http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/21915/le-vol-de-laigle
Quote« Le Vol de l'Aigle » is a game simulating Napoleonic era campaigns. It is double- blind based, as the players can communicate with each other only through messages carried by the umpire. It is played on nineteenth century maps from Thier's atlas with a quite simple system. The players are really acting the part of the general, who barely knew where the enemy, as well as his own army, were. The game needs only paper and pens, with a few dice. It is the first volume of a three-volume series eventually covering all the issues of Napoleonic warfare.
or its sequel, Le Vol de L'Aigle II?
Nope, though I've always thought that playing in a double-blind environment would be pretty neat.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 06, 2010, 01:07:07 AM
Nope, though I've always thought that playing in a double-blind environment would be pretty neat.
Yeah, I picked it up on a lark the other day, and it seems to be a pretty fascinating system. Not a counters or miniatures system, but driving primarily by written orders between players and drafting on original maps of the campaign areas. Very throwback, and the more players the better for a campaign. It's the umpire that has the lion's share of the work to do.
Although, I've been really jonesing for some Pacific action. Now that things are lightening up in life, I was considering umpiring a double-blind scenario for Flat Top. Now, that is fun to do.
Got an all-day campaign of Triumph of Chaos this Saturday to deal with first. I love that fucking game.
Who are you, and what did you do with CDM?
The francos over at the Languish-equivalent (Village des Fous) are running a couple of campaigns. It lends itself beautifully to internet play, because of the GM. They have done a Auerstadt campaign, and are now doing both a Bavarian one and a What-iF campaign of France of 1815 (What if Waterloo had been won by Nappy ?). All have been a blast to follow as a spectator. (http://ludis-universalis.forumactif.fr/ for those who can follow).
The only complain so far from players is the fact that it is mostly an abstracted system that does not allow for the sort of micromanagement (except perhaps in le Vol de l'Aigle II, but no one there has it) some people expected. Yet, if everyone trusts the referee, it looks like a very enjoyable experience, especially since it is so far removed from other wargames, in simulating the ignorance of commanders of the same army.
The fact that most players are "rules-blind" (as in: they do not know the mechanics of the game, since AFAIK, only the GM has it) actually enhances the game: players know their soldiers are "tired" or have "good morale" or that such and such commander is a good tactician, but have no numerical data to crunch.
My group has done a bunch of online or mail campaigns leading up to big Legacy of Glory miniatures games at Historicon. I also ran an 1815 game using the Empires at Arms map and Napoleon's Battles miniatures. It is a blast, and I'd gladly get involved in a non-miniatures version.
Nothing much more fun than a miniatures game where you really don't know what is on the other side of the hill, nor what is on your flanks. Even lacking that, the campaigns are worth doing.
Double blind campaigns are great. I was the umpire in a 1815 Waterloo campaign many years ago, and I enjoyed the experience immensely.
The Allies guessed rightly the not-terribly-surprising French plan for June 16th (send I Corps to Ney from the start to keep Wellington fully occupied while Nappy crushed the Prussians at Ligny) and countered with a sensible if predictable plan: to conduct a figthing withdrawal aiming at concentrating their armies on the 17th.
L'Empereur was quite frustrated when the Prussians refused to stand and fight like -stupid- men but rather kept retreating North, accepting the losses inflicted by French cavalry attacks on the way, but that was nothing compared with the devastating news he received in the morning. I will never forget Napoleon's face (a brother of mine, incidentally) when he learnt that Ney, after being reinforced by I Corps and taking Quatre Bras with relative ease, had stopped his forces for 12 hours, from 7 PM to 7 AM!!!!
Of course, Ney's wing was fully fresh after a good night of quiet sleep, but Wellington had stopped only for 6 hours. With such an advantage the French were clearly doomed and conceded defeat.
Well, maybe we're on to something here.
I've been busy doing some playtesting with The Fires of Midway (http://www.clashofarms.com/Fires%20of%20Midway.html), but that'll be wrapping up in short order in a couple weeks. I got involved late, so there's not much left to do.
