Introduction by Congress of Vienna (CoV)’s Assistant Designer & Editor, Fred Schachter – To familiarize the InsideGMT audience of what designer Frank Esparrago accomplished with his fun and exciting Congress of Vienna game, now a GMT P-500 offering which has “Made the Cut” and then some (thank you patrons, thank you so very much!) kindly reference previous InsideGMT articles covering a wide range of CoV topics. These can serve as useful background and context for appreciating this piece. Use the following link to access this material: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-850-congress-of-vienna.aspx

This particular exposition follows an InsideGMT series describing the game’s character cards which can be found using the above-provided link.

The articles and updates provided to date, may have overly focused on Congress of Vienna’s wargame elements. These are included as play options in a single rulebook chapter entitled “Wargame Flavor”. We may have inadvertently conveyed that the CoV Design/Development/Play Test Team lost sight of the simple game originally designed. That is assuredly not the case and we regret anyone having that impression! CoV has a Standard Game which our Eurogame Team members thoroughly enjoy while the “Wargame Flavor” version has proven a delight to the most hardcore of our team’s grognards.

To support this, here’s further explanation from designer Frank Esparrago from a communication to a gamer expressing doubts about CoV’s design intent…

“Just to hopefully reassure you, when we now explain to a new player the mechanics of the game via Discord + Vassal, it does not usually take more than 30 minutes for a complete explanation of the basic rules. Of course, the newcomer does not know card possibility nuances nor the subtleties of Diplomatic Issues (experience is very important for successful play of this type of game). Describing the War Phase of the Standard Game to “our” Eurogamers, requires only a small part of the 30 minute explanation required for total learning and getting right into the game’s playing fun action. 

In fact, in parallel with editing a long rulebook we extracted examples, figures such as player, designer, historical notes from a “standard” wargame; to prepare a Rules Summary of only 4 pages. These should be sufficient for quick rule references for 99% of the game’s casuistry.

Both our developer Dick (80+ years old) and myself (60+ years old) are playing CoV with our nephews, children and grandchildren with great pleasure and competitiveness … and I assure you that they have only played games such Dominion, Catan, Puerto Rico, Pillars of the Earth, Spartacus … before CoV. Nevertheless, they now play CoV’s game cards and battle with great ferocity and subtle diplomatic mischief.”

Well said Frank! Now on to Frank’s exposition of Congress of Vienna’s Battle and Diplomacy cards:

---

The Battle Cards

These cards add an element of complexity to the game and for this reason we placed their use as an optional rule inside the Congress of Vienna game’s Rulebook “Wargame Flavor” chapter!

In these four cards we synthesized some of the great battlefield decisions and influencers that contributed to deciding the outcome of many battles taking place during this historical period. However, we could not reflect them in the rules since this is a game on a grand strategy level and cards offer a better mechanism any way!

Each card is organized with a colored band, like the game’s Statesmen and Military Character cards to indicate each card’s battle effect(s) when played by the indicated Major Power. Each card can alternately be used during the Diplomacy Phase.

It should be noted these battle cards, if a player has more than one of them in hand, may be played IN ALLOWED COMBINATION for cumulative effect! This can decisively impact a given battle.

For some of these battle cards provide additional positive battle DRM, as there were times Napoleonic battles turned into unrestrained mass casualty horrors, savage meat grinders which could not be turned off until they ran their course: 1812’s Borodino and aspects of 1813’s Leipzig exemplify these. 

These neutral cards, combined with positive DRM from other cards, can result in a battle with both sides compelled to absorb more unit losses than might otherwise occur; a fearsome “Bloodbath Battle” indeed!

Play testing reveals a gamer familiar with these battle cards, as well as CoV’s character cards, has a considerable advantage over an opponent who lacks such knowledge.

Battle card #6

British player:

Landings: This is a complex, sophisticated operation, but one which the experienced British carried out successfully on several occasions: Scheldt, Washington D.C., and mainland Italy. This reflects Britain’s amphibious acumen. We included a modifier (-4 DRM) that reflects the difficulty of US armies when they invaded Canada due to their lamentable lack of knowledge of terrain, local militia, and a difficult sometime torturous LOC.

Furthermore, should the British be losing the War of 1812 by +1 or +2, an additional -2 US DRM is inflicted to indicate increased British military resources devoted to turning the tide so, if this card is used for America a cumulative FR/US -6DRM is possible! It may not be used in America with battle card #N-6 for a -12 DRM.

