Napoleon's First Battles

Decision Games

game review by M.J. Bowen, UK

I have been waiting for this game for months and when I knew it was being released I ordered it direct from the States. It arrived whilst I was on holiday which gave me a chance to play through the games several times to enable me to write this review. Box and Map Presentation The game is, in fact, a Quad i.e. four games in one box, using a common system of rules. The rules are even with the advanced rules, no more than medium complexity. The four battles covered are Montenotte, Arcola, The Pyramids and Marengo; all of which, except Marengo, have not, so far as I know, been produced before at this regimental scale. So the £ 23.95 + 10% postage and packing question is - was the wait worth it? The answer is yes and no (being a typical lawyer, I will not commit myself!) Before we answer the question, we need to look at the components and mechanics of the games. The game box is adequate with a reasonable but slightly garish picture of some scruffy French soldiers fighting near some mountains (in Italy) and Napoleon looking at the desert near the Pyramids. 5/10 The maps (there are two, each with two battles on them), are clear and functional. They do not have a "period" feel as do the Clash of Arms maps. They also have one or two typo's but nothing that ruins the game. 8/10 Counter Design The counters are next - what can I say? There are errors, corrected in part by errata, and the promise of reprinted counters in S. & T. 166 which is fine if you subscribe but bad news if you do not. Why they could not have supplied replacements as G.D.W. have done for some of their games I don't know (well I do - they cost money and time). The main problem is Murat's Cavalry for Marengo are printed in the Austrian base colour of red. Yes red. All boardgames I can recall have them in yellow or white but never red!! It is a minor point but it is irritating. Also, there are no X10 markers for the disintegration track. Also markers to show which rivers had been checked for fords, would have been nice. Another minor moan is that the unit symbols are done in the pre Nato style which personally I do not like. Nato style symbols allow more information such as formation colour codes to be shown in a tidier manner e.g. see Decision Games 7 Day Battles Quad. These counters are not state of the art like Clash of Arms, they are not even close. 3/10 is the best I could give them. Playing Rules The rules are the last item (with the player aid card). There are three sections basic, advanced and scenario i.e. battle rules. They are laid out in a weird way. Where page 1 should be is page 2 - again it's a minor point but I ask myself did they mess it up or is there a subtle reason or are they aiming to break into the Chinese market? The rules themselves are quite simple and well written and clear. I have a slight problem in that I have been boardgaming for 15+ years and to an extent I can guess what a rule should say. A beginner may not be able to. e.g. no rule in the basic game covers what happens to a commander who is stacked with a unit that is eliminated. Some rules are not stated in full but the information is on the player aid card e.g. terrain effects are cumulative. Overall I suppose 7/10 Game Mechanics The mechanics of play are simple, the first player adds reinforcements, then bombards with his artillery. (I like this rule a lot - it gets rid of the old trick of using low strength artillery units in soak off attacks, which is a standard tactic in most Napoleonic boardgames. Now you use your Artillery as it was intended to disrupt the enemy prior to attacking or to break up an attack). If successful, you disrupt the enemy (or eliminate them) which reduces their movement allowance and halves their combat value as well as in the advanced game, increasing the disintegration level. Rivers can be forded on a roll of 1 or 2 this is not valid and has a major impact on the games. e.g. in Marengo if the Austrians get lucky and find fords they can turn the French left South of Marengo. I would not use this rule if you want an historical refight. Melee follows which is odds based with modifiers for the elan of the unit or leader. This is a good idea and allows smaller well motivated French units to beat the Kaiser's big battalions. I am not too keen that leaders can lead an attack with no risk of being lost. True, in the advanced game, they can be lost if left alone in a hex due to retreat or loss of unit, but on the offensive there is no real risk. I would suggest that you roll 2 die and on a 12 he is hit add 2 if the leader's troops suffer loss. Results are losses, retreats (if you retreat through Zone of Control you are disrupted and eliminated). In the advanced game disruptions do not increase the disintegration levels. Why not? Being beaten in melee was just as bad as being under artillery fire. I think this was done to keep life simple otherwise the levels would rise (and fall when units recovered which does not happen in the rules as drafted). Disrupted units are destroyed if disrupted again. Disrupted units can then be rallied if not in Zone of Control (they could, it appear, start in Zone of Control push the enemy back but not advance and then rally which is not to realistic). Commanders can rebuild destroyed units the Austrians have a low chance of doing so, the French quite often have a 50% chance. Advanced Game The advanced game adds friction, a sort of random events phase which is fun and can throw a fly in the ointment. The command rules are simple. Any units of the commanders formation in his radius are in command and can enter Zone of Control have a better off road speed and increase road movement by 50% (however, it is possible for the front of a column to be in command and the rear not to be, allowing part of the column to charge forward. I would suggest that all units on roads adjacent to a unit which is in the same column are in command if the lead unit is). Artillery which is out of command can not join with other artillery in bombarding the enemy which stops massed batteries firing unless in command. This will hamper the Austrian player and perhaps allows the French to blast his way to victory