An Unrivaled Recreation of Napoleonic Warfare.

[Colonel Marbot]

There is no doubt that Wars of Napoleon has been very polarizing in its reception since being published. Long time gamers, who understand basic military strategy are able, generally to jump into most war games and handle themselves decently with general techniques of massed strength, combined arms, internal lines of operation, etc. Few games, however, are brilliant enough to require gamers to actually adopt the specific techniques of the subject era.

This latter circumstance is the case with Wars of Napoleon. Wars of Napoleon is brilliant at duplicating the conditions of warfare in the early 19th century in Europe. Those who criticize the game, are missing this most basic point, likely because they are only marginally familiar with the subject matter and the principles which the game was designed.

The point of this game is its master campaign game. The scenarios are fine for learning the mechanics but miss the major goal of the game. In 1805, Napoleon’s Grande Armee was unrivaled by any army in the world. Through 10 years of warfare, this war machine was weakened by several major mistakes of grand strategy and several costly battles. By 1813, rival nations had used the Napoleonic model to restructure their own military and were able to match and then overcome the Emperor.

THE MAIN CHALLENGE OF THIS GAME FOR THE FRENCH IS NOT to win a few campaigns, it is to preserve the strength of the Grande Armee to be able to meet improved adversaries later in the game. One of the criticisms of the game is that the AI is not strong. A modern day armchair grognard wins the 1805 campaign with no challenge and then complains about the AI. “MCFLY… of course you won the 1805 campaign with no problem! But did you lose have your army doing so?” Believe me, if you trade losses in every campaign, you will not have much left come 1813!”

Napoleon was brilliant in Grand Tactics and Operational level warfare. He was good at battlefield tactics, and frequently lacking in Grand Strategy. Most Napoleonic simulations are merely exercises in Grand Strategy. A major reason why Wars of Napoleon is brilliant is because of its scale, which allows you to Utilize Napoleon’s principles of the Battle Carre, parallel paths of march, living of the land which gave him his own version of lightening warfare, and using cavalry for both reconnaissance and shielding the movement of his own troops. Napoleonic games which use regions the size of hundreds of miles merely bring a Risk like strategy of pushing your entire army from one huge territory into another and then having the game resolve the strength of belligerents. This is meaningless in simulating the brilliance of Napoleon’s style of warfare.

I would love for someone to recommend another game which allows me to:

- Set orders which utilize the strengths and weaknesses of individual leaders.
- Detach and utilize cavalry for reconnaissance and screening.
- Identify and use terrain to determine different lines of march.
- Rotate and use operational lines of communication, turning the opponent’s LOC.
- Reorganize and modernize your units with such a variety of different forces.
- I could go on an on… how about detaching a couple regiments of Garde Chasseur’s a Cheval, to accompany Napoleon from theatre to theatre.

Going back to that criticism about the AI, I just have to laugh. I dare anyone who criticizes the AI to actually play a complete campaign with a high AI setting, AND full supply logistics rather than “easy” supply setting. I would love to see those same complainer’s faces when a corp on the Baltic melts away due to supply and movement during the winter months!

So let me address the frequent alternate criticism of Crashes. Some say the game is unplayable. I have completed two complete 450 turn campaigns on older machines… one a windows 7 Sony desktop, and the second campaign on an early Windows 10 laptop. The truth is that this game is massive in what it is managing. 400+ leaders with individual traits, 30+ nations/principalities all with unique diplomacy, dozens and dozens of different types of units. The game requires as much in computer resources as you can throw at it. A problem designers had was that the game would run great with one player and crash with another, so let me just say that after two complete games and over 900 turns of play, that you should start the game after doing the following;

- Go into task manager and shut down as much in the way of background programs and background processes that you can. Many manufacturers add a bunch of junk that takes up memory and resources.
- Disconnect from the internet as you do not need a connection to play the game, and then shut off any virus scanners such as Norton Utilities that you may have. These programs have a habit of kicking in randomly and using resources.
- And of course, ensure you have enough empty disk space to handle temporary storage and files.
- Yes. These things are a bit of a hassle but worth it.

