Designer: Andrew Rowland

There are many reasons why a boardgame might find itself on my hobby table ranging from the theme of the game, to the designers reputation, because it got great reviews or because it’s part of a series or uses a mechanic I already love. Napoleon’s Imperium however is probobly one of the most unique reasons for which I have ever bought a game before, it was because of the story behind the game, the long and intriguing road this game and its designer took over the course of decades.

I was intrigued by Andrew Rowland’s personal story to bring a game he had played and worked on for decades out of a personal labor of love and transform it after all those years into a released product. From construction of massive and very elaborate table top versions of the game for his personal use to the dedication to a life long project, its just a fantastic tale that you just want to find a way to be part of. There is a great interview with Andrew that gives you some additional insight into his story.

Needless to say I got very excited about the prospect of playing a big, large scale Napoleonic era game by a designer who spent decades perfecting it. That sounded like something right up my alley and I took the very deep plunge into a game that cost a whopping 150 American Bucks making this one of the more expensive games on my shelf along side games like War Room and Twilight Imperium.

Overview

Final Score: (4 out 5) Great Game!

Napoleon’s Imperium can probobly be best described as a war game that wants to be more than just a game for board game night. This is a game that desires to be an event, an experience, it wants you to get excited about the history on which it’s based and the global scale which it represents. It’s a game that has as many exceptionally unique elements, some of which translate to a standard board game, while others are clearly meant for something bigger. Sometimes the game actually felt like a made for tv movie that has a story that should be on the big screen. It reaches into spheres of play not typically found in a standard historical war game. As it does many things at once it always confines the game to simple, easy to absorb mechanics so that you can lean back, imagine and think strategy rather then rules. I did find however that there is a nagging question that needs to be answered where this game is concerned, an odd one. Exactly what sort of audience is this game for?

It’s a game that is simultaneously a historical war game clearly rooted in the Napoleonic era while also being a very simple game mechanically that would easily translate to any type of pre-industrial global conflict, a sort of general war game. Is this mean it targets historical war gamers or casual war game fans?

It has fairly deep strategic potential for exceptionally complex executions of team based tactics that play out over hours of play, while being wildly random and chaotic at times suggesting its akin to classic dice chucker’s like RISK. Is that make it a casual game or a serious gamers game?

It takes real historical elements into consideration and makes it part of the game, while also being very a-historical to a point that just a cursory look at the map for example you recognize real history is compromised for game balance indiscriminately. Again, does that mean its aiming for historical accuracy, alternative history or is it just for fun?

In a sense its all over the map in terms of design approaches that might typically be fussed with a specific expected audience. Make a simple game for casual gamers, make a complex historical game for war gamers, make a shorter game for novice players, make a longer game for hardened veterans. Generally there are some rules that are followed in game design, N.I. seems to reach into all these spheres of design simultaneously throwing caution to the wind and as such, it’s a bit tough to identify its intended audience.

It takes some digging to connect the dots between the game play, design and the games development history to understand that what it was before this egg hatched as a published board game had considerable influence on the final result. This may explain why the game is so different in its approach compared to your typical historical war game released from Compass Games or a more standard design approach you would typically expect that targets a specific audience. The thing is, Napoleon’s Imperium may be a lot of things, but typical, expected or standard are not words I would use to describe this game.

I think if I were to offer my general impression of the game, I would call it, strangely good, oddly familiar with a very classic style while also being completely unique. N.I. sort of feels like two games. The game it wants to be because of its roots and the game it is, because of the conditions under which it was published.

I think I would make my case by saying that the experience of playing this game was often halted by very obvious observations about how the game could have been vastly improved from a component perspective, while at the same time surprised by the many really clever ways the mechanics were simplified to represent high level concepts in a hyper efficient way to make for an outstanding strategy war game. It’s a kind of an odd contradiction with the game that the mechanics are so efficient, while the games components often are not. A contradiction that was likely preemptively cured in its previous form as a large table top game with miniatures as many of the complaints I have about this game are directed at presentation and fluidity of using the available components, in particular the tokens. Mechanically, I think I can honestly say I’m in love!

I think in the end the quality of the game as a whole is really going to be perceived differently depending on your preferences and what it is about board games you value. For example if you pick this game up because you think its a historically accurate war game in the Napoleonic era, you are likely to be disappointed, but if you just love great war games about the Napoleonic Era, your in for a treat. If you love epic war games for their visual presentation and atmosphere for those big event days, you are not exactly going to get that here, but if you love epic war games for their high level strategies and story they tell, this game is chalk full of that sort of thing.

These kind of odd contradictions, make Napoleon’s Imperium hard to recommend, but not because it’s not good, because it really is, but because it breaks expectations in many ways and it’s hard to really pin point what category of gamer its going to appeal to, what sort of gaming group its suited for. Will historical war gamers like it? Or is this more for the casual RISK crowd? Is this an event game? A lifestyle game? or is this for a casual board game night with friends and family? Its a really tough call.

In the end my approach was just to shed expectation and judge it without trying to categorize or answer questions about it’s intended audience because I don’t have all the answers. What I know is when I’m playing a good game, I know when something feels right and works. When it comes to Napoleon’s Imperium, there is a lot to like and a lot to be excited about.

Components

Score: 
Tilt: 

Pros:  Full color, clear and concise rulebooks makes learning the game simple and easy to reference. Very nice artwork, especially on the battle cards, gorgeous map that services gameplay well.

Cons:  Average component quality is in contrast to the price of entry. This game begs to have higher production value and should have gotten it given its price and origins.

When I first got a glimpse of the price tag for Napoleon’s Imperium I have to admit I was a bit nervous. I knew from reputation that Compass Games is known for mixed component quality on many of their games. I knew with this game you were getting a couple of paper maps, some tokens and some cards which didn’t seem to be in line with the rather high price tag. At the same time I was so intrigued by the prospect of this game, and its developers story/history, I just had to play it. So… I shelled out the dough and a few weeks later it arrived at my door step. I figured worse case scenario, I just donated to a worthy cause.

