Guns of Gettysburg heads for a Kickstart

Evidently the long-awaited Guns of Gettysburg is going to be published by an outfit by the name of Mercury Games instead of under Bowen Simmons' own Simmons Games imprint and it's going to be financed via Kickstarter, probably in January or February.

This is good news for those of us waiting for the game, of course, although on a personal note, it implies that the health problems that have delayed Bowen Simmons from getting the game published (it's apparently been basically finished for more than a year) are not expected to get better any time soon.

Some people don't like the new cover, shown above, preferring the old one, at right. I don't have a strong opinion. I think the old one is a little more period evoking and classy, but it was really geared towards the existing fan base. Kickstarter means exposing the project to a larger audience that is unfamiliar with Simmons' groundbreaking earlier work with Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph and therefore the cover will have to "sell" the game more than it did before.

On the other hand, I think this means that the initial print run for the game will be much larger than what we saw for BaM and NT.

The game, itself, is the sort of groundbreaking, paradigm shattering work we've come to expect from Simmons. The basic fact about Simmons is that unlike nearly every other wargame designer out there, he doesn't work off one of the existing wargame models, whether hex-based or area-based, whether CRT or bucket of dice, whether counters or figures, etc. He starts from first principles of terrain, order of battle and combat effects and designs a system from the ground up, as it were. So far this has resulted in a couple of elegant and outstanding games that are often pretty hard for the traditional hex-and-CRT-familiar wargamer to wrap his head around. Once you do, however, you're well rewarded. Both games really make you think as a player, intensely and deeply. Guns of Gettysburg looks to be much the same. Can't wait.

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.

Austerlitz +204

Scenario set-up from Napoleon's Battles Module Two
copyright 1994, The Avalon Hill Game Co.

Despite the fact that a half-dozen or so of my favorite games are set in the Napoleonic era, I'm not really a Napoleonics fan. It's juts that the man is just about unavoidable if you're going to be an avid wargamer or serious student of history. He may have been a man of short stature, but he strides like a colossus through European History. Few individuals have had such an outsize influence in history that an entire era is named after them. His Maxims have been studied by aspiring generals since the 1820s and the attempt to understand and communicate his genius inspired two of the most influential treatises on military strategy ever written, The Art of War by Baron Antoine Henri de Jomini, and On War, by Carl von Clausewitz.

Napoleon personally commanded on at least 65 battlefields from Montenotte on Apr. 12, 1796 to Waterloo on June 18, 1815, but he reportedly considered the Battle of Austerlitz, fought on Dec. 2, 1805, as his masterpiece. It was definitely a battle won by superior generalship. Napoleon set a trap for his opponents and they walked right into it, allowing him to wreck a great army.

Yet it was not, despite its cleverness and lopsided casualty count, a decisive battle. As a matter of fact, Austerlitz merely inaugurated an intense period of fighting that lasted four more years and involved a dozen more battles including Jena, Eylau, Freidland, Aspern-Essling and Wagram.

And despite its lopsided outcome, that outcome was hardly a foregone conclusion. While the French Army was at its peak of effectiveness, having undergone intensive training for the planned invasion of Britain, was buoyed by a victory at Ulm and fresh from several years of peace, it was outnumbered by a substantial amount. And while the Allies were hobbled by antiquated organizations and a confused command structure, they had good troops on the field.

So the situation is perfect for a good wargame -- two evenly matched, but not identical, armies, facing each other on the field of battle.

Map detail from Austerlitz, Battle of Three Emperors
copyright 1973 Simulations Publications, Inc.

As I said, I'm not a big Napoleonics fan, despite appearances. There have been many good Austerlitz games published, but I only have a few. Austerlitz is a scenario in the Napoleon's Battles miniatures game system, but its not a scenario I've ever played. I have played the old SPI quad game Austerlitz -- Battle of Three Emperors, but that's merely because it's one of the games offered on Hexwar.com. The game is your typical quad game, which mean that it's not much of a simulation, really, but it is a pretty decent hex-and-counter wargame from that era. It's one of the more popular games offered on Hexwar and is reasonable well-balanced.

