Anticipating -- Napoleon 4th Edition. Some thoughts on the new box

We appear to be just days away from having the new, 4th Edition of Napoleon in our hands. An eagerly anticipated development, to be sure.

Today Columbia Games revealed the new box art -- and I have mixed feeling, to tell the truth.

New Cover

 It's not that there's anything wrong with the new box art, although it doesn't knock me out, it is more consistent with the style of more recent Columbia box art.

And it's not that the old box art was great. Indeed,

AH edition

the image used most previous editions of Napoleon is actually a pretty odd one to use for a game about the Hundred Days campaign, which was Napoleon in the twilight of his career. The painting used as the basis for the earlier Napoleon games shows the very young General Bonaparte at the very beginning of his career. Painted by Jacques-Louis David in five versions between 1800 and 1805, it shows Napoleon Crossing The Alps. It's quite the famous painting, but it rather obviously has nothing to do with the Waterloo campaign.

Still, it's a very dramatic and well-known image and has been associated with the game for more than 30 years, so the change is kind of surprising.

Jacque-Louis David: Napoleon Crossing the Alps

4th Edition

The new image is similar to the portrait style covers we have seen in many recent Columbia titles such as Crusader Rex and Richard III and not one of the the the "battle scene" covers that have also been pretty common in CG offerings of late such as Julius Caesar. Nearly all recent Columbia Games have emphasized the "Great man" at the center of the game's theme and when older games such as Napoleon and Quebec 1759 have been updated the trend has been to add leaders to the order of battle when they didn't exist before. One of the major design elements of the 3rd Edition which was retained for the 4th Edition are leader blocks for Napoleon, Blucher and Wellington.

I'm enough of a traditionalist that I think I would have preferred to see the old, iconic if anachronistic, Napoleon cover retained for the new edition, but I don't think the idea of a change is unwarranted. That said, the new cover doesn't really win me over, either and if there had to be achange I would have preferred something a little more dynamic.

4th edition Napoleon -- Familiar newness

Columbia Games' Napoleon has been around in some form for almost four decades. While originally published around 1974 by Gamma Two games, the best-known and most widely sold edition was the 1977 Avalon Hill version that appeared in 1977.

In many ways, a non-hex-and-counter design like Napoleon was ahead of its time, and the last 10 years or so have seen a huge increase in the popularity of so-called block game as their shorter players time, enjoyable tactile mechanics and handsome appearance seem to be more in tune with contemporary tastes.

The AH version of Napoleon was an excellent example of all these traits. The game could easily be played to a satisfying conclusion in 90 minutes, it was fun and it looked real fine with its embossed blocks. Some lack of clarity in the rules  and a confusingly laid out battle board hindered the game  a bit, but gamers looking for a good strategy game made it popular and it featured in several strategy articles in the Avalon Hill General. Eventually AH let it go out of print and the right reverted to Columbia Games (Gamma Two's successor).

When he decided to publish a new, Third Edition of the game in 1993, designer Tom Dalgliesh opted to boost the number of blocks and telescope the view down a level. Whereas the 2nd Edition did not formally indentify the blocks and each block represented about half a corps worth of troops, the Third Edition assigned  a historical ID to each block -- generally a division. This almost doubled the number of blocks in play, and at the same time some important adjustments were made in the relative proportions of each arm -- infantry, cavalry and artillery and also the relationship between the size of the French and the two allies. For one example, whereas in the AH edition the Anglo-Allied and Prussian armies were the same size  as measured by "Combat Values" (CV) at 39 each, in the THird Edition the Prussian Army was notably larger, with a CV of 72 compared to the Anglo-Allied 57.

Similarly, the new Third Edition improved on the historical accuracy of the order of battle, for example, the amount of Prussian strength accounted for by the cavalry and the artillery was reduced, proportionately.

Some news things were added to the Third Edition, such as the army leaders Napoleon Blucher and Wellington and a streamlined battle board procedure and some things taken away -- like the horse artillery. Being a much larger game another thing lost was the short playing time.

Opinions were mixed on the net effect of these changes. For many of us, the new version of Napoleon was really an entirely new game that didn't supplant the old one at all -- and it has its own entry in BoardGame Geek.

The changes were, overall, less than successful, in my opinion. While worthwhile individually, in sum they changed the game dynamic fundamentally. While not resulting in a bad game, the changes did result in a very different one. I attirbute this to a fundamental reshaping of the maneuver dynamic of the game -- which is not a small thing, as the essence of Napoleon in Maneuver, not the combat system.

This happened because the size of the map and the ability of troops to move on  it increased only slightly, while the number of blocks nearly doubled. For example  the French Army went from having 18 blocks to having 38 blocks, more than doubling -- but the maximum road capacity of a primary road only increased by a quarter, from 8 blocks to 10 blocks. Also, the number of orders available to each side did not increase in proportion. In the old AGH game each side had TWO orders and the Allies had to split their two orders to just one each. IN the new edition everybody got one additional order, but this meant the French increased by 50 % while having twice as many blocks to move on a road net that was only 25% more capable. Meanwhile the Allies got Twice as many orders as before to move 70% more units.

The net effect was that the French, which used to have a more agile and mobile army than the Allies, now had the more ponderous one, by a substantial margin. This made it difficult for the French to force the P-AA into action within the time limit of the game.

Some approved of the changes, but I think it's safe to say that most fans of the original, Avalon Hill version were not persuaded all the changes represented improvements, so it was good news when Columbia announced that a new edition of Napoleon was planned and that it would be more like the AH version than the 3rd Edition.

