Borodino 200th anniversary today

Battle for the Great Redoubt at Borodino

Two centuries ago today Napoleon's fortunes changed for good when he defeated the Russians at Borodino -- but at a heavy cost. He managed to make it to Moscow, but ended up losing nearly his entire army when he was forced to retreat.

Borodino was an extraordinarily bloody battle, but not really a battle of generalship or finesse and wargames depicting it reflect that characteristic.

Game Store Tony and I got in a commemorative anniversary game of the battle using Napoleon's War II -- The Gates of Moscow.

It ended up being an interesting battle because I was able to use a little psychology to salvage a narrow victory from what was shaping up to be a pretty decisive defeat.

My initial plan was to make an early push on each flank and then hit the center hard, but this soon came afoul of bad dice and Tony's astute counter moves which negated every effort I made to advance. By Turn 7 I was facing a 7-2 deficit in victory points (The game to 8 VP)!

Well, a popular definition of insanity is  doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. I clearly needed to take a different approach. I decided to pull pout of range of most of his guns and redeploy my cavalry to the left for a long sweeping flanking move. Not so much because I expected much out of it, but to provoke Tony into making his own attack into my guns. He's a good player, but does tend to be aggressive and impatient. While I couldn't just goad him into attacking me by doing nothing at all -- he was well aware that the onus for victory was on the French -- I figured he'd be unwilling to just sit there and watch my wide sweeping move unfold unmolested over the dozen turns he would have to watch.

And indeed, he marched to the attack. His cavalry that attempted counter my cavalry was pushed aside with loss and he then tried to counter attack my center and right. Before long he lost another five units and suddenly the game was tied at 7 VP each. There were several more turns of cat-and-mouse sparring before I was able to knock off the 8th unit for the win.

Like Napoleon, though, I paid a very heavy cost in casualties, so it did feel very Borodino-like in the end.

2011 gaming year in retrospect

Marengo scenario setup from Napoleon's War Volume II: The Gates of Moscow, one of my 2011 purchases.

2011 is almost over and what an unusual gaming year it was for me. The biggest development of the year was being laid off from my job. While having a considerable negative effect on my finances, perversely it was a boon gaming wise.

Nothing like having an awful of of time on your hands to inspire a lot of game-buying, and as near as I can tell I acquired about three dozen new games over the twelve months, about half new 2011 titles and the rest from previous years. In addition, I picked up expansions and bought a couple of cases worth of War at Sea naval miniatures as well. My back of the envelope calculations indicate this probably cost me somewhere around $1,800. Mitigating this shocking expense, however, was a very active year on eBay which grossed me around $1,900 from game and miniatures sales. After taking into account shipping costs and fees, the total out-of-pocket impact on my budget was just a few hundred dollars. More than half of the eBay income came from selling off two major collections (My TCS series games and my Lord of the Rings Tradeable Miniatures) which were painstakingly assembled over long periods of time and unlikely to be repeatable in 2012. As a result I'm going to have to severely curtail new game purchases -- at least until I find a job!

On the other hand, this was an exceptionally good playing year. This, again, was part of the fallout from losing my job. My biggest gaming constraint for years was the mismatch between my schedule and most potential opponents because I worked an evening shift. While I had most weekends off, they were so crowded with other life activities that my gaming opportunities were limited. Being laid off sure freed up my time! Also helping was getting involved in several local Meetup groups, being able to attend the Central Connecticut wargamers occasionally and a lot of activity at the local game shop Arkham Asyklum. All-in-all I played quite a few face-to-face games this year -- perhaps the most in decades.

As far as those acquisitions went, quite a few were continuations, expansions and sequels to various series I've enjoyed, such as Napoleon's War, Fluxx, Munchkin, Small World and Commands & Colors. There were also a fair number of notable new game such as Star Trek: Fleet Captains, Conquest of Nerath and Test of Fire.

Personally, my newest enthusiasm was for cooperative style games (and their semi-cooperative kin) represented by the Fly Frog Productions line of games such as Last Night on Earth and Fortune and Glory and similar tiles such as the Dungeons & Dragons adventuring games, Star Trek: Expeditions and Forbidden Island.

This also continued a trend towards lighter fare among my purchases. While I did pick up some hard-core simulations such as Persian Incursion and Lock n Load: Day of Heroes, the vast majority of the year's acquisitions were more along the lines of Test of Fire, Shenandoah and Napoleon's War -- definitely wargames, but not really simulations.

It's not hard to trace the origin of this trend -- it's just hard to get simulation games on the table. Opponents are scarce and time is precious these days for that sort of game, which tends to be time consuming -- and not just in table time. To get the most out of a good simulation game it really helps if both players are reasonably familiar with the game rules beforehand, which adds to the imnvestment in time compared to euro games and other lighter genres.

I've pretty much given up on worrying about it. While I occasionally break down and pick up an old school wargame such as Four Roads to Moscow, Falklands Showdown or Marengo: Morning Defeat, Afternoon Victory, I usually take a pass these days no matter how tempted I am. Every time I feel the urge I just ask myself the question: And just WHEN will that get played? Unless I can justify it despite the likely answer of "Never," I probably won't buy it.

Also helping me exercise some future purchasing discipline is the likely end of the line for my only active collectible game: Axis & Allies: War at Sea. While there's some slight glimmer of hope that another set may appear, it probably won't be in 2012. In any case, I won't start another collectible game. While I don't have the same heartburn many do about the limitations of the format, there is the serious problem of what happens when the game gets canceled. Experience has shown that even a very good game such as Dreamblade or Navia Dratp becomes almost impossible to get on the table once official support dries up. The Axis & Allies Miniatures (both land and sea) and the D&D miniatures lines have some utility outside of the official game rules, but the basic problem remains that the collectible format really relies on a stream of new material to work. Once the stream dries up the lake will inevitably dry up and vanish.

While I did acquire around three dozen games, which is a lot, the good news is that I had a very successful time getting the new games on the table -- playing at least 21 of them at least once. This is important because my experience has been that if I don't get a game played within the first year of owning it, there's a very good chance I'll never play it. Several of the not-played yet were late 2011 acquisitions such as Sheandoah, Merchants & Marauders and Julius Caesar which I fully expect to get played soon. Some others were solitaire or solitaire-capable games such as Hornet Leader: Carrier Air Operations and the D&D adventures games that I can always get around to playing someday. There's just a handful of games like When Lions Sailed and Four Roads to Moscow that have dubious prospects for future table time.

Job prospects for the coming year are hard to predict, but it seems very unlikely I'll ever work at a newspaper again, with the evening hours that usually requires, so I expect that I'll continue to see a fair opportunity for game playing in 2012. I expect game purchases to slow down a lot, though. I've already cut down on my pre-orders (just Commands & Colors titles and Wizard Kings expansions currently) and, as I said, I am done with collectible games. Or so I say. Time will tell!

