Recommend
23 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Waterloo 20» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Napoleonic 20 Review rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
This is a summary of the Napoleonic 20 series in general. This series of games, published by VPG, covers battles of the Napoleonic wars at corps or division level.

A survey of the physical components of Napoleonic 20 reveals counters that are not too thin, (yea!) and maps of good quality. Some of the games, however, are folded into small plastic containers. Why they can't all be put into 8 1/2" x 11" plastic sleeves (as some are), I don't know. The use of small plastic sleeves adds an extra fold into the components, which it would be nice to do without. Looking at the graphic art aspect of the series, and, well, everyone's a critic as they say. The combat units have icons on them. I'm not a fan of soldier icons for corps level games, flags would be good enough. And the counters do have flags in the counter background, that's fine, although some of the images of French flags are incorrect for the period of the individual game. The early flag pattern is retained on the counters in some late-war games unfortunately. Map art is generally good, although there are huge four-digit numbers on each hex which greatly distract from aesthetic appeal. Preferable, in my opinion, would be to tone these numbers down and reduce them in size.


Napoleonic 20 is not the most complicated wargame system, it certainly was not intended to be, and it succeeds in being a playable set of rules. The rules should be easy to digest for anyone familiar with historical games. One of the important features of this system is the concept of Army Morale. This represents the motivation and command skill of an army. Each side's morale can rise or fall depending on how well a side's army is doing on the battlefield, as well as other factors. If an army's morale drops to zero, that army essentially reaches a point of disintegration, and that side instantly loses. I think this is a good representation of the goals of, and effects on, armies of the period as they met in battle over a day or two or three.

There are cards that are drawn each turn that function as random events. This adds a dimension of uncertainty and fun to the game, as well as realistic situations for each particular battle.

There are a few areas that need to be addressed in order to make Nap 20 a more realistic depiction. One point is the relatively easy destruction of corps in these games. Corps disappear too often in Nap 20. In the real world corps were not so easily eliminated. Each corps should have step losses, rather than the "full strength or nothing" syndrome presented in the games. One way to mitigate unrealistic corps destruction would be to allow the attacker to turn an Exchange result to a No Effect result. This would also reduce the effect of unrealistic lopsided exchanges. Another point is Guard troops lose their elite status when reduced to Cadre. They should retain this advantage when reduced. This would simply require making a special cadre counter for Guards for each nation. And then there's an oldie but a goodie: the Differential CRT. They don't work. Differential CRTs don't adequately compare opposing unit strengths. Actually this isn't such a big problem in this game because there is no stacking and unit strengths aren't vastly different. Still, an odds based CRT might have worked better.

So, this series succeeds in making a playable and fun system of gaming Napoleonic battles. I would encourage anyone interested in the historical situations to give this series a try.

thumbsup The Good:
playable,not too complex
overall, the system works

thumbsdown The Bad:
Differential CRT
corps are too easily destroyed, should have step losses

Your Choice:
icons on counters
large 4 digit numbers in each hex

I would also offer these simple changes to give the games a more realistic depiction of Napoleonic warfare. These modifications change some values but don't really add complexity, while at the same time they increase realism:
1). Change the Rally Table.
Roll 1,2: unit does not rally. Roll 3,4: Cadre is created. Roll 5,6: unit rallies. All other rules apply.
2). Guards units retain their elite red status when a Cadre. (Have to create new counters for this.)
3). Allow the attacker to change an EX result to -.
4). One could create an odds-based CRT, but to keep it simple, instead: Give any attack made at 3-1 odds or better a one column shift to the right on the CRT.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
melchett1 wrote:
Your Choice:
icons on counters
I like the counter art.
The Nappy 20 series attracts a lot of non-grognards who probably would prefer the pictoral representations rather than an abstract of just flags.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David McKenna
msg tools
Aren't you a little short for a Stormtrooper?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally, I find both of your minuses to be pluses!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
But the Nap 20 series is supposed to be about Napoleonic battles, and those two minuses detract from realism.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
John

My 2 cents worth

1. Rally Table is already this way as you have listed. On a roll of 3-4 the unit stays broken "Or" player may elect to create a Cadre as per the rules.players have the choice which I like.

2, Guards keeping Elite status at Cadre. We also went down that path during playtesting of the 0rignal Waterloo20 5 years ago(back in 2007)(heavens,that long ago) when brought up.After a long discussion we decided to keep things as they were.I think I still have somewhere Joe Miranda's take on why he did it that way.