Map detail from Napoleon's Triumph
copyright 2006 Simmons Games

My third Austerlitz title is Napoleon's Triumph by Bowen Simmons, which I definitely bought based on the reputation of the designer. I was extremely impressed by his Bonaparte at Marengo game and I knew that the NT game system was inspired by the earlier game. It's not accurate to describe the two as being in the same system, as there are bigger differences between them than there are between, for example, the SPI quad games on Marengo and Austerlitz. It's an interesting bit of trivia that Marengo was the last battle Napoleon fought as General Bonaparte and Austerlitz was the first full-scale field battle he fought as Emperor-- and it was fought on the anniversary of his ascension to the throne.

Napoleon's Triumph is my current top wargame, even though I haven't played it anywhere near enough times to suit me. As important as I believe theme to be in wargames, I'm primarily a fan of NT for it's virtues as a game. A legitimate criticism of Bonaparte of Marengo is that it's a bit stereotyped in play and isn't good at replicating the historical battle. Napoleon's Triumph, on the other hand, manages to be much more free-wheeling while at the same time holding out the real possibility of replicating the general course of the battle.

It's also, of course, a handsomely produced game, but the best feature is the game play. Having the game has prompted me to look more closely at the Battle of Austerlitz, which I think is the hallmark of a good wargame -- it inspires a deeper appreciation of history.

WBC plans

I'm planning to be at the WBC for about three days, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, in case anyone wants to get together for some FTF gaming. I'm not going too heavy on tournaments this year. I think I'm just going to play in the Memoir '44, Battle Line, Lost Cities and maybe Nuclear War tournaments. As none of those are lengthy games and I have no reason to think I'll see much success in any of them I should have plenty of time for FTF gaming.

I'll be bringing along Martin Wallace's Waterloo, Friedrich, Bonaparte at Marengo, Napoleon's Triumph and Axis & Allies War at Sea, but as always I'm willing to play almost anything.

Some more thoughts on Waterloo and other non-traditonal wargames

Actually, it even seems odd to use the word traditional when discussing a hobby that's a little over a half-century old, but most people will understand what I mean -- traditional being the hex-and-counter wargames inaugurated by Charles Roberts/Avalon Hill and made ubiquitous by James Dunnigan/SPI in the 1960s/70s/80s.

For many people hex-and-counter wargames are wargames and they pay little mind to other design choices or even disdain them.

On the other hand, there have always been other ways to skin that particular design cat. Many wargames from the hex-and-counter designers didn't use hexes at all, of course. Area movement and point-to-point maps have a long history in the hobby. And there have always been some games that were outside the main wargame design tradition, such as Kingmaker, Diplomacy, block wargames like Quebec 1759, Axis & Allies and the whole traditional miniatures line.

But for a long time hex-and-counter wargames were definitely where the action was design-wise. This provided many benefits, because the sharing of mechanics and design techniques within a limited universe of choices made it possible for wargamers to digest literally hundreds of wargames in a short period of time. A big draw for series games such as The Great Battles of the American Civil War, the various SPI quad games, The Gamers' various series (SCS,OCS,TCS,NBS etc.) etc. was that it allowed players to concentrate on the battle at hand instead of having to learn brand new game systems all the time.

On the other hand, this self-policing limitation on design tools did have some drawbacks. One of them is that not all situations lent themselves equally well to hex-and-counter wargames. Hexes have geometric limitations that made them problematic for linear warfare and tactical warfare at sea. Counters, being two-sided, imposed limits on fog of war or step reduction unless you added more counters to the pile. Zones of control, combat results tables and well-defined scales often brought anomalies or awkward compromises when applied to specific situations. And as time went on it seems as though hex-and-counter wargames had trouble recruiting new players, while the euro-style games attracted more interest.

Now, like any generalities, these kinds of statements obscure a host of counter examples. Hex-and-counter game manufacturers have gotten pretty adept at marketing their wares to the sort of p,layers who will find them interesting and the Internet has been a great aid. Players can find each other and game makers easily. Many hex-and-counter wargames have turned out to be well-suited for online play, so it's not all doom and gloom.

