Wow, this review business is easy, I should have done it before in order to roll in the mad cash. Oh, you need something more substantial than my entirely subjective assessment above? Okay, fine.
Napoleon's triumph is a wargamer's wargame. If you have ever played any wargames before, it is truly a breath of fresh air: if I was going to use another metaphor, more convuluted and of more dubious quality, it would be like being stuck in a desert, seeing mirages or sampling pools of fetid water and then suddenly finding an oasis in front of you and drinking cool, refreshing water. Crappy similes aside, Napoleon's Triumph manages to break a lot of the conventions of wargame while still being both strategically and tactically compelling without having the ridiculous time requirements of a big, complex wargame.
What makes the game stand out from other? The most important aspect is the completely diceless combat. Dice are usually endemic to the wargaming experience, because they allow you to simulate the uncertainty of battle: there's not a whole lot of ways within wargames to represent the weather, or show troops not moving for whatever reason, or attacks not being conducted due to the incompetence of weak officers. Thus, dice have had a long important role within the development of wargaming as a whole and several methods have been used in the past in order to fully simulate combat on a variety of scales (a topic on which I will talk more about since I've had a lot of arguments involving bad perceptions of maths, both by me and my opponent). Napoleon's triumph complete lack of dice is therefor rather anomalous, considering the history of wargaming. It would also be possible to argue that a completely diceless system does NOT actually model combat and war effectively due to the fact that the random chance that is actually a huge factor within war and you would be right. On the other hand, the way that NT manages to pull it off allow it to be forgiven of that minor fault, since the necessary randomness is replaced by systems that allow it to be simulated without taking control out of the player's hands. Still with me so far?
How does this diceless system work and why do I think it is so innovative? The system within Napoleon's Triumph primarily works by creating a fog of war about your troops and your opponent's troops. This is not an innovation within the genre: block games have had hidden strength and capabilities of troops since the golden age of boardgaming (this is also a reason why NT can be classed as a block game). This both creates a lot of confusion and means that you never know if an attack is going to succeed until it is completely resolved. This also means that the game feels like playing a game of poker with 8 different hands, each opposed by an equally large number of cards. Once an attack has been declared, though, the mind games are not over since there is a huge number of choices available both to the defenders and attackers when an attack occurs. I won't explain all the rules, but some of the choices involved are to retreat immediately or not (which can be a brilliant move if you manage to draw the offending enemy corps out of position), if the attack is a feint or not, what units the defender is going to use to 'lead' the defense, what units the attacker is going to attack with and who leads them (which allows for bombardments if you choose an artillery piece), if the defender is going to counter-attack or not etc. All of these mini-decisions really create an atmosphere that you are there, commanding the corps troops at a minute level while still allowing you to control the battle as a whole.
Even with the amount of choice given above, some might be troubled by the combat resolution outline above: due to the lack of randomness, the battles are going to be pre-decided with whoever has the best troops winning, regardless of the choices available since the best choice is always going to be to maximize your result within a single battle. This however, is largely prevented by the system of counter-attack (which only the defender can use) which allows a defender to sacrifice troops in order to win a battle.This, along with the heavy penalties for losing (loss of morale as well as forcing corps to become detached) means that attacking within the game is a losing proposition most of the time. How does that make it possible to attack, then? You told us this game was good Tekopo! YOU LIED! Now now, wait for my explanation. The reason why attack is still feasible is because the crux of the game resolves around feints and manuevering/flanking your opponent. Feints allow you to fix an enemy into position while diluting the resources that he can use to defend: thus the usual attack is to feint from several sides and then smash through another side once the enemy defenses are spread out. This accurately reflects how the battle would occur in real life, with cavalry screens harassing the enemy flanks in order to both slow them down and also force them on the defensive. This also means that usually the correct response when you see one of your corps surrounded and the enemy is attempting to do the above tactic to you is to retreat immediately, since that is likely to reduce your losses in the long term.
The map itself also features an interesting innovation: instead of the hexes that are commonly found in most other wargames (or spaces in case of CDGs), the spaces within NT are known as locales, with their most striking feature that they are irregularly shaped. The irregular shape of the locales is used in order to replicate the effects of terrain without needing to resort to a terrain chart: in other words, large, open areas are usually represented by large, open locales while treacherous terrain is represented by smaller locales. Two other important features of a locale are the locale limit, which tells the player how many units can fit within that locale and the approaches (ie the edges of the locale), which can have penalties when attacking through them. Units within a locale can either be in reserve (and thus placed in the middle of the locale, reay to face threats coming from any side) or on an approach, which mean that they are able to defend any attacks from that approach better. This system of locale really allows the player to imagine the armies squaring off, or of cavalry making sweeping flank charges.
