All,

Markus has it spot on. The lineage of the game is simply Triumph & Glory
(I), which included the battles of Wagram, Aspern-Essling, Raab,
Austerlitz and Castiglione. Dave Fox's stand alone game, Austerlitz,
while similar in scale and scope, and even several mechanics, was a
stand alone game system. 

The rules are in many ways very similar to the Great Battles of the
American Civil War Series. They are, however, much simpler. 

First off there is no offensive small arms fire. All such activity
manifest itself in only 1 of 2 ways, assault combat or defensive "fire".
Assault combat obviously represents short range fire fights as well as
the push of bayonets (and sabers). Defensive fire is my term and is
somewhat misleading. In order to close for assault, units must pass a
commitment die roll, based on unit morale (with some very few
modifications). If attacking from a hexside into which the defender
could project firepower, the defender's small arms ability (i.e. a drm)
further adversely modifies the die roll. 

Artillery is not differentiated in detail. Each counter has a strength
rating (a drm for the resolution of bombardment, etc.) and 2 range
ratings, effective and maximum range. Any fire within effective range
uses an unmodified die roll, while each hex past effective range, up to
maximum range, uses increasingly worse drms. 

Assault (charge, for cavalry, of course) is also fairly simple to
resolve. A single table determines the results of the combat, with
modifiers for odds, morale, positional advantages, terrain, etc. Pursuit
and counter-attack combat are possible in the most extreme of results. 

All-in-all, I like the system. My only complaint is that the situation
of Borodino doesn't lend itself to much more than a face to face bloody
shoving match. While there is some room for maneuver, the battlefield
map is pretty much shoulder to shoulder (goes well with the face to
face, no?) formations with little choice as to where to attack. There is
an optional rule for a grand flanking attack by the French, but we
haven't tried that out yet. I do want to try the revised rules (written
very ably by Bill Ramsay) with the first release of T&G. It should be
interesting to use them with a more competent army (there are severe
restrictions on the Russians at Borodino, not surprisingly so) and with
more room for movement. Naturally I am eying Austerlitz from T&G I, but
if I have an ounce of sense, I'll try a smaller battle first. 

Allan

Markus Stumptner wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Christopher Leach wrote:
  
< (it looks like it's part of something called the Triumph and Glory
series?).
Yes
    
Hi Chris, long time no see. :-)  Seems like I'll be in Vienna week after 
next, perhaps we can arrange another meeting?
  
< My collector side is showing more than usual with this purchase because
I assume < that this is pretty much the same system as the Battles of
Waterloo game that he did a few years ago, < and I did not care for that
game one little bit.
    
Without being to glib there are some similarities, but they are different -

the T&G Series started with Austerlitz from David Fox.
    
Without being glib, I see the David Fox Austerlitz as having virtually no
systemic connection to T&G at all.  Chitpulls are fine but the system is
everything, and pretty much everything else is different. The same holds
for BoW.  T&G is the Napoleonic continuation of Berg's Glory system for
the ACW.  The only connection to BoW is that T&G and BoW both use chits
for the sequence of play (and there are some vague similarities in the way
different types of movement are handled).

< Physically, this game looks ok (still using the little soldier icons though--
< I loathe that, anachronistic NATO on my Napoleonic wargames please).
    
Much too modest here, John, NATO symbols *are* Napoleonic in origin and
the infantry and cavalry symbols can be found on many battle maps of the
period (and there's a reason why artillery is represented by a round
cannonball).  As such, they are not anachronistic at all and you can feel
secure in your preferences. :-)

Personally while I'm fine with soldier icons in Squad Leader, I thought
their use in T&G was the most useless ever - on top of all the problems
they cause with counter layout, here they are too small to even be
visually enjoyable. Much prefer the style of the GamesUSA Borodino. Now 
that looked like a real battle map...

Markus