Subject: Re: Battles of Waterloo (GMT): Opinions/info sought From: Mark Searle A recent query from hundley@LANL.GOV (Michael Hundley)... >I'm thinking of purchasing GMT's "Battles of Waterloo" and wanted to learn >more about the game before I give up my hard-earned green-backs. > >I'm looking for a game on this subject that is a good simulation (with a >good deal of historical content) but does not have the huge size/tedious >details of a Wellington's Victory/Terrible Swift Sword sort of game. While not a huge game Loo isn't a quick play either (with the exception of the Quatre Bra scenario). When I was playtesting the game I regularly completed the QB scenario in an evenings play (solitair). >To that end, any info or opinions about the game would be much appreciated. >In particular, I am wondering about the complexity of the game (perhaps, >compare it to other 19th century games, terrible swift sword, Wellington's >Victory, the Gamer's civil war tactical system, across five aprils, etc.). In my opinion it is alot easier that either WV or TSS, certainly much less tedious. It is however a good bit more complex than A5A. I don't have any experience with the Gamers CWB system so I cant compare. The hardest thing for me to get used to had nothing to do with the complexity of the game, but with how the mechanics of the game forced you to play. This was the first game I played that used a "chit pull" system, so as a person used to igo-ugo it was a bit of a culture shock getting into the flow of the game. >As I understand it, the game comes with three double-sided maps; are three >maps used in each scenario? Working from memory as I'm in the process of relocating and my entire game collection is boxed, there is a one map Quatre Bra scenario, a two map Ligney scenario and a three map June 16th scenario which combines QB and Ligney. The same thing hold true with the scenarios from June 18th. I think there is a one map Mt St Jean scenario and a two map Wavre scenario which can also be combined to play the June 18th scenario. I'm alittle fuzzy on the map layouts of the scenarios because during the first phase of playtesting (the one I was envolved in) the map scale was about 400 yds per hex. This was changed during the second phase of playtesting (which I missed) to 200 yds per hex. This doubled the playing area and halved the counter density. >I guess my question is ... just how big is this >game. Is it similar in size to Terrible Swift Sword (3 maps) or Wellington's >Victory (4 maps) or is it smaller in size? The big scenarios are as large as TSS (in map area anyway). However from my experience the smaller scenarios are avery bit as enjoyable as the big three map scenarios. My favorites are the battles of the 16th as they are much more the turning point of the campaign than the battles of the 18th. >also, is the game system FUN, tedious, etc. I found the game to be a blast and enjoyed my playtesting experience with it alot. I give it two thumbs up. It is a pricey game, but in my opinion it is worth the money. I'm not sure where the series is going though, they were going to follow it up with an 1809 Aspern/Essling release but this was tabled in favor of Eylau. However with the release of "Glory", a ACW chit pull game I've heard that they are going to follow up Glory with a Nappy game which uses the Glory system. I'm not sure if this is displacing Eylau using the Loo system or not. However if you'd like to try some Napoleonic battles that really fit on a kitchen table you could try one of the two releases from GamesUSA (who I work for on a somewhat irregular basis) Borodino or Friedland. GamesUSA has a web page at http://www.net-gate.com/~gamesusa or you can contact Brien Miller at BrienMilr@aol.com. Hope this helps. Mark Searle MarkSearle@aol.com