Thanks for this, Gilbert. I still have the old Avalon Hill version sitting on my shelf, not that I’ve ever played it. Good to see a version with better maps and counters, as well as the added naval strategy game and the Egypt map. I might have got it but when you mentioned the price I gulped hard. Seems that over the years war game prices increased to match my income level. In the early 70s, when I first started buying them the average S&T or Avalon Hill game was $15 to $20 Canadian. That started to rise so that by the eighties the same types of games were in the $35 to $50 range, still affordable on my increased salary. Then that went to $70 to $90 in the 2000s-2010s. Now, the average GMT game is around $100-$110 at my local shop, with bigger games costing $150 to $180, or more. My local shop is charging $167 for the new, deluxe edition of RAF. These prices, of course, reflect the difference between the US and Canadian dollars, but still! I’m afraid now that I’m retired, and with what appears to be a new Depression staring us in the face, I may have bought my last war game. But I did enjoy your look at the new W&P. Keep them coming!
Great video. What a beautiful map. I loved the original game. I am tempted to buy this. This is the first time I've seen one of your videos, but you've earned a subscriber. You are bold starting with the Russian Campaign scenario. The 1805 scenario is a good starting scenario, if I recall correctly. Dang, this makes me want to dig out the original.
Thanks for an excellent unboxing vid ! I can't wait to receive my copy. I believe OSG did a strat Napoleonic Wars which also had pre-1805 scenarios (tho the 1790's one came in the 'Sun of Austerlitz' game as I recall).
Another great review. I have never heard of this game, and I have been playing war games since the early 70’s. I think I am going to put this game on my radar for purchase. I like detailed but playable games, and this one, from what you described, seems to be just that. I have other grand strategy Napoleonic games, but this gam warrants some attention. Always is search of the best game! Thank you for posting Gilbert.
As I said in the video. I don't know. It comes with its own dedicated 'Campaign Booklet' and I have been told that the Developer did finish onec campaign game. So, I guess it does work. But it would be a huge investment of time. It is NOT the one that was tacked together that was in the old General magazine.
Regarding the old AH game: Counters: I never had a problem keeping the counters in baggies, sorted only by nationality, and keeping all game components in the box. Setup time was never a problem, as I remember. I know by your previous videos that you like to sort counters to what I, for one, would probably consider an excessive degree. While this might save a couple or a few minutes when setting up, it becomes a pita at the end of a game when one tries to put all the counters back into their proper compartments and remember how everything is organized. To each his own, but to me the latter is much more of a pita than spending perhaps a few more minutes at setup time. For me, it's typically much more convenient to be able to just put the various nationalities into their baggies at the end of a game and be done with it, regardless of which game I'm playing. After typically playing for a number of hours, the last thing I want to do is sit there for another 20 minutes to make sure everything is sorted to the minutest detail. But again, to each his own. I would hardly call setup time of the old game a "nightmare" - that's just hyperbole. Your criticism of this non-issue is a reflection of your own personal preference for sorting counters to an excessive degree. Map: The old AH map in its entirety measures 44"x16", which is somewhat longer, but a lot narrower than most. Additionally, since the campaign game was broken (the fixing of which is the whole point of this new edition), it was never necessary to use the entire map. As I remember, none of the scenarios used more than 2 portions of the map, which would be 22"x16", which is hardly big at all, and a lot smaller than most. At 2:02, you show a small black&white picture of the map and refer to it as "very, very plain". In reality, the map is no more plain than any other AH maps of the era, and actually a lot more colorful than many. Anyone can go to the game's listing on BGG and see that. Mountains, forests, and swamps are all colored differently, and rivers, cities and special production sites are beautifully done. Everything on the map is very nicely rendered and I always thought this to have been one of AH's nicest maps. Again, to each his own, but I urge anyone reading this to look at pictures of the old game at BGG and see whether the map could accurately be described as being "plain" for its time - I don't think it can. The fact that, as I remember, the map showed one river in Russia in the wrong location and another river which is actually non-existent in real life, would have been valid criticisms, but you don't mention that. Early on, you twice describe the game as being large, apparently only because you weren't able to sort the counters to your satisfaction and still fit them in the box, yet later on describe the map as being very small. It's kind of an odd contradiction. You summarize by saying that because AH tried to "pack a heck of a lot" into a "very small" box, you got rid of the game, despite calling it "a good game" at 2:35. Frankly, criticizing a publisher for supposedly putting too much game into a box seems a rather odd reason to get rid of it. I could understand it if it were the other way around. As for the new game - firstly the disclaimer that I don't have it and have not played it. However that does not prevent me from pointing out some obvious hyperbole in your video. At 9:58 you say, "...the game itself works. It worked 40 years ago and it works now...". The problem with this statement is that while the scenarios worked fine in the old game, the campaign was broken. Furthermore, since the ENTIRE POINT of this new edition is to fix the campaign (an important point you might be unaware of, since you never mention it), and since you haven't played the campaign, it is impossible for you to know how well this aspect of the game now works. The remainder of this introduction video basically consists of you saying: 1) The map is beautiful 2) The counters are beautiful 3) The charts are beautiful 4) The rules are beautiful All of which may be true, but none of which is examined in enough depth to justify your blind praise of this new edition. Regardless of your preference for calling this an introduction, it is basically an unboxing video. If it were anything more, and perhaps if you were aware that the main point of this edition is to fix the broken campaign of the old game, you might have pointed out whether the 28-page campaign booklet consists mainly of rules one must learn to play the campaign, or contains mainly other information, such as historical background, designers notes, etc. I think many people would be interested in knowing whether those 28 pages are rules that need to be learned in addition to the actual rules booklet. Additionally, to me, the most obvious difference between the old and new maps are the addition of what appear to be bridges. I'm curious to find out why bridges would be included in a game of this scale. Yes, of course I'm obviously aware that during the early 19th century there weren't major bridges spanning major rivers every 10 or 20 miles like there are today, which might be a reason to depict those that DID exist, but it still seems like an odd thing to include in a grand strategic game covering almost all of Europe. My point with this comment is not to disparage this new edition, and I have not done so. I'm merely pointing out that this vid is just another extremely superficial look at a new game, like countless others by so many other people whose primary goal seems to be to be the first out of the gate in looking at a new product. There would be nothing wrong with this, if you were a bit more objective and didn't pretend to be so certain that the game actually fixed the shortcomings of the original. I don't know, maybe OSS sent you a free review copy. Also, your inaccurate criticisms of the original game irked me. Anyway, thanks for the vid and I look forward to a more in-depth look at the game in the future. Sorry for the wall of text. (And for those reading this, no, I'm not the person asking the many questions at BGG. In fact, I haven't even looked at the game's listing on BGG in a long while.)
