"Battlegames review of Maurice" Topic

I should first state that I feel strongly that wargames magazines should provide honest product reviews, that said the review of Maurice in the new edition of Battlegames did get me thinking. The reviewer (himself called Maurice) comes to some less than flattering conclusions, but I got the distinct impression that he simply didn't "get" what is a fresh take on game design.

It seems to me that rules these days fall into two camps. There are the traditional Move Shoot Melee Morale rules (which I suspect the reviewer likes) and then there are the more innovative designs which are less traditional, such as Saga,the Lardy rules and now Maurice which take a fresh and different approach.

The review makes me wonder if someone who Is used to a traditional approach can properly review a set of rules which takes an alternative approach. On this evidence I have to say I doubt it.

I'm guessing that the intelligent reader of reviews takes into account the reviewer's frame of reference when evaluating the relevance of the offered opinions.

Of what value would reviews be if the only "proper" ones came from those who already agree with the product's concept and approach?

Not having read the review I can't comment on the specifics of what he didn't like, but as to being able to properly review a set of rules I'd have to say that if the criticisms are explained i.e. "I disliked the [for instance] rule's approach to morale because…" then at least the reader can get a handle on whether they themselves might dislike them too, or whether the problem the reviewer found wouldn't be a problem to thereader because they have a different view on how things 'should' work. Similarly things that the reviewer likes should be put in context too.
So maybe this review 'failed', but there's no reason why a traditionally minded gamer couldn't write a 'proper' review.

I am reminded of the guy who rejected signing Led Zeppelin because they were too derivative, or the almost unanimous reviews of the Stones 'Exile on Main Street'

i think it's nice to occassionally come across a review that isn't a thinly disguised advert in some magazines.

most readers of wargame magazines are intelligent enough to decide if they agree with a particular review/reviewer or not.

regards

jim

Tin soldier, what issue and page is that review. Mike Siggins tals about it favorably in the last issue, can't find the review you're talking of.

Is it a problem that a reviewer didn't like Maurice and so gave it a negative review?

The issue of whether or not the reviewer "gets" the new style concepts behind Maurice is a significant one. If the concepts behind Maurice are such that hey demand a new way of thinking about wargames then it is incumbent on Sam Mustafa as the author to make that new way of thinking clear to new players and readers.

If the reviewer "didn't get" the game style and concepts perhaps the author failed to present them clearly enough.

As for an old school gamer reviewing new school rules and vice versa, I see this as being a very good thing. If this reviewer either didn't "get" or didn't like the new style mechanisms in Maurice there is every chance that other gamers will feel likewise and be glad they didn't she'll out the not insubstantial sums needed for a copy of the rules.

I cant see why we should be bothered by a less than receptive (to you) review of a rules set. As long as it is intelligently written and explains the conclusions reached we should be able to make a decision as to the worth of the review.

Does fresh-take mean the same as regurgi-take, sorry but there is not much that I recall as being truly original. The combination of the various play devices and game mechanics was original and I saw their worth and bought the rules because of that.

regards
dave

I haven't seen the review either. Did he play the game, or was it a read-through-only review?

Reviews, whether they only read the rules or played them, are based on one man's opinion. I usually mostly ignore the opinion portion of reviews simply because they are opinions. There are some nuggets of fact that can be gleaned from the opinion but for the most part it is going to be based on one man's taste and not my own. The most important part of any review to me is the over view. How does the game play? What are the game mechanics? Etc… These are the important bits. To say that a reviewer "got it wrong" is to say that the reviewer does not know what he likes.