Upon opening the box, I can only describe my first impression and the experience as a whole as a crushing disappointment. Unlike Andrews experience of unboxing the game which he filmed (see below), my opening wasn’t marinated by three decades of work coming together into a realized dream in a released product. I can only imagine how for him, the moment of seeing his vision turned reality in a box was life affirming, peppered by his unique perspective.

Cruelly, for me this was one out of hundreds of unboxings I have done, it was something routine I do, just another weekend with a new game. Perhaps my opinion is skewed by this repetitive routine, perhaps I’m a bit jaded by years of reviewing games. I like to think rather, its because I do this all the time, that I have a firm understanding of what a gamer will expect from a game he just dropped 150 bucks on. This isn’t my first rodeo after all!

Of course I knew going into this little venture that it was going to come up a bit shy of what you might expect at this price range, I don’t buy games without researching them first, but It just seemed impossible that for 150 US dollars this was all there is in the box.

What’s In the Box?

Two fairly thin, easy to accidently rip maps that you have to handle like they were ancient relics. The quality of these maps is quite standard, which is to say like all paper maps, its generally poor. Even after the first unfolding of the maps I already had white creases and edge cuts, which again is not that unusual for paper maps, its why as gamers we prefer mounted boards. Paper maps is something we expect for “cheaper” games, mounted maps for expensive ones, this is and should have been the ladder and it should not come as a shock to the publisher as this isn’t their first rodeo either.

This map will not survive for long (especially with my gaming groups typically rough handling of games) which is disappointing for two reasons. First, because this was a 150 dollar game and second because the map has stunning art work which is both inspiring and functional. This just makes the production quality of it that much more painful to bare as you will be frustrated with trying to preserve this beautiful work of art’s condition over time.

The quality of the tokens I would describe as “standard” as well, which again, would have been fine for a standard price which this game does not have. I do appreciate the larger “jumbo” token size for handling during play, no tweezers needed and the art work (pictures of original miniatures from Andrews grand table) are very charming touch….however… It would later turn out that the organization and use of the tokens in this game in general hinders play. You are constantly having to make “change” as the tokens represent different quantities of units, you are routinely adding and removing them from the board by the handfuls.

Tokens were just a poor choice for this game, almost anything would have been better as the information on the tokens is really not that necessary as units stats can be found on the nation cards and a are quickly memorized. The tokens are just their to represent quantity and it would be better to use dice, cubes or disks, or dare I say it, miniatures or plastic soldiers. Anything that doesn’t require to do more than a cursory look at the board to get an accounting of “how many units their are” in a location of which type.

The battle and point card stock and nation index cards are also average quality, nothing that will blow you away, but very serviceable. I would suggest sleeves for the battle cards, from personal experience, this level of quality benefits from sleeves for long term preservation. Fortunately aside from the initial shuffle, generally, their is not much handling of the cards needed during play. The unique art work and flavor text do make these cards stand out and are a big part of how the theme is tied together (more on that later), suffice to say they are very pretty and functional.

The rulebook is probobly the only high quality component reflective of the games price in this box. Color printed with clear and concise rules that make learning to play the game a snap. Lots of illustrations and examples for clarity, and quite thorough, answering questions for even the rarest of circumstances.

I think for a typical board game release I would rate the components as “standard”, perhaps in the case of the paper maps I would say they might even be slightly “below average”, I have plenty of games with paper maps made of sturdier stock . At a 150 US dollar price point however I have to say this was a pretty disappointing production value and this is really a contrast based on the cost vs. value, not a swipe at the artwork which I think is very nice. To be frank, at 150 bucks, when I open the box I expect to have my mind blown by the production value of a game, not surprised that my 70 dollar Empire of the Sun at more then half the price blows this component quality out of the water by any metric you can think of. The boardgaming market is competitive and at this price range, you need to be ready to compete, N.I. comes up short.

Theme

Score: 
Tilt: 

Pros:  Important naval battles, reliance on allies, shocking battle results and events, everything you expect from a Napoleonic Era game (I think!?)

Cons:  This game just begs for a 3rd dimension, using tokens does not do this game justice and just doesn’t feel right.

After I got over the shock of the production value of the game and crossed into the acceptance stage of grief, I set the game up and started moving pieces around. After all, I was very excited about the prospect of the game and truth be told, I will always bitch about disappointing cost to value in particular in expensive games, in today’s board game market their is just no excuse for low balling components. Regardless of component quality, at the heart of any good game is a great theme and great mechanics, If a game pulls those off, I can learn to live with “varied” component quality, N.I. wouldn’t be the first game to fall into that category and find a permanent home on my shelf.

The question I had at the start of this review is what exactly is the “Napoleonic era” theme? I mean, this is a war game, its played on a large two piece map, there are 8 countries represented and you fight battles for dominance over territory. That is very representative of the Napoleonic era but its also representative of every other kind of war or war game.

I may be showing my historical ignorance here, but to me Napoleonic era is more about the control of the sea’s, the importance of alliances and bold surprise strategies that reflect a period in which shocking things happened all the time.

The theme presented in N.I. I think is sufficient for what the game is trying to portray, avoiding the over reliance on forced historical accuracy, but making it historical enough to feel like it is about the Napoleonic Era. This certainly puts to question how thematic that actually makes the game, is it thematic if a game is about the Napoleonic era but doesn’t actually inject rules to force that historical accuracy to play out?

I think it’s here that Napoleon’s Imperium reveals its opinion on the subject and frankly nails it in my opinion, understanding that Napoleonic era theme can be a sensation rather then a series of forced rules. N.I. achieves this in a efficient and rather simple way so that you’re not bogged down by historically accurate result syndrome (HARS) which I find is a common problem in historical war games. I want to play a fun game in the Napoleonic era theme, not be walked through a Napoleonic era history lesson in a scripted game and N.I. gets that and delivers that. That might not fly with historical war gamers who live for historical accuracy and I get that and you have been warned, this is not that kind of game.