I for one appreciate the video immensely. I had no idea that a new edition had been done. I'm used to your style and like it quite a bit. You do a great job of giving folks a good look at the games you cover. I don't mind your opinions at all. I'm just very appreciative you take the time to make content.
@@thomaskaplan4898 I appreciate the comments. How that one fellow thinks that I have some kind of 'phobia' or 'obsession' with sorting is rather curious. As for his 'baggies' solution, if you were to break down every set of counters in a 'fine sort', you would need over 45 'baggies' all of which would have to be 'labeled'. How that would be faster than trays is an enigma to me. But, to each his own. I merely point out that this is a 'big game' and will take a while to set up and take down.
@@XLEGION1 'Phobia' and 'obsession'? I don't know why you put those in quotes, because those are your words, not mine, although at this point I won't disagree with those descriptions. I also never said anything about using "over 45 baggies". I merely said I sort mine according to nationality, which comes out to about seven baggies, plus a couple for markers. The very fact that you apparently WANT TO THINK I said anything about "45 baggies" does seem to indicate that you have an obsession with sorting counters, frankly. You just don't seem to be able to get away from the notion of having to sort counters to the minutest detail. Nor did I say my method was faster to set up. I actually said it takes SOMEWHAT more time to set up, although less time to take down. At this point, I am indeed very curious to know whether you paid for the game or whether OSS or one of the designers sent you a free "review" copy? Care to let your viewers know?
Rob S I don’t get ‘free copies’ and being a resident of Canada I paid top dollar for this game. With the exchange, this game is not cheap. As for sorting, I don’t think ‘you get it’. I think this is a great game and probably is my favourite strategic game on the subject. I am 100% happy with the product and if you want to sort your game into 7 baggies or less, that is you choice. It’s not mine. This conversation can serve no further purpose. (HAL 9000)
I was just jonesing to play the AH War and Peace, but putting it off because of goofy stuff with the campaign game (Can "carry" Austria to keep it in the war as a zombie power. Original campaign rules make it almost impossible to beat France unless you have at least 4 players. Can "run and hide" as Prussia to force France into a huge battle vs. entrenched Prussia/Russia at Konigsberg in 1806/1807). How does this game hold up in this regard? Also, is there a Vassal or Cyberboard module? I'm very glad this update took place, but I am not sure I want a huge physical map spread around in my home.
I think people are being much too hard on this game for expecting something that it 'never was'. It was never conceived as a linked "Campaign Game", although a tacked on campaign was included. The strength of the game is in its individual portrayals of the campaigns. The Napoleonic Wars is a complex subject and NOBODY has successfully navigated the task in making a game on this complex subject. As anyone knows, the "Napoleonic Wars" covered over a quarter of a century of different 'wars' and 'coalitions' against the French. The subject is too complex to be handled in one single game. I think GMT's "The Napoleonic Wars" isn't bad for what it did, but it is by no means perfect. It's a trick thing navigating the complex political event, the back stabbing that occurred and the wholesale 'changing of sides' that also occurred. I think game is 'dated' in the sense that it is a re-print of an older title, but it an excellent reprint and I give it a 'thumbs up'.
@@XLEGION1 Crown of Glory, Emperor's edition was very good. Its a little funky at simulating the naval aspects of the Napoleonic Wars (Nelson usually buys it at the start of every 1805 scenario, before he can even get to Trafalgar. When the War of 1812 arrives, the American fleets a bit too powerful), and if you play the 1792/1793 campaign start, France usually gets overrun by the First Coalition, the Bourbons are restored and Napoleon and a great deal of his famous marshals never even arrive in the game. Also, playing the battles at the strategic level and not the available tactical level works best, though if you get a really huge battle the tactical level can be fun. The game AI does an excellent job of simulating the dynamic backstabbing nature of Napoleonic European politics. In the campaign major nation has a series of victory point locations around the map, and the more of these you capture the more likely other AI-controlled nations will perceive you as the real threat to European civilization and form a coalition against you to bring you back to the pack. I've played Sweden in past games , quietly bringing Denmark, Norway and much of northern Germany into my control control, while playing off the French against everyone else. Towards the end of the game, the French and the others bury their differences in order to take Europe's dastardly Swedish puppet-masters down a much-deserved few pegs. The same if Britain does very well, and ends up facing a coalition of united Europe. And if France is cut down to size fairly early on, things get very chaotic as each country jockies for their own victory point locations, which usually involve taking provinces from other major nations. This whole system is what drives the coalitions against France, vs. the more historical desire to see republicanism crushed.
I am getting back into my 34-year old copy of Empire in Arms. I would be interested to hear any comments comparing Empires in Arms with War and Peace from players experienced in both games.
Enjoyed your critique of War and Peace Gilbert! Love the new look of the game too, will have to get it! I chase all things Napoleonic! :-) Note: Napoleon's Imperium has pre-1805 also (N.I. 1798 to 1815) Released in April 2021 -Compass Games .
I don't know the original manufacturer. Once you remove the other seal, the packaging goes in the garbage. The Ottawa based store called "Solutions" orders unique products from all over the world and they don't (or can't) always re-stock.
Thx for this. Two question 1. Is there any change to order of battle, and deployments in scenarios or campaign games. 2. Is there an option to start campaign game before 1805?
Great vid as usual. Kicking myself for not getting in on this one, but luckily a friend did. AH/ADG's Empires in Arms and Compass' Nations in Arms both have scenarios starting with the Revolution.
Yes great video and fantastic visual update to this fine old title. I'd also mention West End Games 'Campaigns of Napoleon' by maestro John Prados as a strategic game that has Revolution scenarios with Bonaparte rampaging his way through Italy...rather than the predictable 1805 kickoff
This is a great game! I had the original and played it many times. I like the new version even better. Couple questions: 1. Why were the flanking advantages dropped for when a battle was reinforced from a flank position? 2. What are the advantages for naval units to leave the European area of operations?
