State of Play: Napoléon 1807 – the Battle of Eylau

  

 

Left to his own devices, T would happily continue trying to win as the Germans playing WWII Commander: Battle of the Bulge (Compass Games, 2020) for another five or six weeks, but I’m falling behind on my review schedule, so he agreed to only slightly grudgingly agreed to a game of Napoléon 1807 (Shakos, 2020).

Set-up at start of the game.

Napoléon 1807 uses the same mechanics as Napoléon 1806 (Shakos, 2017), which I reviewed at the beginning of the year and have written about extensively elsewhere. It plays similarly as well, offering the same constraints and challenges as it’s predecessor, but overall, the game has increased in magnitude. The gameboard now covers a 22” by 36” board, instead of the 24” square of its predecessor, and while 1806 offered just two scenarios, the full seven-turn game and a three-turn introductory scenario, 1807 brings a total of thirteen scenarios, including one that allows you to combine Napoleon 1806 with 1807 for a continuous game. For our first outing with this game, we chose a shorter scenario, the Battle of Eylau (historical placement – four turns), to get to know the system again.

In most respects, Napoléon 1807 plays like its predecessor. Movement and combat work just as in the first game; both are driven by a multi-use card deck, along with all the game’s other functions. The differences come with the larger map, the addition of Winter Quarters cards, which I’ll come back to, and two new markers; x-shaped garrison markers in each side’s colour, and yellow blast-shaped markers, used to indicate that a garrison is under siege at the opposing side at the start of the game. The Conquerors series uses a pendulum system for Victory Points, and if the siege marker remains on the board at the end of the game, this will shift the VP marker two points in the direction of the besieging force.

Beginning of Turn 2. The map by artist Nicolas Triel has some really lovely detail.

Another change to the original game is the scope of victory. Where the earlier game had a clear definition of French victory, with anything else being a default win for the Prussian player, the scoring in Napoleon 1807 is a little more nuanced, with the possibility of a draw if neither side makes a significant enough gain.

As is his want, T played the French, while I took on the role of the Russians. The scenario starts with the Russian formations concentrated at Heilsberg, with the French split over the south and west (the left short edge of the board is north). The VP track runs from 0 (automatic French victory if this is reached) to 20 (auto Russian victory). In the Battle for Eylau, the VP marker starts the game at 8 points, the bottom threshold for a Russian win – 5 o 7 points will result in a tie. With only four turns and so much ground to cover, the Russians have to break the sieges in Danzig and Graudenz, protect their own holdings, and take a French-held town or two to hold on to a victory. The French need to make a decision early, either to move quickly to nab Osterode and Konigsberg, and defend their own garrisons, while maintaining the Danzig and Graudenz sieges, or to try to hammer the Russian formations and hope to inflict enough damage to shift the VP marker their way. The French have the edge in combat, but four turns is not a lot of time to pursue either course.

As the game opens, each player draws three cards to have in their hand. If one of these has a red banner at the top (Rain, Snow, or Cold) this enters play for the turn, affecting both side’s formations. Remarkably, a Rain card only appeared in the third turn.

After the players have examined their hands, each draws their next card off their deck. This is their Initiative bid; whoever has the higher value card (in action points) takes the first action, then the players take turns ordering – or trying to order – their units to move or engage the enemy, or both, until both sides “pass.”

New innovations: Garrison and Siege markers, and the Winter Quarters card.

As it happened, both of us played a sub-par opening. I drew the initiative, and I should have ordered Essen I, well to the south, and a stone’s throw from French-held Warsaw, but instead I began breaking up the bulk of my army into smaller groups, trying to manoeuvre to screen my citadels and garrisons. The Conquerors game series rules reward bold action and audacious plays. I forgot this and went into a defensive mode from the get-go. By the time I’d woken up to that particular opportunity, Sarvey had already blocked my hereto clear path to Warsaw.

T wanted to bring a hammer blow, so he kept his grouped formations together, trying to bring them into action in twos and threes. Unfortunately, this makes them unwieldy; to move a unit or group of units, the player declared the ordered unit(s) – we simply point to them – then draw a card. The number od action points the card offers dictates how far a single unit can move. But if you’ve declared for a group of units to move, each on above the first will cost an extra point (this is to reflect the logistical difficulties in trying to manoeuvre multiple corps in unison). If you nominate a three-formation army for movement and draw a card with a value of 4 points, you’ve already lost two points with the two extra units; the army will only be able to move two spaces. Without the luxury of many turns, the safer route would be to break up the larger units for movement, then try to reunite them, or some of them, at the final destination.

Third turn rain, and the siege of Danzig lifted (lower left corner).

The French player begins the game with an extra penalty as well. Bernadotte begins the game with a one-block reduction in his strength, with that block on the French Winter Quarters card. When Winter Quarters are in effect, the first strength losses for each side are placed on their own Winter Quarters card. When the fifth block is placed, the Winter Quarters card is placed in the player’s discards, and when next drawn, the card is set aside near the board. When both cards have been drawn, the game comes to an end, regardless of the remaining turns. Probably not something to worry about in a game this short, but one more layer of uncertainty in a game with a lot of uncertainty already baked in.

Turns one and two saw some altercations between individual corps, but nothing decisive. L’Estourq outmanoeuvred Ney to liberate Elbing, only to see it recaptured by Ney in pursuit and L’Estourq ventured west to lift the siege of Danzig. Murat broke for Konigsberg and by turn four the city was in French control (had it not been for the Rain card in effect in turn three, the garrison would have fallen a turn earlier). All-in-all, it was a fumbling effort on both sides, with the French denying a Russian victory, but not delivering a decisive-enough blow to secure victory. The end score was 7 – a tie.

Defeat is the best teacher. Next time, we’re going to try one of the longer-duration scenarios, and we’ll see who has taken their lessons to heart.

Bottom of the fourth. French one point short of a marginal victory.