The sea’s are critical in this game in how they expose the coasts and make it possible to make shocking surprise attacks forming those really big plays. Keeping up big navies is expensive however and your income is fueled by the land battles and control of territories. This relationship means you can’t just go on an all out min/max strategy of building ships, nor can you ignore the sea’s and focus on land battles. There is this subtle, very careful and very calculated positioning of units as you attempt to trip up your opponent by leveraging the mobility of navies and certain land units like Cavalry. To me all of that screams Napoleon Era, but I have to admit my understanding of the period is largely based on imagery and assumption rather then historical fact, I may not be the best person to ask for an assessment.

The game is also heavily reliant on alliances, this is not a “I run nation X” game for the win, you cannot win without your allies and coordination between allies above all other strategies is paramount. I can understand why Andrew used this game as a corporate team building game, as cooperation and team play is a founding requirement for a winning strategy. This too I found to be very thematic and era appropriate as wars in the Napoleonic era were very much a team sport, with lots of wheeling and dealing involving multiple countries with recognizable historical figures at the head represented by commanders in the game. Again I may be wrong about this, but it just felt right to me but it is highly abstracted, more a concept then anything governed by rules.

The end result is a game that is at least sufficiently thematic, though I would argue in my ignorance of the historical period that its even more than that. It has it’s own flavor and take on history of course and while I’m not entirely sure that it mimics the history of the Napoleonic war to a degree that historians or historical war gamers would nod their heads in approval, it does so sufficiently to get you into the spirit of things thematically which I think was its target. The general aesthetics and the little historical touches and tid-bits you get from the battle cards add to that flavor and I would argue the historical pressure points are all represented here at least on a superficial level that you won’t have any trouble believing this is a game about the Napoleonic Wars.

For example Prussia and Austria being located in the center of the map, are clearly in desperate need of support from allies. France and Britain are going to be battling it out for control of the seas, while countries like the Nordics and Spain, can either be great supporters or liabilities in the war. Finally you have Russia and The Ottomon Empire that are basically fighting an entirely separate war, while occasionally throwing their two cents in support of allies. Those elements I do believe are historically accurate to some degree. The map itself, specifically the national divisions of the map might not be entirely historically correct, but their is enough familiar ground here that it delivers the Napoleonic Era wars in a absorbable way without making you feel stupid about the historical realities of such a war. This is a game that advocates fun over realism which I appreciate, but admittedly may not be in the wheelhouse for hardened historical war game purists.

That said I’m not entirely sure that an 8 hour team game with this level of strategic complexity is necessarily an entry level war game either, which speaks again to that nagging question, who is the target of this game? My answer would be, anyone who loves really well designed board games, but I think the design here may be a bit ambiguous in this regard.

I found that it was the components once again that got my negative attention, or perhaps better to say the lack of components played its part in detracting from the “fun” aspect of the experience. I fully understand why the designer spent years collecting miniatures and building large elaborate tables to enhance the visual experience of this game, I do believe it really needs it to convey this theme, as the gameplay itself does history in a fairly abstract way.

Napoleon’s Imperium is at the base of it all a very simple game rules wise but you do spend a great deal of time staring at the board (this is a long game, potentially multiple 8+ hour sessions) because the strategy can be quite deep. You will be planning, calculating and trying to predict your opponents plans in an effort to one up them in a very elaborate cat and mouse war game. You’re hunched over this huge map for hours at a time and what is missing is that visual wow factor you want a game like this to have to remind you that these tokens represent something important about the games theme.

You want to feel like a commander looking at a battle map, sending invasion troops and fleets of ships across the board, ordering soldiers into battle, watching as nations rise and fall. Doing that by carefully fingering about with some cardboard token stacks is just not going to do the trick here even if you have a very vivid imagination. The game lacks that deep history to mechanics connection you normally get with historical war games that help with the illusion. It does this intentionally to keep the game simple and absorbable which I applaud, but the result is that much of its theme is reliant on the presentation of the abstraction. Without that strong visual connection, the game lacks an element of the experience you sort of need to buy into its premise as a game about historical events, about Napoleonic War, about the role you play as a commander of a great nation in history. With tokens for armies, the game comes off a bit like a generic war game that could just be about anything.

It doesn’t help that tokens aren’t particularly functional as a game component here either. The setup of the tokens being used as quantity counters with different denomination defined by different borders on the tokens actually makes getting a good accounting of what you’re actually looking at difficult. There is a lot of stack peeking, making change, counting and re-counting. That sort of thing pulls you out of the experience. The administration here should be made a lot easier, a lot faster.

If there was ever a game that begs to be represented visually in the 3rd dimension with miniatures or plastic pieces, it’s this one, not just for the visuals to sell the theme, but for practical gameplay reasons. Coming off a pretty long stint of playing Larry Harris’s War Room perhaps I’m spoiled, but I can say conclusively that having that visual eye candy in a long but light global epic war game like this, it is just needed to make the experience feel complete. It’s what you want, it’s what it begs to be, while at the same time their are practical “usability” reasons to use pieces as opposed to cardboard tokens in this game in particular.

Gameplay

Score: 
Tilt: 

Pros: Smooth play logic, fantastic high level strategies supported by great yet simple mechanics, awesome battle card mechanic for historical edge and fun but not frustrating randomness.

Cons: Fairly long play time with significant downtimes.

Napoleon’s Imperium is a game that has rules that can be described quite simply, but strategies deep enough to trigger some analysis paralysis. There is a lot going on in this game but most of it is very subtle, often almost to a point where you might miss it and it is for this reason I find speaking about the gameplay rather difficult.

I found strategies discussed among allies were more general then specific, you will agree to do things like “Invade France”, rather then “move these two Calvary here and that Cannon there”. Hopefully it makes sense what I mean here, this game is played in broad strokes and while the details matter, their is a certain amount of gambling involved when it comes to strategies, you’re not going to be able to calculate your way to victory and if someone tried, this game goes from being slow, to coming to a proverbial halt.

On the surface, the game boils down to players taking turns buying, moving and attacking with units. You chuck some dice for the battles in what is a very simple and straightforward combat system (roll your units strength or defense on a d10) and the team that does this most successfully over 18 turns wins (or whatever length you determine for the game). It really is that simple mechanically speaking and it is here that I think Napoleon’s Imperium will often be compared and likened to RISK, the classic game of war on a map. I would argue rightfully so, on the surface, this is exactly what Napoleon’s Imperium is, a more evolved version of RISK. Luck plays its role in the game and the dice gods can be cruel. This however is the grand deception of Napoleon’s Imperium, it might look like a duck and quack like a duck, but its not a duck.