Great review. The Avalon Hill game is responsible for me getting into miniature gaming as I thought it was a shame units were so generic. Having gone to such much trouble to reproduce this classic to me it's a shame they didn't increase the number of troop types (light and heavy cavalry, et.Al) and amend combat modifiers to match. By increasing the numbers of men each strength point represents they could have reduced the number of counters. Would like to one day again own this game. Thanks Gilbert. Stay safe. Ian
I had "Napoleon Against Europe" and gave it to a friend for free. That tells you something. It was beautiful looking but very hard to distinguish duchies, territories, countries etc...It really a remake of his other title which I have since forgotten the name.
Gilbert Collins I will take your advice Gilbert because you are always right on track with your game reviews. I have not played Napoleon against Europe but I am going to get this game. It looks really good. Thanks for your response sir.
@@DavidRamirez-ww5kv I got NaE. It's good. Rulebook needed a little bit of work I feel. Might be a translation thing. I should perhaps have gotten it in French. Regardless it is very good. I really should get it back onto the table and really 'dig in'.
Do you think this woudl be a good game for a begginer on more complex wargames? I am just startign to get more into these more complex versions, having been mostly a Diplomacy player untill now, but since the price is a bit steep I am just affraid of making the investment and finding it a bit too much for me and my usual friends that join in on my sessions.
This one is not all that complex and is pretty good for scenarios and campaigns. But it is not really designed to play out the whole Napoleonic period. Very few games have been successful at doing so.
@@MateusVIII Have you considered Commands & Colours: Napoleonics? Its a good strategy wargame, fairly easy to learn and good fun. War and Peace is a good game as well, just played the original version and I can see the improvements on this video. Considering buying it!
Gilbert, excellent as always! Just watched for the second time after reading the rules. You mentioned in the video that you weren't sure about leader casualties. The way I interpret it is as follows. When determining which units in a hex to COMMIT to combat you do not have to commit all units. Only leaders of units that ARE committed to that combat would be subject to loss. Hope that makes sense.
It's not often that I keep two games with similar themes and scales. But I'm keeping both this one and "The Napoleonic Wars" from GMT. Remember, the latter is a CDG game totally, so it is difficult to compare the two, they are so different.
You seem to be easily intimidated by counters, rules etc...War and Peace is not a particularly big game. It's normal. Look to Third Reich AH, if you want to see something big, especially when combined with the Japanese game.
Thanks for this Gilbert. I am tempted! I am actually a big fan of the AH game although some of the rules are a bit eccentric (eg not allowing naval units out of certain zones and only allowing transporting of your own colour seems unnecessarily restrictive in a campaign game) - I have read lots of comments that suggest it’s very difficult for the French to lose the campaign game. I find the opposite. The naval rules make it very difficult to invade England. They can only conquer Spain if the Spanish become anti-French which leaves Russia which can only be invaded if the French have conquered Prussia and Austria which is very time consuming.
Now they are doing another Kickstarter campaign for a second printing to make a "revised" version of this game to include all the fixes they didn't get right the first time. The game isn't cheap and now they want people to fund a second version in the same year!? On BBG John Gant basically blamed the lack on playtesting for the second printing saying he didn't have enough volunteers and that people didn't point out the mistakes there were in the rules he approved. I was on the fence with this since I own the original game and wasn't sure it justified the $120+ price tag but now I'm glad I didn't get it. We'll see how the "second printing" version goes and how many issues come up with that before I buy it. I did enjoy the video, although I do still play the original Avalon Hill game and still think its perfectly playable today, even if the map and counters are a big dated.
I have Mark McLaughlin’s trilogy The Napoleonic Wars , Kutuzov and Wellington so I’m interested to see this blockbuster. The map looks awesome. When playing a continent sized game you have to expect some level of abstraction . Perhaps some commentators should bear this in mind . I wonder about solo playability with this one as there are no cards . I follow all your videos, Gilbert, and enjoy every one .
I’ve been trying to decide on a grand strategic Napoleonic game. Napoleon against Europe, by hexasim? Nations in Arms, which has a new version? This? Something I, being new to the hobby, am completely ignorant of? (as I was of this until just now) Any advice? The era is one of my favorites and one I know a fair bit about, so I’ll be disappointed by anything that doesn’t do it justice. (Edit: oh no, side mounted counters?! Why do they do this to me, especially in games with lots of counters? You can never get them to look good, nibs everywhere, and they take ages to look decent. I digress)
@Joe. That's not an easy one to answer. I never owned "Nation at Arms" but after reading all the nonsense about that game after it came out, I decided to avoid it. Yet, it was one I would have liked to try. It seemed to be under developed and I think it was the 'fans' that finally fixed it up with new rules a year later. I don't know, it was a bit of a tragedy in my opinion. I did purchase 'Napoleon against Europe', but later understood that it was the designer of "Nation in Arms" that created it. This didn't sit right with me. It was almost as if 'well the first one didn't work' maybe this version would. This was a beautiful looking game but the area movement and my general unfamiliarity with European Geography of the period made the game a little dense for me. Plus, it wasn't much fun to play. So I got rid of it. For me, the two best strategic Napoleonic Games are "War and Peace" this new version and the GMT title "The Napoleonic Wars". But be fore warned they are very different. I did videos on each one if you are curious.
Thanks! I’ll check those videos out. I did see that nations at arms had problems, but I was hoping the re-release would’ve fixed them. It just kind of *looks* the way I imagine a good Napoleonic strategy game to look. That’s extremely superficial, ofc. Sad to hear that the hexasim game wasn’t fun. I think I’ll focus on War & Peace. That gmt one looks like I’d hate it. (Just preference. I don’t like big games that only have like twenty spaces on the whole. I like hexes, or at least lots areas/points.)
Napoleon against Europe had loads of problems and version 2.0 came out as an upgrade of all the rules, play aids and lots of the cards. The upgraded version is rather good though.
My take on it is this: The game was designed in 1980 and I take it that John Gant was much taken with it and thought that it deserved an ‘upgrade’. So from the start, I saw it ‘as a labour of love’. A mere upgrade of components. It was never meant to be the ‘definitive’ Napoleonic War game to surpass all others. Heck, the original games Campaign game was rather non-exist and the Campaign game was born in the General magazine. I had tried the old version several times and was never quite satisfied with it. Still, I though with an upgrade it components it might be worth a try. I don’t know John from Boo, so I have no special agenda to put forward. When I saw all the “complaints” about how the campaign game didn’t work I thought ‘holy cow, what do people want’? If John HAD revised all kinds of things people would be complaining that it was a whole new game and not faithful to the original. I purchased it with no expectations and I think John did a fine job of getting this old old old title back in print. Another printing? I don’t mind, but I will not be re-buying it in that basis. It is an old design and If it is just an upgrade of components, what do you expect? It can never be the brand new state of the art Napoleonic game that you may want it to be.
