In the ancient Chinese philosophical text the I Ching, it states that “perseverance furthers”, which Kevin Zucker has aptly demonstrated with his game series on Napoleonic operations. The first game, Napoleon At Bay (NAB), was published by TSG (then OSG and now defunct) back in 1979. Since then, games in the series have appeared under the masthead of Avalon Hill, Victory Games, and now Clash of Arms. This Napoleonic quilt that Kevin has stitched together has remained viable for over 15 years attesting to its original, ground-breaking status. Basically, if you like the series you will love 1807. If you don’t, it now deserves another look.
The NAB system is an operational treatment of Napoleonic warfare. My historical evaluation is that Napoleon was a good strategist and tactician, but it was at the operational level that his true genius shone. The key battles in 1807 were Eylau and Friedland, but it was Napoleon’s operational maneuvers that created these battles and made him Europe’s dominant force until 1812.
The basic design revolves around the operational maneuver of Forces, whose composition freely changes throughout the scenario, to achieve the historical campaign objectives. This task is accomplished by applying your advantages, or disadvantages, in leadership to move your Forces as efficiently as possible and bring your maximum strength to bear against the enemy. Inefficient movement of Forces will either see your army depleted by march attrition, defeated in detail, or arriving at the critical point after the fact. What has given this system such extraordinary legs, in an industry that worships change, is that NAB is the only system that not only demonstrates what Napoleon accomplished, but how he did it. I have been a fan of the system ever since I took the Imperial Guard in NAB and exploited my central position in two smashing victories that mirrored history. It is a rare game that allows the history to shine through the design.
One aspect of this design which is often ignored, or glossed over, in most wargames is logistics. However, we’re not talking about traditional, bean-counting logistics, but a sub-system that is woven into the fabric of the design. Establishing your Lines of Communication and your Center of Operations are essential decisions in determining the success or failure of your next series of maneuvers. Planning ahead and controlling the tempo of your moves in relation to your Center of Operations is the name of the game. Basically, a unit’s distance from its Center of Operations determines if it can be given a movement command as well as the rate at which it takes march attrition. As Napoleon’s forces move forward they must coordinate their movement with the periodic relocation of the Center of Operations. When the Center of Operations is in motion its capabilities are temporarily suspended. Thus, the timing of its moves, especially when in proximity of the Russians, adds an entire layer of operational decisions without the “bushel-and-a-peck” hassle most logistics systems engender.
The Forces themselves are composed of leaders, such as Napoleon, and the historical divisions, differentiated by infantry, cavalry, and artillery, that fought in the campaign. What I like about the design - and others dislike - is the uncluttered look of the game. All of the combat units are kept on tracks as their strengths change due to movement attrition, detachments, and combat. Only the leaders appear and maneuver on the map. Some people feel the need to use the very nice looking counters for more than bookkeeping functions, and, concomitantly, resent spending $48 for a lot of counters they never use. I personally like the low density feel that approximately twenty five leader counters make on three maps. Its a matter of personal taste.
In addition, I must mention that Clash of Arms still insists on using the exact - or as close to exact as a 1/2” square can get - coloration of the uniforms to represent the counters. This produces French and Prussian units that are virtually indistinguishable to any but the most staunch Left Bank Imperialists. And the typefaces are the ones that Dave Wood rightfully pointed out set back the cause of literacy for a century. And you know how bad they are if we’re quoting Dave Wood. Great map, though.
Previous games in the series have also drawn scorn for the superficial and somewhat insubstantial way in which the games handled combat. That, however, is one of the areas that Zucker has addressed herein, and the result is a far more satisfactory play out of all that intense maneuvering.
It is, though, the history wherein this system has always excelled. Zucker’s original vision was to teach history through the Study Folder and the mechanics of the game. In this effort he has been singularly successful. In 1807, you are placed squarely in Napoleon’s Polish campaign, where he defeats the Russians and their weak Prussian ally in a winter environment that imposes a level of misery on the armies exceeded only by the retreat from Moscow. The game has three battle scenarios which are playable in around 3-4 hours (based on my plays of the Eylau and Friedland scenarios). There are also three campaign scenarios that will take several sittings, and, of course, the Grand Scenario that seems to play in real time.
Zucker has been a somewhat ephemeral shade on the wargaming scene, popping up with all the irregularity of Banquo’s Ghost. His forays into the graphics end of the business have ranged from interesting to some of the more unfortunate visual disasters in distant memory. However, his strength - and his reputation - have always rested on his grasp and presentation of the mind of Napoleon at war. And, with 1807, he has reaffirmed his position of pre-eminence in this area.
CAPSULE COMMENTS
Graphic presentation: Good, crisp and concise map and counter art. One complaint is the French and Prussian colors are hard to discern, but since these counters sit on tracks its not a big problem. Also, a second color on the backs of the counters would have been a big help when forces are in battle situations.
Playability: The Campaign game is going to take some time, but if you play Campaign games you probably don’t care. The battle scenarios move along quickly and are interesting snapshots of the campaign.
Replayability: Good for the battle scenarios, whereas the campaign game offers a wide range of options that are effectively inexhaustible from a practical point of view.
Creativity: Good; this is one of the classic game systems.
Wristage: Minimal.
Historicity: Excellent, this is where the game really shines. This game demonstrates and teaches Napoleonic operational art while it entertains.
Comparison: There really is no other system that has treated Napoleonic warfare at this level except the old La Grande Armée, system which it beats hands down.
Overall: Excellent. If you have any interest in understanding Napoleonic warfare at the operational level I recommend it highly. If you aren’t into the period you should reconsider your position.
from CLASH OF ARMS
Three , 22" x 32" maps; 420 counters; Series and Game Rules; Study Folder; Charts & tables booklet; four organizational displays, three track cards.
COA, The Byrne Bldg. #205, Lincoln & Morgan Sts. Phoenixville, PA 19460. $48
Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 16 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