Eagles is one of the latest batch of card games. Andy Daglish, my advisor on all such matters, informs me that it is not really a Collectible Card Game because of its flat distribution. So this means I can (and have) spent more than the "merest groat" to which I alluded in the previous PA. The game works on the principle of Wallace & Gromit™ Sticker Books - you buy lots of packs and try to get a set. In the case of Eagles you can play with less than a full pack (something many of you have been doing for years). You will be tempted to buy extra packs and to swap your spares (just like being back at school).
The cards are not badly illustrated, but there are some errors, misspellings and other odd matters that mean you can enjoy yourself sneering at the cards while still enjoying playing with them. I for one salute Columbia Games (schwing!) for having chosen to illustrate many units in campaign dress. They have been criticised for having done so, rather impractically some have noted that units would not wear overcoats in Summer, as if Napoleonic armies had Barbie Trailer Homes in which to put their different uniforms.
As a few packs will not give you the whole set you either will or will not accept the concept that you can play a game without the lot, for those of you for whom "Complete" is close to "Replete" there are plenty of folks who will sell you whole sets (£55 from young Andy for example). I believe you can do with a lot less in the way of cards. Eagles is a very playable game with minimal pain and for these alone a great success.
However, like all simple games, it can begin to pall if you find it does not work for you. In such a case I hope you would amend the rules rather than reject the game. Even that said we do have essentially an eight hex game (as both Siggins & Berg have said) (more hexes if you take the Terrain as differentiating) and you will not find the action as exciting as Up Front (which is the same idea but better executed). In my first playings I found some things with which I disagreed but once altered even now you could get me to play one game every so often.
The Eagles pack comes with cards in three varieties French, Allied and Prussian. Each nationality having Leaders, Infantry and Cavalry brigades and Artillery. They also have terrain cards and special cards. The last two are where the real Up Front style game must exist, but in reality a lot of play arises from not knowing which unit will appear next. "Goodness me, I never expected to get the Imperial Guard" writes Mr N Bonaparte of St Cloud, Paris.
Each card is rated for which of the four battles (Quatre-Bras, Waterloo, Ligny and Wavre) at which it may be used. To fit in with something or other (doubtless the fact that the bastards do not sell us a full set) you do not need all the units at a battle to play the battle (probably less than half) this odd fact seems to have been missed by card game boosters- many of whom are not big readers of books.
So if you wish to play Wavre you sort out the relevant French and Prussian cards. You then draw from them a "Deck" which is all the cards you will ever get in this particular game (in this case 16 cards for the French and 12 for Prussia), and then draw from the Deck the Muster (8 for the French and 12 for Prussia), which is the cards available at the beginning of the game. Remaining Deck cards are received at a reinforcement rate per turn (one for both French and Prussians - despite, in this case, the latter having all their cards already).
As I mentioned above there are several game elements swilling around here. Firstly, we have a boardgame where the board is created by terrain cards and inhabited by unit cards (think of them as very flat Columbia Blocks). Secondly, we have an Up Front style card game where special cards are used to condition the units. Thirdly, we have a card-drawing game in which units come into one's hand without your prior knowledge. The problem with Eagles at the macro-level is that it does not know which it is. The third game - card drawing - makes a lot of sense at Quatre-Bras, but less at others. To express the percentage of Deck not on the field at the battles we have the following:
| Battle | French | Allied | Prussian |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quatre-Bras | 28% | 50% | n/a |
| Ligny | 50% | n/a | 50% |
| Wavre | 50% | n/a | nil?? |
| Waterloo | 50% | 50% | 100% |
I hope I am not being overly cynical in saying that the preponderance of 50% is a gamey feature which has nothing to do with the subject battles. Wellington received some reinforcements on the day of Waterloo from memory (Johnson's brigade?) and of course the Prussians. However the Quatre-Bras figures are not high enough, after all the French moved on to the map during the morning rather than started in possession, but sadly this would require major surgery to the "Take A Position Win A Battle" (TAPWAB) driver.
My initial reaction is that I remain unpersuaded by a combat system that is fed in the main by unknown units as a historical simulation, but I can see its game potential. What is certain is that the opposing general would not be in full possession of information, but this system would have us believe at Waterloo Napoleon has little idea of where half of his army was? (Not counting Grouchy who cannot turn up unless you also play Wavre). Given that the three positions (see below) can absorb four units, one leader, and one piece of terrain one can get rid of 18 cards (if you have the right ones) in initial set-up. That is more than most Muster hands. This means any major "unbalancing" (that is, keeping a key reserve) comes from:
- the Deck pack, (which means we have no idea what is in our reserves), or
- from pulling units out of line, (not the most frequently practised Napoleonic tactic), or
- by keeping one's line weak and some units in one's reserve hand.
I do not think these represent a major Napoleonic battle in spirit or form (a meeting engagement like Quatre-Bras is a different matter). Most cards (or units) would be identified before action began, and those that arrive do not always do so conveniently into one's "hand" (if you are lucky they may make a flank position) but none of this found in this pedestrian analysis of battle. Yet the former is capable of being handled (see Designers Guild) and the latter is already a feature of Columbia's Bobby Lee.