My issue is him pointing fingers (on BBG) at the community for not playtesting it enough after people complained and pointed out issues. He initially denied there were problems, then finally admitted it and now is starting another Kickstarter campaign. I appreciate his work, but I just have been burned too many times on these reprints, especially when they charge so much.
@@bigbake132 I was a bit indignant as well but upon checking the changes. It's just a new print run. A few errata that popped up are included but that's it. I got War&Peace ready up in the attic, will be giving it a go soon I hope.
@@Darthvegeta8000 He called it a new edition though. Its now the 6th Edition with the 5th being the previous one. If its just a reprint, why call it a new edition?
It is a great overview as always Gilbert. :) Game looks great! I mean really, really, really great! Hard to believe I played this over and over again 40 years ago (strangely, I was listening to 1980's "Duke" album by Genesis when this video popped up!). Unfortunately, the map of Switzerland is a disaster and almost made me think that I cannot buy. Why is the northwestern part of the country mountainous and the southeastern part (north of Milan) a "plain"? If anything, it is the opposite. Indeed, everything from Baden to Milan is a real mess (for example why would Baden extend to the west bank of the Rhine and well south of it?). Why didn't they fix this if they fixed other map issues? Though admittedly, even the original map looked like it was drawn by a mediocre high school geography student from memory. I live near Stuttgart, have had a life-long fascination with maps, and have checked this region repeatedly because I am working on a game for 1683-1789. But I have already thought I could design and print a layover map for this part. Because IMHO, while the rest of this looks pretty amazing and it is clearly a WIN, parts of this map, historically and geographically speaking, really are a bizarre disaster.
Nice presentation! Counters much nicer, indeed. Those bridges on the map are new -- I think in the old game one could leave a SP in a hex to create a 'pontoon' -- at least for supplies. So that much, at least, seems different. Note that the campaign game was notorious for going off the rails with only two players, as someone mentioned below, and that was due to how diplomacy functioned. It was also due to the very odd way nations reactivated to re-enter the game. If the rules are exactly the same in this regard, then the game is still broken in this regard. Which would be a shame. Now, as I recall, I think it worked fine with multiplayer (5 people) but not at all well with two people -- and even getting two people to play a massive CG for 10 years at 1 month per turn is asking a lot, I suppose, for a time commitment. The problem is that some of these nations -- such as Prussia & Spain -- really suck as factions in the game and can be especially boring to play. So you want a mechanism to deal them into the game with a good diplomatic randomizer so a couple of people can play the war, as in A3R. Mark commented a long time ago, perhaps in the General magazine, something to the effect that reasonable players would play the campaign game as intended and avoid letting stuff go off the rails. But that sort of hand-waving argument is simply not satisfactory. Players will always rationalize why they should be allowed to do something! I hope the new developer didn't allow this reasoning to proceed unchecked. I have to import this to Europe and it will cost about £130 to get it landed here. It would be a real problem to invest in that, because the CG is the reason to buy this game, from where I stand! So I'll have to watch commentary on BGG about that how the CG works a lot better than it ever used to, before I'll commit and once again have to fiddle something the designer and developer should fiddle. Been there, done that 25 years ago :)
Just received my copy and am clipping my counters....wish the box was bigger to accommodate counter trays....may have to custom order a 5” box from boardgamesmaker.com .... Thank you for all of hard work...
As I mentioned in the video (and I'm finding that out right now) setting up a scenario is a bit of work. I'm setting up the Russian Campaign scenario and I have been at it for about an hour. I have only completed the set up for the Napoleonic forces. It's mainly the time wasted in fishing out specific small satellite countries, like trying to find 2 infantry of Saxon counters etc....That's the nature of the beast. It's a wonderfully detailed game but the sortation of the counters is critical for ease of set up and putting it away.
The map looks good but the guy who designed it has never seen a satellite picture of Europe... Everything looks distorted, see for instance the coastline of southern France. Awful... And erratas for a reissue of a 40 year old game? Sad, it is a game I loved to play back in the days...
I can tell you have never worked on a project like this before. There is 'more right' with this game that what is 'wrong'. I'm not sure you are making any differentiation between 'errata' and 'clarifications'.
Wait, what, there's already a newer edition of this, according to posts downtopic? Laughable. Bridges being depicted on a strategic map of Europe, in and of itself, is a game killer for me.
I had my interest fixed on this game for some time as I enjoy Napoleonic period. Fortunately a review just as yours posted on youtube, convinced me NOT to buy this updated version. The instant I see rules including attrition, loads of charts and tables for just about every action conceivable, then I lose interest as all this bog down a game and spoil any fun I would have. Hope Napoleon Empirium is better.
![Game Comparison: War and Peace [2020] vs Nations in Arms [2012]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ywv5_YYjc9s/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for this, Gilbert. I still have the old Avalon Hill version sitting on my shelf, not that I’ve ever played it. Good to see a version with better maps and counters, as well as the added naval strategy game and the Egypt map. I might have got it but when you mentioned the price I gulped hard. Seems that over the years war game prices increased to match my income level. In the early 70s, when I first started buying them the average S&T or Avalon Hill game was $15 to $20 Canadian. That started to rise so that by the eighties the same types of games were in the $35 to $50 range, still affordable on my increased salary. Then that went to $70 to $90 in the 2000s-2010s. Now, the average GMT game is around $100-$110 at my local shop, with bigger games costing $150 to $180, or more. My local shop is charging $167 for the new, deluxe edition of RAF. These prices, of course, reflect the difference between the US and Canadian dollars, but still! I’m afraid now that I’m retired, and with what appears to be a new Depression staring us in the face, I may have bought my last war game.
But I did enjoy your look at the new W&P. Keep them coming!
Much anticipated. Thanks for the update !
Great video. What a beautiful map. I loved the original game. I am tempted to buy this. This is the first time I've seen one of your videos, but you've earned a subscriber. You are bold starting with the Russian Campaign scenario. The 1805 scenario is a good starting scenario, if I recall correctly. Dang, this makes me want to dig out the original.
Do it.
Thanks for an excellent unboxing vid ! I can't wait to receive my copy. I believe OSG did a strat Napoleonic Wars which also had pre-1805 scenarios (tho the 1790's one came in the 'Sun of Austerlitz' game as I recall).
How nice to have two copies of the game, when there are those of us looking to own one. Sigh.
