I have been admiring the games coming out of Vuca Simulations in Germany for some time. They have a striking aesthetic whose attention to detail and consistent feel across numerous games really stand out. Plus, they are among the best in the industry at box covers. However, their games are largely on World War II which is not a subject I have a burning desire to play games on, if I’m honest. I was still tempted because of their amazing aesthetic, but then I saw 1914 Nach Paris and I thought that this would be a great option for my first Vuca game. While I’m still more drawn to pre-twentieth century games, World War I does hold some interest and an operational look at the war’s opening weeks promised to be really interesting. At the same time, though, it looked like a daunting game in terms of complexity - a step beyond the games I have played so far. Still, I was excited to try it!
Vuca Simulations very kindly provided me with a review copy of 1914 Nach Paris.
1914 is a heavy game, of that there can be no doubt. While far from the heaviest wargame on the market - a competition where there are arguably no real winners - it is definitely on the heavier end of the scale and it is the heaviest game I have tried to learn. No one system in 1914 was necessarily completely overwhelming but the many systems that are in play as well as the healthy layer of chrome on top of it makes for a challenging game to learn. That said, Vuca have done an excellent job in teaching the game.
Each scenario comes with an order of battle for you to lay out all the units you will need. There is no set up per se, instead the first turn involves the deployment of troops from the order of battle onto the map - usually they can take some minor actions as well such as attempting to dig fieldworks.
The rulebook is very clear and full of examples to help walk you through the game’s systems. It is also very well laid out with many internal references to make it easy to look up a rule when you inevitably remember that some rule applies in this situation but cannot for the life of you remember how that rule works. I found reading the rulebook to be genuinely a nice time, something I cannot say for quite a few I have read, even for simpler games. It’s still a lot of game to take on board and after a handful of plays I’m not sure I’ve got it all in my head quite right, but I’m getting there. I will say that it’s not a game where I cannot think of what to do because the mechanisms are so complex I don’t know where to start. Instead it’s a game where I can mostly play it but there are lots of little rules that I’ll forget or need to double check exactly how they work.
The game does a lot of clever little things to help you learn the game. Probably my favourite is the approach to scenarios. While 1914 feels like it was designed with the enormous four map 27 hour long full campaign in mind, it does a lot to divide that experience up into more approachable portions. My favourite decision here is the inclusion of four double-sided A4 sheets with a map section on each. There are also order of battle sheets for each of the eight scenarios played on these small maps and each scenario can be played in under two hours. The expected playtime is often given as between one and two hours but I’ve found myself playing these scenarios in sometime as little as thirty minutes, very nice lunchtime game experience.
Several scenarios are labelled learning scenarios and they are a great way to approach the game one bite-sized portion at a time, easing you into the rules with manageable scenarios with clear objectives rather than just dumping you onto a map of northeast France and asking you to figure it out. I love this approach and I think it’s something that pretty much any publisher of hex and counter games could learn from. I know that including a smaller single map scenario in a larger game is hardly new, my Great Battles of the American Civil War game has one, but the number and variety of the scenarios provided in 1914 is far greater than I’ve ever seen before. Vuca have clearly put a lot of care into these scenarios, they are not an afterthought pushed out with minimal testing but a core part of the experience, and I think there is a lot to be learned from this approach to teaching a heavy game and making it more approachable!
The opening stages of the first scenario now that troops have started appearing on the battlefield. (Apologies for the lighting, I was playing the first turn at night and my set up wasn’t the best).
These small scenarios also make for an excellent solitaire experience. For most of them only one side will be on the offensive, so no solitaire system is really necessary. As someone who prefers multi-hand solitaire I have been enjoying my time playing through these small scenarios on my own. I don’t know if this solitaire-friendly experience will extend to the larger scenarios that use one or all of the map sheets, but there are certainly enough single sheet scenarios to keep me busy for a while!
The game is obviously gorgeous and I’m not sure anything I can say about it can do more to convey that than just looking at images of the game will. However, I do want to point out that I think the graphic design does a lot to keep the game manageable. The amount of information on each counter is intimidating, but after I read the rules I found the counters fairly easy to process and remember. I rarely find myself looking up what a piece of information on a counter corresponds to.
The French offensive pushes past the German left flank inflicting heavy losses - which I of course forgot to mark with the appropriate Step Loss tokens because I forgot. I also forgot to adjust the railroad token. Also the Fieldworks tokens should be on top of the stacks to show who is in them but that made it harder for me to see so I put them under for the moment.There’s a lot to keep track of!
I am generally not a fan of NATO symbols on counters, but I think the design of these ones, plus the density of information on them, makes the choice understandable and I didn’t mind it in this case. Similarly to Equatorial Conflict, the NATO symbols didn’t distract me from the game. The graphic design also extends across the player aids and every aspect of the production - something that might seem obvious, but I have played games that had lovely components but where the rules or other supplementary materials were lacking. The whole package of 1914 shows a loving care to the aesthetics and how it contributes to the play experience - but then I probably shouldn’t have expected any less given Vuca’s other output.
In the North the German’s dig in to fieldworks to attempt to resist further French assaults while they prepare to make their own attempt at turning the French left flank. They have a slight numerical advantage but the French are in fieldworks so will it be enough?