French player:

Allied lack of coordination: This was a constant thorn to the Coalition throughout the campaign. This was suffered during Allied operations in the Mediterranean with a marked lack of coordination between Spanish and British generals. It similarly happened during the final advance of Austrian, Prussian and Russian armies into France or the previously year’s badly coordinated advance of the multi-national Allies on Saxony in September 1813. At its worst, a maximum of -6DRM could be inflicted upon an Allied force which could dramatically reduce French battle losses. This effect may not be combined with card #N-9’s “Allied lack of coordination” for an ahistorical -12DRM inflicted on the Coalition. 

Austrian player:

Austrian Heavy Cavalry: Austria’s renown cavalry made some French victories much less decisive than they could have been during the Grande Armée’s better days. This was due to the overall superiority of allied cavalry in numbers and quality.

Russian player:

Russian Guard: Both the cavalry and infantry of the Russian Guard were excellent. Their behavior at the battles of Leipzig (1813) or Fere Champenoise (1814) was remarkable.

French and Russian player:

One Front Reinforcing Another:

At the Battle of Leipzig, Swedish forces and prince Bernadotte with elements of his Northern Army participated in this battle. Likewise, during the failed French attack on Berlin in September 1813; several French corps from the Grande Armée and Army of Elbe operated in unison.

This card simulates the possible cooperation between the nearby battlefronts of Northern (B) and Central Europe (A). For example, a superb track B French military card such as Davout could intervene in a track A battle or Napoleon could leave his usual track A to battle on track B!

Battle card #7

British player:

Royal Navy: This is like the previously described card #N-6 with the DRM being positive rather than negative. In addition, we included the same modifier for US invasions into Canada; attacks which were repeatedly repulsed during the entire War of 1812 conflict. Therefore, this card is used for a battle in American, a total British +5DRM is possible.

French player:

We included three possible alternative situations for this battle card each delineated by “OR”:

1) For European theater field fortifications or the War of 1812 American defenses such as frontier forts against the incursions of British-allied Indian tribes are reflected by a battle modifier (+3 DRM) which simulates the difficulty British forces experienced when they invaded the United States. This was caused by unawareness of terrain, local militia, and their own precarious LOC. If the US is losing the War +1 or +2 British BP on the Track, an additional +2DRM is inflicted; OR

2) The French Imperial Guard who were decisively used by Napoleon in many battles during the campaign, such as Lützen, Dresden and Hanau. Furthermore, they were a vital component of most French victories during The Campaign of France 1814.

Austrian player:

Austrian Grenadiers: They were the elite of the Austrian army. Their behavior at Leipzig was magnificent.

Russian player:

Cossacks: These legendary fierce light cavalry’s performance throughout the campaign was remarkable; as a cavalry screen hiding Allied movements, attacking French lines of communication, and negatively affecting the morale of young French recruits.

If one of the preceding is not chosen, the player may select:

Successful Evasion (withdrawing player only): Sometimes scheduled evasions involvedfew casualties to the armies involved. This was the case of Suchet in the Army of the Mediterranean or the Russian-Prussian withdrawal after Bautzen. We wanted to model these situations with the additional -6 DRM of the card alongside any existing negative DRMavailable through play of military characters as well as for the withdrawal itself.

Battle card #8

British player: River Crossing: This can reflect the crossing of the Ebro river which led to the resounding Allied victory at the battle of Vitoria; the further crossings of Bidassoa, Nivelle or Adour rivers led to an unopposed entry into France and Wellington’s victories at Nivelle and Orthez. However, while providing a +3DRM in Europe; it is particularly powerful if used for the War of 1812. There, it offers a -3 DRM and should the British be losing the War of 1812 by +1 or +2 French VP, another -2 US DRM is inflicted to indicate as increased British militaryresources devoted to turning the tide in face of American lack of effective persistence in their unsuccessful invasions of Canada during the war.

French player:

River Crossing: This is like the one carried out surprisingly and boldly by Napoleon at the battle of Dresden for a +3DRM or -3DRM Allied in either Europe or North America. Additionally, we include a battle modifier (+2 DRM) that reflects American patriotism manifested against the varous British invasions of the States should the Britain be winning the War of 1812 by +1 or +2VP should this card be used for a battle in America.

Austrian player:

A generic modifier for Austrians; as sometimes their battlefield behavior was somewhat better than an all too usual mediocrity; for example, the Austrian army’s attempt to envelop the French right flank during the battle of Leipzig in the town of Lindenau.

Russian player:

Prussian General Staff: This is the embryo of the future fearsome German General Staff. It began to take shape during this campaign with men like Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and/or Müffling who saliently contributed to forging it.

This card also reflects the inspired Barclay’s leadership of the famed Russian Guard at Dresden and Leipzig.