Another great review. I have never heard of this game, and I have been playing war games since the early 70’s. I think I am going to put this game on my radar for purchase. I like detailed but playable games, and this one, from what you described, seems to be just that. I have other grand strategy Napoleonic games, but this gam warrants some attention. Always is search of the best game! Thank you for posting Gilbert.
A thoughtful unboxing vid. Tnx... would be gr8 if we could see some of the gameplay and more in-depth review of it. Maybe sometime in the future?
I would like to do that for a scenario at some time.
Very lovely. Thanks, Gilbert. I'm in the Philippines so it will be a while before I get my copy. Stay healthy, sir.
I own the 1st edition!!it's about worn out!!! The first wargame I ever bought!
Wehre can I buy this game? I miss arty at the counters but in all a very nice design.
Quick question since this game is so crazy expensive: does this one have a workable Grand campaign? The original one did not.
As I said in the video. I don't know. It comes with its own dedicated 'Campaign Booklet' and I have been told that the Developer did finish onec campaign game. So, I guess it does work. But it would be a huge investment of time. It is NOT the one that was tacked together that was in the old General magazine.
Regarding the old AH game:
Counters: I never had a problem keeping the counters in baggies, sorted only by nationality, and keeping all game components in the box.
Setup time was never a problem, as I remember. I know by your previous videos that you like to sort counters to what I, for one, would probably consider an excessive degree. While this might save a couple or a few minutes when setting up, it becomes a pita at the end of a game when one tries to put all the counters back into their proper compartments and remember how everything is organized. To each his own, but to me the latter is much more of a pita than spending perhaps a few more minutes at setup time. For me, it's typically much more convenient to be able to just put the various nationalities into their baggies at the end of a game and be done with it, regardless of which game I'm playing. After typically playing for a number of hours, the last thing I want to do is sit there for another 20 minutes to make sure everything is sorted to the minutest detail. But again, to each his own.
I would hardly call setup time of the old game a "nightmare" - that's just hyperbole. Your criticism of this non-issue is a reflection of your own personal preference for sorting counters to an excessive degree.
Map: The old AH map in its entirety measures 44"x16", which is somewhat longer, but a lot narrower than most. Additionally, since the campaign game was broken (the fixing of which is the whole point of this new edition), it was never necessary to use the entire map. As I remember, none of the scenarios used more than 2 portions of the map, which would be 22"x16", which is hardly big at all, and a lot smaller than most.
At 2:02, you show a small black&white picture of the map and refer to it as "very, very plain". In reality, the map is no more plain than any other AH maps of the era, and actually a lot more colorful than many. Anyone can go to the game's listing on BGG and see that. Mountains, forests, and swamps are all colored differently, and rivers, cities and special production sites are beautifully done. Everything on the map is very nicely rendered and I always thought this to have been one of AH's nicest maps. Again, to each his own, but I urge anyone reading this to look at pictures of the old game at BGG and see whether the map could accurately be described as being "plain" for its time - I don't think it can.
The fact that, as I remember, the map showed one river in Russia in the wrong location and another river which is actually non-existent in real life, would have been valid criticisms, but you don't mention that.
Early on, you twice describe the game as being large, apparently only because you weren't able to sort the counters to your satisfaction and still fit them in the box, yet later on describe the map as being very small. It's kind of an odd contradiction.
You summarize by saying that because AH tried to "pack a heck of a lot" into a "very small" box, you got rid of the game, despite calling it "a good game" at 2:35. Frankly, criticizing a publisher for supposedly putting too much game into a box seems a rather odd reason to get rid of it. I could understand it if it were the other way around.
As for the new game - firstly the disclaimer that I don't have it and have not played it. However that does not prevent me from pointing out some obvious hyperbole in your video.
At 9:58 you say, "...the game itself works. It worked 40 years ago and it works now...".
The problem with this statement is that while the scenarios worked fine in the old game, the campaign was broken. Furthermore, since the ENTIRE POINT of this new edition is to fix the campaign (an important point you might be unaware of, since you never mention it), and since you haven't played the campaign, it is impossible for you to know how well this aspect of the game now works.
The remainder of this introduction video basically consists of you saying:
1) The map is beautiful
2) The counters are beautiful
3) The charts are beautiful
4) The rules are beautiful
All of which may be true, but none of which is examined in enough depth to justify your blind praise of this new edition. Regardless of your preference for calling this an introduction, it is basically an unboxing video.
If it were anything more, and perhaps if you were aware that the main point of this edition is to fix the broken campaign of the old game, you might have pointed out whether the 28-page campaign booklet consists mainly of rules one must learn to play the campaign, or contains mainly other information, such as historical background, designers notes, etc. I think many people would be interested in knowing whether those 28 pages are rules that need to be learned in addition to the actual rules booklet.
Additionally, to me, the most obvious difference between the old and new maps are the addition of what appear to be bridges. I'm curious to find out why bridges would be included in a game of this scale. Yes, of course I'm obviously aware that during the early 19th century there weren't major bridges spanning major rivers every 10 or 20 miles like there are today, which might be a reason to depict those that DID exist, but it still seems like an odd thing to include in a grand strategic game covering almost all of Europe.
My point with this comment is not to disparage this new edition, and I have not done so. I'm merely pointing out that this vid is just another extremely superficial look at a new game, like countless others by so many other people whose primary goal seems to be to be the first out of the gate in looking at a new product. There would be nothing wrong with this, if you were a bit more objective and didn't pretend to be so certain that the game actually fixed the shortcomings of the original. I don't know, maybe OSS sent you a free review copy.
Also, your inaccurate criticisms of the original game irked me.
Anyway, thanks for the vid and I look forward to a more in-depth look at the game in the future. Sorry for the wall of text.
(And for those reading this, no, I'm not the person asking the many questions at BGG. In fact, I haven't even looked at the game's listing on BGG in a long while.)
I apologize for all my shortcomings.
I for one appreciate the video immensely. I had no idea that a new edition had been done. I'm used to your style and like it quite a bit. You do a great job of giving folks a good look at the games you cover. I don't mind your opinions at all. I'm just very appreciative you take the time to make content.
@@thomaskaplan4898 I appreciate the comments. How that one fellow thinks that I have some kind of 'phobia' or 'obsession' with sorting is rather curious. As for his 'baggies' solution, if you were to break down every set of counters in a 'fine sort', you would need over 45 'baggies' all of which would have to be 'labeled'. How that would be faster than trays is an enigma to me. But, to each his own. I merely point out that this is a 'big game' and will take a while to set up and take down.