But at the same time, I am sensing a renewed interest in other design approaches. One very popular line of attack has been what are commonly called card-driven games, which use the detail and flexibility that cards can provide to bypass the chart-heavy approach of traditional wargame designs. Still, most of these designs are coming from h&c game companies and designers and still share many of their attributes, such as cardboard counters and even hexes.

There's a lot more interest in alternative design approaches. While both Axis & Allies and block wargames have been around for decades, both are showing new life these days.

And some designers have explored some completely different approaches to wargame design. Some notable recent examples include Friedrich, Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph. And I put Martin Wallace's Waterloo in that category. Despite having little in common with a traditional hex-and-counter treatment of Waterloo, the game does good job of capturing the essential features of Napoleonic era combat and I think it's an instructive, as well as entertaining exercise, which is what a good wargame ought to be.

What will be interesting is seeing how Wallace and Bowen Simmons (designer of Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph) come up with next. Both designers are reportedly working on a Gettysburg game, and both games are likely to appear in 2010. Back in the heyday of AH and SPI it wasn't uncommon to see both companies releasing competing visions of the same topic, so it's nice to see that sort of choice being offered again. The more the merrier.

Some musings on team Napoleon's Triumph

When played as a team I suppose folks probably just divvy up the corps evenly and have at it, but it occurs to me that the simulation value might be enhanced a little bit by experimenting with a chain of command based on the historical mess the Russo-Austrian army command structure was.

For the French side, one might have just one experienced player control everybody. Napoleon had a pretty good handle on this fight. All his subordinates were capable and experienced and there were no real command issues. If you have two players one could portray Soult who historically commanded the IV Corps with divisions Saint Hillaire, Vandamme and Legrand while the other one is Napoleon and leads the rest. With three players have one be Soult, have Napoleon just control Bessieres and maybe Murat and have the third player use Bernadotte, Davout and Lannes.


The Russo-Austrian side is more interesting.


Kutusov is the overall army commander and ought to have control of Constantine and Bagration only. To represent Tsar Alexander borrow a kid brother, spouse or distracted player from another nearby table to issue overall instructions that Kutusov is honor-bound to execute, at least partially.

A second player should be Liechtenstein and be in charge of the Austro-Russian columns of Liechtenstein, Kienmayer, Kollowrath and the Russian Miloradovich.

The third player should portray Buxhoewden and be in charge of the Russian I, II and III columns led by Dokhturov, Langeron and Prebyshevsky, respectively.

If there's a fourth player divide up player 2's troops into pairs of Liechtenstein/Kienmayer and Kollowrath/Milaradovich.

If there's a fifth player then make him or her Bagration and leave only Constantine under the overall commander.

If there's an odd number of players the extra one should always be Russo-Austrian. It will be even better if they don't get along well.

Bonaparte at Marengo -- a review

One of the hardest mental challenges there can be is to abandon our pre-conceived notions about something and look at a topic from the ground up.

Sure, generally it's best to build on the achievements of those who have gone before, but every so often someone needs to challenge the status quo.

The vast majority of wargames build on the foundation laid by Charles Roberts a half-century ago, but now and then somebody surveys a new lot.

Bonaparte at Marengo is a game like that.

Inside a standard bookcase-style box is a handsome mounted mapboard, about 80 wooden red and blue blocks, two copies of the rules and three plastic markers. That's it. From these minimal -- although high-quality -- materials designer Bowen Simmons crafts an elegant and absorbing strategy wargame. There are no dice, no charts or stacks of markers.

But there is a "look." Players who want the full story can check out Simmons' excellent Web site at www.simmonsgames.com but the story, briefly, is this: Inspired by old battle maps that showed the armies deployed in red and blue lines, Simmons wanted to capture the same look in a wargame. Achieving this goal meant rethinking wargaming conventions from the ground up.

The units are depicted as elongated wooden blocks which can be placed on their sides for fog of war. Unlike other block games, which rotated their square blocks in order to show losses, in BaM losses are shown by replacing a block with a weaker one, but the overall effect is similar.

The heart of the game system is the map, and the innovative way movement on the map is handled. The board is divided into "locales" depending upon the lay of the land, and each locale has several "approaches." Pieces can be in "reserve" in a locale or occupying one of its "approaches."