3.Exchanges-Well thats more or less a fact of life in the majority of wargames having Exchanges in there(They're heart breakers in the old SPI NaW system).I know it sucks at times but here you can reduce the odds if you wish so at +2 Odds that EX result wouldn't be there.Not going to help at +3 or 4.

4.I personally wouldn't like a Odds based CRT for this system.A 6 to 4 attack now would be at +2 would then end up at 1-1 on a odds based Table and I'm personally not going down that 1.5 to 1 or 1.75 to 1 path which some designers throw in and make you have to do extra math to figure out the combat(I hated mathe with a passion anyway).I'm happy with the way it is now.

As for packaging-Well every game starting with Danube20 can be bought in either the cheaper ziplock bag or the Deluxe Boxed version-gamersnow have a choice.All older titles will get the new Gold Standard upgrading not only in the Exclusive rules but also in componenets and packaging.But it's going to be a few years to get through all thoise old titles.

The Napoleonic20 system is more or less in the same mold as the old SPI Napoleon at Waterloo system in which it's simple(yet still far more complexed than the NAW) yet shows battles/campaigns very nicely when wanting something simplier and fast to play .

But I'm happy gamers have taken to the system so very well over the past few years and I'm glad you have enjoyed it so far.
I'ts always great getting feedback on the games in the system

Our esteemed Develoer Lance will chime in soon I hope.I'm thinking he's away for the holiday week,weekend right now

Kim Meints
Napoleonic20 Designer & Playtester
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I won't add much to the discussion beyond what Kim has already pointed out.

= The current Rally table already reflects Mr.Thiessen's suggested spread of results, leading me to suspect he either meant to say something different or misunderstood how the table works.

= Guards/elite units don't retain their special status when at cadre strength largely due to the limitations of the counter sheet, but also because it was felt that once such formations had sufferred sufficiently severe casualties (i.e. to reduce them to cadre level) that the losses to the veteran soldiers -- and most importantly to the officers and NCOs -- would make these formations significantly less resilient in combat, and that similarly those same losses would tend to make the commander less likely to be hesitant to re-commit them to the fight (i.e. "in for a penny, in for a pound").

= Changing the EX result to allow for an attacker choice to convert the outcome to an eNgage result would have a major destabilizing impact to the game system, both from a game balance and historical accuracy aspect. The CRT needs to have the potential of an adverse result for the attacker at the higher differentials to give the phasing player pause when going "all in" on an attack; without it, there's nothing to upset a player's momentum when he's doing well and game is far less likely to provide the dramatic turn-arounds that were an all too frequent feature in many Napoleonic battles. Like the occasional adverse event card, that EX result is critical to capturing the chaos and unpredictability of combat, and allowing an attacker eNgage conversion option removes that possibility from the game's dramatic narrative.

= It's important to remember that the 'Napoleonic 20' games were intended from the outset as an introductory level series. This was one of the key reasons a differential CRT was chosen over an odds-based CRT: younger players can have difficulty with the math (division and rounding) involved in using an odds-based CRT. Further, when tied to the relatively low unit strengths and low counter density of these games, a differential CRT provides much better granularity than an odds-based CRT (i.e. each strength point committed to an individual battle provides some effect, whereas an odds-based CRT requires the attacker to mass multiples to acheive any effect). Finally, use of a differential CRT speeds up play -- there's little point in "factor counting" to acheive the "perfect odds" for each attack when every point you add to a battle has an effect.

Lance McMillan
Developer for VPG's "Napoleonic 20" series
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
- The Rally Table. No, no, it appears I'm the one who does understand the Rally Table. As printed in the original rules, a roll of 1 or 2 eliminates the unit. This is not justified historically. I'd change the table to roll a 1,2 and the unit does not rally (this time anyway), but is not eliminated. Corps simply were not destroyed in Napoleonic battles as easily as they are in this series. Companies and battalions, maybe regiments, ok, but not corps. I should have said and made it clearer that for rolls of 4-6, use as rules as written.

- Guards retaining Elite status in Cadre. A difference of opinion here. I see no historical justification for dropping their elite red, or green for light troops, status. Whether or not a player would like to commit them again is well covered by the Morale rules, and is a legitimate decision. However good troops, like Davout's at Auerstadt for example, remained good even when taken significant losses.

- The EX result would be good if step losses were available. Since they're not in the rules as written, converting EX to N is a realistic option. Otherwise good units are penalized for being good. A feeble cadre can wipe out an excellent corps like Davout's or a Guards unit. Not realistic. The desire for unpredictability is good, but that's what the die rolls and random events do quite well.

