Introduction (By CoV Editor Fred Schachter): Readers hopefully enjoyed the preceding part of this article which introduced one of GMT’s newest Game Designers: Frank Esparrago and how his origins as a wargamer brought him to design Congress of Vienna, one of GMT’s most recent P-500 offerings.

This installment continues Frank’s narrative regarding how he devised CoV’s design: creating a game not only for Traditional Wargamers, but also for Eurogamers. Enjoy!

The Leaders and “Great Statesmen” of Congress of Vienna

Although the leaders in the game may not be obvious choices to those unfamiliar with this historical period, from a game mechanics perspective—mechanics which place significant weight on diplomacy—the main leaders of this period for me were quite clear from the design’s inception. Napoleon I (the military and organizational genius of the French Empire), Metternich (the brilliant Austrian chancellor who dominated his emperor—the often distraught Francis I), and Alexander I (the Russian Empire’s charismatic Tsar) were obvious choices; yet for Britain, the choice was much more difficult.  I decided to place Britain under the leadership of the capable and dynamic British Foreign Minister Castlereagh, who traveled to Europe to follow the negotiations with his Allies, as well as observe and block their contact with Napoleon and thereby derail any possibility of rapprochement.

Early on, it was easy for me to see the obvious points of contention between the Coalition’s partners—Austria, Russia, and Britain—and between themselves and Napoleon. In order to be a historical simulation, the game needed a legitimate four way dynamic or the game’s narrative would not work. As I read more deeply on the topic, it appeared the situation was far more complex than common myths would suggest.

For me, the story seemed best handled as a four-way relationship: Napoleon, in particular, had a complicated connection with the British, seeing them as his main adversary. Austria perceived Russia as a threatening giant too close to its eastern border. It is clear that Metternich and Castlereagh had a deep personal relationship, but despite that, I found it revealing that as the war progressed, they found themselves on opposite sides of many important issues. These are the differences and pressures which Congress of Vienna players can well experience for themselves.

My research allowed me to see the four participating Major Powers in relation to multiple bands that dynamically caused cooperation between the Allies, as well as influencing their hesitations and the opportunism of France. Of course, this diplomatic and negotiating interaction was superimposed upon a series of military campaigns whose uncertainty lasted almost until the Coalition’s armies were at the gates of Paris, and which in turn had a decisive influence on diplomatic negotiations.

The first mechanic of Congress of Vienna was, as in Churchill, the staff cards, which captured the essence of the personalities who shaped the big picture. In CoV, we do not call them staff as in Churchill but title them personalities.

They have among their ranks:

• Bernadotte, Fouché, and Talleyrand as examples of some of the period’s true connivers;
• Weak monarchs like Francis I of Austria, Frederick Augustus I of Saxony, and Frederick William III of Prussia;
• Formidable military leaders like Wellington, Blücher, Kutuzov, Davout, and Soult;
• Magnificent statesmen like Karl Nesselrode, Lord Liverpool or Stein;
• Conciliatory and diplomatic figures such as Schwarzenberg, Savary, Eugene de Beauharnais or Caulaincourt, and many others.

Also, since I am a compulsive CDG player, I like players to have doubts about how to best use a card (as event or for operations). In CoV we expanded this tension so if a player exchanges a card with another player, it can be used to move Issues during the Diplomatic Phase or be used as a reserve for battle in the War Phase.

Genesis of CoV’s Map Board and Game Appeal to Eurogamers

The design of the game board was influenced by Churchill, although I was keen that the center of the board’s potential situations be kept fairly close and equidistant to all players due to the importance of Congress of Vienna’s military aspects. Almost all War Phase mechanics, such as replacements, military units, generals, movement, battles, cooperation between armies, and withdrawals are completely new for this game.

Then there’s the placement of the board’s area for diplomacy and the drama it entails as each Major Power seeks to win “Issues” or prevent their opponent(s) from doing so. That section’s layout, with its green Negotiating Table at its center, works quite well and can engender a great deal of excitement among players.

However, I tried to find balance between rules complexity (avoiding that), playability/replay-ability, and simulating a fascinating historical reality. The Congress of Vienna team believes this has been accomplished… an achievement considerably helped by several enthusiastic Eurogamer playtesters whose philosophy was not to use complex tables in the game’s mechanics. This game is intended to appeal to both Traditional Wargamers and Eurogamers.

The Congress of Vienna game lacks complexity save for an environment table that is printed on the board (which is not that difficult to understand, fear not!). The battle modifiers were simplified and placed within a card. The VP Track and other Diplomatic Issues Tracks are very easy to follow. The team also paid close attention to the game’s pieces so their use became intuitive. We tested CoV’s ideas from young players (of 13-14 years) to a wide range of adults who had not experienced any wargame prior to encountering CoV.  To our delight, these Eurogamers quickly engaged with the game and enjoyed playing it.

The preceding cited aspects influenced development of this game. Only when the historic reality of 1813-1814 moved away from Churchill’s titanic confrontation of World War II did it become necessary to establish new mechanisms and rules, or to radically modify those of Churchill.

