For folks yearning for some of the randomness of battle events I feel like there is probably a way to modify the movement and battle rules to include a custom set of event cards and dice check rolls. How each event affects the battle, well you'd have to play test that a lot to make it balanced. But for example (not having considered the numbers at all): You get a six sided die. Rolling 2 through 6 passes your event check. Rolling a 1 fails and you must draw an event card. Okay so you want to make three moves. Shore up a defensive position in a forward polygon and move two units from the rear closer as reinforcements. At the start of your turn you must roll an event check. This time you roll a 1 (failure). So, you draw a card. The card you draw reads: "Messenger delayed! (Non-battle) movement orders of one unit will not occur until the start of your next turn. Resolution: Roll a 6-sided die for each unit you wish to move. The unit with the lowest die roll will be delayed 1 turn, and then _must_ carry out your original orders. This movement may not be ordered until the event action is resolved _and_ a new turn has started. Tied rolls must be rerolled until a result is achieved." I have no idea if it could be shoehorned into the ruleset. But a rare, random event like that (keeping it simple) could add some spice to the cerebral and methodical nature of BaM.
Very timely post. I just picked this one up because of its dice-less mechanics (plus I love the subject). Looks very interesting to me as a game and I think I’ll have no problems getting it to the table. Tnx...
Nice review. Thank you for it. Agree with you. I had Guns of Gettysburg. It is a game : not the battle itself. But I like the attrition system from Simmons which give you excitement. if you want the smell of the battle simulation and if you want to place your forces where you want, you should go to Pub Battles Marengo from Commandpostgames. There are dice in combats but all combats are not mathematical.
Yes, I had my steep learning curve with it, but ultimately did not keep it. It's almost as if I learned these game systems backward. Tackling the more complicated ones first and then going to the simplest. I think that is why I like Bonaparte at Marengo the best. It's almost as if these games are a ''puzzle' that you want to work out. But with no historical order of battle, no named units and artillery as only support functions, the game just wasn't 'Gettysburg' for me.
You can play this game solitaire but it was not built with that in mind. If you play honestly and don't look at the enemies forces in advance, it can still be enjoyable.
Great review, as always! I like the system a lot; my favourite is NT. Small remark- attack penalties work/ apply INTO the locale being assaulted, not from; You may want to check the attack examples around 8-9th minute of the video. And the rules- fully agree... that is a puzzle to solve on its own;)
Unfortunately this Atlas does not have a ISBN number like I'm used to seeing. However, I do know that copies are around. The actual title is "A Military History and Atlas of the NAPOELONIC WARS". General Vincent Esposito and Colonel Robert Elating prepared the book. It was compiled for the United States Military Academy and I know that they have an American Civil War volume also.
@@XLEGION1 Thank you for your prompt answer. Having been in the book-business for over 20 years I am surprised there is no ISBN. Will try to find it anyway. Great channel!
A quick google search has the book on Amazon with prices ranging $118.10 used to $745.48 new. ISBN-10 is listed as 1853673463, and ISBN-13 is 978-1853673467
Great video - I have this game in my collection, have enjoyed playing it and agree with your comments. I would highly recommend Albuera 1811 from White Dog Games which uses a similar set of mechanics with more OOB and historical flavour. I have reviewed that game on my RUclips Channel.
I have and love (to a point) both Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph and I agree with many of your assessments/observations of the game system and the rules. While I understand the concept of not using dice for this system, I don't totally agree with it in that Ms. Bowen has reduced chance down to almost nothing. The game system's premise is based on the simple belief that: If Force A attacks Force B under a specific set of circumstances the math dictates a specific nonwaivering outcome and that is essentially wrong. There are so many variables on an actual battlefield that can affect the outcome one way or the other that the system becomes too deterministic in its handling of events. As a combat vet I have seen personally how a battle can develop in unexpected ways simply because of one smaller event. The Second, Third and Fourth Order of Effects of these smaller events ripple outward like waves in the water affecting all they impact. Don't get me wrong, each game will play different as players will play it differently each time but the level of variation (chance?) between each game is severely reduced without an added level of chance that something dice provide. Again, I love the games (they are some of my more prized games) and respect the innovation but I'm not convinced that the lack of randomization should be the standard for every other game out there. It has its place and its uses but not as the universal standard.
