Napoleonic Boardgames

[King Billy]

Much appreciated!!

I have sent you a personal message with my email.

Thanks again.

Bill

[Percy Coburg]

If anyone is in possession of this game, hang onto it. It will be worth a pretty penny someday.


Napoleon in Europe by Eagle Games

[Persephone]

Originally Posted by Percy Coburg

If anyone is in possession of this game, hang onto it. It will be worth a pretty penny someday.


Napoleon in Europe by Eagle Games

I've played this one before. Why do you think it will be a collectors item someday?

What I like about Napoleon in Europe is that it provides large numbers of playing pieces to mark infantry, cavalry and artillery. I will admit the game is very well made, the 1/72 scale figures are exceptionally detailed.









Anyone considering buying these figures will be happy to know that it is not necessary to buy the whole game to get them. In a shrewd marketing move, Eagle also sell individual sprues (containing 39 pieces) of these miniatures. They are available in all eight of the colors found in the game, plus white. The horses are marketed separately, in boxes of 72.

[Dreamworker]

didn't see this one: Napoleonic Battles by Avalon Hill, my favorite. Its was more of a ruleset for miniature gaming though. Allows you to recreate all the battles during 1792-1815, like Valmy, Waterloo, Borodino, Leipzig etc.

Had 2 extra modules for even more battles. also, they provided extra rules to combine this game with Empires in Arms.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5...oleons-battles

[Persephone]

Originally Posted by Dreamworker

didn't see this one: Napoleonic Battles by Avalon Hill, my favorite. Its was more of a ruleset for miniature gaming though. Allows you to recreate all the battles during 1792-1815, like Valmy, Waterloo, Borodino, Leipzig etc.

Had 2 extra modules for even more battles. also, they provided extra rules to combine this game with Empires in Arms.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5...oleons-battles

This is a good game if you don't mind taking the time to paint the game pieces. We eventually ended up using the game pieces from our Risk boardgame.

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by Percy Coburg

If anyone is in possession of this game, hang onto it. It will be worth a pretty penny someday.


Napoleon in Europe by Eagle Games

I have this game and although it is amazingly beautiful, the game itself is not that playable IMO. It's good to play but it is rather difficult. I've only played it once or twice.

I give it a 7/10
The artwork and the pieces are certainly worth a 9,5/10!



Greets,
Stratego

[The Purist]

Originally Posted by El.Cid

Not a problem. For Empires, I supply the all that is needed, and I will use cyberboard or another generated map and counters.

I own the computer game for Empire in Arms. Was considering running a full 1805-1815 campaign game similar to the War in Europe ones already completed or in progress.

Idea would be to have teams (if enough palyers). The monthly turns would be posted, orders executed and results shown. have to download all the updates and relearn the system but could run a game after the Barbarossa WWII game is completed.

[TomDeFranco]

To my surprise no one had mentioned the La Bataille tactical level (battalion) series from Clash Of Arms. I must admit that I think they are way over the top biased in favor of the French and that the rules are a little overwrought, but they are beautifully rendered as to the maps and counter art.

Ed Wimble (chief at CoA) knows the period very well, but sometimes cannot help himself in terms of favoring the French.

The company also did a brigade level game on Leipzig and an operational level game on the Six Days Of Glory.

Also, MMP (initially the Gamers) had a series (now seemingly in a state of flux) at the brigade and regimental level driven on the CWB written orders mechanic. The games in the series include Austerlitz, Marengo, Aspern-Essling and Talavera.

Finally, GMT had a couple of games based on their ACW Glory system. One had four battles included in one box and another had Borodino.

[El.Cid]

Well, I saw that someone posted in their opinion what they considered a "great" game. This is not a universally shared opinion though. My friends and I played this game over and over back in the 80's. The tactical chits I think was a nice touch, but it also had huge holes. Namely the naval rules seemed more like suggestions and vague at best. The system is flawed also in that France can stack a huge pile of strength points at Paris that can not be forced to retreat and therefore it will last forever. Maybe in a later addition this was changed, but considering that, I found the only use of the game was the counters are good for Empires-in-Arms.

[El.Cid]

Hey Purist,
Teams are not really necessary for Empires in Arms. It is really just a one person per nation game. If you want to do a "team" type napoleonic, "Campaigns of Napoleon" would be a better candidate. It is only a 4 or 5 player game, but the scale is much smaller. I think it is a regiment/brigade/division level. Nice maps of Central Europe. Been a while since I have seen it.

