Languish Napoleonic Wars Thread

[Berkut]

We ready to start again?

For some reason Nappy Wars doesn't quite do it for me.

Shush, we've already decided you are playing France.

[grumbler]

Good job, Viking.

I am also going to pass on another round of the game.  This game just doesn't do it for me.  It didn't feel the slightest bit "Napoleonic."  I think it was the turn structure.  It works fine as a game, just not as a game of the Napoleonic Wars for the grog in me.

I appreciate the chance to play, though, and appreciate the patience and help of all when I was learning the game.

[Viking]

It's over? Dang. Congratulations to Viking, playing wholeheartedly to defend Austria and the coalition and defeat France in the long term paid off, good to see. And no stabbing.

It's just that the french attitude of knocking out the "minor" coalition members rather than trying to kill off the russian army in europe (which I almost acomplished myself) meant that I was allways between +2 and +4 on the victory rolls. Unless Habs was willing to try to destroy my army in the alps I was going to win eventually no matter what.  Plus, being a good coalition member meant that nobody could sabotage my advancement to victory. France leaving me alone helped as well.

[Viking]

I'm up for another game, given the standard conditions, no Jaron, no Fireblade and no CdM.

[Habbaku]

It didn't feel the slightest bit "Napoleonic."  I think it was the turn structure.  It works fine as a game, just not as a game of the Napoleonic Wars for the grog in me.

A wide and very valid complaint, which is the same reason I don't play Empires in Arms.  This game has the merit of playing much faster and being a fun "game" even if the wars it's ostensibly trying to represent have nothing to do with the game itself.

[Viking]

It didn't feel the slightest bit "Napoleonic."  I think it was the turn structure.  It works fine as a game, just not as a game of the Napoleonic Wars for the grog in me.

A wide and very valid complaint, which is the same reason I don't play Empires in Arms.  This game has the merit of playing much faster and being a fun "game" even if the wars it's ostensibly trying to represent have nothing to do with the game itself.

Elaborate.

[Delirium]

I think that what Habbaku is referring to is the feeling that this is just a game with some interesting mechanics, it just happens to portray the Napoleonic Wars. Much like most Euro games that start with a game mechanic, then randomize which historical period should provide the setting for the game mechanic.

This game has the event cards which do give some historical flavour though.

[Berkut]

Good job, Viking.

I am also going to pass on another round of the game.  This game just doesn't do it for me.  It didn't feel the slightest bit "Napoleonic."  I think it was the turn structure.  It works fine as a game, just not as a game of the Napoleonic Wars for the grog in me.

I appreciate the chance to play, though, and appreciate the patience and help of all when I was learning the game.

Hmm, I can certainly understand the complaint, but I wonder what would make a game more "Napoleonic", at least at this level? It does lack a certain amount of what I would imagine Napoleonic operational level concerns, but then, the turns are 2 years each. Which is pretty long, and hence very abstract.

I have always thought of Nappy Wars as the start of a great designers CV - and it shows. The rules are, believe it or not, much better than they used to be, and yet are still sometimes almost indecipherable and obtuse.

I wish he would make a true Napoleonic Wars II, a complete re-write from the ground up, with it becoming a sequel to Here I Stand, instead of the other way around.

[ulmont]

I wish he would make a true Napoleonic Wars II, a complete re-write from the ground up, with it becoming a sequel to Here I Stand, instead of the other way around.

The sequel is Virgin Queen, picking right up where Here I Stand leaves off.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41066

[Delirium]

Yep, we've been drooling about that for quite some time now.

[Berkut]

Yes, I know, and that looks very interesting, but that isn't really my point.

I am thinking about attending Ed's seminar at WBC on Virgin Queen actually.

I wonder if the success of Here I Stand is in part because it is a conflict that is not as generally well known as the Napoleonic Wars, and hence the players are a lot more tolerant of its raping of history?

[Habbaku]

I have always thought of Nappy Wars as the start of a great designers CV - and it shows. The rules are, believe it or not, much better than they used to be, and yet are still sometimes almost indecipherable and obtuse.

I don't know that I put McLaughlin under the heading of "great designer."  What designs of his do you think are so great?

[ulmont]

I'm up for another game

I would be interested in giving this a shot.  It seems like there was one other person who was interested from the old board thread,  but can't remember who it was now.

[grumbler]

Hmm, I can certainly understand the complaint, but I wonder what would make a game more "Napoleonic", at least at this level? It does lack a certain amount of what I would imagine Napoleonic operational level concerns, but then, the turns are 2 years each. Which is pretty long, and hence very abstract.

Pretty much any game which involved decision-making something like that which a real person of the period would make.  Pitt probably never said "do i want Wellington to move from Lisbon to Madrid, or Hill to move from London to Southampton?"  The whole CP mechanic mitigates against any kind of Napoleonic feel at this level.