Maybe...just maybe... :unsure:
QuoteThe only complain so far from players is the fact that it is mostly an abstracted system that does not allow for the sort of micromanagement (except perhaps in le Vol de l'Aigle II, but no one there has it) some people expected. Yet, if everyone trusts the referee, it looks like a very enjoyable experience, especially since it is so far removed from other wargames, in simulating the ignorance of commanders of the same army.
The fact that most players are "rules-blind" (as in: they do not know the mechanics of the game, since AFAIK, only the GM has it) actually enhances the game: players know their soldiers are "tired" or have "good morale" or that such and such commander is a good tactician, but have no numerical data to crunch.
Which, actually, makes it all that much easier to umpire.
I am interested in scoring Vol de l'Aigle II in the next week or so, as it does have a few more rules that flesh out the campaigns a bit more.
Maybe...just maybe...
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2010, 08:42:53 AM
Who are you, and what did you do with CDM?
It's a new year, turning over a new leaf. Getting back to basics, and the things I enjoy in life.
So, when are we setting up a game of this through the board? :shifty:
This game I would play.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2010, 06:39:17 AM
I am interested in scoring Vol de l'Aigle II in the next week or so, as it does have a few more rules that flesh out the campaigns a bit more.
From the publisher or from a shop ? AFAIK, it was out of print - but perhaps new copies are now out.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2010, 08:11:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2010, 06:39:17 AM
I am interested in scoring Vol de l'Aigle II in the next week or so, as it does have a few more rules that flesh out the campaigns a bit more.
From the publisher or from a shop ? AFAIK, it was out of print - but perhaps new copies are now out.
Ordering it direct from France herself via PayPal. C'est la vie!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2010, 09:39:14 PM
Ordering it direct from France herself via PayPal. C'est la vie!
Gotcha. For some reason, I was thinking of their tactical game (Le Combat de l'Aigle) rather than the second version of the Vol de l'Aigle.
In that case, and if you do think of running a campaign, the experience over the French forum suggest that, depending on the scenario chosen and the number of players, you might have your hands full with the basic version, before trying your hand at managing supplies and prisonners. They started with a more limited campaign, culminating in a single engagement (or rather, a big engagement and a very limited, simultaneous battle) and are now trying their hand at longer scenarios that involve the advanced rules.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2010, 10:33:39 PM
you might have your hands full with the basic version, before trying your hand at managing supplies and prisonners. They started with a more limited campaign, culminating in a single engagement (or rather, a big engagement and a very limited, simultaneous battle) and are now trying their hand at longer scenarios that involve the advanced rules.
Good points, all. Definitely a juggling act with the short operational system with, say, more than 6 players.
I do like the elasticity of the umpiring rules, though.
CdM as umpire = EL DISASTRO
He's untrustworthy to a fault.
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2010, 05:01:39 AM
CdM as umpire = EL DISASTRO
He's untrustworthy to a fault.
Isn't untrustworthy a fault in the first place?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2010, 05:45:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2010, 05:01:39 AM
CdM as umpire = EL DISASTRO
He's untrustworthy to a fault.
Isn't untrustworthy a fault in the first place?
Not when you're an umpire with elastic rules and no oversight.
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2010, 05:49:50 AM
Not when you're an umpire with elastic rules and no oversight.
But, because he has a license for concealed carry, he is one of the Umpires in Arms, and so doesn't suffer from all the backtalk that slows games down.
I would imagine the heart of a game like this would be placing absolute trust in the umpire not to fuck you. If you start doubting the calls, then you may as well just quit.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 08, 2010, 01:04:01 PM
I would imagine the heart of a game like this would be placing absolute trust in the umpire not to fuck you. If you start doubting the calls, then you may as well just quit.
I am going to use that on the coach the next time he starts bitching about a call in a basketball game.
Au Contraire, in this game's case you cannot see the umpire fucking you or making a lousy call. When you're officiating, it is rather easy to notice your fuck-ups. :P
Quote from: Habbaku on January 08, 2010, 07:06:03 PM
When you're officiating, it is rather easy to notice your fuck-ups. :P
Very true.
I've never noticed any of my fuck-ups!
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2010, 08:29:56 PM
I've never noticed any of my fuck-ups!
Of course not. It's in the Referee Manual.