- It's understandable that a differential CRT might appeal to newcomers. Perhaps it is slightly easier to compute, though the difference is insignificant in my opinion. And as I stated before, the low combat factors and lack of stacking in this series minimize the problems inherent in a differential CRT. But there are problems. More of an issue for other games beyond the Nap 20 series though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Davouts Corps would not even be considered Elite as the way we have units considered for that catagory.The III Corps isn't relected that way in either our Jena20 nor in Austerlitz20.Guard Cav is no longer in that catagory either. We made that Change right after Borodine/Smolensk.

Eliminating a full Corps/Unit may not seem historical but this system is not meant to be a over complexed and show full historical effects.SPI never even came this close in it's NAW game system as we have in the Napy20 and gamers still love playing those old SPI games. Thats what the Nappy20 is suppose to be like,VPG's version of NAW.

Lance is right on the counter limit that the Standard rules have forcd upon us when designing.I've had to battle Lance & Alan for counter count in my designs and had to make a compromise by combining div's etc into groupings. I've had to also(and I think Lance has too) even had to short the players on markers,Cadres in a game because the regular units needed to be in there.

I still like that EX in there.There are times when that EX took out a defending enemy unit in a redoubt or fortified hex that otherwise was holding out on DW,R1 results holding up the advance.

But I guess it's a preference thing on some item's. There are still one or two things I still like to see changed if we ever do a Standard Rules V4 rewrite but thats also just my own personnal complaints on those item's(I'm the nag in the development team pushing for some changes from time to time.One did get changed in the new V3 Standard rules(maybe there was two)

But the EX can be change in a couple of the other games by Event Card draw so it's in there sometimes
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I don't mind being shorted on markers and cadres because I don't mind buying more games in the series, that gives me more than enough markers!

Yes, I admit for myself I prefer a few variant house rules, as briefly described above. But that's the way it always is, if one doesn't agree, they can be ignored. Or maybe tried once just to see.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LoL-I agree with the House Rules bit.I constantly tinker with almost every game and the Nappy20 are no exception.I've posted many here on BGG. Even for my own designs.Lance even made sure the French VII Corps counter in Wagram20(in the Danube20 package) was left in the counter mix after the variant/optional rule was dropped from the rules since he knew I would throw out the variant as soon as the game was published.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi John, I completely understand what you are saying but that is not the system's perspective being offered at this scale.

A unit has to be Broken first, and only then can it be eliminated on a Rally Roll of 1 or 2. This can represent a whole host of things historically if one widens the lens far enough.

The player does have the option to spend a MP to provide a +1 DRM to the Rally roll(s), thus eliminating the unit(s) only on a roll of 1.

I do agree with your point about being free to try out your own variant rules and tweaks, which over time has evolved N20 to the tight 3.0 version we now see today. Many players really like it, some don't - and that's OK.

If you were planning on playtesting your variants, please post the results here. Also as noted, my experience with the system is that they will degrade and not enhance it, but for others the results may vary.

Finally, thanks for taking the time to post the review - with Fading Glory about to be released, your input is valued. Thanks again!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I have tested the variants, for corps level games, and I would say they make the games a bit more static, that is, corps are not so easily removed from the game. For me that's right historically, though others might not like it for game-play reasons. Just personal preference.

As for the historicity of the tinkering, it was difficult to destroy a Napoleonic era corps. They could take significant punishment and remain extant on the field. Retreat, yes, rout, yes, but eliminate no. Of course retreat and rout are covered in the rules, so that's good. Once an army disintegrates, corps could be destroyed, but at that point the game is over so it's beyond the scope of these games.

Anyway, in general for wargames my favorite house rules are ones that add realism without adding complexity. (it can be done, and not infrequently)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Emrich
United States
Irvine
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You know, "eliminate" in the Nappy 20 game series sense of the word means "too broken to fix within the 2-3 days of this campaign." In other words, it's really shattered and going to take longer than that to pull it back together into something resembling a cohesive fighting force that you stand up in front of the enemy again.

It's not a pile of 18,000 corpses that you have to walk around.

Alan Emrich
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
melchett1 wrote:
...it was difficult to destroy a Napoleonic era corps. They could take significant punishment and remain extant on the field. Retreat, yes, rout, yes, but eliminate no.


I would suggest you've interpreted "eliminate" a bit too literally, reading more into the word than is intended. As Alan notes in his comment above, "eliminate" does not mean 18,000 corpses, but rather a force which will remain combat ineffective for the duration of the game.

A couple good examples of this would be Vandamme's 1e Corps at Kulm or Gerard's 11e Corps at the Katzbach: in both cases you have corps sized formations that were broken in combat and, even though the actual losses they suffered would still warrant them being represented on the field as relatively intact formations, took weeks of reorganization before they were capable of operating as a cohesive organization again.

