For years, now, many wargamers have been begging Clash of Arms to do something with their "La Bataille" system to bring it out of the '70's and, at least, into the '80's. Granted, most of the people who actually buy the La Bataille games are, for the most part, not in this group … they must all be Viennese, or vaguely Hapsburg, at heart … but it is true that the stolid and creaky mechanics of that hoary and venerated game line do deserve some sort of facelift. It was thus with no little enthusiasm that gamers greeted the announcement that CoA's series on the era of Frederick the Great, "Battles in the Age of Reason", would be just the ticket they ordered. Well, if they want a meaty, interesting, evocative game on Frederickian battles and tactics they will not be disappointed. However, be forewarned: this is not your father's Oldsmobile, and it sure isn't Dennis', Monty's, or even Ed's La Bataille. It may have started out as such, but the only resemblance that Kolin has to La Bataille is that (a) it is a tactical game covering the era of flintlock muskets, and (b) the counters and map look, more or less, the same. This is not just cosmetic surgery, this is a beneficent Dr. Frankenstein at work. Kolin is a mighty attractive game, in many ways even more impressive than those of the La Bataille line … a visual impact that is sure to count heavily with consumers (underlined by the fact that the initial run is sold out!). Rick Barbour's three maps are excellent: readable and evocative. And guess what? The hexes are actually numbered! (Ed Wimble must have been working back in the stacks when they slipped that one by him.) The counters, initially, appear to be the same as those one finds in La Bataille, the colorful but oft unreadable Whitman Sampler Uniform Style that has become CoA's Napoleonic trademark. Look again, though. You not only can actually read the counters without resort to a manual on Gothic manuscript, but the reverse side - the information side - has been totally redone. Even with the somewhat built-in problems of sorting out exactly who belongs to whom, the Kolin counters are a major step forward in graphic production. The rules and scenario books are handsomely done, as are the few charts and table sheets provided. Even though the bookcase box is nowhere as impressive as those for recent La Bataille games, this is an impressive physical package, the type that screams "Play Me!". First, though, you have to get through the rules. Kolin is not a game for those looking for some quick excitement, or for those for whom insight and nuance matter far less than "I win!, I win!" You have to want to immerse yourself in the era and the system, because this is a mighty dense set of rules that attempts to cover Frederickian military thought (through a Glass Duffy, as it were) in some detail. This is wargame Design for Cause at its most aspirational, as Paul Dangel is trying to do for Frederick what GMT did for ancients (SPQR et al.), SPI/SDI did for the Civil War (the "GBACW" series) and AH did for WWII (ASL): the definitive game system. In the main, he has succeeded admirably. However, if you will remember the first game in any of the three, above-mentioned series (Alexander, TSS I or Squad Leader), there are some problems that must be addressed, if not "corrected". The heart of Kolin is its Command and Activation system. All combat units belong to a Command Leader, here, usually, a brigadier. Command Leaders are subordinate to Wing Commanders, all of whom function under the Overall Commander. It's a fairly straight - and strict - hierarchal approach that does have some twists. The game's "inner" sequence of Fire-Move-Close Combat is driven by the Activation section. At the start of the turn, both players roll the die, to which each adds his Army Leader's Command Rating. The winner gets to "activate" one command, usually a regiment of several battalions. As Frederick is +2 greater than Daun, the Prussians will usually exhibit a not inconsiderably greater maneuverability. The one, most interesting, fillip to all of this is that there is a turn-ending mechanism dependant on the DR totals for each activation, with turns later in the game ending sooner than those in the beginning (simulating, I assume, fatigue, etc.). Essentially what Dangel has done here is "re-invent the wheel", or, in this case, the old Turn Continuation System. The Kolin command activation system is based on dieroll plus command, as was TCT. The mathematics may be somewhat different, but the "system" remains the same … and so do the pros and cons therein. The major plus is that, within the capabilities of their commands, players will never know whether they or their opponent is going to go. This creates a nice level of tension. However, dierolling is an open-ended mechanic, one in which, mathematically, it is possible (albeit not probable) that one side will be the only one that gets to go. This - together with the somewhat tired perception that Dice = Luck - adds to the vehicle of tension the baggage of Frustration, a mind-set that turned many off the TCT system. I'm not sure that that will happen with Kolin, as the mechanic is somewhat less rigid and skewed entirely to the Army Leader, which was not the case with TCT (after its initial appearance in Horse Soldiers). However, the Austrian must be prepared to watch the Prussian player move almost at will because you can't get the "right" dieroll. I think Frustration is an integral part of simulating warfare at almost any level; whether it should be part of a "game" is a question left to the proclivities of the players. That said, it should be noted that the Kolin Activation system has a major problem, one which I have discussed vis à vis other games and call The Leipzig Syndrome, in (dubious) honor of the command system in CoA's game on that subject. Essentially, while the game's activation system recognizes that Bodies at Rest Tend to Remain at Rest, there is no mechanism that recognizes the adjunct of that principle: Bodies in Motion Tend to Remain in Motion. In the time frame the game uses - the standard tactical scale of 20 minutes per turn, 100 yards per hex, 100 