Shadow of the Eagles game - concluding thoughts

So, as sun goes down over the fictitious town of Nebenstrom, the French withdraw from the field and the Prussians are left to count the cost of their victory.

It had certainly been a close game and the scenario worked quite well. It provided just enough background to keep things interesting but was simple enough not to distract me from getting to grips with the rules. I think my idea of using an off-table brigade for each side, and rolling for its arrival each turn, helped add an extra bit of suspense.

The odds were probably stacked slightly against the French, seeing as they had some difficult terrain to get through on their way towards the town. They also suffered from a bit of bad luck in terms of their deployment and the later arrival of their off-table brigade.

The Prussian deployment wasn't perfect though, and it took a long time for their second infantry brigade to advance round on the right and cross the woods and stream. In the end, they didn't really do much in the battle, but they arrived just in time to keep the French reinforcements occupied.

I thought the Prussian cavalry gave a good account of themselves. They had to pull back out of the fight near the end, but by then they'd done enough to keep the French cavalry busy and disrupt the advance of Boche's infantry brigade towards to town. Having the landwehr reinforcements arriving on the Prussian left flank was a stroke of luck. Even though all three units were eventually routed, they played their part in distracting the French from their objective.

The fight for the town itself was pretty exciting, going back and forth. I have heard that some players are considering a modification to the rules for fighting in built-up areas, and I can understand why. It does feel a bit odd that you would still make use of line and column formations rather than skirmish or some sort of open order, but then again – in this game at least – it did all work out fine as far as providing a satisfying narrative of attack/repulse/counter-attack etc. I would maybe think about tweaking the use of formations in BUAs, and I will be interested to find out on the SotE forum what ideas other people might have, but on the whole I don't think I'll be too quick to dive in and change that much just yet. It was only one game after all.

Did I make any blunders?

Hopefully not too many! As I say, this was only my second outing. I think I got most of it right. Probably the most important thing I forgot about (and it is an optional rule anyway) was reserve movement. This allows units to move more quickly when they are a certain distance away from the enemy. I suddenly remembered about it at the start of turn 4, but by then it made more sense just to ignore it and carry on. I think I'll keep it in mind for future games. On a 6 x 4 foot table using the suggested measurements for 20mm figures, there is definitely scope for moving the units more quickly into the action.

The only other part of the rules I was unsure about was fighting in squares. I'm not entirely convinced I got this right. Essentially, I wasn't sure if I was rolling the correct number of combat dice for the French square when it was being attacked by the Prussian landwehr. I need to check this. In the end, the important thing was that I was happy that the outcome felt right. The Prussians basically ruined themselves in trying to break the square, and their fall back move precipitated the complete rout of the already severely weakened Prussian left flank. It was a memorable gaming moment, and this battle provided a clutch of them, which I think is a good sign you've had good fun.

(EDIT: Keith has kindly pointed out that one thing I did get wrong was my calculation victory points. Given that it's only about a third of a page of text, I really should have done a quick refresh before playing! There's more to it than just the basic totals I used (or 'Losses' to use the proper rule term). Wounded units are taken into account, as are leader casualties and the taking and retaking of objectives. In the end, using the correct method gave more or less the same result, and it still would have gone down to the final turn. I'll pay more attention to this next time!)

Movement

If there is one thing that makes me shy away from any game, it is complicated movement rules. In fact, I seem to have a developed a natural aversion to using any kind of measuring device these days. It's probably the reason why I haven't ventured much beyond my comfort zone of hex-based games like Commands & Colors. I'm happy to say, though, that Shadow of the Eagles doesn't burden you with complications when it comes to moving your toy soldiers around the table. The basic Napoleonic formations are represented (line, column, square, skirmish), and the table of movement rates for those formations and troop types are not too complicated once you get your head around it. Columns are good for moving your troops quickly about the battlefield, but you'll generally want to be in line formation when it comes down to shooting and fighting. Nice and simple really.

