Introduction by Congress of Vienna (CoV)’s 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” (thank you patrons, thank you so very much!); previous InsideGMT articles presented “Designer’s Notes”, “Game as History: An Historical Introduction to the Congress of Vienna Period (CoV)”, “Meet the Statesmen of Congress of Vienna”, “Congress of Vienna Goes Electric with VASSAL”, and “Congress of Vienna Detailed Sequence of Play” which explained how players approached the game (their thoughts and reactions) as well as how the rules and game components come together to facilitate an enjoyable time for all. Parts 4 & 5 of this series, concerning the War Phase, are of particular relevance to best appreciate this Battle of Leipzig piece. Use this link to access copies of the preceding-referenced articles: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-850-congress-of-vienna.aspx . As I was drawn into this fascinating game, there was something I wondered about: how can Congress of Vienna, which is a high level strategy game appealing to both Eurogamers and traditional wargame “grognards” such as myself (and many of our play testers) translate its game terms to explain an historical epic such as the massive and crucial 1813 Battle of Leipzig (and by doing so, demonstrate its simulation mettle)? Well that was a challenge designer Frank Esparrago could not resist! Consequently, here’s his exposition of CoV and the historical Battle of Leipzig. We have indicated in italics some rulebook excerpts and combat cards bullets; other rules will unfortunately need to remain implicit: a restriction an article format such as this compels which readers will hopefully appreciate. That said, take it away Frank! Note: If you would like to view any of the below images in a larger size, you can click on the image and it will point you to the full image file.

---

Grand Strategy and Major Battles in CoV

Congress of Vienna is a game of grand strategy, politics and diplomacy in which warfare comprises but a single component of the overall game. CoV’s overarching design approach is based more on simulating major “what if” type ramifications for decisions such as: “Napoleon retires from Spain”, “Austria enters into war later than it historically did”, “Wellington could reach Paris before anyone else of the Coalition”, “Austria should have placed more emphasis on invading Italy rather than Germany”, or “Tsar Alexander presses to make France a weak postwar power by placing Bernadotte at its helm”. Simulating a great battle such as Leipzig to a detail level of other games escapes this design’s principle intents and key objectives. But a CDG (Card Driven Game) system’s advantage is that it allows great flexibility and a certain level of abstraction. In fact, the CDG design of CoV and its testing by Wargamers and Eurogamers [1] demonstrated the game quite capable of simulating the great and large-scale battles characterizing the final chapters of the Napoleonic wars! During development of Congress of Vienna, we decreased the complexity of the rules and, in parallel, shortened the game’s playing time. Essentially, these efforts stressed streamlining the War Phase, since Eurogamer feedback indicated this was a game aspect they liked least (heck, too much unappreciated complexity is something no gamer likes). An example of this streamlining took place during CoV’s early development; the space of Saxony was shared by the Northern Europe and Central Europe Fronts and included spaces of these two Fronts interconnected by arrows to facilitate potentially complex and massive battles occurring within certain of their spaces (see Figure 1). However, the associated rules were also long and complicated, with interceptions, reinforcements capable of arriving during an on-going battle, cooperation/coordination between armies … and all this led to increased playing time and rule book consultations. That situation violated one of CoV’s key design premises: that a Full Campaign scenario (10 turns from March 1813 to April 1814) could be played, by experienced gamers familiar with the rules, in approximately 5-6 hours. Therefore, the game evolved and we are now testing Congress of Vienna with revised rules: rules which we believe strike a balance between simplicity, playability, while delivering fun exciting battles with a good sense of historicity. Lately during play testing, we created “ex professo”, a short rule to allow dramatic/massive battles with forces from outside a battlefront.  This eliminated need for Figure 1′s crossing arrows: “13.7.1.3. Joint Operation: When an army located on a related front has no military operation marker placed on its front it may intervene in a battle (not in mountain space) on the other related front with up to 6 military units. However, the Austrian Army of Bohemia cannot perform a joint operation on the Northern front (B); nor can a joint operation be performed from/towards a mountain space. After the battle the remainder of military units are returned into the original army”. What geography permits a joint operation? Essentially, joint operations may always be made between friendly armies placed within related Fronts as defined by the rules. This was done with slight modification of: “13.5.3 Calculate the modifiers to die roll (DRM): The battle is solved by applying different battle modifiers (expressed as DRM) in each army. Then, each player determines the possible modifiers per the following: a. # military units [:] that your army/box has at the start of the battle until a maximum of 12. Exception: this maximum limit rises to 18 in joint operations (see “Joint operations” in 13.7.1.3)”. Also, at this stage of the war, the performance of the Coalition’s Generalissimo is included, whose crucial role was to coordinate Allied Armies’ on the pivotal European Central Front. We have this reflected in the rules: “The Generalissimo allows Russia to play any Austrian military cards in the Central Europe front and vice versa with a G (inside a circle) at the upper right corner”. Always keeping in mind CoV’s main objective is provide an arena for players to create their own military, political and diplomatic strategies; it was also a design goal to provide a game mechanic for battles which could generate similar or alternative results to the historical ones. We now endeavor describing how the historic Battle of Leipzig could have happened with the rules, cards, pieces and map of the Congress of Vienna game. Through this, the system’s veracity to historical foundational forces can be demonstrated.

