I had never played any of GMT's Great Battles of History Series before cracking open volume III, Berg and Herman's Lion of the North. Ancient Warfare, you see, has always failed to elicit great excitement, or even minor prickles of interest, in my gaming breast. To make matters even more complicated, I am currently suffering from opponentus interrruptus, since my regular gaming partner has become, shall we say, smitten. [Ed. A disease that appears to have struck several of our reviewers.] As a result, I played Lion's two scenarios solitaire, for the most part. If this ignores the perspective of duality, at least I can comment knowledgeably about it's solitaire suitability. What is important from the game's perspective, however, is that the two battles covered in Lion - Breitenfeld (1631) and Lützen (1632) - represent the emergence of a new tactical system or, as the subtitle states, "the dawn of modern warfare". Tilly's Imperialist and Catholic League army, which had dominated the 30 Years' War stage for years, was virtually undefeated and supremely confident. It was also slow and heavy, extremely square-oriented, and supported by a cavalry system - the caracole - reminiscent of the Persian archers of Darius and Xerxes. Gustavus challenged that supremacy with his musket and pike units arrayed in linear brigades, maximizing firepower over depth, with cavalry that charged home with cold steel - Polish style - and cannon that actually moved during the battle! The Lion game system is a highly interactive, detailed look at this tactical byplay. Controlling the entire process is the rather unique command system, based on the individual capabilities of the leaders. Each army possesses one overall commander: King Gustavus Adolphus for the Swedes vs. either Count Tilly at Breitenfeld or Count Wallenstein at Lützen. From them all initiative flows, so to speak. Overall commanders can command any unit they can reach, and are the only generals who can order other leaders to leave enemy ZOC's, an important point if you need to go for help in a crisis. Perhaps even more important, Gustavus is an elite leader, which means that at the beginning of each turn he gets a "go-first" orders phase which he can use himself or pass out to any other leader within range. And the heart of the game is that Orders Phase. Regardless of side, the lowest initiative-rated leader has the first phase, with players rolling a die to break ties. Then players alternate - but not equally - activating leaders, all the time working their way up the initiative rating ladder, until all leaders have had their shot. Once done, play proceeds to the "3R" phase - rout, rally, and removal - essentially the housekeeping and sauve qui peut segment. The interplay in the Orders Phase is the most exciting part of the game. Each leader not only gets his turn in the barrel, but also may line jump via the Trump option and/or extend his streak via Momentum phases. Trumping - a rather unfelicitious piece of terminology that brings to mind either a bridge tournament or a large blonde with big lips - allows a player to use another - better-rated - of his leaders in place of he whose turn it is… or better yet, steal a march on an enemy leader. Trumping requires a successful die roll against the trumping leader's initiative. Failure means the trumper is finished and may not play any more that turn. Success means not only that the the trumpee is finished, but that all passed-over leaders cannot attempt Momentum! Momentum is the technique whereby the active leader continues his activities into a second, and even third, orders phase, again based on die rolls against Initiative. Since units can be ordered into action in more than one phase, this means that multiple damage can be inflicted via the same leader and troops. Obviously, the guy with the higher initiative-rated leaders is going to get more mileage out of his troops, a significant force multiplier that can offset mere numbers. Organization of command is also good thing to have in battle, and Lion enforces this military truism very effectively. Leaders can issue orders to individual units, or they can, instead, issue Line Commands, whereby whole masses of troops go in to action as one. On turn one, these Line commands can be issued by any leader without any problems. After that, though, subordinates desiring to use line commands must first roll successfully against their Strategy Rating before said command gets issued. Otherwise, leaders can issue orders only to individual units, which greatly accelerates the disintegration of order, since he can only issue these individual orders up to the limit of his initiative rating. Hence, a player who deliberately ignores the cohesion needed to use Line Commands places himself on a perilous path later in the game. It's going to happen anyway, what with the need to roll against strategy ratings. The more of your troops you get to use and re-use, the better. Pity the poor Imperialist player here, who usually has poorer initiative AND strategy ratings. The units are, themselves, a fascinating ingredient in this stew. Breitenfeld holds greater variety, as the imperialists still struggle along with Tercios, but even Lutzen has quite a mix. The Swedish system is based on Heavy Infantry and Heavy Cavalry, supported by a from of quasi-skirmisher Light Infantry known as Commanded Muskets. Cannon come in