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.

Napoleon's Battles session report

I accepted the post of overall commander for the Russian side in Pater Landry's Battle of Eylau scenario for Napoleon's Battles at this weekend's Havoc convention.
Only two of us on the Russian side had played before. The other experienced player took command of the Advanced Guard under Bagration. The pre-game intent was that I would be in overall command and take direct control of the Prussian detachment under Lestocq when it arrived.
The three inexperienced players shared control of the seven independent divisions in the Russian center and right. (The Russians were not using a corps level of command yet in 1807, which meant some command control problems).
My instructions for Bagration were simple, if difficult to achieve. He was to conduct a delaying action, trading space for time while preserving his force. I expected the French main effort to be on the right flank under Davout and Murat.
The center divisions were to hold in place until the French committed themselves, then look for an opportunity to advance.
I did give them one tactical instruction which proved to be very important. Normally in black powder era warfare (and NB is no exception) it's not cost-effective to engage in counterbattery fire. I do, however, think there's times when this rule should be broken. One of those is when one side has a big advantage in firepower and can concentrate the fire of two or three batteries on one. In this battle the French have only four batteries of 12-pounders, spread all along their front. The Russians have TWELVE 12-pounder batteries. So I told my commanders to try to neutralize the French guns if they could.
This worked out better than expected, because the commanders in the French center took a passive approach and sat under the artillery fire for most of the game without trying to get close. Worse, the French also tried to deploy a grand battery of Imperial Guard horse artillery (five batteries) in front of the Russian line, which promptly got shot up before they could accomplish anything.
The Advance Guard commander did an excellent job and when the first session ended he had managed to delay the French advance while losing almost nothing.
The lack of action on the rest of the battlefield was starting to work against the French because the burden of attack was on them and they were not making sufficient progress.
With the change of session we had to reshuffle commands a bit, with Pete taking over the Prussians while I replaced the advance guard commander. The French also got a new commander, who was far more aggressive than the morning guy.
The afternoon session saw much more aggressive attacks all across the front from the French, which made some progress, but the lack of artillery was a big hindrance.
When the game ended there appeared little prospect of the French taking enough of the geographical objectives to win.
They held Althoff, Eylau, Serpallen and Klein Sausgarten for a total of 160 victory points. The Rusisan were in very firm control of Schmoditten and Schloditten for 352 points. The only question was the fate of Kutschitten. It was held by a brigade of Russian grenadiers and had already repulsed a major corps-sized attack, but the French commander was certain he could take the village. Even with those 115 VPs, however, the French would fall short.
The post-mortem comments seemed to agree that both sides were too passive in the center and Russian right/French left, although I think that tended to help the Russians, given that the burden of attack was on the French. Likewise, most of the other game participants seemed dubious about the counterbattery tactic,. although I think it paid dividends in this case. Part of the reason why everyone agreed that Schoditten and Schmoditten were unlikely to fall was that the French had very few infantry available to assault the towns and NO heavy guns for support. The French did have a lot of cavalry on that flank, but they were of no use for taking any towns.
Peter Landry said he has run The Battle of Eylau several times, with each game being very different. It's a good convention game, with both sides evenly matched.
Napoleon's Battles, as always, provided a good game with a nice balance of historical authenticity and playability.