Map and Counters

Back on 11 November of last year, I posted an invitation for those of my readers who were interested to sign-up for the 'STALINGRAD' PBeM Tournament which was then being organized by a small group of this "classic" East Front game's 'devotees' over at Consimworld. I am pleased to report that the response to this first tournament announcement was strong enough that a few of us die-hard 'grognards' have decided to follow up on this first effort with a second, similar PBeM Tournament for WATERLOO. However, this time around, because most of the 'STALINGRAD' PBeM Tournament participants ended up being Americans, I want to make a special point of calling on my many overseas visitors to consider participating in this newest PBeM event. Call me old-fashioned, but I think, given that this year marks the 50^th anniversary of Avalon Hill's WATERLOO, that it would be especially fitting if this special event — besides counting among its number the usual batch of American 'grognards' — also included at least a few participants (it is your history we're talking about, after all) from France, Germany, England, and the Low Countries.

After being ignored by the majority of traditional tournament organizers for decades, it looks like Avalon Hill's classic game, WATERLOO, is finally making a comeback of sorts among contemporary gamers. Avalon Hill's 1962 release,WATERLOO, has, of course, been a staple tournament offering at the WBC Convention for many years; however, as a sign of this game's reviving popularity among players, both young and old, it was also added to the competitive schedule of this year's PrezCon for the first time. So, to celebrate this modest resurgence in populararity, a 50^th Anniversary PBeM WATERLOO tournament will soon be getting under way thanks to the ad hoc efforts of a number of the game's many fans over at the Consimworld WATERLOO Forum . This tournament, as I noted above, is actually a spin-off of the still-running STALINGRAD PBeM Tournament that began in December of 2011; and among those who will be helping to get this project off the ground are long-time players such as Joe Angiolillo, Rob Beyma, Ed Menzel, and myself (just to name a few). The good news for prospective participants is that the tournament will be free. And while a few administrative details still need to be worked out, the general outlines of the tournament are already taking shape.

British Waterloo medal

For starters, to maximize the gaming opportunities of the participating players, this soon-to-get-underway WATERLOO competition — like the STALINGRAD PBeM Tournament currently in progress — will be organized along the lines of a "Swiss" style multi-round tournament so that players who suffer an early defeat will still have a chance to fight their way back and to gain a shot at making it into the "final four". In addition, because of the well-known pro-Prussian/Anglo-Allied (PAA) bias associated with the standard version of WATERLOO, several special tournament rules have been added to even the playing field for the French players. As might be expected, the 2^nd edition (1978) WATERLOO rules will be in effect. However, a 7pm turn will be added to each campaign day, and the standard game's five day Turn Record Track will be shortened to four days; that is: all of the matches in this tournament will end with the PAA portion of the 7pm June 19^th game turn (28 game turns), instead of at the conclusion of its standard final 20 June 5pm game turn (30 game turns). In addition to this modest adjustment to the tournament game's Turn Record Track, the French player — to further improve play-balance — will (on a one-time basis) be allowed, prior to the commencement of each new match, to stipulate whether both players will be required to use the traditional D6 Avalon Hill Combat Results Table, or whether the D10 "Postal" Combat Results Table (a "downloadable" file of this CRT will be made available for those players who do not already possess their own copy) will instead be used to resolve ALL combats for the duration of the game in question.

As things now stand, the actual PBeM game platform to be used in individual tournament matches will be left to the players to decide among themselves (please note that there are several gaming sites that currently support WATERLOO play, including VASSAL, Aide de Camp (ADC), Cyberboard, and Zun Tzu; in those situations where there are compatibility or download problems, however, rather than being locked-out of this competition, players will be able to fall back on a spreadsheet format such as the one already posted on this blog. TRICKS OF THE TRADE: ‘WATERLOO’ PBeM PLAY AID

As indicated previously, there are still a few tournament details left to be worked out (e.g., the actual number of "Swiss" rounds to be played, and the maximum time limit to be allowed to complete each round, among other things), but most of the more important elements of the tournament seem to be rapidly falling into place. For those readers who would like to visit the Consimworld WATERLOO Forum in order to peruse the tournament discussion which is currently still in progress, a link has been provided at the bottom of this page. Please note that new visitors can drop in on any of the Consimworld Forums at any time, without having to formally join the forum community; however, if a "guest" decides to participate directly in the ongoing discussions in one or more of these game-related groups, then he or she is encouraged to sign up with this popular Internet wargaming destination and, if possible, to make a modest contribution to the hosting site, Consimworld.

Last but not least, those visitors to "Map and Counters" who would either like more information about this once-in-a-lifetime gaming event, or who would actually like to sign up for the 50^th Anniversary PBeM WATERLOO Tournament, are invited to address their inquiries to the tournament's game master, Joe Angiolillo, at: angiolillo_joseph@hotmail.com.

Consimworld WATERLOO Forum: http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX/.ee6d37c/907

If it's not one thing, it's another. No sooner did I make the announcement on "Map and Counters" that I would shortly have a couple of new posts finished and ready to publish than my blog site "host", for reasons about which I am still unclear, took it upon itself to lock me out of the editing function of the "Blogger" dashboard. This meant that, not only could I not edit any of my existing posts, but I also could not access any of the unpublished essays that were currently stored on the dashboard in "draft" form. Needless-to-say, I was a tiny bit nonplussed by this unexpected and unwelcome hitch in my publishing schedule.

Fortunately, someone at the Blogger Help Forum was able to help me fix this irritating little problem and, although I am back online somewhat later than I had originally planned, I am, thankfully, finally able to resume my posting of fresh material again. And while I have other, more original essays in the "on deck circle", I thought that I would start my latest batch of new posts by publishing — in answer to a request from one of my regular readers — this rather handy (in my view, at least) WATERLOO Player Aid.

WATERLOO will mark its fiftieth birthday this year; which, to those of us who were actually around when this and other of the early Avalon Hill classics first appeared, is a sobering thought, indeed. Nonetheless, in spite of it age, its sometimes "quaint" rules (stacking limitations, for example, are based on numbers of factors, not numbers of units), and its uninspired graphics, this Charles Robert's treatment of Napoleon's ill-fated 1815 campaign still enjoys an enthusiastic following within the grognard community (me included) even now. The game's overall scale (mainly divisional level, with two hour game turns) and the problems that it presents to its players (a concentrated French army marching against an initially dispersed and outnumbered Coalition army composed of Prussian and Anglo-Allied forces) are the stuff of truly great wargaming.