Heavy, Field, and Regimental types, the latter unique to Gustavus' army … and the forerunner of the more modern "field" artillery. It is a system emphasizing firepower followed by cavalry shock. Especially devastating is the Swedish ability to multiply their fire capabilities with Salvo Fire. The Imperialists really have two armies. Tilly's army at Breitenfeld is anchored by the defensive power of the huge squares known as tercios. They're big, but they're slow. They also can't compete against linear-like heavy, or even light, infantry for firepower, mostly because their firepower is not all up front, but spread around the big squares. On the other hand, players can place them in fighting wedges, one up and two back, forming a "death star." This means that three units can move as one, costing only one individual order, and if attacked in shock combat, the attacker fights all three units as one strength. Employed this way, tercios remind me as nothing so much as rampaging elephants. Stand back and shoot them to pieces, they're much easier to handle that way … but stay out of their way. By Lützen, the Imperialists have dropped the tercios for their their own HI and LI units, which function pretty much like Swedes, albeit not quite as effectively. For real flavor, however, let's look at the Imperialist Cavalry. First, there are the Caracolers. These are the guys who ride up, fire off their pistols, wheel away, and go to the rear of the line. This always sounded rather dumb to me, but they can be very effective when used correctly, mostly against units that either lack the firepower to hurt them severely or cannot charge them. I watched my opponent (on that rare occasion that I had one) devastate my totally useless Saxons with this technique. In addition to the Caracole Cavalry, the Imperialists have a host of Light and Croatian Light Cavalry, along with a smattering of Heavy Cavalry, usually Poles, and some early dragoons. The Croats are really pirates on horseback, who seem to plunder everything, even friendly baggage trains. Very colorful. The interaction of this gaggle of troop types is what combat - and the game - is all about. Failure to use the right combinations of fire and shock, brought to bear by the right troops for the moment, will lead to defeat. Be forewarned though: this interplay is what makes Lion a truly complex game. Both fire and shock require several steps and various charts to complete. Fire combat is the stuff of attrition; over time it will render units useless. Virtually everyone has some fire capability, usually pistols or muskets, with units being rated for their ability to bring that fire to bear. Artillery uses a separate table, with some powerful Swedish advantages built in. However, in the main, cannon tend to induce disorganization rather than blood, and they are almost totally ineffective over any distance. Fire can be ordered by an active leader, or it can be triggered by reaction fire. Moving into an enemy ZOC triggers reaction fire, and a given unit can only react once per phase. Hence, caracolers, for instance, can direct the fire of a given line at a specific target, secure in the knowledge that only one or two of the caracolers will draw reaction fire, unless they're voluntarily running a gauntlet of enemy units … or they get counter-charged by the dreaded Swedish Heavy Cavalry. In a new phase, however, those reaction fired markers disappear, and the target unit(s) can shoot again; so beware. Resolving Shock is, at first, a confusing proposition. It took me awhile to become acclimated to the procedure, and it never really got to be second nature. I always had to refer to the rules and follow along step by step to ensure full compliance. Regular shock can be undertaken by any unit, usually after an exchange of fire. They must be named to attack by leaders, and then they pitch in with a will, where it then becomes a process of pre-shock checks, charge and counter-charge determination, and then reference to a series of charts and tables - Clash of Arms Chart, Shock Superiority, Size Ratio Difference, and then the actual Shock Resolution Chart - which combine all the elements - emphasizing comparisons of tactical systems as well as position/angle of attack - - into one final result. Units that conduct Shock attacks must attack everyone in their ZOC, requiring some foresight in the advancement of troops to battle. Simply running two lines together might well result in some very undesirable odds situations, especially since everyone endeavors to maintain their linear formations as much as possible given the command benefits of such and the disastrous problems in getting flanked. The results on the Shock Table are in Disruption Points, and these are applied against a unit's TQ to produce potential disruption. Cavalry charges have their own place in the system. Charging is optional, but certain benefits accrue to charging units - especially the Heavy Cavalry - that are more likely to produce Attacker Superiority, as well as doubling the strength of charging units. The drawbacks are that target cavalry has the option of countercharging, which can help negate said attacker benefits, and also that charging cavalry is subject to pursuit (leaving the map after fleeing opponents, requiring a lengthy recovery process to return) and virtually automatic Disruption, regardless of success. The countercharge option is most