This game is part of The Art of Siege.

This is the only game to cover Denain and both OOB and map are both very accurate…
Unfortunately scenarios and rules do not allow simulate well the battle and they also artificially limit the gameplay to straight assault as only option.
Different ruleset and scenario would have definitely given a more historical render to this battle. Being the only game to cover this battle and as it is a cheap game, it is worth trying just to have a general idea of that battle…

Recommendation:

Long games with a lot of counters and die rolls but it is a good attempt at covering these 2 battles, especially Malplaquet. It could have had more historical chrome imo but if you are found of this periode, you must play this game just to make your own mind about it...

Recommendation:

This is an old school game form 1978… I don’t own it but I did some researches as I was looking for it…
It is using the old wargame system 1:1, 2:1 with a d6 and some DR, DE results, if you see what I mean… Absolutely no historical realism or chrome here…
Being in one of the first Wargamer issue, it is now a collector item with a price that has nothing to do with the actual game quality…
I stopped looking for this game as it seems to have, in fact, no real game quality… If you want to make your own opinion, you can have a closer look at the game by downloading its gamebox version…

Recommendation:

I think the game is fairly realistic given a complexity level comparable with the quads (Thirty Years War, Napoleon at War, Blue&Gray, etc.), Neither Blenheim nor the quads make a direct effort to reflect linear tactics. They all reward having a line. You don't want exposed flanks, even the ones that open in the middle of your line due to losses. Where it fails, similar to the 30YW quads, is in allowing unengaged battalions pull out of the line, shift over a hex or two, and fill in a gap. Such a maneuver, while possible in real life, would be a pain.

But, unit density is higher, the map is smaller and the combat table is based on split results with disruption and losses rather than retreats. The side that loses more in a melee must retreat or suffer an additional hit. (1st hit is a disruption, the 2nd is a loss). The ZOC-kills, Exchanges and Eliminations that drive the quads are absent here. This combat system produces large amounts of disordered troops (vulnerable on defense and useless on offense) that recover slowly.

Cavalry is the other realism issue. It is little more than quick infantry that can avoid certain effects of infantry ZOCs. There are no charges and no squares. But, the base combat factor may reflect charge strength, and the limited mobility advantage it enjoys may be enough to encourage players to husband it for decisive action against disordered troops who would not be able to form a square anyway.

Combat will produce disorder, success less so than failure, but both sides will tatter and fray. Lines will visibly disorder before they break. The overall effect is closer to the Musket and Pike Battle System than to one of the quads.

The Brits start down 60 pts, and have to launch a frontal attack across the Nebel (a swampy mess). In 12 turns they have to: make many unattractive attacks in order to create a few successes that can be exploited; they will have to attack Oberglau, Lutzingen and Blenheim without being able to guarantee success anywhere; and they will have to watch losses constantly to make certain the French and Bavarians break before the Austrians.

In short, it will play out like the real thing, in two hours, with few rules questions. And the winner will feel he won a real wargame.

The biggest difference will be that neither player will feel the mounting toll of British casualties in the evening assaults on Blenheim because in game terms those would be disruptions, not losses.

I have A Famous Victory, Marlborough Man, and Marlborough at Blenheim. (And I will would gladly grab a Ben Hull treatment if he ever offers one.) But I like this for a simple game on a hard battle.

This game just came out...

It is a game very light on the historical aspects and it is more like a generic conquest game. For example the Spanish Succession issue is not covered at all, despite of the game's name...

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Basic but correct rules for the periode. The victory conditions are very bad aswell as the map (ill centered), both bring an unintersting gameplay... Nice counters and good research on the OOB... It also has the avantages to be cheap and to be the only game on this batlle...

Recommendation:

I was involved in the early playtests of it, I hope it has improved since moving to Compass games...