From: Dawn Skupin Subject: Piquet - a mini-review We've played several games of the ACW version now. Here are my impressions: Physical components - very well done. I liked the metal markers, etc. The cards are quite good as well. Given current printing and production costs, I think that it is pretty easy to see why the game costs $40. Concept - I think that the main concept and mechanics are sound. The tabletop looked like an ACW battle. The game felt like one too. As everyone knows by now, the sequence of play is governed by a deck of cards, with events taking place potentially in any order you want, assuming you have enough Impetus to draw enough cards from your deck to get what you want ( each player rolls a twenty-sided die, and the difference is the amount of impetus that can be used to either draw a card or take an action ). Playability - The sequencing was pretty smooth once you got used to it. Combat and morale checks were much less so. The use of multiple die types ( 4, 6, 8,, 12, and 20-siders ) did not speed up play, nor did the constant use of roll-offs ( rolling one die type against another die type of an opponent to get a combat or morale result ). I think that the game could have been done with just a twenty-sider and a six-sider, with a few easily-remembered adjustments as in Fire 'n Fury. There were some rolls that could have been eliminated completely ( re-rolling for Confederate artillery could have been lost simply by making it a minus one on the unit type adjustment table in the Supplement, for example ). Rules - The big picture was conveyed quite well. The details were often a little blurry. Unit facings in retreat and rout were not covered, nor were line of sight through terrain. Some terms like "chipped" cropped up out of the blue, and some of the implications of some of the cards were not conveyed well. Though the rules were fairly clear, I think that they would have benefitted greatly by a final scrubbing from a group that had no experience at all with the game. The rules just plain could have been better. Fun-factor - We loved the flow of the game. It seems to fill a good niche for the ACW as a fast-moving, fun game on the regimental level. Johnny Reb players will probably not like the absence of the more specialized tactical rules, but the trade-off is that you get the higher-level command and control issues that are not in J.R. Overall suitability for ACW - It seems to fit the ACW well. My hunch is that colonials and Napoleonics will work well under the system. I have my doubts about pre-musket periods, but would certainly have to play it to pass judgement. Replay value - high. Bang for the buck - $40 is steep, but I think that it is worth it. Who will like the game - J.R. die-hards may think that it lacks tactical flavor. Control players will not like it, even though the sequence decks aren't nearly as random as it sounds on the surface. People moaning about the dumbing-down of wargaming will hate it before they open the box. On the other hand, I thought that it does force you to make some hard choices about what you want to do. The lack of control over the entire table was pretty refreshing for me, personally. House rules - We thought that the impetus differentials could be too large. After a few games we adopted a house rule limiting a player to at most 10 impetus/phase. I know that statistically it works out in the end as the game is written, but it just worked better for us with this limitation. Also, Confused Withdrawal has been forever banned from my table. Overall - I like the game, and will play a modified version of it it again. My opponent loved great chunks of the game ( especially the sequencing deck ), but is busy simplifying the combat and morale rolls even as we speak. I think that it really is different from all the rest of the games on the market, but I'd say play the game before you buy it. Piquet is going to be one of those things that you either like or hate on an individual basis, with very little middle ground. Tim S.