I'm an old school gamer, but I have developed a strong liking for what I call, "the no body dies" types of rules. They are rules that move the player above the level of a battalion commander. Where the formation of a unit or its strength are not as important as the combat effectiveness of the unit.
So for I have only played the "Lite" version of Maurice and have found some of the rules interesting and fun. I like the commanders being made to choose how to use the card, I like the volley system, but Maurice Lite did not induce me to purchase the rule set.
In the first game we played we stopped after two turns, as we realized that by the time we got our troops in position, both sides would be out of cards. After that we set up a lot closer to each other. The melee rules do not appear to "balance" out with the volley rules. Some of the cards (to me at least) appear a little silly or when you have a good card to play your opponent has one that counters it. In the games we played, both sides had troops that never did anything. The players, either did not wish to spend cards to move them or felt that other units needed their attention more. Yes, I know this did happen, but there should be some type of mechanics that allow troops to at least follow their "pre-battle" instructions.

In my opinion (which well get you a beer at the Legion post if you pay $1.50 USD), the rules will produce a fun game, but fall short of what I was looking for in them.

"In the first game we played we stopped after two turns, as we realized that by the time we got our troops in position, both sides would be out of cards. "

There must have been some misunderstanding. The average game involves 60-70 card plays per side. Each card could theoretically activate any number of units (all of your INF, for instance, could move at the same time, on a single card, if your Commander is anywhere near them, and they meet the formation criteria.) An INF unit in column can cross the average table in three moves. A CAV unit can do so in two moves.

You only use up extra cards if you do more than march towards each other. Being ambitious before you are ready to exploit will mean that you mayl run out of cards. That is the point of the system, planning your moves with the cards at our disposal.

It's in issue 30, published last week I think.

If the reviewer "didn't get it", is it not the fault of the product not to be "got"?

I have to say that I downloaded "Maurice-lite" and it left me cold.

"If the reviewer "didn't get it", is it not the fault of the product?"

In a perfect world, yes.

I'm all in favor of critical reviews when they involve facts, and better yet: are written by somebody who has actually played the game, or at least read it very thoroughly. (Otherwise, it's sort of like reviewing a restaurant, just by glancing at the food.)

And then there are reviews that were done with obviously only a cursory reading, and which missed some very big or obvious things. I've seen reviews in which the writer claimed, "The Game doesn't have any rules for X!" when in fact there's a whole chapter devoted to X. Or sometimes reviewers just go off on tangents. I recall an early "review" of Flames of War that was 10% explanation of the game, and 90% rant about how WW2 games need "opportunity fire", and since FoW didn't have it, well… you can imagine. (Of course, the Battlefront guys just solved that problem in a Rupert Murdoch kind of way: If you don't like the press you're getting… Buy the Press and run it yourself!)

But since neither of us has read this particular review… we're now in danger of turning this into the Perfect TMP Thread: a guy expresses his opinion about another guy expressing his opinion. Others then express their opinions about whether the first guy was right to express his opinion. A different group then expresses their opinions about the second guy's opinion, and about the right of the first guy to express his opinion, and whose fault his opinion might be. In neither case is it required to have read the first opinion, nor the thing about which he was expressing it.

YouTube link

The reviewer in question, Maurice Northey states:
"One problem with combat is that musketry casualties are not part of the game. In reality, armies often tried to avoid musketry firefights as both sides lost; hand-to-hand was preferred."
Was hand to hand infantry combat really preferred in, for example, the Seven Years War?

Well the younger Frederick II had this notion that firefights didn't decide anything, so his men should attack without firing. It won him a few battles, but at such high cost that he eventually relented…

… and having just come back from a first trial game of 'Maurice', I can state that musketry does cause casualties, i.e. disruption. Unless you hoard the cards to rally your units (removing disruptions), attackers are likely to be so shot up as to not make it into close combat.

For the information of ILTWP I have read the review.

I would agree that a review of a set of rules should be written by someone who has at least tried them but I'm minded of something (paraphrased) from E.M.Forster's "Aspects of the Novel" where he suggests the important thing for an author is that at the bottom of the page his reader wants to turn the page.

It's something similar for a rules writer. Does the rule book want to make the reader/gamer try the game?

Incidentally we have no indication as to whether the rules were tried or not

If basic facts are fundamentally misrepresented, then there really is no way for somebody to judge whether the review is "good" or not.

