I just bought this game sight unseen, (the first time I have done so in a long time) just on the strength of the theme, namely a strategic depiction of the Napoleonic Wars in toto (I have Empires in Arms [EiA] and War & Peace). I have just completed reading the rules but have yet to play. I am uncertain of a few things and hope for clarification as well as offering my initial impressions. When I get a first game completed I will pass further review but for now this is on the basis of a rules read.

Components

Prettier counters than EiA but somewhat busy and perhaps juvenile. Map looks good but seems abbreviated in that the provinces by comparison to EiA are huge. All of Europe fits on one map and depicts exactly the same area as EiA. (The similarities to EiA are many. I think I could call this EiA Lite, so far it appears that all the mechanics of play mimic the same decisions that EiA does but without the same friction of complexity. This goes for the map and counters as well.) You also get a lot of Monopoly type money but you have to cut it out yourself from the standard 8.5 x 11 sheets it is printed on. Not so pretty. You also have to cut out the tactical cards which unless you are adept could make the card obvious (whoops, the flank card I just cut 1/4" smaller!) The tone of counters, map and other components is some what youngish looking.

The game is billed as no wargaming experience necessary -- it has a very A&A flavour to it -- so take that for what it is worth. Since the counters are just pawns I could see the divisions replaced by someone's plastic Risk pieces (the ones with inf, cav and art) if so inclined. One small gripe. My French counters were slightly out of alignment in the die cutting but still functional-just not quite so nice looking.

Rules

The Rule book came with a half page of errata including the only statement of the victory conditions! Type setting was obviously rushed and for a game "requiring no previous wargaming experience" they seem clear enough once you read the errata. The rules writing is in plenty of places somewhat fuzzy but I may have been trying to overthink the game on the first read. I still am unsure if sieges are conducted before or after battles with field armies in a province and if the tactical dice rolls for army combat are kept hidden by both sides. Since counter limits affect the play of the game, a roster of available pieces by type should have been included. I foresee a rash of internet queries of the "how many artillery divisions do the Prussians have available?" ilk. No optional rules.

Game Mechanics

Very Very clean. Interesting tactical battle approach that is probably superior to EiA (reminds me a little of Napo-leon by Columbia Games) No distinction between individual divisions from different countries. British or French divisions are equal to Spanish or Egyption unless a leader is present to increase tactical options. Without playing it out it seems that there is no offensive amplification of combat value for massed troops in one sector while leaving smaller holding forces in hopes of crushing that sector before the weaker sectors can be taken advantage of by your opponent. The tactical battle system offers little chance to recreate the famous Napoleonic tactic of striking in strength one wing before it can combine with others (Jena-Auerstadt, etc) unless it is by random event and there are allied armies present. There is a flanking attack option that sort of does it if you have reserves to commit, but there is no advantage for having say 10 divisions as opposed to 3 in a sector, except on defense, where you can merely absorb the losses and still stay in the battle. Only leaders have any sort amplification value, though a combined arms army does have more options available to it which may help it win battles over a larger army purely of infantry. Like I said I have not played the game out yet so I am not sure how it works out but the game seems a bit weak on what I would consider essential-for-the-period chrome. Perhaps I am missing something?

Absolutely no attrition rules, with the exception of it costing $5 to be at war over winter (the cost of 2.5 inf divisions) there seems to be no mechanic that recreates the attrition that typified the period. Perhaps it is abstracted with in the system but I don't see the ability of the game to recreate the tremendous losses Napoleon suffered from non-battle causes during the Russian campaign. 470,000 men were lost in 6 months campaigning with only one really big battle fought (that I am sure could not account for over 25% of the total if even that) I will have to play it to see how this works.

It seems easy enough to create a general dice roll to handle attrition as an optional rule. I have to check game balance. Lines of Communication only affect new reinforcement placement. Isolated units have full combat power. No port raids (Copen-hagen cannot be raided). Sieges are kind of strange. It is impossible for a conquered province to be garrisoned more heavily than with one division, yet unconquered and independent provinces have much higher garrison values possible. I can understand the abstraction of a hostile populace requiring pacification but what of such powerful fortresses such as Mantua or Gibraltar to amplify any holder -not just the original. To conquer Gibraltar loses the garrison factor of 6 to be replaced by a factor of 1 division. Not a good abstraction in my eyes. Also certain islands in the med seem to have absolutely no impact in the game. In particular, Sardinia is under-emphasized while the deserts of Libya are considered more valuable.

The victory point, diplomacy rules and not played major powers are very much like Empires in Arms, but simplified and distilled. Luck plays a factor in a lot of diplomacy. No holes that I can see like EiA. I think I like them a whole lot better even with the random event requirement. Spain is particularly well handled. Napoleon's worst mistake of putting his brother on the throne is dictated to the French player by a random event. Poor Nap was always plagued by his siblings and their constant clamoring for power and prestige. I like it.

Overall

Overall impression is very good. I think I might prefer it to EiA with a little fiddling, (currently my favorite game with certain house rules). It sure is easier to play without sacrificing the same political decisions. Militarily it suffers but again it seems so much easier. I expect the ease of play will make it played a hell of a lot more often even if it is not the "simulation". Call it A&A with Napoleon. I give it a initial impression rating of 7 or 8.

Also kudos to the order process. I got the game in just two days after it was ordered. I am not sure what shipping I was charged for for yet, but at $3 it is less than the 9% sales tax I would have had to pay for it locally if it was available. I love my game shops but modern just-in-time shipping and internet commerce make this niche market much more viable if the exposure of product can be preserved.