Another great part about NT is the sense of aesthetics. The game was deliberately designed in order to simulate those maps of battles in which the different armies are represented by lines, facing each other. The game really feels like what a 19th century gentlemen would be playing, pushing wooden blocks with simple illustrations around. The overall quality of the build is also outstanding, from the map, to the wooden pieces, to the corps commanders with their little flags and names. About the only problem I have with the aesthetics is the tiny numbers and symbols present on the map itself, which for someone with eyesight as bad as mine means that I really struggle to read the board.
Finally, there are great little touches to the game that add to the authenticity of the game. The Allied player only has a limited number of corps that he can command per turn and can only move 3 independents per turn, while the French commander has no such limitations and can command up to 4 independents a turn: this is meant to replicate the superior command and control structure of Napoleon's Army as well as show the higher independence that the French generals had. Another great aspect is the initial deployment, which largely resolves around the Allied player attempting to outbluff his French opponent and keep him guessing about the direction of the attack. A major part of this is that overall the Allied pieces are qualitatively worse than the French player, but the Allied has more of them, which means that he can potentially stack a flank full of bad units and force the french player to keep good units on a flank that the Allied player has no intention of attacking. Finally, the way that the game attempts to simulate the surprise attack of Davout and Bernadotte's corps is handled really well. The Allied player will always know that the French player has those units available, but of the French player brings them in, he is now forced on the offensive since the victory conditions of the game drastically change. This simulates both the initial attack by the Allies as well as their eventual shift to the defensive.
It is ALL of the elements described above which really allow the game to shine and allow it, in my mind, to outshine most other wargames. The game seems to be able to take the best elements of both Euros and Wargames, two genres that I deeply love and which constitute the majority of the board games I play and bring them together in a package that can take less than 2 hours to play, which for a wargame is pretty good going. There are, however, faults within the game. I mentioned earlier that this is a wargamer's wargame: I have attempted to play it with people that were not strictly speaking wargamers and it didn't go down well. As well as that, many traditional wargamers can be put off by it's very fiddly rules which don't actually explain how to play the game at all on a strategical level: i've often had to explain how to mount successful attacks involving feints, artillery bombardments followed by strong, frontal attacks. Some of the aesthetic choices within the design are also clearly done more for looks than for ease of play. Overall I think these are minor faults, like attempting to find issues with the Mona Lisa, but they are going to put people off and I acknowledge that there are many which do not seem to share the same love that I have for this game. If you do get a chance to play it and are into wargames, I would suggest to try it at least once: you might like it, you might hate it, but it just might completely change your entire perspective of how wargames should be designed.
Napoleon's Triumph gets 5 angry scowling King Philips out of 5.
How does this diceless system work and why do I think it is so innovative? The system within Napoleon's Triumph primarily works by creating a fog of war about your troops and your opponent's troops. This is not an innovation within the genre: block games have had hidden strength and capabilities of troops since the golden age of boardgaming (this is also a reason why NT can be classed as a block game). This both creates a lot of confusion and means that you never know if an attack is going to succeed until it is completely resolved. This also means that the game feels like playing a game of poker with 8 different hands, each opposed by an equally large number of cards. Once an attack has been declared, though, the mind games are not over since there is a huge number of choices available both to the defenders and attackers when an attack occurs. I won't explain all the rules, but some of the choices involved are to retreat immediately or not (which can be a brilliant move if you manage to draw the offending enemy corps out of position), if the attack is a feint or not, what units the defender is going to use to 'lead' the defense, what units the attacker is going to attack with and who leads them (which allows for bombardments if you choose an artillery piece), if the defender is going to counter-attack or not etc. All of these mini-decisions really create an atmosphere that you are there, commanding the corps troops at a minute level while still allowing you to control the battle as a whole.