Wellington and Blucher meet after the Battle of Waterloo

Unfortunately, like many of the other titles that emerged during the early days of conflict simulation design, WATERLOO is not without its faults. Putting aside, for a moment, the relatively drab (by today's standards) appearance of its unit counters and its occasionally ambiguous map design, the game's main playability problem was that, although the spaced-out turn-by-turn arrival of Prussian/Anglo-Allied (PAA) reinforcements is a key element in the game's dynamic, no easy-to-use PAA Reinforcement Track was included with the published game. This meant that, prior to play, the PAA player — with only the "itty-bitty" print on an "Order of Appearance" card to go by — had to pick his or her way through seventy-eight counters (not to mention a slew of blanks and largely useless leader units) in order to first find and then arrange the specific Coalition units that were scheduled to enter at various points on the map and on different turns, as the game progressed. Needless-to-say, because of the extra set-up time involved and the potential for mistakes, this was a royal pain. Moreover, carefully inscribing the backs of all of the PAA unit counters (an expedient which many of us who played the game regularly quickly resorted to) both with their arrival hex and their turn of entry, although modestly useful when it came to shortening set-up time, was no guarantee against reinforcement problems caused by player error or (the bane of wargamers everywhere) missing counters. In the case of my own college wargaming group, one of my friends finally became so exasperated over this issue that he laboriously created (by organizing the actual game pieces on the platten of the copy machine in the library) two "Order of Appearance" charts: one each for the PAA and for the French players. Interestingly, the charts produced by my creative friend's long-ago efforts turned out so well that — although they are now badly faded from age — I still use them to this day.

Of course, for those fans of WATERLOO who could not rely on the industry or sheer perserverence of someone like my college friend, this set-up problem (and the aforementioned others associated with the game) continued to fester untreated, year after year. That is until 1978: in that year, Avalon Hill — thanks to the yeoman efforts of Bruno Sinigaglio — in answer to player questions and complaints, at last got around to issuing a cleaned-up "Second Edition" version of the game's rules. Amazingly enough, at around the same time — better late than never, I suppose — the "Boys in Baltimore" also finally turned their attention to solving the long-running WATERLOO Order of Appearance problem by publishing a "PAA Reinforcement Track" as an insert in The General. It is a scan of that insert that I now offer in a "downloadable" form here. It is my hope that, for those players (both old and new) who still find WATERLOO as fascinating and challenging as I do, this player aid will add to their enjoyment of this great old game.

Waterloo Reinforcement Chart Play Aid PDF File

Waterloo Reinforcement Chart Play Aid PDF

NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES is a set of four games, each of which simulates a different battle in Napoleon's short-lived 1815 campaign against the British and Prussian armies in Belgium. Each of the games that make up the NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES Quadrigame can be played individually, or they can be combined to allow players to simulate the entire three-day campaign. The four major engagements depicted in this collection are the battles of LIGNY, QUATRE BRAS, WAVRE, and LA BELLE ALLIANCE (WATERLOO). All of the games in this set, including the CAMPAIGN GAME, were designed by Kevin Zucker. NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES was first published by Simulations Publications, Inc. (SPI) in 1976. This game was later reissued (with some modifications), first under the TSR label, and then by Decision Games.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Napoleon addresses his Guard,  Battle of Waterloo

Napoleon Bonaparte's fateful decision to cross into Belgium at the head of a French army on June 15, 1815 was — based on the cold realities of France’s strategic situation — probably his only viable option. Military action was clearly required; diplomacy was, at least temporarily, out of the question. The Emperor's former enemies, by their rapid and hostile response to his reappearance in France, had made it abundantly clear that they would not tolerate his return to the throne. Thus, after Bonaparte’s surprise escape from exile on Elba and his triumphant arrival in France on March 1^st 1815, the member nations — England, Prussia, Austria, and Russia — of the same reactionary Great Coalition that had defeated and deposed him over eleven months earlier, quickly scrambled — within the space of a few days — to convene an emergency meeting in Vienna to deal with the renewed French threat. From Vienna, they formally declared Napoleon to be an “outlaw” and demanded his abdication and the restoration (yet again) of the Bourbon monarchy. To back up their demands of March 13^th — which they knew Bonaparte would disregard — the individual member nations of the Coalition pledged to immediately begin to raise fresh armies of 150,000 men each for a renewed war against the “Corsican Ogre”.



Field Marshal Prince Blücher von Wahlstadt


Confronted by an alliance that, when fully assembled, would outnumber his own forces by more than four-to-one, Napoleon decided to strike first. Gathering what available troops could be spared from other fronts, some 123,000 men in all, Napoleon force marched his newly-raised Armée du Nord towards the enemy encampments near the French border and, on the 15^th of June, stole across the Sambre River into Belgium. Once his army had advanced within striking-distance of his enemies, Bonaparte’s plan of campaign, based on his theory of the “central position,” was simple: he would drive the Armée du Nord between the dispersed bivouacs of Wellington and Blücher, and then defeat each enemy army in turn before they could combine their forces against him.

DESCRIPTION

NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES is a grand-tactical (brigade level) simulation — based on the popular NAPOLEON AT WATERLOO Game System — of the four separate battles fought between Coalition and French forces during Napoleon's short-lived 1815 campaign against the Prussian and British armies in Belgium. The combat units represent the actual military formations that took part in the historical campaign, and up to two combat units (unlike some other NAW-based titles) may stack together in the same hex. Each of the four-color game maps depicts one of four different areas in Belgium over which the opposing armies maneuvered and fought during the most critical days of the campaign; that is: the period beginning with the 16^th and running through the 18^th of June, 1815. The terrain displayed on the game maps is relegated to ten different types: Clear, Forest and Marsh, Crest Hexsides, Roads, Trails, Chateaux Hexes, Towns, River Hexsides, Stream Hexsides, and Bridges. Roads accelerate movement, trails and bridges allow movement through otherwise difficult (or blocking terrain), and forests and marshes slow movement and also halve the attack or defense strength of cavalry units. Towns, streams, and bridges double the strength of any defending units occupying them. "Chateux" hexes represent a special case: these virtual fortresses permit no stacking, but do triple the defense strength of any single INFANTRY unit (only) garrisoning them. In addition, these defensive hexes cannot be bombarded and adjacent enemy units need not be attacked by units in chateux hexes. Infantry units defending in chateux hexes also enjoy other defensive advantages: enemy attacks at 4 to 1 or greater odds are resolved as 4 to 1's, and retreat results do not affect the defender.