After my first few plays of 1914 I think the thing I enjoy most is the standard combat, i.e. how the system handles infantry and cavalry attacks on enemy positions. The combat strength numbers involved in a fight in 1914 are wildly beyond anything I’ve experienced before, with forces that have 70+ strength points routinely fighting each other, and the fact that it uses ratios makes the calculation of strengths a bit of a challenge. The manual recommends that you limit players’ ability to use a calculator to calculate odds before committing to an attack and I embraced that idea in full - attacking more on gut instinct than carefully calculated odds. For me this is probably what I like least about the combat, big numbers and ratios are not my strong suit. From here, however, it gets pretty great.
The ratio gives you a column on the combat results table (CRT) and then you roll a d20 - yes a d20. 1914 uses a d20 for its CRT and it actually works way better than I expected and I kind of love it. I would totally try more d20 CRTs, even if it can be a little hard to read if you’re trying to find the 12th row in a given column. Once you’ve rolled the dice you are far from finished though, things are just getting started. A number of modifiers are now applied to the result, including terrain modifiers, attacks from multiple hexes, flanking bonuses, and a penalty for having too fancy a uniform. Each modifier will add or subtract to the die roll rather than to the unit strength. If these modifiers are large enough they can trigger column shifts - favourable or not - and land you in a very different place than where you started. It honestly feels a little more reminiscent of Dungeons and Dragons than of any other wargame I’ve played, but also I really like Dungeons and Dragons and unlike D&D no matter what you roll something is going to happen.
End of the first scenario. The German flank attack hit a disastrous spell of bad luck while the center crumbled under French attack and the German right didn’t fair much better. I also remembered the Step Loss tokens this time, which is good as they’re a pretty critical part of the game! Still haven’t tidied up the railroad markers or the lone fieldworks on the right…
Once you know your row, now it’s time to determine the result. You may or may not inflict step losses on the attackers or defenders, but you will almost certainly trigger a Combat Ability (or CAB) test. This is maybe my favourite part of the combat. Each unit has a CAB stat and the combat result will probably apply a bonus or a penalty on that test. For each counter you must roll a d20, trying to roll under or equal to the unit’s modified CAB. I really like this as a way of distributing casualties after an attack. It adds an interesting tension to each attack and makes for a really elegant way of reflecting how both sides can suffer casualties even with one side having advantageous results. For example, a combat result might cause the defender to roll CAB at minus four while the attacker must roll it at plus two. This reflects how both sides will potentially take losses, but tilts the odds in favour of one side. While it can be a lot to test CAB for everyone involved in a huge combat, I love a bit of dice rolling so I didn’t really mind. It can also create interesting situations where if the attacker commits four or five units to an all out attack on an enemy position with just two units, they might get a favourable result on the CRT but they will probably have to test CAB on every one of their counters and could end up suffering more casualties than the defender. The game does let you not fully commit to an assault to avoid this, but then you won’t have as favourable a CRT column because partially committed forces don’t lend their full strength to the attack. There are lots of great decisions to be made here and plenty of tension in determining the results. One of the best combat systems I’ve encountered I think.
While I really enjoyed the standard combat, I am so far feeling a bit more mixed about the artillery combat. The core system is fairly straightforward, but there’s enough additional rules that I at times struggled to remember everything. This was particularly obvious when playing a scenario that involved capturing a fortified position. Remembering the differences between the two types of artillery, one for attacking units and one for attacking fortifications, as well as the rules for combining a fortified attack with an infantry assault on that position was a lot for my poor little brain. It was here that I really began to feel the weight of the game’s rules, and not in an entirely enjoyable way.
I think my frustration with this also partially came from the fact that I most like hex and counter as a system for managing unit maneuvers and positioning. The scenario where I had to take Liege felt like it lacked what I most enjoy about hex and counter and that combined with the headache I was having remembering the artillery rules made for a much less enjoyable game than the first scenario. Some of this is definitely the product of the small scenario I was playing - a larger game would include a balance of maneuvers and attacks on fortifications - but at the same time in a bigger scenario I might be more frustrated by trying to remember how to bombard a given fort as it distracts me from the part of the game I’d rather be playing. It’s too soon to render judgement on this part of the game as a whole, but my first instinct is that I don’t like it nearly as much as some of 1914’s other elements and I personally would probably have enjoyed it more if it were simpler.
The moment in scenario two where the Germans first broke into Liege - from here there was very little the Belgians could do to hold them off but resolving all the remaining attacks on forts was mentally a bit grueling for me.
My initial impression of 1914 Nach Paris is that it is a very carefully designed game that has been lovingly developed and graphically presented, but I’m not entirely sure if it is the game for me. I think for enthusiasts of World War I, particularly people who like heavier games, this will be a must play. The way it is so devoted to representing specifically 1914 will really help it to stand out when compared to other games about World War I, but it may be a little too simulationist for me to reliably come back to play it again and again. I would probably have more fun with a game that shed a bit more of the historical nuance in favour of simplicity.
That said, I am still playing scenario after scenario of 1914 Nach Paris and I’m interested in seeing how more plays will shape my thoughts, so look for a full review coming from me once I’ve had more time to play and digest this majestic beast of a game. It may not be destined for a permanent spot in my collection, but I am having a lot of fun with it and it may end up being one of my most played games this year.