As it turns out, I'd rate this as partially true. In size, the game definitely resembles the AH edition more. According to the Beta version of the proposed OB sent to me by Columbia there will be 23 French blocks. This is much more comparable to the 18 blocks in the AG edition than the 38 in the Third Edition. Likewise, the Prussians are slightly bigger now, with 17 blocks instead of the AH 16 blocks and nothing like the 25 in 3rd Edition. The Anglo-Allied army is actually smaller, this time with just 13 blocks instead of 14, although the CV is slightly higher. There were 19 in Third Edition.

While the blocks again represent roughly half a corps each, like the AH game, there are some significant adjustments to the OB and some of those changes resemble things we saw in Third Edition. For one thing, the leaders are still there -- Napoleon, Blucher and Wellington are all 1CV units that also have some movement and morale benefits.

In a refinement borrowed from other Columbia block games, units now have Firepower Ratings ranging from F1 (hitting a die roll of 1 only) to F3 (hits on rolls of 1 through 3) Im earlier editions all troops of the same branch were the same. In the Avalon Hill edition the Imperial Guard was just another 4CV infantry block, no different in the game than the German troops in the Anglo-Allied Reserve Corps. Now the Old Guard is F# while the Landwehr is just F1.

While the number of blocks is similar to the AH version the CV values in the 4th Edition are much higher.  In the Avalon Hill edition there were no Prussian units with a CV of 4, now there are 8. Conversely the old AH edition gave the Prussians 9 units with a CV of 2, now there are just four. Similar boost apply to the other armies so that the average CV per block has generally increased.

The horse artillery is back, but only for the French, who have one block.

How all this hangs together is not clear. The new map is little larger than the original AH map but the maximum road limits are back to 8. Yet the two sides keep their 3rd Edition allotment of orders -- 3 for Napoleon and two each for Blucher and Wellington so I expect that all three armies will have agile styles more similar to the Avalon Hill version than the Third Edition. The P-AA retain their heightened mobility from the Third Edition, but an important change to the victory conditions limits how much of a rope-a-dope strategy they can employ. In every earlier edition the burden of victory is on the French -- and it mostly still is -- except that if the French can occupy all three Allied home bases at the end of the game they can also win. This would seem to negate the common anti-French gambit of a late game retreat if at least one Allied army could make sure it didn't reach its break point. This gambit was hard to pull off in the AH edition because of the French mobility edge, but in Third Edition it was a real problem and a big reason why I only played with the historical setup. A free set up made it too easy for the Allies.

In the new edition, each block carries an historical ID, although only by corps, not at the divisional level like 3rd Edition.

The tentative OB is as follows:

French
Napoleon CV1 F1
Guard infantry CV4 F3
Guard Cavalry CV3 F3
Guard artillery CV3 F3 & CV2 F3
I Corps infantry CV3 F2 times two
I Corps artillery CV2 F2
II Corps infantry CV4 F2 & CV3 F2
II Corps artillery CV2 F2
III Corps infantry CV3 F2 & CV2 F2
III Corps artillery CV2 F2
IV Corps infantry CV4 F2
VI Corps infantry CV3 F2
VI Corps artillery CV2 F1
Cavalry Corps cavalry Two @ CV3 F3, one CV4 F2 & one CV3 F2
Cavalry Corps horse artillery CV2 F2

Anglo-Allied
Wellington CV1 F1
Reserve Corps infantry one CV3 F3 and one CV3 F1
Reserve corps artillery CV2 F2
I Corps infantry one CV4 F2 & one CV4 F1
I Corps artillery CV 2 F2
II Corps infantry one CV4 F2 & one CV3 F1
II Corps artillery CV2 F2
Cavalry Corps CV4 F2, CV2 F3 & CV2 F1

Prussian
Blucher CV1 F2
I Corps infantry two @ CV4 F2
I corps cavalry CV2 F1
I Corps artillery CV4 F2
II Corps infantry one CV4 F2 & one CV4 F1
II Corps cavalry CV3 F2
II Corps artillery CV3 F2
III Corps infantry one CV3 F2 & one CV3 F1
III Corps cavalry CV2 F2
III Corps artillery CV2 F2
IV Corps infantry two @ CV4 F1
IV Corps cavalry CV2 F2
IV Corps artillery CV 4 F2

As always, these are subject to change in the final published edition.

Checking out the progress of the Napoleon Kickstarter

Napoleon Kickstarter starts

OK, the Napoleon Kickstarter showed up a few minutes ago -- I may have been Backer No. 1!

It's a plot to take my money, I say!

Oh, My, yet another Kickstarter project that I feel compelled to take part in!

Yep, Columbia Games is joining the fun and has announced a Kickstarter project for a new, 4th Edition of their classic Napoleon game.

Now the Avalon Hill edition of this game was my favorite game for many years, and while it finally got knocked out of the No. 1 slot, it's always remained highly regarded by me, being one of the game I liked well enough to have gotten several copies of over the years.

I also picked up the Third Edition, which increased the number of blocks by almost double, and changed the map a bit and some rules. While I really wanted to like the new version -- because I liked the idea of the blocks representing specific units, mostly -- after playing it  a few times I reluctantly concluded that Columbia had erred and the new edition really wasn't better than the Avalon Hill version.

In my opinion the old AH version was one of the very best three-player wargames ever done and it enjoyed a very fine balance and tight timing that really ended up being quite elegant. The way the new edition changed things the exquisite timing and balance of the original game was upset. It wasn't ruined -- so long as you played with the Historica setup you still got  a worthwhile game-- but it was no longer the classic the Avalon Hill edition was. Basically the number of units was increased without making comparable changes to the map and rules which resulted in overcrowding, more ponderous movement and an imbalance against Napoleon compared to the original game.

Wisely, it appears that the AH edition forms the basis for the new, 4th edition of the game which will start a Kickstarter campaign tomorrow, Monday Feb. 25th.