For example, if the reviewer says that musketry doesn't cause casualties, and there is no way to hold a unit's fire until close with the enemy, and there isn't much about ImagiNations in the book…

…when in fact musketry is the prime cause of casualties in the game, there is a very important rule about controlling the first fire, and there are two entire chapters about Imagi-Nations….

Then what do we get from the review? If you didn't know anything about the game, how would you "judge" the veracity of a review that gets so many basic facts wrong?

(Yes, I've now read the review.)

Then what do we get from the review? If you didn't know anything about the game, how would you "judge" the veracity of a review that gets so many basic facts wrong?

At this point I believe the proper TMP response is "Oh dear."

In my posting, I guess I should have said "In the first game we played we stopped after two turns, as we realized that by the time we got our troops in position, both sides would be out of cards, in our hands. " As we were spending cards faster than we could replace them.

As to moving across the average size table. We were playing across a 6 foot deep table and started about 4 feet apart. Using 15mm figures based on 1 inch bases. In Maurice it is not how far the troops have to move that cost cards. It is the distance the commander is from the troops. If a player wishes to activate a unit 16" from the commander and has to play two 4s and 8 to do so, he spends 3 cards and gets one back. If you start with 6 cards, you spent a third of your hand to activate that one unit.

From our reading of the rules, a player may activate only one force per turn. So on turn one you activate your infantry (if all are in the same formation, same terrain, and within the required distance of each other), turn two the cav, turn three the artillery. Three turns and the army has made one move across the field. I understand the logic of this, but the mechanics just don't hit the nail on the head. Looking at it from a time scale, it is taking about 20 minutes to do what on the field would take about 5. The turns go fast, but the game drags.

One of the ideas we are trying is to have all the rules remain the same, except;
A player may additionally active all units that are column, these units may move or change formation. Cost of this activation is one additional card to any others played that turn. This may only be done if the play has chosen "movement" as his action. Limbered artillery a considered to be a column. I don't know if the full rules has anything like this, but for the "Lite" is should speed up deployments. The logic here is that sub-commanders would have been given per-battle instruction on deployments and would follow those instructions. Once the unit changes its formation, it would be an indication, that either the sub-commander has completed his orders or events have caused him to change from them.

I have both 15mm and 28mm armies whose basing fit perfectly into the Maurice system. Prior to Maurice coming out I had been think of re-basing the 15's. I do now intend to keep them based the way they are and continue to play more of the Maurice Lite games (who knows maybe they will grow on me). But for the 28s I will be looking for something else.

aicusv,

i really do think you have missed the point with maurice – as have so many others coming to it expecting it to be like other rule sets.

the rules are designed so that you can only do the one single most important thing that turn – it is totally about building in some tension into your choice as player.

You must play your army and game around a plan built with this in mind – so instead of moving the whole army, and then rolling dice to see how well they fight – and getting a tension to your next turn from the dice roll outcome. you should build your national advantages and your army around a plan to make best use of those advantages, and play to that plan.

Maurice takes its cue from card driven board games, where you WANT to do about 4 things, but you CAN only do one of them before the other guy gets to react.

Thats a real tension which seems to have passed by a lot of people on their first game – who see only a tiny part of the army moving for three of four turns in a row.

you will run out of cards – thats why the card cycling rules are in there – charging into melee draws no new cards, moving only draws one new card – but a bombard draws two new cards and passing three – these are designed to make you stop in combat range for a period to build up a hand to make an exploitation, time to get there, time to replenish, time to attack.

you do not spend turn one moving all infantry, then turn two the cav, then the atillery – the rules wont work if you do that.

it is very much a game not a battle.

if you accept it for what it is, its got a lot of tension, and a lot of fun and a lot of enjoyment in it – but if you keep trying to play a battle with your whole army, then its always going to be a bad experience for you.

in this respect, the OP is right to criticise the battlegames review, for not judging the game on its own merits, but eqqally, BG is right to pan it, because as I understand it, their market is very much more at the nostalgia gaming end of the spectrum – and these rules are the very anthises of that – and of a battle game.