The Battle of Leipzig

The Battle of Leipzig was fought 14-19 October 1813 (located in the space of Saxony[2] during the 7th turn of Congress of Vienna). In Figure 2 we have represented the initial situation of the opposing armies as the rules and components of the game allow. We detached a few units from the game’s Army blocks to add dramatic intensity and historical flavor to this narrative. In CoV these Army blocks’ unit (cube) contents are taken into account to help determine the result of a battle, as do, in a more abstract way, other DRM (Die Roll Modifiers) and the Battle cards each side uses. Placed at the bottom of each Battle of Leipzig illustration is the “DRM Battle Record Track” to indicate movement of the antagonists’ respective pawns (French: light blue, and Allied: dark orange).  Each pawn represents the cumulative different factors determining each side’s final battle DRM. Let’s now apply Congress of Vienna’s nine-step battle resolution process to this historical engagement.

1. Military Units and Military Support Markers Placed:

Both players move their respective pawns from their zero initial spaces: Why does the game have this limitation? Most massive military operations of this campaign had serious troop coordination problems. These resulted in not all units available being timely concentrated for a single major battle. For example, during Leipzig several French corps in places such as Dresden, Magdeburg or maintaining LOC failed to make it into the battle. It was also almost impossible to concentrate so many troops, supplies, hospitals and support services in a strictly-defined battlefield. The rudimentary HQ capabilities of the day also had trouble getting proper orders to scattered units.  This was compounded, in the case of Allies, with different nations and languages. For these reasons we established a maximum of +12 DRM (approximately 250,000 men under arms) as the amount of military units a C-in-C could adequately manage in battle… despite there being more than that number of friendly troops within a single CoV map space. However, we also envisaged the possibility of reinforcing a major battle, in certain circumstances, with military units and generals from an associated Front (in this case the Northern Europe track). In this way, up to an additional +6 DRM is allowed (i.e. for another 120,000 troops who could be added into the battle); thereby reaching a maximum of +18 DRM for military units involving joint operations! This reinforcing comprises a ‘joint operation’. This substantial Northern Army detachment was advancing from the Pomerania space, attempting to envelop the French left flank after successfully crossing the Elbe River. For this reason, the Allies decided to concentrate against Napoleon’s main army at Leipzig after having enveloped the French left flank and forcing Napoleon to withdraw from his Dresden central position to face this threat during late September. The Allies planned taking advantage of this French tactical withdrawal, with the Armies of Silesia and Bohemia advancing, the emperor would be caught in a vice!

2. Withdrawal:

In Congress of Vienna there is a rule allowing planned strategic withdrawals, such as the one carried out by Napoleon during September 1813 in withdrawing the Grande Armée from Poland to Saxony (read the “game as history” InsideGMT article to learn more of this); but obviously this step does not occur in this analysis of what occurred during the climactic Battle of Leipzig, since both sides decide to fight here!

3. Play Military Cards:

All three players play their Battle cards, which are simultaneously flipped so all can see them. In Figure 3 we indicate the cards used by France, Russia (which also controls Sweden and Prussia) as well as Austria. This subtle Tsar Alexander I card penalty was established to simulate the negative influence Alexander exerted at certain times on the Allies’ HQ. This battle DRM forfeiture is indirect (that is, for taking a certain action during diplomacy) although it would be a rare Russian player who would use his leader card to penalize himself in battles[3] save under the most extenuating circumstances. However, we have not included other Allied notables of this description of the historic Battle of Leipzig.  These include Benninsen’s card (+2 DRM), because he made a slow approach to the battle; as well as the Gyulay and Merveldt cards for their average performances during Leipzig. Under CoV rules we assumed these cards are not in the Russian or Austrian hands and the DRMs they grant are therefore left unobtained. Murat is considered missing from the French hand. Although on the first day of battle he performed wonders with France’s heavy cavalry; he was ultimately unsuccessful in his attacks on Austrian and Russian newcomers to the battle. Nor has Davout’s excellent French card been used for defensive duties.  This is because he was serving in the CoV space of Hanover, defending Hamburg, and thereby helping screen Denmark. Consequently, he is absent from the French hand of cards for the Battle of Leipzig! The cumulative battle DRM effects of leaders is to move France’s pawn from 13 to 22 on their track. The Allies track sees their pawn move from its 19 to 26 space. At this point the battle is very close, each side inflicting 3 unit losses upon its opponent!

4. Calculate Other Die Roll Modifiers:

For this engagement, there are no applicable DRM due to terrain (mountains, Spanish guerrillas, amphibious landing).