effective against caracoling CR cavalry, negating a good portion of their fire advantage and allowing the countercharging unit to resolve the shock as the attacker. The tactical problem is that Shock, alone, is tricky to use. Ideally, you want to end up attacking or charging disrupted units, since a second disruption routs a unit. A single disruption alone doesn't produce losses or kill units, but rout can do both. Critical to preserving one's army against this is Orderly Withdrawal, the ability to retreat before contact. The caveats are that the decision to conduct an OW must occur before the enemy enters your ZOC, while he is still two hexes away; and you must have a higher movement allowance than the approaching bad guy. This rule mainly favors the Swedes, who can often dodge enemy infantry where the situation looks bad. The effective interweaving of fire and shock, in true combined arms fashion, is the surest route to success in Lion. In this, the game succeeds very well indeed, forcing the player to think and integrate unit classes in a very historical fashion. It is one of the game's strongest points, second only to it's detailed examination of battlefield leadership. Some quick observations on the two scenarios: Breitenfeld and Lützen. Breitenfeld pits the Swedish superiority in leadership, heavy cavalry and firepower against the weight of Tilly's tercios and the high morale (the TQ Ratings) of his caracoling horsemen. An added fillip is that Gustavus is saddled with a left wing of dreadful Saxons, most of whom will rout before the first bowl of chips are gone. Once they're gone, shrug your shoulders, consider any loss they inflicted on Tilly's boys during the dust-up a bonus, and get on with the business of dismembering Tercios. Two green players are liable to make a lot of mistakes in tactics, and I suspect that more than one Imperialist will take home a victory due to Gustavus Greenness. Lützen, which took place only a year later, is like a different world. The tercios are gone; now the Imperialists have their own linear-style infantry! Not as good as the Swedish Ubermensch, mind you, but a lot tougher to shoot up than a Tercio.These guys shoot back. I wavered a couple of times when thinking about how this one's balanced. I think the real crippling factor for Gustavus is time. There are 15 turns, half of which are either fog (one heavy fog, which precludes any real action) or dusk/dark. This gives Gustavus only 8 full turns to win. The Swedes must first cross and clean clean out enough of a map-length ditch so that they can bring their army to bear. Given that it's hard to maintain tactical cohesion over several turns of movement, the Imperialists should actually be in better shape, co-ordination wise, than the Swedes. And then, in the middle of the game a bunch of well-led Imperialist cavalry are going to swoop in on the Swedish flank, setting the stage for a classic disaster. Historically, it took Gustavus' own death to fire up his troops enough to overcome these obstacles and gain the upper hand, whereupon dark set in before Wallenstein was crushed. Still, that Swede leadership advantage is still around, here, perhaps, even more pronounced. I have so far ignored the game's visual aspects, simply because they are very well presented, albeit with no immediate show stoppers. GMT has made a strong effort to produce physical and graphic high quality in it's games, and they have clearly succeeded. The maps are good, the rules fairly clear, and the counters flashy but far too busy. The best point for me was the various historical asides italicized in the rules text, to highlight or explain rules decisions. Lion of the North is a complex game, made so by the complexity of a transitional tactical era and the game's desire to accurately recreate those interactions. The game taught me quite a bit about the period, though not without some learning effort on my part. This is, probably, an easier game to assimilate for players familiar with the GBH system via SPQR, etc., but it required quite a bit of study for me before I felt confident pushing those counters around. It plays very well solitaire, preserving much of the gaming excitement via the momentum and trumping rules. Each turn provided it's own unique problems to work out, dictated by the fall of those leader dice. I suspect that the series has benefited tremendously from the extended development inherent in two previous releases, and it shows. CAPSULE COMMENTS: Graphic Presentation: Excellent, although the counters are too busy. Playability: Not an easy game to master, and it takes some time to play, but the system, and the battles, are challenging. Excellent solitaire game. Replayability: Trying to master the period tactics makes this a strong area. Creativity: High. Historicity: A strong Point Comparisons: Not much on this era, at this level. A revelation for those who thought the old, SPI Thirty Years' War Quad was the last word. Not as accessible as Markham's R&R series (for 3W), but much meatier. Overall: Successful both as history and a challenging piece of gaming. from GMT Games One 22"x34" map, backprinted; one 17"x22" map; 480 1/2" counters, 32 5/8" counters; Rules Book, Scenario Book; Charts & Tables Sheets; boxed. GMT, POB 1308, Hanford CA 93233. $32. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 11 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com