This can result in the Russian player having a potentially powerful “trifecta” with this card for Barclay’s Russian Imperial Guard (+4DRM), card #N-7’s Cossacks (+3 DRM), and Barclay himself (+4 DRM) for an impressive Allied +11 DRM in battle! This is a result even Napoleon with his own Guard & Heavy Cavalry would envy!

Successful Evasion (withdrawing player only):

This is like the previously described card #N-7 (may not combine both cards’ Evasion bullets).

Battle card #9

British player:

A generic +3 DRM in the War of 1812 that seeks to simulate the superb behavior of the small Canadian military throughout the war. Additionally, we also included a possible bonus if the war is not going well for Britain reflecting improved British defense of Canada.

French player:

This card provides for one three possible situations:

1) A generic +3 DRM in the War of 1812 that tries to simulate the tenacity and determination of the small professional US Army during the War of 1812. Additionally, we included a possible modifier if the war is not going well for France (+2 DRM) to reflect the difficulty the British experienced when they invaded the United States; OR

2) The French Heavy Cavalry: who were generally poor performers during CoV’s campaign but did have their moments of glory when decisively used by Napoleon in some battles as occurred during the first day of Leipzig lead by Murat; OR finally,

3) Allied dissensions; but we preferred naming this “lack of cooperation” to distinguish it from card #N-6’s similar effect. This situation was very frequent between the Russian and Austrian Allies during the entire campaign. Although for the first time such discord also occurred during the battle of Bautzen between parts of the Russian and Prussian command who wanted to retire while another faction wanted to staunchly stand (May 1813). These tensions continued until the final moments of the Campaign of France 1814; where the divergence of strategies between Schwarzenberg and Blücher caused a series of successive Allied defeats at Napoleon’s hands. Nevertheless, only once per battle can this heavy penalty for lack of coordination be used; this card may not be combined with card #N-6’s “Allied lack of coordination”.

If the French player is fortunate enough to have this battle card with the Imperial Guard (#N-7’s 2nd French bullet); the resulting three card combination of Napoleon and these #N-7 and #N-9 ones result in a relative +13 DRM or an enemy staggering +16 DRM if combined with card #N-8’s. This is a likely Allied Bloodbath Battle (although the odds of the French player having all three battle cards are slim)!!! … But duplicating the timely French approach to the battle of Dresden may occur with devastating effect again in a game of Congress of Vienna!

For a European battle there will be times a French player, who should always be conscious of multiple battles’ cumulative attrition effect on his overall military strength, may choose to reduce possible casualties with “Allied lack of cooperation” or inflict greater loss upon the enemy with card N-9’s “French Heavy Cavalry” option, who with Napoleon generates an impressive +9DRM!

Austrian player:

Since it can take time for the Austrian player to go to war, we placed a +2 modifier for a key Issue for Austria at the start of the game British Financial Aid to make this the sole battle card which can be used during the Diplomacy Phase. Alternately, we have given Austria the option to get a generic +2 DRM for battles where there is at least one Austrian unit present for artillery.

Russian player:

Cossacks: See card #N-7’s explanation… except card #N-8 provides a -3 DRM on the French. With Blücher’s heavy cavalry we wanted to portray his personally leading charges of powerful Allied heavy cavalry or Prussian infantry columns; whose devasting effect was felt during the Battle of Katzbach or on the first day of the Battle of Leipzig. 

If the Russian player is fortunate enough to have this battle card with #N-8; the modifiers of #N-8 and #N-9 cards can be added together for an impressive +8 DRM for these two cards.

However, to receive modifiers corresponding to Blücher and Barclay’s leadership; you must have four cards in the Central European front’s Russian and Austrian Allied hands under a Generalissimo; which is a remote possibility. But if these cards are available for battle, they give you a staggering +15 DRM: a crushing difference versus the French battle DRM! Here is the calculation you as a Central European Front Allied player can dream of:

* Card #N-8, with Barclay present, for +4DRM

* Card #N-9, with Blücher present, for +4DRM

* Card R-2 Blücher with Barclay there +3DRM

* Card R-4 Barclay for his own +4DRM

The Diplomacy/Debate cards

There are three cards (#N-3, #N-4 and #N-5) when used in debates provide an additional +1. In the case of the Austrian player, since they are neutral cards, they receive an additional +1 should he decide to use them in debates.

In these cards we represent the well-known effects of the Vienna Congress plenipotentiaries but divided them among three cards. These cards are a reminder of the complex diplomatic relations between the Powers, both during the war as well as during the immediate post-war period.

Feedback?

Kindly convey any questions and/or comments via the below provided feedback mechanism, the CoV Team would be pleased to receive and respond to them! 

---

Previous Article: