolated Skirmishers, Cavalry, and Artillery. As part of a combined arms force, Formed Infantry are not quite so vulnerable.

Artillery -- Speak for yourself! *Never* exhaust your ammo; the threat of artillery fire is an important element in combined arms tactics, and one should not deprive oneself of it.

Six-sided dice -- Well, yes. 10-sided dice were not part of the wargaming milieu then. The resultant distortion, IMO, is not significant, though.

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

Feralkoala — 2008-01-05T14:40:53+00:00

We had the same experience with the skirmishers when my group played this 20 years ago.Very disappointed. Hasn't been played since.

Thread: Re: Unvarnished Review

sherron — 2008-01-05T07:08:11+00:00

If one would like to try a much smaller version of The Wellington's Victory, try Ney vs Wellington (the Battle of Quatre Bras)which originaly came one of the Stragety & Tactics magazine.

Thread: Unvarnished Review

hohenlohe — 2008-01-05T04:55:13+00:00

Wellington's Victory is a hex and counter wargame recreating the Battle of Waterloo at battalion level. It was first published by SPI in 1976 and republished by TSR in 1983. There were no significant differences between the two editions and no errata has ever been issued for either version.

The game is one of the first “monster” wargames and it represents superior value for money in terms of physical components with 4 large SPI maps, 2000 unit counters and game markers and multiple sets of charts to facilitate multiple players per side. Both the maps and counters are very pretty by the standards of the day with the contour-based maps showing imaginative use of limited colours. It certainly looks good when set-up.

For those not familiar with Waterloo the situation is that the Allied Army (commanded by Wellington) must hang on until the arrival of the Prussian Army (commanded by Blücher) in the late afternoon/evening puts significant pressure on the French (commanded by Napoleon). On the day, the Allied Army resisted the final assault of the French Guard which, combined with the pressure of the unexpected Prussian arrival, saw the French Army rout off the field.

The situation requires the French to break the Allied Army before the Prussian Army can become effective.

While the rules are not the clearest set I've ever dealt with, for the era they are pretty good. On the whole the rules are reasonably well organised and while you might hunt from section to section from time to time you will eventually find what you need.

The game is a tactical game at battalion level with all that implies for the Napoleonic Era. There are rules implementing:

Formations – Column, Line, Extended Line, Square, Limbered and Unlimbered artillery are all catered for an cleanly implemented (although extended lines are rendered so clumsy you'd wonder why anyone had big battalions).

Facing – Front, side and rear modify combat.

Fire and shock – musket and artillery fire are cleanly implemented and cavalry charges are quite elegantly done with everyone within a declared charge zone hampered by it and at risk.

Movement - simple enough with lots of additional costs like elevation changes.

Line of sight – not well thought out and not well implemented with even the designer stating in the notes: “I came up with the observation procedure which no one has read from beginning to end and lived to tell about. I think it works. Who knows?”

Morale – essentially units test morale to fight, when they take losses etc.

Command – The command system is simply intended to keep your units together. There are some interesting ideas about VP cost for activating brigades, but not well thought out. My first move was to break the light brigade of French entirely into skirmishers negating the cost of activation (because there were no active units left).

Opinion

In my view it's not a great game, 1970s or not. There are some significant issues:

Skirmishers – the system makes these far too powerful with no obvious way to clear them. The systems are designed so that it is more expensive to clear skirmishers than to place them. Allowing for fire and shock and cavalry combat a skirmisher will usually cause more casualties than it takes and very rarely fewer (simply because it is stacked one high the excess hits from the other units are wasted).
Amusingly, detaching skirmishers from a main body actually lowers its morale so having guys out fighting for you and taking hits intended for you makes you more likely to rout. The game seems to degenerate into a race to break down as many units as possible into skirmishers.

Formed infantry – it's actually hard to see a role for these and the designer's notes suggest stacking them up in single hexes at improbable and unhistorical densities to shelter them (they're vulnerable to everything and not superior to anything really).

Artillery – limited to just six to eight shots in a game you'd like to save those shots for something worthwhile (presumably the designer's intent) but given that skirmishers can outshoot artillery and that you are restricted to firing at the nearest unit players actually race to spend those six shots on the first six targets they see.

Six-sided dice – there is insufficent variability in the combat system. For example, skirmishers stacked one high need a six to hit other skirmishers whether or not those skirmishers are lining a wall or defending a wood outside Hougomont. With a 10 sided die you'd be able to account for skirmishers in cover.

On the whole I'd struggle to invest the time to see another game all the way through, but if you are a mad keen Napoleonics fan or enjoy modifying games to suit you may enjoy it.

Thread: Re: Extra board, anyone?

TommieSL — 2007-11-30T16:04:06+00:00

Ed.