whereas massed batteries did not come to the fore until after 1806. The Austrians have few leaders and their command range is small; the French have much better leaders and the command rules tilt the game heavily to the French (which is reflected in the victory conditions). It may be justified by historical results but it is depressing being the Austrian player at times. Artillery ranges now vary according to gun sizes (good rule). You may now exit Zone of Control but the enemy get to fight you for free. I have yet to play a game where it has been worth using this rule. If you want to pull back the free shot will kill you, so you may as well stay in place, hold up more units and then die! There is a very good section for engineers. No other board game, so far as I know, gives them such good treatment. They build and destroy bridges, make it easier to move through woods, construct and destroy redoubts and lead assaults. Artillery can destroy bridges easily which could be a pain for the French in Arcola especially if they don't find any fords. I think a bridge should only be destroyed on an X or E result which would need 2 batteries with a 1/6 result, or a reroll on a D result with a 1/6 chance of destruction. There are fog of war rules which are interesting but personally I think a bit of a waste of time (although the French need the scouts in Marengo to slow the Austrians down). The penultimate rule is on army disintegration, I have several problems with this rule: one I have mentioned is why does a melee not increase the level. I also do not like the fact that the level is per army not per formation. I know it keeps things simple but for example, in Montenotte the French can destroy D'Argenteau's command before Beaulieu arrives pushing the level to 30 leaving 12 for Beaulieu's larger force! It would be fairly easy for a veteran gamer to adjust the level for each formation. Also it is good game tactics to disrupt with artillery a unit then destroy it - why? The last rule is night which makes combat difficult. I would have liked to have seen the rules from 7 Days used which would make combat a risky lottery. Now we know about the game, we can perhaps answer the question, "Is it worth the money?". The answer really is "it depends". Why do you buy board games? I think there are three main reasons. 1. They are fun to play. 2. They are historically accurate representations of the battles and 3. they use a system which helps you understand the way battles were fought in the Napoleonic wars. To deal with 1 and 3 first. Yes the games are fun, they are easy to learn, quick to play and quite good. Yes, they do, in my view, have a system which shows several aspects of Napoleonic warfare that a lot of games do not e.g. better Artillery and engineer rules than most. The disintegration rules are nearly there, but not quite. History, however, is a bit of a problem. Let us take each game in turn. MONTENOTTE Besides the game breaking trick of setting Colli up north of the river in Dego which would stop the French from winning unless they roll incredible dice rolls. The real problem is history. I am no expert but according to Esposito and Elting La Harpe should be somewhere, Augereau was not involved nor was part of Meyers division. Cervoni or part of his troops were facing off Beaulieu (on the coast) and Beaulieu never arrived! The action on the 14th April between Colli and Napoleon took place several miles off the map east 1/10 for historical accuracy as far as I can see! ARCOLA The French could have big problems if the Austrians can destroy the bridge over the river and they cannot find a ford. Although Kilmaines engineer unit can help overcome this problem the impact on the game causes a distortion of history. Also you could argue that the swamp hexes should be impassable in this game, as most accounts I have read refer to fighting only on the causeways. The main problem with the historical aspects of this game are the arrival times and set up of units. The entire Austrian army arrives at 11.00 a.m. on the first day and Mitrowski starts on the map, again according to Esposito and Elting this is wrong. A more realistic time scale would be Provera 11.00 15/11 at hex 1001. Mitrowski 15.00 15/11 at hex 3800. Alvinitzi and the reserve 17.00 15/11 at hex 1001 and Hohenzollern 15.00 16/11 at hex 1008. Kilmaine should arrive 17.00 on 16/11 at hex 2028. You could also optionally apply the extreme weather rule throughout the 17th. Why the reinforcements schedule is so far out I don't know. I suspect (but do not know as I have not played a game with the revised set up) that the French could mop up the Austrians on day 1. In which case the game system is at fault and the historical result is out of the window again. THE PYRAMIDS I confess to knowing very little about this battle. I have to say the game appears to play better and an historical result is quite a probable. The only minor point is the French flotilla only has a small chance of arriving whereas in reality it played a not insignificant part in helping to keep the Mamelukes heads down. MARENGO Historically this is the best. Everyone arrives when they should. The French set up is good. The Austrian is to free, they can set up south of the French left, bridge the river and roll up to the French line. I would suggest that the Austrians should have to deploy within 4 hexes of Alessandria, the game plays quite well compared to history provided the French can inflict losses on the Austrians early on which is not easy to do. Probably the best game of the bunch from the point of view of simulation. So there you have it, or not as Mr. Norman would say. Four fun games which in themselves are good value for money and two that are a reasonable simulation of the battle they represent. If you can put up with the counters and are prepared to work on the rules a bit, you will end up with some good games that certainly are not classics like Napoleon's Last Battles Quad but are still good value for money. It depends really on whether you want fun or simulation - you can make your choice and pay you money or not! Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #14 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com