I acknowledge that I am an admirer of Bonaparte at Marengo (BaM), the first release from Simmons Games, and served as a playtester for Napoleon's Triumph (NT). I've received a free copy in compensation, but those who know me will be aware that a free game wouldn't induce me to write a favorable review if I felt it was undeserved. Still, most readers won't know me, so best to be forthright at the outset and let them reach their own conclusions.
Acknowledgement
The following opinions are my own, so I use 'I', throughout, but in some sense 'we' would be more appropriate because this review would not have been possible without the efforts of Dick Jarvinen and Garry Haggerty, who were my partners in a blind playtest group for NT. Both are fine gamers, but more importantly fine people and good friends.
Big BaM Theory
I initially hoped to write this review with minimal reference to BaM, but found that difficult in practice. On further reflection, I decided that anyone with enough interest to read this review will want to know how the two games differ, regardless of whether or not they are already familiar with BaM. Whether that is a valid conclusion, or merely rationalization, I've written this as a comparative review.
A brief glance at the maps and units might give the impression that NT is simply the BaM system with a couple of new bells and whistles added. Closer inspection leads to a different conclusion. Yes, there is a fundamental design scheme underlying both, but the way that the system has been re-designed to suit the purposes of NT makes for a very different game. Some of the changes are obvious, but others are quite subtle. If you are a veteran BaM player, I strongly suggest that you read all the rules to NT carefully before diving into your first game. Don't make the mistake of skimming the parts you think you know!
Components
BaM, which has wooden pieces, a mounted map and two sets of rules, was widely praised for its high production values. NT actually raises the bar. It has two mounted maps which fold in the European style, so that there are no creases on the front playing surface. The painted wooden army units are essentially the same as in BaM, but more diverse as new types have been introduced. NT also adds metal corps commander pieces, colorful decals to place on them, and uses wood instead of plastic for off-map markers. BaM rules were black and white; the NT rules are printed in color.
Size and Scope
Austerlitz (the subject of Napoleon's Triumph) was a much larger battle than Marengo, so it comes as no surprise that NT is a larger game than BaM. The playing surface is roughly twice as large, and there are approximately twice as many units.
BaM is a 2 player game with a single scenario. That scenario provides a great deal of depth and variability - I've played 40 times without losing interest. BaM also has viable solitaire rules (see SimmonsGames website).
NT supports either 2 people or 2 teams, with 1 to 4 players per side, and has both a single day scenario (2 December) and a two day scenario (beginning on 1 December). Together with fog of war features equivalent to those in BaM, and more diverse victory conditions, NT has possibilities that will take a very long time to fully explore.
Playing Time
You might reasonably conclude that with twice the map and twice the units, the single day scenario in NT would take twice as long to play as BaM. That is not the case.
Both games are played in hourly turns. Marengo was a summer battle, and the players have 16 turns per day, while Austerlitz was a winter battle, with less daylight, and there are only 10 turns per day.
Setup is automatic in BaM, so it starts very quickly. NT requires more setup time, because both sides have deployment decisions to make (corps begin in specified locations, but what units to attach to what corps requires thought).
My experience is that when played to conclusion, BaM can take up to 2 hours, and NT 2 December can take up to 3 hours. Either game can end more quickly.
I've only played the NT 1 December scenario once, but I think it will only add 60-90 minutes to the total playing time. The setup time is a bit less, as only 2 Allied corps start on the board, and the early turns go quickly as units are entering and deploying. I suggest that new players would be well served to stick with 2 December until they have a good grasp of the implications of the standard setup locations.
Victory Conditions
In both games, combat losses are tallied on a morale track, and pushing the opponent's morale track marker to zero results in demoralization and a major victory. Also in both games, if a demoralization victory is not achieved, a minor victory is determined at game end by physical occupation of terrain objectives, indicated by stars of various colors on the mapboard.
In BaM, the objective stars are on the French player's side of the board only. The Austrian has to drive across the board to reach them, while the French army trades units for time as it withdraws to those positions.
In NT, there are stars along both sides of the board, a hint of things to come. In the historical battle, the Allies held strong defensive ground, but advanced in an attempt to crush the French. Napoleon then counter attacked, split the Allied (Austrian and Russian) armies, and decisively defeated them.
Armed with this historical knowledge, a game player might be very hesitant to attack in a historical fashion as the Allies. The designer of an Austerlitz game is therefore faced with the problem of how to make the historical choices a plausible course of action for the players. I'll delve further into how Bowen has accomplished this later in the review.