The rules are available online but they clearly are an outgrowth of the Avalon Hill edition, not the Third Edition. There has been some expansion in the number of units -- from 48 in the AH edition to 55 now, but three of those are the three commanders (Napoleon, Wellington and Blucher)  so the real increase in units is about 4. There's no listing of units on the site yet, but apparently the order of battle has also been tweaked a bit.

The leaders represent the most obvious carry-over from the Third Edition game, where they were introduced. This seems to be something the designer has decided he wants to backfit to all his older designs. Leaders showed up in the latest version of Quebec 1759, too.

The horse artillery is back by popular demand. While one could argue about the historicity of representing them at this level, they were a popular game piece and I'm already seeing positive comments.
The other thing which is changed is a simplification and clarification of the battle board rules. This was always the weakest part of the Avalon Hill game -- it really wasn't explained well and it made what is essentially a simple system seem complex.

The other major change I noticed, and this is also in line with the Third edition, is the change in the Allied supply cities. In the AH edition, Ghent and Liege are each worth 1 lost Allied unit per turn if held by the French -- with Liege costing a Prussian unit and Ghent a British unit. Brussels costs one of each.  Now Brussels and Ghent are one British unit each while Liege costs TWO Prussian units each turn it is held by the French. I assume the intent of this change is to introduce a little divergence of interests between the two Allies. In addition, the French can now win if they hold all three cities on the last turn, which negates the previous Allied strategy of just running away during the last few turns if they haven't suffered enough losses. This seems designed to make sure there is some fighting.

So it looks like Napoleon will join Ogre, Up Front and The Guns of Gettysburg in my Kickstarter queue. Interestingly, while Ogre is the oldest of the group, there's every reason to believe that both Gettysburg and Napoleon will beat it into my mailbox.

In nay case, I am looking forward to seeing the new Napoleon. While I was dissatisfied with the Third Edition, I was also unsure whether it was worth still playing the Avalon Hill version. This new edition seems to combine the best of both.

The cover of Columbia Games' Richard III wargame

So it appears Richard III has been found.

I'm not a big fan of wargaming that particular era and the War of the Roses is an especially confusing affair. Despite playing Kingmaker a lot back int eh day and more recently having Columbia Games' Richard III o n my shelf, I have to confess that I still can't quite follow all the ins and outs of the conflicts/.

It is exactly this sort of war that I think it's very hard for the modern mind to wrap itself around. There was no great ideology at stake. It wasn't a war between competing national interests or disparate cultures. Why, exactly, some thousands of men were willing to risk their lives is unfathomable. Sure, i get what Richard II and the other heirs had at stake. And even the interests of many of the nobles. But thousands of common soldiers also fought, died and underwent the necessary discomforts of campaigning and it's hard to see why.

As for poor Richard himself, well, he's not a very sympathetic character -- and his probable hand in the murder of the Princes of the Tower really makes him pretty monstrous. So it appears he ended his life being cleaved in the skull by a halberd -- a common soldiers weapon, BTW -- and a minor mystery of the time can now be answered in the footnotes of the relevant history books.

Took the new Crusader Rex out for a spin

Game Store Tony provided the willing Guinea Pig for a play through of the newest version of Crusader Rex. While he'd played block games before, he'd never played this game or its earlier versions. Your truly had played the earlier versions a couple of times, but this was the first outing for the new edition.

Overall, my impression of the new game is that it plays well and seems more strategic in a good sense. Now that most of the units can return if eliminated (only the military orders and Saladin's family are permanently dead) there's not the severe unit shortages that could occur in the old version.

Well, at least, there's not inherently unit shortages. In our particular game Tony's Crusaders lost two early battles with devastating losses and this put his side down for the count early. He made a valiant effort to come back and did manage to conquer Egypt briefly and dispatch two of Saladin's relatives, but before long the green blocks seemed to be everywhere. Frederick Barbarossa showed up, but we called the game before playing the final year because it was obvious the westerners had no hope of success. The Muslim's held six of the seven victory cities and were in enough strength up north that there was little chance of Barbarossa taking even one -- and every chance he might lose the one he guarded.

My aim is to get it back on the table in early 2012 and see how I cna do with the Outremers.

Sticker Shock

No, not for the price (although at $59.99, $89.99 with a mounted map Shenandoah is a little on the pricey side), but for the new, tougher stickers that come with the game.

Fortunately Columbia took the precaution of including in the box a little note warning purchasers that they've switched to a new and stronger adhesive, but let me reinforce that warning. These are not your father's stickers any more. I've never had a lot of trouble with stickers coming off my earlier Columbia games with the exception of an old edition of Rommel in the Desert where it was a real problem, but it does happen occasionally. But I have seen complaints online so obviously it has been a problem, so it appears that Columbia has taken heed.

But take heed of their warning as well. You WILL need a razor or thin knife to take up the stickers neatly. Trying to peel them up with your fingers risks damage to the sticker edges. Likewise, take special care in applying the stickers because you will have a hard time repositioning a misapplied sticker without leaving some adhesive behind.

The need to apply stickers has always been one of the drawbacks for block games because it usually means you can't just play it out of the box (an issue at, for example, a convention) but the new adhesive will mean this is especially true. Columbia has been pretty good on customer service but I predict they will have to replace an unusually large number of sticker sheets for customers who end up damaging their stickers. As a matter of fact, it probably would have been a good idea to include a double set of the stickers to provide spares (much like GMT's practice)

Slapshot arrives

Well, a quick first impression is that Slapshot isn't really a silly card game at all -- at least not in the same way as Munchkin or or Fluxx. The only thing silly are the names of the "players" (admittedly, those are truly silly: Moby Stick, Friar Puck and Snow Balls for example).

