In June of 1999, Dick was one of many who responded to developer David Schubert's call for help

"You have expressed interest in playtesting/developing a 2nd edition of one of the greatest historical simulations, Bonaparte in Italy.

"OSG is now undertaking the development of edition two of BiI. Your support/aid will help make the project a success.

"OSG would appreciate help in the following areas: playtesting research rule suggestions/additions/clarifications. Playtesting requires access to the original edition of BiI (no playtest kits) to be played with 2nd edition modifications. Playtesters are requested to submit timely and constructive reports to OSG. Research involves map corrections (town/city spelling), OOB verification, etc.

"Rule suggestions/additions/clarifications are requested from veteran Campaigns of Napoleon players. After 20+ years of development, the core rules are solid, however, there's no better time to examine changes than the early stages of a playtest. BiI has very specific campaign rules (foraging, uprisings, sieges, etc) perhaps these can be streamlined or added to. One example of a rule change under consideration modifies the vedette rules to emphasis the screening1recon functions of cavalry."

I've been a fan of the Campaigns of Napoleon series since the first version of Bonaparte came out in 1979, and I've worked with Kevin on some of his other recent releases as well, so I jumped at the chance. (Besides, it meant I'd get a free copy of the game, and when you have three kids, two cars, and one house, every little bit helps.)

I raise as many questions as possible. I figure that if I have the slightest doubt about something, someone somewhere is sure to post the question on Consimworld eventually.

After we were done, Kevin also asked that I write up my experiences helping with the game. This may shed some light on the development process that a game goes through. It might also provide some insights into the game itself

Background on the Series

Bil is part of the Campaigns of Napoleon series, also called the Napoleon at Bay series. (For a brief history of OSGs Napoleonic series see page 5). Since the first edition, the basic system rules have undergone significant refinements, so Kevin decided to publish a new edition to bring the game in line with those changes, and to update the graphics to the current state-of-the-art as expressed by Joe Youst and Masahiro Yamazaki.

Bil is part of a mature game system that has been undergoing refinement for over 20 years.

The Campaigns of Napoleon series concentrates on Napoleonic warfare at the operational level. The series reveals how a small, well-led army can outmaneuver and ultimately defeat a larger, poorly led, army. Each hex is 2 miles across, turns are 2 days each, and most units are divisions or brigades. Leaders, supply, and administrative points (representing army staff and support abilities) play a large role in the system. Each game has an exclusive rules booklet to supplement the standard series rules booklet.

One of the attractions of the system is how Kevin has managed to integrate so many factors into the game while keeping the "load" on the player low. For instance, when you move a force, you roll on the March Attrition Table to determine how many strength points you lose just from marching. That table takes into consideration the force's nationality, the distance it marched, the number of administrative points it has, and its size. However, all the player needs to do is cross- reference the appropriate information and roll one die to determine the loss.

Overview of Bonaparte in Italy

Bil covers Bonaparte's campaign in northern Italy in 1796. (He hadn't achieved superstar status yet, so he had to use his last name in this campaign.) This was his first major command, and his success here against the Austrians was the first step on his path to becoming Emperor. He had only a small army, but he had the central position, allowing him to concentrate on the separated Austrian forces individually. The system is good at handling this type of situation.

The original game had three maps and covered all of the 1796 and 1800 campaigns. Kevin has split the game now so that the new release contains one map and most, but not all, of the 1796 campaign. He plans to publish an expansion kit later that will have the necessary maps, counters, and rules for the rest of 1796 and for 1800.

My Role

Bil is part of a mature game system that has been undergoing refinement for over 20 years. For this reason, my role in playtesting this game was one of "proofing" the game. This meant making sure the exclusive rules read well and integrated with the system rules properly; that the counters were correct; and that the charts reflected the rules correctly. While I didn't get a chance to see the new maps, I did have one luxury I don't often get when playtesting: a copy of the original game. This allowed me to check changes against what was there before, which helped in making sure as little as possible slipped through the cracks.

My methodology in playtesting a game is to raise as many questions or disclose as many ambiguities as possible, even if I could figure out an answer myself. I figure that if I have the slightest doubt about something, someone somewhere is sure to post the question on Consimworld eventually. Raising them during the testing process allows the designer to address these issues before publication.

Napoleon had the central position, allowing him to concentrate on the separated Austrian forces individually. The system is good at handling this type of situation.

I started my "proofing" job last August, when Kevin sent me the first draft of the exclusive rules. Those rules were basically a cut-and-paste job from the original rules mixed with the exclusive rules from Napoleon at Bay. I edited the rules and made other notes about things that were missing or needed to be addressed. For instance, Kevin had included some rules that applied to the 1800 campaign (which should have gone into the expansion kit) and missed some rules for the 1796 campaign that should have been there. Between August and November, Kevin sent me three revisions of the rules to proof, each one better than the previous ones.

(You would think that because Kevin and I were exchanging files electronically, I could get my comments to him easily. Because he works on a Mac and I work in Windows, he wasn't able to see my comments until I put them in red, bold, 18 point type.)

I also proofed the counters. At first, this was in the form of Kevin's documents containing the unit values and types. This needed to go hand-in-hand with the setup and unit arrival information, because they contained the maximum values of the units and when they entered the game. Again, I found some units and leaders that had appeared in the first edition but which were now missing. I found several units that the original setup sheet said should have a higher maximum strength than what the counter manifest listed. I also found some units that appeared in the manifest but not in the setup cards.

Near the end, Kevin also sent me for proofing a copy of the counter sheet as it was to be printed. Here, I noticed that some of the unit symbols were wrong, such as an infantry symbol for a cavalry unit. A couple of units had incorrect movement allowances. There was a French Morale marker in the mix where none was needed. None of this stuff was critical, but catching it now meant Kevin wouldn't have to deal with it after publication.

Proofing the setup and reinforcement information also showed some units listed under the wrong leader, or in the wrong location. There were also some things missing, such as the location of bridge trains, or one type of unit where a leader controlled both infantry and cavalry. I played the game, too.

Since I was testing solitaire, and I knew there were other groups out there testing the game as well, I decided to concentrate on the battle scenarios rather than the campaign game. There are four battle scenarios, each of them based on an Austrian attempt to relieve a force besieged in Mantua.

One thing I noticed right away was a problem due to the changes in the system rules over the years. In the original game, forces could trace a Dispatch Distance to their Center of Operations to be in command. This applied even in the battle scenarios. However, as the series rules now stand, Dispatch Distance and Centers of Operations aren't used in the battle scenarios. As a result, some units that used to be in command in the original game were starting out of command. This meant they had a harder time to move and suffered greater attrition when they did so.

Kevin and I exchanged several emails on how to handle this situation. Kevin also reviewed it with some of the other testers working on the game. As a result, he has now added to the battle scenarios the ability for units to stay in command by tracing a Dispatch Distance to their supply source. This is especially important for the Austrians who need this ability in order to relieve (or attempt to relieve) the Mantua garrison.

I recommend BiI as an excellent introduction to the whole system. Not only is the leader and unit density low, but the battle scenarios are short and interesting.

Another, related, aspect that had changed since the original game was that administrative points are now assigned to both sides at the start of the battle scenarios. My testing showed that in some of the scenarios the number of these points available to one side or the other needed to be adjusted.

If you haven't yet jumped into this series, I recommend BiI as an excellent introduction to the whole system. Not only is the leader and unit density low, but the battle scenarios are short and interesting.

Enjoy!

Bonaparte in Italy is now available for $39