The specific game-related actions of each player in NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES are organized into a sequence of game turns which are composed of a French and a Prussian and/or Anglo-Allied player turn. Each player turn is further divided into a Movement Phase followed by a Combat Phase; the French player is always the first to act in all scenarios and in the Campaign Game. Game turns, because of the multi-day duration of the campaign, are of two types: "daylight" game turns which represent one hour of real time; and "night" game turns which are three hours in length. As is typical of other games in this series, zones of control (ZOCs) are sticky, and units may only exit an enemy ZOC as a result of combat (either through retreat or elimination). Combat between adjacent enemy units is mandatory, and the phasing (attacking) player must engage all enemy units which are adjacent to his or her own. Combat may, at the discretion of the phasing player, take one of two forms: direct assault (with adjacent units of any type); and bombardment attacks (which may be conducted by artillery units at a range of two hexes). In all attacks in which the defender is either eliminated or forced to retreat — with the single exception of assaults against "chateaux" hexes — the attacker may (but is not required to) advance ONE of the victorious attacking units into the newly-vacated hex.

The Combat Results Table of NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES is heavily weighted in favor of "attacker" and "defender" retreats, and neither "defender elims" (D elim) nor "exchanges" (Ex) appear until the attacker has achieved odds of 4 to 1 or better. Because of the relatively "bloodless" nature of the game's CRT, the key to tactical success in NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES, as it is in the other games of this series, is the "surrounded" attack: that is, a planned sequence of assaults in which the phasing player uses successful advances from other attacks to surround a target unit with units and ZOCs and, via a subsequent retreat result, eliminate it.

In addition to the game's Standard Rules, NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES also includes a pair of "Optional Rules" which can be added, at the players' discretion, in the interests of added realism. These special "Optional" rules are: the Combined Arms Attack rule which permits the attacker to shift the odds of any attack one column to the right (i.e., a 1 to 1 becomes a 2 to 1) if the target hex is being assaulted by a force containing infantry, cavalry, and artillery; and the Imperial Guard rule which stipulates that if any infantry unit (Guard cavalry and artillery units are exempt) belonging to the French Imperial Guard is involved in a combat that results in an "attacker elim" (A Elim), an "attacker retreat" (AR), or an "exchange" (Ex), the French Demoralization level is immediately reduced by twenty points. It should be noted that, in the course of regular play, both "Optional" rules actually tend to benefit the P.A.A. player; nonetheless, once players have become familiar with the basic game system — because these rules add an interesting (and challenging) element of historical "realism" to the game — it is strongly recommended that both be incorporated into play.

Players win in NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES by inflicting a certain level of casualties on the opposing force or forces. This casualty requirement will vary from scenario to scenario, and from army to army. Moreover, it can take one of two forms: Demoralization, which, in the case of the French, results in their immediate defeat, but in the case of both the Anglo-Allies and the Prussians merely eliminates their ability to advance after combat; and Disintegration (requiring a higher number of casualties than that of Demoralization) which immediately signals the defeat of the P.A.A. force or forces involved in the action.

The four games that make up the NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES Quadrigame — as previously noted — all utilize a similar mix of game components, and all are governed by the same set of Standard Rules. However, because the circumstances in each of the four historical engagements are different, each simulation also lists its own short set of Victory Conditions (typically in the form of "Demoralization" and "Disintegration" levels) specific to that game. Needless-to-say, this uniformity in design makes it effortless to move from one game to the next in this set without requiring the players to do any additional preparation or study. Moreover, each title, although similar to its counterparts in structure and presentation, still offers a different and unique gaming experience. And for those players who have both the time and the desire to refight the entire campaign, NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES offers that option as well. The Campaign Game, however, unlike the shorter scenarios, utilizes all four game maps, all of the historical units from all three armies (a unit manifest is included with the special Campaign Game rules), and covers the most critical three days that followed Napoleon's crossing of the Sambre into Belgium in 1815. In addition, the expanded game also introduces new (and fairly detailed) rules to cover command and control, supply, and post-combat unit reorganization. Finally, it should be noted that the simulations in this series are all designed to be about average in complexity, and playing times for the shorter, one-map games will typically vary from two to three hours; playing time for the four-map, thirty-seven turn Campaign Game, on the other hand, will typically run about fifteen hours or more.

THE INDIVIDUAL GAMES

LIGNY (16 June 1815)
is a simulation of the first major battle of Napoleon's 1815 campaign. The Prussian commander, Field Marshal Prince Blücher von Wahlstadt — instead of retiring in the face of the unexpected French advance — chose to offer battle near the town of Ligny. The Prussian positions were generally strong with the main part of the Prussian army deployed around the village of Ligny and on the high ground to the northwest of the town. As a further barrier to enemy movements, a series of shallow streams wove through and around the town; collectively these were known as Ligny Brook. In addition to favorable terrain, Blücher's command, which totaled about 84,000 men and 224 guns, actually outnumbered the opposing French forces, which numbered only 75,000 men and 212 guns. Nonetheless, the French — under the personal direction of Napoleon and undeterred by their foe's numerical advantage — commenced an assault against the Prussian line at about two o'clock in the afternoon. For much of the day, the Prussians held their attackers at bay; however, because of the exposed positions of many of the Prussian units, the French artillery was able to exact a terrible toll on Blücher's troops. By evening, the Prussians had committed the last of their reserves and the entire army was nearing the limit of its endurance; at this point, and with the light rapidly fading, Napoleon ordered the elite infantry of the Imperial Guard forward supported by a division of heavy cavalry. The Prussian line bent and then buckled in the face of this last ferocious assault. Fortunately for Blücher, who had been injured when his horse fell on him late in the action, darkness allowed the beaten Prussians to withdraw unmolested and in relatively good order: the victorious French were too exhausted to organize a pursuit until the next morning. Prussian losses were heavy with probably somewhere between 12-20,000 killed, wounded, and captured, while another 8-10,000 abandoned the fight completely and deserted for home. French casualties were considerably lower, with most estimates placing Napoleon's losses at around 6,500-7,000 men killed and wounded. Ligny, there can no doubt, was a significant French tactical success; unfortunately, it had not been the decisive victory that Napoleon had needed. The Prussian army had been badly mauled; but its escape under cover of darkness guaranteed that it would survive to fight another day, and that day would come much sooner than Napoleon expected.

