One of the things that wargaming has going for it is the chance for every gamer to prove conclusively that they are smarter, better, etc., that their historical counterparts...never mind the hindsight aspect of such proof. Take Waterloo, for example. Everyone knows that Nappy really screwed up by a) ignoring the Prussians, b) splitting his forces, c) allowing Jerome to get II Corps tangled at Hougoumont, d) demanding a frontal assault against Wellington (despite pleas from his two Wellington-experienced leaders, Reille and Soult), e) allowing Ney to totally screw up the assault with unsupported infantry, then unsupported cavalry charges and f) not reinforcing Ney when he finally did it right. Loo takes a welcome new, grand tactical look at the four battles that comprise Waterloo, including Quatre Bras, Ligny, Wavre, and, of course, the Big One at Mt. St. Jean. (Can you name the only other, full one-map “Waterloo” game?) The backprinted maps (June 16th on one side, June 18th on the other) are done in pale colors with an almost period calligraphy. There is a slightly different color tint on the two Ligny maps and I had trouble lining them up correctly; but the "problem" was minor. Less minor was the lack of a time chart on the Mt. St. Jean or Ligny maps. The scenarios that cover both battles on 16th and 18th of June require all the maps in play, and this takes up a LOT of space. Overall, a pleasing set of maps to maneuver on. The counters are stunning. The brigade sized combat units contain a color picture of the unit type (a charging cavalryman, infantryman, or a cannon) on top of a national flag. Units are (generally) rated for strength, cohesion, commitment and movement; cohesion is a representation of their ability to withstand the shock of combat or impending combat; commitment represents the unit's willingness to melee with the enemy. Each unit is marked with its parent division and for the French and Prussians, color coded for their Corps. Wellington's troops are not fully color-coded for organization, and, as a result, the British troops are occasionally difficult to sort out for command purposes. In addition to the combat troops there are leaders who are rated for command range and orders. All visually pleasing and (with the exception of the Allies) easily read. The rules come in a 32 page booklet - scenarios have their own book - replete with the kind of ironic humor we readers of BROG have come to expect from M. Berg. The rules are complete, with no actual problems needing answers before someone actually tries to play the game (unless you start with the Wavre scenario). Clarifications are another matter; this is a different system and a lot of "things" happen that aren't completely covered in the rules. I had to spend some e-mail time contacting Mr. Berg to make sure I was "doing the right thing." Other commentators have not been as kind, complaining about the difficulty in finding certain items. This game will take some time to learn, but it is all there. By far the best component feature of the game is a chart that explains the command structure of each Army. This is invaluable to people of a historical bent, like myself, and very informative to all. As the command structure for Wellington's troops is "chaotic", the chart is an absolute must to figure out who commands what in that Army (the main complication with the Mt. St. Jean scenario). The chart is essential because the key to Loo is the command rules. This is Berg’s much-vaunted LIM system in its first, full-blown appearance. Basically each player selects Leader Initiative Markers (LIMs) from those available, up to the command point limit of his overall commander. Commands can be selected - and applied - only if their command leader is within range of the overall commander. Selected LIMs are then put into an "opaque container" and drawn randomly during the operations phase. Once a LIM is selected, all units in that command can do lots of things from strategic movement to rallying to assaulting the enemy. This wouldn't seem a lot different from other, chit-pulling games except for one main difference. There are far more LIMs available than may be selected, which means a player must plan ahead and then pray his plans work. For example, at Mt. St. Jean, Wellington has I, II, Army Reserve, Brunswickers, Dutch-Belgium, and Cavalry Reserve LIMs to choose from, but can only select two per turn. Pick the wrong LIMs and you may have to react to enemy moves via die roll. Commands whose LIMs have not been selected are severely restricted in what they can do, relying on the capabilities of the lower level commanders to be efficient, something most players will attempt only in desperation. For example, in the No LIM phase, if Reille doesn't get his II Corps LIM in the pool, he has a 50% chance of being as active as he wants, or a 50% chance of doing ZERO, should he try to roll his order rating. This mechanic is OUTSTANDING. Movement capabilities also vary, usually according to command effectiveness. It can be strategic (double movement rating with some restrictions), tactical (Movement rating NOT into the enemy ZOC), or reduced (half movement, but the only way you can get into the enemy ZOC). Coming to grips with the enemy is a lengthy process at times, and once you are engaged, it is difficult to disengage and get to another portion of the battlefield. Larger units can "extend" to cover two (or three) hexes; units moving on a road can take up a lot of space as well. Good feel here. Combat is fire and assault, all adjacent (except for artillery), as the scale is 210 yards per hex. There are realistic limits to how much strength can fire out of a hex. Fire results in disorder checks, namely units rolling against their cohesion rating. The two levels of Disorder can adversely affect a unit's ability to fight, and too much disorder can rout a unit! Assault is strength against strength with enough modifiers to please just about everyone, from combined arms attacks (infantry and cavalry) to terrain effects, to disorder effects, to elite units. Units have to roll against their commitment rating to see if they'll actually assault, although leaders can help here. Results are step losses, disorder, retreats and possible routs. There are the usual Cavalry charges, with the enemy being able to form square and opposing cavalry countercharging in reaction. There are also some outstanding Chateau rules for combat against these little "forts" that make them extremely difficult to deal with. Once the many modifiers are assimilated this is a fast-moving system with a lot of period feel. Large units are