Phalanx Games
Richard Berg (Credited as Alexander S. Berg)
2p (3p version theoretically possible, see below)/3.5hr
Richard Berg has been trying to sell us "lighter", "euro-ish" games for a while
now, from the stalled-out Dillinger to Medieval from GMT Games, and a crush of
new games from Phalanx, the first of which is Waterloo. Given his track record,
I've been skeptical (think Blackbeard and Campaign for North Africa), but I
like Phalanx's angle so I was willing to give it a go.
First things first, you wouldn't mistake this game for by, say, Alan R. Moon.
This is still recognizably Richard Berg - lots of little details, with the only
identifiable "system" per se being the card deck. In fairness, things are
much more coherent than in any of his previous games that I've played. OK, so
that's not saying much, but despite some persnickity details Waterloo hangs
together pretty well.
The basic idea is that you have the by-now classic We the People style card
deck that each side can use for movement, combat, or an event. Players
alternate turns of (and this is the clever bit) varying length - up to 5 card
plays - in which you get to choose how hard to press before passing the turn to
your opponent. Of course, the harder you press now, the fewer cards you will
have later, so it's somthing of a zero-sum game. The "euroish" mechanism is the
need to balance the desire to take advantage of current opponent's weakness (or
shore up your own) with the need to remain flexible to counter your opponent's
laters moves, as well as balancing the desire to put your opponent into a hole
now vs. the need to simply get the maximum bang out of every card you play.
Tacked on top of this are a fair number of details, some of which work and some
of which don't. Many cards have events, ranging from important (Cavalry Charges
take some work to set up, but can really savage units when conducted against
flanks, and Artillery can change the balance of a battle) down to the marginal
(forcing opponent's cavalry to charge seems inordinately difficult to make
worthwhile, the French rather oddly have little use for Elite units, and
Command Bonuses seem rarely to come into play, again especially for the
French). Some of these effects are nice, some feel decidedly awkward; the one
that strikes me is the "disordered" unit state. Units can only become
disordered due to being shot at by artillery and by performing a cavalry
charge, never due to combat; since artillery is fairly rare and charges are
only somewhat more common, the battlefield is surprisingly orderly. Combine
this with the fact that disordered has zero impact on a unit's ability to
defend or fragility (a second disorder will hurt, but that will only be the
result of artillery fire and artillery is much to rare and valuable to waste on
an already-disordered unit), and the plethora of Rally cards in the deck just
don't seem to get much use; Rally cards have a theoretical double use of
bringing back reduced units, but this again seems very hard as you can only do
this when not in contact with the enemy, somthing most units seem to be in most
of the time, especially reduced ones.
So how does it play? Well, there is some good stuff and some less good stuff.
The good stuff is the tension I referred to above in the card play - how far
and hard to push at any given time. This bit is very clever and I quite like
it. The battles have a nice bluffing element, as each player secretly and
simultaneously commits cards from hand to support each battle; you can get a
nice edge here through good play, even if it isn't rocket science. And, the
game is tactically interesting - you have to figure out how to maneuver your
cavalry to set up devastating charges, deal with the very strong Chateaux,
where to position your leaders, when (if?) to withdraw units to try to rally
them, etc. A big part of the game too seems to be that one side or the other
will often feel in danger of total collapse; like in Barbarossa to Berlin, you
have to judge how far you can push without being overextended.
There is some less good stuff, though. First off, flanks are very vulnerable.
You can move a fair amount with each card play, so it seems to feel as if it
sometimes degenerates into endless flanking maneuvers, with each side endlessly
running around to attack the flank or rear of whoever just moved; you get these
odd, swirling melees at the end of each line (it actually reminds me of War
Galley, in a strange way, or maybe the notorious "Dance of Death" in Paths of
Glory). Using squares instead of hexes may or may not make things simpler, but
it does remind me why wargame designers chose hexes in the first place,
especially for tactical games - squares, combined with a lack of any kind of
Zone of Control conecpt, make doing any kind of sensible flank "refusal"
impossible. They also make it hard to move short distances sometimes, as
turning seems inordinately expensive - moving one square forward is 1MP, moving
diagonally one square forward is 4MP if you want to preserve your heading.
Another odd thing, the game talks about being playable with a 3rd player; the
allied player becomes individual British and Prussian players. I think this is
only going to work if you have a Prussian player who doesn't mind being idle
for 80+% of the game, and possibly not playing at all if the French force a
decision in the middle game. The Prussians are likely to do nothing significant
at all for at least 3 (of 7) turns, and even once they get a non-trivial number
of cards, they are so far from the battle it's going to take forever to get
there, and only a handful of units are likely to make it. Practically speaking,
at least half the Prussian order of battle could be deleted as it will have no
effect on the game - there simply aren't enough cards or movement to bring them
all in. All a bit strange.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the issue of the game's length. Dave Kohr
asked me, "is it better than Battle Cry"? To which I would answer an unreserved
"yes", at least if you don't mind a little bit of added complexity, but for one
reason ... it takes 3-4 hours to play. Now, on the one hand, the game doesn't
drag at any point and it never feels repetitive the way some longer games can,
especially the longer euros (think: Elfenroads). I think the game is neither
too short nor too long for the design, there is enough in there to keep you
going for 3-4 hours and if it were shorter, I'm not sure it would be
satisfying. All that said, the length is still a problem. This is a game on par
with, or even longer than, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, Rommel in the Desert,
We the People, etc., and to be honest, I'm just not sure there is enough game
there to justify the time, at least, not on an ongoing basis. The first couple
games are neat, they have a nice feel for exploring a new game, but in the
future will I be willing to invest a big chunk of time in Waterloo when there
are so many good, shorter, wargamey games? This is an open question. Maybe, but
for this reason if nothing else Waterloo won't crack the top tier.
Bottom line? I do like Waterloo. It has unquestioned issues - a bit of (although not too much) fiddly complexity, some tactical oddities that make it hard to get a sense of the game, and the aforementioned game length. Richard Berg seems to me to still be wrestling with this concept of game "systems" (as imprecise as that term may be), but Waterloo is definitely a good first step in that direction, one that I hope he will continue to explore. However, for these reasons, Waterloo strikes me as more of a "lightish game for wargamers" than a "crossover game" like We the People or a "eurogame as wargame" like Battle Cry; my wife, who is mainly a eurogamer but who will play a small handful of wargames and is certainly comfortable with more complex games, was completely non-plussed by Waterloo. Non-wargamers and people not familiar with Napoleonics are likely to be cast somewhat adrift by this game, which lacks much real intuitive grounding. However, I think wargamers will find it pleasing, as it does manage to add a successful euro element to a wargame chassis.
Here is another review, by David Fristrom on BoardGameGeek
© Chris Farrell
Back to the main games page