QUATRE BRAS (16 June 1815)
depicts the action at Quatre Bras between the advanced guard of Wellington's Anglo-Allied army (ultimately reinforced to about 36,000 men) and the left wing of the Armée du Nord (approximately 25,000 men) under Marshal Ney. Napoleon had instructed Ney to take possession of the vital crossroads at Quatre Bras to prevent Wellington from coming to the aid of his Prussian ally at Ligny. Unfortunately for the French, Marshal Ney, unsure as to the local strength of the Coalition forces to his front and awaiting reinforcements, postponed action for several critical hours. Finally, with no sign of the additional troops he had been promised (they were marching and counter-marching back and forth between Ligny and Quatre bras and would end up taking part in neither battle), Ney opened his assault at about 3:00 pm with a series of tentative and piecemeal attacks against what was, in the beginning, an out-numbered British (and Dutch-Belgian) detachment. The initial French advantage in rifle strength did not last, however, and although Ney's attacks were gradually able to push the enemy line back during the afternoon, the arrival on the scene both of the Duke of Wellington and of substantial Anglo-Allied reinforcements finally allowed the British, as evening approached, to counterattack the French all along the front. This assault, coming as a surprise to the tiring French troops, quickly succeeded both in wresting the initiative away from Ney, and in throwing the French back from all of the hard-won positions that they had gained earlier in the day. Ney's troops had had enough for the day, and fighting finally sputtered to an end at nightfall.
 

Battle of Quatre Bras

. While Wellington dithered away the morning — and in one of those inexplicable occurrences that seem to happen in wartime — Ney's forces, which were still bivouacked near Quatre Bras, made no move to interfere with the activities of the decamping British; yet, had Ney only renewed his attack before noon, then he would have pinned the Anglo-Allied army long enough for the rest of the Armée du Nord to arrive and overwhelm Wellington's greatly out-numbered forces. Such a French victory, on top of the one at Ligny, would have ended the campaign there and then. Fortunately for the British, the nearby French troops, instead of attacking, spent the morning around their campfires peacefully tending to the preparation of their breakfasts, while their commander — apparently oblivious to the opportunity that was unfolding before him — ordered no offensive action at all. Ney's failure to act throughout the morning of the 17^th would be one of the great "missed opportunities" of the campaign; unfortunately for the French Emperor, however, it would not be the last. So far as the action at Quatre Bras, itself, is concerned, although the numbers of troops involved in the fight for the crossroads were relatively small and the action short, both sides still lost approximately 4,000 men killed, wounded, and missing. Interestingly, the battle, while inconclusive could, in the end, be considered a French success: the British managed to retain possession of the crossroads, but they were, as Napoleon hoped, prevented from intervening on behalf of their ally at Ligny on the 16^th.
WAVRE (18 June 1815)
is a simulation of the battle between the right wing of the Armée du Nord, under Marshal Grouchy, and the Prussian rear guard, under General Baron von Thielmann. The troops under Thielmann, which numbered somewhere between 17,000 and 27,000 men (estimates vary widely), were tasked by Theilmann's commander, Marshal Blücher, with tying up the 33,000 men under Grouchy while the rest of the Prussian army marched to the aid of the Anglo-Allies at Waterloo. In this, the Prussian commander was successful. Grouchy, in one of the most controversial (if not incomprehensible) decisions of the entire campaign, chose — instead of immediately marching to the sound of the guns at Waterloo — to attack the Prussians to his immediate front. The casualties of the two armies were comparatively light; both the French and Prussians each losing only about 2,500 men killed and wounded. The battle of Wavre ended with a modest French victory, but Grouchy's chance to change history had slipped away. Instead, while his troops fought a largely pointless action against Thielmann's delaying forces at Wavre, the fate of the entire campaign was being decided on another battlefield only a few miles away.

LA BELLE ALLIANCE (18 June 1815)
depicts what is, perhaps, the most famous military engagement in European history, the Battle of Waterloo. The site at which the battle was fought, interestingly enough, had actually been pre-selected by Wellington during a tour of the Belgian countryside in the weeks leading up to the battle. The presence of several walled chateaux and the gently undulating lay of the ground had convinced the British commander that this patch of terrain offered excellent defensive advantages to the British and their Dutch-Belgian allies if they should ever be obliged to mount a defense of the Brussels Road. The site had only one worrisome defect: the forests that would likely be at the backs of a defender's lines would make the orderly retreat of an army from the battlefield, if it were defeated, next to impossible.

On the morning of 18 June 1815, the two opposing hosts, after having spent a rain-soaked night within earshot of each other, formed for battle. Wellington's polyglot army — which was composed of British regulars, Belgians, Dutch, and Nassauers — deployed along a low-lying set of ridges and in two walled chateaux (known locally as Hougomont and La Haye-Sainte) on the north side of the battlefield, while the French army took up positions along the high ground to the south. A shallow valley, cloaked with sodden rye grass, separated the two forces. In total numbers, the two belligerents were not that unevenly matched. Wellington commanded a force of some 24,000 British and 43,500 allied troops (approximately 67,700 men, in total) along with 156 guns; Napoleon's army was slightly larger, numbering roughly 72,000 Frenchmen with 246 guns. Although estimates of times vary, the two armies had probably largely completed their dispositions sometime around 9:00 am. Then, having taken their respective places on each side of the battlefield, an unexpected quiet settled over the massed ranks of both armies. Everyone stood stoically by and waited.

Wellington directs deployment from his famous position under the tree

The one that everyone, on both sides of the battlefield, waited for was Napoleon. The French Emperor had earlier inspected the rain-soaked fields of rye and, after conferring with his senior officers, had decided to delay the start of the French attack until the muddy ground had dried sufficiently that it would not seriously encumber his artillery and cavalry: the two arms in which he had a pronounced advantage over his British adversary. This decision, by Napoleon, to postpone the start of the battle would have fateful consequences later in the day. In the meantime, the "Iron Duke", having watched the French stand silently in their serried ranks for a time, dismounted and lay down to rest under a tree near the center of the British lines. Minutes turned into hours and then at 11:00 am — so unexpected as to be almost shocking — the sound of an artillery cannonade suddenly erupted on the French left. The one and only battle that would pit the two greatest generals of their age against each other had finally begun. And with its start, the fate of two great empires now depended on what would happen, in this small corner of Belgium, in the course of the next few hours.

A PERSONAL OBSERVATION

The NAPOLEON AT WATERLOO Game System, as I have noted a number of times before, is probably one of the most successful conflict simulation design platforms ever created. Besides being used in numerous SPI (and other publishers’) Napoleonic games, it has also been the foundation for the SPI BLUE & GRAY Civil War Quadrigames; in addition, it has showed up in at least one WWII title, BATTLE FOR GERMANY, and it has even appeared in a modern naval game, SPI’s 6^th FLEET. These games, whatever their differences, all share many of the same characteristics: they are easy and comparatively quick to play, full of action, and they usually model interesting and historically significant conflict situations.

