From: Daniel Thorpe Subject: Re: GMT's Waterloo > From: Dave Cann > Subject: GMT's Waterloo > Date: 9-Sep-97 9:04 AM > Can anyone give any opinions on GMT's Waterloo? > Just curious... > -generic dave ---------- Dave, A couple previous replies to your post mentioned that GMT's THE BATTLES OF WATERLOO (henceforth "Loo") is one good looking game. No argument there, but I do have some problems with how it works, however... The concept is good: do some major Napoleonic battles at the Brigade level but with more detail detail than BLUE & GREY (or NAPOLEON AT WATERLOO) to convey some grand tactical truths in a manageable format (unlike the Battalion scale monsters). So, the units are Brigades (not demi-divisions, as one post stated) with a few Battalions/Regiments as necessary to show the scattered Anglo-Allied deployment. Map scale is around 200 metres/hex, which is pretty small for Brigades (the bigger ones can extend into two hexes). Three maps sheets are provided to simulate all four actions of the Waterloo campaign. The front sides have maps for the 16 July battles - Quatre Bras (one sheet) and Ligny (two sheets). The backs have the maps for 18 July - Waterloo (one sheet) and Wavre (two sheets). In addition to the individual battle scenarios there are rules and off-board movement charts to link all three sheets to play combined 16 and 18 July Campaign scenarios, but yer starting to slip into monster game territory there. The basic design looks good. Because of the unit and time scale formations are not emphasised - there is no distinction between line and column, which I think is reasonable (you're talking a battalion detail there). Use of combined arms is well simulated by including square markers for units that react to cavalry charges (and which makes them more vulnerable to fire). Units are backprinted for step reduction: ss most Brigades have more than two steps you put a marker under them for the first two losses, flip it over for the third, reuse the marker for the next two losses, then eliminate the unit. This well simulates the fact that units could take some battering before they lost combat effectiveness, and it is much simpler than strength point systems (which I find excessively detailed and mechanical). Once I actually tried to play the thing, however, I found the marriage was not a happy one between GMT's detailed, gritty approach and Berg's "I never saw a piece of chrome I didn't like" philosophy. Every system is overwrought and so full of exceptions that even reading the rules is painful; playing them is incredibly involved. The game uses a variation of Berg's LIM mechanic, where you draw chits to activate formations. But this essentially system is overlaid with different leader capabilities for all three Army commanders that add exceptions to the system. Then there are rules for out of command units; a special activation phase for units you didn't spend a LIM on, etc, etc. Combat is incredibly detailed and time consuming for a Brigade level game. An assault involves an exchange of fire at long range, a chance for defending units to retreat before combat, an exchange of fire at close range, another retreat opportunity, and finally, shock combat. All these steps require a die roll to resolve, and most will result in morale checks, requiring more die rolling. Add in cavalry reaction checks, distinctions between heavy and light cavalry, and more combat and movement modifiers than you could shake a musket at (Cav, Inf, Arty, and Leaders all have their own movment costs on the TEC; Cavalry strength can be modified two or three times depending upon whether it's heavy, or light, the target was able to react, charging from a flank, etc, etc) and it all became a little too much for my little brain. A very good review in FIRE & MOVEMENT #102 (yes! one of the last good things they published) made an excellent argument that the problem is not just the detail level, but that the game system is so inconsistent and full of exceptions. There are four ratings on the counters, but - depending upon the unit - not always the same ones or in the same places. Anyway, this is a big, good looking game, but it was one of the biggest disappointments of 1996 for me. Daniel