Now actually having played them, rather than just read them, I thought I would post my first impressions of Soldiers of Napoleon by Warwick Kinrade, so here goes!
This is not a review detailed review. An explanation of how the wheels turn is far better covered in this download from Gripping Beast:
link
To start with, I need to take a moment to address the Elephant of "Card Driven Rules". Liking them or not.
Personally, having played and owned a few variations on this particular theme, I'm an "It Depends" person. That dependency is solely based on how the designer uses Cards inside the game structure and if the end result is the notorious "playing the cards, not the period". I should also point it can depend on your definition of "Driven"
Currently, I own three card games. Aurelian, Longstreet, and Infamy, Infamy. All of which have slightly different approaches to the use of cards and two of which annoy the hell out of me.
Aurelian is fairly neutral, Longstreet which has a high degree of "Hand Building" is good period wise but is let down by that requirement (assuming you want to win) and the small number of units involved in Infamy, often means the Leader Card sequence determination, regarding who gets to do something first, can have a drastic effect on outcomes.
Soldiers of Napoleon however is very much its own animal and manages to avoid these traps.
There are 56 nicely produced cards that come with the equally nicely produced Rulebook and they truly do drive the game! Without them there is nothing and the whole deal (see what I did there?) revolves around them. The actual Move, Shoot, Melee, Moral stuff, that's in any rule set is on a number of D6s basis and is clear and simple. Modifiers are straight forward and involve adding or subtracting a Dice or two as required. They are a means to an end; the Cards are the game.
At its heart SoN is a straight forward IgoUgo, players each get a number of cards per turn and play them alternately. The key is the three sections on the cards and how they are used. At the end of each Turn, you discard the cards and get a fresh hand. No hanging on to those two or three that could combine into a master stroke in the next play!
The individual card has a Number which indicates the actions it can generate (Orders), a section that can be used to Rally units and either an Event, or a possible Objective. The Player being a Divisional commander, operates via control of one, or more Brigades in the Division.
Events, can be used to help you or hinder your opponent by giving bonus items, or penalties, in keeping with the gameplay and period. Objectives, give opportunities to alter your on table movements in the pursuit of Victory Points, keeping within the overall plan you have been asked to adopt, by your superiors. Rally, gives an opportunity to try and decrease the "Disruption" on your units caused by casualties etc. but will differ in availability from card to card, in terms of the actual troop quality it applies to.
BTW: I put Orders in brackets above, as the list of Actions (as I tend to call them) them is pretty broad and contains things that are, on one hand, fundamental to any Napoleonic game but at the same time, contains things that would not have necessarily been Ordered by a Brigade commander, as much as the Commander of an individual unit within the Brigade. It jars a little bit but looking at it as part of the resource/time allocation within the narrative it's no big deal.
One thing this does give rise to, via the Card system and it use, is that items you might expect to be fully sequential are not. The desire to prevent players from heaping one card after another, on any one Brigade and thus have it charge around doing everything to the exclusion of all others, prohibits a unit from performing more than one action per Card. It can do two actions, or more, via subsequent Cards, but each these will inflict additional Disruption points on that unit, to represent a wearing effect. Avoiding two Cards being played in succession on a Brigade will overcome this penalty.
It does make players think in advance. As something like moving, unlimbering and firing a Battery becomes three separate actions and the urgency of this needs to be balanced against possible Disruption points. This all sounds complicated but soon becomes part of the overall balancing act. Sometimes, you just have to say to hell with it and take the penalty to make things happen, or prevent them.
The Divisional element of the game is a key concept.
The player is and always will be, running a Division. Within the rules, that can be represented as just having your Division against that of the other player, or it being an active part of a Corps, or even an Army battle.
With simple additions built into the rules, troops at the Division Commander's disposal and other factors, can give a feel of being part of a greater whole to broaden the scope of gameplay but the player's responsibility is all that's in front of him, nothing more.
As such it gives a really good feel. Your Brigades and your mission are all that matters, although your Boss and even his Boss, can influence things and help or hinder, as the game develops. If you want to be that guy who's running the Corps, or the Army – you will have to buy some other rules. Multiplayer games are possible if you want to run several Divisions a side, with each of them controlled by one player.
So, what does this boil down to?
A game with period feel, that's for sure. One where the player has real and involving decisions on how to keep his force in one piece, while achieving its aims.
The positioning of Disruption and its management, as central to the game play, is very well done. Players constantly having to assess damage per unit, as those not brought back under their limit will Break if not Rallied by the end of each turn. This while also keeping track of Disorder, which makes the unit underperform, adds nicely to the pressure.
As does the Risk to the General rule, which gives rise to tricky decisions as to the benefit of leading from the front and getting your Brigade commanders shot, or forced to pull out of contact. Far more so than the common minor inconvenience of automatic replacement, at possible lesser ability, for a fallen Leader and the generalised +1 in a Melee Bonus, or whatever, approach found in most rules.
Overall, the fundamental "Preservation of Force" ethos that the rules engender gives a strong feeling of Command far above planning a sneaky (but unrealistic) flank attack on an enemy unit, slap in the middle of the table.
Getting good at it may take a bit of time!
goes to sea with the Terrain Mat.
