The full text of the following can be found on the Consimworld (www.consimworld) Discussion Board, under Game Company Support Forum--Operational Studies Group, message 279, dated 17 September 1998.

A. One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor

There are days when you begin to wish the World Wide Web had never been invented. After reading the comments of our critic some fans of the game registered surprise that we bothered to respond at all. The critic didn't really describe the game as published, and promulgated several misconceptions as to what is actually in the game, what the game is and is not. To clarify the contents and design goals of this project, we posted the following message.

We have to design games for everyone-not just the most hard-to-please critic. We would, indeed, like to widen the base of a shrinking market. We have tried to make the game accessible to non-wargamers, and for this we have been criticized. The critic's sense of disappointment stems more from a basic misunderstanding of our approach than from any particulars.

However, it is still very important to address these particulars now that they have been posted on the web. He cited six areas where he felt the design failed:
1) "lack of political rules"
2) "no manpower shortages"
3) "tedious combat"
4) "no differentiation among troops"
5) "the supply rules"
6) "no way to simulate Trafalgar"
Were all these things true and fairly spoken, I would not be able to give the game my fullest endorsement. Fortunately, I think we can rather easily show that these statements are completely erroneous, and based either upon a misunderstanding of the rules, or, more likely, by a failure to read the rules at all. Once in a blue moon we receive game questions from someone who has not actually read the rules, but who nonetheless insists he knows what is in them.

1) No Political Rules? The critic's ignorance of what is actually in the rules is nowhere better demonstrated than in your repeated assertion that the game has "no" political rules.

The political rules are, as they ought to be, the heart and soul of La Guerre. They are founded on a distinct political model of Napoleonic Europe. For those who are interested, here is a brief synopsis of the Political rules The critic has missed:

During the Winterphase players take stock of their Economies and then, in the Diplomacy Phase, non-Allied players may hold private talks. Following this is the NPC Alliance Phase, when players may ally with Non-Player Countries.

In addition, "open" discussions between non-Allied Players take place at the beginning of each Combat Season (Spring/Summer/Fall), while Allied nations can plan their strategy in secret. Each combat season begins with declarations of military cooperation (if any), meaning that the players have decided to combine their forces, an essential part of Coalition strategy.

Many political events are allowed by the Events Tables, such as: Trade Agreements, the Peace Party in the various countries comes to power, War with America, and Rebellions in various provinces.

The most important Political events are those initiated by the Players themselves, which is as it should be. During the Player Turn, before a single Naval or Land Force may be moved, the Player may offer a Negotiated Peace, offer to Surrender, offer Alliances (which grant to the allies the mutual ability to move through each other's provinces, etc.) trade provinces, and Declare War, all of which is subject to "cancellation," representing the efforts of spies, rumors, and the general tendency of political events to spin out of control. These Political Rules, taken together, represent 5 pages out of a total 16 page folder. These rules succeed in modelling the significant elements of diplomacy in the Napoleonic era, and they do so clearly and effectively.

2) Is it true to say you can lose 400,000 men in a battle and then instantly rebuild them. That is an exaggeration. Each infantry division represents approximately 8,000 men, and cavalry approximately 2,500 men. France, the greatest land power, begins the game with eleven corps, comprising 21 infantry and 8 cavalry divisions, plus 4 artillery "grand batteries," or 188,000 men in all. It would take a tremendous effort for France to build up her Economic reach to the point she could support 400,000 men. In fact, since France can field only 18 corps, she could not have more than 307,000 men in the field at any one time. Were France to lose her entire army in one turn, the results would certainly be catastrophic for the French Player, and not at all easily remedied.

Production of units is based upon the Economic Value of provinces controlled by a player. Many provinces in Russia, for example, have a value of 2, while Paris, the richest province, is valued at 17.

Is it true that you only need two artillery units. If so, that would be about right for a Napoleonic era grand battery (144 guns).

3) Does combat take too long? The combat system is also one of the great strengths of the game. I'd draw a comparison to Columbia Games' battle systems. It takes roughly the same (or less) time to complete a large battle in LGE. Our combat system works, and is exciting.

Combat is resolved in several "rounds." This is based upon the fact that it took time to organise any kind of offensive on the battlefield, and there were relative lulls in between, punctuated by the rattle of small arms and artillery fire. A player must gain the initiative to execute an offensive option. A player can choose to launch a Probe, Assault, Echelon, Combined Arms, Grand Assault, Flank Attack, Demonstration, or Cavalry Charge, depending upon the quality of his commander. The defender must choose to deploy in Skirmish Line, Line, Refuse Flanks, Counter Attack, Squares Formed, Reserve Slopes, Static Defense, or Cavary Counter Charge, again depending upon the quality of his leader. Some of these options are very difficult to obtain for leaders of poor quality, and Napoleon and Wellington have the widest latitude in their options.

Battle options are selected in secret and then cross-referenced to determine the outcome of that round, including any change in initiative. Initiative tends to swing from one player to the other; a player who can retain the initiative can gain control of the battle. Losses in combat are specified for both sides, including mandatory cavalry losses if any, both in routed and permanently destroyed units. While combat options are influenced by a roll of the die, the actual combat losses are strictly based upon the intersection of the players' chosen combat options.

Divisions are deployed on each player's battle map, in left, center, right and reserve sectors. Once a given sector is devoid of troops and the enemy player has the initiative, the battle is lost. There are rules for deploying troops from other sectors, reinforcements from other provinces, rally of previously routed units, bombardments, and Night. If Night intervenes, a player can leave the battle board without suffering pursuit, which can be disastrous for any army which hasn't enough cavalry.

4) Should there be troop quality? We think it would be inappropriate to our design goals. This game doesn't zoom in that close.