Napoleon's War II: The Gates of Moscow review

Battle of Austerlitz

The dueling Napoleonic game systems of GMT (Commands & Colors Napoleonics) and Worthington Games (Napoleon's War) continue their epic matchup with a new round of games. (No word on when, or if, there will be another entry in the third Napoleonic battle game system that came out last year, the Battles of Napoleon).

Once again Worthington Games beat GMT to the punch. While GMT will probably ship the second CC:N game this month (The Spanish Army) Worthington's Napoleon's War II: The Gates of Moscow has been out for a couple of months already.

Physically, the new game is familiar stuff -- two double-sided full-color cardstock mapboards depicting four Napoleonic battles (in this case Marengo, Aspern-Essling, Austerlitz and Borodino), a cardstock player aid card, an 8-page rule book, counters, three dice and 120 plastic figures. Once again the figures are the infantry, cavalry and cannon figures from the game Viktory II, repurposed quite well to serve here. The French are blue, as they were in the first game, with white for the Austrians and Green for the Russians -- an unsurprising and appropriate color scheme.

The rules have been streamlined a bit from the first game, with some small but significant changes. Perhaps the most important is that infantry firepower at 2-hex range has been reduced to just 1 die (hitting on a 6) instead of the previous 3-dice. This is a big improvement, as it encourages the infantry to get in close instead of engaging in ahistorical long-range firefights.

Another change which could be significant is that the Advanced Skirmisher rules have been eliminated. I say "could be" because it's an entire, lengthy section cut from the rules -- but I wouldn't know because I never tired using them. They seemed far more intricate and involved than waranted by the complexity level of the rest of the game system. Evidently many agreed. In any case, it's gone.

Artillery cannot be targeted by ranged fire until any cavalry or infantry unit in the hex is eliminated.

A few other changes and clarifications were added, all conveniently listed at the end of the rulebook for experienced players. A new optional rule for drawing the AP randomly through chits has been added, although I'm not really tempted to use it. It seems to draw out laying time and add a level of randomness to a system that's already pretty luck-driven.

The fundamentals of the game system are the same. Each turn a player rolls a D3 and adds the result to his base number to get an action point allowance for the turn, typically 4-7 CAP. Most game actions such as moving and firing cost one AP per unit, although a couple of special actions such as shock attacks cost 2. Combat typically involves rolling three dice (sometimes cut down to 2 dice for terrain) looking for a 6 to hit. Artillery and units engaged in shock combat can hit on a 5 or 6 or sometimes even a 4-6.

The four scenarios depict some of the iconic battles involving the Austrians, Russians and French and I fully expect to see a "battle pack" giving us more.

One change that I don't care for is that the setup locations are mo longer printed on the map, now players have to refer to the scenario card. This makes set up a little more work than it used to be and I don't think the small font used in earlier maps detracted from the look at all.

On the other hand, all the scenarios now include some territorial victory points for at least one side, which discourages the unhistorical gamey tactics that marred some of the first game's scenarios such as Ligny and Wavre. Now both players have to stand and fight.

The first scenario, chronologically, is Marengo, and in a first for the game system this has a free setup for one side as the standard scenario. While the French setup is fixed, the Austrian player can set up freely within a specified area. There are a lot of ways the battle can play out, depending upon the Austrian setup and this is probably one of the most replayable battle sin the whole game system. It's a pretty even match, too, as the infantry on both sides is depicted by 3-figure units.

The French start with six infantry, three cavalry and two artillery on the map, with one of each of the infantry and cavalry units being elite. The whole lot is led by Napoleon +3 (then actually Bonaparte). Coming in on turn 10 or after is the +2 leader Desaix with an elite infantry, a regular infantry, a cavalry and an artillery. The total French army is therefore 15 units with 42 figures.

The entire Austrian force starts on the map. Led by +2 Melas and +1 Zach, the Austrians have six regular and one elite infantry, 4 cavalry and 4 artillery for a total of also 15 units and 38 figures. Both sides are trying to get 7 victory points, with the Austrians having prize objective sworth 2 and 3 VPs on the French map edge.

Both sides are relatively well led. The French start with a base of just 3 CAP but jump up to 5 when the reinforcements arrive, while the Austrians have 4 CAP throughout. The scenario manages to capture the back and forth of the historical battle reasonably well.

The second scenario chronologically is Austerlitz. The Allied side uses both the white figures and the green figures, for the Austrians and Russians respectively. The Austrians are definitely weak links, however, with just 2 figures per infantry unit and no elites. The Russians will have to do most of the heavy lifting. The Austrian army totals six units with just 12 figures, while the Russians have 12 units and 32 figures. The allied leadership is abysmal, with Tsar Alexander +1 and Kaiser Francis II +1. The Allied base CAP is just 3.

Napoleon is present again, with his +3 self. He starts with 12 units and 36 figures and gets +2 Davout and four more units with 12 more figures on turn 5.

This is a long and bloody battle with a VP goal of 9 for both sides. The burden of attack in on the Allies, however, and the ensuing fight will usually bear at least a passing resemblance to the historical fight.

The third scenario is the weak sister of the bunch. At Asspern-Essling the Austrians are on their own with their 2-figure infantry and I don't see a realistic path to victory for them. It's just too easy for the French to rack up VP by killing Austrian infantry units There are territorial VP available for both sides, but they seem unlikely to come into play.

The Austrian force is comprised of 19 units but just 38 figures. Charles is a +2 leader but his assistant is just a +1. Both sides have a base of just 3 CAP, but the burden of attack is on the Austrians and their larger number of weaker units mean it is hard for them to do what they have to do with the CAP available.

Napoleon is, of course, on the field again, aided by +1 Massena. He starts with 13 units and 33 figures and potentially gets three more units with 7 figures as reinforcements. Unlike the battles of Marengo and Austerlitz, these reinforcements are not as vital to the French plans. The Austrians can spend AP to try to destroy the bridge the reinforcements need to enter, but it hardly seems worth the CAP expense.

The Austrians need to get 7 VP while the French need 8 or to avoid an Austrian victory.

The final scenario is Borodino (or Bordino as it's spelled on the scenario card!). This is, as one would expect for Borodino, a knock-down drag-out wrestling match between two evenly matched forces. The Russians have THREE leaders, Kutusov +2 and two +1 leaders. They have 15 units with 42 figures well deployed in redoubts and behind rivers.

Napoleon, on the field yet again, at +3 , has a +2 Davout and a +1 Ney to help. His 16 units have 45 figures and therefor a slight numerical edge, but it will be a challenging slog into the teeth of the Russian host. Good stuff. Both sides are striving for 8 VP, with the burden of attack on the French to win in 30 turns.

