We played GamesUSA's Friedland a few times over the last week or so, and I thought I'd offer some observations. I also have a number of issues for clarification that I'll send in a separate message. I like the game system a lot, this appears to be the best current bet for a Napoleonics game system that is ok in terms of realism without requiring days to play. The graphics are great - the map is nice, the counters are beautiful and not too overloaded, the combined effect is quite stunning, but I wonder why there are so many errata in those nice OOB charts on the map. The stacking and conformance rules require some close looking at how units are positioned when moving, but this did not seem to be a real problem during play. I also look forward to trying the hidden units option once we have a bit more experience with the system. To me, the main weakness currently is the command system (again :-). The activation system is a nice idea, and the hierarchical command structure is OK, but the lower level of the system (i.e., corps/wing/division commanders) misses the mark by a major span. The net effect of all these commander counters with three different ratings is that the quality of a commander does not influence his effectiveness in moving his troops. (And I always thought that's what command quality means.) For example, Docturov on the right wing, who is a dope from his ratings, is no worse than the supposedly far better Bagration in getting his troops to combat in a coordinated manner. Yes, there are initiative ratings to show how likely they're going to move on their own, but what is completely missing is some way of distinguishing how well they handle those orders they do get. Historically, if the Russians managed one of those rare three-forces-combined attacks, I'd be sure it was Bagration who'd manage it and not Docturov, but in the game there is no difference between the two. Initiative doesn't cover this - it's nice to have a commander who will always do something, but the good ones historically are those who did the right thing. There is little distinction to be found here. As an aside, I wondered a bit about the list on their web page that supposedly lists the best leaders of the era, with, among others, lots of Napoleonic marshals (Lannes, Ney...), the Archduke Charles, Bagration and Hill listed, but not a single Prussian. Ney better than Bluecher?! Oh, my. Or, for that matter, Ney better than Buelow, who beat him at Dennewitz and Oudinot at Grossbeeren? Apparently this is another "Design for the Emperor" series, as Richard Berg puts it. Oh, well. The Friedland situation is of course very unbalanced - even in the Lannes scenario, the Russians are a study in frustration as they are unable to mount an effective attack. (Btw, they warn everyone except Napoleonic-era buffs off this game on their web page, which I found vaguely amusing. It is well-meant, but I own many games by famous companies that are just as bad in this respect.) But working with the system is an excellent exercise of what I'd call grand tactical - thinking about the mix of forces you want for an attack, and then laboriously wait for the command system to let you move them in place and send them off, which then occurs without much further ado. I hope the other games in the series don't have that small an actual map area, as it basically precludes much experimenting with a freer setup, but of course in this particular game, everything is centered on Friedland anyway. I wonder if this is the reason why the large scenarios do not start before 0600, while the Lannes scenario starts at 0200 - every sensible Russian player would otherwise try to just retreat behind the Alle before any strong French reinforcements arrive. Anyway, I'll buy Borodino as soon as we've played Friedland some more times, and I'm waiting eagerly for Eylau. And, one hopes, many others. Markus