But the game, itself, is a Knizia-like hand-management card game and there's clearly some room for skill. It reminds me a little of Battle Line -- one could call it a sort of chaotic, multi-player Battle Line. The basic idea is the same, where players compare the opposing values of their cards with the higher total generally winning, but with some exceptions.

I'll have to try it a few times but it seems to have potential.

I should mention what's in the game.

First off, it comes in a smaller version of the standard Columbia slipcase style box, which means it comprises a black card-board inner box and a light card-board outer sleeve. So far as I know, this is new packaging for Columbia, but it could obviously be used for other smaller products. It's similar in size to the plastic VHS style box previously used for Wizard Kings and Victory expansions and it's possible this replaces those.

Inside the box are the rules, just four 5- by 8-inch pages, one of which is taken up the player roster. There's an 8.5 by 11-inch folded playing board and a plastic card tray with three bays. Six ordinary Columbia wooden blocks serve as player scoring tokens.

Finally there are the 54 player cards. I don't know how these compare to the Avalon Hill version, because I never owned it, but the cards are playing-card quality (although not expensive playing card quality).

Playing card games generally seem a bit over-packaged to me, because generally the heart of the game is just a deck of cards and rules and the other components are really ancillary. The larger box really seems just to primarily designed to win shelf space and justify a higher purchase price. That said, the presentation is nice and the overall price is still pretty much on the low side for what's available these days.

Quebec 1759 2.0 session report

Mark K. and I capped off our full day of gaming with a match of Quebec 1759 using the new 2.0 version of the rules, which adds leaders Montcalm and Wolfe and changes the value-less decoys of previous editions into 1CV "detachments" that proved to be of considerable value indeed.

Unlike the other session reports from that game day, this one won't include any pregame strategy notes for the very good reason that I had very little clue what I would do under the new rules!

Mark drew the French first, which suited me fine, because that meant I could put off deciding what to do even longer as the British setup is fixed and I could see how Mark might cope with the new conditions. He opted to stick with a typical French defend-the-beaches set up, with his blocks divided more or less evenly between the four zones of Levis, Montmorency, Beauport and St. Charles. I decided to use four of the detachments on suicide scouting missions which revealed that each beach was defended by a substantial force, with St. Charles a little stronger.

As each assault was going to be about as tough I decided to go for Levis, on the theory that it was the hardest to reinforce and success there would open up a larger part of the board. My first attempt at an assault by four 4CV regiments was bloodily repulsed, although I did do significant damage to the defending French militia. A second landing stayed ashore, as the outgunned French took their double-shot volley at the disembarking British and then retreated to Etchemin.

As the British built up their strength the French consolidated their troops at Abraham. There ensued a conventional British campaign of burning farms (occupying zones) and cutting supply (capturing Cap Rouge) followed by a turn 16 move into Abraham for a climatic battle that ended up going the British way.

Pondering the lessons of the first game, I decided that the forward French beach defense was obsolete now that the British had a plentiful supply of expendable scouts. Under the old rules impatient British players might be ambushed by an unexpectedly strong French force and more prudent British players would be forced to spend a couple of turns and risk some decent units to scout the French setup. Now the British could simply send out four detachments to use skirmish combat to reveal the whole French force.

Instead I decided to stuff St. Charles and Levis with units, almost half the French host, while holding Montmorency and Beauport with a detachment and a militia, respectively. My idea was that I would make St. Charles and Levis unassailable and force the British to commit to a north shore advance.

The British did, indeed, land at Montmorency and Beauport and started a buildup. When they got about halfway through I pulled the St. Charles forces back to Abraham and started the Levis troops to Etchemin. This was done to try to induce the British to split their forces and also use the whatever Levis troops survived (they were mostly Quebec militia with a few Montreal militiamen) to reinforce the main army.

About half the British force ended up going the Levis route, followed by the fleet. It soon became apparent that the British were stuck between the horns of a dilemma. Neither half of the British force was strong enough to take on the whole French militia-enhanced army by itself, but there was no way to combine them in the time left. Likewise there wasn't enough time left to capture Cap Rouge and hold it long enough to cut down on the number of Montreal militia. The British conceded on turn 15.

Mark K. and I have decided on a rematch. I want to see if I can come up with a counter for this new French approach.

Initial observations of Quebec 1759 version 2.0

Quebec 1759 is one of the true classic wargames of all time. It's been continuously in print since 1972, which is probably the record for a wargame. The only other hobby game that I can think of that has been in print longer is Diplomacy, which is sometimes considered a category unto itself. With the demise of Avalon Hill for than a decade past, which had kept some classics such as Afrika Korps, D-Day and Midway in print for decades, I think the mantle for longevity may very well have passed to Quebec 1759.

And it's been a very stable design, with mostly cosmetic changes over most of that time. Some rules clarifications and component upgrades have occurred, but the game itself has changed very little. Even War of 1812 and Napoleon, two other original designs from Gamma Two Games days have seen more significant changes.

Until Quebec 1759 2.0 anyway. This latest version of the game makes some subtle changes that breathe some fresh air into the design and should prompt a new look from gamers who haven't played it in a while.

The first and most obvious change is a pair of new units, leaders. Inspired perhaps, by the leaders in the revised Napoleon, these new counters add the overall commanders for each side, generals Wolfe and Montcalm.

Each acts as a regular one CV infantry unit with two special abilities and one special disability. The special abilities are A) they always fire at double fire (two dice) in combat. The rules aren't entirely clear, but it doesn't appear to me that this is increased for any reason, such as against an amphibious attack. B) They can move one or two zone in a move. The disability is that if they roll doubles with their two attack dice they are eliminated, so use them with care as there is a 1/6 chance per firing of losing them. This draconian rule is because of the historical fact that both commanders were mortally wounded on the field of battle.