Overall, I think this game is a big success. The system has been cleaned up a bit and the scenarios seem well-selected. Games should still take aoiut an hour from opening the box, which seems to be the goal these days. There's plenty of luck to provide drama but players still seem in control of their fate a bit more than the card-driven system of CC:N. The CAP system guarantees some variability but the base CAP means that each player can count on a certain minimum level of activity every turn.

Some other new stuff come in

A few other new arrivals of note:

Victoria Cross II (shown above). This is a redo of the venerable (and inaugural) Worthington Games title. Major difference sin presentation include an overhead view of the Rorke's Drifty battlefield (instead of the perspective view used before ) and cardboard counters in place of the wood block. sticker combo of the earlier version. Major content differences include the addition of the complete Battle of Isandlwana as wella s the original battle of Rorke's Drift. I played the Isandlwana battle and got crushed as the British! Very historical, I'll need further plays to assess whether the British have a decent chance or I just played very badly the first time!

Napoleon's War II: The Gates of Moscow. Been awaiting this one and I expect to try it it next week. No surprises in the presentation.

Got some custom dice for Twilight Struggle and for Labyrinth. No special reason aside from the fact that they look cool.

Two cases of War at Sea's newest expansion, Surface Action. This was a very successful case purchase, as I got all 16 rares between the two cases. Some intersting models and intersting additions to the game system. The game badly needs some additional "official" scenarios that will play off some of the new special abilities and units. Right now the Standard dueling force scenario is really the only one well supported. THe Convoy scenario is still broken and virtaully unwinnable for the convoy player. Fixing that scenario and adding one for amphibious landings would be a big boost.

Jena revisited -- a battle anniversary session report

Battle of Jena set up

Any day now I expect to get the new game in Worthington's Napoleon's War series, but they've already posted the rules online so I thought I'd take advantage of today's 205th anniversary of the Battle of Jena to see how the changes in the rules affect things.

There are a number of changes and clarifications in the rules listed on the last page of the new rule book, which I appreciate. In most cases the changes are fairly minor or make thing more clear.

One very significant change, however, reduces infantry;s long-range firepower and this had an immediately noticeable affect on today's game. As originally published, Infantry units rolled 3 dice at a range of 1 or 2 hexes, hitting on a 6. Shock Combat increased the effectiveness of infantry to hitting on a 5 or 6 when adjacent, but at a cost of 2 action points instead of the 1 AP cost of regular fire. What this tended to do was encourage infantry units to hang around at 2 hex range and shoot at each other and only risk Shock Combat when a particular position really needed to be taken. This wasn't really very authentic for combat using smoothbore muskets.

Now infantry firing at a range of 2 hexes only rolls ONE die instead of 3, making a long-range firefight a pretty inefficient way to kill units (just one D6 roll for every AP expended, a profligate expenditure of a valuable resource that tends to be in short supply in the game. This encourages infantry to close in and also reduces the risk of the approach march as well.

Heavy combat in the center as the Prussian Guard (black) challenges the French Guard (white) and line (blue) as the rest of the Prussian Army (grey) looks on.

In our replay of Jena we saw this, as both sides brought their infantry in close. My French ended up prevailing because of the fragility of the 2-figure Prussian Line Infantry, but the Prussian Guard (represented by the black figures) was able to go into the teeth of the French position, and while surrounded by French Guard (white figures) and line troops (blue figures) and live long-enough to fight it's way out again.

Overall, the rule change seems to be an improvement, and I'm looking forward to trying some of the new battles.

Napoleon's War: Volume I - The 100 Days review

2010 was a bumper crop year for the Napoleonic battle game genre, with three highly anticipated titles appearing within a few months of each other. Fantasy Flight published Battles of Napoleon, GMT game us Commands & Colors: Napoleonics while Worthington was first out the gate with Napoleon's War Volume I -- The 100 days. Each game promised to be the first in a series and we already have confirmed sequels for two out of the three. I'll discuss how NW compares to those other titles later on.

The first out of the gate, Napoleon's War is an elaboration of Worthington's popular Wars for America series of games, which is probably best known for its handsome Hold the Line game of American Revolution battles.

Napoleon's War doesn't have the German Game production standards of HT, but it does have little plastic soldiers! The game comes with two dozen generic 1800s style infantry, eight cavalry and eight guns in each of three colors -- blue, red and gray for a total of 120 figures. The figures are, actually, the same figures used in Viktory II, a game by another manufacturer. The figures are small (the infantry is about 20mm tall) and made of hard plastic.

There are two double-sided 22-inch by 25-inch full color cardstock mapboards depicting the battlefields of Ligny, Quatre Bras, Waterloo and Wavre from Napoleon's Waterloo campaign. Unlike similar games all the terrain is printed on the maps, there are no separate terrain tiles.

There are also two card stock 8.5-inch by 11-inch scenario cards, one for each battle and a cardstock player aid card with terrain effects and information tracks needed for play. A die-cut counter sheet includes various informational markers, not all of which are used in this volume and counters for leaders.

The rules booklet is 8-pages long, on glossy paper and in full color. Finally there are some six-sided dice. All of this in contained in a fairly standard bookcase-sized box.

Overall the presentation is pretty close to current wargame industry standards, although certainly not cutting edge nor quite as nice as the German-style packaging in some recent Worthington designs.

The game system is essentially an elaboration of the Wars for America series rules with some key changes to represent European battlefield tactics.

Each player begins his turn by rolling a D6 and dividing the result by two, rounding up, and adding that total to a scenario-defined base number to determine a number of Command Action Points (CAP). In the Waterloo scenario, for example, the French base number is "4" so the French player will have from 5 to 7 CAP per turn. One CAP can generally activate a unit to move OR fire. Additional CAPs can be spent to order a unit to conduct "shock combat," conduct extra moves, rally and various other special actions. As a side generally has a dozen or so units there are clearly never enough CAPs available to do everything and the game's design tension come from managing limited resources effectively.

A unit is comprised of from 2-4 infantry figures, 2 cavalry figures or two guns, which represent the unit's ability to absorb damage and affect morale. Each hit removes one figure. Some elite units get counters that can absorb one or two more hits and provide a morale bonus like additional figures would and indeed, it's perfectly possible to buy extra figures (available from Viktory) and replace the counters with additional figures -- which is what I prefer to do.

A unit's fire power is NOT based on the number of figures it contains. All units roll 3 dice when attacking, with 6s as hits. At close range artillery hits on a 5 or 6 and during shock combat infantry and cavalry hit on 5-6 and 4-6 respectively. Some terrain such as woods, towns and ridges will subtract a die from an attack.

Terrain effects are very straightforward Besides reducing attacker's dice some terrain provides a morale bonus to the defender's and a few types slow down or stop movement.