British guards defending Hougomont, Battle of Waterloo

Such is the case with NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES. It would be difficult, even taking into account all of the military campaigns that have colored European history — both before and after Napoleon's ill-fated gamble in the spring of 1815 — to think of another military clash that possesses the same unique historical cachet, and the same sense of high drama as the Waterloo Campaign. Moreover, no other sequence of military actions has provoked more nagging what if (?) questions than those raised by the mistakes and bad luck that plagued Bonaparte's audacious and nearly successful attempt to save his throne in June of 1815. It is no wonder, then, that the Waterloo Campaign has been an obvious topic for game designers going all the way back to Avalon Hill's publication of Thomas Shaw's and Lindsley Schutz' WATERLOO in 1962. Thus, when it comes to Kevin Zucker's design treatment of this popular topic, the only real question to be asked is: does the modified NAPOLEON AT WATERLOO Game System used in this design offer players enough historical detail to permit the Campaign Game in NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES to work, both as a game and as a simulation. In my view, the answer is an emphatic, yes. There are, to be sure, far more detailed and, I would say, cumbersome simulations of the 1815 Campaign than this one available to those gamers who prefer a more complex simulation of the events of June 1815. However, for those players who are looking for a game with enough size and scope to simulate the entire campaign, but who do not want to commit months of their lives to a single gaming project, Kevin's design is probably for you. What I mean by this is that, almost alone among the many grand-tactical, multi-map monster games dealing with famous Napoleonic campaigns that are available today, this title is one of the very few that doesn’t require weeks of preparation and rules study before players feel knowledgeable enough about the game system to finally sit down and play.

French cavalry attack

Of course, along with a game's basic design platform, other factors also heavily weigh on whether a game will generate interest among the ranks of the gaming public. And since appealing graphics have become a steadily more important feature in game designs in recent years, I feel obliged to at least touch on the overall quality of the graphics in NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES. Given that the game was originally published in 1976, it should come as no surprise that it is not as visually striking as some of the newer Napoleonic titles currently making the rounds among gamers; nonetheless, in my view, the game's graphics presentation is both reasonably attractive and functional. The maps, as is typical of Simonsen's work during this period, are both nicely-rendered and unambiguous. The counters are simple but clearly-printed. And not inconsequentially, the Rule Books are well-organized and clearly-written, and the various charts and tables are all both easy-to-read and readily accessible. Finally, different players have different opinions when it comes to the old SPI plastic "flat pack" which, it turns out, was the original packaging used for NAPOLEON'S LAST BATTLES. Personally, I happen to like them, but for those gamers who don't, later versions of the game were packaged in cardboard boxes, rather than "flat packs".

Marshal Ney at Waterloo

So where does all this leave us when it comes to Kevin Zucker's (multi-map) take on the Waterloo Campaign? Certainly, as I indicated previously, NAPOLEON’S LAST BATTLES is not a particularly complicated game; yet, I believe that it does have enough historical ornament to be satisfying to any but the most dedicated, detail-obsessed monster game fanatics. Moreover, what it lacks in operational “nitty-gritty,” it more than makes up for in ease of learning and playability. Granted, this may not be the definitive conflict simulation of the Waterloo Campaign, but it is a heck of a lot of fun to play; and with four unique game situations, as well as the much longer Campaign Game, different battlefield strategies seem to emerge every time you begin the game anew. For this reason, I strongly recommend this title, both for those experienced players interested in the Napoleonic Wars generally, but also for casual gamers who enjoy a challenging, fun game that doesn’t require hours to figure out or to learn. For those players who are particularly interested in Napoleon's 1815 Campaign, and who also would like a game that doesn't require weeks to set up or to play, this title is probably a MUST OWN.

Design Characteristics:

• Time Scale: 1 hour per game turn (daylight turns); 3 hours per game turn (night turns)
• Map Scale: 480 meters per hex
• Unit Size: Each strength point represents 350-750 men or 1 battery of artillery (6 to 14 guns)
• Unit Types: army commanders (e.g., Napoleon, Wellington, and Blücher), officers (mainly corps commanders), infantry, cavalry, foot artillery, and horse artillery
• Number of Players: two (the Campaign Game, however, is a possible candidate for team play)
• Complexity: average
• Solitaire Suitability: above average
• Average Playing Time: 2-3 hours (depending on scenario); 15+ hours for the Campaign Game

Game Components (for all four Games):

• Four 17” x 22” hexagonal grid Map Sheets (with Unit Starting Positions, Turn Record Chart and Terrain Key incorporated)
• 400 ½” back-printed cardboard Counters
• Two 8½” x 11” Standard Rules Booklets (with Individual Scenario Instructions and Terrain Effects Chart incorporated)
• Two 8½” x 11” Campaign Rules Booklets (with Additional Campaign Instructions and Unit Manifest incorporated)
• One small six-sided Die
• One SPI 12” x 15” x 1” flat 24 compartment plastic Game Box (with clear compartment tray covers) and clear plastic box cover with Title Sheet

Recommended Reading

See my blog post Book Reviews of Waterloo, Day of Battle, and The Campaigns of Napoleon and The Face of Battle; books that I recommend as highly-readable sources for those visitors who are interested in further historical background.



For decorating the game room with a Napoleonic theme:

I'm Back At Last And Ready To Resume Blogging!

For those regular visitors to "Map and Counters" who have been following my latest round of computer-related problems, I'm pleased to report that it looks like the transition from my old (and faltering) laptop to a (hopefully) more robust and durable desktop is now complete. Thanks to the tireless efforts of my wife (who had to do most of these transfers after finishing long days of her own at the office), my files have now all been successfully transferred and, barring something unforeseen, I expect to be able to resume publishing fresh material in the next day or two. Of course, after a month-long break from writing, it will be interesting to see just how quickly I can return to my previous and, time-wise at least, relatively demanding blogging routine. On the plus side, I already have a number of projects in the works so my return to the keyboard certainly won't be the challenge that it would be if I was starting out with absolutely nothing in the "idea hopper".

In a slightly different vein, it is no doubt obvious that the last few weeks have been a bit frustrating for me; therefore, I am especially grateful to those of my regular readers who have been willing to offer both thoughtful advice and more general encouragement: your help and comments have all been welcome and appreciated. In addition, I also want to extend my sincerest thanks to all of my blog's visitors (whatever their individual gaming interests) for their loyalty during this month-long publishing "dry spell". I am profoundly grateful for this support.