The opinion that this game is “like RISK” would require you to really ignore some of the foundations of this games design that are both far more complex strategically in application then they appear and the rules suggest and far more important to a winning strategy then you may realize in your first game in particular. There are subtle overtures in this game that aren’t immediately apparent, but are made of solid gold.

The first most notable thing about winning a game of Napoleon’s Imperium is that while the game can potentially be won via a capital victory (capturing three out of four capitals of opposing nations), this is so unlikely to happen that it almost feels like it could be omitted as a rule. In the end this is a game about victory points (the player with the most wins) and you don’t need to have a commanding lead in board presence to find yourself taking the lead point wise in the game for the win.

With careful planning, well timed and coordinated attacks (with allies) and clever defense strategies you can slowly and effectively score points in a wide range of ways from winning sea battles, capturing commanders and well orchestrated attacks and defenses while denying them to your opponents. I was quite shocked at the results of my first game where I discovered countries who seemingly had limited effect on the board presence, had scored shockingly high amounts of points. Hence unlike RISK, this is not a game that is strictly about a land grab, but rather it’s more about a well planned strategy of winning battles when it counts, scoring on the oversights and mistakes of your opponents and leveraging the turn order to make responding to your moves and counters moves in coordination with your allies difficult for your opponent(s).

This is not something you will “get” immediately (unless you’re much more clever than I), you sort of catch on after a few turns of playing this game like RISK and failing miserably. You will come to realize that you don’t need to crush Prussia or conquer France to win the game, you can score points in many ways and the path of least resistance is sometimes preferable, while at the same time their will be moments when those big risky battles just have to happen. This game has timing, pacing and planning that go far beyond what the scope of the rules suggest and in this their is subtle beauty.

Much of N.I.’s strategy is driven by the mobility of the games units, in particular and thematically appropriate the naval units. The sea is absolutely critical in this game and creates a dynamic where you can’t just think about your immediate plans, but anticipate where the weak spots of your opponents are, not only because winning sea battles is a great way to score points, but because it’s so difficult to predict where this mobility of navel units will be applied on the map on any given nations turn. They are far reaching and they can bring forces to bare in unexpected ways. No coast is safe and their is always risk in leaving any location an unprotected scoring opportunity for the enemy.

The second thing is that owning territories gives you money, money gets you units and units get you more territories. This rather old school style of war game economic progression is very reminiscent of RISK, but unlike RISK the units you build always appear in your capital city at the end of your turn. This is a key rule and a core fundamental principle of the game that really separates and differentiates itself from games like RISK where supply of fresh units isn’t a simple matter of placing them on the game board when they become available.

Capitals are generally fairly distant from the core fighting (hopefully) which means that reinforcements don’t just arrive in the battle fronts where you need them. This requires extremely careful planning and consideration of defenses of claimed territories, good control over seas as this is your best way to get fresh units where they need to be and of course some foresight and coordination with allies as you will not be able to plug all the weak spots of your empire on your own. Sure you can make a big RISK infused push on your turn and claim some territory, but before you get your next turn, all of the enemy nations will get their turns and you can quickly find yourself overwhelmed on the front lines losing all you gained in a single round, not to mention giving easy to grab victory points to your opponents.

As such victories have to be decisive in light of the whole game round and your defenses coordinated with your allies to ensure the territory you take, you keep for the long haul.

There is also a subtle advantage to losing your capital thanks to the “In Exile” rule. While losing your capital means you will only get half of your income, units you do purchase will appear in any of your allies capitals. Fewer units in a better position can often be far more effective then lots of units at a distance. This rule results in suddenly two nations producing units out of one capital, a dangerous situation for opponents. This can create huge power shifts in localized areas and taking control of one capital makes it that much harder to take the next one. This is in part why capital victories I think will be very rare in this game and you also have to consider how wise it is to stretch your forces just to take one.

The next very subtle but critically important element of the game are the battle cards. What a fantastic mechanic this is. The battle cards effectively represent some historical events, but what they really are, is a mechanic which can punish or help the loser of a battle. These cards are drawn by the loser of a land battle and they can and often do create shifts in resources, positions and conditions of the war. What is great is that after a few games with the same nation, you get to know the battle cards and their is a bit of card counting involved. You will know what cards have been played and what cards are left in your deck. This I think will make a difference as you gain experience, as battle cards can have some very significant effects and anticipating them will make a difference.

For example in my most recent game I scored a critical victory against the British at an important moment that had them on the ropes. It was one of those moments where a plan came together, it was absolutely crushing to the enemy and me and my allies saw our path to victory. However to our surprise the British player drew “The Spanish Treasure Squadron” giving them +10 Income on their next purchase. This turned out to be devastating as they were able to get just enough recovery to prevent defeat and not only reclaim the critical territory but eventually swing the tides of the whole war. I won’t forget about that card anytime soon.

It was a fantastic (albeit soul crushing) and memorable moment in the game, it told a story and thanks to the thematic aspect of the cards felt like a piece of history was infused into the game. This is what these battle cards were meant to do and they deliver on that promise splendidly.

Finally I have to say that the game is beautifully balanced. This is not a game where one really smart or lucky player will just dominate the board, or where events unfold in a lop sided fashion even in the face of the randomness of the dice and cards. There are no nations with an advantage or any issues with the starting conditions, though both are asymmetrical. Every game of Napoleon’s Imperium, in fact, every round of N.I. was nail bitingly close. The game has that maddening back and forth of plays and counter plays. It just feels like the game has this perfect equilibrium where at any given moment it’s not entirely clear who is actually winning. Everyone always has a weak spot somewhere that can be exposed, shocking shit happens all the time and anytime I think someone is winning, something happens and the whole thing falls back into a scrappy war of attrition until the final moments of the game.

