Bonaparte in Italy

Description

Bonaparte in Italy is a two-player board wargame set during Napoleon’s Italian campaign, with one side commanding the French and the other their opponents. The map uses a hex grid with each hex representing 3.2 kilometers, and it comes in three sections measuring 22 by 34 inches; each scenario uses only one or two of these sections. The game includes 300 counters, but only leader pieces are placed on the map itself—the troops under each leader are kept off the board on strategic displays that track their current strength. The game engine is the same one OSG created for the earlier game Napoleon at Bay.

The poor state of the Po Valley and the resulting scarcity of forage are modeled through heavy attrition each turn. Attrition losses are counted in increments of 200 soldiers, and when a unit’s losses reach 1000, its Strength Points drop. As critic Charles Vasey observed, moving through rough terrain can cause more losses than actual fighting.

At the start of a turn, the active player gets a pool of Administrative Points. They can move units in two ways: spend an Administrative Point, with attrition based on supplies and distance traveled; or use a leader’s Initiative by rolling a die—if the result is equal to or less than the leader’s Initiative Rating, the unit moves, but attrition is then calculated using distance and forage values determined at the end of the march. After the active player finishes moving, the non-active player can react by Force-Marching units, again rolling against the leader’s initiative. If successful, the unit can leave an enemy’s zone of control before the active player’s combat phase begins.

The active player must attack all adjacent enemy units. After combat, retreats and pursuits are resolved, then disorganized troops get a chance to rally. Once rallying is done, the turn ends and the other player takes over.

The game includes seven scenarios: “Montenotte,” where the French must force the Piedmontese into an armistice in seven turns; “Lodi,” clearing the Austrians from the westernmost map in four turns; “Borghetto,” clearing Genoa and Milan in five turns; and four scenarios covering phases of the French siege of Mantua—each marked by a different battle as Austrian armies try to lift the siege: “Castiglione” (six turns), “Bassano” (eight turns), and “Arcola” (twelve turns).

Publication history

Kevin Zucker, who had been a managing editor at Simulations Publications, Inc., launched his own company in 1978 under the name Tactical Studies Group. Because that name too closely resembled Tactical Studies Rules, the publisher of Dungeons & Dragons, he soon rebranded it as Operational Studies Group. Zucker planned a series of board wargames called Campaigns of Napoleon, built around a new game system. The first title, Napoleon at Bay, came out in 1978.

The next planned game was Bonaparte in Italy, but to generate interest and familiarize players with the system, OSG released two smaller introductory microgames in 1979: Arcola: The Battle for Italy, 1796 and Battles of the Hundred Days. Later that same year, the full-sized Bonaparte in Italy appeared, again designed by Zucker, with interior illustrations by Larry Catalano and a cover featuring Jacques-Louis David’s 1801 painting Napoleon at the Saint-Bernard Pass.

OSG also produced two more series entries in 1979, Battles of the Hundred Days and Napoleon at Leipzig, both designed by Zucker. In 2000, OSG issued a revised edition of Bonaparte in Italy under the new title Bonaparte in Italy: The Defense of Mantua & the Quadrilateral, July 29, 1796–January 30, 1797.

Reception

Two wargaming magazines offered their takes on this Napoleonic game. Charles Vasey, writing in Perfidious Albion, called it a rather good game and a rather good piece of history. He noted that maneuvering to create mutually supporting positions gave a real sense of the period. Vasey praised the supply system in particular, saying it illustrated the worries of attrition.

He explained that players could no longer make tedious claims about marching at full speed, because doing so could cost thousands of troops. He also pointed out that the historical scenarios were not balanced. Despite that, he concluded it was a game that repaid thought, calling it the best traditional Napoleonic game he had played in a year. In Moves, Ian Chadwick admired the components, describing the maps as almost excruciatingly pretty, with a gradual color change from beige for bottomland to dark green for mountain to suggest different elevations.

He found the game easy to pick up for anyone who had played Arcola or Napoleon at Bay. Chadwick gave the game an A grade for playability, historical accuracy, and component quality. He said it was a fine game from OSG, especially enjoyable for covering a historical area left relatively untouched by the wargaming industry, and recommended it highly.