handicapped by only allowing part of their strength to fire and, as a "massed target", by making them easier to hit with fire. Extending large units allows more fire and less vulnerability to fire, but at the expense of assault, where an extended unit fights at a disadvantage. Excellent column verses line portrayal without having to worry about specific rules for such. The interaction in combat becomes something to see. In one Quatre Bras game, Ney actually got his troops going and Pire's cavalry charged the extreme left of the Belgium-Dutch line, while the 9th Division attacked the center in column. The Dutch Militia tried to form square, failed their roll disastrously and routed. Their rout took them through the Dutch Jagers, which disordered that unit. The 9th division's fire further disordered the Jagers, and the ensuing assault routed this unit as well. Very quickly the Dutch line was flanked and shredded. Great stuff (and not a bad day for the much-maligned Ney!) There are several optional rules, several of which should not be. Cavalry pursuit is one; cavalry impetuosity is another. There are also Napoleon’s health rules which should always be used, unless you want to see what the Man could really do on a good day. Is there anything I didn't like? Certainly. Aside from the usual “I would have done it differently” stuff, I'm not sure about the definition of “shattered” commands, where EVERY unit in the command has to be routed, reduced, or eliminated. Thus if every unit except one in a French Corps (II Corps has 10 units) were completely eliminated, II Corps would not be shattered. Aside from those quibbles, this is a tight system that feels right for these battles. So how do the scenarios play? Up front, you need to know that these are "historical" battles. The rules in each scenario are designed to make the players fight under the conditions that actually occurred, with some optional, but very tangential, possibilities; the challenge is to make the best of the situation at hand. Quatre Bras is a good "little" game to start with, although the Ney "stupidity" rules will bog down the French, and there is only a slim chance that d'Erlon will arrive with I Corps to help out. I was pleasantly surprised at the Wavre scenario (which needs the errata to be played). This one map gem pits the French III Corps against the Prussian III Corp in a slugfest for Wavre and Dyle river crossings. Most of the map gets used only when the French are approaching, but there is lots for the French to do. All Dyle river crossings are initially defended with the exception of the bridge at La Vallee. French cavalry can gallop across, but then they have to hold for four turns while III Corps marches to their aid. This one was more fun that I expected for a battle that shouldn't have happened! Ligny is a big, fun undertaking, as command is pretty simple. Two maps, lots of Prussians, lots of slugging. Berg's historical handcuffs require that the Prussians stand and fight until at least two of their Corps are shattered/shaken. Victory is simply beating up on your opponent worse than you are receiving. The wandering French I Corp, again, has a chance of showing up at Ligny, and it will paralyze some French units if it does (as happened historically). For me, however, the best was the one map battle of Mt. St Jean, although this won't be the case for everyone. You have to deal with a Tower of Babel Allied command structure that is almost impenetrable, at first. And you also have to deal with how to come to grips with the enemy. After Ligny's wide open spaces, the Waterloo battlefield seems very cramped, with very little room for initial grand maneuvering. The French cannot prepare for the Prussians, and to win something other than a marginal victory (which was far less than what Nappy was seeking), you have to take that damned Hougoumont. I honestly didn't like this restriction--namely because I didn't want to commit the forces necessary--but the requirement makes the French struggle in a historic fashion. Berg hits it right in his scenario notes when he states that Mt. St. Jean takes a long time to play because players are constantly trying to work out what to do next. There are a LOT of options for both sides. For the budding historian in me, that's why this scenario wins hands down...playing with options. Wavre and Ligny are more fun, but it’s Mt. St. Jean that will test the gamer’s capabilities to the limit. Loo also provides two combined scenarios, one for June 16th (Quatre Bras and Ligny) and one for the 18th (Wavre and Mt. St. Jean). I didn't try them. First there was the problem of space: the maps, alone, stretched over 6 feet. Second, the combined scenarios had much the same play restrictions as the individual scenarios, so there wasn't a lot to be gained by putting them together. For multiplayer groups, however, these combined scenarios would be great. Loo is not for everyone. It's a hard look at the historical happenings that June, with realistic (yet workable) mechanics for command, movement and combat. The system, a good combination of planning and randomness, is a step forward, and it has a good feel for the period and tactics required. You can't sit down and play this one right out of the box, but, once learned, the nuances and options available to players make it a rich experience. CAPSULE COMMENTS Physical presentation: Excellent. Nice maps, good, readable counters. Playability: Difficult at first.; new system will take some learning, not helped by some rules chaos. Allied command is a headache to deal with until you learn it. The full campaign game turns play pretty fast, but a couple days or one LONG day will be needed to do it. Replayability: High. Lots of options and tactical approaches for both players, combined with a highly variable combat result system. Creativity: The usual Berg touches and approaches. An excellent system. Wristage: The usual for a tactical game, but not overly much. Historicity: Excellent. Good research, good period feel. Comparisons: Very little at this scale, except for The Gamers’ Austerlitz. As for the two heavily tactical games, Wellington’s Victory and the entire “La Bataille: series, in terms of command, at least, better. (Not to mention not as big...) Oh, and the only other Waterloo game at this scale is the old Yaquinto, Thin Red Line. Overall: A historian's delight. Gamer's may learn something as well. from GMT Games 3 22” x 33” game-maps, backprinted; 480 counters; Rules Book, Scenario Book; 5 Charts and Tables cards. Boxed, GMT, POB 1308, Hanford CA 93232. $40 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