Finally, as noted in a previous post, my long holiday away from the computer keyboard has allowed me to revisit a number of titles that, for one reason or another, I have tended to ignore of late. The Avalon Hill "classics", STALINGRAD and WATERLOO, for example, are personal favorites of mine that, because of their age and limited appeal, I have largely skipped over in my previous essays: this is an oversight (in deference to the grognards who visit my blog) that I plan on correcting in the coming months. I also expect to offer new "game profiles" on a few more titles from Rand Game Associates (RGA) and Operational Studies Group (OSG) to compliment my regular quota of SPI, Avalon Hill, and GDW games. Moreover, my extended time at the game table has also rekindled my interest in writing a new batch of "game analysis" essays; hence, I expect to tackle at least a couple of games in this way (Dunnigan's interesting, if under-appreciated NATO being one of them) before too much more time passes. In the end, I suppose that it could be said that my hiatus away from blogging has had at least one signal benefit: it has reminded me that there are a wide-ranging collection of gaming topics about which I still have the desire to write. And given the fact that I have already published over three hundred posts on "Map and Counters", that, in and of itself, is probably no small thing.

MOVEMENT & COMBAT TURN RECORD TEMPLATE FOR THE ‘TOURNAMENT’ (28 Game Turn) VERSION OF TAHGC GAME, ‘WATERLOO’ (1962)


Finally, there are the modern ‘Luddites’ like me who just don’t much care for the ‘point and drag’ mode of moving counters on a screen; gamers who, instead, would actually rather have the real map and counters in front of them when they play. For this type of player, using a ‘spreadsheet’ format for internet gaming is a convenient alternative. And it is also, not surprisingly, the online gaming format that I personally prefer.


Excel spreadsheet link: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AqCInXkTQsAadGlCVFVqRE13NnpnOV9QN3VaaG5UZXc&hl=en

A Short list of some of the best articles on WATERLOO to appear, over the years, in the General

While compiling material for previous posts on AFRIKA KORPS and STALINGRAD, I found myself continually getting sidetracked into reading unrelated past General articles on WATERLOO as well as a number of the other Avalon Hill “classics.” I had forgotten how interesting some of these old write-ups could be.

Since a few of you actually seemed to enjoy the two previous posts: “the General looks at AFRIKA KORPS” and “the General looks at STALINGRAD,” I have decided to go ahead with another short list of some nearly-forgotten articles that appeared, many years ago, between the covers of the General. So here is the latest installment in what I hope will become an ongoing series on the “best of the best” pieces from the old issues of the General. This short collection, in my opinion, includes some of the most interesting and entertaining articles on WATERLOO analysis, game variants, and Series Replays ever to see print. And speaking of Series Replays: although this sample “Replay” is a little cringe-worthy, it is still interesting because of the two, well-known adversaries and also because of the number of mistakes and rules illegalities that crept into the game.

So let me repeat my previous strong recommendation: To those of you who still have a collection of Generals gathering dust somewhere in their closet, or who have a friend who has a lifetime’s stash of old gaming magazines stacked up in his game room, this list is for you. Even if you read these articles a long time ago, I urge you to go back and give them another look. You might even find it hard to close the covers of some of these old Generals once you start turning through their pages!

For no particular reason, I have arranged this list in chronological order, from the oldest to the most recent.

• Jerry Pournelle’s “Simulating the Art of War: Updating WATERLOO,” in the General, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Jul-Aug 1971) in which the author proposes an extensive and even radical overhaul to the standard rules of WATERLOO in the pursuit of greater simulation realism and a better game


• Harley Anton’s classic six-part treatise “Campaign at WATERLOO,” in the General, Vol. 9, Nos. 4 – 6, and the General, Vol. 10, Nos. 1 – 3; in which the author presents the most detailed and comprehensive analysis of the different aspects of WATERLOO play ever to be published under one title in the General


• A “Series Replay: WATERLOO,” featuring Bruno Sinigaglio (French) and Rob Beyma (P.A.A.) with neutral commentary provided by Harley Anton (after his previously published opus, who else would dare?), in the General, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Jul-Aug 1974) which, besides being an example of some very eccentric WATERLOO play, also demonstrates just how tough a time the French can have if the P.A.A. are allowed to beam their troops onto the battlefield


• Robert Sledge’s innovative and quite interesting variant “WATERLOO – The 1704 Version,” in the General, Vol. 11, no. 5 (Jan-Feb 1975) provides all of the additional rules, deployment instructions, Turn Record Chart, and Order of Battle information necessary to begin the play of a “might have been” War of the Spanish Succession battle in 1705 between Marlborough and the French Marshal Villeroy using the WATERLOO map and counters


• Thomas E. Hilton’s article “Second Thoughts: A Briefing on the Changes in the New WATERLOO Rules …,” the General, Vol. 13, No. 1 (May-Jun 1976) offers a thoughtful and thankfully brief explanation for the rules changes that were part of the then new 2^nd Edition WATERLOO Rules


• Elwood Carlson’s long-overdue variant, “East of Waterloo: A Wavre Scenario,” in the General, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Nov-Dec 1978) which provides all the information necessary to simulate French Marshal Grouchy’s unlucky campaign against Marshal Blücher’s retreating Prussians


• Elwood Carlson’s very intriguing “Crossing the Sambre: WATERLOO from the Beginning,” the General, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Jul-Aug 1980) which offers an extensive “state of the art” overhaul to the regular WATERLOO rules, as well as providing all of the information necessary either to play “Crossing the Sambre” as a free-standing scenario, or as an extension to the full game by beginning play on the 15^th of June rather than on the 16^th

As is always the case when you try to compile one of these “compendia,” there are many articles that didn’t make it into this list, not because they weren’t worth reading, but mainly because I wanted to provide a representative cross-section of different types of essays, and really didn’t want to publish too many pages of article citations in the same post.

And by the way, for those of you who don’t have any old Generals lying around, there are always copies surfacing on eBay so, given a little time, you should still be able to track most, if not all, of these gems down.

