Battleground Gettysburg ("BGG") burst suddenly on the scene last year, causing great commotion. "Aha," some cried, "this game is just Terrible Swift Sword moved to a computer." Well, yes, but as some wag said on America On Line, that's strange, I do not remember TSS being playable. And BGG's flaws soon became apparent - weak Artificial Intelligence (meaning the computer was dumb and easy to beat), questionable orders of battle, and a body count higher than a Schwarzeneger movie. But what could not be denied were its strengths: excellent graphics, good Windows interface, and smashing sound and visual effects, meaning lots of video clips of fat guys in Civil War outfits blasting away at each other. The result was a popular game, which, although it really wasn't much like the American Civil War, was a close relation to it and was fun, although long, to play. Now Battleground: Waterloo ("BGW") is here, fixing many of BGG's problems and adding some more features. The AI is no longer an easy mark sending leaders and supply wagons wandering alone into enemy lines, but will now put a strong defensive line together and, heavens, even reinforce it. The special effects have been improved, particularly the sound, which is noticeably better- the musket fire no longer sounds like someone farting at a distance- and the video clips are better chosen. And I am told that the modem/play by e-mail interface is smoother than BGG. Not that I would know or anything, having never tried it, but it is nice to know it is there. For those of you who do not know the Battleground series, their most striking aspect is their audio-visual "look." Much attention has been lavished on an extravagant 3-dimensional map, highly detailed unit stands, and a background ensemble that features video clips of battle re-enactors blazing away, accompanied by band music and appropriate booming and popping noises. The melees are even attended by faint cries of "Vive l'Empereur" or "God Save the King", depending on who wins. Neat-o. But, Wait BUT, before you grab your wallet and run for the door, be warned that BGW is NOT a definitive Napoleonic tactical simulation. Nor is it trying to be. What it IS trying to do is offer an enjoyable, everybody moves/everybody fights slugfest that does away with many arcane tactical Napoleonic limitations. Since most of the basic game engine was lifted entirely from Terrible Swift Sword, many of that game's abuses remain intact. To Napoleonic purists like you and me, some of this stuff is hard to swallow, as BGW allows all sorts of silly battlefield. behaviour such as: Everybody gets to fire twice per turn, in their respective Offensive and Defensive fire phases, whether or not they are attacking or being attacked. This is an awful lot of fire for a 15-minute turn, and in BGG it led to Somme-like casualty rates. BGW "solved" this by softening the fire combat tables, so that units firing too often are compensated for by causing fewer casualties. In game terms, this means watching infantry in square surviving point blank infantry fire with no ill-effects, and remember the French Grand Battery's virtual annihilation of Bylandt's Dutchmen ? Does not happen here, unless Bylandt sits out there for five or six turns without moving. Cavalry gets a Charge phase after movement, allowing them to close with an enemy before melee. Since you are not required to contact an opponent after a charge move, this translates into a bonus movement phase for cavalry, albeit one where you have to move straight ahead and automatically disorder at the end. But most cavalry, if stacked with a leader, will rally from the disorder anyway, so there's no real harm done. To counter this, cavalry's movement allowance has been lowered to half of what it should be (since they're probably moving twice anyway). What this means is that during a movement phase the horses do not move any faster than the foot sloggers, and disordered cavalry, which cannot charge, are real slugs. This game still uses the Wellington's Victory model of British two-rank fire superiority vs. the namby-pamby French in their three lines, so despite what more recent historical research has shown, the Mindless Redcoats' fire strength has been suitably upgraded to machine-gun like effectiveness. - Chateaux are reassuringly impregnable. And I do mean impregnable, as I've seen two companies of skirmishers in Papelotte repeatedly hold off brigade-sized assaults. You can even deploy regiments inside of a chateau in line, giving them all of the defensive benefits while still maintaining maximum firepower. Units that rout cause adjacent friendly units to check for rout, which then cause other units to check, and so on like dominoes, until one routing skirmisher can chase an entire division off the field. I know, because I've seen it happen. Now this did historically happen to the French, but only at the end of the day when they had been worn down to a frazzle, not in the first couple of hours when a few voltigeurs ran by. These are trained troops, for crying out loud. Enough But enough. I could go on far longer about what this game does not do (yes, I did get mighty aggravated the first time I played the thing). What it does do, and quite well, is recreate that good old fog of war feeling that you just cannot get from board wargames. There are two ways to view the map-- 2-dimensional, where it turns back into a dull old board game, and 3-dimensional, where BGW really shines. The map and unit detail is quite impressive at 3D close view, and if you're a real plunger you can turn the hexsides off to give the field a true miniatures appearance. My spacial perception has been so ruined by boardgames that without hexes I have no idea how distant objects are from one another, so I leave them on; regardless, in 3D you really do get a sense of the terrain, of the rolling hills and ridges that were such a part of this battlefield. This makes it difficult to see your own guys, let alone the enemy's, and if the Fog of War option is turned on you do not see them until you can really see them. This is an effect that only a computer can produce, and it's what you buy the game for. Scenarios There are lots of scenarios to play, like 22 of them, ranging from such small parts of the battle as the 1st