Image of Trafalger Editions Waterloo 1815 (taken from their website)
Greetings fellow shut ins! The post-holiday doldrums in hobby activity combined with a bit of bother with a pinched nerve in the neck that has caused me to be unable to maintain the posture for keyboarding has caused an absence of activity on this blog lately. Feeling better now, thankfully, and so took to the keyboard to get back into things. In this post, I thought I'd share some acquisitions that I have made during the course of the pandemic--sort of retail therapy (I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who found myself buying toys to compensate for the lockdown). I found myself drawn to these novel games that I do hope to actually play, despite the fact that I haven't managed to actually play a non miniatures wargame in years. I won't go into reviewing these games in detail, but will just do a brief show and tell. You can follow the links to get more complete information on them. As usual, in this post, you can clix pix for BIG PIX.
TRAFALGER EDITIONS
Trafalgar Editions Austerlitz 1805 and Waterloo 1815
I picked up both the Austerlitz and Waterloo games from Trafalgar Editions (above). These are hybrid systems. They come with beautiful mounted maps--and units are played on the maps, miniatures-like, with no hexes, squares, or areas. I have read through the rules and watched several YouTube vids on these, and I have to say I am of mixed mind. Unfortunately, the rules, as far as I can tell, lack clarity when it comes to managing terrain, which, given the entire conceit of the system should have been a main point of emphasis. For instance, there are large and small features, and there are many places where several different terrain features are crowded together. Given the size of the counters, there are many places where a unit could straddle several pieces and/or kinds of terrain. Yet the rules have little to say about how to adjudicate the interplay of terrain and units--how you actually occupy terrain, what happens when a counter is bigger than the terrain feature, which is quite common, particularly with farms and small towns. Does the unit footprint "shrink" or expand to fill area terrain, or is it considered to extend out of it? (And if so, what then?) When might you need to move around a piece of terrain, or set up next to it, as opposed to going through it or in it? What happens in towns or strips of towns that are large enough for units of both sides to be in at the same time? (Is that even allowed?). What about a unit that straddles several different kinds of terrain at once? In my email to the developers on these sorts of terrain questions, they basically said, albeit nicely, to "use common sense." In the video reviews I've seen, except for elevation and starkly obvious cases of isolated terrain features, the terrain seemed to be relegated to window dressing, basically, with the emphasis on handling units as if they were on a billiard table, which negates the idea of these games being played out on actual maps, to my mind. So, just for me, I would say that these games are about an 80% effort. The interplay of the terrain and units need not have been made complicated, but my thinking is that it should certainly have been articulated as a central component of the game system and not left to the players to muddle through "using common sense." In that regard, I would recommend Austerlitz over Waterloo given that the terrain is much less complex and would have fewer cases to deal with. I supposed I could still give a game a try, but even if that doesn't work out, I've got some excellent components, the mounted maps in particular, to repurpose.
PRATZEN EDITIONS
Flight of the Eagle Volume I and Volume III
Components for Volume I
Followers of this blog may recall several posts indicating my interest in Von Reisswitz style Kriegspiel. These games by Pratzen Editions are a complete "Kriegspiel in a box"--whereas the Kriegspiel rules (and versions of them) generally gives you the "What" these do that and also give you the "how" of running the games: to include period maps, complete OOBs, unit and commander markers, rosters, scenarios, and a complete rules system to resolve movement, reconnaissance, and several versions of combat resolution (both a tactical option and something more abstract for quicker games). They include a special section specifically to guide umpires on running the campaigns. Volume I covers the 1806 campaign in Prussian, the (overlooked in my mind) campaigns of 1806/7 that included Eylau and Friedland, and the beginning of the 1809 campaign in Bavaria. Volume III has the 1814 campaign, campaigns in the Peninsula, and the full 1809 campaign. It also includes a bundle of rules supplements for the game systems that are worth the price of admission on their own. Although you could mix these games with miniatures, they are stand alone systems that don't need them. As such, they are particularly well suited for remote play via email under lockdown, or for players who don't have the room to lay out miniatures games.
U&P GAMES
W1815 is one of those rare things: a genuine breakthrough. It plays in less than 30 minutes. You don't move units---you manage the battle, committing resources, choosing options, and countering opposing options. Although I have yet to actually play the game, my reading of the rules and tinkering with it tells me that it will deliver on its promise. You can find lots of reviews of this game if you google it, and I would particularly recommend seeking out YouTube reviews. Someone has even created a W1815 module in Tabletop Simulator, so there is the possibility of playing this game remotely on that platform, a nice bonus in these days of lockdown.