I love a good balanced game, especially one that is as long as Napoleon’s Imperium is. While player elimination does take place, their are rules that offer ways out of this as well (Rebellion Rule) which I absolutely adore! and because it’s a team game, even if your nation is getting crushed, typically you are as invested in your allies strategies and plans as you are in your own, so you never really feel out of the game. I saw this effect in Larry Harris’s War Room as well and this team based approach is quickly becoming my new favorite way to handle long 8+ hour event games like this one.

The game suffers from some fairly significant downtimes and while I would argue on it’s behalf that this is what you get when you play long epic war games, in N.I. its particularly problematic when playing with uneven player counts. In a 5 player game for example you have three players running two nations and two players running one nation. This results in those single nation players having to wait out 7 turns (typically 35-45 minutes before they get to do anything). Now obviously as a team game everyone is invested, but because each player takes their complete turn before anyone else has anything to do (short of defending an attack), it can be kind of boring to sit their for that long while you wait, in particular if you nation fairs poorly in the war.

I don’t want to harp on the use of tokens in this game more than I have already and I’m sure I will sound spoiled when I say this, but as a whole the game is not exactly a visual treat to look at. Waiting for your turn while staring at a bunch of cardboard tokens, watching people count, recount and make change all the time. Let’s just say some of the excitement will exit the room.

Is this a huge problem or even a negative aspect of the game? I would argue no, to me a long game is a long game, you know what your getting into with games of this weight and size and you shouldn’t play games like this if downtime bothers you, it comes with the territory. I think its fair to mention it in a review, but unfair to judge a game based on it. Judging a game that is intentionally long for being too long is like going to see a Star Wars movie and complaining about their being too many Stormtroopers.

Replayability and Longevity

Score: 
Tilt: 

Pros: Great dynamics make this game very replayable and its simple mechanics makes it easy to pull out with just about anyone, no major rules overhead to exclude less experienced gamers adding to its appeal. Very solo friendly.

Cons:  It’s a game that may struggle to define it’s place in your gaming group, when do you pull this out?

It’s always tricky to talk about replayability and longevity of a game that takes 8+ hours to play. I mean realistically, I will likely play this game once or twice a year at absolute best if I’m lucky even if my entire gaming group loves it. It has nothing to do with the games replayability and everything to do with normal schedules of people, we just don’t have the kind of time a game like this demands with any regularity, desire plays no part in that. For this reason this game goes into either the lifestyle category or event category of games, for me it would be the ladder.

I guess the question here is more about whether or not this game could be a lifestyle game for a gaming group and/or if it hits that event game status. Whether it’s good enough as a game for players to put together that monthly game, build events around it and/or play it for years and years. Such games are rare, because they have some pretty high standards to meet that go above and beyond your standard board game for board game night. The competition for such table slots is quite fierce.

In a way Andrew Roland the designer of Napoleon’s Imperium kind of answers that question with a resounding yes. He’s been playing this game for decades, but the catch is, he hasn’t been using the Compass Games version of the game. He has been building elaborate tables and investing in expanding components to raise this games event worthiness as a game. It became a lifestyle and event game for his gaming group through that act of elaborating on the visuals, bringing the game into the 3rd dimension, giving it that gorgeous presentation. To me this is a precedent set by the designer for this game and I agree with that precedent, this is really what a game needs to be to hit that lifestyle/event game status.

For me it’s certainly tempting to try and recreate something like that. N.I. has that “casual gamer” quality to it, which means that this is a game you can teach to effectively anyone, non-gamers (with interest) included. It’s not difficult and their is something charming about having a game setup in a hobby room that you play over many sessions at random intervals as part of a close nit group of friends who share an interest. The game certainly tells great stories with big impactful events and it has a kind of renaissance charm to it.

I can totally imagine how with a beautiful looking hobby table filled with gorgeous miniatures on a huge map, this game can definitely fit that lifestyle/event game category. I don’t really see any problems with it mechanically for this to be true.

This is not however what you get with the Compass Games version of the game of course. With Napoleon’s Imperium the board game their is an absence of this visual appeal substituted with rather clumsy tokens that do little to inspire that visual experience. The map is big and beautiful, so there is that, but I would say if you are going to make this an event game, you would need to do as Andrew did and pimp out the components to give this game that satisfying visual appeal. Event games need to have a high level of presentation, games like Twilight Imperium or War Room come to mind as examples. If these games didn’t have that visual component, they would not qualify for that lifestyle category either, it really is a part of it, at least for me and my friends.

I think mechanically the game certainly has infinite replayability, I see no issue in which things would become predictable and repetitive. This game has plenty of dynamic elements, every experience with this game will be unique. In terms of longevity, I don’t see any issue either, you aren’t going to play this game all the time simply because it’s so long, but because the rules are easy to learn, you can safely setup events with players who have never played before, teach them what they need to know on the spot and have a great event. This is a very charming feature of the game and actually rather rare for a game like this especially among big event games. I love my War Room and Twilight Imperium, but these are complex games that take time to learn. N.I. does not have that problem. That approachability gives this game a real edge in this regard.

It’s also a very solo friendly game, there is no hidden information, its very straightforward with everything on the table exposed. This is a make your best move scenario which is perfect for solo play, something I think historical war game fans will appreciate.

My only concern about this game as a day(s) event is that I think at least in my gaming group, the visuals aren’t strong enough to make the event feel substantial as N.I. comes packaged in this release. Our big gaming events are about getting into the spirit of the moment, creating an atmosphere, collectively we want to make things memorable. It isn’t just about gameplay, its about the experience.

The board game version of N.I. really lacks that event game spunk that is needed. I think my conclusion in this regard is, yes, the game has great replayability, great longevity, no issues their, but no, it doesn’t tick all the required boxes to make this a lifestyle or big event game, this release is missing one of the key components (aka the visual component) to really nail that side of it firmly.

Conclusion

My journey with Napoleon’s Imperium, in particular this review, was a bit turbulent at times and it’s because I would be lying if I didn’t admit that my ability to review it impartially was significantly compromised. Andrew’s story and the history of the making of this game is something that warms the heart and makes you a believer. This game is a guy’s decades long dream come true and as I reviewed this game, that always weighed heavily on my mind. I chose my words extra carefully, I struggled to be purely objective and sufficiently removed. On the one hand is my need for pure honesty and integrity as I review a game, on the other, I want to give this game a hug and hope Andrew feels it.