Admittedly, these two examples are a bit unusual, but it's important to note that the chance for a broken corps in the game to become "Permanently Eliminated" is only 33% (or 17% if you bother to spend a morale point to facilitate their rallying). Rather than bogging what is meant as an introductory "beer-and-pretzels" style game with lots of special rules and exceptions, we chose to adopt a greatly simplified and streamlined treatment of the situation. If you want more detail that addresses those matters at a greater level of granularity perhaps you should be looking at a different game system? OSG's excellent "Napoleon at the Crossroads" or "Four Lost Battles" games would probably fit the bill, but I'd challenge anyone to play those games to completion in 60-90 minutes, which is something you can easily do with the Nappy20 series.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
LOL- I know what "eliminate" means in wargaming terms, I've been familiar with wargames since the 1970's. If someone had read what I wrote they would find that I didn't think that the elimination of corps should be abolished. Just toned down a bit.
Quote:
If you want more detail that addresses those matters at a greater level of granularity perhaps you should be looking at a different game system?

Again, by actually reading what I said you will find that I did not propose adding more detailed rules as far as making corps a little more robust. Making corps more survivable adds no complexity at all, but does make the games more realistic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I could see an Optional Rule or House Variant where a player could for One Morale Point be able to change the EX into say a NE result(both units battled each other to a non conclusion)instead of taking each other complatetly out.And having the morale cost to do so would mean it's not a constant thing that can be used all the time but used when needing every unit you have and anting to keep your line intact.

Oh my normal ramblings
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Good idea, I like it. Spending the Morale Point would represent the fatigue and casualties of the engagement, without wiping out the (probably good quality) corps.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Emrich
United States
Irvine
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, are we making variants? I don't want to miss the chance to proffer an idea here...

If you spend 1 Morale Point (by either side with Attacker having first option, perhaps?), the result should change to a BW or "Both Withdraw," with the defending unit Withdrawing first.

Another factor you might consider is "the size of the dog in fight." That is, when rolling for recovery of a unit, if it should be eliminated, it receives a "saving roll." Roll another die and if the result is > its Combat Strength, it is well and truly eliminated; otherwise it remains as a unit that can still be recovered later. Add DRMs to suit.

Alan Emrich
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another compromise might be the Attacker spends a MP First to change the EX to the BW result but the Defender can then accept or challenge that and spend a MP to make it a NE result instead.Just for the simple fact that if the defender is holding a critical position and doesn't want to lose it because of the BW change.

I really like the "Size of the Fight" idea

LoL-John's got all the big dog Nappy20 crew weighing in on his original suggestions.That says a lot for development team support and new idea's coming forth!

You did good John even if some weren't our favorite suggestions.Looking forward to you getting into other games of the series and posting your thoughts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Thanks Kim.
The "size of unit" saving die roll would work I think.
I'm not sure about a Both Withdraw result. Does it reflect a historical model? I can't off-hand think of an example, except at night. Certainly opposing sides would disengage and both withdraw at night. No combat at night though in the game so I don't know. I suppose a both withdraw could work though. In a nutshell: on a EX result, attacker can accept the EX or pay a MP and Withdraw. The defender can Withdraw or pay an MP and remain in the hex.

(laugh) and I forgot to mention Rout Movement. Personally I cap Rout movement at 4 hexes for games at ~1 mile per hex. In other words, a Rout roll of 5 or 6 means you rout 4 hexes instead of 5 and 6. This does two things: 1. More accurate length of retro movement at the scale. (I haven't found movement that far historically, but I could be missing something) 2. Reduces unit eliminations by moving off the map edge. That helps the problem at least as I see it of corps being too easily destroyed. Well that's just me, if no one else wants to use this "cap" rule that's fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
How about this:
A variant counter sheet with different cadres. VPG could sell this counter sheet as a stand-alone option. If people want to buy it, great, if not they don't have to.

1. "2" strength Cadres. If a unit has an initial strength of 4 or more, its cadre is a "2" combat strength, rather than a 1. 2 strength cadres would be provided for each nation as appropriate taking into account the series as a whole.

2. Elite Cadres. Red units get a red strength cadre, green units get a green strength cadre. Meaning: guard units with a red combat strength retain their red number when at cadre. Light troops with a green combat strength retain their green combat strength at cadre. Cadre counters for each nation would be provided at strength of 1 and 2, with colored red and green combat strengths.

