LOS ARAPILES by J.L. ARCON from SIMTAC (Spain)
LA BATAILLE DE CORUNNA-ESPAGNOL by ED WIMBLE from Clash of Arms
So, I’m walking down the aisles of The Philly Big O when Ed Wimble drags me over into a corner and starts to wax quite wroth about the SimTac Spanishers and how they’ve stolen every idea he ever came up with (or, to be exact, that Matson and Spors came up with). Ed is so worked up over this that he has hired (or so he says) a team of legal hit men to slap Los Espagnols silly with some mean-looking, cease-and-desist paper as soon as they show up. Of course, the Simtackers are not going to be around for The Thrill in Phil - which, tangentially, turned out to be a delightfully far cry from such recent non-events as Dallas’ Bust in the Dust - and Ed eventually calmed down (relatively), actually taking the whole thing somewhat better than Dean Essig did when I suggested a minor change to his OCS games. Everyone, it seems, has their Mylanta Line.
So, what is Uncle Ed so steamed up about here? Well, those of you who have seen SimTac’s first offering, Sagunto (reviewed in BROG #12), will be quite aware that the Spanish company seems to have borrowed mightily from the venerated, but still somewhat clanky, “Bataille” system. Actually, it’s less a question of “borrowing” than it is improving, for they have done what Clash has refused to do over the years, or done grudgingly and belatedly: brought the system into the ‘80’s. (True, we’re now in the 90’s, but the 80’s is about as far as SimTac can drag this rather overweight bullfrog.)
Now, there is nothing “illegal” about what SimTac is doing. You cannot copyright a system, just the way you express it. And SimTac has completely rewritten, and redone, some of the major mechanics. Moreover, if SimTac’s counters appear similar to those of Clash - they really aren’t, except in one area: they both defy easy recognition - that would mean that virtually every graphic designer in the industry would be paying royalties to every other art person. Think not? Well, take a counter from any 10, random East Front games, put ‘em all on a table, and try to tell them apart. Copying whole cloth is “wrong”; borrowing is endemic. I can understand why Ed is unhappy; the Spanish are using his systems to make money for themselves. However, they are not doing anything that the law would be interested in, or that the hobby has done for the last 30 years, and the best Ed could do would be to use the “challenge” to up his creativity a notch. Competition can do wonders, if you let it.
So, what has SimTac wrought with their second venture into the Peninsular War? Los Arapiles is what the Spanish call Salamanca, one of the key battles of that area of the war and one of Wellington’s foremost victories. If you thought Sagunto was an impressive package, this one will raise your gaming fever a degree or two higher. The counters are spectacular, a bit less candy-world looking than before, and just as difficult to read. The colorful fronts contain only basic information, none of which is discernible at distances over 2 inches. The backs are what you have to read; they’re in b/w and clearly printed (in a font somewhat more recognizable than the ones Clash borrowed from Herr Guttenberg.)
The maps are rather more colorful than Sagunto’s; they’re actually very nice and readable. And the rules and charts? Best in the industry in terms of presentation. Loaded with diagrams and pictures (they’re in English), this is the way it oughta be. Wish I could say that about the game.
The problem with Los Arapiles is not the system, which is “La Bataille” both advanced and simplified, but the battle itself. The system is quite nice, taking what is good from “La Bataille” and building and bending thereupon. While Bataillers will have little problem diving into the game, they will find that many of its mechanics are not what Clash presents. For the novice, this is micro-managing, batallion-level stuff, replete with lots of formation rules, ye olde fire and melee systems, cavalry rules that need flow-chart diagrams to even reach “obscure”, and a feel more akin to miniatures than hard-core boardgaming. Both Clash and SimTac are keenly aware that these games sell as much for their visual impact and appeal to “the grandeur of it all” as anything else, although the Spanish branch is more willing to try to make some rules sense out of all of it. That they both sell like torches at a pogrom says a lot for what their enthusiasts want out of the hobby.
As we noted back in BROG #12, SimTac has greatly streamlined, and clarified, the fire and shock mechanics. Gone are the unnecessarily endless CRTs, and there are still enough modifiers and reference tables to keep even the staunchest Napophile happy. On the other hand, SimTac’s Morale ratings (on a 1-100 scale) still raise many an eyebrow.
Perhaps the main difference between the two is that SimTac employs a simple, but ingenuously subtle, quasi-Orders command system. Essentially, units can only move towards their HQ, and, if the HQ is not near the enemy they cannot move towards him. This means the player has to re-place his HQs every once in a while, an action that requires much thought and half-decent leader ratings for both Army and Division commanders. It quite nicely simulates the difficulties in directing large numbers, especially when those large numbers are led by large idiots. Clash had something like this in their otherwise disastrous L’Armée du Nord, a true rose amongst the thorns. Too bad they haven’t recognized what a neat little rule it is.
Two pieces of silliness Los A has retained in its adaptation are the propensity for using clumsy fractions for road movement, a virtual trademark of Wimble designs. 3/4 of a MP per road hex is not going to tax all but the most mathematically challenged; it is, however, most inelegant. And both systems use cavalry mechanics guaranteed to produce more headaches than a virgin at a college weekend. A quick peek at page 24 of the Los A rules will get those eyes a rollin’ right smartly. When are these folks going to realize that countercharging cavalry is NOT a form of negotiation; they are not trying, or willing, to meet the opposition halfway. What they want to do is let the incoming boys do all the work, and then cover a 100 yards or so for the general round of handshaking and conversation. And if that’s what is happening, the countercharging defenders just might as well stay in the hex in which they started.