If I were to make this short and sweet, this is a really amazing game that services a really cool niche in my collection. A big, elaborate war game that I can teach to anyone very easily, that is both fun to play, stirs the imagination and has enough depth that my notably simpleton historical war gaming spidey senses tingle. Its a good time in a box, its very solo- able which is always a big plus for me and if I find this game sticks the landing with my group, I will pimp the living shit out of it because I already believe it to be … pimp worthy. It has everything but the visuals to make the grade as a truly wonderful game for those big board gaming event weekends.

In contrast however this is a really expensive game, at $120-150 US, what you get in the box, and perhaps partially what you don’t, I can only describe as average and a bit disappointing, less then what you might expect at this price. It’s a pretty game artistically speaking but the included components, not only makes this feel like a poor value at this price point, but the fact that this really is an event level game in its soul means its lack of pizazz and visual appeal really detracts from the potential experience of that big get together.

This is a game that competes for table time with other very visual games like Twilight Imperium, War Room, Axis & Allies and many other “event” or “lifestyle” games of similar caliber, at least it will in my gaming group. Its going to be struggle to get this on the table on big board gaming weekends in my group considering it’s competition and again, it’s far too long of a game for those midweek board game nights.

For me it’s rather heartbreaking to be in a situation where I can’t recommend a game I consider truly great outright because of a cost to value problem. I want to tell you that this is an amazing game, your supporting a great cause and just bloody buy it. All those things are true and I look back on my purchase regret free.

Considering the cost of the game however, I think it’s important to ask yourself the two important questions before you whip out that credit card. When will you play this monster and who will you play it with?

I gave Napoleon’s Imperium a strong score because I believe it’s a great game and I think it has a bright future. I wish Andrew Roland all the luck in the world and I hope that at some point, a publisher will recognize the far greater potential of this game and give it the mega publication with all the bells and whistles it deserves. For now, as the game is today, all I can say is that it’s a pricey investment for what you get in the box. If you got the cash, a willing gaming group and a heart, you won’t be disappointed. Besides supporting a game and designer like this is what our gaming community is all about, Compass Games did their part, so your contribution would go to a great cause.

Was this review compromised, was I objective enough? I plead the 5th!

As a matter of principle I pride myself on the fact that I’m a diverse gamer who always keeps an open mind to any game, but for the past 15 years since Twilight Struggle released I have resisted it simply because I honestly have no interest in the cold war at all. Having lived through the tail end of it myself, even as it was happening I barely understood it nor cared to know anything about it.

Yet I find myself somewhat obligated to try it as a writer for a gaming blog to play games like Twilight Struggle that are universally hailed as masterpieces, in particular a game that held on to the number one spot on Boardgamegeek for years and still ranks in the top 10 today 15 years after its release.

Finally after years of avoiding it I gave it a try, first by playing the digital version and now the physical version. Today we review Twilight Struggle, 15 years behind schedule!

Overview

Final Score:  (3.35 out of 5 Stars)

Designer: Ananda Gupta, Jason Matthews

Twilight Struggle is thematically a game about the cold war in which players via for power over a map of the globe in a “struggle for global supremacy. Always on the brink of nuclear war, players manipulate and maneuver the abstracted concept of influence on the board as they try to dominate entire regions from the America’s to Southeast Asia and everything in-between.

In more practical terms its a game about victory points, scored through a wide range of methods but most notably through the scoring cards that reward control on the map. Each round players can play only a single card at a time from their hand in a back and forth battle to manipulate the board and events on the global stage in their favor. This process is further complicated by the fact that there are American friendly cards and Soviet friendly cards in the single deck from which both players draw cards. Hence as an American player for example you will at times be forced to execute events on cards that benefit your opponent and vice versus, leaving much of the games strategy to timing. Any given card can be super powerful or super weak, depending on when it is played and much of the strategy and sort of high level thinking behind the game lives in this space of assessing when exactly that is.

The game largely comes down to who can best balance the benefits and drawbacks of the cards, timing of when they are played and smart positioning of your influence. There is some luck to the game as players take some of the more riskier moves like waging mini wars in different regions, performing coups or trying to win the space race, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a skilled player will always win against a lucky player, hence the luck can be mitigated entirely through tactical and strategic game play.

Twilight Struggle is an award winning game and I have no trouble understanding why. Its a game that is incredibly simple to learn how to play, yet bottomless in terms of depth of strategy and gameplay, it is very much like a game of chess where learning the rules of the game is just the beginning of what is a much larger world that surrounds the mechanic.

There is of course more to it then this brief description but it suffices to say that the game looks far more complex then it is, though it has the look of a war game it most certainly is not one and the basis of its duel use card mechanic is a tried and true one responsible for some of the best games on the market today in the genre of historical war games.

The only question that remains is does Twilight Struggle really earn its keep with me, or is it like many of the top 10 contenders on Boardgamegeek overrated?

Components

Score: 
Tilt:

Pros:   Its a beautiful game, plain and simple, capturing via colors and art perfectly and the innate feel of the cold war.

Cons:  Like most GMT games, the cards are of such high quality stock that they are almost too stiff to shuffle.

GMT games is probably not known for high quality components, though it should be! In fact they should be famous for changing the reputation of historical simulation games and war games in this regard, as the more commonly known “chit games” have always been notoriously poor quality. Back in the day when a lot of these types of “token based” war and simulation games where made they were known for having really shitty components, poorly written manuals for really complex games, lack of “color” and artistic style. They focused on gameplay but never components. GMT has changed all that and shown that you can have the best of both worlds.

