Matthias Gruber

All in all this game appeared to be an entirely orderly Standard cosim with a functioning combination of well known mechanisms, that yield a quite exciting game to us. The game is however absolutely first class if it is played with the optional Hidden force rule. Therewith the development of emerging battle situations are no longer known, also the coming together of the units, that are located possibly just on a flank march, being not known as clearly as desired, shortly makes one simply paranoid. The Frenchmen have a quite striking concentration of power under Nappi and can move therewith at the beginning preferably against the Prussians. To be sure these are not also without power as far as the strength points of the units are concerned. Of the command capacity,the Anglo-Allies are especially rather well-stocked with Wellington as the best Leader and many autonomous corps commanders. To be sure many good British units come in as reinforcements. The game appears quite balanced, producing both French and Allied victories in the games we played. I would summarize by designating the game as a good above average. I will play it again and can recommend it to anyone who is interested in an overview-level operational Waterloo simulation.

From: "HANS VON STOCKHAUSEN"

Why did I rate the 'Last Days' graphics a "2"? Mainly to indicate I didn't like them as much as the grahics in some of your other games. To contrast I would rate Highway and Boney in Italy a "4" or maybe even a "5." NAB would get a high "3". The graphics of Last Days are clean and functional but not as "artistic" (you're going: "yeah what does he mean by that?") as, say, the graphics on the other games mentioned above. I guess I like those soft pastels. The Last Days map had too much of that computer generated look. This of course is a subjective view (judging art tends to be). Objectively as a gaming tool the map and graphics work fine.

Anyway thanks for asking my humble opinion. It's good to know you care. Some of my friends just picked up a copy of Bonaparte in Italy. It's one I don't currently own. Have to work on that! So there is a chance we'll play it at this weekend's club meeting in Oakland.

I noticed that in your more recent games you no longer have a 3-2 odds column. I always liked the idea of a 3-2 odds column in Strategic/Operational games as it adds another gradation. A survey (I suspect) of most Napoleonic and 19th century conventional battles would show that most (in game terms) would fall into the 1-2 through 2-1 bracket (depending on rounding and who is attacking). I don't think the traditional 1-2,1-1,2-1 odds system provides enough variation and needs a more incremental approach. Historically speaking most generals wouldn't willingly fight a battle at odds beyond that range. All other thing being equal I think a 20%-30% superiority on the battlefield would likely be decisive. I mean try playing NAW with either Napoleon or Wellington having 25% more units. Anyway just some more ravings of a demented wargammer - though I would like to know your thoughts on the matter.

[Ed sez]: I tend to agree, especially if a game resolves an entire battle with a single die roll. However, in the games mentioned above, there are usually several separate combats within, say, a battle of Waterloo, so that, even though the overalll odds are nearly even, the odds on the separate incremental battles will vary.