No sub-group of wargamers is more contentious or more tenacious about what it likes than the Napoleonists. Nowhere is this more evident than in the futile effort of the non-Napsters to get Clash of Arms to update their “La Bataille” system somewhere beyond 1975, an effort that has met with fierce resistance by those who pay the La Bataille tab. The Napsters know what they want - which seems to be Napoleonic armies that would appear most at home in an “X-Men of Gaul” comic book - so it comes as somewhat of a Culture Shock to see what GamesUSA and Brien Miller is offering them. (One wonders how these hidebound traditionalists would react to the fact that their beloved Emperor was once portrayed in a movie by Dennis Hopper?) This summer saw the emergence of three, fledgling wargame companies: Spearhead, Avalanche, and the subject herein, Games USA. Of the three, Games USA's Borodino - the first entry in its homage to the Emperor, the “Eagles of the Empire” series - is the most adventurous… and a game so handsome that it easily starts the "Gotta Play This One" gland a-salivating. Unfortunately, it's a somewhat, albeit gradual, downhill for Borodino after your eyeballs sink back into their sockets, for Borodino is one of those games that, while not having any major system problems and showing some creative effort, is missing the indefinably important “charisma”. It's just there. The counters…especially the big, double-sized infantry divisions … are some of the best, most colorful we have seen … and they're readable, to boot. (Which helps, because there's a fistful of counter errata, most of which, fortunately, doesn't rise beyond the minor annoyance level.) The map, more of which below, is also quite interesting in a non-traditional sense, with a fair-sized dollop of helpful charts, tables and diagrams on both edges. To note that the counters and the maps don't look quite as good together as they do apart, or that the counters, themselves, are more impressive in their "trees" than on the map - beauty, remember, being in the eye of the beholder - is to harp on the picayune. Then again, that's what we here, at BROG, are known for. (And didn’t Vivaldi compose one of his endlessly repetitive concerti for “Picayune Harp”?) No carping about the excellent, SPI-style rules books and chart sheet, though, other than to remind “Fred the Editor” that if there's only one subsection you don't need any subsections. (Cf. 9.11, Fred.) As for the system mechanics, there are three, major points of interest. The Turn Sequence uses a random selection method, quite similar to that used by Rob Markham in Give Me Liberty and Ironsides. A player rolls the six-sided die and consults the Activation Table to see who may move how many units. The DRs slightly favor the French, which means that Miller has judged Napoleon’s “initiative” to be only slightly better than that of Kutuzov. It’s an arguable point. Most of the time a player is activating one “force”, here a corps, with about an 8% chance of activating more than one at a time. The randomness produces much tension, and a good deal of fun, but it is linked to the viscitudes of the die, with little connection to any planning by the players. The result is that, while the Activation Table lends much to the “fun” level of the game, it means that players are almost always reacting to their “luck”, not acting. There must be a happy medium somewhere. Then there is Command … at what level are we working, and how does it work? Is it a system that hinders? or is it a system in which good command structure can assist and augment? Here we have a bit of both. The armies depend on a three-level pyramid, Army Commander to Corps Commander to Combat unit. If the Corps Commander is within the AC’s range, he can command those of his combat units within his range when the player is handed the baton by the Activation Table. For corps commanders outside HQ range, its Initiative Rating Dieroll time. All very (or relatively) simple and effective enough to make Command a “play” issue. There are some special rules that do add a bit more flavor than the basic system provides, and, while the Command-Initiative mechanic is a “hindrance” mechanic, the leaders can also provide much help in battle. This is not a super-sophisticated examination of the command systems of the era, but it’s one that suffices to keep the game from descending into the anachronistic free-for-alls that most “La Bataille” battles end up as. The French, to be sure, have command ranges far in excess of those of their Czarist counterparts. However, the Russians are on the defensive here, so, for them, command is not that much of a problem. I wasn’t quite sure I would have rated Napoleon quite so highly in this area, especially given his mental and physical state, and his resultant performance, at Borodino. But to underrate L’Empereur is to tinker with the Shroud of Perceived Reality under which most Napoleonic gamers operate. Right, Ed? For me, the most satisfying aspect of the game was its Combat system, an area with which several other gamers with whom I talked were less happy than I. One must remember we are dealing not with tactical insight here, as the scale is divisional. However, what Mr. Miller has attempted to do is, within those boundaries, tried to get as much tactical flavor as realistically possible. This means a system in which Unit “A” attacks Unit “Z” not with the traditional, “Do I have 3-1 yet” mentality, but with an eye to comparative strengths, comparative morale and relative position. Resolving combat is a simple dieroll, in which the dieroll is augmented or reduced by a series of initially confusing adjustments, a list of which on the charts would have been of immense help. The applicable DRMs include morale, position, leadership, cavalry superiority (including further subdivision into heavy and lancer), artillery support, plus DRMs for some special units. This is, admittedly, a form of combat resolution - the One, Adjusted DR Fits All - I am most in favor of, especially when the alternatives include off-board line-em-ups or the Bop Til Ya Drop Round system. Results are in steps lost, which may be taken, if possible, in areas retreated. The Eagles/Borodino combat system is historical, flavorful and, once undertaken two or three times, easy to apply. So, what’s stopping Borodino from getting Major Thumbs Up? Well, for one, there’s that map … . Every new company attempts to raise its head above the “noise” of all other games out there by proclaiming they have something so new, so ingenious, that to not play it is to label oneself with the Ignominy of the Uninformed. “Hey, guys, look at us … we’re turnin’ lead into gold! “ (Or, more accurately, cardboard into cash.) GamesUSA’s contribution to this is their “geomorphic area” map. At first glance, it looks like Ye Olde Area Movement, certainly one of the financial Black Holes of