Even with the amount of choice given above, some might be troubled by the combat resolution outline above: due to the lack of randomness, the battles are going to be pre-decided with whoever has the best troops winning, regardless of the choices available since the best choice is always going to be to maximize your result within a single battle. This however, is largely prevented by the system of counter-attack (which only the defender can use) which allows a defender to sacrifice troops in order to win a battle.This, along with the heavy penalties for losing (loss of morale as well as forcing corps to become detached) means that attacking within the game is a losing proposition most of the time. How does that make it possible to attack, then? You told us this game was good Tekopo! YOU LIED! Now now, wait for my explanation. The reason why attack is still feasible is because the crux of the game resolves around feints and manuevering/flanking your opponent. Feints allow you to fix an enemy into position while diluting the resources that he can use to defend: thus the usual attack is to feint from several sides and then smash through another side once the enemy defenses are spread out. This accurately reflects how the battle would occur in real life, with cavalry screens harassing the enemy flanks in order to both slow them down and also force them on the defensive. This also means that usually the correct response when you see one of your corps surrounded and the enemy is attempting to do the above tactic to you is to retreat immediately, since that is likely to reduce your losses in the long term.
The map itself also features an interesting innovation: instead of the hexes that are commonly found in most other wargames (or spaces in case of CDGs), the spaces within NT are known as locales, with their most striking feature that they are irregularly shaped. The irregular shape of the locales is used in order to replicate the effects of terrain without needing to resort to a terrain chart: in other words, large, open areas are usually represented by large, open locales while treacherous terrain is represented by smaller locales. Two other important features of a locale are the locale limit, which tells the player how many units can fit within that locale and the approaches (ie the edges of the locale), which can have penalties when attacking through them. Units within a locale can either be in reserve (and thus placed in the middle of the locale, reay to face threats coming from any side) or on an approach, which mean that they are able to defend any attacks from that approach better. This system of locale really allows the player to imagine the armies squaring off, or of cavalry making sweeping flank charges.
Another great part about NT is the sense of aesthetics. The game was deliberately designed in order to simulate those maps of battles in which the different armies are represented by lines, facing each other. The game really feels like what a 19th century gentlemen would be playing, pushing wooden blocks with simple illustrations around. The overall quality of the build is also outstanding, from the map, to the wooden pieces, to the corps commanders with their little flags and names. About the only problem I have with the aesthetics is the tiny numbers and symbols present on the map itself, which for someone with eyesight as bad as mine means that I really struggle to read the board.
Finally, there are great little touches to the game that add to the authenticity of the game. The Allied player only has a limited number of corps that he can command per turn and can only move 3 independents per turn, while the French commander has no such limitations and can command up to 4 independents a turn: this is meant to replicate the superior command and control structure of Napoleon's Army as well as show the higher independence that the French generals had. Another great aspect is the initial deployment, which largely resolves around the Allied player attempting to outbluff his French opponent and keep him guessing about the direction of the attack. A major part of this is that overall the Allied pieces are qualitatively worse than the French player, but the Allied has more of them, which means that he can potentially stack a flank full of bad units and force the french player to keep good units on a flank that the Allied player has no intention of attacking. Finally, the way that the game attempts to simulate the surprise attack of Davout and Bernadotte's corps is handled really well. The Allied player will always know that the French player has those units available, but of the French player brings them in, he is now forced on the offensive since the victory conditions of the game drastically change. This simulates both the initial attack by the Allies as well as their eventual shift to the defensive.
It is ALL of the elements described above which really allow the game to shine and allow it, in my mind, to outshine most other wargames. The game seems to be able to take the best elements of both Euros and Wargames, two genres that I deeply love and which constitute the majority of the board games I play and bring them together in a package that can take less than 2 hours to play, which for a wargame is pretty good going. There are, however, faults within the game. I mentioned earlier that this is a wargamer's wargame: I have attempted to play it with people that were not strictly speaking wargamers and it didn't go down well. As well as that, many traditional wargamers can be put off by it's very fiddly rules which don't actually explain how to play the game at all on a strategical level: i've often had to explain how to mount successful attacks involving feints, artillery bombardments followed by strong, frontal attacks. Some of the aesthetic choices within the design are also clearly done more for looks than for ease of play. Overall I think these are minor faults, like attempting to find issues with the Mona Lisa, but they are going to put people off and I acknowledge that there are many which do not seem to share the same love that I have for this game. If you do get a chance to play it and are into wargames, I would suggest to try it at least once: you might like it, you might hate it, but it just might completely change your entire perspective of how wargames should be designed.
Napoleon's Triumph gets 5 angry scowling King Philips out of 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment