I recently bought Et
Sans Resultat!, a grand-tactical Napoleonic wargame by David Esteness. I have a review of the rules here, with the
acknowledgement that I haven’t played yet---these are my thoughts from a
read-through. First is my summary of the
game; I’ll follow up with comments and criticisms.
The brief version: As
a gamer who is interested in recreating chaos and friction on the tabletop; who
is interested in the issues of commitment/timing on the Napoleonic battlefield;
and who digs the notion of a Napoleonic division being an unwieldy beast that
you hurl into combat, I’m really excited to play Et Sans Resultat! The book
is high-quality and the writing is clear. The game takes into account command and control problems, the deployment of divisions, and divisions become worn down and shot-up in combat. On the down side, I am disappointed by there being no scenarios included in the book, and
don’t think that the game is great solo.
Overall: Great stuff and I look forward to playing it!
Now for the long version…
Et Sans Resultat
(the name is taken from a quote by Ney, about the indecisive slaughter at
Eylau) emphasizes the movement of corps and divisions. Ideally, a single player is the army
commander, guiding pre-game deployment and orders and then issuing orders to
corps commanders; the other players command corps and push their divisions
around.
Corps and Divisions are directed by Orders, which include an
objective (a physical feature) and a an order (defend, attack, maneuver)—and,
for divisions, a direction of movement.
Players place little cards next to their corps and divisions to indicate
what orders they have.
Orders may take several turns to “activate,” representing
confusion, delays, and other friction.
(The game formations “corps” or “divisions”, regardless of their
historical designation). It seems that
the game will be able to recreate the problem of breaking off a failing attack,
or the problem of quickly sending in reserves or redirecting a corps/division
from its present path. My read of
Napoleonic history—admittedly brief—holds the issues of reserve
management/timing to be pretty important in Napoleonic battles, so I think
that’s a great feature of the game.
Divisions are masses of individual battalions, squadrons,
and batteries; each division has its frontline of combat units, a “reserve
area” of resting artillery battalions, pioneers, and general reserves, and a
“reformation area” of broken units and other chewed up troops. Though battalions, squadrons, etc. have
individual movement rates, you mainly are moving the division as a whole. Orders restrict movement in various
ways—“Defend” limits you to only moving against nearby threats, “Maneuver”
means you can’t get up too close to the enemy, etc.
How divisions move and fight seems, from my reading, to be
at the core of the game—they are not dainty things that can move to-and-fro.
Divisions are sledgehammers that you awkwardly shove into the general area of
the battlefield where they’re needed.
They take a long time to deploy off the march (easily an hour in
game-time—about three turns). Once
moving in a certain direction, it’s a slow process of changing orders and
movement direction.
Once in combat, you’re best off fighting in “waves”—some of
your battalions/squadrons in the front line, withdrawing to safety behind the
next wave when they’re close to exhaustion.
The game also encourages you to cycle your arty batteries in and out of
the line, before they’re exhausted.
Units fight one another by rolling 2D6 and comparing various
modifiers. They suffer incremental
casualties and get gradually worn down.
Divisions accrue “fatigue” (the overall effect of morale and physical
deterioration) and can be forced to retreat.
If you can get behind an enemy division and overrun its “reformation
area”—the rear area where broken troops and worn out troops are milling
around—you’re likely to destroy that division entirely.
Of course, who’s leading your divisions and corps is
important—leaders are rated both by generic category (infantry, cavalry),
generically by nation (France and Britain are the best), and by historical
individual. There’s a long list of unit
and leader ratings in the book.
I haven’t played the game yet, but here are my thoughts from
reading—mostly very positive, though a few apprehensive:
1) Command and control are central. Getting your corps/divisions to the right
place at the right time is more important in the game than particular tactical
positioning of troops.
2) Once in combat, divisions are unwieldy as hell and will
batter away at the enemy until they win or they break.
3) I like the notion of individual battalions being
represented in the game, AND not having to worry about their various formations. This creates a granularity I’ve been looking
for in a Napoleonic game.
4) Judging from the pics in the book and the game’s website,
ESR games look great—you can get the look of a massed Nappy division on the
attack, or shattered and retreating.
5) As a gamer, I’m far more interested in chaos and friction
than I am in combat minutia, so I really like what I’m seeing in the rules.
6) I am concerned about speed of play. I like my games to be
quick. But actually playing the game and learning the
mechanics on the table as opposed to in the book will see how fast it plays. In ESR’s defense, it does not bill itself as
fast-play.
7) I would have preferred the book include at least one
scenario—considering the title, and frequent references in the text, I figured
Eylau would have been perfect to include. The author has told me in emails that
scenario books are in the works.
8) Because orders are done in secret, the game has problems
as a solo game—though an intrepid solo-gamer could just ignore their knowledge
of “enemy” orders, or fashion a randomizing system to account for it.
9) More diagrams of how divisions look and can be arrayed on
the table would be helpful.
Anywho, that's my spiel. I'll post an AAR as soon as I get to play.
No comments:
Post a Comment