Napoleon -- wargame man of the year for 2010?

Napoleon is like the Lady Gaga of wargames --- eww! Let me take that back.
He's the Will Smith of wargames, nobody's name is a bigger draw when you're trying to make a sale.

It appears that first-run copies of Battles of Napoleon will be hard to find, just as last month the initial run of Napoleon's War sold out before the game was even published. And I have no doubt that the publication of Commands & Colors: Napoleonics will be one of GMT's biggest hits of the year and will probably also sell-out quickly.

Now these are all good games, and most are based on previously successful games, but it's still interesting that Napoleon is still the go-to man for wargames even in this tough economy.

I don't even consider myself a big Napoloenic guy -- but I have at least 8 wargames named after Napoleon: The AH and Columbia versions of Napoleon; Napoleon at Waterloo, Napoleon's Last Battles, Napoleon;s Battles, Napoleon's Triumph, Napoleon's War and Bonaparte at Marengo. I expect to get both the Battles of Napoleon and C&C:N, so that will make at least 10 with the man's name in the title -- not even counting a various other games set in the era I also own.

Instead of blogging I've been sending too much time on BGG debating on a thread comparing Napoleon and Grant. Most of the discussion has been about Grant, and that may very well be that Napoleon truly is incomparable as a general and a historical figure. No matter how much I like and admire Grant, I have to admit that he has had nowhere near the impact of Napoleon on history. Grant is an important figure in American history, but Napoleon is a world history figure. Indeed, I would say that he rates among a very, very selct few generals who have achieved a degree of ppular renown that even the generally ill-informed have heard of him. Even people who slept through all their history classes have at least heard of folks like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan and Napoleon, And I feel confident in stating that he will still be among that select group (maybe the future will add someone) centuries from now.

He's been written about, analyzed extensively and probed in far more detail than I can attempt here, but I think it's notable how much Napoleon and his era are identified with wargaming. I think if you had to pick just one iconic image for wargames, you'd probably have to select a Napoleonic soldier or cannon for that image.

You can't get away from Napoleon, really, even as a Civil war buff, because he played a big role in that conflict. While long dead, the top leaders of the Civil War were marinated in Napoleonic thought, dreamed of Napoleonic glory and studied his campaigns intently.

So even though I'm only a casual student of things Napoleon, I expect to get a lot of Napoleonic gaming in this year as I put all the new games through their paces.

Running with the pack

Some specialization is probably unavoidable for wargamers, given the huge number of games published and the vast extent of potential topics. And I do have my fair share of relatively obscure interests such as the Spanish-American War and the battle history of the M3 Stuart tank.

But I have to admit that I do tend to run with the pack as far as my major interests in both wargaming and military history go. I have multiple games on many of the classic themes that have captured the interests of wargamers since the early days of Avalon Hill such as the Battle of the Bulge, D-Day, North Africa, the American Revolution, Midway and World War I aces.

And nowhere am I probably more of a pack runner than on the topics of Gettysburg and Waterloo. I am somewhat of a Civil War buff, but Gettysburg looms extra large in my collection of games and books even considering that. And I'm really not much of a Napoleonic fan at all -- I don't have much at all on that era.

So I even surprised myself a bit when I heard that Martin Wallace's new Gettysburg game was out and my first reaction was "Damn! And I don't even have it on preorder!"

My interest (and I'm obviously far from alone) in these two battles is hard to explain. While undoubtedly the most famous battles of their respective wars -- well-known even to the general public -- they can't be considered the most important battles of their time. And while exceptionally hard-fought, neither battle was a story of great generalship or maneuver.

But they do have drama and controversy galore and I'll admit a strange fascination with both. If I ever won the lottery I'd like nothing better than to recreate the Battle of Gettysburg from the point of view of several Gettysburg games, sort of a "series replay" between Meade and Lee, using their own words to describe the action.

I currently have the original Avalon Hill Gettysburg and the Smithsonian version. I ave SPI's quad Cemetery Hill and Columbia's block game Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. I have the hyper detailed This Hallowed Ground and the very abstract Dixie: Gettysburg. Undoubtedly the collection will soon include both Martin Wallace's Gettysburg as well as Bowen Simmons', Guns at Gettysburg.

My interest in Waterloo is just a tad less intense than Gettysburg, but it's still clearly there with more than a half-dozen games on the battle itself and a few about the whole Hundred days as well.

I don't know if it's a bad thing to run with the pack, but it's interesting to see how many variations on the theme are possible. My tastes and interests are wide, but I think it's good to have a few areas where you can plumb the depths as well.