While a colorful addition to the game, a single pair of 1CV units is unlikely to drastically change the game.

What does change things significantly is the substitution of 1CV "Detachments" for the 0 CV "decoys" in all previous versions of the rules.

While this might seem like a minor change, it is not. These new detachments are much your useful and flexible than their predecessors. Under the old rules decoys could never move by themselves or be left by themselves, so all they could do is inflate the strength of a position. While the British actually had more decoys than the French it was hard to get much use out of them. They could even act as drag on British deployments, as one might have to leave a real unit on Ile d'Orlean to babysit them. About the only real good they did was reduce the effectiveness of Indian scouting missions a little.

Now they add an additional seven CV to the British, putting them that much further from the magic level of 19CV where the British automatically lose. They can act as scouts and are good for sending off to burn out French farms, too. Overall they seem a benefit to the British, although they are useful to the French as well.

As to how much they change strategy, I'll have to play a few more times to firm up my opinion, but they do seem to have a major impact based on the pair of games that Mark and I recently played. More on that later this week.

Overall it appears like an interesting change.

Reviewing collectible games from a wargamer's perspective: Eagles Waterloo

I already reviewed Eagles Waterloo a few months ago and don't have anything differeng to say about that particular game. The review is here: http://pawnderings.blogspot.com/search/label/Eagles

Reviewing collectible games from a wargamer's perspective: Dixie Gettysburg

Dixie Gettysburg ended up being the final entry in Columbia's Dixie series of collectible card wargames based on American Civil War battles. There were apparently plans to do the Battle of Antietam, as well, but sales evidently didn't support the project. Indeed, first run cards are still available from Columbia, so the game is technically still in print.

Like the earlier games, Dixie Gettysburg is less a card game than an abstract tactical battle game that uses cards for units.

Cards representing units of infantry, cavalry and artillery and the generals leading them maneuver on an abstract battlefield divided into left, center and right sectors plus a reserve position for each army.

Units battle by rolling as many dice as their "combat value" (CV)scoring hits depending upon the type of unit firing and the range. Infantry units, for example, normally fire at "F2" at enemy units they are "engaged" with, inflicting hits on a die roll of "1" or "2."

Units that have been hit make a morale check at the beginning of their next turn, rolling a die for every hit. If any rolls exceed the CV of the target unit it routs out of play. Gettysburg adds a twist to this basic Dixie system by modifying the CV according to the unit's "morale rating" which is a letter rating from A (best) through D (worst).

Unlike the earlier games, in Dixie Gettysburg the cards generally represent brigades rather than regiments, so the regimental illustrations on the cards are selected examples of the uniforms worn during the battle. By this stage of the war both armies were more or less clothed in regulation attire (at least as far as the Confederate supply system allowed) for the most part, so there's less need to get into the regimental variations that made Bull Run and Shiloh so colorful. That said, the federal army has at least a few uniquely uniformed units, so it's not entirely a sea of blue.

Like the other Dixie series games there is no rarity between the cards. so those who purchase decks have an equal chance of getting each card. I skipped that phase entirely by buying the one-with-everything complete set of 250 cards as I found the process of collecting the cards individually rather tiresome, especially after the 400-card Shiloh set.

Like the other Dixie games, Dixie Gettysburg is much more geared for wargamers than the usual collectible game crowd. There's relatively little interaction between cards and no scope for killer combos and the like. It's a straightforward battle game.

Personally I like the game. Like many wargamers I'm somewhat of an OB nerd, so I like having the whole order of battle laid out in front of me. The illustrations by Eric Hotz are well-done and the game is really worth getting for those alone.

Compared to the other Dixie games Dixie Gettysburg adds a few more twists to the game. Besides the morale levels referenced earlier, there's also a rule for corps integrity and for fighting the battle over three "days," giving the game some of the epic feel of the namesake battle. Like Bull Run there are rules for fighting over five columns instead of the standard three, which will also make the game longer and more involved by card game standards, although still pretty light fare by wargame standards.

Reviewing collectible games from a wargamer's perspective: Dixie Shiloh

Dixie: Shiloh is the biggest set of cards in the Columbia Games stable of collectible card games. For the larger battles of Gettysburg and Waterloo the basic unit size represented by the cards was changed from regiment to brigade, although the illustrations still picked one regiment to represent the unit.

In Shiloh, though, the basic units are still infantry regiments, providing an illustrated order of battle that will definitely appeal to wargamers, although from a game player's point of view most of the units are functionally identical.

Like the other games in the Dixie series, the interaction between players and cards is minimal and the game is actually an abstract tactical battle game. The vast majority of cards represent units of infantry, artillery and cavalry or the generals leading them. Combat is resolved by units "firing" or "meleeing" against each other, with the number of dice rolled being equal to the card's combat value and the effectiveness of that fire depending upon the type of unit and the range of the fire. For example, a 3CV field artillery unit firing at "F1" rolls three dice with each roll of "1" inflicting a hit.

At the beginning of their own turn units that have suffered hits make a morale check, routing out of play if they roll higher than their CV, modified for terrain and leadership.

Dixie: Shiloh is different from the other games in the series because of the unusual nature of the battle. First off, instead of both sides setting up opposite each other in their own left-center-right sectors as in the other games, in Dixie: Shiloh the federal player sets up in all six sectors to start, which are labeled front left-center-right and back left-center-right respectively. All the Confederate units start in the CSA reserve position and have to fight their way onto the battlefield. The CSA wins by occupying the center back sector by the end of the first day (which ends when all CSA reinforcements have been drawn). If they fail, then a second day's battle is fought with the USDA winning if it captures the front center sector, making Dixie: Shiloh the one Dixie/Eagles series game where a draw is possible.

