Iéna (designed by Ed Wimble) is a very interesting piece of work. Clash of Arms have a reputation for big games with lots of maps, lots of counters and lots of rules. Well nothing much changes on the first two counts (although the counters are not too numerous) but the rules are far from complex in this game. What they are is dangerous. A cursory read (my speciality) leads one to believe this is one of the usual "activate down the command structure" games with a Napoleon At Waterloo CRT and the usual old rubbish. But that's the problem with cursory reads - they are wrong. What we have is a continuation of Ed Wimble's work with La Armee du Nord. In short the game tries to cover the strategic, the operational and the tactical. To do this it does use a fair number of die rolls, but in the smaller scenarios there are few enough counters for you to be very happy with this situation. If there are playing problems they surround the universal blue and white colours of the main infantry of both sides and the size of the hexes compared to the counters (its tweezers time folks....). It has always surprised me that we lack many good operational games. Kevin Zucker's Napoleon at Tampa Bay series is too time-consuming for anyone I know to essay it. Joe Balkoski has done a lot of work on his ACW but certainly for Napoleonic we have had nothing good since the original La Grande Armee. (Richard Berg's Waterloo game is set at too low a level and is overwhelmed by the LIM system). After all the differences which many gamers (based on David Chandler's work) affect to see between Napoleon and the "others" are most obvious at this level. Iéna seeks to takes this area and make a play at it. Those of you with space and time may care to test it. Three Mapper Sadly those of us with less than a six-by-four wargame table are not going to sample the full three mapper (with Off-Board Movement) which sees the Prussians and Saxons desperately trying to mass (subject to a less than perfect command structure) while Le Tondu's bataillon carré moves into Thuringia. This is the game as it was designed to be played so that the detritus of past mistakes eventually conspires to leave you a day late and an Army Corps short. Peter Perla questioned the ability of the game to simulate history. Ed and he met face-to-face (on Hounslow Heath with their second) and Peter was persuaded of the game's chaotic proclivities. It is also the real game and accordingly this review must acknowledge its minority interest. (In discussions on AOL Ed put the case strongly that these scenarios distort matters - see his comments at the end of this review. However, without these scenarios in a workable form I cannot commend that anyone purchase the game who does not have a long weekend and a games room). However, for those of us with less TAT (Time And Table) there are "battle" scenarios in which we manoeuvre for the final confrontation. These are Saalfeld (where you can duel with Prince Louis), Iéna, and Auerstadt. Being a fugitive use of the original system these scenarios sit less easily on the game system. For example, the range of possibilities where one's aim is to smash the enemy army's morale in the Campaign Game can come down to controlling Ekartsberga (a minor town on a cross-roads) in a Battle Scenario. Cut off from the reality of the campaign naughty gamers can indulge in the many tricks we all know and love. I applaud Ed's decision to include these scenarios, but I think they need more rules to try and set them in context. As I mentioned above these rules are not to be trifled with. They are full of clever nuance, not always successful but always based on a profound love of their subject and much reading. Ed believes in trying to put you back into the position in 1806 without forcing the result of the campaign on you. In the battle scenarios (I can review no others) this seems to me to favour the Prussians. In general the Prussians fight in a co-ordinated fashion in the game in a way they seldom achieved in the game. I would question whether their linear style permitted them to do so. At the very minimum I believe they should lose the Combined Arms bonus (being in the same area is not the same as being co-ordinated). I also question their ability to launch multi-hex attacks (at least with certainty). A Mile a Hex Each hex is about a mile across so you can fit a battle over a number of hexes. It is here that the tactical element comes through. Although it looks a bit like Napoleon At Waterloo from a distance it is soon clear it is much more. Combat types are differentiated. Infantry has no ZOC and cannot bombard, it fights by risking loss in Melee. Cavalry has a ZOC, can engage in Charging, and attacks at Strength Points Plus Morale (no Morale addition if defending). This can mean the cavalry is almost as important in combat as the Infantry, something I doubt. Charging is a form of Morale driven move in which numbers are nothing and esprit is all. This is pretty heady stuff even for a Lasalle and quite beyond a Von Arnim. Prussians and French cavalry have morale of 4 so in such a clash the attacker will lose out two thirds of the time. French cavalry against Prussian Infantry is more likely a +1 attack where the proportion shifts around. This is not necessarily a true boots and saddles charge but would include a muscular use of cavalry on an operational basis, something very different from the use of cavalry under the Ancien Regime. I think the whole concept needs some care (I favour an automatic loss to teach one what close cavalry action does to the horses) and I think it should also be denied to most if not all Prussians. The Artillery can bombard without fear of loss (the main way of killing the enemy is a bombardment) and defends with Strength and Morale (it can only attack by bombardment). This can mean that the gun batteries of a division is worth a small infantry division, and attacking is a dangerous game. Combat Results Combat