men per infantry SP (50 for cavalry) - it defies any form of logic, military or otherwise, to have a Regiment in Road Column that is nowhere near an enemy unit to NOT move for 20 minutes (or more) simply because the player doesn't get the dieroll he needs to activate it. There is no rule to account for the fact that such a column would keep on moving until it came within (an easily definable) range of the enemy. For the BAR System to reach its full - and lofty - potential this oversight must be addressed. Lest you feel that I think that Kolin is not worthy of your time or cash outlay, let me make it clear that this is a really good - close to being a great - game. In terms of what it sets out to do - recreate and simulate the maneuver-oriented style of tactical warfare Frederick so dearly loved - it succeeds admirably. If the Activation-Command system is the "heart" of the game, the formation rules are its muscle and ligaments. If you don't like dealing with this aspect of tactical warfare, you're not going to get much out of Kolin. There are more than a half-dozen different formations, not including involuntary ones. Getting a unit in and out of one (or more) of these can be a game within the game. Even more radical is that the way the units use the different formations, half the time sitting/siting between hexes, on the hexside, and extending their existence as far as five or six hexes out. This is something with which miniaturists (Dangel is quite knowledgeable in this area) may feel comfortable but boardgamers are going to have to get used to. Fortunately, like most of the game, the Formation rules are far easier to put into practice than their density and rather formidable Tactical Formation Displays would suggest. And they accurately reflect that bringing your army to bear is not just a question of turning the counter around and heading west. I do question, however, the inclusion of Square as an easily attainable and usable defensive formation at this time and place. Despite Duffy's insistence to the contrary, there is much information which doubts that Square was used at all before the 1760's. The combat system, on the other hand, is easily recognizable, although the Close Combat Table is somewhat different - and a bit more fun - than the one usually sees in this sort of game. The Fire CRT is the one mechanic in which one sees the La Bataille ancestry - although somewhat faint at this point - with its firing strength adjusted by range and nationality. The Close Combat RT is new territory. It combines odds/ratio and a single ten-sider dieroll with a host of interesting modifiers, ranging from Formation to unit Effectiveness (a rating on the counter), from terrain to position, from leader presence to morale comparison, all of which requires a bit of legerdemain by the players to determine the final dieroll adjustments. Results are pretty standard: loss of SP's, morale checks, Disorder, etc. What is unusual is that in the middle odds ranges there are a large number of R&R results: recalculate and re-roll. Or, in layman's terms, keep bashing away until we tell you to stop.This nicely represents the fact that units, unless they perceive that things will never go their way, are most likely to keep firing and stabbing away, until death, rout and/or fatigue set in. There was one mechanic at which I balked, though … one of those Ritual Becomes Dogma rules that wargaming has carried around, applying it indiscriminately, since Time Immemorial (which means it is of the So Charlie Roberts Said It Shall Be Written, So Shall It Be Done School). I refer to the automatic "round off in favor of the defender" rule. In modern-era, positional, terrain-oriented warfare, I buy this. However, the military technology of Frederick's day gave little benefit to simply being on the defense - essentially standing out in the open in a line, waiting for the other guy is what they did. If any "vigorish" is to be obtained on odds adjustment it should be to the player who either has a half-decent defensive position or the player that is moving to the attack, as his momentum far outweighs any advantage the Line Standing Defenders have. And given the relative strength of the units involved, such an adjustment is no small matter when resolving Shock. What most players will like when they mix it up is a highly evocative, really fun cavalry system, one which manages to throw in charge, counter-charge, reaction and opportunity charge in a manner that is readily accessible and applicable. Exactly when and where to use your cavalry, moreover, is one of the fascinating tactical decisions with which the game abounds. Gamers have been waiting for what seems like decades for a detailed, accurate, yet playable game on the era of Frederick the Great. When GDW introduced the fascinating, ahead-of-its-time, but overloaded Torgau almost 20 years ago, players were ill-prepared for the level of involvement required. Today, however, with a background of detailed tactical games on which to draw, enthusiasts are ready, and eager, to embrace the Age of Reason. For that, and for a whole lot else, Paul D can thank this game's ancestors. And gamers can give an equal vote of thanks to Messrs. Dangel, Boinske and CoA for a most enjoyable and educational game. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Top Drawer. Playability: Once through the rules - no mean feat - good. Plays easier than it reads. Solitaire is good, too. Replayability: For the battle? Good. For the system, much better. Wristage: High Creativity: In full gear. Historicity: Excellent: evocative and accurate, even if one quibbles about Square. Comparisons: More akin to GBACW and GBH than anything else. Far more accessible than La Bataille; it's actually what La Bataille should be. Overall: Designer Dangel becomes a Major Player with this, an early contender for Best Game honors. from CLASH OF ARMS 3 22" x 33" maps, 420 counters, 1 Rules Book, 1 Scenario Book, Turn Record Sheet; boxed. CoA, The Byrne Building #205, Lincoln & Morgan, Phoenixville PA 19460 $35. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 14 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