|Image by Mitte_70, borrowed from BGG.|
In our most recent game James took me by surprise by effectively using his cavalry to screen. I know that this is the primary role of cavalry in most warfare but this was the first game I have seen it done effectively in. It tied down my best infantry corps more or less taking it out of the game. In the centre we pushed around, I avoided Jame's trap and even took the upper hand for me to lose it all in one large and badly thought through push. Things then went to pot pretty fast with the allied centre collapsing a few turns later.
We've played Rachel's other more recent game, Guns of Gettysburg, a couple of times too. Until this game of Napoleon's Triumph I felt that Guns was actually the better title, now I'm not so sure. Napoleon's Triumph is actually a little short for what it is. Normally brevity if a good thing in a game but with NT I feel that the room for mistakes is so great an extra hour of run time and a little more forgiveness may benefit it. Guns on the other hand is a little longer.
My main point in write in this post is this, only get one of Rachel's games if you have a regular opponent and you both want to invest in really learning the game. As dedicated games these are great, as one off experiences they are a frustration.
|Found this in Vienna, nice holiday surprise after the boredom of Baroque|