results are most interesting. They include a number of retreat/loss results in which you can take the retreat or losses in the mixture of your choice (Ar2, Ar, Dr, Dr2). [In passing I have to say retreating in a Napoleonic battle was usually accompanied by loss not the alternative to loss]. Then we have the Exchanges: Ex - both sides take a loss; Ex* - both sides take a loss and then dice again; and, ExC both sides take a loss and the defender must counterattack. It is perfectly possible to have a number of rounds of combat with Ex* and ExC results (one of each at the middle odds). I disagree with the loss/retreat choice. In my view tactical retreat once engaged was a difficult operation and likely to be accompanied by loss. Since I found it very difficult to (if not impossible) to recreate Auerstadt even when making the historical attacks (that is removing the leadership and strategy issues) I believe one useful change to consider would be making ArDr in to a retreat AND a loss. This will give the possibility of 1:1 combats having some (albeit small) possibility of decisiveness. It will also make the Morale Modifier more valuable. What the game needs (and most operational games find difficult) is a way of dealing with the moment a "battle" starts (and indeed stops). Up to that point a push forward by an enemy unit will cause a retrograde movement. However, once the stance of the army (or the blocking of its routes by baggage) permits the enemy to close enough then both sides have the tiger by the tail, and when they let go they will experience pain. Model Ed's model works on the basis that hexes with maximum stacking are going to fight at 1:1 with perhaps a Morale Modifier of plus or minus one. So straight engagements of infantry are going to be matters of equilibrium. To bolster the odds one needs to get a flank, or have Combined Arms (even though at Auerstadt it was not in evidence). To break this impasse one uses artillery to smash the enemy line until it is so weakened that it must retreat to avoid losses. This applies well to Waterloo where the model was followed. I believe it is less applicable to the battles of 1805 and 1806. I think of Soult's Corps at Austerlitz meeting and beating Kutusov's units. This sort of battle was not a result of artillery preparation (even if a battery of Corps 12 pounders was instrumental in the crisis). If you use my Retreat And Die this will perhaps work. I also doubt the value of cavalry. On the attack Blucher's boys have a value of 12, more than Morand's Division (10) which dealt so well with them. If one is to use these strengths (which clearly foresee a close-pressed fight) some form of automatic loss to the cavalry may be the answer. Even this is not the end of the jolly-bag Ed has constructed. He has identified that most Ancien Regime armies stood in the open between terrain (with garrisons thrown into villages where emergence was very difficult). Napoleon's units had the flexibility to use terrain positively. So Ed only permits Prussian units to benefit from terrain if they have their Fusilier battalions present to act as a light infantry screen. Advance-after-Combat is not safe either it requires a morale throw to proceed so that the French infantry are a third more likely to be able to advance than the formationally-challenged Prussians - Neat. A commission in my Guards awaits M. Wimble. Order Transmission Command is handled by means of order transmission. While I strongly disagree with this for tactical application (in many cases I believe generals stated orders and then intervened sparingly, they did not keep up a constant stream of new orders) this is the strategic game (and covers I guess the full run of supplies etc) and the key to an effective force is keeping one's armies in supporting distance. Of course the enemy will seek to pose problems requiring you to break this golden rule. The French are controlled by Napoleon or Prince Murat who broadcast their "control" three hexes to the Corps Commanders are other units. The Corps commanders then bounce it on two hexes to their units. These "hexes" are increased on roads so that Napoleon could influence units up to 10 hexes in each directions (about 20 miles side to side). Where units are out of control they dice for initiative and even Davout only has five chances in six of staying frosty (the Prince of Ponte Corvo has only two chances in six). The Prussians have four Army Leaders (Napoleon equivalents), five Korps commanders and a number of divisional commanders. The last of these have the initiative of an Indian accountant. The Army Leaders broadcast three hexes and the Korps two hexes, but the divisions only one hex. To help move divisions (which otherwise might fall into a deep sleep) one may issue "orders" these are destination beacons towards which the units march over several turns. Since the Prussians are all over the shop, usually marching towards their "orders" beacon, Napoleon needs to be able to manage his Corps commanders. Davout and Lannes both have Initiative of five (and so make good independent commanders). Soult and Ney have Initiative of 4 (and I think need to be under command) while Augereau and Bessieres at 3, and Bernadotte and Lefebvre both on 2 need to be firmly under player control. As a matter of simulation I am sure this system has much to commend it, however in strict simulation terms it has one problem - real armies do not always comply with the game rules. This is usually spotted by Set Up Syndrome, where the set-up includes some positioning that is so stupid that it defies belief. Now generals are sometimes foolish (although perhaps not to the degree that some gamers believe) but usually they place their units for some good reason. It may be supply, road configuration or what-have-you, but it is often the case that they place themselves in less than optimum positions. The Auerstadt scenario has just such as event where Davout's cavalry are the last on