Waterloo: Day of Battle; by David Howarth; Anthenum (1968); Library of Congress catalog number 68-27663

Waterloo: Day of Battle is one of a number of books about this famous battle that I have accumulated over the years. Most of the other titles have been military analyses of the events that transpired on the 18^th of June, 1815. They understandably have focused on the operational aspects of the battle: the militarily significant facts of this day-long clash in a small corner of the Belgian countryside. Many of these works have attempted to evaluate and compare the battlefield performances of the day's two central actors: Napoleon Bonaparte and Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington. Some have focused on the pivotal roles of secondary players like the French Marshals Ney and Grouchy, and of the Prussian commander Marshal Blücher. But somehow, in many, if not most, of these careful historical studies, something is lost. The essence of a battle that turned an ordinary stretch of field two miles wide and perhaps two-thirds of a mile across into a charnel house on a fine clear day in Belgium, one hundred and ninety-six years ago. A time and a place in which, in the space of a few hours, 15,000 men under Wellington, and 7,000 under Marshal Blücher were killed or wounded, and where Napoleon's Armeé du Nord lost some 25,000 killed, wounded, and captured. It is this aspect of the Battle of Waterloo, the essence of the thing as seen and understood, not only by the commanders, but also by the ordinary soldiers, that Howarth attempts to capture and recount to the reader. It is a difficult goal, but I believe that he succeeds admirably. Much in the same way that John Keegan's book, "The Face of Battle" does, "Waterloo" conveys a genuine and immediate sense of time and place. It is at once both a harrowing and an engrossing panorama of the individual actions that, woven together, created the complex tapestry of the Battle of Waterloo.


"Waterloo," however, is not just about individual anecdotes, experiences, and the overarching atmosphere of the day. Along with the deeply affecting human stories imbedded in his narrative, Howarth also manages to capture the flow and tempo of the battle. The carefully researched historical events are still recounted in scrupulous detail, but, in Howarth's work, they are not the only parts of the Waterloo story that are told. After reading "Waterloo," I was forced to reconsider some of my own strongly-held theories about the battle. Would Marshal Davout's substitution for Marshal Ney have made any real difference in the outcome of the battle? Whatever Ney's other faults, a lack of either energy or courage was certainly not among them. In the course of the battle, Ney was everywhere that his men needed inspiration and encouragement: in fact, in the course of this single bloody day, Napoleon's "bravest of the brave" had five different horses shot out from under him. Would Davout have done any better? Would he even have survived the day? Should Napoleon have begun the battle two hours earlier? Probably, but the reasons for the delay were at least as persuasive as the reasons for mounting an earlier attack. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to criticize Wellington's choice of a battlefield, or Napoleon's plan of battle, or to find fault with Grouchy's failure to march to the sound of the guns. However, Howarth convincingly shows that the various commanders and their men were not cowards or fools, but usually did their utmost, given the imperfect and contradictory information they had about the confusing and constantly changing circumstances of the battle.

Of course, no matter how compelling the story, it probably won't be read if it is poorly told. Fortunately, in the case of David Howarth, he tells the story of Waterloo very well. His writing style, as is typical of many British writers from his era, is a little formal by today's standards. None the less, his prose is clear, graceful, and a genuine pleasure to read. Moreover, readers unfamiliar with military terminology should have no difficulty with his book, as he makes his subject matter accessible without making it simple: another appealing trait that he shares with historian and writer, John Keegan.

For those readers who are unfamiliar with the Napoleonic era, Waterloo has been illustrated extensively with a large number of both black-and-white, and color plates. There are even a few photographs of the Waterloo area as it appeared many years after the battle. Most of the book's illustrations are familiar, at least to those of us with an ongoing interest in this historical period, but a number of the prints are comparatively obscure and not commonly used in other works dealing with the Battle of Waterloo. Some, in fact, I had never seen before. In addition to the numerous illustrations that enrich his narrative, the author also includes eight maps to help the reader visualize various key battlefield events as they are being described in the text.

"Waterloo: Day of Battle," is an interesting, and deeply engaging portrait of the men who both won and lost the most famous battle of all time. However, it is not the most detailed and analytical treatment of the battle ever published. Nor is it a work of pure military scholarship. There are plenty of books that nicely satisfy both of those roles. Instead, the author has attempted to add something to the reader's understanding of the battle that is often absent from other books on this subject: the unpredictability of the human dimension. I think that he succeeds in this. For the reader who is interested in a description of the Battle of Waterloo that is satisfying on both a historical and an emotional level, this book is an excellent choice. And while I would not discard several of my other books on the battle in favor of this one, I never the less, recommend "Waterloo: Day of Battle," highly.
.


For decorating the game room with a Napoleonic theme:

WELLINGTON’S VICTORY: The Battle of Waterloo, 18 June 1815 is a tactical-level simulation of the legendary battle that ended Napoleon's final 100 Days as Emperor of France. WELLINGTON’S VICTORY was designed by Frank Davis and published by Simulations Publications, Incorporated (SPI) in 1976.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Wellington at Waterloo painting by Ernest Crofts directing deployment of reserves from his famous position under the tree

The morning of 18 June 1815 dawned overcast but without rain, a welcome relief to the tens of thousands of men forced to bivouack in open fields after the constant rain of the preceding day and night. With the first light of dawn, uniformed men stirred from their bed rolls and stoked their campfires; those who had been lucky enough to find food, often no more than a potato, ate. There was, however, little time for these men to loiter around their campfires; enemy soldiers were stirring within eyeshot of their own encampment, and it seemed obvious that after the difficult marches of the previous two rain-soaked days, a major battle was in the offing.

As the morning wore on and the sky steadily brightened in the east, shambling disorder gradually gave way to disciplined motion and, on the orders of their officers and other ranks, men formed up: companies came together to become battalions, and then regiments. The regiments formed columns and gradually arrayed themselves across the valley from each other; each in their own ordered lines. On the southern side of the field, the regiments marched past their Emperor. Napoleon, astride his Arabian stallion Marengo, reviewed the passing, cheering ranks of French troops as if they were on parade. Across a still muddy field, on a low ridge, Wellington, having seen to the disposition of his men, dismounted from his horse and reclined in the shade of a tree. Relative quiet again settled over the field.

Once formed for battle, the soldiers of the two armies: 67,000 men under the Duke of Wellington, and 72,000 commanded by Napoleon, stood in multicolored ranks facing each other across a shallow valley of rye grass. Both splendidly uniformed hosts seemed fixed in place, like insects in amber. Hours seemed to pass. Suddenly, soldiers in the ranks were shocked from their lazy torpor by the sound of canon fire somewhere on the French left. The Battle of Waterloo had finally begun with a French bombardment of the Anglo-Allied outpost that occupied the château of Hougoumont. No one then, or now, can be sure of the exact time of these first shots, but the cannonade probably began around 11:30 am. The peaceful lethargy of the morning had ended for the men warily watching each other across the small stretch of Belgian rye fields. At last, it had become a battlefield. The morning’s unexpected quiet would now, on a patch of sodden ground no more than two miles wide and two-thirds of a mile across, give way to the noisy, harsh, and bloody business of war.