game design. And this is, purportedly, a “grand tactical” (translated as “Battle” ) game; when was the last time you saw area movement in a tactical game? However, while, to some extent, Borodino proves to be far more than that, unfortunately, and despite a whole lot of jumping up and down and screaming for attention, it’s simply a case of reinventing the wheel. Miller appears to have gone to great lengths to draw his areas so that they conform to the actual contours of the terrain around Borodino, ostensibly so that, without using the supposedly artificial and rigid strictures of hexes to channel movement, the areas delineate how and where units can attack. The theory is certainly notable, but, in reality, it didn’t do very much for me in terms of conveying the realities of Napoleonic combat that I don’t find in other terrain systems. The question is not so much as does it work - which it does - but does it work better than hexes (or anything else). For that, we get a Yes and then a No. To further augment the area theory, Miller uses double-sized (rectangular) counters for virtually all of his infantry units; here, divisions. Cavalry, et al., are in the usual “squares”. This leads us to another area of potential trouble, at least in terms of whether or not you want to buy/play this. Just how felicitous is a division-level Napoleonic battle game? I don’t see anything inherently “wrong” with such a scale, but then again, I’m not as wrapped up in the Corsican panache as others. On the other hand, I’m not sure it is the most advantageous level at which to present a Napoleonic battle. What the double-sized units do do is allow the areas to force them to conform to their parameters, Units must be placed/faced “within” the area boundaries; they can’t flop over into another area. The theory behind this is fine, but then Miller goes ahead and ruins it by having units ignore that proscription when moving! The result is that, while the “geomorphic area” system does define avenues of attack, it doesn’t do it for movement … and it doesn’t do it any better than, say, hexes. So, why do it at all, other than to show that there is usually more than one way to do anything? It does allow for a more natural look on the map, although this would probably be important only for that small group that finds it against the laws of nature to conform to the artificiality of hexsides (but sees nothing wrong with the artificiality of rolling a die and removing 12,000 cardboard men). What it also does is force the size of the game surface to conform to the size of the counter, the latter defining just how large/small an area can be. Here, an inch equals 500 yards, which translates, roughly, to 375 yards per usual hex. My gut feeling is that the relatively small map surface herein sacrifices much in terms of the visual grandeur and expansiveness that Napoleonists seem to crave. The Empereur, throughout his career, was truly “larger than life”. Borodino, because of its map size, conveys little of that feel, and that’s where and why it stumbles charismatically. The other major problem is the battle itself. Borodino is less a battle than a traffic jam, in which players, after some initial attempts at maneuver, are reduced to spending two-thirds of their playing time in frontal assaults. The Borodino battlefield, much like Mt. St. Jean./Waterloo (although not quite that small), is narrow and restricted, especially given the large numbers of troops involved. The Russian right is approached with much difficulty through the marsh and steep banks of the Kalatsha River. Their left is, supposedly, protected by the Utitsa Woods … or at least that’s what Napoleon - and two generations of wargamers - thought. Not here, though. There is a 1200 yard gap between woods sections just east of Utitsa and south of the Schevardino Redoubt that I have never seen before. I talked about this with Brien Miller, and he says that such a gap does exist … quite clearly, based on his map sources (whose provenance appears to be excellent). My knowledge of this battle is not far above what I have gleaned from playing three, previous games, so I have to accept Brien’s position at face value. Which I most assuredly did, in my first game as commander of the French right wing. Despite the Ruskies rolling a double ‘6’ for the first turn’s initial move, enabling them to activate an entire wing, the bad news (for them) was that (a) too much of his army starts out of command for this to have any positive effect at this juncture; and (b) the next Activation dieroll produced a two-force French activation. This enabled Poniatowski to amble up the Old Schevardino Road to pin a bunch of mediocre Russian foot, while a full French cavalry corps galloped behind their lines for a soupçon of flanking attacks combined with some travel adventures in the rear of the Russian lines. Ah, the wonders of hind-, and birds-eye-view-, sight. It all came to nothing however, as the runaway froggies were quickly out of command, and it was soon back to a sneak preview of WWI. As a system, “Eagles” is admirable: fairly simple, cleanly presented, with no shortage of creativity (some of it, granted, rather adaptive … but that’s a road down which we all travel, and quite often). As a game, it falls a bit short in the Corsican Charisma department. The battle chosen, I think - Borodino - is too much of an albatross to allow this eagle to get airborne. And the scale - divisional - doesn’t allow for much of the, admittedly, illusory movement that a battalion level simulation would produce. Borodino is, therefore, not a Beagle, not by any stretch of the imagination. There’s too much thought, too much work, and too much creativity for it to be that. But an eagle? Well, it is a bird, but more like one of these hybrid avians, the ones that seem to have gone down the wrong evolutionary path … like, perhaps, an ostrich. Interesting to look at, mighty unusual, but, alas, because there’s too much “area”, it doesn’t fly. CAPSULE COMMENTS: Graphic Presentation: Excellent and professional, although a bit too much, too busy. Playability: Quite good. Like most new systems, much easier to play than it appears. Replayability: Depends on one’s tolerance for frontal assault, minimal movement battles. Wristage: Not that much Creativity: Nice, but too much mapwise. Historicity: Good. Comparisons: Certainly far ahead of the ultimately lamentable (but strangely intriguing) Doomed Victory. Not much else at this scale; can it compete against the 200-yarders? Overall: An interesting system, but, mon Dieu! Area Movement?!? Therein lies the sales crux. from GAMES USA 18" x 25" map; 340 counters; Standard Rules booklet; Exclusive Rules Booklet; Charts & Tables card; boxed. c.$35. Games USA, 9836 Carousel Dr., Syracuse NY 13290 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 15 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