In fact, some of the GMT games on my shelf like B-17 Flying Fortress Leader and Empire of the Sun are among the most beautiful table decorations I own, with some of the highest quality components I have ever seen in a game. Twilight Struggle (current printing) benefits from this change and GMT provides truly high quality, gorgeous components for the game with an artistic flair that just fits. Yet their wise enough to understand that I want to pay for a game, not fancy miniatures, something that has grown incredibly tiresome in today’s gaming market where games are five times as expensive then they need to be just to have some plastic representation that serve no purpose in the game-play at all. This annoys me to no end and I’m glad GMT understands that good components does not mean wasting my money on pointless and usually unnecessary plastic sculpts while simultaneously ugly components devoid of any art or style, are just as distracting and disturb enjoyment of the game. The middle ground they found is exactly what I like to see in games today.

The mounted gameboard is astonishingly colorful, wonderfully illustrated and incredibly useful (for gameplay) in terms of organization and layout. It makes playing the game easier, faster and makes grasping its concepts simpler, serving not only the aesthetic but practical purpose for the game. I love that and GMT should be commended for how well thought out the game-board is. Somehow they managed to capture the color theme of the cold war as one might imagine it with the deep dark blood reds of the Soviets and the cool, clean blues of the Americans. This is a game-board you will just love owning, giving you that warm fuzzy feeling of money well spent.

The cards and tokens in the game are also of the absolute highest quality you can get, truly made to last with a lot of thought going into the legibility and usability of both, not overwhelming them with art and color but ensuring that each component has thematic weight and recognizably. In fact after a few plays of Twilight Struggle I can tell you what each card does just by the picture and I have the memory capacity of a goldfish. Unfortunately GMT has a tendency to make the card stock too rigid, they are actually difficult to shuffle.

I would not consider component quality a huge must for a game like this, but the fact that the components are great is a huge boon for the game, I love being surprised and impressed by something unexpected, it carries a lot of weight with me.

Theme

Score: 
Tilt:

Pros:  Its difficult to imagine a game capturing a theme better, this is the cold war in a box.

Cons:  Your interest in the theme will have different mileage, its not exactly the most interesting of subjects.

I walked into Twilight Struggle with very limited if any understanding or interest in the cold war, yet after playing the game I have found myself engrossed in the subject going so far as reading books on the topic. To me, when a board game not only teaches but creates interest in a subject, its an automatic win in the theme department and Twilight Struggle has certainly done that with a very large, nuclear bang.

Twilight Struggle does an amazing job of creating that anxiety of the cold war in which there is a constant move and counter move as was often the case historically between the Americans and the Soviets. That feeling of being limited to what you can do out of fear of the ultimate consequence. There is a kind of sense of scale as well and the weight of players actions create a constant re-assessment in trying to understand the “why” of each play. Every card play, reveals something about your opponents strategy, yet you can’t help but imagine the world in which these events take place thanks in large part to the clever way in which cards and history are linked.

Because each card represents an actual event in history and the draw deck is broken down into early, mid and late war cards gradually shuffled into the main deck, their is a kind of progression through history that you feel through the cards as they are played. Even the focus of what regions are important, the fluctuations in where the influential political battlefields are and the places were it all takes place breathes life into the thematic and often historically accurate feel of the game, yet it is not scripted and each game you play you get a truly unique alternate version of history.

I think Twilight Struggle has done an incredible job of bringing the theme of the cold war to life, in particular in making you feel that anxiety of the era. Its truly an amazing sensation that even now I find difficult to describe but as I write I can’t help but to nod my head in agreement and understanding of why this game was both so popular, highly rated and won so many awards. Its a beautiful coordination between theme and game-play deserving of all its accolades.

Gameplay

Score: 
Tilt:

Pros:  The card mechanic is brilliantly done, with lots of difficult decisions and interesting strategies to explore while being relatively easy to teach the rules.

Cons:  The game favors the soviets and the game suffers from an overwhelming expert syndrome problem that can make it difficult to induct to players.

Twilight Struggle is hardly the first game to make use of the card driven “operation costs” mechanic we see in the game at its core, but what is surprising is that a game with this mechanic could become such a hit with the general gaming public. Topping the charts on BBG (boardgamegeek), Twilight Struggle has achieved considerable acclaim considering its historical war game roots.

We see this mechanic in classics like For the People, Washington’s War and Empire of the Sun, attributed largely to the wonderful designer Mark Herman. Yet Twilight Struggle somehow manages to improve on the concept mainly by simplifying it down to its basics and implementing it in a simple way mechanically while gripping tightly to the reason for its existence, that deep strategic core that drives paralysis analysis. I think Mark Herman is a great designer but he designs games for war gamers and it really took someone more in tune with the general board game culture to understand how to leverage this mechanic in a way that it could be absorbed by more casual gamers which make up the vast majority of people out there rolling dice. I really think its this leveraging of Mark Hermans great revolution in game design that has produced a game like Twilight Struggle, yet Ananda Gupta and Jason Mathews also really opened the door into some interesting elements of play that don’t really exist in the Herman design on which Twilight Struggle is based.

This is a mechanic you will be thinking as much about during the game as between games, as its a an endless well of potential and its why so many of Mark Hermans games are so highly regarded among war gamers, yet Twilight Struggle in my eyes simply does it better than all of its predecessors in many ways. Not necessarily because it goes deeper but rather by making the experience far more palatable, approachable and easier to absorb. Twilight Struggle is a game you can teach in 10 minutes flat with few “exception based” rules that can make so many historical war games difficult to manage at the table and while a novice opponent may struggle to beat a more experienced player speaking to its depth, it won’t be the result of not understanding how to play. This is a vast contrast to most games that use this card driven mechanic that really require considerable amount of study just to play correctly. One exception might be Washingtons War which I found had a very similar feel, yet lacked the depth of card play that Twilight Struggle has.

More than that however, Twilight Struggle creates a sort of static zone of gameplay. There aren’t infinite possibilities and combinations and though from play to play you will always be surprised by the way cards and situations combine, there is a tone to the game, a strategic playing field that a single person can absorb, understand and work within thanks to the fact that in playing the game your not constantly trying to remember the many rules and exceptions to interactions as is the case in so many of the games where this mechanic appears. Its why I say its a better version of the game as it has considerably fewer if any “gotcha” moments in the rules, yet has them in immense quantity in terms of game-play.