Firing

There is a separate firing phase in SotE, which is pretty straightforward. The most significant thing to point out is that all firing is simultaneous. I like that a lot. There is a shooting penalty for any significant moves, so stationary units will usually fair better against other units that advance and then engage in ranged combat in the same turn. Artillery didn't feel overpowered, but over the course of a few turns it has the potential to cause at least one or two hits on the enemy, enough to make a difference when that unit then tries to get stuck in. You're unlikely to destroy your opponent with artillery fire, but you can certainly soften them up a bit before your infantry and cavalry are sent in.

One thing to note about artillery is that the arc of fire is straight ahead, so careful positioning of artillery pieces in movement phase is important. I did wonder whether I might add a rule to allow for at least some small pivoting before each piece fires. If you move first in a turn, it's possible that your nicely lined-up target of infantry in column will simply march out of the sight of your guns. That could be a bit frustrating, but then again maybe that's the point.

A final thing I should say about firing, and about the accumulation of hits resulting from it, is that I didn't use the rules for skirmish screens in my game. It will be interesting to try out the skirmish screen rules next time round and see what effect it has.

Charging and combat

Charging takes place first in the movement phase and is one of the most interesting aspects of the rules. There are two stages to it, the first being closing fire and the second being the charge resolution. Both sides fire during the charge (including any nearby supporting units with line of sight, provided they successfully activate). If not enough damage is done to halt the chargers or drive off the defenders, then the two units will fight in the close combat phase.

I really like this aspect of the rules. It happened once or twice in my game that a charge failed to go in because the defender caused enough hits to weaken the charging unit. Equally, there were times when the attacker managed to drive off the defender before the two sides closed.

Close combats are usually resolved in one turn, one way or another. This isn't a game that will give you turn after turn where two units are grinding it out, and it's all the better for it. Usually one side will be forced to fall back or will rout altogether, depending on how damaged it already is. The victor might pursue, or might not. This leads to interesting decisions about what to do in the following turns. Do you try to rally your battered units before sending them into the fight again next turn, or do try to swap them out for fresh units? Do you press your advantage and pursue a retreating enemy, or do you hold your ground and consolidate?

There are some dice modifications to take into account when rolling combat dice, just as there is with firing. However, these are very few in number, and it's something else I was glad about. I don't usually like games where there are large tables of modifiers to consult. The ones in SotE are easy to memorise.

Morale and rallying

I didn't say all that much during the battle report about the rallying phase, but it is an important phase when it comes to using your commanders. The rally phase is where brigade and army generals can make a small movement to attach themselves to a unit (or detach from it, if already attached). They can then try to rally off hits from any unit they are attached to. Units can still attempt to rally even without a general attached, provided they are far enough away from the enemy, but it's easier to do if a general is attached. You'll find that generals – especially the army general – can be very useful in this respect, and you'll wish you had more of them!

You can also use generals to assist units during close combat, but you run the increased risk of leader casualties. My dice rolls favoured all of the generals in my game, except for poor Fournier, who was taken out by a fateful cannon shot right at the game's end.

Tactics

As I say, I've only played one proper game of Shadow of the Eagles, so I'm hardly in a position to talk about it with lots of experience. However, I can already see how the game will reward careful use of your forces when it comes to deployment, knowing when and where to attack with your troops, and keeping back some reserves if possible. Your units will start gathering hits fairly quickly once they're engaged, and I think there is a fine balance between knowing when to push on with an attack and when to withdraw your units and save them from routing. This idea is well supported in SotE by the nice and simple rules for passage of units, and by the rules for unrestricted movement backwards.

Units can recover from being almost annihilated, but they'll never be as fresh as they were at the start of the game. And it does take time to rally hits, unless you get some lucky rolls in the rally phase or you happen to have an army general to restore a unit's morale.