Units
In BaM, each player has a single artillery unit, all cavalry units start at strength 2, and all infantry units start at strength 2 or 3. The 3 strength infantry has no special abilities that aren't inherent in the extra strength point.
In NT, each player has several artillery units - two of them can form a grand battery and bombard together across a wide approach. Both armies have a mix of 2 strength and 3 strength (elite) cavalry, and the Allies have 1 strength Cossack cavalry as well. Players pay a two point morale penalty when elite cavalry are first committed.
The Allies have infantry that start at strength 1, 2 and 3, while French infantry all start at either 2 or 3. The 3 strength infantry for both sides are of two types, guards and non-guard elite units. Guards have special rules which encourage players to use them in historical fashion at key junctures.
Altogether, the more diverse unit mix in NT yields a wider range of possibilities when a player is facing opposing units that haven't been revealed. The fog of war element, which already could induce ulcers in BaM, looms larger in NT. Guards and elite unit rules give units in NT a less generic feel than in BaM.
Command and Control
The most obvious systemic change from BaM to NT is the introduction of Corps Commanders. In BaM, any units that find themselves in the same location at the start of a turn can act together as a de facto formation for the cost of one command point. These ad hoc formations can be formed and re-formed at will by the player. Three command points per turn are allotted to each player, and can be used to move individual units or groups.
Additional units may move along primary roads at no command cost in BaM, but not in NT.
NT has more units to control, and the player must do so in a more historical fashion. The primary maneuver unit is a corps, consisting of a Corps Commander and 1 to 8 attached units. Superior French command ability is reflected by their Corps Commanders all being able to issue a command each turn, while the Allies can command only 5 of their 9 corps per turn
Each player also has a limited ability to move independent units (single units not attached to a corps). The French can issue 4 independent commands per turn and the Allies can issue 3.
The NT approach successfully portrays the loss of cohesion and command control that occurs upon contact with the enemy. Corps Commanders may voluntarily detach units for various reasons (e.g. to scout an enemy formation or screen a flank), or may do so involuntarily (a corps that retreats must immediately detach all but one unit).
A corps breaks down quickly, but reassembles (if at all) slowly and with great difficulty. An army experiences entropy as more corps break down, and the player who keeps effective reserves will be well rewarded should the opponents army become dissipated through detachments.
Morale
There is a subtle difference in the morale tracks for the two games. In BaM, all losses of both sides are recorded. In NT, only the loser of a combat has their morale track adjusted. There are other nuances to the NT morale rules, such as the French adding morale when they commit their reinforcements, and either side paying a morale price when first committing guards units to battle.
While the rule changes are subtle, their effect is momentous. In BaM, it is not uncommon to see the Austrian player gain an early morale lead, and then win by launching suicide attacks at the end of the game to break French morale. You can't break the enemy with suicide attacks in NT.
Sequence of Play
In BaM, the sequence of play is rigidly structured. A player first conducts artillery bombardments, then assaults, and finally begins movement after these have been completed. During movement, maneuver attacks (a special form of attack) may be conducted.
In NT, both movement and combat occur as individual corps and independent units are activated. The sequence of events for a specific activated corps or unit is still fixed, but the game turn as a whole feels more fluid and organic. The players have the ability to dictate the order in which movement, assaults and bombardments will occur during the turn.
The Situation: 2 December
As the 2 December scenario begins, the Allies have 44 units organized in 9 corps, all of them on the board and available for use. The French have 36 units in 8 corps, but 2 corps comprising at least 8 of these units must begin off map. The French player may bring them in during the course of the game as reinforcements, but this will not be an easy decision (more below). French units are better led and are slightly stronger on a unit for unit basis, but not sufficiently to make the deployed 28 French units a match for the 44 Austrians and Russians.
As in BaM, the need to hold territorial objectives (indicated by stars on the map) allows the stronger player to bring the weaker to battle by advancing and threatening capture of those objectives. The twist that makes NT work so well is that the territorial victory conditions change if the French player commits his reinforcements.
At the beginning, the conditions for marginal victory require the Allies to capture a territorial objective on the French side, while not losing any of their own, otherwise the French will win. So the Allies have no option but to advance. With their advantage in total units, and an initial 27 to 23 morale track advantage to boot, this doesn't sound too daunting.
However, they have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head, as they don't know whether the French will commit their reinforcements, and if so when or where. All else being equal, the French army is better than the Allied when fully committed. Especially since committing the reinforcements gives an immediate 4 morale point increase to the French.