If opposing pieces are in facing approaches there can be an "assault," which is usually very costly for the attacker, but may be the only way to carry a position. Most losses come from "maneuver attacks" which are attempts to move into a locale occupied by the enemy. Pieces in reserve can move to "block" the approach, perhaps setting up an assault in a subsequent turn, but if the enemy retreats or doesn't have a reserve unit available for blocking duties the maneuver attacking piece can move into the locale, forcing a retreat. Cavalry units in reserve can retreat without loss but all other pieces will take losses. Outmaneuvering the other side is therefore the focus of activities, supported by occasional assaults as needed.

Each side is limited in how many units it can move. Each army has three "commands" available. A command is expended to move one or more units that follow the exact same path. Primary roads provide additional "free" commands for units that move along the roads.

Every strength point lost translates into a one-point drop in morale. If an army's morale drops to Zero it will generally lose. If neither army's morale drops to zero -- or both do -- then the game is decided on territorial victory conditions, but this rarely happens.

The entire feel of the game is very chess-like, in my opinion. It's very much move and counter move. There are many little intricacies and subtleties in the rules.

It's not a complex game, but it can be a hard one to grasp. In part this is because it's so different from any other wargame that previous wargame experience is of little help. In part it's also because of the minimalist style of Simmons' rules. Many key aspects of play are implied by the rules rather than spelled out explicitly. Since the game came out the forums have been filled with questions. In almost all cases the answers are there, in the rules, but aren't always obvious.

It's one of the most absorbing and intriguing wargames I've ever played and tops my list of favorites. It does have a few shortcomings, however.

Play does tend to be stereotyped. The general line of play involves the Austrian army gathering in front of Marengo and forcing a breach in the French line, followed by a retreat and a final showdown near the victory objective stars on the board edge. If the French player times it right the Austrian player will fall a turn or loss factor short of victory. Games often come down to a 1-point or 1-turn margin.

This wouldn't be a big problem, except that it also means that the historical course of the battle is rarely replicated. The French have no incentive to launch a late-game counter attack to break the morale of the Austrian army and salvage a victory from defeat. If the French are in a position to launch such a counterattack they're almost certainly also in a position to win the game anyway by standing on the defense.

Simmons Games later title Napoleon's Triumph uses a similar system that succeeds in being closer to history while also providing many more strategic options and is, overall, a better game that BaM, but BaM does deserve credit for being first.

Now this is exciting news

One of absolute favorite game designers is Bowen Simmons with his fantastic Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph.

Now he's started work on a game about one of my favorite battles, Gettysburg.

Details here: http://www.simmonsgames.com/products/Gettysburg/index.html

But here's the box art:

First impressions of Napoleon's Triumph

Well, Marty and I got the chance to play Napoleon's Triumph for the first time.
It was a very good and enjoyable. It took rather longer than billed (about four hours) to play because we were both new and we had to pick our way through the novel procedures, but it was enjyable trhoughout.
While different ind etails from Bonaparte at Marengo, it's much the same in how its a real thinking game.
I played the Austrians, while Marty was the French.
My strategy was to make a big push on the left that looked dangerous in order to prompt Marty into committing his reinforcements early, but then fall back beforer I became decisively engaged. While probably very risky against experienced players, I hoped the fact that Marty was also a newbie would mean he'd have a hard time following me too aggressively.
On the right flank I gave Bagratian a strong corps and put all the Guard and some other strong units with Constantine. I planned to make a decisive counterattack against the French flank once he was well committed.
In general the strategy generally worked as hoped, although I did lose in the end because of some tcatical errors.
Marty actaully got first blood when he launched a successful spoiling attack on one of my corps as it approached his main line. There was some see-saw fighting in the center and left. Overall the Austrian losses were a bit higher than the French. I was, however, able to pull back most of my units without getting too many caught and even start redeploying units from the left to the center.
My right flank attack wasn't quite as decisive as I had hoped, Even though I won my big Guard attack, I didn't do the damage I had hoped to inflict and I ended up being too close to demoraliziation at the end. The French were able to get a couple of free hits with guns and then get their last morale point with an attack on an area that couldn't be stopped due to an error on my part.
It was a very good session and both of us are eager to try again.