It's also worth adding that in Shadow of the Eagles there is the all-important luck of the dice. This is where the game scores again for me. Yes, there are rules and dice modifications that take account of formations and movement and whether a unit is weakened or not; whether it's charging over rough ground, or if it's behind an entrenchment. But even with these adjusted probabilities, few combats ever felt entirely like a foregone conclusion. There is enough room left for Lady Luck to play her part, and that is what brings an essential bit of excitement to the experience, without making it a completely random affair. And because firing and close combat are both simultaneous, there is almost always a cost to being involved in a fight. You may well destroy that infantry unit that is hanging on by 1 or 2 hits, but you may also take some hits yourself in the process and be left unable to do anything else for a turn or two, or worse.

Solo play

I am primarily a solo gamer, and you may be wondering how I found this aspect of playing with Shadow of the Eagles.

Up front, SotE isn't designed as a solo game, but my admittedly limited experience of using them hasn't shown me any reason why they don't work just fine for one player playing both sides. There are no game mechanisms like simultaneous movement, secret bidding for initiative, hidden orders, surprise strategies, or any other of those things that solo players can have trouble with.

The turn sequence is a nice mix of IGOUGO (charges, movement, rallying) and simultaneous play (firing, close combat), all of which can be managed just fine on your own.

Surprise, suspense, friction, fog of war – call it what you will – is usually a good thing for solo players, and there are certain aspects of SotE that contribute to this. For starters there are the command and control rules for particularly good or bad generals, and whether units can function fully if they happen to be outwith the command range of their brigade general. I deliberately made nearly all my units and generals regular/capable in this respect, just to give me one less thing to think about this time round, but it's definitely something I'll included in future games. Badly led brigades will have a tougher time doing what you want them to do, whilst those led by inspiring generals will potentially move much more quickly. For those of you who know Black Powder, it's a bit like the command rolls in that game, but without the extremes. You're much less like to witness the oddity of some units taking massive leaps across the table whilst others spend the whole day staring at the grass under their feet.

The rules for pursuit is another occasion where the dice are (potentially) in control. If you drive your enemy off during a charge, or force them to fall back during close combat, your victorious unit has to roll for pursuit, and depending on the dice roll you may or may not have control over what happens next. Again, it's a fun aspect for the solo player.

Like any game that isn't dedicated to solo play, I think it will be all about what ideas of your own that you bring to the table when using SotE. I used a very basic method for determining each side's battle plans and deployment, and introduced the idea of reinforcements arriving at an unknown turn. Those things aren't covered in SotE. There are no rules for brigade orders or deployment, but those can easily be bolted on. There are also no rules for game length or how many minutes a turn of play actually represents. Those are for you to decide, and I think it's something that you'll get a better idea of with experience. In my game, 8 turns happened to be just about right, which was a bit of a fluke. I could have played another 2 or 3 turns, but I think the battle had reached a satisfying conclusion by that point and I was happy to end it.

Whether you're playing alone or with an opponent, I think it's important to give thought to your scenario, and that's probably true of most wargames, regardless of what period of history it represents. Simply lining both armies up and shuffling them straight across the table gets dull very quickly, and Shadow of the Eagles would be no different if you played it that way. What SotE is, is a good engine, and you can add your own chrome in the form of interesting scenarios and set-ups – and of course a campaign system, if you use one.

Final thoughts

I hadn't meant to make this post go on for so long, but if you're still with me, you'll probably realise by now that I am liking Shadow of the Eagles. When I first heard about them last year, I understood that author Keith Flint wanted to create a set of rules that were easy to play but not so simple as to be, well, boring. That got me interested, and I'm pleased to say they have exceeded expectations.

There are, of course, a tonne of Napoleonic rulesets out there, and lots of them are excellent. I own quite a few, but have only played maybe half a dozen. That hardly makes me the most experienced Napoleonic wargamer in the world, but wargaming preferences are a personal thing, and I think searching for the holy grail of Napoleonic rules to use for your games is actually more about discovering what kind of gamer you are than it is about trying to find a great set of rules. For me, SotE feels like a coat that fits. I'm sure I will not stop being interested in other rules (Lasalle 2 is still on the agenda for next time), but I fully intend to play many more games with SotE, and I am confident they will be just as enjoyable as this one.