The design of the War phase in Congress of Vienna is very novel compared to Churchill, because in addition to the units and Military Support markers, we included key circumstances of the terrain (mountain, landing, guerrilla in Spain, and Homeland) which are considered as befits a Napoleonic pitched battle. But above all with the use of military cards kept in the hands of the players that, with a wide range of alternative and complementary uses, that I think simulate quite well the uncertainty, chaos and fog of war of the Napoleonic campaigns. Of course, abstracting that the presence of a commander’s card is not only his presence, but the combat units of his corps or detached army at the appropriate time and place of the campaign.
The limitations in the design of Napoleonic battle wargames
The main problem I find in Napoleonic battle wargames is that players know practically all the units that both they and the enemy have. This makes the decisions of a player as commander of a Napoleonic army very different from those that their historical counterparts had to make, with special importance in the arrival of the different units to the battlefield, and in other cases the failure to arrive in time for the decisive battle.
At Austerlitz, Kutuzov as Allied commander-in-chief had no idea of the arrival of Davout’s Corps from Vienna to stop his left wing, and of Bernadotte’s arrival a little earlier from Brunn on his right. Or in Dresden in August 1813, where Schwarzenberg could not foresee the arrival in time of Napoleon, the French guard and cavalry reserve. Nor that a torrential rain would divide his army or that his infantry could not properly fire at enemy cavalry charges.
June 1815 in the battles of Ligny and Quatre Brass a part of the French army did not participate in either of those two simultaneous battles, wasting the day in marches and countermarches. Two days later at Waterloo the corps commanded by Grouchy did not arrive on time on the battlefield, and on the contrary, Blücher’s Prussian army arrived on time for its appointment with destiny at Waterloo.
My “biased” perception of the strategic and tactical level in Napoleonic wargames
[This is not an exhaustive description of Napoleonic wargames, but only those that I have played more intensively and conditioned to a greater or lesser extent the mechanics of the War Phase of Congress of Vienna]
I have always had this feeling for more than 40 years with my first “tactical” wargames with lead figures and complex rule manuals, Napoleonic Wargaming by Bruce Quarrie (and the sequels of this book), even with the more systematic and “simplistic” Napoleonic Battles of Avalon Hill and so many others. In both cases I think that only once or twice did we finish the battle, after endless discussions about the interpretation of this or that rule, and after whole days playing by moving 5 minutes of real time in hours and hours of consulting tables, rules and exceptions to the rules!
Then I moved on to the games of battles by hexagons where I enjoyed it until I wore out the pieces from playing them so much. I remember the first, Waterloo (1962) by Avalon Hill and then the much more complete and complex Napoleon’s Last Battles (1976) by Decision Games. But in both I ended up missing that the “fog of war” and the chaos in the command of the different units was not sufficiently well represented.
Long after its publication I was able to enjoy an old game, republished several times, where through blocks “Napoleon: The Waterloo Campaign, 1815” I used the Columbia Games version. This is a game where the strategic and tactical decisions and the uncertainty inherent in a Napoleonic campaign are, I think, very well resolved… and in about two hours you have finished the game!
I’ve had a sense of greater uncertainty and battle chaos with GMT’s Command & Colors Napoleonic, in which, having very simple rules, you end up avidly looking for the faces of their blue, red and yellow dice, flags in every fight or fire… In addition, the command cards make the movement and response of the units disorganized and I suppose more “realistic”. Well, I think so because none of us knows how frightful, bloody, chaotic, and terrible it was to be in one of those battles.
However, in most Napoleonic strategic games that situation of uncertainty in battle has been generally better simulated. In the distant and venerable “War & Peace” (1980 and reimplemented in 2020) by Mark McLaughlin, interceptions, tactical chit from each side, and the inevitable dice rolls (2d6 per battle and side) generated that feeling of a decisive battle quite well.
Another strategic wargame that I think simulated uncertainty well was “Empires in Arms” where the tactical choice of each side, the superiority in cavalry, the arrival, or not, of the flanking corps, again simulated quite well the decisions of a commander in chief. The problem is that finding 5 or 6 players to share a board for more than 200 hours is something I can only remember as viable in my college days.