The historical differences in many aspects of the two games are omnipresent. This meant having to make numerous adaptations of the original game, but always seeking to approach a nineteenth century historical reality very far from the twentieth century’s Axis and Allies conflict in a manner which was not “all or nothing”.

The Congress of Vienna map board reflects this approach.

Designing National Asymmetries

The adaptations and changes from Churchill described by this article have had, as a corollary, brought to the Congress of Vienna game table one more player (a fourth player), the Napoleonic Empire, together with the three Coalition Major Powers who were aligned against him.

I sought to incorporate into the game’s design the asymmetrical strengths and weaknesses of the different protagonists:

The British were well organized and very good at running the war through great professionals and taking advantage of England’s vast financial resources from its maritime and commercial empire. The British player is not in possession of a numerous military force… but what is there can be powerful under the right circumstances. His small army forces him to be unselfish in how to deploy financial resources and appropriately “grease” his Austrian and Russian partners as part of a consistent strategy for victory. In addition, Britain’s national characteristic allows it to decide most tied Issue resolutions. That can be a powerful advantage indeed.

The Russian player has the widest range of advisers (including those of his Prussian and Swedish satellites). This fact together with their national characteristic will lead them on numerous occasions to conduct diplomacy. The staff cards of this player are balanced between military leaders, diplomats and statesmen. Russia’s main problem is the lack of resources to achieve all its ambitious goals… so much like the Tsar Alexander, a kind of balancing act is needed in order to achieve player victory.

The Austrian player has a limited set of staff cards and a military with weak capabilities (as they historically suffered during the war) – especially in comparison to what the powerful Russian and French players can bring to bear. However, Austria’s role as a “hinge” state between France and Russia, with its national ability in diplomatic debates, can result in the Austrians taking advantage of apparent weakness by exploiting their considerable negotiating capacity with a central position upon the map board.

The French have the strongest military base. France also possesses a huge amount of resources, but these need to be effectively distributed to confront multiple enemies. Although Napoleon is a daunting foe, extraordinarily efficient in conducting a military campaign or in aspects related to mobilizing his empire’s resources; he is “clumsy” in diplomatic matters (due to arrogance). Furthermore, French cards have many military bonuses corresponding to the game’s historical reality; but France is desperately limited in the case of diplomatic staff cards. It can be a challenging juggle of often conflicting priorities to achieve an Imperial French victory in the game.

Channeling the History

In our world, he who gets the most points wins. Congress of Vienna, based on previous experience with Churchill, seeks to capture a different narrative. This is a game of cooperation to win the Napoleonic Wars while you try to gain advantage in the peace that follows.

At different stages of the war, disagreements and elusive meetings emerged with respect to important issues such as liberalism versus absolutism, minor European nations’ status, the future government of a defeated France, etc. At least at the time, these disagreements were softened by the reality of a war not yet won.

Unlike the Second World War, there was no insistence by the Allies on Imperial France’s unconditional surrender. This is why, with Congress of Vienna, players do not have the same limited diplomatic options as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had. This makes the conditions of victory and the negotiation mechanics differ from those developed by Mark Herman for Churchill. That’s why I created the possibility of a General Peace Congress in Europe to enable the players to accomplish a negotiated ending of the conflict.

Historically, none of the Coalition’s three members worked openly against the interests of the others. If that happened, the Napoleonic Wars could have had a very different outcome. To win historically, you must play cooperatively with the other players controlling the game’s pace and win (usually) by a narrow margin. The victory of Napoleon is only achieved if he survives and has more than a crumbling empire; because if he maintains too many territories, the war will continue to rage, as occurred from the premature summer Armistice of 1813.

In some playtest games, one Coalition player decided to let the other two carry the burden of the war, while he played for a high VP score for himself. Congress of Vienna’s design is if one Major Power advances too quickly towards individual victory, there are forces triggered which should result in the other Powers reacting to that threat to their respective postwar strategies…and they’ll take measures to thwart the upstart.  Emerge too quickly as a major contender, the other Powers should balance themselves into a new Coalition.

Could England, Austria, and France have allied themselves against Russia? Since in the Europe of 1815, with a militarily situation much more open than 1939-1945, such alteration of belligerents would have been more possible than in the twentieth century. Actually, Austria flirted with a French alliance during certain moments of the conflict. If Metternich did not follow through with that alliance, it was because he perceived Napoleon as a greater threat than Alexander’s Russia. Hence, in Congress of Vienna it is far more plausible than in Churchill for a member of the Coalition to act against its allies’ interests.

I can therefore imagine a situation in which, if one of the Coalition Allies is confronted by the others, he may wish for an alliance with Napoleon’s France to more advantageously balance the postwar outcome. In this scenario, Napoleon would not surrender completely, and in the ensuing peace could emerge within context of a new European nation state relations structure.  Isn’t our gaming hobby grand that it allows us to explore such alternate histories?

I hope that Congress of Vienna may interest you, and if you acquire and play it that you’ll enjoy this game as much as I enjoyed designing it.

---

Previous Article: Congress of Vienna Designer’s Notes (Part 1 of 2)