Victory is determined by victory points with one earned for each enemy unit eliminated. In some battles there are also terrain features that are worth VPs as well.

Altogether its' a very simple and intuitive game system that's easy to teach and explain. Some additional rules account for specific Napoleonic tactics such as squares and morale. Some "Intermediate Rules" add rules for skirmishers, light infantry, British rifles, horse artillery and cavalry leaders. "Advanced" rules elaborate on the capabilities and limitations of squares while "Kevin Duke's Advanced Skirmisher Rules" (?!) add more detail and options for light troops. In turth, however, none of this is particularly involved or detailed or complicated by wargame standards. All of it is contained in just 8 pages of rules after all.

Despite -- or perhaps because of -- the brevity of the rules there are some point that may not be clear on a first reading of the rules and there's reason to think the scenarios were not playtested enough. The Wavre scenario, especially, looks virtually unwinnable for the French if the Prussian follow an ahistorical strategy and leave most of their army on the field instead of marching most of it off to help Wellington.

There's no rules for linking the four battles in any way and the maps are not contiguous. The scale is also not consistent between the four battles. In Quatres Bras, for example, each unit appears to be about a regiment while they represent as many as two divisions at Waterloo.

Thats aid, the battles are entertaining and quick. While the preprinted maps reduce the flexibility of the game compared to the tile-based system in similar games it does simplify and speed up set-up immensely. All unit starting locations are printed on the maps as well, so set-up time should be less than 5 minutes. Playing time is likewise short, with most battles reaching a decision in less than an hour, so there's time to play several matches in an evening.

From a simulations standpoint it provides a reasonable impressionistic treatment of Napoleonic battles, covering most of the high points such as combined arms effects, battlefield leadership, morale and troop quality. It;s far from the last word in authenticity but it shouldn't offend historical sensibility and is probably comparable in simulation value to game systems such as the old SPI quads or the newer "20" series games.

The obvious comparison game for Napoleon's War is GMT's Commands & Colors: Napoleonics and both games shares some similar design concepts, although the execution is different. As to which one a gamer might prefer, I confess it's a hard call. Each has ts good points and if you can I'd say you should get both. If space, money, spouse or philosophy get in the way of having both on your shelf there are some distinctions that can be made.

First, Napoleon''s War operates generally at a slightly higher scale than C&CN. While NW depicts the entire battle of Waterloo, for example, C&C:N concentrates on portions of the battlefield such as the I Corps attack from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. NW units are brigades or divisions while C&C:N units are battalions to brigades.

Napoleon's War gives the player a bit more control over his fate. While you don't have enough CAPs to do everything you might want to do, you'll almost always be able to do the one thing you most want to do. C&C:N, because of it's card-based command system, will sometimes leave you frustrated with a dead hand. This does bother some people and if you're one of those people you'll like NW better.

Napoleon's War will set up much more quickly than C&C:N and playing times are similar, so if you don't have a venue where you can set up ahead of time NW will give you more playing time on average.

Napoleon's War and C&C:N are both well-supported by their respective companies with more expansions in the works and NW already has a couple of expansion packs which add another 8 battles. C&C:N seems to be somewhat more popular, probably because its part of the hugely successful Borg design train, Worthington's system is well-liked in its own right and you should have little trouble finding opponents either way.

I think C&C:N may be a little more dramatic with a stronger narrative style because of the cards. NW is a more straightforward wargame in that sense.

And, of course, Napoleon's War ha figures, whereas C&C:N has blocks. Some may have a preference.

Speaking of figures, some may also compare Napoleon's War to Battles of Napoleon, but don't let the fact that both games use figures fool you. They are much less similar to each other than NW and C&C:N are. Battles of Napoleon is considerably more detailed and intricate than either and drills down its focus more. In BoN units are usually battalions, although they are sometimes regiments and there's much more attention to things such as formations,lower-level command and control, morale and discrete types of units. It has altogether more of a miniatures feel than either of the other games It's tighter focus is illustrated by how it treats Waterloo, depicting no fewer than three discrete parts of that battle as scenarios. There's really very little topic overlap.

Overall I recommend Napoleon's War. It's an enjoyable way to spend an evening. Generalship will play a bigger role than luck in the outcome of your battles but there's plenty of scope for the unexpected appearance of the Goddess Fortune to keep things exciting. The figures add a very nice touch, although I'd recommend enhancing the visual effect by pimping out your game as far as your wallets and talents allow. I got a special 1-3 die from Chessex for command rolls, bought more troops from Viktory and replaced most of the cardboard chits with custom markers from Litko systems. But you certainly don't have to do that to enjoy the game, everything you need is in the box.

Anniversary refight of the Battle of New Orleans, Napoleon's War

Young General and Old Warrior took a break from BattleLore action on a snowy January afternoon to refight a battle that also took place on a January some 196 years ago, although there's no evidence the ground was snowy in the least.

The second "Battle Pack" for the Napoleon's War system features four battles from America's "Napoleonic" war, the War of 1812. Now this is familiar ground for Worthington Games, as this topic had previously been done as part of For Honor & Glory. In the case of the New Orleans battle, the new version takes advantage of the dedicated maps to render a somewhat more faithful representation of the battlefield, which was kind of sketchy in the earlier game's somewhat more generic treatment.

It still appears to be a tough row to hoe for the British, however, as they're forced into a brutal frontal assault across open ground against a fortified enemy who had superior numbers of guns. The only advantage the British have is the superior quality of their infantry: Two +2 Elites, two +1 elites and three regular four figure infantry for a total of 34 MP. In contrast the more numerous American forces have just two four figure regulars and nine 2-figure militia for only 26 MP. Both sides have a 2 figure cavalry unit which is of minimal use because of the special rules for the America's War battle pack that prohibit them from using shock combat. Basically they're a speedy but very weak combat unit.

Where the US had a big edge is in guns -- three units compared to just one British. The British also have a rocket unit which is weaker (just 2 dice of fire) but has the advantage of being able to fire over obstacles and units. One important special rule for this scenario is that all the artillery and rockets have an extended range of six hexes, hitting on a 6. Instead of the standard rule which allows the guns to hit on a 5 or 6 out to 2 hexes, in this scenario a 5 is only a hit when adjacent. The Americans also had a slight edge in leaders, a pair of +2 (Jackson and Coffee) while the Brits had a +2 (Packenham, who deployed on the right) and a +1 (Gibbs, left). The British had a slight edge in CAP (4 of 3) but given that the American force was strictly on he defensive this seemed even.

If were an open field fight the American edge in guns wouldn't be so important given the poor quality of their troops, but it's not an open field fight. While the British have some redoubts and trenches to shelter it, the burden of attack is on them. They have to scope 6 VP in 20 turns or less. While there is a 2 VP objective hex behind the US line, I see little chance the British can get there. No, they need to kill US units and while the 2-MP militia are pretty easy to make go away, there is the problem of that line of entrenchments -- behind a canal!

The British advance is further constricted by a large Cypress swamp on their right flank which forces any advance to stay within US artillery range.

Naturally Old Warrior took the British side. The plan was to advance on the right and carry the works on that side, which seemed somewhat more doable than the left. The British would make some demonstration on that side as well, looking for a chance to rush in if artillery fire created a weak spot.

The good news was the the advance on the Right was able to make it to the wall and get across, eliminating all three militia units there. The bad news was that it was enormously costly, with the +2 elite reduced to a single MP and the +1 elite to 2 MP. This force was too weak to try rolling up the US line in the face of the guns and troops in the center. While this had been going on a West Indian infantry unit that had ventured forth on the left was gunned down in a single turn by those sharpshooting pirate gunners. It appeared the British were going to have to try their luck on the left after all. The presence of a road on the left flank promised a possibility of developing an attack quickly and minimizing the time under the US guns, but even has the British started to form up they started taking noticeable losses and the 4-figure regular British unit in the center barely made it across the line of departure before getting wiped out.

The first wave of British attackers to make it to the wall included the +1 elite and the surviving West Indian unit. The elites were wiped out in fierce close-quarter fighting with the US regulars and gunners but the West Indian unit was finally able to force the US troops back. A counterattack wiped out the West Indian regiment and it was up to the British cavalry and the last elite and Gibbs to carry the day. They came within 1 die roll of making it, as a volley from the elites finished off the US regulars and left just one gun standing -- the score was 5-all.

It wasn't meant to be, however, as that surviving gun was able to wipe out the horsemen for the 6th US VP and a shot from the other US regular felled Gibbs for the 7th and winning VP.

Compared to the actual event, of course, this was a closer affair, but it still ended up a British defeat. There were very few British figures left on the board -- a total of nine spread between five units. Young General resisted the impulse to be aggressive despite some taunting and made full use of his powerful defensive position to emerge victorious. Darn it.

Meeting my Waterloo Part I - A Napoleon's War session report

Battle of Waterloo scenario setup

Game Store Tony and I embarked on a little project to play all three of the 2010 class of Napoloenic battle games riffing off the same historical scenario -- in this case the Battle of Waterloo.

We started with Napoleon's War - The 100 Days. I took the French while Tony took the Anglo-Allied side. While Tony was new to the game system, he has played quite a bit of the Commands & Colors system, especially Memoir' 44 and Battle Cry, so the basic concepts of this game were familar to him.

I decided to make my main effort on the right flank, basically the French I Corps sector. I did this in part because that's the zone featured in the scenarios from the other two games -- Commands & Colors: Napoleonics and Battles of Napoleon: The Eagle and the Lion -- and parttly because I think that sector is generally the most promising for the French in Waterllo battle games of any sort. I think Hougoumont, especially, is best avoided.

In this game that seemed a good call because Tony's first few moves were devoted to shoring up that flank, occupying the fortfified sites with guns, guys and generals and just making it very unappetizing to go that way. Aside from a stray potshot there was no activity on the French Left at all.

Instead I pushed on the right, with my first target being that end-most Dutch infantry unit. As it turned out they made their square die roll and the charging cavalry and guns and infantry seemed to bounce off them like they were all Clark Kents.

So the battle on that side ebbed and flowed, with counterthrust and melee. Soon some Prussians joined in,a s did the French Guard and other troops and by turn 12 the French were on the verge of defeat, with the victory point score at 6-5 in the Prussian-Anglo-Allied favor. As the British only needed 7 VP to win this was looking pretty bad for ol' Nappy. As a matter of fact it came down to one die roll that turn, as a Prussian horse unit charged some French guns and killed 1 of the 2 cannons! Even worse, a Prussian unit had stolen a march on Napoleon and was one double-time move away from capturing Placenoit! Placenoit is worth 3 victory points for the British.

So it came down to the French needing to win on their half of Turn 13 if they were to win at all. A blast from the surviving gun at the adjacent Prussian cavalry missed entirely, but Tony's celebration was cut short when a second French gun unit rolled much better and rolled 2 sixes out of three dice and wiped the cavalry out. Victory Point No. 6!

So now it came down to the fate of Frischermont, where that very same Dutch infanrty unit that had shrugged off my first attacks had taken refuge. The French Guard heavy cavalry attacked first. It wasn't a charge, so the cavalry would only hit on 6s, but that turned out to be enough as one of the two dice WAS a six. So now the Dutch were down to one figure. A French infantry unit in Papelotte beat the pas de charge and spalshed across the Smohain stream. It had but one die to roll (-1 die for the fortified building and -1 die for the stream) but it was a shock attack so there was a 1/3 chance of success. Sure enough, a 6 was rolled, the last Dutch figure was removed for Victory Point No. 7 and the French infantry advanced into the building and captured Victory Point No. 8 for the win!

So overall a very close game.

It took just 10 minutes to set up the game and the entire episode lasted 82 minutes including setup, explaining the rules and a couple of brief interruptions while Tony attended to customers.

2010 game purchases in review

I bought an unusually large number of new games in 2010 -- at least a baker's dozen -- and even more unusually, I played the majority of them! This is a welcome change from years past when i had high levels of purchases that didn;t make it to the table. Its been my experience that a game that doesn't make it to the table the first year I have it rarely make it later on.

In alphabetical order here are the complete new games I bought in 2010:

Arnhem: The Farthest Bridge - 0 plays. This is part of the new series of folio games published by Decision Games that are basically remakes of old SPI classics. The maneuver unit order of battle and map are identical to the old 1975 SPI Arnhem game, but there's a new game system with some significant rules changes. I bought this one in order to get a sense as to whether these represent enough of an improvement over the old game to warrant a purchase. I picked this one because I have more than a hundred Hexwar.com games under my belt using the old game for comparison. I like how some of the new rules look but final evaluation depends on getting this rather old-school hex-and-counter game played.

Axis & Allies Europe 1940 - 3 plays. I've only played this in conjucntion with last year's A&A Pacific 1940 as part of the epic Global A&A 1940 scenario but I've had a blast. I think the global game is big enough to mitigate some of the gamier aspects of the A&A system and yet simple enough to be a viable gateway, club, convention and game store experience. I expect more plays in 2011.

Battle Above the Clouds - 0 plays. This is the latest interation of the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War series, moving to the Western theater. I'm not entirely sure I like the new graphics, but until I get a chance to play it I can't be sure. This game was gifted to me by the widow of my good friend Mark Perry who died late last year. He had pre-ordered this game and when it arrived his wife decidedto give it to me rather than send it back. I do hope I getthe chance to play this one this year.