One new rule introduced in Dixie: Shiloh is a "stacking bonus" for leaders, which makes these gentlemen even more useful than before.

There are also some special cards adding some historical flavor such as "Johnny Shiloh" and the gunboats USS Lexington and USS Tyler.

Some sample cards:

The other Dixie games offer an option for playing a larger, 5-position battle but Shiloh is restricted to just the 3-position, 2-day battle. This is unfortunate because it means that only a small fraction of the available cards will be used in any game. With 400-500 build points and decks of just 200-250 cards, players can use the majority of their cards in Dixie: Bull Run and Dixie: Gettysburg, but Dixie: Shiloh, while having 400 cards, only has a 225-300 build point version. One way around this would be to simply double the build points and the stacking limits (including leaders stacking bonus) in order to sue more cards.

Like the other Dixie series games, Dixie: Shiloh is definitely recommended for wargamers. The OB alone is a pretty neat feature. Like the other Dixie games there is no artificial "rarity" factor to complicate collectibility. Also, like the other Dixie games, Columbia offers a one-with-everything set for those who don't want to bother with the random booster collectible scene.

Athens & Sparta and the challenge of blunders in wargames

'They were utterly and entirely defeated; their sufferings were on an enormous scale; their losses were, as they say, total; army, navy, everything was destroyed, and, out of many, only few returned. So ended the events in Sicily'
-- Thucydides

So the great Greek historian describes the fruits of Athens' campaign against Syracuse.

Some wars, campaigns or battles are distinctive because they're outcomes were colored so much by some spectacular blunder by one side or the other.

Here I'm not talking about the run-of-the-mill kinds of errors that are unavoidable in war. War is nothing if not an unending catalog of folly and errors. But some events manage to stand out even among this crowd as blunders of epic scope that can change the course of events dramatically.

This kind of blunder creates a serious problem for wargame designers, however. For one thing, players, unlike the actual participants, know how things turned out, and are therefore not likely to repeat the historical blunder. In addition, players necessarily have more information than real-life decision makers, so the misconceptions that hindered them aren't likely to be the same for the player. Players can, of course, supply their own epic blunders -- and we all know we do sometimes -- but they are likely to be new, fresh blunders that won't replicate the historical events.

The very long war between Athens & Sparta portrayed in the Columbia game of that name is a classic matchup between two equally powerful powers, who nevertheless have distinctive strengths and weaknesses. Athens was a democratic, wealthy sea power with imperial ambitions. Sparta was a tradition-bound kingdom renowned for its disciplined troops and primarily a land power. Sparta resisted Athens imperial ambitions, although it was not immune to the idea of expanding its own influence.

In an attempt to break the stalemate between the two sides the Athenians hit upon the notion of attacking Syracuse, the leading city state on the island of Sicily. Syracuse was also a democratic state in the Greek style, and was a neutral power, not aligned with Sparta. The Athenians managed to convince themselves that it was a good plan -- it seemed like a good idea at the time.

But historians and strategists from Thucydides onwards have been close to unanimous that it was an awful blunder, full of risks that even success would hardly justify. As it turned out, of course, the expedition turned out even more disastrously than anyone could imagine and the entire Athenian force -- a large army and most of its fleet, were utterly wiped out.

Every wargame on the Peloponnesian War has to deal with the problem of Sicily.

On the one hand, "idiot rules" which simply force the player to do something stupid because the historical commander was an idiot are never popular.

On the other hand, if one tries to create incentives for the player to do the stupid thing the designer risks creating a historical influences on the decision making. And if the incentive is too powerful, it risks being merely an idiot rule in disguise.

In Athens and Sparta capturing Syracuse is worth 4 towards the goal of 30 BPs (build points) worth of cities. This is a significant reward, but perhaps not enough of one considering the resources required for success. The Athenians can also escape the effects of losing the Hellespont by having Syracuse, although again, the same amount of resources could probably more easily defend the Hellespont in the first place.

There's an optional rule which has each player set aside one card from their initial draw with the total of the two cards being the value of Syracuse. The cards are not revealed until Syracuse is attacked. This is a good rule, adding some nice game play to the process. It also helps capture the effect of Athenian democracy on the decision. In effect, Syracuse is worth a lot because the Athenian public says it is., not because of any intrinsic value.

Typically Syracuse will probably be worth a bit more than 4 BP using this system and it could be worth as much as 10 (if both sides play a 5), and would would mean that the entire game could turn on the outcome of the campaign.

I think the optional rule does a good job of capturing some of the problems the historical blunder creates for the game designer. In effect this is done by putting the decision in the hands of the players, jointly. If both players value the site fairly high then it's likely to play a role close to the historical one. If, on the other hand, both players discount the value then it's quite likely that Sicily may remain a backwater. Of course, the players only know what value they placed on Sicily, so there's a level of uncertainty which creates the kind of opportunity for misdirection and bluff that are the hallmark of block games.

Forged in Fire -- quick review

The first block wargame was Quebec 1759 way back in 1972, so the type isn't much younger than the hex-and-counter style of wargame. But for a long time block wargames were pretty much the exclusive domain of its originator, eventually known as Columbia Games. In fact. it's really only since the rise of the Eurogames in 1995 that other game makers seemed to take a fresh look at the potential of block wargames and in the last decade or so Columbia has finally gotten some company.

Most of the other publishers who have experimented with the block games have tried to put their own stamp on the genre, so their games, while bearing some resemblance to Columbia's line have also developed some distinctive elements. Examples include GMT's Europe Engulfed and Simmons Games' Bonaparte at Marengo.

One company that has done both is Worthington Games, which has some wooden block designs that owe little to the typical Columbia game such as Clash of a Continent, but has also been willing to publish some titles that are classic Columbia. One of these is Forged in Fire, a strategic-level game that depicts the Peninsular Campaign of the American Civil War.