Try at the SPI Wrecking Yard, here...
http://members.shaw.ca/kerryanderson/

Thread: Extra board, anyone?

ed95005 — 2007-11-29T22:07:59+00:00

Hey everyone,

I'm trying to locate a copy of the map to give as a gift to my girlfriend's brother. He has all the components except the map. If you have a copy you'd be willing to part with for a reasonable price, please let me know. Thanks!

Ed

Thread: Re: Missing Prussian Chart

521tiger — 2007-09-21T20:11:27+00:00

Rick,
I own the game and checked through the whole box, but there is no "Prussian" Initial Deployment chart within. Is there anything you wanted to know in particular?
Andy (521tiger)

Image

Xookliba — 2007-08-29T13:15:08+00:00

Initial French disposition (cyberboard)

Thread: Missing Prussian Chart

RED RICK — 2007-08-23T04:53:35+00:00

Does anyone have a scan of the Prussian Initial Deployment chart ??
I'd could return the scan favor for any of the games I own ...

Thanks in advance Rick
www.redrick.net
Micro Armor Page

Thread: Re: Wellingtons Victory Vs La Bataille series

chargetheguns — 2007-06-01T12:04:21+00:00

You would probably find this comparison made in much more depth over on www.consimworld.com. I don't know enough about these except to say Wellington's Victory seems to be a little better in general than the La Battaille series.

Thread: Wellingtons Victory Vs La Bataille series

glenngarth30 — 2007-06-01T00:30:08+00:00

How does the La Bataille series compare to the Welingtons Victory rules. I like the WV rules (I play Ney vs Wellington Quatre Bras) and was cosidering purchasing one of the Bataille games.

Thread: Wellington's Victory...2 copies...for GeekGold and shipping

gesa — 2006-08-29T17:04:57+00:00

I've got two copies of WV that I'm auctioning for GG and actual shipping cost:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geekauction.php3?action=viewauc...

Thread: Re: User Review

Eric Brosius — 2005-12-02T04:16:36+00:00

There's at least one other game in this system, Ney vs. Wellington on the battle of Quatre Bras. I think it came as an S&T zine game. It's a much smaller game (and I think would be less costly to buy.)

Thread: Re: User Review

chiggy_v — 2005-12-02T01:42:41+00:00

Its a large game, four spi style maps but its worth the space. This is the game I always return to when I need my Napoleonic fix. I've hand printed using a laser printer a army setup for the major countries, Russia, Austria, Prussia etc. I only wish someone had taken this game to the next level. This is a jewel and will be buried with me when I die LOL!

Thread: Re:User Review

heath p avery — 2005-03-28T10:28:18+00:00

chiggy_v (#80264),
Hi from down under
Im not a huge Napoleonic fan but have a few building up in my collection....Im bidding on this on ebay and after reading your review I might go hard and get it...
I think it comes with nato style counters...I much prefer picto/silohoute style but thats a minor drawback isnt it....how big is it in regard to maps a monster that needs 2 tables?
cheers heath
PS I dont expect any surprises in regard to CRT or other rules but heres hoping

Thread: User Review

chiggy_v — 2005-01-27T13:26:36+00:00

Wellington's Victory is a battalion based grand tactical recreation of the Battle of Wwaterloo. While an old game it still holds up well under todays standards. The system uses a unique asymetical turn system to simulate Wellington's advantage at being able to react to Napoleon's moves. Thus the game has the English player moving just before the combined fire phase.

The French have the advantage of moving after the fire phase and this allows them to position for cavalry charges and shock attacks. The only flaw is that skirmishers are a little to strong. There are some player optional rules that weaken the abilities of skirmishers though so don't let that slow you down on this game!

The game also uses an army morale system. Each brigade committed to battle uses up a morale point each hour. Along with losses the player has to manage the amount of units he will commit to the battle and save a reserve. If you try and send all your troops in at once you will find you army morale gone in a few hours and your troops fleeing the battle because of it.

There are many Napolonic methods the players have to follow to win. Economy of force, concentration on a single point. Flanking forces both by the french and later the Prussians bring this game to a very nerve racking level. When you see your line fold because of a massive cavalry charge you will want to resign, but if you hang on things can quickly turn as morale failures can be transmitted to other units in a chain reaction that sends massive amounts of troops heading for safer ground. The player must learn to manage morale at the army and unit level and use combined arms to gain the victory.

It is one of the best games I have on the subject and I will not be selling it anytime soon. My one regret is that they never expanded on the system and developed Ligny or some of the other classic battles of that age!

Thread:

chiggy_v — 2004-07-30T15:51:30+00:00

http://loakes.dyndsl.com/limeyyankgames/limeyhome.html has a Wellington's Victory Module for Cyberboard PMEM game tool!

So you can play this monster my mail now!