Battle Cry 150th Anniversary Edition - 6 plays. This update of the original Commands & Colors system game is one of my favorites for the year. I think it hits a sweet spot for gaming with newer and more casual wargamers and is an excellent intorduction to the system. This will undoubtedly hit the table a lot over this coming year as we start moving into the 150th anniversary era.

Battles of Napoleon: The Eagle and the Lion - 2 plays. This is one of the interesting trio of Napoleonic battle games that game out this year. It's probably the most involved of the bunch and has a real miniatures feel to it. I expect to get more plays in with this one over the coming year, although probably not qite as much as Napoleon's War and Commands & Colors; Napoleonics due to the lengthier playing time.

Commands & Colors: Napoleonics - 4 plays. This highly anticipated Borg title was well worth the wait. There are a lot of interesting twists to the system and it's a blast to play. The rules for squares in particular are interesting. Guaranteed to see more plays this year.

Cthulhu Dice - 0 plays. This trivial filler game surprisingly hasn't hit the table yet because thematically it's a little problematical for family play or with some of the more casual game groups I play with. I do expect to get a play or two in but it probably won't be played as much as it might have with a less grim theme.

Fires of Midway - 0 plays. I'm also surprised I haven't gotten this played yet. The stars just haven't aligned right, I guess, although that would probably be a more appropriate excuse for Cthulhu Dice. Still, it's one of my favorite topics and seems fairly quick to play, so I think it will get played before too long.

Gettysburg - 4 plays. This might be the surprise hit of 2010, getting played four times on three different sessions. It's slightly more approachable than Martin Wallace's Waterloo, which is similar. I expect to play this again this year as well.

Heroscape Master Set - Battle for the Underdark - 5 plays. It's hard to believe, but Heroscape started off the year with a new master set, pumped out three new Dungeons & Dragons-themed expansions -- and then died! It's too bad, but there's enough Heroscape stuff in my closet to keep me busy for years, the D&D foray added some interesting new rules (treasure glyphs, shadow spaces and Uncommon Heros) and I'm not even convinced that Heroscape is gone for good.

King Philip's War - 2 plays. This game prompted an unusual amount of mainstream press attention for a standard wargame when a newspaper journalist ginned up a little controversy about the game's topic among New England Indian tribes. The game itself is a nice little design with some interesting strategic decisions for players and opening a window to view an important, if obscure, episode in U.S. history. I hope to play it a few more times this year as there are some strategic lines I'd like to explore.

Napoleon's War - The 100 Days - 5 plays. The first out of the gate among the 2010 crop of Napoleonic battle games, this one builds off the popular system used in Hold the Line and the Wars for America series. Similar in scale and playing time to C&C: N, it will be interesting to see if it can hold its own now that the Borg game is out. It does have an advantage in set-up time over CC:N with the pre-printed maps and some find Borg's card-based section-restricted command system too artificial. I expect to get some more plays of this in as well, although I have to admit that CC:N has the edge with me.

Persian Incursion - 0 plays. By far the most serious wargame I bought in 2010. Persian Incursion examines the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program. This arrived late in the year but I'm trying to get a couple of plays in soon. While a stand-alone game that doesn't require Harpoon 4 to play, it's still pretty involved and not just a casual sit-down game.

2010 was a big year for Napoleonic battle games

For some reason 2010 turned out to give us a bumper crop of Napoleonic battle games, with Worthington Games' Napoleon's War, followed by Battles of Napoleon from Fantasy Flight and capped off with the eagerly anticipated Commands & Colors: Napoleonics.

All three games were recieved well in the hobby, and each is different enough that a real buff could be excused owning all three, but I have to say that I think the real winner in the bunch is C&C: Napoleonics. I'll go into more detail in a compative review I'm working on, but the bottom line is that C&C: N is simply a lot of fun to play. The Borg game engine has proven remarkably adaptable. All have proven to be very popular in both sales and generally. On Board Game Geek they rank (among wargames) at No. 5 (C&C: Ancients) No. 34 (Battlelore) No. 36 (Memoir '44) and No. 70 (Battle Cry). I expect CCN to join them all in the top 100 as soon as it gets enough votes, but the intitial ratings are very high and if they hold up it may very well end up above CCA. An expansion is already on the way.

The Worthington Game series that includes Napoleon's War has also proven popular among wargamers, although not a real cross-over success like Borg's designs. Still, it's also an entertaining play. This, too, already has a couple of expansions in print.

The real question mark among the three is Battles of Napoleon. I think it's a very interesting game system and highly rated, but it seems a little too involved for some tastes and I wonder if its sales will support any expansions. While it's not the only history-based wargame in the Fantasy Flight line (which also includes Tide of Iron and Wings of War), I'm not sure that it's a comfortable fit for FFG's usual market. Will it survive?

No talent pimping of Napoleon's War

Napoleon's War: The 100 Days is the latest interation of the same game system seen in Hold the Line, and before that Clach for a Continent and For Honor and Glory. Many players of those earlier games had already converted the games to a figure-based approach, so it wasn't surprising that Worthington Games would take the plunge with NW and make it official.

Overall the presentation is nice, but I felt that they stopped a little short of making the most of the visual potential figures provide. Specifically, there were still quite a few cardboard counters cluttering the map. This didn't bother me over much, although I thought the counters were more functional than attractive.

So when I found out that the figures used in NW were the same ones used in Viktory II, and that more figures could be ordered, I decided this provided a chance to banish cardboard from the map.

The first thing to go would be the Dutch-Belgian counters, to be replaced with orange infantry figures. I decided to get some black figures to use for the Brunswickers as well. The Brunswickers were famous for their all-black uniforms.

Using counters for the horse artillery was unacceptably lame, but the Viktory pieces come in just three varieties: infantry, cavalry and artillery, so there remained the problem of differentiating the horse guns from the rest. Horse artillery units often used bronze guns instead of iron because bronze was lighter, so I painted a few guns with bronze. I also ordered some extra French in order to be able to field the Guard and Heavy Cavalry units. These were marked with some red paint to set them apart from their ordinary colleagues, red being a color often used to show elite troops in Napoleonic era games. This posed a problem for marking the British Heavy cavalry for the Waterloo scenario, of course. I decided to borrow the solution used by System 7 Napoleonics, which used white to replace a color whenever there would be a case of the same color being used on top of itself.