@@XLEGION1 'Phobia' and 'obsession'? I don't know why you put those in quotes, because those are your words, not mine, although at this point I won't disagree with those descriptions.
I also never said anything about using "over 45 baggies". I merely said I sort mine according to nationality, which comes out to about seven baggies, plus a couple for markers.
The very fact that you apparently WANT TO THINK I said anything about "45 baggies" does seem to indicate that you have an obsession with sorting counters, frankly. You just don't seem to be able to get away from the notion of having to sort counters to the minutest detail.
Nor did I say my method was faster to set up. I actually said it takes SOMEWHAT more time to set up, although less time to take down.
At this point, I am indeed very curious to know whether you paid for the game or whether OSS or one of the designers sent you a free "review" copy? Care to let your viewers know?
Rob S I don’t get ‘free copies’ and being a resident of Canada I paid top dollar for this game. With the exchange, this game is not cheap. As for sorting, I don’t think ‘you get it’. I think this is a great game and probably is my favourite strategic game on the subject. I am 100% happy with the product and if you want to sort your game into 7 baggies or less, that is you choice. It’s not mine. This conversation can serve no further purpose. (HAL 9000)
I was just jonesing to play the AH War and Peace, but putting it off because of goofy stuff with the campaign game (Can "carry" Austria to keep it in the war as a zombie power. Original campaign rules make it almost impossible to beat France unless you have at least 4 players. Can "run and hide" as Prussia to force France into a huge battle vs. entrenched Prussia/Russia at Konigsberg in 1806/1807). How does this game hold up in this regard? Also, is there a Vassal or Cyberboard module? I'm very glad this update took place, but I am not sure I want a huge physical map spread around in my home.
I think people are being much too hard on this game for expecting something that it 'never was'. It was never conceived as a linked "Campaign Game", although a tacked on campaign was included. The strength of the game is in its individual portrayals of the campaigns. The Napoleonic Wars is a complex subject and NOBODY has successfully navigated the task in making a game on this complex subject. As anyone knows, the "Napoleonic Wars" covered over a quarter of a century of different 'wars' and 'coalitions' against the French. The subject is too complex to be handled in one single game. I think GMT's "The Napoleonic Wars" isn't bad for what it did, but it is by no means perfect. It's a trick thing navigating the complex political event, the back stabbing that occurred and the wholesale 'changing of sides' that also occurred. I think game is 'dated' in the sense that it is a re-print of an older title, but it an excellent reprint and I give it a 'thumbs up'.
@@XLEGION1 Crown of Glory, Emperor's edition was very good. Its a little funky at simulating the naval aspects of the Napoleonic Wars (Nelson usually buys it at the start of every 1805 scenario, before he can even get to Trafalgar. When the War of 1812 arrives, the American fleets a bit too powerful), and if you play the 1792/1793 campaign start, France usually gets overrun by the First Coalition, the
Bourbons are restored and Napoleon and a great deal of his famous marshals never even arrive in the game.
Also, playing the battles at the strategic level and not the available tactical level works best, though if you get a really huge battle the tactical level can be fun.
The game AI does an excellent job of simulating the dynamic backstabbing nature of Napoleonic European politics. In the campaign major nation has a series of victory point locations around the map, and the more of these you capture the more likely other AI-controlled nations will perceive you as the real threat to European civilization and form a coalition against you to bring you back to the pack. I've played Sweden in past games , quietly bringing Denmark, Norway and much of northern Germany into my control control, while playing off the French against everyone else. Towards the end of the game, the French and the others bury their differences in order to take Europe's dastardly Swedish puppet-masters down a much-deserved few pegs. The same if Britain does very well, and ends up facing a coalition of united Europe. And if France is cut down to size fairly early on, things get very chaotic as each country jockies for their own victory point locations, which usually involve taking provinces from other major nations. This whole system is what drives the coalitions against France, vs. the more historical desire to see republicanism crushed.
I am getting back into my 34-year old copy of Empire in Arms. I would be interested to hear any comments comparing Empires in Arms with War and Peace from players experienced in both games.
Enjoyed your critique of War and Peace Gilbert! Love the new look of the game too, will have to get it! I chase all things Napoleonic! :-) Note: Napoleon's Imperium has pre-1805 also (N.I. 1798 to 1815) Released in April 2021 -Compass Games .
I'm a Napoleonic fan too. I don't own them all of course, but I do like a good strategic Nap. game.
Country names in their own languages--nice touch. Superb review.
Thank you! Flags as well.
Tell me more about those Solutions Trays. Who makes them? I can't quiet make out the label at 15:31.
I don't know the original manufacturer. Once you remove the other seal, the packaging goes in the garbage. The Ottawa based store called "Solutions" orders unique products from all over the world and they don't (or can't) always re-stock.
Hello Gilbert... great video my friend. All the kind words received!!!... love you like the game!!
Your'e welcome friend. Great Job!
Thx for this. Two question
1. Is there any change to order of battle, and deployments in scenarios or campaign games.
2. Is there an option to start campaign game before 1805?
The original was huge with me and some friends. Excellent game. Battle resolution wasn't the best.
Nations in arms is the other big Napoleonic campaign game and it also has pre 1805 scenarios
Yeah, Nations in Arms goes back to 1792. I've been eager to get my copy to the table!
Great vid as usual. Kicking myself for not getting in on this one, but luckily a friend did. AH/ADG's Empires in Arms and Compass' Nations in Arms both have scenarios starting with the Revolution.
Yes great video and fantastic visual update to this fine old title. I'd also mention West End Games 'Campaigns of Napoleon' by maestro John Prados as a strategic game that has Revolution scenarios with Bonaparte rampaging his way through Italy...rather than the predictable 1805 kickoff
Always intelligent reviews. I enjoy them. Looks like a fine game.
This is a great game! I had the original and played it many times. I like the new version even better. Couple questions: 1. Why were the flanking advantages dropped for when a battle was reinforced from a flank position? 2. What are the advantages for naval units to leave the European area of operations?
@Ronald. Those are questions that only the designer could answer. I'm not all that familiar with the system, nor its past history.
Nice video and easy to follow along. Your voice reminds me of actor John Fiedler (a la 12 Angry Men).