Again, this game is unrivaled from what I have found in duplicating Napoleonic Warfare at the tactical, level and experiencing the flavor of the era. If however you looking for a tactical battlefield experience. I recommend the Scourge of War series.

Good luck and may your plan to conquer Russia be brilliant. And yes, you will need to conquer Russia, Spain and Great Britain to win. (And BTW, defeating the British navy is another challenge completely)!

“Long Live the Emperor!”

[kyloh]

well put - I enjoy the game and only wish it was still being supported

[BroJo]

I do love this game, and I still play it from time to time, but the AI does have a few quirks. For example, it builds lots of artillery and sends it out alone without support. And it also makes some strange decisions in grand strategy.

However, the game really shines when playing PBEM. Also, the AGE engine easily allows one to directly play the armies of one's allies, so that is not much of a problem.

[Nukkxx]

I have to admit I never played it. Seemed too big. But I'm very willing to try it now after reading your review ... Will have to play solo .... Hope AI will not do too many crazy things.

[Colonel Marbot]

I think you will find that the illogical moves are insignificant to the outcome. My advice is to read the event card conditions very carefully. For example, I recall that there is condition concerning Ulm in the event card for dissolving the Holy Roman Empire, and if you are too fast in accepting the surrender terms of Austria, you may forfeit a requirement for dissolving the Holy Roman Empire. Good luck and enjoy.

[Colonel Marbot]

@BroJo the random artillery units occur after you have destroyed a country's ability to fightback. Artillery is the cheapest to produce. i was pleasantly surprised in my last campaign, when after conquering Moscow and St. Petersburg the AI was very smart in building divison sized units in the Ukraine to wage an attempt to liberate their capitol.

[Colonel Marbot]

@kyloh i read that the new AGE engine does not support modern warfare and air units so i hope that ageod does revisit the napoleonic age with a future title.

[Prince Metternich]

This game is superb, and I too hope to see a future AGEOD release covering this period. Better yet would be if it also covered the Wars of the French Revolution, a fascinating and under-served period linked to this one. I first got into Napoleonics playing L'Empereur,a Koei game for the NES, and I'd love to be able to trace Napoleon's career from the beginning in a serious wargame.

[grezby]

While the game has weaknesses and is no longer supported, it has lots of merits for any fan of the era. I am surprised that there are not more Napoleonic strategic war games given the popularity of the period. Come on AEGOD!

[Jim]

I like the game but have seen some AI oddities such as small enemy units appearing in my capital apparently from nowhere (was playing as Russia and some small French forces appeared in St. Petersburg without triggering any battle, seemed strange)

I really hope we get more detailed Napoleonic strategy games of this sort in future.

In terms of features, you mentioned:
"... recommend another game that allows me to:
- Rotate and use operational lines of communication, turning the opponent’s LOC.
"

Can I ask what you mean by this and how it can be done in WoN?
(I worry with ageod games that I'm missing significant features of each game!)

[Colonel Marbot]

@Jim When I think of LOC, in historical terms, the 1805 campaign comes to mind. Napoleon's LOC was originally from Vienna up the danube and into Bavaria to France. Supply depots, and reinforcements are down this LOC, and should an army lose a battle, they naturally retreat back along their LOC. Moving from Vienna north to meet the Russian/Austrian army at Austerlitz, Napoleon purposefully concealed his strength on his left flank and weakened his right flank, exposing his LOC to Vienna. The Allies took the bait to turn this LOC, not realizing that napoleon had purposefully moved it directly east, likely through Prague and Nurenburg.

In terms of WON, an loc is abstract and related to supply. IN case of the Easy Supply setting it is not as relevant, but turning off Easy Supply makes the game far more challenging. Supply can stretch a maximum of 5 regions (depending on weather and other factors) across regions you have gained control. This LOC/supply line also comes into play as a requirement to replace losses, similar to how training depot battalions would be called up.

