TechnologyTell

Even Napoleon can use a kickstart

Sections: Board, Gaming News, Genres, Strategy, Tabletop

2
Print Friendly

napoleon
Perhaps the most famous battle of the 19th century is Waterloo, where two titanic armies, led by the finest military minds of the age, Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington, clashed. Napoleon lost, forever changing the destiny of Europe; had he won, what we call Europe would probably be better known as the “Greater French Empire.” There have been a few boardgames based around the classic battle, but perhaps the most popular was Napoleon: The Waterloo Campaign 1815. It addressed the mighty battle, along with skirmishes in the area in Waterloo, in a mere two hours, using a rules system that anyone can pick up and play without studying the rulebook. It’s been 20 years since the third edition of the game came out, so Columbia Games figures it must be time for new edition.

Warfare in the age of Napoleon was truly special: it was the final era of elite aristocratic cavalry units, still somewhat effective on a battlefield where firearms were woefully inaccurate. Artillery fired just a bit too slowly to stop a cavalry charge on anything like even terms. Mean, infantry varied in quality for elite Old Guard to mobs that barely understood which direction to point their weapons. Napoleon was the first to use the masses of troops firearms allowed, and only British forces could really stand up to him. Napoleonic games were once as big a genre as real time strategy games are today.

The world’s changed in 20 years, however. People are now playing most of their games via the online world, so Columbia is wisely hedging their bets with a Napoleon Kickstarter campaign. One big advantage board games have over more electronic ways of play is the low manufacturing price. So, as Kickstarters go, this has a tiny goal: a mere $14,000 is all it takes to have this game see print.

Like any good Kickstarter, there are bonuses for higher pledges. Serious gamers should consider the $120 level, which includes two copies of the game. Why would you want two copies? Because it helps address the major failing of most boardgames to accurately represent the fog of war. With both players playing on the same map, it’s easy to see exactly where the other guy is moving his armies, and to make a counter move appropriately. The warfare of the 19th century (or any time earlier) was nothing like that, and it was quite possible to lose track of an entire army. Imagine if Napoleon walked into Waterloo while the Duke managed to evade him entirely, and capture Paris, winning the war without firing a shot! Thus, the $120 pledge includes two copies, as well as rules for a “referee” to allow two players to play a double-blind game that much more accurately resembles warfare of this period.

Past that, folks with really deep pockets and serious interest in Waterloo could shell out $1295. At this level, once they get to Brussels, they’ll be treated to days of tours of the actual battlefields by game designer, Tom Dalgliesh, and scoring maximum Napoleonics gaming geek cred points. I’ll be happy to just have the game.

Source [kickstarter]

2
Print Friendly
  • Spoutnik83

    What’s with this British propaganda at the start of the article ?

    “where two titanic armies, led by the finest military minds of the age, Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington, clashed”
    “Napoleon lost. Had he won, what we call Europe would probably be better known as the “Greater French Empire.”

    Actually, not 2 but 3 armies clashed. The British and the Prussian armies on one side and the outnumbered French army (at least what was left after most of it was destroyed by the Russian winter) on the other side.

    Except British jingoist historians, nobody would say Wellington was a military mind comparable to Napoleon. At Waterloo, he was sick and the French were outnumbered, and despite that the British and Wellington were actually losing before the Prussians (led by Blucher) arrived to save the day.

    Oh, and Waterloo was just a coup de grace. The Empire had already been defeated after the failed invasion of Russia and Napoleon had been exiled to Elba. Waterloo was just the end of a doomed come-back. Had Napoleon won the battle, he would have been defeated in the following days by the huge armies converging towards him.

  • Rick Moscatello

    I certainly should not have left out the Prussian contribution; that said, the Duke of Wellington’s military career was hardly shabby with experience in dozens of battles, and his tactics at Waterloo are still studied today.

    While I suppose it’s possible Napoleon would have lost future battles, it’s worth noting that he escaped Elba with…nothing. His personal charisma alone was sufficient to attract an army, an army capable of fighting the organized armies supported by empires.

    Wellington and Blucher needed to have entire countries supporting them to get an army. Napoleon needed…his reputation alone.

    Had Napoleon defeated the British and Prussian forces (and the leaders of those forces), Napoleon’s reputation would have been even more intimidating. Those leaderless huge armies converging towards him that you reference may well have fled or scattered due to complete morale loss…adding insult to injury, some remnants might have ended up joining Napoleon’s army, much as had occured multiple times in days previous to Waterloo.

    I’m not saying such was certain…but an escaped convict who manages in a short period of time to assemble an army to match anything the rest of the world has should not be lightly underestimated.