Great review. The Avalon Hill game is responsible for me getting into miniature gaming as I thought it was a shame units were so generic. Having gone to such much trouble to reproduce this classic to me it's a shame they didn't increase the number of troop types (light and heavy cavalry, et.Al) and amend combat modifiers to match. By increasing the numbers of men each strength point represents they could have reduced the number of counters. Would like to one day again own this game. Thanks Gilbert. Stay safe. Ian
Excellent review Gilbert. I want to get this game. I wonder how this game compares against - Napoleon against Europe? Thanks.
I had "Napoleon Against Europe" and gave it to a friend for free. That tells you something. It was beautiful looking but very hard to distinguish duchies, territories, countries etc...It really a remake of his other title which I have since forgotten the name.
Gilbert Collins I will take your advice Gilbert because you are always right on track with your game reviews. I have not played Napoleon against Europe but I am going to get this game. It looks really good. Thanks for your response sir.
@@DavidRamirez-ww5kv I got NaE. It's good. Rulebook needed a little bit of work I feel. Might be a translation thing. I should perhaps have gotten it in French. Regardless it is very good. I really should get it back onto the table and really 'dig in'.
Do you think this woudl be a good game for a begginer on more complex wargames? I am just startign to get more into these more complex versions, having been mostly a Diplomacy player untill now, but since the price is a bit steep I am just affraid of making the investment and finding it a bit too much for me and my usual friends that join in on my sessions.
This one is not all that complex and is pretty good for scenarios and campaigns. But it is not really designed to play out the whole Napoleonic period. Very few games have been successful at doing so.
@@XLEGION1 do you happen to have any other recomendations on that? (That beeing which ones have been succesful)
@@MateusVIII Have you considered Commands & Colours: Napoleonics? Its a good strategy wargame, fairly easy to learn and good fun. War and Peace is a good game as well, just played the original version and I can see the improvements on this video. Considering buying it!
Gilbert, I am trying to purchase this game. Do you know where I may find a new copy of this game? Thank you.
This one went out of print VERY fast. I know they are working on re-releasing a 2nd edition already.
It’s on Kickstarter right now.
Gilbert, excellent as always! Just watched for the second time after reading the rules. You mentioned in the video that you weren't sure about leader casualties. The way I interpret it is as follows. When determining which units in a hex to COMMIT to combat you do not have to commit all units. Only leaders of units that ARE committed to that combat would be subject to loss. Hope that makes sense.
Agreed, that makes perfect sense. I think I did find it in the rules somewhere later on.
I just ordered a reprint on kickstarter
I don't see any fortress symbols. Am I crazy? I seem to recall that the original game had fortresses. Or am I wrong? I remember sieges.
Forts in both the 1980 game and this game are portrayed by a unit counter so that besieged units can be placed under the fort counter.
Right, there are fort counters used during a siege, but no fort symbols were printed on the map.
Maybe you are remembering Frederick the Great
How does this compare to McLaughlin's other game from GMT "The Napoleonic Wars"? This seems to have a greater scope. Another great video, thanks!
It's not often that I keep two games with similar themes and scales. But I'm keeping both this one and "The Napoleonic Wars" from GMT. Remember, the latter is a CDG game totally, so it is difficult to compare the two, they are so different.
@@XLEGION1 right, forgot it was CDG, I guess you pick the one to play based on number of players available and mood....
Totally different games. No cards in this one. A CRT replaces all the dice rolling in Nap Wars. Not better or worse except in the eye of the beholder.
You seem to be easily intimidated by counters, rules etc...War and Peace is not a particularly big game. It's normal. Look to Third Reich AH, if you want to see something big, especially when combined with the Japanese game.
Thanks for this review of this updated game- I LOVED AH's version. Did you purchase this through a Canadian source or an American outlet?
Thanks for this Gilbert. I am tempted! I am actually a big fan of the AH game although some of the rules are a bit eccentric (eg not allowing naval units out of certain zones and only allowing transporting of your own colour seems unnecessarily restrictive in a campaign game) - I have read lots of comments that suggest it’s very difficult for the French to lose the campaign game. I find the opposite. The naval rules make it very difficult to invade England. They can only conquer Spain if the Spanish become anti-French which leaves Russia which can only be invaded if the French have conquered Prussia and Austria which is very time consuming.
Now they are doing another Kickstarter campaign for a second printing to make a "revised" version of this game to include all the fixes they didn't get right the first time. The game isn't cheap and now they want people to fund a second version in the same year!? On BBG John Gant basically blamed the lack on playtesting for the second printing saying he didn't have enough volunteers and that people didn't point out the mistakes there were in the rules he approved. I was on the fence with this since I own the original game and wasn't sure it justified the $120+ price tag but now I'm glad I didn't get it. We'll see how the "second printing" version goes and how many issues come up with that before I buy it. I did enjoy the video, although I do still play the original Avalon Hill game and still think its perfectly playable today, even if the map and counters are a big dated.
How many times do I "get" to pay $100 before they get it right? :(
@@stevecooley3955 However many times people are dumb enough to pay it.
I have Mark McLaughlin’s trilogy The Napoleonic Wars , Kutuzov and Wellington so I’m interested to see this blockbuster. The map looks awesome. When playing a continent sized game you have to expect some level of abstraction . Perhaps some commentators should bear this in mind . I wonder about solo playability with this one as there are no cards . I follow all your videos, Gilbert, and enjoy every one .
I’ve been trying to decide on a grand strategic Napoleonic game.
Napoleon against Europe, by hexasim?
Nations in Arms, which has a new version?
This?
Something I, being new to the hobby, am completely ignorant of? (as I was of this until just now)
Any advice? The era is one of my favorites and one I know a fair bit about, so I’ll be disappointed by anything that doesn’t do it justice.
(Edit: oh no, side mounted counters?! Why do they do this to me, especially in games with lots of counters? You can never get them to look good, nibs everywhere, and they take ages to look decent. I digress)
@Joe. That's not an easy one to answer. I never owned "Nation at Arms" but after reading all the nonsense about that game after it came out, I decided to avoid it. Yet, it was one I would have liked to try. It seemed to be under developed and I think it was the 'fans' that finally fixed it up with new rules a year later. I don't know, it was a bit of a tragedy in my opinion. I did purchase 'Napoleon against Europe', but later understood that it was the designer of "Nation in Arms" that created it. This didn't sit right with me. It was almost as if 'well the first one didn't work' maybe this version would. This was a beautiful looking game but the area movement and my general unfamiliarity with European Geography of the period made the game a little dense for me. Plus, it wasn't much fun to play. So I got rid of it. For me, the two best strategic Napoleonic Games are "War and Peace" this new version and the GMT title "The Napoleonic Wars". But be fore warned they are very different. I did videos on each one if you are curious.