Using this in WON occurs when an opposing force is marching a distance through enemy territory. As France, i was able to cut an English expeditionary force off from its coastal supply city, and the most challenging circumstance is invading Russia and keeping an uninterrupted line back to Poland, as the small Russian forces can make life tough on the French.

[shri]

The game works better in PBEM than in single player, though the player playing France needs to be really good to win.

[Colonel Marbot]

@shri: I can imagine that is very true. The French victory conditions are impractical for anything but a single player game against the AI. It is too easy for the Allies to adopt the 1813 strategy much earlier.

[shri]

Like any war-game, you have historical hindsight and this makes any large historical conflict replay ability (as it was) impossible; whether Napoleonic, WW1, WW2 etc.

We know the Achilles heel of France (to be honest any power in any great war) in Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, the inability to fight multiple fronts at once, what they managed is defeat in detail by fighting one at a time. This is difficult in PBEM. No Austrian player is going to suicide his armies in Ulm or a Prussian going to declare war when all alone. The Spanish are never going to be true allies (because they know now what happens post 1808).

The alternative is to purposely weaken the countries which lost (beyond historical levels) such as Austria, Prussia and Spain in Napoleonic wars, France, Austria and Russia in WW1 and France, Italy etc in WW2; this in turn causes lots of resentment among the regular players for "strict martinet play" and "a-historical weakness".

Given all these issues, this game tried to do a decent job, a pity with it as with all AGEOD games is unlike the Paradox guys (who make inferior games but have great support systems and keep releasing bug clean-ups and patches for years afterwards), AGEOD doesn't release patches or updates after the initial one year or so and thus bugs remain, there are no DLCs released to better the game, no flavour. This restricts these games to History nerds.

Eg: AGEOD had another game wherein they had only a few key Napoleonic battles, had they wanted, they could have merged those scenarios as DLCs and sold it as a cheap addition, thus adding a tactical or short campaign series to the Grand campaign and this makes new players come, gain traction and a virtuous cycle, but they are purists and don't do such stuff.

[BroJo]

Originally posted by shri:

AGEOD had another game wherein they had only a few key Napoleonic battles, had they wanted, they could have merged those scenarios as DLCs and sold it as a cheap addition, thus adding a tactical or short campaign series to the Grand campaign and this makes new players come, gain traction and a virtuous cycle, but they are purists and don't do such stuff.

I would have loved to see the Peninsular War as a DLC to this game. The mechanics of Napoleon's Campaigns are a bit too simple for the subject matter.

[shri]

Originally posted by BroJo:

Originally posted by shri:

AGEOD had another game wherein they had only a few key Napoleonic battles, had they wanted, they could have merged those scenarios as DLCs and sold it as a cheap addition, thus adding a tactical or short campaign series to the Grand campaign and this makes new players come, gain traction and a virtuous cycle, but they are purists and don't do such stuff.

I would have loved to see the Peninsular War as a DLC to this game. The mechanics of Napoleon's Campaigns are a bit too simple for the subject matter.

Ya, the peninsula needs some realignment of mechanics, maybe troops per region (average) should be a metric and until and unless each and every square is occupied with atleast 20% loyalty the guerrilla and dissolved spanish/portuguese armies need to be in supply to attack/defend.

One another problem is Russia, Russia needs to have the reformation in 1807 or so, not 1810, but be really useless in first 2-3 years of war, Russia started reformation in 1807 but took 2 years to complete. The problem was Russian gunpowder was thoroughly useless till 1808-09 and this forced the Russians to use large battalions and made it a cavalry, cossack, artillery + bayonet army, their firepower was minimal (if that). This was compensated with each battalion having extra troops to fill in the gaps. (usual solution).
Then, after the Barclay reforms the Russians became formidable, by late 1812 Russia had surpassed France in effectiveness in all spheres except high level leadership and remained the best army of Europe till end of the Napoleonic wars.