5) Is it possible to "wait till the other side moves, then attack out of supply?" La Guerre de l'Empereur doesn't have supply rules. If you are interested in supply in the Napoleonic Wars, OSG has published a game for you.

6) Can the game model "Trafalgar?" Certainly - its devastating impact on Napoleon's invasion plans is clear. Collingwood's squadron consisted of 15 ships and Nelson's of 12. Villeneuve had 33 ships - 15 of them Spanish - and he lost 20. A squadron represents 64 ships (including all kinds of ships, not just ships of the line). So, of two squadrons engaged on either side, two squadrons engaged on either side, one French squadron was captured.

Are the figures on the units "amateurish?" We went to great lengths to depict the uniforms accurately for each nation and minor state. The counters in La Guerre can be used as a quick reference on the basic uniforms of the Napoleonic Wars.

The critic continues to throw around dollar amounts that he thinks we should be making on this game. I'd better put him in charge of Financial Planning for OSG. I must be missing something. But I like someone who can dream that big.

-Kevin Zucker

B. Feedback

My friends and I got La Guerre and we can't stop playing it. I was wondering if there is a follow up to the rules on some definitions or examples of things happening that we are not clear on. (You'll find these elsewhere in this issue-Ed.)
... We are working through some of the things that are unclear, I was just wondering if, from feedback, if you were getting similar e-mails. All in all, I think it is one of the most addicting games, ranging from a simpler Empires In Arms to Diplomacy with a dash of Junta thrown in. Great game!!!

-Chris Owens

La Guerre de L'Empereur ... is a welcome addition to the area of Napoleonic simulated at the strategic level. From reading the rules the game seems to generally capture the flavour of the era while still being playable in real time. I do have a few questions about the rules though.
... My sincere compliments to you and your design team for creating a game that reads remarkably clear. The best games I find are simple to learn but hard to master and I think this may be one of them!

-Peter Landry, Teaticket, MA

I've made a quick presentation of La Guerre de L'Empereur in Vae Victis n°23 (next month). A complete analysis will take place in the VVn°24 probably in an big article about two new Grand-strategy games: your "Guerre de l'Empereur" and "For The People" (AH). I find the game really great.

-Frédéric Bey, Vanves, France

The game is being very well received here! Only problem is, everybody in my gaming group has had a chance to play my copy, except me! TANJ!

-Allan Rothberg, Westbury, NY

I received my copy of La Guerre today. I've only spent a couple of hours with it, but in my honest and frank opinion, this is one fine game. The graphics are beautiful ... from the colorful, thick map, to the interesting counters. Add in charts, money, cards, etc. and a lot of bang-for-the-buck is represented. When I include the proposed Advanced rules, this game may become a favorite. Move over History of the World.

-Steve Carey, Pasadena, CA

We have just finished a 24 hour session with a five-player version of your great game La Guerre. We had lots of fun with diplomacy and backstabbing as well as stupid propaganda and hilarious whitewashing of our own motives compared the the motives of other players ... What was ruining some of the fun for us was the combat system for battles between opposing corps units. I think that it reflects the tactics of the Napoleonic times well and I like the concept that insures heavy losses for the winner as well as the looser. But in our game huge stacks of French/Spanish corps units fought other large stacks of Preussian, Austrian or Russian stacks. Battles could litterally take hours with very little to do for those who were not commanding one of the battling stacks. And what was worse: The biggest army always won anyway.

Our best wishes for the future of your Company and thanks for another Great game!! On behalf of all the guys in Strategic & Tactical Simulation Society.

-Søren Fisker, Denmark.

Søren: Here is a fast version of combat which you can use whenever both players agree:
Both sides roll to determine their combat options, using a SIX-sided die. Five-rated leaders add "one," Zero-rated leaders subtract "one" from the die roll. Read the results across the top of the Combat Results Grid from left to right for Defender Options:

Zero (Skirmish Line), One (Line), Two (Refuse Flanks) etc. ... Seven (Cavalry Counter Charge). From top to bottom for Attacker Options: Zero (Probe), One (Assault), Two (Echelon) etc. ... Seven (Cavalry Charge). Simply cross-reference the two die rolls and you have your result for that round.


Last Saturday I went to Essen, to a games convention (Spiel '98) and I saw those guys from Tilsit......they had alot of CoA and OSG games.....and I saw La Guerre d'Empereur....
Thought about it for oh...3 seconds, looked at my friends, begged for money (what are friends for, right?) and with our last 99 Deutsch Marken we bought LGE!! Today (Sunday) I punched out the counters, read the rules and will play 1 or 2 rounds solitaire tonight. While cutting those counters I had felt this strange sensation, the counters looked like they were little pewter soldiers, reminding me of my childhood (16 years ago..hehehe).

Anyway, I read the rules, looked at the the map and the counters, wondered why they were only printed on one side (created an answer for that, a very satisfying one if I may say so) and thought: They are all wrong, this is a superb game!! For now, that's my conclusion, if it changes I will also email you...but I don't think that will be necessary. You created a fine "beginners" game !

-Frank Hakstege, Gaanderen, The Netherlands

Updated figures 10/18/98. No. of responses: 10

Why did you buy LGE? Rate the following
historical period: 80% enjoyment: 4.1
designer's rep: 30% realism: 2.9
subject/topic: 40% complexity: 2.8
publisher's rep: 40% balance: 4.0
competition val: 0% rules: 3.7
solitaire play: 0% graphics: 3.7
scale/scope/lev: 60% commentary: 1.7
recommendation: 0% Ease of play: 4.3
package/graphics: 0% Consult rules 2.7
advertisement: 20%
other: 20%

Money's worth: 100%