The game even resembles the usual Columbia physical presentation, with stickers on wooden blocks, heavy card-stock maps and a plain, but sturdy corrugated box with a sleeve.

The game play also strongly resembles the traditional Columbia approach for black powder era subjects, with point-to-point movement and a tactical battle board for resolving battles, which are fought over multiple rounds. The game system makes functional distinctions between infantry, cavalry and artillery. Instead of dividing the tactical battlefield into a left, center and right Forged in Fire's battle is divided into four sectors, a right center and left center with flanks on either side. Infantry units and leaders can use the flanking sectors in an attempt to game a favorable position against the center positions.

Like most block games, the number of units that can be moved in a turn is limited by the rules. In this case, activating a corps or independent unit costs a command point or two, depending on the kind of move. Each side is guaranteed three commands and can roll for a fourth, with success depending on the quality of the overall commander. Generally the CSA has the edge here, with Johnston better than McClellan and Lee better than both.

The game includes some atypical and special rules to reflect the particular situation. Supply plays an important role, especially for the federal army. Cavalry units have some special screening and scouting powers, but can't take part in ordinary battles. The CSS Virginia is represented and complicates Union amphibious movement until it's sunk or Norfolk is captured. The Union forces have a powerful tool with amphibious movement, which makes it impossible for the Rebels to make a permanent stand anyplace short of the fortified lines of Richmond.

The key to the game is the McClellan Confidence track, which represents Little Mac's own confidence and the confidence that Lincoln had in the American Napoleon. Success, represented by winning battles and closing on Richmond increases Mac' confidence and makes it easier for him to roll to increase the number of commands he has available. If successful enough he can be better than Lee. On the other hand, reverses tend to depress Mac's confidence, and, being Mac, it's easier to depress him than cheer him up.

Victory conditions depend on capturing Richmond and/or pushing Mac's confidence level up or down to specific levels.

Besides a grand campaign game, there are three shorter scenarios covering the initial Union advance, Johnston's attack at Fair Oaks and the start of Lee's Seven Days Battles campaign that finally drove the Union army away from Richmond.

Overall, if you like Columbia's block games you're going to like Forged in Fire. It's very similar in style and approach, but deals with a topic at a scale that Columbia hasn't tried yet, so it still breaks some new ground.

It's worth nothing that the last couple of games from Worthington have taken a more Euro style of presentation, so the company may be leaving its Columbia-inspired style behind.

Crusader Rex review

Crusader Rex is in the family of Columbia Games titles related to its very popular Hammer of the Scots. There are enough significant differences between the two that you couldn't call them sister games or part of a system, but they're at least cousins.

This is hardly surprising, as lead CR designer Jerry Taylor also designed HOTS. It's not a straight copy however. While both games are set in the Middle Ages, there are important differences in geography, culture and the historical situation that result in a very different game environment. Whee the games are most similar is in basic game procedures for movement and combat.

Crusader Rex is a block wargame, which means it uses wooden blocks to represent the combat units. The blocks are usually on the map placed on edge, so the owning player can see the current strength while the opposing player simply sees a block, Stratego-style. This provides a lot of scope for bluff and fog of war, especially because the strength of the opposing pieces can vary from 1 to 4 in combat value, depending upon which edge of the block is uppermost.

This elegant combination of fog-of-war and step reduction is the distinguishing feature of the block wargame genre and Crusader Rex makes good use of it. The combat ability of the block can vary considerably and both armies have much more territory to cover than troops available t do it properly, so there's a lot of scope for strategy.

The engine driving the game turn are event and move cards. Each turn six are dealt to every player and players use those cards to order moves by 1-3 groups of units from point to point. When friendly and opposing units occupy the same place there's a battle (or sometimes a siege) that involves up to four rounds of combat where units battle against each other.

There are significant differences between the rules in their currents state and the rules originally included with the game. Columbia Games is a big believer in "living rules" and the most up-to-date version of the rules for every game is available online as a free download. While overall a benefit to the player, one sometimes wonders if game companies using this policy aren't tempted to skimp a bit on the playtesting, figuring they can always fix it later.

In the case of Crusader Rex there have been major changes in the rules, especially as they relate to Saracen deployment. For both sides the majority of units are now permanently eliminated from the game when they lose their last step, which is a change from before when only select elite units were gone for good. The number of "nomad" Saracen units drawn at start has also been changed-- now 4, before it was 6.

These adjustments seems to have solved some early play balance problems, so they are welcome, although it would have been better to have discovered it before.

These changes also suggest how tenuous many design decisions may be in wargames. Many key game elements come about purely for gameplay reasons, not because of history. There may be good historical reasons to make units permanently eliminated or subject to being drawn again, but evidently they didn't come into play here. History-minded players should keep in mind the compromises that game play may require before getting too dogm,atic about what's "realistic" in a wargame and what is not.

Changes in the new version of War of 1812

The War of 1812 is a venerable senior citizen in the wargame world, having been more or less continuously in print since 1973. Unlike it's slightly older sister game, Quebec 1759, the War of 1812 has seen some significant rules changes over the years, although nothing so drastic as to change the character of the game.

That character is a game that's an excellent introductory level wargame with quite a bit of scope for bluff and strategy, although kept tense by a fairly high luck factor. Unlike most Columbia block games, which mitigate the luck factor through a high volume of rolls that tend to make things even out, War of 1812 is subject to wild swings of fortune. It's not uncommon for a critical battle that may determine the status of a large swath of territory to be battled out between a single pair of blocks. When you're just rolling a few dice there's less chances for luck to even out. While the odds still favor a strength 4 block against a strength 2 block, all it takes is one "snake eyes" to suddenly change it into a free-for-all.