Well, that wraps up my recounting of my retail therapy during the pandemic (thus far!).
Cool looking game Ed. I never really played a board game like these. Should provably give it a go one day.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely worth a look: like I mentioned, check out reviews and in particular Vlogs to make an informed decision. I kinda went backwards--got them and then checked.
DeleteRather disappointing from Trafalgar Editions. I'd been interested in the Waterloo game, but if the rules are effectively incomplete, that's quite a large mark against!
ReplyDeleteAm glad you got W1815. I'm with you - it really is an excellent game. And it is already being imitated elsewhere. Table Battles by Hollandspiele owes it a huge debt, for example.
Lovely to read of your purchases, anyway.
Cheers,
Aaron
Hi Aaron. Well, the Pratzen editions were a pleasant surprise and exceeded expectations, and W 1815 lived up to expectations, so on the whole, not a bad score.
DeleteInteresting selection. I wonder whether Trafalgar Editions have a system that they fully understand and can apply themselves in the way that they intend, but have simply failed to convey that in their rule set.
ReplyDeleteI am presently proof reading a rule set for a designer and the whole point is that I know nothing of the system, so every question I ask or raise as a ‘stranger to the game’ is hopefully one question less at the end of the process and the designer can adjust his text, reducing the number of incidents of ‘assumed system knowledge’.
Indeed, Norm--I'm sure that the developers had no such issues with navigating the terrain. That's always the issue, of course, being able to recognize underlying assumptions and articulating them explicitly.
DeleteStrange to me that a board game would have such unclear rules about terrain if it didn’t have spaces.
ReplyDeleteBut still, retail therapy is a real thing. I know I’ve made some purchases. I hope you’ll get some enjoyment out of these. 😀
Hi Stew: Unfortunately, my expectations are low enough that I find myself more surprised than not when a set of rules doesn't have one or more "holes" that require you to figure something out for yourself: but that's for miniatures, which are much more open ended. These are boxed "games"--and not cheap, so I guess my expectations were different. Nevertheless, yes, I will get use out of them and am happy to own them (believe it or not: that's just how we roll--more toys equals more joys!).
DeleteDisappointing about the Trafalgar titles, although the maps look good, the other purchases do sound good though!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
I think you’ve summed it up perfectly, Iain. The splendid mounted maps are an inspiration by themselves.
DeleteEd,
ReplyDeleteMay I offer a suggestion regarding the lack of clarity regarding "terrain management" in some of the rules in these games. This is actually an idea I picked up from a game called Pub Battles (suggest looking them up and watching their videos - very interesting rules and simplifies a lot of what these other grander games have made unclear or more complicated). In fact, the PB map and markers (they use wooden blocks - very appealing) look very much like the picture of the Austerlitz battle you showed above.
So, moving large units (represented by the markers) over these maps does create the problems you point out. PB handles movement more flexibly by doing a few things:
1. Each unit has 3 MU's (movement units) of a certain length. To move any part of the unit over or through any terrain or combination of terrain, costs 1 MU that move. Simple. if it's terrain, costs 1 MU.
2. If a unit lands or stops on terrain, it is considered on or on it if the majority of the unit is in it (this is by judgment usually). Terrain like woods are considered cover during battle.
3. If the board is crowded in an area, and a unit is trying to get from point A to point B, it can pass thru a friendly unit to arrive at its destination. It cannot pass thru enemy units, nor can it land on any unit. Sometimes the move must be cut short.
These three rules simplify unit movement on a map to the extent I've not found in any other ruleset. They are worth a look. The videos CommandPost (creator of Pub Battles) provides illustrate them in a clear way.
Hi Dale,
DeleteI had one of the Pub Battles games (Little Big Horn), but overlooked this bit of guidance--thanks for pointing it out! It does provide an elegant and systemic way to deal with the terrain (I agree). One other thing I was thinking about was adding some lightly drawn boundaries on the maps in some places where the terrain is ambiguous or mixed.
And it makes sense. Military units don't move like stiff wooden blocks. When they encounter an obstacle or terrain, the work their way through it or around it. It slows them down, but they arrive at their destination within the time (length of move) allowed. I'm glad to help. It sure helped me out a lot.
Delete