Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
The French Revolutionary Wars, for all their importance in world history and in the development of modern warfare, are a subject woefully ignored by wargame designers and publishers. So it was with much joy that I found Thomas Prowell’s 1792 variant for the The Napoleonic Wars (2nd Edition), which I will refer to it from here on out as 1792.
Gameplay (70/70): 1792 uses the same basic mechanics and pieces as you will find in The Napoleonic Wars (2nd Edition) so rather than go into detail about what has changed, let me discuss what makes this one different. Well for one, there are a lot fewer forces on the map, which means that early battles feature few dice and many maneuvers. Nine cards from The Napoleonic Wars (2nd Edition) are replaced with new cards for events of the era, including the Egyptian Expedition and the dreaded guillotine. there is also a plethora of new leader units.
Leader Pieces
The biggest changes are with the French. They start off much weaker here. None of their starting leaders exceed a battle rating of 2. They have only 12 reinforcement points and a mere +1 bonus in battle. Napoleon is not present, and when he arrives on turn 3 he has a lower command rating than his imperial version. The strangest change though has to do with Poland. In 1792 she still existed, and the immediate effect of the French Revolution was her final dismemberment by Russia, Prussia, and Austria. This means that France is going to lose several keys very early in the game and they must recoup their losses, in spite of being a weaker military power. To add to their possible ruin, the French can be a victim of some rather nasty cards. Of the nine new cards added to the game, three directly hurt France, while the Royal Marriage card cannot be played by the erstwhile revolutionaries. However, France does have a new home card and it is unarguably the best in the game: Levee en Masse. It allows the French to build a general and four units in any home duchy. Since the card is worth five command points (CP) on its own, it is saving you anywhere from 3 to 11 CP, although it will usually save you 7 CP. The only drawback is the placement of a British flag in the Vendee, but like the guys says in Robocop "I'd buy that for a dollar!"
The other powers are changed in less substantial ways. Britain has some new territory in Germany but very few troops, while Prussia has a small army and even fewer duchies than in 1805. Russia is actually an unaligned proxy in a 2-4 player game and must capture Polish land to gain their reserve card. They can also be victims of Tsar Paul’s Madness, which means they can become unaligned or mulligan their hand if controlled by another player. Austria is much different in that they start off fairly strong, with more cards and some duchies in Belgium and Italy. The other substantial difference is that 1805 card restrictions are lifted, and players may freely preempt on the first round. Also, play does not end with the fall of France. This is because as discussed before, France is much more weak.
Some of the Duchy Markers
1792 is in many ways a far more engrossing game than good old The Napoleonic Wars (2nd Edition). With fewer forces and a weaker France, things are far more open. Prussia and Austria must balance out their war in Poland with the war against France, while Britain’s army is so weak that they must be careful using it. In addition, few of the generals are heavy hitters, meaning that contests are more equal and few men will attract as much as attention as a rampaging Wellington or Napoleon will in the parent game. The result is that I actually find this version of the game to be much more fun, so much so that I have tied the two versions together to simulate The Great French War. i only pulled this concoction off once but it was a blast. Prussia won the game. How often does that happen?
Accessibility (8/10): The rules as laid out are straightforward, and the chrome has been kept to a minimum. This makes for a fairly fast playing time. The reason I docked more points is that currently no professional version exists, which makes the cards unwieldy. There was talk of GMT including it in C3i, but it seems the support for The Napoleonic Wars (2nd Edition) has been minimal following the second publishing. Will we ever see a hard-mounted map or more games in this series? The world wonders...
Components (7/10): The new cards have nice graphics that line up well with the game. The leader pieces are functional, but best of all they allow players to have more commander options in The Napoleonic Wars (2nd Edition), where I like to use York, Mack, Alexander, and Hohenlohe. Still, without a professional version out, I cannot rate the variant too highly in this category.
You Can Use The Leaders to Enhance The Standard Game Too
Historical Quality (5/10): 1792 is very much in the spirit of the parent game where chaos reigns and almost anything is possible. The drawback is that while it gets some things right, such as Levee en Masse, it seems that it fails as history. There is no way for Russia to gain Corfu or Prussia to gain Oldenburg or Hesse in a historical manner. The Egyptian Expedition will not bring Turkey closer to the Coalition. Worst of all Spain and Prussia will never prove to be as fickle as they were in real life. The Polish partition, particularly in regards to Russia, can be a sticky situation. To this end, I think a few cards need to be made to represent these strange occurrences and other neglected events, from the Quasi War to the shift from the Republic to the Directory. While most of the important leaders are present, a few faces are missing, which is not the case in the parent game. The Austrians ought to have Alvinczi and Coburg, while the French should have Jourdan and possibly Kellermann and Dugommier. The émigré corps, led by Louis Joseph, would be fun too.
Overall (90/100): 1792 needs a few historical tweaks to make some things at least possible. Most importantly though, it needs GMT to show it some love. The situation is wide open and offers possibilities that are distinct from The Napoleonic Wars (2nd Edition). While it may not be good history, it offers gamers a way to learn and enjoy an important part of history. Best of all I can attest to it passing the most important test of any game. It is fun.
So what are you waiting for? Go here and have a blast: http://www.alanemrich.com/Games_Archive_pages/TNW_1792.htm
-
J Griffey
United States
Texas
-
How would ye tweak it to make possible certain things? Let us know.
As a no-fun history-bot  , I was a bit disappointed to see the game beginning with a sprawling, rampant republican Poland in control of thirteen duchies in 1792. The real Polish Revolt was in 1794, was confined to the Warsaw-Krakow core of Poland, and was crushed by Russian (with some Prussian) troops in eight months. It was more like an Event card than a serious ally of the French Revolution.