The biggest change in the newest (2008) edition of the game is in the naval rules, which scrap the unique system that's been used in the game virtually unchanged for three-and-a-half decades in favor of a new system that's consistent with the combat system used in all the other Columbia games. Now fleets are built a step at a time and each step fires at "F1" (which means it hits on a roll of a 1) in a simultaneous exchange of broadsides. Gone are the two-step building process, distinction between "operational" and "nonoperational" ships and deciding the battle with one grand roll of the dice.

A smaller, although still significant change in the naval rules, provides fleets an option to escape capture if an enemy army attacks its port. Under the old rule the fleet's fate depended entirely on the outcome of the battle, but now the ships can attempt to sortie while the ground forces cover them. Of course, a proper tactic is to make sure a powerful fleet is already on the lake waiting for the escapees, but they at least have a hope of doing some damage.

Changes in the land game are more incremental. The dragoons introduced in the last major revision have now been expanded in number and now fight at F2 all the time, making them more powerful. Their strength of 2 keeps them from being too dominant.

A new branch is introduced, with each side having a couple of artillery units in their draw pool. These also fight at F2 and have a CV of up to 3, so they provide a bit of punch these small armies. Rolling hits on a 1 or a 2 is a big edge when there are so few dice being rolled.

Each of the army blocks has an individual name, now, which is also a change and should make PBeM easier. The game also distinguishes between militia and regular troops. This has no game effect for the Anglo-Canadians but a significant impact on American operations, in a Good New/Bad News way.

The Good News is that now the American player knows ahead of time which of his pieces are militiamen who may balk at crossing the border into Canada. The Bad News is that now there's a 50% chance the militia will hew closely to their military obligation to serve only in the US. Under the old rules there was a 1/6 chance for any US unit to refuse to cross.

It doesn't appear that these changes will change game strategy much and they have the virtue of being a bit more realistic at a very low cost in complexity. Indeed, I think the new naval rules are simpler than the old ones, so the net change may very will be nil.

Gettysburg: Badges of Courage and "Lost Triumph"

Back in April I looked at how someone could use a wargame (Gettysburg '88) to evaluate an author's theory (Tom Carhart in "Lost Triumph") that Lee had a secret plan to coordinate Pickett's Charge with a attack on the rear of the Federal Army by Stuart's cavalry. Carhart's theory is that Lee's brilliant plan was undone by the Boy General Custer and his unexpectedly effective resistance during the cavalry battle on Low Dutch Road on July 3rd, 1863.

I concluded back then that the wargame didn't suggest that the scheme was workable, but noted that few Gettysburg wargames allow players to really look at that end of the field.

A newer game that indirectly allows a look at the prospects for Lee's alleged plan is Columbia Games' Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. While not including the Low Dutch Road area, an optional rule allows for an off-map cavalry battle that could, conceivably, allow some of Stuart's troopers to arrive at 4 p.m., around the time of Pickett's attack.

Chances are so low that this will happen, though, that player's interested in the notion will have to tweak the Day 3 scenario somewhat.

Instead of playing the Cavalry battle exactly as written, player's can goose Stuart's chances by implementing the following measures: Assume Huey doesn't arrive and assume Custer stays with Kilpatrick's Division instead of joining Gregg. Add Jenkins to the off-board CSA cavalry force. Playing this out, though, will still reveal that Stuart's surviving force, if it can defeat Gregg, will often be too weak to attack the Union rear.

So as an alternative, there's the "Lost Triumph" variant, or Carhart's Fantasy scenario. Assume that Huey doesn't arrive and Custer is assigned to Gregg, but assume that the Union player rolls really, really bad and Custer, Gregg and McIntosh's brigades, Robertson's guns and the Gregg divisional leader are all eliminated while the Rebels just lose Jenkins in the fighting. Have Stuart, Beckham, Hampton, F.Lee and Chambliss arrive on the Baltimore Pike at full strength. In addition, on the 4 p.m. turn no Federal units within 2 hexes Powers Hill can move.

Liberty: Non-optional optional rules

Columbia Website lists the following optional rules for Liberty (which are in addition to some optional rules in the actual rulebook:

LIBERTY OPTIONAL RULES

The following optional rules have been suggested by Liberty players. Gamers may choose to experiment with any or all of them in their games. Feedback is encouraged.

1) French Entry roll
At the end of:1776: Roll 11 or higher (enter in 1777)1777: Roll 8 or higher (enter in 1778)1778: Roll 5 or higher (enter in 1779)1779: Automatic (enter in 1780)

2) Prisoner Exchange Rule
A player can use a Supply card (2 or 3) to force a Prisoner Exchange (assuming both players have at least one unit captured). Both players can then choose one of their own captured pieces and return it to their force pool.

3) British West Indies Forces
British forces in the West Indies can not be moved or used until the French enter the war.

4) Extra Card Draw
Players draw one extra card each year (4 in 1775, and 6 each year thereafter). Each player then chooses one of those cards and returns it to the deck (not showing it to his opponent). Players then use the 5 cards in their hand (or the 3 in their hand in 1775) normally.

5) Indian Home Defense
Whenever a blue block ends a move in an Indian home town, the corresponding Indian block is immediately returned to its home town (if it is currently on the map and unengaged) and defends it (at B2).

6) Draw Result
If the game does not end due to the British gaining 30 or more points, or the British being reduced to less than 12 points, then the players get a draw if the British hold 25-29 points at the end of 1783.

Frankly, with the exception of No. 6, none of these are really optional in my opinion. The first two, in particular, are really necessary for regular play. If the French entry is delayed too long the game balance becomes badly skewed. And prisoner exchanges will almost never happen because one side or the other will almost always benefit from NOT exchanging.