After the eruption of the CDG mechanics, and specifically those applied to the Napoleonic Wars such as Napoleonic Wars and Wellington (GMT) or Napoleon against Europe (Hexasim) put me back into the Napoleonic world, since I considered a good degree of simulation and a reasonable playtime (this for my current situation, implies a game of less than 10 hours). But just as I’ve been very awake with strategic-level games, I’ve become somewhat obsolete with the “more tactical” Napoleonic wargames because of my innate discontent with games in which the commanders-in-chief know all the units under their command, those of the opposing side, and the arrival schedule of reinforcements from each side.
NOTE: I reiterate that this review of different Napoleonic games, mechanics, strategic or tactical level is partial with thousands of wargames covering this historical period. I’ve only included those that I’ve played many times and that have influenced the Congress of Viennadesign in a greater or lesser way. Some wargames such as those that follow the “Vive l’Empereur! rule-system” or the “Bataille game series” have liked them but I have only played them a few times, and I do not consider myself qualified to do a review of these.
The War Phase at the Congress of Vienna (CoV): how have we simulated the fog of war and the strategy of each commander-in-chief to pose a decisive battle?
The design of the CoV War Phase is very novel compared to Churchill, because in addition to the units and Military Support markers (these represent intelligence, supplies, artillery and cavalry reserve, elite units…), the circumstances of the terrain (mountain, landing, guerrilla warfare in Spain, and Homeland) are taken into account as would correspond to a Napoleonic pitched battle. But above all, the fog of war is achieved with the use of military cards saved in the hands of the players that allow a wide range of alternative and complementary uses that I think simulate quite well the uncertainty, chaos and fog of war of the Napoleonic campaigns and battles. Of course, bearing in mind that Congress of Vienna is a game of grand strategy, although the search by the generals-in-chief for the decisive battle (and victory) was the goal of military operations, and are the highlights of each turn (month) of play. I want to point out that for a Napoleonic player like me, going from wonderful tin soldiers and beautiful dioramas to using colored cubes to represent units, is the closest thing to sacrilege. But the changes in life and in our hobby forced me to do it, “sic transit gloria mundi“!
However, we must make the abstraction that a general’s card is not only his presence, but the combat units of his army corps or army at the opportune time and place of the campaign. In CoV you can play a military card on a Battlefront each turn, you choose which one in such a way that you maximize its effect in DRMs (increasing the accumulated DRM itself or decreasing those of the opponent). But what you don’t have is absolute control of the cards that the enemy has and intends to use.
In addition to the numerous generals that you have in your arsenal of national playing cards. There are two, JOSEPH BONAPARTE AND BERNADOTTE that can be used by both the Allied and French sides. This has been done, as in the rest of the generals, to try to reflect the military performance of both characters in 1813!
Finally, 4 Military event cards (63 to #66) allow you to multiply the effects of some commanders-in-chief when they sent the guard, the cavalry reserve, or when the enemy discovered the lack of coordination between the different units of the army.
The Battle DRM System & Tracking
The key to the battle is the innovative Battle DRM Track, located on the board separating the diplomatic from the military areas. In which the DRM of each player is tracked by the different terms that allow you to increase the opponent’s kills and/or reduce your own. In a recording range from -10 to +42; and with casualties made on the contrary between 0 and 5. The characteristics of this DRM Battle Track, military card design, and the rest of the battle modifiers configure the result of battle. The main aspects are:
1. Victory (VP and the winner’s advance, and the defeated player’s retreat) are determined by the player who causes the most kills in the Battle DRM Track. This is a crude mechanic, but a simple and quick system had to be established.
2. With table design between 8-10 DRM implies 1 additional low. This makes many battles with similar armies involve the same kills and are bloody ties. There are many players who have expressed some dissatisfaction with this, but there were many battles that were really bloody draws: Lutzen and Bautzen in Saxony in May 1813. Sorauren and San Marcial on the Franco-Spanish border in July 1813, and many ones in the French campaign of 1814.
3. Units (and British fleets in Sicily and War of 1812) can represent +20 DRM or more (+1 DRM/unit) in the massive battles of Central Europe once Austria enters the War. But normally, the units involved are between 4 and 8 in most battles.