Fiddled with Waterloo a bit today

Finally had the time needed to try a couple of test turns in Waterloo.

it's an intriguing design, and while completely different from Bowen Simmons' Bonaparte at Marengo or Napoleon's Triumph , Martin Wallace's Waterloo is similarly completely divorced from the hex-and-counter wargame tradition.

While traditional hex-and-counter wargames have their flaws and limitations, they do have the considerable advantage of familiarity. After some 40 years of playing them it's pretty easy for me to sit down with an unfamiliar h&c wargame and get up to speed relatively quickly. Are there zones of control? Are they locking or semi-rigid? Is the CRT odds based or differential, etc.

Waterloo is different enough from all that to have required a dedicated stretch of time to set it up and try to step through a couple of turns without interruption. So today I ran through the set up and first two turns solitaire.

What's immediately apparent is that, notwithstanding Mr. Wallace's protestations and the cute little meeple soldiers, Waterloo is definitely an intricate wargame, not a euro. While flavored with some euro-style mechanics (such as casualty cubes instead of loss point markers) the game is much heavier than most euro fare and is probably a heavier wargame than Borg's Commands & Colors system.

There's a lot going on, and while I think experienced players will probably hit pretty close to the 3-hour playing time mark promised by the box art, I wouldn't be surprised to see early games take twice that long to play. A combined arms assault into a heavily defended area can easily be a very intricate affair, with defending cannon fire, a multi-step cavalry melee, a cavalry vs. infantry duel, a two-step contest between infantry and finally an overrunning of the guns!

Because it's a wholly new system, it's not immediately obvious what to do and what the pacing will be, but my 2-turn play through revealed that it's certainly not a game that will reward just tossing troops at the enemy and seeing what will stick. Similarly to Simmons' games, although getting there in an entirely different way, it's best to think of battles as multi-round affairs that will require staging, reinforcements, counter attacks and combined arms.

It's definitely NOT a filler game, but must be the main course for an evening's gaming.

SPI's Austerlitz -- terrain issues

By 1973 Jim Dunnigan's wargame-producing system was cranking up into full gear. One technique that made this possible was creating game systems that could be ported to cover many different battles. One of these was the Napoleon at War system which started with Napoleon at Waterloo, but was soon expanded to cover many other Napoleonic-era battles and, with suitable modifications, formed the basis for the "quads" on many other eras from pike and shot through modern warfare (and even naval warfare in Sixth Fleet!).
The main advantage of this approach from a gamer's point of view was providing a large number of new game situations without requiring the player to learn a whole new set of rules. The underlying validity of this approach has been proven time and again and still powers game systems such as Borg's Commands and Colors, Advanced Squad Leader, Great Campaigns of the American Civil War, Great War at Sea, PanzerGrenadier and many others.
The disadvantage of this approach is that it can result in a game system that ends up ignoring the factors that made each battle unique or affected it in an unusual way. One might easily end up with a wargame on a battle that fails to bear much resemblance to the historical event. As much as SPI emphasized history in it designs, this flaw existed in many of their games.
Among them is the NAW-system game Austerlitz: Battle of Three Emperors.
The state of the art in game design in the 1970s advanced at a rapid clip, but unevenly. There were early strides with improved orders of battle and a lot of the really big mistakes that rendered early Avalon Hill efforts like Stalingrad and Afrika Korps fanciful were corrected with better research. Austerlitz includes a complete and reasonably accurate OB that makes some interesting distinctions in strength and movement capabilities between different units and between the two armies as a whole. Overall, the French have a significant edge in speed, generally moving 1 movement point faster than the equivalent Austro-Russian units. Fair enough.
Terrain analysis in 1970s era games, on the other hand, still tended to be simplistic and often missed the point. In Austerlitz the waterways are depicted appropriately, but the towns tend to be too small, which starts to distort the effect the battlefield had on the course of the fighting. The game also doesn't make any functional distinction between cavalry and infantry other than movement allowances, so cavalry units can benefit from fighting in towns, which is quite unhistorical. Artillery units can also benefit from occupying town sites, which is also contrary to historical practice and experience.
The game most misses the mark, however, in its treatment of elevation. One can't read an account of Austerlitz without soon hearing about the Pratzen Heights, which was the dominant terrain feature affecting the fighting. The mile-wide plateau is reduced to a single-hex knoll, which ends up being a position of minor local importance instead of the battlefield's key terrain.
Apparently the designer, John Young, was misled by the gently rolling terrain of the battlefield into thinking the elevations were not important because there were no high, steeply-sided hills. (Actually, there was one, the Santon, on the French left, but it doesn't appear in the game at all).
But a height advantage in military terms is extremely relative, not absolute. In otherwise flat terrain a very slight elevation advantage can take enormous importance, while in hilly ground a steep hill may be unimportant if it's overlooked by higher ground nearby.
On the Austerlitz battlefield the Pratzen Plateau was important, not because it was difficult ground, but because it was high enough to hide troop movements, provide a defensive advantage and when occupied by the French, completely dominate the Allied position.
Coping with this kind of effect was beyond the scope of a 1970s-era wargame, but it means that Austerlitz, the game, ends up bearing little resemblance to the actual battle.
Other aspects of the game working against its historical authenticity are the victory conditions, which seem to be designed to induce the Allied player into making an attempt to strike the French right as per the actual historical plan. This course of action stands little chance of success, however, and most allied players turn their attention to winning the slugfest in the center of the battlefield. Whichever army becomes demoralized first (by losing 70 combat factors worth of units) will almost certainly go on to lose the game, given the severe penalties of demoralization. (Demoralized units lose their zones of control and have their combat strengths cut in half.)
Another terrain oddity on the map is the "Abbey" near Sokolnitz Castle. The game makes this a very strong position, quadrupling the combat strength of any unit occupying it, but I don't see a reference to such a location in accounts of the battle. It doesn't appear in the game Napoleon's Triumph, which has a very detailed and sophisticated terrain analysis nor is there any reference to it in Osprey's campaign book Austerlitz 1805, which includes several detailed battlefield maps.
Austerlitz is an interesting and challenging game. As a matter of fact, it's one of the best-balanced wargames ever. According to Hexwar.com's statistics as of Jan. 16, 2008, the French side as won 793 times, and the Allies 783 times, a ratio of 50.3/49.7. It's just not very much like Austerlitz.

