What it looks like
A big heavy box containing a map of Europe divided in provinces, counters representing the armies of each country, two dice , two player aids and a deck of cards. The components are good: the map is rigid and folds upon itself, the counters big and colourful, the cards beautifully illustrated with period paintings (the dice are, well, dice). Each counter, representing a corps of about 40 000 men, bears three numbers for battle rating, movement and leader seniority (and yes, the Napoleon counter is the best in all three categories). Each card is colour coded to indicate when in the turn it can be played. Setup is relatively quick, with each player putting the eight counters composing its starting armies on the map and getting eight cards (for the 1805 scenario).
The core concepts
This is a two player game, pitting France against England. The goal of the french is to completely isolate England, the goal of the english to force Napoleon to surrender. The other european countries are all defined by their current allegiance and can switch from one side to another though diplomacy or brute force. To simulate diplomacy, the players use cards representing historical events or characters ; with the military method, they simply invade the target and hopefully force its surrender (they still have to use diplomacy later for the major countries). Economics are represented by the way the player resplenishes the card hand (more countries under control means more cards) and the reinforcements available in the countermix. The game lasts 10 years (1805-1815) with yearly turns.
The game year
The game year is decomposed in phases where both player acts in sequence before passing to the next phase. Each year starts with a diplomatic phase where the players can use the diplomatic cards leftover from the previous year to change allegiances over the board. Then the coalition can use insurrection cards to cause rebellions in french-controlled dominions. Next comes the strategic phase, where the number of countries under control dictates the number of cards in the player's hand, and the reinforcement phase where news corps are taken from the pool and put on the map, subject to limitations. The core of the game lies in the campaign phase, where the actual moving and combat in conducted, followed by checking surrender, winter attrition and victory.
Moving and fighting
In the campaign phase phase, players alternate moving armies on the board. An army consists in the stack of counters under a commander, the number of corps present being limited by the general's command rating. By discarding a card, the player can move the army up to a number of provinces equal to the commander's movement rating. Upon entry in an enemy-occupied province, there is battle (representing in fact a series of engagements). Players sum up the battle ratings of their corps, play battle cards that can affect that number, thorw a dice and read the losses inflicted on the enemy. The side inflicting the most losses wins and forces the retreat of the other. Half of the losses are permanent, the rest returns to the force pool and is available later (much later for the loser). Simple rules govern attrition during movement, and equally simple rules on interception and withdrawal before battle allow the best commanders to outmaneuver their enemies. The number of phases during a campaign is limited to 6 (two months by phase) and the last two are winter phases, causing attrition to moving armies. So timing is crucial, and players have to seize the opportunities – this is especially true for the french player at the start of the 1805 scenario. A well played event shortening the campaign can have a dramatic impact on the players plans.
The overall feel of the game
The rules have been streamlined with the explicit goal of providing a fast-playing historical narrative. On that account, it is a complete success. The flow of events feels real, and nowhere in my play did I feel that the alternate history was unbelievable. This is not achieved through complex rules or historical chrome, but simply through colourful event cards and well thought-out design decisions. In particular, the countermix and the reinforcements rules combine to reflect the gradual degradation of forces as the war wents on and more or more troops are permanently eliminated, leaving only second-rate conscripts to fill the gaps. What's more, no two games are alike. In 1805, Napoleon has little choice but to catch and defeat Austria. Depending on the players hands, he migh achieve that easily, getting the historical battles of Ulm and Austerlitz, or Austria might refuse to surrender and put up a better resistance. Likewise, a lucky French player may turn Russia neutral early on and isolate England quickly, while a lucky Coalition player will play an early Trafalgar and harass the French by dropping British corps all along European coasts.
Negative stuff
After a few plays, I like a game a lot and it is definitely one of the best wargames I own. However, it might not be everyone's cup of tea:
* it is definitely a wargame; the full scenario takes 3 hours to complete and the game, while not very complex (I taught it to someone who had never played any wargame before) if harder than most Euros.
* it can be rather luck-dependent. That's a more controversial point, and doesn't matter much to me, but the nature of the game is such that a player that doesn't draw diplomatic cards will have a hard time winning. The number of cards one draws is linked to the countries one controls, so there is a spiralling effect as the opponent snatches countries by way of diplomacy, decreasing further one's chances to draw more diplomatic cards.
* it is rather pricey. The components are very good and the price is fully justified in my opinion, but you can simply buy it to try it if you're not sure it's your thing.
With these reservations, I would recommend it to anyone who wants historical play, even if, like I , he's not a fanatic of the Napoleonic period. The gameplay and production values are simply too good to be ignored.
