From: Richard Simon <NDanger666@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Napoleonic Game Recommendation
<< I was thinking of OSG's reprinted Napoleon at Bay??? >>
Since you asked.......
Before I start, i should admit a bias or two. The original Nap at Bay was/is
on my all-time top 10 (and I've owned well over 500 games). I did do some
work on the rules for the new edition (mainly complain to Kevin that he was
putting fins on a Porshce
:-} ) so you can judge accordingly.
The game is a rework of Kevin's "operational " gem on Nappy's 1814 campaign
in France. Its mostly division-level with leaders rated for ability. A
unique command-logistics is set up, whereby Command Points are needed to get
leaders to move (they can move by rolling against their command rating but
that is more problematical); conversely, players need to save them to reduce
march attrition. Only the leader counters appear on the map, adding to the
uncertainty.
The new edition features, according to Kevin, some 100 changes to the rules.
Some are minor and some are major. It is about 70-75% of the original.
Initiative is now not an "all-or-nothing" proposition, artillery is added,
and, now even the leader counters are inverted, making for true fog of war.
Vedettes allow some intellignece and there is a new (optional) combat
system.
Roger MacGowen did the counters and Joe Youst did the map. Both are
excellent. The game also features some excellent physical support including
redone roster sheets on which to track which units belong to which leaders,
a new unit roster putting all the unit locations in the various scenarios in
one place, a battle sheet to keep track of the various battles, etc.
I own the original and would still highly recommend this package. This
system clearly shows "why" battles were fought - they arise as a result of
the players' maneuvers, rather than a raison d'etre by themselves. For those
of you, like myself, who have a previous version, it is worth consideration.
The additional rules make the game different, with all the charm of the
original intact.
From: Richard Simon <NDanger666@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Napoleonic Game Recommendation
<< Can you tell us what the difference to the old combat system is? >>
The orignal game had only one type of combat, the equivalent of Pursuit
Battles. The new game brings the combat system up to the standard of "1807"
and, in fact, beyond. This system allows players to chose the type of battle
they wish to fight: pursuit or pitched. The combat loser's choice determines
what happens next. If Pursuit, the defender retreats and the attacker
pursues, with the defender's losses based on the length of pursuit.
In Pitched Battle, the defender gets to counterattack, with the loser's
choice again dtermini ng what happens next. There can thus be a (finite
number) of rounds of combat, with losses mounting. There is also provision
for artillery barrage, which occurs before the actual combat.
There is a third type of combat (new) Rear Guard, which allows the defender
to do exactly that. Further, there are optional rules for adding reserve
committtment, marching to the sound of the guns, etc. The idea of the combat
system is NOT, IMO, to model combat on a tactical level but rather to provide
the key operational elements a commander would have to deal with. Each
leader has a "personality", which affects his movement, combat, and command
abilities.
From: John Best <jlbest@TUSCOLA.NET>
Subject: new Nap at Bay (ex: Napoleonic Recommendation)
Richard Simon gave us a run-down on some of the changes in the new Nap. at Bay:
>
>Before I start, i should admit a bias or two. The original Nap at Bay was/is
>on my all-time top 10 (and I've owned well over 500 games). I did do some
>work on the rules for the new edition (mainly complain to Kevin that he was
>putting fins on a Porshce
>:-} ) so you can judge accordingly.
>
For many years, it was one of my all-timers too, but then I fell out of love
with it. I now consider myself to be successfully divorced from the whole
system.
>The game is a rework of Kevin's "operational " gem on Nappy's 1814 campaign
>in France. Its mostly division-level with leaders rated for ability. A
>unique command-logistics is set up, whereby Command Points are needed to get
>leaders to move (they can move by rolling against their command rating but
>that is more problematical); conversely, players need to save them to reduce
>march attrition. Only the leader counters appear on the map, adding to the
>uncertainty.
>
I think that the pathfinder game, the old OSG version of Nap at Bay, was the
best use of this system. I haven't played Eagles Fly East (or whatever it's
called--my divorce was just about finalized by the time it appeared), but
I've played all the others. I think the Italian campaign is probably second
best, and that's always given me a suspicion that the system doesn't really
characterize all of Napoleonic warfare at the "operational" level very well.
For example, a lot of the stuff that the Austrians can do in the game 1809,
they couldn't or didn't do in reality (try using that game as "graphic
campaign simulator"--good luck). I had different problems with each of the
other games too. The feature that Richard mentions (Command Points) is one
of the reasons I eventually stopped liking the system: I couldn't figure
out what command points were supposed to mean, or what they were supposed to
represent. To me, it was kind of like the command points were both
staff-work and supply rolled into one mechanic. And that's ok, I guess,
except that they seem like very different things to me. I always played it
with the leader counters inverted too; and even though I always played it
solitaire, I never cheated by looking at the "other" guy's counters when it
was "my" turn. My memory being what it is, this was a surprisingly
effective way of introducing fog of war
>The new edition features, according to Kevin, some 100 changes to the rules.
> Some are minor and some are major. It is about 70-75% of the original.
> Initiative is now not an "all-or-nothing" proposition, artillery is added,
>and, now even the leader counters are inverted, making for true fog of war.
> Vedettes allow some intellignece and there is a new (optional) combat
>system.
>
As the system has evolved over the last 20 years or so, my take on it would
be that Kevin has consistently sought ways to increase the "depth" of the
combat routine, in part to increase the "illusion of battle", or maybe, more
accurately, the "illusion of battle tactics" in an operational Nap. game. I
haven't seen this "rear-guard" mechanic, and so maybe it works; in my
judgment, the "pitched versus pursuit" decision that was layered on the
system sometime in its development didn't really add much to the game.
On to a somewhat related point: About a year ago, during what I now
believe was my final fling with the system, I developed my own shot at
increasing the decision-making, or grand-tactics in the battles themselves.
My combat system was geared specifically to the 1815 game, Emperor Returns,
but I think the combat system would work with any of the games (I did not
actually test it with any other game however). My conclusion was that,
while my system more or less "worked" in some technical sense, it really
added a lot of overhead to the game in terms of time and complexity level.
So much so that I don't really think my own combat system was better than
the one used in the games themselves. While I remain unhappy and
unsatisfied with the pallid "Waterloo" that you get in Emp. Returns, I can't
say that I've really done that much better. But, having walked at least a
little ways in Kevin Zucker's moccasins I can say that I appreciate his
perspective on things. Someday when I have a little bit more time, I'm
hoping to get a chance to make those rules more widely available, but that
will have to wait. Thanks for reading.
John Best
jlbest@tuscola.net