Don’t get me wrong I love Empire of the Rising Sun, Washington’s War and even Paths of Glory, but I never feel comfortable pulling these games out with a friend and saying “hey lets play a fun game” even though I desperately want to play those games with someone because they really are amazing. They just require a lot more explanation and understanding of rules to really play even remotely competitively and really the first few games of these great titles are going to be very much learning the rules games. Even after playing them many times, it still can feel like a bit of a grind to get through them. Twilight Struggle is the first game in this vein I have seen that I really believe anyone can learn to play in 10 minutes from opening the box and that just makes this a gem among gems.

Twilight Struggle gameplay is all about subtle plays and I have to admit the first few times I played it, even though it always drew me back, I felt helpless and limp. It was easy to learn how to play, but learning to play it well really required some study, understanding of the cards, the subtle interactions of those cards and the importance of key locations and most importantly paying attention to what has and hasn’t been played. In a sense this is a drawback of Twilight Struggle. It suffers from what I like to call “expert syndrome” where new players don’t have a prayer in hell winning against someone who has a few games under their belt, which notably is not an uncommon phenomenon among strategic war games, but at least the cause is not the lack of understanding the rules which is more typically the case with all other games I have played in this vein.

When it comes to the road to experience mileage will vary, I have found some get it right away, others struggle with the subtle way the game is manipulated card play to card play. In fact I have found that non-gamer or casual gamers tend to pick it up faster then veteran gamers that enter the scene with a lot of expectation and assumption from the genre. This may explain why its so popular on boardgamegeek.

Still I found that when I teach the game I spend as much time explaining the rules as I do giving strategy tips and advice. Most players become competitive only after many plays and only IF they like the game initially which filters out a lot of people, in fact most people. If you can manage to find someone who sticks with it during this learning the strategy curve, the game not only becomes absolutely amazing, but extraordinarily diverse.

You will never play the same game twice especially since every opponent will ultimately develop their own style and approach to the game. That is assuming you can hook them which is a iffy proposition. The subject matter and the complexity of the strategy that really favors expertise can be a real turn off in the initial plays and it will take many plays for a player to really become competitive against someone who has already gone through this cycle of learning and developing their skills.

I do find some flaws with the mechanic as well. For one, its clear to me that the Soviet player has a significant advantage. This is not just a sort of personal opinion but a fact based statistical reality. No matter where you turn for these statistics, tournaments, online play in the digital version of the game or personal experience the win rate of the Soviet is ALWAYS much higher then the Americans. I think this is mainly because the turn order does not change and the Soviet Player starts with that powerful China card, but it could be a other subtle elements combined that drive the results.

This can be a deal breaker because all things being equal the Soviet player will win more often than the American player. An American victory is a far more respected and coveted thing in my eyes, but it does not change this simple flaw in the game.

At its core, Twilight Struggle is a game of chess, a battle of wits in which you analyze your opponents plays to asses what he may or may not be after and I think really experienced players will make intentionally misleading plays to try and trick their opponent into believing in certain assumptions. This of course assumes that both opponents are experts, so when novice players who don’t know the cards are involved this tends to carry considerably less weight if any, but I suppose to some extent this is always true about strategic war games.

Which brings me to my point. Twilight Struggle may indeed be a much simpler to absorb and understand game rules wise but it is no less deep and strategic then your typical high level war game which kind of creates an unusual circumstance in the hobby. Here is a game anyone can learn to play but it exists in that same plane as Empire of the Rising Sun or Paths of Glory. Removing the complexity is ingenious but it does result in this weird space were highly experienced war games playing casual gamers creates a very wide gap of gaming results.

I can say already now that I have a grip of this game that 95% of all people I play against I beat by the 3rd or 4th turn definitively in what can only be described as a crushing defeat. Its rare that I run across a player who has studied the game enough to really give me any semblance of competitive play. It did not take long for me to get here, but it did require a much bigger effort then simply a few plays. Reading and understanding the cards, the structure and format of the game where key to bringing me up to this level. This is the main distinction between war gamers and casual gamers, one studies games the other plays them, however when you make a game like Twilight Struggle that is interesting and simple enough for casual gamers, yet is very much on that higher plane of war gaming two worlds collide.

Replayability And Longevity

Score: 
Tilt:

Pros:  The various interactions of the cards and situations on the board can make this a puzzle to solve every time you play.

Cons:  Strangely enough, it takes repeated plays before you really learn how to play well and once you do, the game starts to feel a bit scripted.

Twilight Struggle has been a top ten contender on boardgamegeek for over a decade and this comes to no surprise to me, however I personally believe that it can act as an entry point to a much larger world less visited by the casual gamers out there for which I appreciate it a lot more. Twilight Struggle can act as an introduction to the concept of true war high level war gaming and I think its a great place to start if you have interested in exploring this very different type of experience in the world of table top games. Washington’s War, Paths of Glory, Empire of the Sun and We The People are just some of the amazing games that use this core mechanic and are absolute gems worth your time to expand to.

That said, I do think that Twilight Struggle can become a bit scripted after sufficient plays, in particular if you are playing the same opponent repeatedly. I find most players find some rhythm to how they approach the game and so will you, so games can start to sort of meld together into a single memory.

Still I think there is definitely enough replay-ability to warrant a purchase of this game, I think I may have been spoiled by the digital version where I have already clocked over a 100 games. That is not something you are likely to do with the table top version.

Conclusion

What can I say about this game that hasn’t already been said by countless fans, its a gem worth your money. I would only caution those with no interest in the sort of historical war game genre that while this game is certainly not a war game, it definitely has that “history genre game” feel to it and that may be the reason I love it and someone else may not. It also requires repeatedly plays before you will really understand what to do and how to win, so you will loose a lot at first and there is no shortcut to that as the subtle ways the cards interact and what they can do needs to be nearly memorized to really get to that fundamental core strategy that fans of this game love.

At its core there is an amazing mechanic here and even if abstracted outside of the theme there are some amazing puzzles to solve generated dynamically through game-play. The game is full of really tough decisions, its over flowing with amazing “holy crap” swings and there is no such thing as a game you can’t come back from. I have one games where I’m at -19 points during mid war, so there is this really amazing “there is always a way to win” feel to it.

Great game, highly recommend it!