I'm not aware of any battles in which every unit in the army was moving simultaneously. Perhaps during the period of marching to the battle and deploying for it, okay. (In which case, you'll be moving in columns, which are very fast.)

But even then: I'm not aware of any battles in which every unit of the army could move simultaneously, before the other side could react to any of it.

That's why I prefer the give-and-take of the activation system in games like Maurice. I'd actually argue that it's a lot more "historical," if I can use that term to refer to a game. At least I think it's a lot more like historical battles to have portions of armies advancing, getting into trouble, fighting, and then other portions of armies moving at some later time, being engaged in a different place, or being brought up to the action later.

To me, that has always seemed a lot more like historical battles than the traditional sequence of:

1. I move everybody in my army simultaneously.
2. I shoot with everybody in my army simultaneously.
3. I fight with everybody in my army simultaneously.
4. I check the morale of everybody in my army simultaneously.

Your turn.

"I should have said "In the first game we played we stopped after two turns, as we realized that by the time we got our troops in position, both sides would be out of cards, in our hands. " As we were spending cards faster than we could replace them.

I think perhaps there may have been some misunderstanding. You can always replenish your hand by passing. And a "March" order gets you a new card from the deck. So as long as whatever force you're moving isn't too far away from your commander, there is no reason why Marching would be a net drain on cards.

"If a player wishes to activate a unit 16" from the commander and has to play two 4s and 8 to do so, he spends 3 cards and gets one back. If you start with 6 cards, you spent a third of your hand to activate that one unit."

I assume you mean a "force," and not just a "unit" ? If you were activating the units one at a time, rather than as corps ("forces"), then yes, you'll run out of cards. You have to activate them as forces, to get anything done expeditiously.

And of course, any one card can move the commander any distance, so there's no reason to keep spending huge Span #s on a distant force. Just play a 4-card and move the commander, and then the activation for that force is also a 4-card.

If you've deployed the army spread out all over creation, then Yes, that will be a problem. A more compact deployment will activate much more quickly (at least until you begin using the "Notables" in the advanced rules, who can activate distant forces for you.)

There is also usually not much need to move Artillery, since its 24BW range can reach across most tables. (Unless you're using a large table, with small figures and BWs.) Since you were using 1" BWs, which are pretty small, then I'd agree that you need to use a smaller table space. That's why the book has the historical scenarios described in BWs, rather than inches.

I do agree that not everything would always be moving at the same time. But different elements may move together in order to support one another. That cannot be done with the rules as written. I do like the activation system, I just feel that a general should be able to order a "force" on one flank to be moving while he has another one someplace else doing something. There should be limits to what he can be doing at anyone time. Using the card range business does achieve this. As it limits what he can do by the number of cards he wishes to play. But saying he can't order an entire brigade to advance because one of its battalions is in difficult terrain (so it now becomes a tow different forces) doesn't make sense to me.
If I play a 4 and move my commander and then play another 4 to move a force, isn't that moving two forces in the same turn?
I did mean force when I wrote unit.

Of course my biggest problem may just be with our traditional methods of deployment of the troops at the beginning.

"If I play a 4 and move my commander and then play another 4 to move a force, isn't that moving two forces in the same turn?"

No, you may always move the commander at the end of any round, even when you Pass. So move the Force, and then move him, so that he's well-placed to command whatever you want to do in the next round.

"…saying he can't order an entire brigade to advance because one of its battalions is in difficult terrain (so it now becomes a tow different forces) doesn't make sense to me."

Certainly he can order them to advance. But the fact that that one unit is in bad terrain means that – unless you use an event like "Coordinated" – that unit's activation won't be smooth and paced with the other battalions, because it's messed up by the terrain. They can still advance, but it takes more time and effort. And in the meantime, the enemy might do something nasty.