I also wanted to replace the cardboard commanders. It turns out that Litko offers a set of 20 customized plastic counters that come in a variety of shapes and colors and can hold up to 12 characters of text. I chose a flag-shaped plastic marker and suitable colors for the four nations represented: blue French, red British, grey Prussian and orange Dutch. Each counter includes the leader's bonus (+1 to +3) and name, although I had to cheat a little with Wellington's long name and he became "The Duke." There are a total of 13 leaders between the scenarios (Ney, Wellington and Napoleon appear twice each, while Blucher is in three!) so I filled out the remainder of the 20 with other markers for rifles, lights, CAPs and turn.

Finally I orderd some D3 dice from Chessex. One was included in Hold the Line and I was a little disppointed to see Napoleon's War go back to a D6 roll divided by 2. I don't care for unnecessary mental computations. I just want to roll a 1, 2 or 3, darn it.

Overall I like the effect, although I missed the skirmishers, which still require cardboard chits.

Here is the cardboardless Waterloo scenario set up with orange DB infantry, Litko leaders, and painted Guard infantry and Heavy Cavalry.

The allure of toy soldiers -- plastic beats paper

While the traditional counter-based wargame hobby chugs along with a number of fascinating new titles appearing each year, not to mention a steady diet of games from Strategy & Tactics and Against All Odds, sales and hobby buzz seem to definitely lie in the realm of toy soldiers and their cousins, wooden blocks.

There's little doubt that figure-based wargames such a s Axis & Allies and Memoir '44 have sales figures many times higher than counter-based games. Wooden block games have also seen in creased interest, whether they simply use blocks to replace figures such as in Commands & Colors or they use the Columbia fog-of-war feature, these also seem to generate more enthusiasm.

Consider, for example, Hold the Line vs. Napoleons War. Now HTL is a popualr and well-done hex-and counter game that's seen better-than average success. Indeed, it's physical quality is among the best seen in hex-and-counter games, with a mounted map, German-style box and thick, full-color counters. In some ways Napoleon's War represents a step back, with a nice, but not quite as sturdy box, thinner informational counters and unmounted cardstock maps. But it has figures -- toy soldiers -- and it sold out upon release! Just sayin' ... .

Napoleon's War: The 100 Days review

2010 looks to be a big year for Ol' Nappy, with no fewer than three battle-oriented figure based games planned for release. Each is planned as the first in a new game series.

First out of the gate, by about a month, was Worthington Games' Napoleon's War: The 100 Days.

Based on WG's popular Hold the Line game, which in turn was based on WG's earlier Wars for America series games, Napoleon's War is a quick-playing, beer and pretzels war game, with a decided emphasis on the game portion. These are not detailed studies or simulations. That said, they also pay more than passing reference to the history behind the scenarios and are definitely wargames, not just war-themed games.

Napoleon's War is a further evolution of the well-tried HTL system, with some changes to account for the differences between the North American theater and European warfare. For one thing, there's a difference in scale. In some Napoleon's War scenarios a single 3-figure unit will represent more troops than an entire Hold the Line scenario represents on both sides. In North American warfare artillery and cavalry units were scarce and played secondary roles on the battlefield. In Napoleon;s War both horse and guns are more common and more powerful.

The basic structure of the game is intact, however. Players act through allocating "activations" to units. Generally one command action point (CAP) will allow a unit to move or fire. Spending a second CAP will allow infantry units to move an additional time and allow infantry and cavalry to conduct close combat. The number of CAP a side has will be 4 plus half the sum of a die roll, so 5-7. Losing leaders can reduce this amount.

Casualties are reflected by removing figures. The typical infantry unit has 3 figures and can therefor take 3 hits. British units have 4, while the Dutch have just 2. Some French Elite units have a counter that adds +2 "virtual" figures to a unit for the purposes of morale and absorbing hits. Artillery units have 2 figures, as do Cavalry units, although there are some "heavy" cavalry units that get +1 or +2 counters that again add virtual steps for morale and casualty purposes.

Losses don't directly affect firepower, which is usually 3 dice per shot, reduced for terrain effects. This is a significant change from HTL, where terrain reduce the effect of each die roll. Now terrain effects the number of dice rolled. The end result is that terrain is less protective in NW. Often in HTL a unit couldn't fire at all at a target in woods at long range, but in NW there's still a chance for a hit.

What casualties do is reduce morale. Most morale checks require rolling against the number of figures in a unit, so hits will reduce a unit's ability to do things like form square, rally losses or hold its ground in the face of a close combat.

Some optional rules add in flavor points such as skirmishers, British rifle troops, etc. There are also some additional optional rules for even more detailed treatment of skirmishers, so players can tailor the amount of detail to their liking. Even the most detailed version of the rules is not very complex by wargame standards, however, and they don't add much to the playing time.

That playing time is probably one of the best features of the game. Generally players can expect to finish any of the scenarios in about an hour or so, including setup. Gone are the terrain tiles that provide so much flexibility in HTL, at the cost of setup time. Instead there are four maps, each with all the terrain and set-up information already printed on them. Given the fact there are just three basic unit types and a handful of counters needed, it should take less than five minutes to get going. Turns will move quickly and even the longer scenarios should reach a decision in an hour, so you could probably play all four Waterloo battles in a single evening.

Of the four scenarios, the two British ones (Waterloo and Quatre Bras) are the best. Both appear to be tense battles that either side can win. Ligny is a straightforward slugfest between two very evenly matched armies, although one might want to allow a draw as a result in order to discourage the Prussian player from simply running out the clock by pulling back. The Wavre scenario's victory conditions make it impossible for the French to win. I would suggest giving the French 1 VP for every Prussian unit remaining on the map to encourage the Prussians to send Wellington adequate help. As it stands the Prussian can win by exiting a single unit and using the rest of their army to make sure the French don't exit any.

Napoleon's War may be competing for gamer dollars with the two other figure-based releases planed this year.

In the case of Battles of Napoleon: The Eagle and the Lion, these are really complementary rather than competitive games. While both have figures, Battles of Napoleon is definitely a step up in complexity and playing time, while being a step down the chain of command. In Battles of Napoleon units generally represent battalions or regiments, while Napoleon's War units are brigades or divisions.

While it's not out yet, the general scope of Commands & Colors: Napoleonics is pretty clear and it's much more a direct competitor to Napoleon's War. (Yes, I know C&C:N will be using icon blocks instead of figures, but they are functionally the same). Both game systems appeal to the same gamer demographic but up until now they have not directly competed on topic. There are Commands & Colors games on almost everything except warfare in North America between 1759 and 1815. It will be interesting to see if the marked can an support both. Worthington Games came out first, but C&C:N has the more marketing muscle behind it.

So far I like Napoleon's War, but I have to admit the jury has to be out until C&C:N appears as to whether I'll keep up with the NW system.

OK, I'm officially impressed with Battles of Napoleon

The physical size of the box is imposing as it hogs shelf space with suitable Napoleonic narcissism.
Yeah, it's a hundred dollar game, but when you open the box you definitely feel like you got a at least a hundred dollars worth of game.