the battlefield because they were off horse-raiding in the other direction - oops. The obvious ways of dealing with this presumably clash with Ed's concept of freedom of choice for the gamer. [For the record, a pre-stated route followed by a die roll for distance along that route can cause a lot of fun, or the Perello concept of the other Player doing an amount of (unhelpful) movement]. However, Ed has included the concept of road column so that if you want to move at a decent clip (and believe me you do want to) you need to be in road column and therefore (fusiliers apart) not stacked. This can stretch you out down a road in a most satisfying fashion. [Anyone remember Jim Dunnigan's Lost Battles where this happens and Russian artillery formations can eat up road like no-one's business]. Morale Morale for the French is based on losses checked once a day. Breaching a level for a Corps caused it to be demoralised and to need reorganising. Prussians are affected by the number of infantry divisions being wiped out by losses ("shattered") who promptly leave the area for a better looking one. Once the number of shattered divisions hits three the Army Group to which they belong disintegrates and we are into the post-Iéna pursuit. In battle it seemed to me that something more Chaotic that would cause a retreat without being a shattering was required. It would take a very long time to smash up a division in this game, certainly longer than a real battle. Iéna is far too big for me to sample its real value, as a strategic/operational game of the campaign played over (perhaps) several evenings. At the tactical scenario level I applaud its skilful simulation at minimum cost. I do not believe this exercise in simulation is complete however, and if it were extended the result would be better history without being a less interesting or challenging game. Indeed, one thing about this game is that it is a challenge, one begins to view the world as a Napoleonic general. Where are the roads, can a flank position be taken, is one's command net configured properly? The Charging cavalry continue to give players some difficulty in rationalising their activity. Some attention to comparing the capabilities of the actual armies to their historical counterparts would inform this process to which end I give the following comparison. The Action at Auerstadt (Kalkenreuth's command missing from the calculations) using the Iéna rules 4 to 8AM: 07:00: Gudin engages Prussian cavalry with fire and pushes forward to the Lissbach A Cavalry Retreat-before-Combat 8 to 10AM: 08:00: Friant starts crossing at Kosen. Schmettau is in position supported by Blucher. Gudin's fire pushes him back. The Prussians wait for Wartensleben to arrive. 09:30: Friant arrives on Gudin's right flank bringing with him the Corps 12 pounders. 09:45: Schmettau and Wartensleben launch the major attack. Schmettau is badly shot up but Wartensleben pushes in the French left, but spends time attacking Hassenhausen. Davout stabilises the situation awaiting the arrival of Morand. Brunswick is wounded and the take-over by the King causes a halt in Prussian actions. Cavalry of up to 30 squadrons now available. French Player Turn: Bombardment Say maximum losses of 2 for Schmettau. Prussian Player Turn Schmettau and Blucher attack Friant. Bombardment of (say) 1 loss from Friant. Main attack: Cavalry 12+4+7, Infantry 6 for a Prussian total of 29 versus 11(artillery) and 7 (infantry after losses) 18 for the French, modified by -1 for Morale, but on 2:1 because of Combined Arms. Looks like an Ar, so 1 loss from Schmettau. (33% chance of result) Wartensleben attacks Gudin. Bombardment of 1 loss. 8 (infantry) +7 for the cavalry gives W 15 versus 7, 2:1 with combined arms with +1 modifier and -1 for French Morale. Looks like an exchange. One loss each. Losses: French 3 infantry, Prussians 4 infantry 10 to Noon: 11:00 Prince of Orange arrives (formation split on to two flanks), so does Morand who drives off the Prussian cavalry. Morand pushes forward and defeats Wartensleben, and then a counter-attack by Orange. Prussians falling apart despite still having at least 14 battalion untouched. General French advance on three division front. French Player Turn: Bombardment Say maximum losses of 2 for Wartensleben.. French (including Morand) now hit Wartensleben. 34 French versus 15 Prussians plus one morale modifier, but with lose a column for no Combined Arms. No real result that fits the end result so disregard the Combined Arms and inflict Dr2 with full retreat. Prussian Player Turn: Bombardment by Orange, say 1 loss Morand. Orange attacks Morand: Prussians 17 versus 9. Combined Arms once against with a dice -1 modifier. Result Ar. Losses: French 4, Prussians 6 Noon to 2PM: 12:30 The Prussians quit the field. Prussians: 10,000 KIA and 3,000 POW French: 7,000 KIA There is no concept of weakened morale that would require the Prussians to do this. They could simply reform, and keep taking losses until Davout was eliminated. Ed "Diva" Wimble responded to my points about historical loss rates: "Remember, these units have to last for the length of the campaign. They are operational units. They lose a thousand men at a time. The scenarios yield the basic mechanics; they are the arias of the opera. But the campaign is the process that provides catharsis. It is difficult to isolate the moments of mysterium, tremendum et fascinons in Scriaben and Bruchner, but you know they are there. Bounce around your disk and you will find the catchy moments, but listening to them without the process of development leaves you flat. The scenarios Saalfeld, Iena, and Auerstaedt were not even intended as greatest hits, or some kind of short form of the game for that matter. They are pedagogical." Another Iena Review (PA#99) Iena Response to Review (PA#100) Back to Perfidious Albion #95 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1997 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