Featured game: Napoleon at Waterloo -- strategy

I got my copy of Waterloo when I first subscribed to Strategy & Tactics magazine in 1971. All new subscribers got a copy of the game as an "introduction" to wargames, complete with a letter from Jim Dunnigan explaining a bit how "simulation" games worked.
Of all the introductory wargames offered, NAW probably does the best job. It sticks to the basic mechanics common to the classic SPI/AH-style games without introducing any oddities like some other "introductory" wargames. It's well-balanced, with both sides having a good chance at winning. ( The latest version of NAW on Hexwar shows 6,264 French wins, 7,264 British wins and 1,162 draws). It plays quickly, allowing for several games in an evening and is quick and easy to set up with the initial deployment on printed on the map. This makes "restarts" easy to do, which is also a plus when you're teaching a game.
I didn't get to play it a lot back in the day, because my friends and I had already played a number of Avalon Hill games by the time I got NAW. It did manage to hit the table on occasion, however, and I always had a good opinion of it.
It was when I joined Hexwar that I got the chance to really explore the game, playing it a few hundred times now. For those who don't know about it, Hexwar.com is an online game-playing service that provides a very user-friendly way to play a couple dozen classic SPI/Decision Games titles. Napoleon at War is the free, introductory game and you can play that one game all you want without charge. If you're like me, however, it wasn't all that hard to persuade me to pay the service fee. It's allowed me to play literally thousands of wargames over the past couple of years. It's been just about the best value I've ever had in my career as a gamer.
Having several hundred games under my belt with a winning record ( 116-53-11 under the latest version of NAW on Hexwar, similar with earlier versions) lets me feel confident I can offer a few pointers on strategy. Like any good game, there are no "perfect plans" that will always produce victory in Napoleon at Waterloo, but there are strategies that will succeed more often than others.

The French
Overall
The initiative in the game rests with the French. The burden of victory lies with Napoleon. He must exit seven units off the opposite map edge through designated exit hexes while eliminating at least 40 combat factors of allied (Anglo-Dutch and/or Prussian) units before losing 40 factors of French. The French start with an 89-73 advantage in combat factors, but they receive no more reinforcements while the British player can look forward to another 34 combat factors of Prussians showing up on the second turn.
The primary French objective is to eliminate 40 factors of British units. That eliminates any chance of a British victory (the best they can get now is a draw) and demoralizes the British army putting it under a severe handicap. Once demoralized all British attacks are reduced one level and all French attacks are increased one level. (British 1-1s become 1-2s while French 1-1s become 2-1s for example.) This is usually a big enough edge that exiting seven French units is not a problem.
Both sides have a mandatory and specified setup, so the main strategic decision facing an erstwhile Napoleon is which way to go with his main effort.