So it's a no brainer for the French player to commit those reinforcements, right? Not necessarily. The other thing that happens when the French reinforcements are committed is that the territorial victory conditions flip flop. The French must now capture objectives on the Allied side of the board while holding all of their own as the marginal victory condition.
Difficult Choices
These changing victory conditions are a key design element which helps put the players in an appropriate historical mindset. It generates a complex situation, filled with tension.
The Allies must advance at the start. If they aren't aggressive enough in doing so, the French can delay, leave their reinforcements off board, and win by holding their own key positions when time runs out (BaM players may experience deja vu should this happen). If the Allies are recklessly aggressive, however, they risk leaving their forces in disarray and ill prepared to withstand a counter attack should the French commit their reinforcements. Not knowing when (or if) the French will commit can be excruciating for the Allies
From the French point of view, the tension is just as high. Commit the reserves ineffectively or too early, and the Allies can pull back to strong defensive terrain in good order, leaving the French with no option, given the lack of time and reversed victory conditions, but to conduct frontal assaults against very tough positions.
Commit too late, and the initial French forces can be overwhelmed and destroyed before the reinforcements can be brought to bear. Not committing at all can be attractive if the Allies are timid, but wrongly assessing your ability to hold all your terrain objectives can be fatal.
All of this is so well integrated that all four types of victory are entirely plausible: French morale break, Allied morale break, French territorial and Allied territorial. This can (and often does!) lead to both players feeling that the other side has the easier task.
The Game as History
BaM has been criticized by those to whom the historical underpinnings of a game are crucial. The lack of historical unit designations bothers some, but the big issue is that the historical course of events, particularly the French counter attack towards the end of the day, is unlikely to occur.
Players of both games will agonize over how to use their commands, but the Corps Commander model in NT gives a better feel for the problems of battlefield command in the Napoleonic period. The historical designations of the commanders are also more immersive than having just the generic units alone as in BaM.
A historical result is definitely not ordained by straight jacket rules. As the game begins the possibilities loom before you with the potential to take off in surprising directions. But it is entirely plausible to play NT competitively and have events unfold in broad strokes along actual historical lines. At least twice during testing I saw quite historical event paths unfold with no conscious attempt to do anything other than play the game to best advantage. It won't happen every time, or even most of the time, but the fact that it can reasonably happen is a great step forward.
Miscellany
The road movement rules are totally different in the two games. NT road movement is simpler and easier to understand. The entire combat system is different, and there are subtle differences in terrain effects. The board configuration itself leads to a different battle. BaM is played along the long axis of the board, so the battlefield is deep and narrow, while NT is played across a very broad two-board front.
NT has a 2 day scenario that opens up a whole new realm of problems to contemplate. There is an optional rule for team play with 4 players which I've yet to try, though I look forward to doing so. The other option concerns the Santon, a hill dominating the French left flank. The Santon rule adds flavor and is easy to implement; I've never played without it.
Summary: BaM vs. NT
BaM is smaller, more concise, more stylized. It plays more quickly and requires less table space. It has only one scenario, in which the Austrians must pursue and engage the French, who in turn must (at least with experienced players) conduct a delaying action. With good play, a winning position is often the accumulation of many small advantages over a substantial number of turns. The asymmetric nature of the game and the under two hour playing time makes it a natural for players who want to play twice in an evening, once from each side of the table. It has workable solitaire rules.
NT is larger, and the combat is bloodier. The course the battle will take is wide open. It could lead to a BaM style delaying action, but is more likely to result in demoralization as a result of all out assaults and vicious counter attacks. Momentum can, and usually does, swing from one side to the other during the course of a single game. Corps Commanders, loss of cohesion as units become detached from corps, and rules for guards and elite units gives NT more historical flavor.
Bowen's Magic
It may sound odd, but for me personally, the single most remarkable thing about NT is that, just like in BaM, the Design Notes are still on page 11.
Bowen's design goal was to keep the playing time short and the rules brief, but NT isn't just physically larger than BaM. It feels richer and more complex. Everything essential remains, but we now have a whole new command system, more flexible sequence of play, more unit types, more scenarios. I'm simply astonished that he managed to pack all these new design elements into the game without increasing the length of the rules.
Napoleon's Triumph is a wonderful game, and I expect to play it for years to come. I'm not yet finished with BaM, but NT has now captured my imagination. Even though I have my copy, I can't wait for the game to ship so I can hear the reactions of others.
[Edited to correct my mis-statement about the number of players supported by the Team Play optional rule.]
Last edited on 2007-07-16 22:56:56 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Posted Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:16 am