@Vincent. I couldn't agree with you more. Although I think the work that has gone into these games is a fabulous bit of research, I think the total absence of any 'luck' factor makes the games a bit sterile. I had Bowen's "Guns at Gettysburg" game and I even owned "Napoleon's Triumph". But, in the end they did not depict the myriad 'things that can go wrong' in a battle nor capture the 'chaos' and 'unknowns' that always occur. I still have the 'Bonaparte at Marengo' game as it seems to be the simplest of the three, but ultimately I would not be purchasing any of those systems again.
I never 'got into' the gamers series. I couldn't stand those 'extended line' markers in the Civil War games. I don't know if the Napoleonic line had them.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for the overview and the rules highlights. I did a quick search and I believe this is the only video for this game.
Thank you for your uploads I enjoy them very much!
For folks yearning for some of the randomness of battle events I feel like there is probably a way to modify the movement and battle rules to include a custom set of event cards and dice check rolls. How each event affects the battle, well you'd have to play test that a lot to make it balanced. But for example (not having considered the numbers at all):
You get a six sided die. Rolling 2 through 6 passes your event check. Rolling a 1 fails and you must draw an event card.
Okay so you want to make three moves. Shore up a defensive position in a forward polygon and move two units from the rear closer as reinforcements. At the start of your turn you must roll an event check. This time you roll a 1 (failure). So, you draw a card. The card you draw reads:
"Messenger delayed!
(Non-battle) movement orders of one unit will not occur until the start of your next turn.
Resolution: Roll a 6-sided die for each unit you wish to move. The unit with the lowest die roll will be delayed 1 turn, and then _must_ carry out your original orders. This movement may not be ordered until the event action is resolved _and_ a new turn has started. Tied rolls must be rerolled until a result is achieved."
I have no idea if it could be shoehorned into the ruleset. But a rare, random event like that (keeping it simple) could add some spice to the cerebral and methodical nature of BaM.
Couldn’t agree more. Although this system is well done it is a “little dry” and “needs something more”.
Very timely post. I just picked this one up because of its dice-less mechanics (plus I love the subject). Looks very interesting to me as a game and I think I’ll have no problems getting it to the table. Tnx...
Need more games like this! Amazing. Would love to see a whole series of games like this. (Davout at Jena-Auerstadt)
Histogame just put out an updated version called Triumph at Marengo/Triomphe a Marengo.
"I lost the battle at 5:00, and I won it back at 7!!!!!" -Napoleon rallying commanders at Waterloo, discussing Marengo.
Can I have the name or link of product please?
I seem to recall Avalanche Press putting out a series of games that utilized a similar area movement system. This looks to be more elegant however.
Nice review. Thank you for it. Agree with you. I had Guns of Gettysburg. It is a game : not the battle itself. But I like the attrition system from Simmons which give you excitement. if you want the smell of the battle simulation and if you want to place your forces where you want, you should go to Pub Battles Marengo from Commandpostgames. There are dice in combats but all combats are not mathematical.
Ooh I have that atlas.
It was hard to find and expensive, but it’s one of the prides of my collection.
Looks great!
Always enjoyable as as usual. 👍👍
Great overview. Gilbert, what is the scale of the map? Does it justify complete fog of war?
I am still learning the mechanics of The Guns of Gettysburg.. somewhat vague and difficult to interpret at times. This game is interesting however.
Yes, I had my steep learning curve with it, but ultimately did not keep it. It's almost as if I learned these game systems backward. Tackling the more complicated ones first and then going to the simplest. I think that is why I like Bonaparte at Marengo the best. It's almost as if these games are a ''puzzle' that you want to work out. But with no historical order of battle, no named units and artillery as only support functions, the game just wasn't 'Gettysburg' for me.