5. Dice Rolls & Determine and Remove Casualties:

If France had obtained +29 DRM or more, Allied losses would have risen to 4 cubes (track range between 29-35 DRM). This could have reflected better organization of the French retreat or more successful attacking.  Another “what if” way of looking at this is speculating having in the French player’s hand the card for the emperor’s brilliant Chief of Staff, Berthier, which grants to France : “+2 DRM & you choose between two 2D6 (only in battles with Napoleon)”. Alas for France, Berthier was absent from the Battle of Leipzig. “The losses are simultaneously removed to the respective Force Pool as each player decides between his military units present.” As in all matters of war, the fates do play their part. As the preceding hopefully demonstrates, this is certainly the case with Congress of Vienna’s game system.

6. Winner and Loser:

The winners are the Allied players because they inflict more losses than received.

7. Retreat and Advance:

8. Major Battle:

“An engagement is considered a major battle if each army has 4 or more military units at the beginning of the battle”, and therefore this Battle of Leipzig more than meets this criteria. In fact, this battle was the most massive confrontation of the Napoleonic Wars! As the losses are greater on the French side, the allies win a major victory against Napoleon and obtain +2 VPs, 1VP each to the Russian and Austrian players. The French player, having suffered a major defeat with Napoleon in command, loses -2 VPs. Normally in CoV, the gain/loss is 1VP, but that increases to 2 VP when the French Army is led by Napoleon. This was what happened after the Battle of Leipzig. The loss of French prestige precipitated by the emperor’s startling defeat caused the loss of Germany to the French empire as various German states defected from Napoleon and joined the Allies (in CoV this is measured by VPs obtained, minor country Issues won, and an altered number of event cards received for each player at the beginning of a turn should particular map spaces change hands).

9. End of Military Operations on this Front:

Some Final Observations

With Congress of Vienna we really don’t want to fully simulate the Battle of Leipzig. This is clearly beyond the scope and main design intent of our game. In fact, there are a number of excellent wargames which simulate the Battle of Leipzig at the army corps level or lower (e.g. regimental or even battalion).  These can require between two or three hours to weeks of intensive play to resolve what would be but a facet of Congress of Vienna. In our game a battle like this should not take more than 5 minutes to resolve! As the reader will hopefully appreciate, getting the exact cards needed for the players to be historically adequate, along with unit strengths similar to those existing in the actual Battle of Leipzig, as well as both sides’ dice rolls to reflect appropriate historical events (e.g. the blowing up of the bridge over the River Elster or the Saxon contingent’s defection from France) comprise a highly unlikely confluence of happenstance! The objective of CoV is to resolve many battles, all components of overall strategic campaigning, a compilation of different battles over a huge geographic arena (Europe and the War of 1812 in North America).  In each game, this composite milieu in number of troops, battle cards applied and dice rolls (oh those dice rolls!) will decide the result. In this game the fun and fascination comes from exploring possible alternate histories of what could have happened! Here are a few just a few more for the French: What if Napoleon had had a better army corps organization or appropriate supplies and ammunition (with Berthier’s card in his hand or a second military support marker placed in accordance with CoV’s rules); what if the talented Davout was available to defend the emperor’s left wing instead of Ney (+6 DRM vs. only +1 DRM); what if Murat had decisively defeated Schwarzenberg or Barclay on the 1st day of battle? Or, what would have happened had there not been an Allied Generalissimo in overall command and the Coalition’s Army coordination would have been almost completely non-existent? Then from the Allied point of view, you can see the effect of some controversial decisions such as these: The Tsar could have trusted more of his generals and not left them to squabble among themselves! What if Benningsen’s lethargic appearance on the battlefield had been faster and more coordinated with other Allied forces? Could Bernadotte and his Swedes have attacked decisively on the French left wing? Or what would have occurred had the Austrians cut the French LOC with a luckier attack on the French right wing on the left bank of the Elster river? Anumber of the preceding “what if’s” are beyond the scope of our game. For Congress of Vienna is a great strategy level game with a large diplomacy and political element inherent to its design.  Of necessity, its battle mechanics are abstract, yet fairly easy to use, while allowing for high intensity battle due to the uncertainty of Battle cards (reserved from the Diplomacy Phase) and dice rolls from both opponents! However, as this article hopefully demonstrates, CoV’s War Phase elements can be used to emulate one of the greatest engagements of the Napoleonic Wars: The Battle of Leipzig. Footnotes: [1] In Eurogames abstraction and simplification levels are much higher than with traditional wargames. [2] Saxony is a fundamental space in any game that involves military confrontations within Germany. Two of the best-known battles of the Thirty Years’ War took place there: Breitenfeld and Lutzen; the first a decisive Swedish victory of the war and the second the dramatic battle where King Gustavus Adolphus found his death a year later. Additionally, in 1806, Napoleon’s decisive victories over the Prussians at Jena and Auerstedt occurred in this CoV map space. Finally, during the spring of 1813, the battles of Lutzen and Bauzten took place in Saxony. These were followed, during the summer and autumn, by the major battles of Dresden and Leipzig. [3] Almost every player’s action (card use) always has some potential undesirable effect in Congress of Vienna.  This is a thoughtful element to the design and development of this game. For example, if a card is used in diplomacy, it is therefore not available for battle; some generals can die in battle; certain cards have bonuses with some Issues, but penalties regarding others …

---