Assault on Hougomont and Ney's Charge (one of my favourites) to the big enchilada, the 54 turn Grand Battle, along with plenty of non-historical variants which explore things like what would have happened if Grouchy had showed up, or Blucher did not, or the French had begun their attack at dawn. I was disappointed that Quatre Bras and Wavre scenarios were not also added, particularly since the new Shiloh game includes the smaller battles of Wilson's Creek and Prairie Grove. I believe it has something to do with the Waterloo map being so big that there wasn't enough data room for other battle maps. Being a hometown fan I am not as versed in the Waterloo order of battle as I am in Gettysburg's, but if any battle has been researched to death, its this one. If you ask me, BGW seems to have taken its unit info from a near mix of Wellington's Victory and La Bataille De Mont St. Jean, and it seems close enough to me. So you pick your scenario, click the icon, and away you go. The first thing that comes up is the Talonsoft logo, accompanied by a sudden blast of music, "Quick Dave, turn down those speakers before you wake the neighbours," then the map unfolds before you. The 3D view can be very intimidating at first, as I said earlier, and I found myself doing a lot of zooming out to view the field (just where the heck is Braine L'Aleud, anyway ?) then zooming in to catch all the gory details of combat. You really have two options as the commander-in-chief: a) You can micro-manage the battle in Manual Mode like the old-line gamer that you are, pushing every battalion and battery around the map, telling everyone where to move, whom to attack and when. While you can get away with this in the smaller scenarios, in the Grand Battle I imagine it would take just short of forever. Or you can opt for: b) This is a basic form of command control, where you can tell the AI to take over control of your leaders and their commands after issuing them orders to Attack or Defend a certain point. This would have been a great place to add Command Confusion, where your orders get jumbled and Ney really does undertake a series of dumb cavalry charges. But no, your orders are automatically implemented and the computer takes over with mechanical efficiency. It's much faster to do this than all the bean-counting and battalion shuffling of a), but the detached, Olympian feel that this gives you is jarring to us cardboard commanders who prefer fiddling with the nitty-gritty. Leadership Aside from this option, Leadership follows the La Bataille model, which does away with stuff like orders and command activation, leaving leaders with nothing to do but offer melee and rally bonuses to nearby units. This gives units complete freedom of movement regardless how far away they are from their commander, and since everybody moves, and everybody fights, there's plenty of computer looping going on. The good news is that the computer is doing all the looping, leaving you as the overall commander, to quote Blackadder, free to enjoy many hours of happy maiming. Which is the second thing that I buy computer games for-- I do not mind endless die-rolling or supply-hex counting as long as the computer is the one rolling and counting. But the computer still has to stop and resolve all of those fires and morale checks, then show you the results-- it only takes a few seconds, but multiply those seconds by all the battalions meleeing and batteries firing, and it still takes a mighty long time. Sort of made me nostalgic for the V For Victory combat system, where the AI resolved all combat simultaneously, then let you go back and only check the results that you really cared about. What really hurts are the leaders, or specifically, the lack of information on the leader. Being a Napoleon game, there are brigade leaders, division leaders, wing leaders, staff officers, ad nauseam, and they're all present. But there is nothing on the leader, or the combat unit, to indicate which command they belong to. So after the first turn, when everything becomes hopelessly jumbled, you have leaders running all over the board like cockroaches but no idea who they command. The only answer to this is to print out and constantly refer to the order of battle provided with the game, which lists such info. Paper Shuffling So when you're moving brigade leader Von Plotz across the map and he suddenly develops a slash across his command rating, which means the poor sap is out of command, you howl and scramble for the OOB to find just who that higher commander is, then haul his lazy butt over to put Plotz back in action. Expect to do a lot of paper shuffling, which is just what I bought the game to avoid. Methinks this happens because the designers expect most players to choose the AI command model (option b, above) where the computer sweats all that chain-of-command stuff. Hmmm... Tactics If you're a tactics guy like me, the first three playings or so can be pretty frustrating as all sorts of goofy things happen out on the field, until I said to myself "I spent fifty bucks on the thing, so I might as well enjoy it," and then rolled with the flow. That's when you start to appreciate BGW's strengths (it's also when you get sick of the videos and background music and turn em both off), and realize that its benefits outweigh its shortcomings . For all that is lacking, there is still a lot left. Take Threat Zones, for example, which extend out of every units front- 2 hexes for infantry, 4 for arty, 6 for cavalry- requiring enemy units within that zone to pass morale checks before changing formation. So changing into square in the face of cavalry is a tricky business indeed, while you get none of the TSS tactic of waddling artillery up to the enemy infantry, unlimbering, and then blasting the bejesus out them next turn. Or Cavalry Charges. They are dangerous and can overrun skirmishers and artillery during a charge- interestingly, the artillery becomes uncrewed, meaning that they've run to cover with the nearest infantry unit and can re-crew later on- and after a successful melee can continue charging, giving a real chance at a serious breakthrough. But they tend to end up scattered, disordered, and quite vulnerable. And formations, tons of em. Column, Line, 2-rank Line, 4-rank