The unit cards start out face down and part of the early game is the unmasking of batteries which lob a few rounds into the opposing line to see what sort of headgear in thrown up by the explosions (lots of observers with spyglasses and copies of books by Blandford - "My goodness, that was either a Portuguese Hussar or the Danish Navy has landed").
As noted above the positions Right-Centre-Left are occupied by no more than four units and you can withdraw from them and add to them (although once a position is engaged this changes). Early on you may need to use anybody to hold the position and later withdraw them as fresh formations arrive. The game is won by "Take A Position Win A Battle", in that if you clear the enemy out of one of his three positions he has lost.
At Quatre Bras with low unit counts one can easily find this happening, at the bigger battles one is in for a long hard pounding. Essentially in these cases one must either overwhelm one position with great speed, or draw off reserves into engaged positions after which you pounce on the other. Most of the time the losses just mount but this is as it should be. The TAPWAB rule should be considered for amendment because I believe it proceeds from the earlier battles in which a linear position once pierced broke. However, in practice because you must pin elsewhere to stop the ahistorical withdrawal of units the things self-rights after a fashion.
Artillery can fire from its own line to the enemy positions (other units must move forward and engage the enemy position - occupying some form of Limboland). Here is a good opportunity to mention the dice drivers which are pretty Computer-looping but my weakness is too well known to make further comment. My cannon might have strength 2 (so I use two dice) and F1 (I hit on a six), at close range I have F3 (I hit 4-6). [I would have written that F6 and F4 but what do I know].
Once I inflict a hit a marker is placed on the unit. In its own turn it can roll to see if it removes the hit - if it does not succeed the whole unit does a runner. To remove the hit one must dice against morale class, but with multiple hits each die roll must be within the saving range - how I detest being shelled by mass-batteries. Leaders can help here but in the case of Napoleon I think he could make even me stand in line (Class G - Gibbering and Gutless), in all cases however a six means rout. In the Quatre-Bras scenario we sometimes play with this as a rout only if engaged, but in bigger battles the sheer pressure for space means bodies need clearing. The temptation to sit there and shell the enemy to death is strong, but since it did occur historically I suspect the artillery is a little too powerful.
Attack
After a while you will want to push forward and attack. This is achieved by moving forward your units from one position to "engage" the opposite position (and only the opposite position - no oblique order here). Ordinarily this will mean that infantry move, and may then be fired on (or attacked) by the other side in their turn, before the next player turn allows them to fire or attack. This Columbia style result (which Monsieur Wimble informs me comes from the Clash of Arms game The Great Invasion) gives exactly the gut-heaving effect of an attack. Will your infantry units survive? Even worse what if there is cavalry in the position (or reserve) which will charge your moving formations? Should you advance in line (good for fire) or column (good for assault)? At close ranges fire strengths increase and Shock Combat can occur. Losses mount and you will need to feed forward reserves (and so will your opponent).
With one position heavily engaged you may then throw in other attacks to stretch the enemy. Of course if he has more units than you in his reserve there is a risk you will be driven back but that's battle for you. Eventually one defender will crumble or he will repulse the attacker and the battle will settle down to an artillery duel. The Emperor is often criticised for not co-ordinating his attacks at Waterloo, fortunately the gamer is more gifted and can do just that. [Honk, honk].
Cavalry can move extra and horse-artillery move and engage and are very important in bolstering collapsing positions. The rough outline of formations is sketched. Apart from the rule that prevents cavalry charging other cavalry (instead they fire carbines at them) much is as it should be. [The cavalry rule is odd, are the designers just plain wrong or are we simulating something else here. For example, that counter-charging is the way to get full cavalry strength, anything else is "light skirmishing" or inconsequential charging?]
Eagles contains a lot that is right, and much that is fudged but then it endeavours to be quick and must needs take in some slack somewhere. It is therefore going to be regarded on very subjective grounds (Can you accept the trade-offs or not). Frankly, I found as a game it could pall quickly but then since I could play a lot of games quite quickly I wonder if this is fair. Many other games might pall if we ever got to the end of them!
Those players who love the Napoleonic period frequently criticise the game in play (indeed there is a steady droning throughout a game). Now I can occasionally accept some rough work as covering a number of minor factors in one bundle, but even I cavil at the effect of Napoleon being that units cannot break on anything but a six - you can believe it if you like but do not waste my time playing that rule. Even the non-Napoleonic fan will find the large games (Waterloo etc.) pall after a few plays.
But this is not to say that the game cannot be improved. Napoleonic buffs Maurizio Bragaglia and Mike Siggins have both subjected me to the Death by Constant Criticism (Can I see the Whine List, waiter?), but in the final analysis I think I persuaded Mike that there was something worth rescuing, Maurizio could see it was there but could not see the game was worth the candle. I can respect that view and only regret that this game is less rigorously designed and failed to play to its strengths. But all that said I believe even with its failings it remains accessible and a game that will receive regular but infrequent replays. It is also very easy to amend (see below). The collector element is an irritation, but comparing like-with-like I think you can get more gaming hours from Eagles then its more "toney" rivals. In addition, as Andy Daglish reminded me in an e-mail recently, it does have replay value and can be used to fill out the "end-of-session void" or for two of you ejected by a multi-player.
Back to Perfidious Albion #92 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1996 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
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