[El.Cid]

My biggest problem with Empires is that it is not really a Napoleonic game as the victory conditions could be any time period. I have adapted an alternative set of victory conditions to better represent the time period. At least how I think it is. Play testing it on the side without question.
The game system is pretty good and does not get to bogged down in details. I think the biggest problem is that many players have become rules lawyers and just look for an argument if they dont get their way. "The rules dont say you can do this, or the rules dont say this is legal". Seems common sense is something that no longer exists. This is probably why face-to-face gaming has gone downhill so much. who wants to spend hours and hours at a game just to have someone start agruing a minor point in the rules so they can avoid their poor generalship. We had a guy like that in our club a very long time ago. When the situation was turning bad, he suddenly new every little rule and no doubt he did know the rules. The problem is that people forget the spirit of the game and instead turn to rules or use rules to get their way. It is just a game!

[El.Cid]

Stratego, so what level of game do you like to play? Personally, without a little more complications, you do not really get the feel of a napoleonic campaign. If you are a WWII type, you will still need rules that add in a certain level of detail to make the experience more representative of the period. Otherwise you are stuck with brain numb games like risk, stratego, battleship, or even advanced risk (axis and allies type games). Fancy plastic toy soldiers.

[Ratergam]

will seek for discussion very interesting!@

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by El.Cid

Stratego, so what level of game do you like to play? Personally, without a little more complications, you do not really get the feel of a napoleonic campaign. If you are a WWII type, you will still need rules that add in a certain level of detail to make the experience more representative of the period. Otherwise you are stuck with brain numb games like risk, stratego, battleship, or even advanced risk (axis and allies type games). Fancy plastic toy soldiers.

As a gamedesigner myself, I feel that the 'art' is to make games more logical instead of complex. I personally despise games where they offer alot of 'reality' at a cost of alot of 'complexity'. This is the reason why I'm not a wargamer. It is not worth it. I like to read the rulebook once and then get on with the game. Not read it sixteen times before being able to play it from start to finish for the first time. Usually that 'in between' reality vs complexity is the right way to go IMO.
Earlier someone mentioned that chess was a no-brainer game, but this I don't understand: chess IMO is a game where alot of brainwork is needed - and I enjoy playing it. I like playing Stratego (I made mine more interesting!) especially with my sons. RISK is just plain awful . It prompted me to create my own game 'Victory & Defeat' back in 1997.

I assume you are a 'die hard' wargamer El Cid?
Give me some suggestions on some good wargames...I'm still looking for a good one with a good balance between complexity-reality.



Greets,
Stratego

[Dibble201Bty]

Originally Posted by Stratego

As a gamedesigner myself, I feel that the 'art' is to make games more logical instead of complex. I personally despise games where they offer alot of 'reality' at a cost of alot of 'complexity'. This is the reason why I'm not a wargamer. It is not worth it. I like to read the rulebook once and then get on with the game. Not read it sixteen times before being able to play it from start to finish for the first time. Usually that 'in between' reality vs complexity is the right way to go IMO.
Earlier someone mentioned that chess was a no-brainer game, but this I don't understand: chess IMO is a game where alot of brainwork is needed - and I enjoy playing it. I like playing Stratego (I made mine more interesting!) especially with my sons. RISK is just plain awful . It prompted me to create my own game 'Victory & Defeat' back in 1997.

I assume you are a 'die hard' wargamer El Cid?
Give me some suggestions on some good wargames...I'm still looking for a good one with a good balance between complexity-reality.



Greets,
Stratego

On a similar vein; my experience.

From an E-mail I had sent to a friend

I know what It's like to struggle for such information (uniform and organisation info) because as a lad in my teens to mid twenties I used to wargame in a big way with most of my hard earned cash going on first Airfix, then Hinchliffe and Minifigs wargames white metal figures which would leave me with hardly any money to buy good uniform references. Most of the info I gleaned was from the cheapest (though very good) source eg: Blandford, almark, Men-at-Arms etc, and monthly Magazines such as Military Modelling, Airfix and Tradition. I always wanted better books but by the standards of the day, (1970s and 80s) were bloody expensive, so I would plough most of my spare money into my hobby, either on figures or materials.

One day I woke up and focused on a book on my bookshelf, it was 'Napoleonic Wargaming' by Bruce Quarie, a set of rules that I had had from my first days of starting wargaming. I had never used those rules as I had found them too complicated and would most likely bog one down in too much detail (I used my own solo and club rules). I lay there thinking that that book was exactly how my hobby had become, I had over five and a half thousand figures (about three thousand were my first armies of Airfix Napoleonic figures), more white metal battalions on the painting production line, and a stack of card building kits to make. After a good 11 years I realised that my passion for wargaming had literally died overnight and to this day I have no interest in it, in fact I can't stand wargaming any more.

Paul