Napoleon in Russia Napoleonic Computer Game by Talonsoft Game Review by Dennis Spors with Michael Neylan, K.B.

As a wargame designer, historian and player I was very interested in how this epic battle had been simulated in a computer format. Although I had designed many Napoleonic Wargames, they were of the boardgame variety. My only encounter with a computer game designed to simulate the warfare of this era was Fields of Glory by Microprose which included real time continuous movement. My co-designer at Marshal Enterprises Michael Neyan had played many of Talonsoft's previous games and was therefore familiar with the game system. Michael graciously augmented my rather pedestrian computer skills. He also provided a sounding board as I formed opinions about the various tactical systems. Another source of excellent information was obtained on Talonsoft's on-line bulletin boards. In this format the strengths and weaknesses of the system are discussed with some interesting solutions offered. Talonsoft also lists upgrades to their games and news on the latest releases. It is nice to see this sort of product support and open dialog. When I don't know much about a game system there is a standard method for becoming more fluent in the use and philosophy of any simulation. Start with the scenarios and progress from the most elementary to the more complex. This sounds simple but many people go straight to the big battle and then give up on the system before they really understand it. Even though I knew the terrain, forces and objectives very well as part of the 'La Bataille' Borodino Game, this systematic approach was followed. Talonsoft provides many aides to get you started. Included in the package is a six page introduction and a very complete 80 page rule book. Help is available from the program itself and a Technical Support number is given if you have dug yourself into a deep hole and can't get out. As I played the various scenarios I made liberal use of all of these tools. Great Graphics The game graphics are some of the best I have ever seen. I used the 3-D view and expanded the scale as necessary to understand what was being done to me. You need a computer with some power to use this but the 2D was just too 'ordinaire'. You will have to learn the terrain elevations and how they affect line of sight for 'The Emperor's Daughters'. The computer always knows the correct placement of artillery but the Russians should know their terrain better than the French. At first I wasn't sure why a computer game needed to use hexagons but perhaps this gives the simulation a boardgame appearance. Napoleon in Russia gives the option to play against the computer or another opponent, play by mail or on-line. There are options for limited intelligence. You can also give an advantage to either side however this seemed to me to only adjust the casualties resulting from fire or assault a' melee. Options are also available for sound effects, background music and video from the Russian version of "War and Peace'. If you have never seen this 1960's movie you will be amazed at the entire spectacle. Although it celebrates what I consider to be the beginning of the second 'Dark Ages' in Europe, inclusion of this footage adds to the overall effect. Talonsoft has also provided many graphic assists including naming the built-up areas, objectives, designating moved units etc. all of which are very helpful. Napoleon in Russia is in many ways an electronic boardgame. According to my mentor, Michael Neylan, this is typical for Talonsoft's simulations. The game is played by phased turns alternating between players. For the 6 scenarios and ' Kutusov Turns to Fight', I played against the computer's artificial intelligence. The 'Forces of Fraternity and Equality' against the despotism and reactionaryism of my Gateway 2000 solo. In between business meeting, we decided the fate of free men everywhere. Having played large Napoleonic Games for over 25 years, I size up my opponents very quickly. The artificial intelligence of Napoleon in Russia is somewhere below an Divisional General of the Hapsburg Empire but above a Prussian Field Marshal. Lets just call him 'von Komputer'. Von Komputer thinks maybe at a divisional level and looks at each front, not the battlefield as a whole. Frontal commitment of units are his specialty but he does not concern himself with flanks or using combined arms. Von Komputer's approach is not subtle and since his troops are brave and stand, they usually die where they are placed. This is not to be construed as a criticism but rather a hint at how to dispatch the forces he is trying to command. It is extremely difficult to program the artificial intelligence and because of the quality of von Komputer's troops, the game is a good contest and lots of fun. Perhaps Talonsoft would like some help putting different "personalities" into the artificial intelligence? Unfortunately the people I spoke with were very vague and not particularly of an historical bent. Throughout my play I only encountered one program problem. When the King of Naples and his friends blew through the line South of Semenoskoe on turn 26 of KTTF, the Combined Grenadiers and Musketeers were surrounded. The combat dialog was too long for the message area and the program would not progress to the next phase. Luckily I had saved, so nothing was lost. Several attempts at restarting the program did not cure this problem. In desperation, I held my laptop in front of the television on the anniversary of another King's death. During a "Remember Elvis" program I restarted the computer and everything worked once more. Elvis had saved my 26 turns and the computer was forced to continue. Viva la Elvis! Historical Simulation The strength of the graphics, options and support recommend Napoleon in Russia as a very good computer game but does that alone make it necessarily a great historical simulation? There are many aspects to the interrelationship of the combat arms that are not very Napoleonic. The valuing of the units, morale, Zone of Control and skirmishers seem to be borrowed from other era simulations. It is an entertaining game system but not particularly historic. Let's briefly examine a few examples. Cavalry are the ultimate siege troops? The best thing to attack towns with is heavy cavalry. The computer taught me this on several occasions. Little Russian Cuirassiers attacked and pushed my fresh infantry brigade out of a village. I couldn't counterattack due to the rule that infantry cannot attack cavalry. It is very hard to reduce these big cavalry units with fire alone and their morale is great. Historically heavy cavalry stayed out of towns and attacking any type of cover was very unproductive. The value of cavalry is in the open that's why the infantry would seek cover in built-up areas. Realistically the cavalry would charge down the streets but the infantry would fire at them from the buildings and from behind walls. If only von Paulus had the Saxon Garde d' Korps at Stalingrad, we would all be eating more Schneitzil today. Units in square still exert a full zone of control.? Square formations are compact without skirmishers. They are not deployed and therefore do not have a frontage. Cavalry and infantry should be able to move around them. This is probably a carry over from all those old Avalon Hill Games. Canister at short range should devastate the square formations more than then casualties represented in the game. Elite infantry should be able to attack in square. I would prefer Elite Infantry and Regular Infantry move one. Conscript and Militia can't move. Squares should be much more vulnerable to infantry fire and melee. In this simulation they support the idea of the superiority of the Greek Phalanx. The ratings of the Units are not very accurate. Perhaps this is amplified by the use of a 1-9 system. Using dice (with boardgames) we had thirty six possibilities. With a computer 1-100 would be possible. Most all these mongrel germans and militia are much too good and need more variance. The historic commentary that comes with the game indicates not all the militia have muskets/rifles yet their fire values are pretty good and their range is two hexes. Being limited to a die in a computer game is like having quill pens instead of word processing. Morale, a six sided die roll? This is a computer simulation. In the old days we used two dice for thirty six possibilities. How about 100 possibilities? The leaders values suffer from the same problem. Colonel Anonymous' is pretty good compared to Marshal Ney . The good leaders don't have enough impact on events. Bagartion, Ravieski, Davout etc. are more than just +1 but our unknown colonel would have little impact. In Napoleon in Russia they are all treated the same. Provide a larger number base for these values for the units a leaders. The leader's impact on morale deserves a fundamental re-think. If our Emperor cannot readily rally a disordered Guard, unit the existing recreation of morale is most certainly lacking. On the other hand I captured Napoleon as the forces of despotism and yet the Imperial Army just yawned. (We all have a dark side) Skirmishers are important otherwise we haven't even progressed to the Seven Years War but their impact in this simulation take these small groups of troublemakers to a new level. They disrupt an attacking infantry formation no matter how strong. They operate independently without ties to the parent unit. The range of the jaeger/chassuers should be limited and when they are operating, the parent unit loses its z.o.c. The power and independence of the skirmishers needs to be toned down a lot. How about cavalry formation changes. Those lancers would appreciate not being in column. Road Column (March Order) versus column the battle formations? Additional Thoughts Michael Neylan who has a Master's Degree in History specializing in Napoleonic Warfare, had some additional thoughts. Based on such writings as "With Musket, Cannon & Sword by B. Nosworhty, "Swords Around the Throne" by Elting and "Campaigns of Napoleon" by Chandler this simulation lacks tactical authenticity. French columns which historically deployed on a two company frontage have less fire power than a Russian column which deployed with only one company. A few infantry skirmishers can also surround units and stop them from retreating. These combat teams can stop cavalry from retreating after a melee and help capture them. Is that you Sergeant Sanders? Cavalry can charge unlimbered artillery frontally and the artillery does not fire!!! The artillery is then overrun if not stacked with infantry. Artillery firing canister at 200 yards misses columns and squares. Infantry units fire muskets at 200 yards and over units. Units are not all that sensitive to flanking attacks. Routing infantry defends with considerable strenght. These rule dynamics don't match the sources Michael mentioned nor the untranslated works by the Austrian General Staff which I was fortunate enough to obtain while living in Europe. The game mechanics seem to be a combination of Talonsoft's previous Civil War simulations and some old boardgame paradyms.. If you list a biliography, at least the concepts contained within the recognized resources should be the foundation of the simulation. That is unfortunate as there is much to recommend Napoleon in Russia as a game. Once I adjusted to these rule peculiarities I enjoyed playing the entire 48 turns. As my opponent von Komputer, shuttled reserves to the various wings, the constant grinding by my reluctant allies thinned the Russian center. By the time the VIII AND III Corps had done their duty. Davout with the I Corps and Ney's French units were ready to pounce. Von Komputer did make some interesting spoiling attacks with his cavalry however they were piecemeal and these valiant Dragoons never reformed or returned (skirmisher flu). By the time his Highness, Marshal - King - Grand Duke and simple citizen Murat went forward with a few Corps of fresh but perhaps overly dressed horseman, the dispersed Russian Army could not react. The solution to infantry which decides to stand in the resulting confussion, is always massed horse batteries. Based on these events, the result was predicable. A major victory for the forces of enlightenment. The surfs were liberated! The casualty tallies were: French (Allies) Russia Infantry 25, 050 Infantry 92,975 Cavalry 8,500 Cavalry 22, 175 Artillery 17 Artillery 570 So many Russian leaders died, there was no need for the People's Tribunal and their predictable sentencing of the accused. Because the Russians didn't rout and von Komputer failed to maintain a cavalry reserve, the Czar's trained minions would not have been able to leave the field. The French light cavalry stood between their battered army and Moscow. The loses were the result of maneuver and cutting off Russian divisions once the front crust was broken. Too Demanding? Maybe Michael and I are just more demanding than the typical computer gamer. Those people will find Napoleon in Russia a fun simulation. Miniature players may be a bit confused and frustrated. This simulation will have that miniatures look but not the tactically accuracy they are used to. The graphics and structure are there, however the historical simulation is missing. All of the "parade dress" cannot hide the fact the game design does not express an understanding of Napoleonic . This aspect seems to have not been recognized by the Beta Testers as well. According to Mike, Napoleon in Russia is "like a donut, all sugar with a hole in the middle". Perhaps TalonSoft will develop some editors to allow us to turn Napoleon in Russia into the simulation it could be. It is my understanding these errors have not been corrected for the new releases and that is a shame. I am sure there are a lot of very knowledgeable gamers who would like to assist in the making of Napoleon in Ruusia 2. Back to Historical Game Review List Back to Master Game Review List Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 by Coalition Web, Inc. 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