I wish Rachel hadn't quit the wargame space. She was really innovative and the games fantastic.
Do this game have play for one alone?
You can play this game solitaire but it was not built with that in mind. If you play honestly and don't look at the enemies forces in advance, it can still be enjoyable.
I’m all for different, but it doesn’t necessarily mean better - the deterministic combat (once pieces are revealed) does concern me.
Great review, as always! I like the system a lot; my favourite is NT. Small remark- attack penalties work/ apply INTO the locale being assaulted, not from; You may want to check the attack examples around 8-9th minute of the video. And the rules- fully agree... that is a puzzle to solve on its own;)
Interesting! Thank you. May I ask Sir for the ISBN of that book?
Unfortunately this Atlas does not have a ISBN number like I'm used to seeing. However, I do know that copies are around. The actual title is "A Military History and Atlas of the NAPOELONIC WARS". General Vincent Esposito and Colonel Robert Elating prepared the book. It was compiled for the United States Military Academy and I know that they have an American Civil War volume also.
@@XLEGION1 Thank you for your prompt answer. Having been in the book-business for over 20 years I am surprised there is no ISBN. Will try to find it anyway. Great channel!
ASIN: B0006DMS8I
A quick google search has the book on Amazon with prices ranging $118.10 used to $745.48 new.
ISBN-10 is listed as 1853673463, and ISBN-13 is 978-1853673467
@@dillenbeck53531 Thank you!
Try out Baptism at Bull Run. Uses the same system
I had never even heard of that game. It sure is an obscure one that’s for sure.
Great video - I have this game in my collection, have enjoyed playing it and agree with your comments. I would highly recommend Albuera 1811 from White Dog Games which uses a similar set of mechanics with more OOB and historical flavour. I have reviewed that game on my RUclips Channel.
I have and love (to a point) both Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph and I agree with many of your assessments/observations of the game system and the rules. While I understand the concept of not using dice for this system, I don't totally agree with it in that Ms. Bowen has reduced chance down to almost nothing. The game system's premise is based on the simple belief that: If Force A attacks Force B under a specific set of circumstances the math dictates a specific nonwaivering outcome and that is essentially wrong. There are so many variables on an actual battlefield that can affect the outcome one way or the other that the system becomes too deterministic in its handling of events. As a combat vet I have seen personally how a battle can develop in unexpected ways simply because of one smaller event. The Second, Third and Fourth Order of Effects of these smaller events ripple outward like waves in the water affecting all they impact. Don't get me wrong, each game will play different as players will play it differently each time but the level of variation (chance?) between each game is severely reduced without an added level of chance that something dice provide. Again, I love the games (they are some of my more prized games) and respect the innovation but I'm not convinced that the lack of randomization should be the standard for every other game out there. It has its place and its uses but not as the universal standard.
@Vincent. I couldn't agree with you more. Although I think the work that has gone into these games is a fabulous bit of research, I think the total absence of any 'luck' factor makes the games a bit sterile. I had Bowen's "Guns at Gettysburg" game and I even owned "Napoleon's Triumph". But, in the end they did not depict the myriad 'things that can go wrong' in a battle nor capture the 'chaos' and 'unknowns' that always occur. I still have the 'Bonaparte at Marengo' game as it seems to be the simplest of the three, but ultimately I would not be purchasing any of those systems again.
@@XLEGION1 Hi Gilbert, Thanks for the quick reply and your comments are spot on. Keep up the great work.
seems more like chess than other board games
Hello
ONION
?????????
@@XLEGION1 the onion song
@@commenter2506 Never heard of it.
It’s just a map with bits of wood....Not for me...I’ll stick to my Marengo from the Gamers...NBS.
I never 'got into' the gamers series. I couldn't stand those 'extended line' markers in the Civil War games. I don't know if the Napoleonic line had them.