One 22x34" map, 280 counters (49 combat units), 3 setup and reinforcement cards; 24 page rule book. Boxed. Clash of Arms, The Byrnes Building, Suite 205, Phoenixville, PA 19460. $36 Some designers seem to be drawn, irretrievably, towards a single subject. Such is the case with Kevin Zucker and the campaign of 1814, when Napoleon battled against an overwhelming number of Allied soldiers marching on Paris. His ability to maneuver in between opponents, taking advantage of their mistakes despite severe shortages of seasoned manpower, has been hailed as the epitome of Napoleonic strategic warfare. Zucker first studied this campaign with his (now) thrice-published game Napoleon at Bay, only just recently resurrected (with more optional rules and new graphics). Despite development and production problems with its various forms, the Zucker operational system itself remains outstanding as a study of command and maneuver. The Z has now returned his magnifying glass to 1814 to take a "detailed" look at the period of February 9-15, 1814, with his latest release from Clash of Arms, Six Days of Glory , which the grognard wags have taken to calling "6DOG". The game uses an offshoot of Zucker's Napoleon at Leipzig system to depict the days when Napoleon managed to march his forces between two Allied columns and hand out some very bloody noses. The battles of Champaubert, Montmirail, Chateau Thierry and Vauchamps saw Blucher's army lose 16,000 men to Napoleon's 4,000. Exciting stuff, unless you're Prussian. However, although the system has its moments, the game doesn't quite work. The components are up to COA's usual high standards. The 22x34" map is a Rich Barber feast, done mostly in shades of brown (including the forests) - this is February, remember! The picnic becomes a bit hard to digest, though, when you try to set up on it and find you can't find the hex numbers without a Pinkerton agent. The combat counters, what few there are, are also quite attractive, contrasting nicely with the map. Each is rated for attack, movement and initiative. Units are mostly divisions, so there are 23 French combat units and 26 Allied units. Not exactly "Europa" here. In fact there are actually more hidden force counters than combat units, allowing for stacks of dummies to parade around the map, if desired. This has been a quirk of the Zucker system that produces a distinct dichotomy of acceptance by players. The rules are fairly short: 14 pages of basics plus one for optional rules, most of which shouldn't be optional. The rules come with a sheet of errata, and I found a bunch more questions of interpretation, but nothing really show stopping. The game uses an alternating Command-Move-Fight-Rally sequence. Turns represent 6 hours of daylight or 12 hours of night. Movement is standard, and combat is a very basic - and rather tired - odds system with AE/AR/EX/DR/DE results. Unit elimination kills the whole unit, which can be reorganized, after a day, at reduced strength. Loss of units increases the demoralization level of each side, one of the key objectives of the game. Demoralization affects an army's movement, combat and reorganization …you do not want to operate with a demoralized force! I have been among many in commenting that this combat system does not "feel" Napoleonic, especially the artillery rules. I discussed this with Kevin at Origins 97. He told me he designed games of maneuver with a lengthy time step (6 hours). This large a period of time would wash out tactical niceties like step losses, and the simple combat system gave him "adequate" results. Good answer; tired system. The game does have some nice mechanics. Cavalry divisions can be broken down into vedettes, available for screening, reconnaissance, delay and distraction - one of the better simulations of real cavalry usage. There's a repulse attack during movement when you can try to blow through whatever enemy unit is in the way. Failure leads to a conventional attack at reduced odds, a good way to get really hurt! Command rules allow commanders to dispense orders, or let officers try to move on their own initiative. Even combat units can try to move on their own if caught out of command ranges, realistically limited in what they can do. Chateaux and Fortified towns are difficult to overcome and bridges can be damaged/repaired. Good mechanics; nice flavor. And, aside from some interpretation problems, the system is complete and works smoothly. Flat But the game falls flat for two key reasons. The first is the situation. You are saddled with the results of the main maneuver. Napoleon has already found himself between Blucher and Sacken and will try to take advantage of his classic central position. This takes most of the maneuver out of a "maneuver" game. You know where the Allies are, and you know where Napoleon has to be to keep the two columns separate. It makes the hidden force counters rather extraneous. Worse, it limits map usage as well. The campaign has Sacken coming in from the north and Blucher coming in from the west…all in the upper right quadrant of the map. The other 75% of the map is barely used, except for reinforcements to the battle area. I asked Kevin about this and he told me that the map was sized for the scale he had chosen. Good answer; wrong scale. The second problem, exemplified by the campaign game, is that there is no reason for the Allies to fight. In fact, by exiting the map without fighting, they gain enough points to win! The battle scenarios, particularly Montmirail, start with the Allies on the map and basically "in the fight", plus there are territorial objectives that give the Allied player an incentive to fight. But not in the Campaign game! The scenarios are also a bit lopsided, with the Demoralization levels for the Allies very low. Of the three scenarios, Montmirail was the most fun. Overall, this was a poor choice for a maneuver-oriented game, as most of the maneuver was performed before the game begins. Highlighting these six days would have been better at a smaller, more tactical scale. It appears that COA and Kevin expected the Allied players to fight, simply because, historically, that's what the Allies did. Never underestimate the power of the players to do exactly the opposite of what you want. Some gamers will find that attractive. I wanted to, but didn't. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Outstanding! Vive le Barber! Playability: Good, with some nice touches in the system. Replayability: Limited by the situation. Wristage: Low. Creativity: Nothing really outstanding this go around. Historicity: Bang on for the situation, but it kills replay. Comparisons: Why pay big bucks for part of the 1814 campaign, when you can have the whole campaign for the same price! Stick with Napoleon at Bay. Overall: Good system; not-so-good game. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. 2 #26 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com