The games in the series have a certain counter number limitation, but the popularity of the games suggest that players would be willing to buy some add-on counters if they wish. Using these new cadres is simplicity itself, just substitute the appropriate cadre for the unit. No new rules would be needed I think, other than the above substitutions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah,I've never been fond of the 5-6 hexes either for routing(always just seemed too far for a rout) but have lived with it so far all these years.But Elite status helps knock that down for some units,the forts/redoubt also. Using zig zag to avoid break when not able to go the full distance(you always try using any means to avoid a Break)

In the smaller scale battles like Salamanca,Danube20.Austerlitz,Bussaco,Borodino, etc those amount of hexes don't seem so out of whack. With Waterloo being one of the largest scale (I think but not sure)out of the series it does seem a tad too far.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Emrich
United States
Irvine
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Alan:

I tried posting a response, but had problems logging onto the BGG site. So please post the below.

--Joseph Miranda


"The Waterloo-20 design is intended to be a simple, realistic and playable game system. The idea is you set up quickly, make critical decisions, and have overall outcomes which are within the realm of possibility. The game system is also intended to introduce newcomers into wargaming.

Other posters have stated the reasons for eliminating corps level units. I won't repeat them.

The differential combat system makes Clausewitzian marginal differences in unit strength critical. Let's not forget that in a corp level game, a strength point represents a division or more. An odds based CRT is good for showing 20th century force ratios, but Waterloo-20 is 19th century. Units did not interact on the field in the same way that panzer divisions against tank corps might have. For ex: giving a good unit one extra combat factor for leadership/training makes little difference in an odds based system. In a differential system, it can turn the tide of a campaign.

The Rout result is intended to show how a unit is taken out of combat temporarily, but can eventually get back into action. While a potential six hex retreat may seem extreme, the idea is that the unit is "somewhere" in the rear area reforming. If it takes three turns to march back to the front line, then it's the same thing as three turns of rally. Only without extra rules and tables and markers and die rolls and page turning to show this. It may sound cliche, but it's "design for effect."

Each additional procedure is one more thing which will absolutely positively sink a game with new wargamers. Each time they have to roll one more die, or look up one more rule, or sort through step reduction counters to find the right one, newcomer eyes glaze over and they start rummaging in the closet for that copy of Risk. (This, incidentally, is one reason it is difficult to recruit newcomers into wargaming: too many alleged "introductory" games are echelons above their level of comprehension. Veteran wargamers may be able to factor 14 different DRMs on a rally table. But newcomers inform us that the math is too much for them. With designs like Waterloo-20, I am playing to that newcomer/casual gamer demographic. It's paid off in many sales.)

If I wanted to design a more complex Napoleonic game then I would have designed it. And I have done games on this era which are masses of procedure, special rules, DRMs, and unit counters with tons of info in micro print. Great fun if you have an evening or three to play with a grognard. But not for a game which you can set up and play in an hour, then try again with a new bag of pretzels.

One thing I like about the Waterloo-20 system is the discipline, yes DISCIPLINE, it enforces via a limited number of counters. The original challenge was to do a game with twenty counters on those days of June 1815 in which three of the greatest generals of their era met on the field of battle. And I'd stand on Waterloo-20 as showing the overall ebb and flow of the greatest campaign in history.

So please, sit down and enjoy Waterloo-20.

--Joseph Miranda"
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm glad Joe got that to Alan to post. He list more or less all of that to us during the 1st Ed Waterloo playtesing but it's lost somewhere.

The Nappy20 system is my all time favorite in gaming.Basically taking SPI's NAW to 2nd spot(NLB/NaL still in my top 5).I've loved testing every game in the series more than I do other playtests projects and having designs also with it has been a pleasure.I have that original Waterloo game Joe did for the Strategist magazine but I still can't find where the heck it got hidden in/at.

As Joe said the system makes you make critical decisions and frankly for a simple system you concentrate more on your strategy & tactics then you do trying to remember all the rules or making sure you are playing correctly with more involved games on the period.Napoleonics(along with Ancients) are my favorite in history and the Nappy20 has fulfilled me when wanting a good fast,easy game to play.

There are still a couple of things that I don't completely agree with(Lance still gets that from me during any playtest games,designs too) but the main thing is the vast majority of the pluses completely over rule the couple of minuses
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Theissen
United States
New Richmond
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Differential CRTs - I could go on in detail about this, but I don't know if anyone wants to pursue the subject or just drop it. So I'll be brief.
They (differential crts) are simple. They're unrealistic and inherently faulty. There is a correct way to create differential crts, but I don't know of any properly done published examples.

And as I said before, the problems in differencial crts are diminished in the Nap. 20 series because of the low variance in combat strength numbers. There are other games that have much greater problems with it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.