Thanks! I’ll check those videos out.
I did see that nations at arms had problems, but I was hoping the re-release would’ve fixed them. It just kind of *looks* the way I imagine a good Napoleonic strategy game to look. That’s extremely superficial, ofc.
Sad to hear that the hexasim game wasn’t fun.
I think I’ll focus on War & Peace. That gmt one looks like I’d hate it. (Just preference. I don’t like big games that only have like twenty spaces on the whole. I like hexes, or at least lots areas/points.)
Napoleon against Europe had loads of problems and version 2.0 came out as an upgrade of all the rules, play aids and lots of the cards. The upgraded version is rather good though.
got mine today
My take on it is this: The game was designed in 1980 and I take it that John Gant was much taken with it and thought that it deserved an ‘upgrade’. So from the start, I saw it ‘as a labour of love’. A mere upgrade of components. It was never meant to be the ‘definitive’ Napoleonic War game to surpass all others. Heck, the original games Campaign game was rather non-exist and the Campaign game was born in the General magazine. I had tried the old version several times and was never quite satisfied with it. Still, I though with an upgrade it components it might be worth a try. I don’t know John from Boo, so I have no special agenda to put forward. When I saw all the “complaints” about how the campaign game didn’t work I thought ‘holy cow, what do people want’? If John HAD revised all kinds of things people would be complaining that it was a whole new game and not faithful to the original.
I purchased it with no expectations and I think John did a fine job of getting this old old old title back in print. Another printing? I don’t mind, but I will not be re-buying it in that basis. It is an old design and If it is just an upgrade of components, what do you expect? It can never be the brand new state of the art Napoleonic game that you may want it to be.
My issue is him pointing fingers (on BBG) at the community for not playtesting it enough after people complained and pointed out issues. He initially denied there were problems, then finally admitted it and now is starting another Kickstarter campaign. I appreciate his work, but I just have been burned too many times on these reprints, especially when they charge so much.
@@bigbake132 I was a bit indignant as well but upon checking the changes. It's just a new print run. A few errata that popped up are included but that's it. I got War&Peace ready up in the attic, will be giving it a go soon I hope.
@@Darthvegeta8000 He called it a new edition though. Its now the 6th Edition with the 5th being the previous one. If its just a reprint, why call it a new edition?
It is a great overview as always Gilbert. :) Game looks great! I mean really, really, really great! Hard to believe I played this over and over again 40 years ago (strangely, I was listening to 1980's "Duke" album by Genesis when this video popped up!). Unfortunately, the map of Switzerland is a disaster and almost made me think that I cannot buy. Why is the northwestern part of the country mountainous and the southeastern part (north of Milan) a "plain"? If anything, it is the opposite. Indeed, everything from Baden to Milan is a real mess (for example why would Baden extend to the west bank of the Rhine and well south of it?). Why didn't they fix this if they fixed other map issues? Though admittedly, even the original map looked like it was drawn by a mediocre high school geography student from memory. I live near Stuttgart, have had a life-long fascination with maps, and have checked this region repeatedly because I am working on a game for 1683-1789. But I have already thought I could design and print a layover map for this part. Because IMHO, while the rest of this looks pretty amazing and it is clearly a WIN, parts of this map, historically and geographically speaking, really are a bizarre disaster.
a great review
Nice presentation! Counters much nicer, indeed. Those bridges on the map are new -- I think in the old game one could leave a SP in a hex to create a 'pontoon' -- at least for supplies. So that much, at least, seems different.
Note that the campaign game was notorious for going off the rails with only two players, as someone mentioned below, and that was due to how diplomacy functioned. It was also due to the very odd way nations reactivated to re-enter the game. If the rules are exactly the same in this regard, then the game is still broken in this regard. Which would be a shame.
Now, as I recall, I think it worked fine with multiplayer (5 people) but not at all well with two people -- and even getting two people to play a massive CG for 10 years at 1 month per turn is asking a lot, I suppose, for a time commitment. The problem is that some of these nations -- such as Prussia & Spain -- really suck as factions in the game and can be especially boring to play. So you want a mechanism to deal them into the game with a good diplomatic randomizer so a couple of people can play the war, as in A3R.
Mark commented a long time ago, perhaps in the General magazine, something to the effect that reasonable players would play the campaign game as intended and avoid letting stuff go off the rails. But that sort of hand-waving argument is simply not satisfactory. Players will always rationalize why they should be allowed to do something! I hope the new developer didn't allow this reasoning to proceed unchecked.
I have to import this to Europe and it will cost about £130 to get it landed here. It would be a real problem to invest in that, because the CG is the reason to buy this game, from where I stand! So I'll have to watch commentary on BGG about that how the CG works a lot better than it ever used to, before I'll commit and once again have to fiddle something the designer and developer should fiddle. Been there, done that 25 years ago :)
Just received my copy and am clipping my counters....wish the box was bigger to accommodate counter trays....may have to custom order a 5” box from boardgamesmaker.com .... Thank you for all of hard work...
As I mentioned in the video (and I'm finding that out right now) setting up a scenario is a bit of work. I'm setting up the Russian Campaign scenario and I have been at it for about an hour. I have only completed the set up for the Napoleonic forces. It's mainly the time wasted in fishing out specific small satellite countries, like trying to find 2 infantry of Saxon counters etc....That's the nature of the beast. It's a wonderfully detailed game but the sortation of the counters is critical for ease of set up and putting it away.
The map looks good but the guy who designed it has never seen a satellite picture of Europe... Everything looks distorted, see for instance the coastline of southern France. Awful...
And erratas for a reissue of a 40 year old game?
Sad, it is a game I loved to play back in the days...
I can tell you have never worked on a project like this before. There is 'more right' with this game that what is 'wrong'. I'm not sure you are making any differentiation between 'errata' and 'clarifications'.
You are exactly correct. Every part of the coastline is distorted for the hex map. I explain fully why this had to happen on ConsimWorld
Wait, what, there's already a newer edition of this, according to posts downtopic?
Laughable.
Bridges being depicted on a strategic map of Europe, in and of itself, is a game killer for me.
I had my interest fixed on this game for some time as I enjoy Napoleonic period. Fortunately a review just as yours posted on youtube, convinced me NOT to buy this updated version. The instant I see rules including attrition, loads of charts and tables for just about every action conceivable, then I lose interest as all this bog down a game and spoil any fun I would have. Hope Napoleon Empirium is better.