On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, David Blizzard wrote: > Greg. Glad to hear that you completed your set. I was wondering how you > have found the game? I have only played Quatre Bras twice so need more > time playing before forming an opinion. Thanks. > > dave. I've played it a few times now and I still don't have a good feel for the system. I'll throw out a few of my thoughts. * The differences between Eagles and Dixie are deeper than I originally thought. It must be an accumulation of little rule changes that create a very different game. In particular: - Generals receiving hits on enemy die rolls of 1. - Generals, Specials, and Terrains ALWAYS being visible when in play. - One General per position (didn't Shiloh allow more?). - Every card choosing a target to fire against. - Generals not allowed to disengage/engage on same turn. - The addition of Shock combat. - And the huge difference of infantry formations. And there are more differences but when you add them up it not only makes the game feel different than Dixie but the games are longer as well. Which brings to mind this: does this game have the feel of a Napoleonic game? I'd love to hear from people who've played such games and how this one feels in comparison. I also find that the game play is much more deliberate than Dixie and maybe it's just me but it has more of a "chess feel" to it. I find myself with many more options than Dixie but there's also more frustrations. Can I move all of the Cavalry Corps into one position and shock attack before he attacks me? I want to move my II Corp column of infantry but their General hasn't come up in the reinforcements yet. How long do I wait? And with the multitude of Special cards, I'm constantly second guessing when is the appropriate time to use them. My sense is that Eagles is actually a better, deeper wargame than the two Dixie games but that it is also a system that takes time adjusting to. It may be a case of my Dixie experience clouding my mind and making Eagles a bit harder to adapt to than say someone coming to the system fresh. But then again, I think the rules for Eagles are not as clean as either Dixie game. One thing is very apparent to me from a few game plays - the system is difficult to balance. The card ratios and build points do not feel quite right and others have expressed just such a sentiment. I really feel as though this system plays much better the closer you get to having a complete numbered set. With the complete set, you can play the historical battles with the right amount of troops and all the appropriate Specials and Terrain. And no, Columbia Games ain't paying me to say that. What I most want to try is the Campaign game. With a complete set, this sounds like the way to play Eagles. First you play both Quatre-Bras and Ligny simultaneously. I can just see the two battles (six positions) laid out. At Ligny, multitudes of low morale Prussians hurling themselves at the smaller French army hoping to score a victory before the fast moving French beat the Anglos in Quatre-Bras allowing them to reinforce at Ligny. If the French win both battles then it's off to another double battle of Wavre and Waterloo. If the French lose both battles then the campaign immediately ends in a bitter French defeat. If a split occurs, one large fictious "Battle of Charleroi" is played to determine the victor. This sounds like a lot of fun to this gamer. _______________________________ ______ ____ ____ ______ Greg Nichols / / / University of Michigan ___ ___/ ___ ___ Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library / \ / E-mail: gnichols@umich.edu ______/ \ _____ ______/ Staff Home Page: http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/ocu/greg.htm "The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous." --Frederick Douglass