Why oh why must Napoleon always win? Better yet why does he always have the advantage? I mean, the man has been dead for nearly two centuries. Yet in almost every Napoleonic game I play in, he's a genius. Say it isn't so! SOMEONE, PLEASE!
I am one of those poor garners with an Austrian army. I know I must sound like a bit of a masochist, but I like the Austrians. I have played most published rule sets out there. What drives me crazy about most of these rule sets is that they make whoever is playing against me a genius (provided Napoleon is the Army commander). What's worse the give me epilepsy. Scandalous!
The thing I love about playing wargames is that it gives me a chance to see could I do what Lee did, or Napoleon. Well, not the Corsican, but you get the idea. I want to know if I had been in command in 1805, could I have rescued Mack's army? The sad truth to this is that with most commercial rules I am already at a huge disadvantage. Mack is usually, (no, always) rated as a fool. This can mean that depending on what rule set you are playing, one of several things. He has no command range, command control, cannot issue orders, and his troops wouldn't follow him into a brothel, let alone a battle.
Now granted Mack was a bad general. But he isn't commanding the Austrians on the table top, I am! Yet I am hampered by his inability. Not his army's, but his. I understand low morale for certain troops, bad sub-commanders, poor staff work, and a multitude of other things that plagued the Austrian army. These too are all accounted for in most rule sets. So, why must I be an idiot`?
If you account for all the woes of the army then the challenge is great enough. I want to at least try something different. In most rule sets I have ZERO chance at Ulm. Worse, if I play the 1805 campaign, I can be assured that almost always, Mack's army is lost.
This to me is the great failure of most Napoleonic grand tactical rule sets. I say Napoleonic; only because I have seen in other periods I am not so hamstrung. The best example I can give is Fire & Fury. No matter who is the commanding General, the only ratings that matter are those of his subordinates. I can actually win at Gettysburg as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia without any of General Lee's "help" (I haven't, but I have seen it done. I really am a terrible general but that is beside the point.)
I was recently a playtester for a new set of Napoleonic rules. I posed the question to the game designer: Shouldn't the General the player is representing be rated in the middle of the pack? I mean after all we are trying to see what our abilities are. I used the Mack example above. The response I got was, "Well, I see your point but I can't imagine rating Mack as Average as he was horrible." The horrors of being a game designer. I didn't want him to publish Mack's rating as average (and get thoroughly laughed at for doing so.) What I wanted was to remove Mack from the equation and insert an average Joe, ME.
My gaming buddies and I decided to try it my way anyway and leave the rest of the rules intact. We didn't play 1805 because no one has Russians. We played Aspern-Essling, Wagram and Eckmuhl. If I was representing Charles I would be Average, whoever played Napoleon would also be (gasp) Average. The results were rather surprising. I actually tarred and feathered the French at Eckmuhl, Apern-Essling was a resounding French victory and Wagram was about a draw.
We also played all three the way the rules were written. I got clobbered at Eckmuhl, tied at Apern-Essling, and at Wagram. Let's just say the Austrian army is still running. I can hear the pundits saying that's as it should be. Why? I once read an article in The Courier where a fellow who owned an Austrian army said he expected to lose 99% of the time because Napoleon always defeated the Austrians.(He must not have known about Apern-Essling) My question to him is, why do you bother? I mean you could always rent a re-enactment video or better yet just move your miniatures across the table as they did historically and forget the game.
It may just be my competitive nature, but I at least want a chance. That is why it is a game. We are trying to be representational but certainly not historical. If we are then there is little point in calling it a game. One of the reasons I wrote this article is because as a game designer I am hopeless. I appreciate the work and effort that designers do. I can't do it. What I would like them to answer is, (and I know I am setting myself up) "Why do I have to be a genius? Or an idiot? Why can't I just be me?" Before answering, remember, I don't mind if my troops are awful, my staff is lousy, my generals insubordinate or stupid (all accounted or with other rules in the play test I did) but why me?
Back to MWAN # 128 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum
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