(And by the way: that's the incentive to keep regular close-order units out of bad terrain! Irregular units have no problem with it. A horde of Crimeans or Turks can pass through mixed terrain with terrifying speed. But those rules are in the Full Game, not the free "Lite" version.)

But different elements may move together in order to support one another. That cannot be done with the rules as written

Certainly they can move to support each other. Just not in perfect, predictable clockwork simultaneity. And not without the possibility that the enemy might react in the meantime.

This is addressed in the FAQs. In fact, it's FAQ #1, on page 104. The super-quick answer is: the game doesn't have predictable, sequenced turns like other games, in which you can always know with 100% certainty that you can move units together, simultaneously, without the enemy interfering in some way.

Many games with traditional sequences of play feel the need to inject "defensive fire" or "opportunity charges," or other ways in which the passive player might mess with your actions. Rather than making a fixed sequence, and then trying to inject various additional rules and steps, I thought it was a much better solution to do away with turn sequences altogether, and open it all up to action-reaction, at your discretion.

But remember: the sequence of events is always your choice. If you think that the infantry and cavalry need to move in perfect unison, together across the field, then you'll have to sequence them in an A-B-A-B sequence, as you described above. Again: I'm not aware of any historical battles where that happened. More typically, the different types of forces moved at different paces and times, and it was hard for commanders to coordinate them over large distances. But you CAN do it in the game, if you make the effort, and place your commander well.

Quote <<I should have said in the first game we played we stopped after two turns, as we realized that by the time we got our troops in position, both sides would be out of cards, in our hands. As we were spending cards faster than we could replace them>>

A big part of the game is card management. You are soon taught not to carelesly blow cards all over the field of battle for little gain. I was guilty of this in a recent game – blowing cards throwing the C-in-C all over the battlefield (because I could), but in consequence not leaving enough cards for a decisive push anywhere. My gracious opponent reminded me of Wellington's famous remark at Waterloo that he did not intend to behave like a Whet Hen. In future battles I will place my General with caution, and think very carefully about moving him about.

to move your general requires a card unless you have 'great captain'.

aicusv – your arguments about why you can and cant move brigades are all perfectly reasonable, but entirely miss the point of this game.

if you want to apprecaiate the game for what it is, you have to treat it on its own merits.

after our first game we agreed that the firing and rallying rules were rediculous – far too easy to hit, and far too easy to rally (even under fire), but when you put that into the oveall concept of the game, firing can be very damaging to you – if you chose to initiate it (this is not an automatic choice in this game)
, and if you are badly hit, you have to chose to rally those hits, or to act somewhere else – its a difficult choice, your opponent can use a fire round elsewhere to beak up the momentum of your attack.
then you start to appreciate the game concept – a tension built into yor limited choice as a player, rather than a tension built into the outcome of dice rolls after you move everything you want to, just becuase you can.

if that doesnt sound like an effort you are prepared to put in, then dont bother trying the game again, as it will only diapoint you (especially in the 'lite version'), as it has others who have made the same simplistic first assessment based on perceptions of how things should be, not how things are designed to be.

If you are perpared to try it on its own merits, its a lovely game with a real tension to it, and is loads more fun than traditional gaming with an average quality set of rules.

"…saying he can't order an entire brigade to advance because one of its battalions is in difficult terrain (so it now becomes two different forces) doesn't make sense to me."

As in real life, the majority of the brigade out in the open will advance if ordered to, leaving behind the lone unit entangled in the undergrowth – or it'll have to wait for the stragglers to catch up. Either way, next time its commander will be careful to skirt difficult terrain…

Another lesson from our first game was to set achievable objectives when moving forces: Unless you're sure to come back to them next round, assign them a move or manoeuvre that they can complete in one turn. My flank battalion got stranded at an angle behind the rest of the line as bombarding the enemy advance became more urgent than completing my own move to a defensible-looking hedgeline…

"… BG is right to pan it, because as I understand it, their market is very much more at the nostalgia gaming end of the spectrum…"

Well I'm an avid reader of Battlegames (which has a lot more to offer than nostalgia), and still I like Maurice so far, precisely for the way card play simulates the fog of war and the difficult choices of command. Does that make me a bi gamer?