DESCRIPTION

WELLINGTON’S VICTORY is a tactical simulation of the day-long battle that pitted the major part of the French Armée du Nord, commanded by Napoleon, against the Anglo-Dutch Army, under the Duke of Wellington, and a part of the Prussian Army, led by Marshal Prince Blücher von Wahlstadt. This decisive action took place near a small Belgian hamlet named Waterloo on 18 June 1815.

It is an understatement to say that the day-long struggle near Waterloo is one of the most famous battles in European history. The reasons for this notoriety are both numerous and well deserved. To begin with, it presented two of the greatest generals of their or any age, Napoleon and Wellington, in their one and only battlefield confrontation; then there is the comparatively even balance of forces and the closeness of the battle's outcome; and finally, there are the many tantalizing questions that still dominate discussions of the battle to this day.


What if, for example, Napoleon had begun the French assault earlier, or Blücher had continued his retreat and had not gone to Wellington’s aid? Would it have made any difference if Napoleon had employed Marshal Davout instead of Ney as his second in command, or Grouchy had diverted his force west and had marched to the sound of the guns? What if the French Imperial Guard had been committed earlier, when the Anglo-Dutch line was wavering; or Ney had not thrown away the French cavalry in a futile attack on Wellington’s center? The questions and might have beens are virtually endless. WELLINGTON’S VICTORY, better than any other Waterloo simulation I have ever seen, allows players to test most, if not all, of these questions using the game as a paper and cardboard time machine.

Napoleon addresses his guard during the Battle of Waterloo.

Even a cursory examination of the rules shows that WELLINGTON’S VICTORY is extraordinarily rich in historical color. Thus, it is not surprising that the game system is both complex and highly detailed: a fact that is readily apparent in the many operations that each player must perform in the course of a single game turn. The sequence of play proceeds as follows: French Command Phase; French Rally Phase; Allied Facing/Formation Phase; Allied March Phase; French Shock Phase; Reciprocal Artillery Fire Phase; Reciprocal Infantry Fire Phase;Allied Command Phase; Allied Rally Phase; French Facing/Formation Phase; French March Phase; Allied Shock Phase; and Game-Turn (end) Phase. The interwoven structure of each game turn gives players a real sense of simultaneity of action and reaction; and the rules governing the use of cavalry, unit formations, and morale, almost always a problem in tactical games, are both logical and surprisingly realistic.

WELLINGTON’S VICTORY offers three limited scenarios, and two versions of the complete battle. The shorter, limited scenarios each focus on an important action during the battle and require only the portion of the total available forces directly involved on that section of the front. The three limited scenarios are: Hougomont, which uses map sections A and C and lasts 20 game turns; La Haye Sainte, which uses all four map sections and lasts 20 game turns; and Plancenoit,which uses map sections B and D and also lasts 20 game turns. The historical version of the complete battle uses all four of the map sections, and all available forces. The Battle of Waterloo begins on game turn eleven,and ends after 40 complete game turns (turn 50). The delayed start time for the historical Battle of Waterloo game takes into account the fact that Napoleon postponed the opening of the battle while he waited for the ground to dry. The alternative full battle game assumes that the French attacked as soon as their offensive preparations were completed, and did not stand idly by through much of the morning. This alternative Early French Assault version begins on turn one and ends at the conclusion of game turn fifty (50 game turns). In addition to the various scenarios included with the game, the designer has also offered a number of optional rules that players probably should incorporate as soon as they are comfortable with the game system. Most of these rules are relatively minor and involve small adjustments to the Facing, Stacking, Combat, and Morale rules. One optional rule, however, represents a significant change in the flow of the battle: the rule to allow for the Early Arrival of the Prussians on the field. With this rule, the Prussian Army will begin to arrive four full turns earlier than it did historically. Needless-to-say, this last rule significantly tips play-balance in favor of the Allied player.

A PERSONAL OBSERVATION

WELLINGTON'S VICTORY, as should be obvious from the preceding description, is not for everyone. It requires a very large game surface (4' by 8') to set up the game, and even the 'short' (20 turn)scenarios require a major time commitment on the part of the game's participants. And then, of course, there is the oddly-colored game map which, although unambiguous so far as terrain features and elevation are concerned, still manages (with its abundant use of yellows) to be both unexpected and even off-puting to some gamers, myself included. Nonetheless, for those dedicated players with a genuine interest in tactical-level Napoleonic warfare and particularly for those gamers who want an accurate and richly-textured treatment of the Battle of Waterloo, I can think of no better simulation. Its various game subroutines are intuitively logical, and, more importantly, all combine to produce historically satisfying outcomes on the game map. Thus, while this game is really only suitable for experienced players, I still give it my strongest recommendation. Among the many monster games dealing with Napoleonic battles that I have tried, over the years, I can really think of no title that does a better job, either as a simulation or as a game.

Design Characteristics:

• Time Scale: 15 minutes per game turn
• Map Scale: 100 yards per hex
• Unit Size: company/battalion (infantry), regiment (cavalry), and battery (artillery)
• Unit Types: command, infantry, cavalry, artillery and information markers
• Number of Players: two or three (teams highly recommended)
• Complexity: above average/high
• Solitaire Suitability: medium (if pushing around 2,000 unit counters doesnt bother you)
• Average Playing Time: 6 -18+ hours (depending on scenario)

Game Components:

• Four 22" x 34" hexagonal grid Map Sheets (with Turn Record/Reinforcement Track, Terrain Effects Key, Terrain Effects Chart, Two Shock Combat Tables, Two Relative Firepower Tables, French Army Morale Record, Anglo-Allied Army Morale Record, Record of French Unit Commitment, Record of Anglo-Allied Unit Commitment, Observation Procedure, and Abbreviated Sequence of Play incorporated)
• 2,000 back-printed ½" cardboard Counters
• One 8½" x 11" Rules Booklet (with Initial French and Anglo-Allied Deployments and Scenario Instructions incorporated)
• Three 11" x 14" Combined Shock Combat Results and Relative Firepower (Fire Combat Results) Tables
• Two small six-sided Dice
• Two SPI 12" x 15" x 1" flat 24" compartment plastic Game Boxes (with clear compartment tray covers) and clear plastic Box Covers with Title Sheets

Recommended Reading

See my blog post Book Review of this title which I strongly recommend for those visitors interested in additional historical background information.



For decorating the game room with a Napoleonic theme: