Second Impressions

[Adam Parker]

Before preparing these thoughts, I figured I'd load up Panzer General 1 to see if my nostalgic reminisces regarding it had been correct. Warning - getting PG1 to load under Windows XP is a game in itself! I got it going though and it confirmed a few things.

1. The Feel

The developers of Commander Napoleon at War (CNaW) have their hearts and intent in the right place. The game has a definite beer and pretzels feel to it. What I mean by that, is in CNaW you feel like you're concentrating on nothing but strategy and fighting. There are not a lot of rules to grasp, things are fairly intuitive. You can walk away from the game and come back to it without taxing the memory. And ... it is a game of many abstractions.

2. To Fix So Far

a) Why is the Suez Canal in this game? Napoleon envisaged it and even started work on it but abandoned the effort as too hard given the day. The Canal is a 1850-60's invention and should not therefore form a lifeline to the player owning Alexandria via strategic movement - and a special rule.

b) The Waterloo scenario description as reported, lists Moscow as a VP location. The scenario itself is correct in omitting it.

c) The page numbers in the PDF rule book are garbled after page 22.

d) The strategic AI? Still unable to say but the developers are already on top of this. Does the AI build Generals? Unable to say at this stage too.

3. What to Add

Immediately it become obvious in play, that the developers omitted two essential play aids found in PG1 and hopefully these can be retro-fitted with ease.

a) The game definitely needs an "Undo Move" button. Given the interface is it quite easy to toggle the wrong option at times or end a unit's movement with a wayward click. PG1's undo feature is a must have - ie: undo so long as fog of war is not broken by a move.

b) Similarly the game would benefit from an "End Turn" confirmation pop-up, beingit's just as easy to send the AI off on its turn by a wayward click or forget something like building or placing units on map. How about some prompts regarding these actions too?

c) I'd also be a fan of color-coded unit bases in this game. Given the 3d unit art, it at times becomes hard to see units against the imo beatiful map, especially given the busier color schemes than with PG1. The game's 2d "counters" are an option and a good one but they really do look bland which is a shame. I'd be very grateful for someone to mod these into a more glamorous look. I feel that this game actually would work better as a whole in 2d.

4. What's Good

Given the AI fix in the works. I'm happy to say that the operational AI is doing a great job on both the offense and defense - and on the default setting. Well done! I do have faith in the developers getting the overall AI going given this and if so, kudos.

The scenarios offered span the gamut of the Napoleonic Wars and the 1805 campaign offers that which owners of AGEOD's game wished it would. A first for a Nap PC game in recent memory.

5. What Feels Odd

However, given that campaign, this is where things start to feel strange and it's going to be up to the player's ability to suspend disbelief, as to whether CNaW offers a compelling gaming experience. I'm borderline right now.

Basically, what is the unit size? If it's meant to be Corps, then it really stretches the imagination, to command corps of light cavalry, heavy cavaly, light infantry, artillery et al.

PG1 gets away with it but more so, because its scenarios are operational rather than strategic - and there is indeed, an arguable difference between an infantry-heavy corps vs a tank-heavy one. I'd even argue the unit scale in PG1 is divisional. In PG1 arty units can be viewed as corps-assets. What are these arty unit counters in CnAW - and why are they able to fire almost the length and breadth of a small-sized country? This really begins to push the limits of gameplay enjoyment.

Which leads to the inclusion of Scientists in CNaW. One can estimate this as being lifeline to the RTS/Civ type of player. But including research paths really spoils the feel of what is intended to be a game of fighting. Couldn't R&D have been incorporated behind the scenes into this game? Refitting already accompanies a large degree of abstraction - but at least it can be argued to be operational.

Again, given the tilt to furnish gamers with a Civ mix of unit types and R&D paths, these dsign decisions offer a major distraction to a player seeking to become immersed into the role of Emperor, Coalition leader or monarch.

6. What Could Have Been?

The lure and offer of a campaign scenario spanning some 160 turns is immense. However, how could CNaW have obviated its distractions in bringing it about?

Two options seem possible:

1) Rather than unit types, offer units purely a mixed-type Corps. A single icon, one icon fits all. May be boring but then make the principal differentiating factor, its General. In fact, why not do as AGEOD has tried in its game. Maneuver icons of General's with portraits rather than 3d soldiers. Leave the R&D path behind the scenes. Offer countries unit upgrades based on an historical possibility of outcome. In this way leadership, experience, elan, training etc become the principal factors behind a unit's on map rating. Does away with the "what is a corps of light cavalry" type of question.

2. If the developers truly want to differentiate units based on types, then change the scale of the game to Divisional and change the make-up of scenarios to Operational - and also just like PG1, give players an interactive, linked campaign tree.

7. Summary

These are just broad thoughts based on some regular play. Is CNaW enjoyable as is? Yes. Brilliant? Based on the design decisions elaborated above, no. It will be a game that once played to succession will likely be put away. There just does not seem to be enough motivation for the gamer to go on. Lost is the progression through scenarios where players can build elite units and mother them across Europe ala PG1. Lost is the feel of scale which in PG1 was abstract enough already!

One does not feel like a Napoleon, Blucher or Wellington imo. In fact, given the right outcome in combat, you can actually take these leaders out of the game by wounding them! Then what? Napoleon is out of the game for 16 turns and I'm currently role-playing whom? CNaW is a very mixed bag.

Want a beer and pretzels game that actually works and is easy to learn. Buy it! But want a classic? This alas won't imo be it.

I'll still keep playing it and will await that big patch from the developers. Be great if they can also tweak the UI as asked. CNaW is not a bad game, it's just one that will take coming to grips with its abstraction a lot more, than other games of its genre. And of those there aren't that many!

For those who hate monster games, thankfully this is not "Forge of the Emperor" (CoG2) or "Grigsby Does Napoleon" but then again, is this really Napoleon at all?

Happy gaming,
Adam.

Edit: Typos.

[Kipper]

Well done and thanks for this Adam.
Given the strategic AI issues are there many scenarios that can be played out of the box while we wait for the patch?
Kipper

[Adam Parker]

Thanks Kipper.

I'd say all are playable vs the AI on default as is - if you take into account one important thing: These scenarios have been designed pretty much as puzzles against the clock - much like some of the scenarios in the original Panzer General but with a very warped scale. The feel is tactical as a result, when it shouldn't be.

For example, here's what you get in the 1815 Scenario:

It's only 5 hexes from Paris to Brussels - and a French artillery unit 2 hexes outside Paris, can hit Brussels! Big Bertha?!

So you feel like you're moving "regiments" with way-out-of-scale abilities (when in fact they're supposedly corps), in order to take geographic objectives against the clock, where a turn represents mutliples of weeks.

Instead of feeling the march of the Grande Armee, you feel like you're playing Steel Panthers.

If you can live with this huge level of abstraction and like the "solve the puzzle" type experience, the game plays fine out of the box as is.

The more I ponder about it, the more I wonder if I'm playing the game because its simple, stable and I have nothing else to amuse me on the PC screen at the moment [&:]

[GaryChildress]

Thanks also, Adam! This gives me something tangible to chew on as well. You are a great asset to the Matrix forums! Thank you for participating! [:)]

I think I will probably purchase this game as my first Napoleonic wargame. I just need to wait a little while to build my game allowance again since I just purchased Commander - Europe at War a few days ago. So far CEaW has been a GREAT wargaming experience for me. Fortunately artillery is purely an abstraction in CEaW so no "Big Berthas" there. I'm glad they decided to expand on the CEaW engine to include Napoleon. I just hope Matrix comes through on a better AI patch. Matrix has always been good about patches in my book so hopefully it won't be too long.

Gary

PS. A World War II, Pacific version of CEaW would be great too IMO. [8D]