No doubt it was necessary for play-balance, but there must be other, more realistic, ways to balance the game, such as giving Austria only one card for every four Keys (and placing it in control of Munich and other Holy Roman Empire duchies which the map marks as French Associate Duchies), and giving the other Coalition members only one duchy for every three Keys. This reflects the rather low energy and efficiency of the anti-French allies in the first years of the French Revolutionary Wars.
Also, it is fun to have Russia as a Proxy Power rather than just Prussia. Russia could have fought Prussia and Austria if the three had not agreed to the third Partition of Poland.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
AnimalMother wrote: How would ye tweak it to make possible certain things? Let us know.
I'm just waiting for the final version of my Great French War module to get posted here. You'll see them there.
Quote: As a no-fun history-bot , I was a bit disappointed to see the game beginning with a sprawling, rampant republican Poland in control of thirteen duchies in 1792. The real Polish Revolt was in 1794, was confined to the Warsaw-Krakow core of Poland, and was crushed by Russian (with some Prussian) troops in eight months. It was more like an Event card than a serious ally of the French Revolution.
I think this works just as it is. Poland is still very weak and they succumb quite rapidly. They'll never make it passed turn 3 outside of some Coalition blunders. At any rate, it does help to keep Prussia and Austria from descending upon the French in mass.
Quote: No doubt it was necessary for play-balance, but there must be other, more realistic, ways to balance the game, such as giving Austria only one card for every four Keys (and placing it in control of Munich and other Holy Roman Empire duchies which the map marks as French Associate Duchies), and giving the other Coalition members only one duchy for every three Keys. This reflects the rather low energy and efficiency of the anti-French allies in the first years of the French Revolutionary Wars.
Not a bad idea there. As it is Austria is quite strong in this scenario, maybe too strong. I might try this out solo sometime. While not a good solo game, I find it the best way to try out variants you are unsure about.
-
J Griffey
United States
Texas
-
Re the Polish question, my admittedly cursory read on it is that the Polish rump state before the Third Partition was a Russian satellite, with a Russian garrison in Warsaw equal to one Unit in the game. Prussia, by striking a deal with France to leave the First Coalition, was able to move enough troops to Poland to snag Warsaw in the Third Partition. Russia decided it was not interested in fighting Prussia over Warsaw, although Russia had done most of the fighting in putting down the Polish patriots. Perhaps Russia was happy to give the core of the Polish uprising to Prussia (Warsaw) and Austria (Krakow) while keeping most of Poland's vast eastern lands for itself.
There ought to be a "Prussian Sell-Out" card, by which France may concede s Key to Prussia, reflagging it Prussian, to break any Prussian Pact with a Coalition Power, moving Prussian consul down-track two boxes. The Prussians were supremely self-interested. In addition to selling-out the Poles, France later under Napoleon bought Prussia's neutrality before the Napoleonic Wars by promising them Hanover. There's a pattern here.
-
William Sariego
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
-
It is an excellent scenario. I look forward to seeing your tweaks, Sean.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
AnimalMother wrote: There ought to be a "Prussian Sell-Out" card, by which France may concede s Key to Prussia, reflagging it Prussian, to break any Prussian Pact with a Coalition Power, moving Prussian consul down-track two boxes. The Prussians were supremely self-interested. In addition to selling-out the Poles, France later under Napoleon bought Prussia's neutrality before the Napoleonic Wars by promising them Hanover. There's a pattern here.
I came up with rules for that since there is no card. They also should have made cards for Spain being flaky.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
Comrade_Sarayev wrote: It is an excellent scenario. I look forward to seeing your tweaks, Sean.
Just waiting on the admins to approve the files.
-
Daniel Berger
United States
Littleton
Colorado
-
Thanks for this. I hope, perhaps with your help, it makes it into C3I!
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
djberg96 wrote: Thanks for this. I hope, perhaps with your help, it makes it into C3I!
That would be cool, though I'm not sure what I can do to get it into C3i. Thoughts anyone?
-
Bill Wood
United States
Eden
North Carolina
-
Ask GMT?
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
Wilhammer wrote: Ask GMT?
Sure, but how exactly. I don't just want to say "hey hire me." My guess is I should send them a few of my reviews and variants.
-
Bill Wood
United States
Eden
North Carolina
-
"you don't know what someone might give you until you ask"
personally, from a customer point of view, them giving you an opportunity to free lance publish with them makes darned good sense.
-
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
-
gittes wrote: Wilhammer wrote: Ask GMT? Sure, but how exactly. I don't just want to say "hey hire me." My guess is I should send them a few of my reviews and variants.
Here's the website for c3i: http://www.c3iopscenter.com/currentops/
I would just contact Rodger MacGowan and ask him if he'd be interested. Both 1792 and your scenario are both c3i materials that could be included in a copy of c3i.
I'm not sure that they pay you for the scenario - I think you just continue to own the copyright and you get credit in the magazine - but now I'm talking out my arse, since I've never had anything published with them. Perhaps they do pay.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
cmontgo2 wrote: gittes wrote: Wilhammer wrote: Ask GMT? Sure, but how exactly. I don't just want to say "hey hire me." My guess is I should send them a few of my reviews and variants. Here's the website for c3i: http://www.c3iopscenter.com/currentops/I would just contact Rodger MacGowan and ask him if he'd be interested. Both 1792 and your scenario are both c3i materials that could be included in a copy of c3i. I'm not sure that they pay you for the scenario - I think you just continue to own the copyright and you get credit in the magazine - but now I'm talking out my arse, since I've never had anything published with them. Perhaps they do pay.
I did contact them months ago and heard nothing back. Not sure if another go will work.
-
|
|