I have to wonder about criticisms on the propogation of command.
It's arguably far too easy in the game as it is.
The slightest thing introduces huge friction in reality.

Quite frankly, moderns are more my thing and I'm new to SYW.
I am, however, familiar with command control friction.

If commanding a modern company.
Step foot in a forest.
As soon as you lose sight of a platoon it'll go in the wrong direction, at the wrong rate or whatever.

The commander must put effort into solving each command control issue as it crops up. Frequently, people just spend a lot of time doing nothing until someone comes along to make decisions and give orders.
Sound familiar?

Having read the review, and the rules, I don't think the review is unfair (except the point about musketry not doing damage, which it clearly does).
The author wants a detailed simulation of 18th century warfare, including stuff like detailed drill differences and firing systems. Maurice is not that sort of game.
He'd probably be better off with 'Might & Reason'
Maurice is (it seems to me) designed to give a great game with 18th century troops, and I think it succeeds in that objective. It also succeeds very well in modelling command friction – something card-driven games excel at.

Having read Maurice – but not yet had chance to play – and the review, I think the reviewer did not explain the card-driven nature of the game/rules very clearly for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with them. To have done so might have taken many more column-inches.

What was clear is that Maurice is not a style of game that the reviewer enjoys.

The card system introduces a subtle set of decision making criteria. You are always faced with having to select a group of cards, which will both allow you to do what you want to do now but may hinder a possible future event.

We found this the most interesting aspects of the rules. You have to consider your position on every turn, the possible position(s) that may result and select cards accordingly. We found that even getting those intitial decisions wrong made the game extremely enjoyable.

Chad

"… BG is right to pan it, because as I understand it, their market is very much more at the nostalgia gaming end of the spectrum…"

I'll second the 'lot more to offer' comment above re this. BG is a lot less Old School than people think. It is a magazine about WARGAMING and has a lot of content to make you think about your hobby. I don't agree with it all but I enjoy READING it. Not just looking at pictures… :)

And it wasn't BG that was panning it. It was the reviewer expressing his opinion – wrong though it was! :)

Andy

I have read the review – and although I haven't played Maurice yet I have read my copy.

The review is a poor one, and as an editor of an academic journal I know whereof I speak. Nextdoor to the Maurice review is one of Muskets & Tomahawks, and that is done much better by a different reviewer. It explains the nature and ethos of the game and highlights a few chosen features clearly, rather than disguising assumptions and prejudices as 'insight'.

That is my issue with the review – it does not tell me how to play in summary, so it is hard to know if it "works" or not.

But luckily, I got it for my birthday so I will get to try it anyway.

Cheers Marc, and many happy returns!
Something tells me you'll like the game…

Thank you ;-)

Well, my initial reading shows the game to be ful of Sam's usual "tricks of the trade", with lots of fun and interesting aspects.

And I wonder if that may be part of the equation. Sam's rules definitely aren't "easy access" roll a dice. He has thought about what he wants the game to achieve, and then put in place mechanisms to let these happen. It puts me in mind of DBA – not in mechanisms, but in the radical approach to a player's mindset that it requires. I know DBA caused some waves back in its day, and I think Sam's rules feel the same to me. You are not buying a "warhammer" loads of dice game here, but a "different" game. On that basis I definitely reckon it will not be for everyone. And by that I am not saying it is better or worse than WAB, just different in approach.

So I shall dig deeper.

If I was to ask anything of reviewers, what would be handy would be if the reviewer covered basics like how many units needed. This game seems to want about 10-12 units, of 4 bases each, say 40 bases with 6 figures – 250 figures each side may be.