It's probably just as well that Worthington Games beat this one out of the gate. While not bad by wargame standards, WG's Napoleon's War can't hold a candle to Fantasy Flight's Battles of Napoleon. To be fair, they're definitely aimed at a different level of play.

Worthington's game is a light wargame that allows you to refight the entire battle of Waterloo or Ligny in an hour or so. It's a broad brush treatment.

The Battles of Napoleon moves down into the weeds a bit, to create a Napoleonic wargame that's akin to FFG's earlier Tide of Iron in complexity and intricacy, although it's not the same game system at all. Still, Battles of Napoleon focuses the telescope a bit, so the player is cast in the role of Napoleonic corps or division commander, rather than the entire army. For example, there are three scenarios in Battles of Napoleon depicting different episodes from the Battle of Waterloo, whereas the entire battle of Waterloo is a single scenario in Napoleon's War. Similarly, the single Quatre Bras scenario of NW becomes two scenarios in Battles of Napoleon.

As far as the physical presentation goes, all I can say is Oh. My. God.

Inside the huge box are 200 figures, stands for all of them, a large counter sheet of double thickness game markers and terrain hex tiles, two player aid folders, a rule book, a scenario books with 10 scenarios, two decks of glorious full-color cards for leaders, units and actions, four double-sided battlefield maps and an insert to hold it all.

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.

Reprint planned for Napoleon's War

While unsurprising, considering the first run sold out instantly, Worthington Games ahs announced it's taking preorders for a reprint of Napoleon's War: The 100 Days.

This makes sense. Might as well strike while the iron is hot. There are three similar figure-based Napoleonic games coming out this year and NW is both first and least expensive.

The FFG and GMT version are also likely to offer a bit more in the way of bling, so Worthington is wise to stake out first-comers ground.

First impressions review of Napoleon's War: The First 100 Days

Based on two plays with novice wargamers just outof the box, I have to say that I think Napoleon's War: The 100 Days succeeds as an entertaining light wargame suitable for sucking in new players while being enjoyable for grognards as a filler game.

Based on the same general system as Hold the Line, Clash for a Continent and For Honor and Glory, Napoleon's War: The 100 Days is roughly the same level of complexity. While it has a few special wrinkles (such as infantry squares and skirmishers) to reflect the changes in warfare between the linear warfare of the earlier games and the Napoleonic era the new rules are straightforward and introduce minimal complexity to the design.

The more involved rules are added as "intermediate rules" and can be left out when playing with new players. The most involved rules are presented as "Kevin Duke's Advanced Skirmisher Rules" and take up nearly a whole page of the 8-page rulebook, but in truth they are still pretty simple by wargame standards and I expect that experienced wargamers will use them.

The heart of the game system is the use of Command Action Points. Each player starts with a base number of CAPs (typically 4) and adds 1-3 more CAPs based on a die roll. Each CAP can be used to activate a single unit to move or fire. An additional CAP can be expended to allow an infantry unit to move again or to allow and infantry or cavalry unit to charge into shock combat.

Combat is resolved by rolling 3 dice with "sixes" generally inflicting a hit. Artillery firing at close range and infantry and cavalry in shock combat have an increased chance to hit, while certain terrain effects and other conditions may add or subtract dice.

Hits remove figures from the target unit, similar to the system used in Borg's Commands & Colors system. Higher quality units such as British infantry have 4 figures per unit while more fragile units such as most cavalry, artillery and Dutch-Belgian infantry have just 2 figures. Regular infantry has three figures. Some units such as Heavy Cavalry and Elite infantry get a chit that essentially can absorb more hits. I found this the least graphically satisfactory element of the design. It seems less elegant than simply having more figures would. Leaders are also represented by cardboard counters instead of figures.

The figures themselves are nice, although generic, busby-wearing infantry, cavalry and guns in hard plastic. The nations are differentiated by color, blue for France, Red for Britain and Grey for Germans.

Unlike the Commands and Colors games or the earlier games in the Hold the Line series every battle in Napoleon's War comes with its own map, instead of a blank map and terrain tiles. This makes set up a little easier but reduces the scope for player-designed scenarios. The maps themselves are double-sided on sturdy card stock. The maps do not link and can't all be used at the same time Napoleon's Last Battles style.

The unit, ground and time scales are all undefined and vague as is the usual style with this sort of game. Instead each scenario is set up to give each side around a dozen to a dozen and a half units. At Waterloo, for example, each infantry unit appears to represnt about a division while at Quatre Bras they seem to be brigade-sized.

As is unfortunately often the case with small publishers, the rules seem to have needed a little more proofreading. There are some misspellings ("Belgiam"), unclear scenario rules (reinforcement entry ares in Quatres Bras and how CAPs are allocated between allies at Waterloo) but nothing an experienced wargamer can't work through.

There are plans for additional games in the series that will bring in the Russians, Austrians and Spanish and scenario packs with more maps, but the basic game provides a nice introductory 4-game set of wargames. I had no trouble explaining the rules to two nonwargamer players who were able to play competently and enjoy the game on the first go. Playing time seems to be well within the 1-2 hours promised by the box so you can probably play all four battles in an evening's worth of gaming.

All-in-all I'd recommend this to anyone who has enjoyed Worthington Games' earlier games or Borg's designs.

Napoleon's War out of the box

Some initial impressions after having opened the box.

The figures are a little smaller than the Memoir '44/Battle Cry sized figures seen in most games. They are made of a haad plastic with should hold its shape well but will not be forgiving of off-the-table foot mishaps.

The counters are well die-cut and serviceable, if a little on the boring side as far as graphics go.

The scenario cards, player a aid card and rules are all in full color and look really nice.

The maps are larger than I thought they'd be and are double-sided and very sturdy cardstock.

This is definitely a set of four single battle scenarios. The maps of each battlefield are focused on that battle and do not link. Quatre Bras is on the reverse side of the Waterloo map and Wavre is on the reverse side of the Ligny map, so there will be no Napoleon's Last Battles style campaign game possible. There are also not enough figures to fight more than one battle at a time. Nothing in the Worthington Games literature indicated any of this might be possible, but I wanted to mention it in case anyone was assuming that the four battles were linkable in any way.

Napoleon's War arrives

Well, this is a pleasant surprise. Napoleon's War: The 100 Days arrived today, so it did make it for the 100th anniversary of the battles!

Now to try it out!

Napoleon's War sold out

Worthington Games reports that Napoleon's War is already sold out and they are considering a reprint.

I'm a little surprised at that caveat "considering,," as there is obviously a lot of interest.

Still, WG is a small publisher and I wouldn't presume to second-guess their business decisions.

For gamers, though this strongly implies that current owners will have a long period of exclusivity.