I was thinking that I should write to you about something, but what! I haven't played many games lately and have no comments about those I have, and then comes along Perfidious Albion. What do I see whilst scanning through, a piece by Ed Wimble concerning my comments on The Eagles Turn East. I thought I must reply to this, if not in full detail as it is some time since I played the game does this show what I think about it, I think it does somewhat.
I must have a certain notoriety across the pond, I have only commented on two games TP Stalingrad and Eagles, and I have had two replies by such eminent persons as Don Greenwood and now Ed Wimble, I will have to lock my doors and windows when I am alone. Some of the comments are quite personal, but fortunately my Yorkshire breeding allows me to ignore them, and have a quiet snigger back. I will now endeavour to comments on Ed's letter, but as noted not to the same detail as previously:
Attrition I still feel that the attrition levels are not right. Admitted we did not shoot around the table, marching left and right. Once the top levels of APs points are reached a force of 20 can happily march around suffering no losses, in good weather admittedly. Again I feel that the AP levels are not set correctly and do not tie in with the initiative levels of most of the leaders. It must be noted that this suggestions were based on one play and as such I admit I would play slightly differently but not greatly, sorry but no blitzkrieg here.
Artillery I do not agree at all about the artillery rules they are totally one sided towards the Russians as noted in my previous letter. The argument that the Russians had more guns is not the one I contested, the point I made was that the Russians are far more effective than the French and this is not correct as far as the facts go. One can not dismiss the French artillery at Friedland as an "exception", at numerous battles the French artillery was decisive - Friedland being but one. The French artillery was better than the Russian gun for gun, it isn't in the game - but whose fault is that.
Casualties Again I stand by my original thoughts the battle casualties are far too large, and no I do not assume that each point equals 1,000 dead, please credit me with some intelligence thank you and do not presume what you are know nothing about that is, me. It is very difficult to win a decisive battles using the odds charts as given. Most major battles of the Napoleonic Wars would be on the 1:1 or 2:3 ratio, using the charts it would be almost impossible to get a decisive result, but this is what happened numerous times. The design is flawed, not my play.
Zucker Yes he has probably been researching for twenty years and his knowledge will be far deeper than mine, but the fact remain that the game as presented does not work for me. It is no good saying that an errata as been published, the game was not play tested enough before publication, very basic flaws ( as noted in my first letter) spoil what could have been a very good game.
After saying all the above if Ed would be so kind as to send me the rule changes I will happily play the game again and rereview it. I would love to have a game with him as well and I would try not to be too paranoid, honest. [CHV: Send your name and address to Clash of Arms, Second Floor, The Byrne Building, Lincoln & Morgan Streets, Phoenixville, PA 19460, USA and join the list, for products of bitching distinction]
Back to Perfidious Albion #93 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