Line, Skirmish, Square, Squadrons, all those words that get Napoleonic blood bubbling. Command Control Option The Command Control option is intriguing. While I believe it was designed for ease of play, what it really does is remove you from the micro-management of putting this battalion here and that one there until you get a 4 - 1; instead, the AI becomes your subordinate commanders carrying out your orders as they see fit. I find the Computer Command Control option just too perfect for my taste-- all of your orders are accepted without a hitch and carried out immediately. The AI is not very imaginative about it- frontal attacks and stubborn defences are all its good for- but it will pursue your orders with dogged perseverance until you tell it to stop or its units are completely disordered. Some sort of delay based on the distance between the OC and his subordinate, as well as a Command Confusion or Order Acceptance rule, would have been in order here. Instead you get digitalized perfection. If only battlefield command was really like that... I really found myself enjoying BGW, even as I groaned inwardly at some of the design decisions. Like every good Napoleon game, it requires proper combined arms co-ordination. Infantry is the backbone but cannot win the battle by itself, Artillery is powerful but has not the ammo to fire all day long, Cavalry is strong but brittle. Given the relatively weak firepower possessed by most units (everyone except for the British, that is), I found myself having to do a lot of meleeing to break the enemy's line. Again, I think this is very accurate for the period, but veterans of BGG who have gotten used to winning simply by shooting the Rebs to pieces will have to re-think their tactics. Minions If you're one of the Emperor's minions you push your skirmishers forward to test and develop the Allied line (where are those miserable Dutch Militia-types-- I know I can safely gang up on them), followed by dense columns of Blue foot. The Blues reach the top of the ridge and walk right into a long crackle of musketry-- time to go make yourself a sandwich or catch up on the results of the Mens' 4x200 Relay (won by the US of A with the redcoats finishing seventh, thank you very much) while the computer loops through all the fire, hoping that enough boys in Blue will survive the British machine guns to punch through the lobsters. Then bring up that division of cuirassiers hanging about behind em to exploit the opening, if only the Brits do not have horsemen of their own waiting to wallop your depleted footsoldiers. For the Allies it's a long afternoon of hanging on at the top of that ridge while the French come at you in waves. With such a polyglot mix of troops, you must break somewhere, so its crucial to keep your reserves handy to plug the breach. Many moments of extreme tenseness, spoilt only by the long wait for the AI to run its combat resolutions. And of course, the third reason why I buy computer games-- when you want to save the game for later it does not take up three card tables' worth of space. As for balance, well, a good player can always beat the AI, although the improved version in BGW makes this a little tougher. Against a human opponent, I believe that the French have the edge in the Grand Battle. By not giving the French any command problems, it's the tried old Waterloo tactic of screening off Hougomont, wearing down the Allied line by attrition, then sending the Imperial Guard through it like a freight train just before the Prussians show up. There are no restraints on using the Guard, by the way, which I see as a plus-- why force the player to labour under a set of artificial constrictions? In the smaller scenarios the balance is more varied-- in the Hougomont scenarios, for example, as the French do not expect to ever set foot inside the place. As I said earlier, many of my criticisms are based on what the game is not, as opposed to what it's trying to do. My expectations come from a mature boardgaming industry (well the industry is, if not some of its members), in comparison to computer wargaming, which is really still in its infancy. Currently, most computer designers are taking successful boardgames- TSS, Squad Leader, Wooden Ships & Iron Men - and converting them into digital reality while still learning which parts to take out and which ones to leave in while adding bits of their own devising-- and incidentally, outselling those same boardgames by a considerable margin. Given time, I believe they'll develop the confidence to head in new directions. I think what Talonsoft is doing with the Battleground series (Volume Four: Shiloh, is already out, next will be Antietam, followed by Sinai) is similar to what SPI did for board wargaming in the 70's- taking the subject to a new level. SSI and Avalon Hill set the stage with their older computer wargame efforts like Western Front and the V for Victory series; now Talonsoft (in the SPI role) revs up the hobby with a broader range of topics, better graphics, PBEM play and a Windows interface. My hope is that as the series matures, it will address many of the tactical/command issues that I have raised, taking the system to an ever higher level. If only Talonsoft can differ from SPI by staying in business. BGW manages the not inconsequential feat of offering a fairly detailed tactical model without the tedious figuring and calculating they can inflict on an overburdened boardgamer. Napoleonic mavens will be disappointed by its lack of depth, but I think if you tone down your standards a little bit, you'll have fun with it. In short, BGW is like a jigsaw puzzle- many of the pieces by themselves do not seem very appealing, but when put together you have one neat package. CHV: Sounds quite horrid to me, but then the strength of these games is that they allow you to play a Berg style game (and their number is legion and their popularity great) without expiring from wristage. Those people who do not play them already will not want to play a game that is still time-consuming and lacks any pretension to historicity. At some stage someone is going to do a computer game properly, but considering we have not done board-games correctly yet I will not hold my breath. 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