Yes that's about it – plus a couple of units to be used as "Mercenaries" when being the attacker. With vignettes for the CinC and objective, and some mounted officers to mark any "Notables" in play , say 300 all in all. Still not a huge outlay, esp. in 1/72 plastics ;-) – although the author's assumption seems to be that most people will use armies they already have.

I found the review fair.

Yep, i will probably try it out uising my Imagi armies. these are sabot based in 6's with 9 bases (incl the command stand) so I will be able to split them up into units of 4 bases, so worth a try.

Yep, i will probably try it out uising my Imagi armies. these are sabot based in 6's with 9 bases (incl the command stand) so I will be able to split them up into units of 4 bases, so worth a try.

oh, and edm – I reckon it was "fair" but lacked some useful details. The concentration was on combat, and glossed over teh effects of disruption, suggesting IMHO that they were easy to remove, but did not dwell on the movement (or command and control) element, which is probably the most interesting bit of the rules. So if anything, I wish it had been a tad longer as a review.

Well enjoy your initial game(s), Marc!

For what it's worth, here are some lessons learned during our trial game – which we enjoyed despite those mistakes:

- Be sure to give yourself enough room for manoeuvre. The small army illustrated on p.25 is ample for trying out the basic mechanisms.
- If skipping the terrain set-up sequence as suggested by the author on p. 26, don't use a lot of terrain, but be sure to distribute it evenly across all 3 zones.
- I would suggest still rolling for scouting, the winner getting to choose his table side.
- Finally, mind the exact round sequence (p.29): announce choice, draw cards as appropriate, then implement choice (possibly using cards just drawn). We missed a few nice opportunities by drawing cards last.

- Apologies to all and sundry if this thread has rather deviated from its original thrust. Happy to start a new one if so directed by Our Editor.

Appreciate those – it is always nice to have some "walk through" guides from people who have played the rules, especially if it helps me avoid mistakes :-)

And what was the OP thread about……

in this respect, the OP is right to criticise the battlegames review, for not judging the game on its own merits, but eqqally, BG is right to pan it, because as I understand it, their market is very much more at the nostalgia gaming end of the spectrum – and these rules are the very anthises of that – and of a battle game.

I think some people have a misperception that Battle Games is an "Old School" or "nostalgia oriented" publication. This would be completely wrong.

I find it rather refreshing that someone wrote a review of something and did something more than gush over product, the packaging, the pretty graphics etc. I am sure that the BG editor would welcome a "counter-point" review of Maurice that provides a favorable opinion of the system.

That is your assignment for today, gentlemen: go write that review.

P.S. I agree with the concept that a review of game rules should ideally involve playing a game with the rules several times. This way, the reviewer can see how the game plays out in the rules system – be it good or bad. A second or third playing of the game would work out the kinks in the person's ability to review the mechanics of the system, as he moves up the rules learning curve.

Whilst I have not seen the review!, I do enjoy Maurice as an alternative to IGOUGO etc – we found that you get punished in effect for unhistorical play as if you start sending regts off in all directions like homing missles (as you can easily do in some other systems) then the brigade breaks up and most of them stand around thinking about their next meal as you can only order one unit then per turn.

Hi Guys
I've posted two AARs of Maurice games here:
TMP link
and here:
TMP link
As for the reviewers claims that:

For example, if the reviewer says that musketry doesn't cause casualties, and there is no way to hold a unit's fire until close with the enemy, and there isn't much about ImagiNations in the book…

Ummmm, he must be looking at a completely different version of MAURICE to me.
VOLLEYS are the main cause of units being disrupted or destroyed, (at least that has been my experiance).
Units CAN'T fire until you invoke a VOLLEY PHASE, or have one forced on you by the enemy playing a 'FIRE FIGHT' card.
There is plenty in the rules in regards to Imagi-nations.

Oh, and :

– Finally, mind the exact round sequence (p.29): announce choice, draw cards as appropriate, then implement choice (possibly using cards just drawn). We missed a few nice opportunities by drawing cards last.

A VERY good point.
Cheers