Go Right
The French army can attempt to attack the British left flank and then drive towards the exit hexes near Mont. St. Jean. The disadvantages of this approach include slow development, the certain early intervention by arriving Prussians and a narrow, easily defended route towards the exit hexes. The only mitigating benefit is, perhaps, some astonishment on your opponent's part that you'd try it! Really, this approach is so obviously unpromising that it's rarely tried. I haven't seen a French player win going this way, although I did see a draw. once.

Go Left
More promising is to shift the entire French Army left and advance on a wide front through the villages of Merbe, Le Mesnu and Braine L'alleud towards the exit hexes. This delays any impact by the Prussians to the latter part of the game. It allows the French to attack on a wide front, making the most of their powerful offensive capability. The doubling effect of the villages is not as helpful to the British as it may appear at first because the French can usually arrange to advance units after combat into village hexes, pinning British units with zones of control and forcing the British in their turn to counterattack at poor odds. There's a big jump between 1-2 odds (1/6 chance of an attacker eliminated result) to 1-3 odds (2/3 chance of an AE), meaning that British losses can quickly be disastrous.
This strategy can be very successful against passive British players, especially if they 're counting on those villages to help them stop the French. The main disadvantage of this approach is that is risks allowing an aggressive British player to seize the initiative. The British are not without offensive power and a vigorous counteroffensive can put the French in danger of losing the game outright on turn 3 or 4.
Generally this can be a winning approach, especially against inexperienced or less aggressive British players. Its pretty forgiving for the French, providing the maximum available time, so it can work well for less experienced French, provided the British remain passive.

Go Up The Middle
While appearing to lack subtlety, going up the middle does offer the French important advantages, so long as it's done aggressively enough. There are weak spots in the initial British deployment that can be exploited. It's important that the French turn end with as many British units stuck in French zones of control as possible to prevent the British from adjusting their line or putting together good counterattacks. The key ground is the small patch of hexes in the canter of the map between La Haye Sainte and Hougomont, inclusive. Whoever dominates these hexes during the first 3-4 turns is well on the way to winning the game.
The primary disadvantage of this approach is that there is a chance that the Prussians may arrive quickly enough to affect the outcome. The French will have to react to the presence of the Prussians on turn 3 and they will definitely be on the scene by turn 4, which doesn't give the French a lot of time to eliminate the 40 combat factors required.
This strategy provides the least opportunity for an effective British response and puts Napoleon's fate firmly in the hands of the French. It tends to result in an early decision. the game will generally be decided one way of the other before the end of turn 5. (It may take another couple of turns to exit the French units, but if the British army is demoralized the French should have little trouble pushing through the remnants to accomplish this while delaying the Prussians sufficiently that they can't stop it.

British

Naturally, a lot about British strategy can be gleaned from the prior discussion of the French. The British are usually forced into a reactive and opportunistic defense against whatever plan the French try. Keep in mind that the only way to win the game is to eliminate 40 combat factors of French units before you lose 40 yourself. Blocking the French from exiting units comes in second place. All that success there will do is salvage a draw.
The combat results table is not bloody enough in exchanges for the British to have a reasonable expectation of the French impaling themselves on your defenses. As the initiative player the French should be able to avoid many attacks at the bad odds of 1-3 or less or 4-1/5-1. Killing French units will require counterattacks.
If the French player doesn't press the attack strongly there's a good chance the British can seize the initiative. If the French allow it, I like to grab the central, Hougomont-La Haye Sainte position. This splits the French offensive into two, mutually unsupported attacks and puts the right half of the French army in danger of being caught between the British and Prussians, which often leads to defeat in detail.

Grouchy Arrives

This is an option that came with the NAW Expansion kit, examining some "what-ifs" involving Grouchy and the Prussians. Depending on pre-game die rolls, the French might get reinforcements from Grouchy's force and more or fewer Prussians could arrive. On average the French tend to benefit, with more results improving on their historical outcome than coming out worse. (Hexwar shows 2,858 French wins, 2,237 Allied wins and only 245 draws) While entertaining to consider, these outcomes should have surprisingly little impact on either side's strategy. It's a mistake for the French to slow down the game in anticipation of Grouchy's help and likewise the British are gambling if they hold back expecting that even more Prussians will provide them an advantage. The game will probably be decided on turn 4 or 5, which is before any of the optional reinforcements can intervene. It's always true that one side or the other will benefit more from the reinforcements and the other side therefore has a strong incentive to go for the early win.

Conclusion

Napoleon at Waterloo is far from the last word in simulations. The course of the battle will never follow history, mostly because Hougomont will always fall on the first turn, where historically it held out all afternoon and tied down a large part of the French army. ( That 7-4, 3-3 and 5-4 that start adjacent).
But it's an excellent little wargame. It plays quickly, it's balanced and there's more skill than meets the eye.