To be sure, Los A is not that much easier to play than the Bataillers. There are still too many rules about tangential things, and it still requires lots of page-turning and house rules. But it is the direction in which the La Bataille system should have been heading in the last five years: it’s a lot cleaner, and it makes a lot more sense.
What doesn’t make any sense is why anyone would want to play the French at Los Arapiles, which is the big drawback of the game. The historical battle, which is what most of you will play, starts with the French about halfway through it’s ill-fated flanking maneuver. This means that Wellington is all set to pick his spot, cut the French army in half, and slice them into salad like some late-nite TV spot. We discovered this - after spending 3 hours setting the damn thing up, most of it in trying to find wayward units, each division apparently having one of Los Unreadables as if by autocratic decree - about 3 turns into our play. The Fox, handling the French left, turned glum, Gonzo and I, the afternoon’s tin-pot Wellsleys, started to drool, and Jack Polonka, with his French Right out of harm’s way, reverted to his usual half-ton order of french fries.
It was brutal to watch (unless you were me or the Gonz). And it was our collective opinion that no amount of clever gaming skill was going to change the situation very much.
Interestingly, the game does contain a sort of fix: an operational version, complete with campaign map, that allows the players to change history, somewhat, by possibly attaining different battlefield positions. We didn’t give this a shot, as the rules for such were rather involved, but it did look promising, as did the several hypothetical deployments that gave the froggies a bit more promise than a decent burial.
Whatever, it was quite a change of pace from Corunna, a La Bataille entry of rugged beauty and stolid play opportunities whose main claim to ease-of-play is also, ironically, its main drawback.
One can easily see why GMT went to Rick Barber to do its maps for Three Days of Gettysburg, as the Corunna maps are some of the best he’s done for the La Bataille series. Everything else is pretty much standard CoA/Bataille, although the counters sport a new, more readable font on their reverse side, and the unit colors are used as a command element now. Still, one has to have at least 20 hours of credits in Napoleonic Haberdashery to tell which counters belong to whom. Part of the panache, one assumes. What is still most annoying is that no one place in the rules does it say what all those numbers on the counter mean? For that, you need a copy of the 4th Edition Preview sheet … unusual choice for providing baseline information. Then again, organization has never been a CoA forté.
What is their strong point is how they simulate the battalion-level tactics of the period, even if they do so at a level of incoherency bordering on “Renfield” level. Which is why Corunna is such a good game to get introduced to the way the Bataille series does things. Not only is there little cavalry - the cavalry rules in this series almost defy comprehension - or artillery, but the rocky and mountainous terrain precludes their use, for the most part, anyway. This means we have a true infantryman’s battle, a factor which allows players to concentrate on the game rather than trying to recall one of the host of “arcana in rules’ clothing” so beloved of Clash Cavalrymen.
To add some spice to the foot mix, Ed has added some neat British rifle troops and light companies, giving the game a more maneuver-like flavor than the regulars would normally impart. And, if you miss all that artillery, try marching your Brits over to the river, where a bunch of French ships-of-the-line, complete with humongous fire factors, are waiting to blow you to smithereens.
There is even a rudimentary command system - be still my heart! - which, using command ranges to limit movement and individual initiative, manages to catch the spirit of the operation without providing much insight into personalities (or the many problems command during this era presented). Still, you no longer have individual units running around like tanks in the desert, a definite step up in the World of Reality.
All of this adds up to one of the more visually stunning and unusual, yet more playable, battles in the series. However, and it is a big however, because of the almost total focus on foot, there is little (try none) of the feeling of combined arms tactics that the other La Bataillers impart. Most of the combat is face-to-face fire drills, and this sort of stolidity greatly reduces one’s desire to give it more than 1 or 2 run-thrus. The 3 scenarios - introductory, full battle, hypothetical - do ameliorate that somewhat, but this is not a battle with the innate fascination of a Mt.St. Jean, or even an Austerlitz.
And, perhaps jolted by the sight of the Los Amigos SimTac, CoA is honing up its rules, providing some depth in terms of command, and trying to drag itself - kicking and screaming, to be sure - into the 20th century. They didn’t call this The Spanish Ulcer for nothing; just ask Ed.
CAPSULE COMMENTS:
Graphic Presentation: Both top of the line, altho counter clarity seems to have taken a U-turn somewhere.
Playability: Not for the faint of heart, but they both look great in action.
Replayability: Neither battle has any lasting, holding of interest.
Creativity: Los A stronger here than La B; but both of these are starting to show their system’s age.
Historicity: Great detail work., revealing much love of subject matter.
Wristage: Lots, but nothing abnormal.
Comparisons: There are no other systems at this level. As to each other, SimTac is somewhat cleaner and more in touch with the wider picture.
Overall: The Napotatoes already have their copies; for the rest of you, certainly worth a look, although their prices reduce “look” to a quick glance.
Los A: Four 24”x20” battle maps; one 15”x12” Operational map; 1080 counters; 2 Rules Books; 5 Charts & Tables; Boxed. $85 (including postage) from SimTac, Aben Al Abar 4-23, 46021 Valencia Spain. (Phone: 34-6-362 41 95)
Cor: Two 22”x34” maps; 420 counters; Standard Rulesbook; Special Rulesbook; 2 Play-aid charts. Boxed. CoA, POB 668, King of Prussia PA 19406; $44
Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 19 Table of Contents
Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1994 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