4. The modifiers by the type of terrain and the initial situation chart. Normally there are no modifiers in the undulating terrain of Central Europe, but in the mountains, homeland, or with the guerrilla in Spain they can be increased up to +6 DRM gap.
5. The Military Support markers. Normally it will be one per side (except in Front A) which represents +3 DRM, the effect of which is “balanced” if both sides use one each. Before the Armistice, the Russian player will have to be careful with the Grande Armée on the Front A, as France may place 2 markers and Russia only one, as Austria is neutral and cannot help them! The DRM described above are absolutely known to both players, before deciding which military cards to use and how to use them (increasing one’s own DRM or reducing the enemy’s DRM). The following mechanisms are those that allow us to simulate the fog of war and the chaos and unpredictability of battles, especially those of this historical period.
6. The military cards of his own and those that the enemy can play. Here both players must decide whether to use them in this battle, save them for a later battle, or use their own +DRM or a -DRM for the enemy. In the first case you intend to make a bloody battle or in the second case to reduce your potential losses. Finally, you must weigh the combination of cards, especially neutral cards, with general cards to maximize their effects. Personally, I would like to apply the Optional Historical Rule 15.16 Maximum Military Cards per Battle. In which the number of military cards that can be used in a single battle is a maximum of four Military cards per side, except in some situations.
7. The tactical choices of each side if the Optional Historical Rule 15.5 The Tactical Battle Matrix. This rule is based on the tactical battle matrix of the excellent “War and Peace” and “Empires in Arms” published in the distant years of 1980 and 1983 respectively. It does increase the amount of time needed for battle, but it adds additional elements of fun, uncertainty, tactical flavor, and “fog of war” to resolving battles which players may enjoy. This OHR adds a new modifier to battles based on a side’s tactical choice of Tactical Chits allows greater uncertainty and player interaction in battles. The maximum difference between a lucky choice and an unfortunate one from the enemy is +6 DRM. Which isn’t much compared to the DRM you get per unit or military cards used. But they can turn a draw into a win, or a loss into a draw.
8. The final roll of 2d6, one for each side. Many players have manifested me as excessive, since between “12” and “2” there is +10 DRM gap! But how can we pretend that the only bridge for French retreat in Leipzig explodes prematurely, trapping tens of thousands of men on the wrong side, and turning a minor defeat into a French catastrophe? Or how to represent Ney’s flanking force at Bautzen being diverted allowing the main Allied army to escape and preventing the end of the war with a landslide victory for Napoleon. That is why I believe that this last factor of chaos or incredulity of war must always exist. Only the cards of some far-sighted leaders, with cold calm, and a high charisma like WELLINGTON and NAPOLEON (when he is with BERTHIER) have the possibility of a second saving roll!
I hope that you now have a more complete view of why, and how we have reflected in the rules and cards our vision to simulate and recreate the battles at Congress of Vienna game. Well, we really wanted to create a mechanic that would allow you to plan and fight 4 or 5 battles each turn in a limited game time in the most agile, fast and systematic way possible. I don’t know if we have succeeded, we leave it to the benevolence of the players, but we have really tried and in this article, we have explained the philias and phobias that have led to it.
Getting the Best of Both Worlds! This was accomplished through placing gorgeously painted Napoleonic lead soldiers into an early Congress of Vienna play test game. They are beautiful to behold, but very impractical, although in my case, full of nostalgia and good memories!
In the first picture, on the CoV Military Map’s Front B, Dutch Lancers and Guard French Cavalry of the French Army of Elbe are pictured, while next to them are the Paulov Grenadiers and Russian Foot Artillery of Russia’s Northern Army. The Front A portion of this photo shows Austrian, Russian and French units with Napoleon himself placed near Saxony!
In the second picture, part of the British Force Pool is shown containing British and Spanish dragoons (these last with their yellow jackets). On the right, one can see British Cavalry of the Army of Portugal (Front C).
Our Group in Spain no longer play Congress of Vienna with these miniatures, but we fondly recall when we did and it’s a delight to almost cinematically envision them in our minds’ eyes when resolving each CoV battle!
Author: Frank Esparrago
