I struggle with what to do about games that are just fine. Not so good that I can pour praise upon them for hours at a time, nor so bad that they have multiple avenues of badness for me to explore. These are the games that I would understand if someone told me they enjoyed them but would give side-eye to anyone claiming this was their favorite game ever. Louisbourg 1758 is certainly among this august-ish company. It’s a perfectly fine block wargame, but it doesn’t quite stand out from its peers, unless maybe you happen to be a huge fan of the siege of Louisbourg. Usually when faced with this situation I just don’t write anything about the game – if I can barely muster the energy to say something interesting, I can’t really expect anyone to find the time to read it. However, this isn’t very satisfying and I feel represents a small failure in myself as a critic. In an attempt to tackle this problem, I’m going to try and curtail my usual verbosity and give a very quick first impression of Louisbourg 1758 outlining what I think is interesting and why it ultimately didn’t hold my attention.
Worthington Publishing kindly provided me with a review copy of Louisbourg 1758.
At its core, Louisbourg 1758 is a simple block wargame. I would classify it as less complex than your average block game from Columbia Games, but that is not to say it is without its own little bits of chrome. The activation and combat systems are simpler than what you would find in a Columbia game – you activate one stack of blocks each turn and in combat while unit strength works the same as in a Columbia Game, with pips representing strength on each side of a block, units by default all hit on only 6s and all attacks from one player are resolved at the same time. There are no “A1 vs B3” unit distinctions to be found here.
However, to add some wrinkles to an otherwise incredibly basic game there are rules for amphibious landings, raids, naval and fort bombardment, and naval attacks. In a few cases these can change the results needed to deal hits in combat, which I think is crucial for any game that relies on just “roll 6s” for hits. There is also a fun little system where the British player uses blocks to secretly plan his initial landing parties on the first turn and then the French player deploys his units. There are decoy blocks so the French player can’t be certain where most of the British soldiers are likely to show up. It’s a fun bit of bluffing that really leans in to the strength of block games.
My landing is planned, and the French player has put out his defenses. The landing parties face a significant barrier as the defender gets a significant bonus on attacks, but the abundance of British regulars should let me wear them down over a few rounds.
The game also features cards which can give bonuses to your actions or have other effects on play. On the whole, I’m not wild about the cards. It’s a shared deck of events for both French and British players, but you can only play your events so your opponent’s cards just clog up your hand and do nothing. Drawing a card in a game should be a moment of excitement, but if fully half the deck are dead cards then it makes it feel rather pointless.
The one card I do quite like is the Attrition card, which only affects the French player. Since the British player can win by taking Louisbourg there is an incentive for the French player to just stack all his units in the fort and wait. However, when drawn by the French player the Attrition card inflicts strength losses if they have more than 25 strength points in Louisbourg. This almost justifies the shared deck, since if the British player draws the Attrition card it does nothing. This adds a nice little risk/reward element where the French player is encouraged to spread your troops out across the map (and thus, play the game) but they can, if necessary, risk consolidating more troops in Louisbourg and hope that no attrition card is drawn.
The rulebook is only okay. It taught me how to play the game, but it also left me with a few questions as some situations could be better explained. It’s far from the worst rulebook I’ve ever read, and I was never at a total loss for what to do, but it did leave me with more questions than I would have liked when I started playing the game.
However, the rest of the production is very nice. The map is pretty and the routes are clear, but it would have benefited from more clearly distinguishing which spaces classify as “coastal” as that has a significant an impact on the game. The blocks are good quality and the screen printing is nice enough, but I have to confess that I like putting stickers on blocks so I will always prefer that option to screen printed ones.
It’s a nice touch that both sides have the bombardment table and the sequence of play is printed on the map. I love touches like that which mean that I don’t have to check the rulebook or a play aid card every turn.
Overall, Louisbourg 1758 is a perfectly enjoyable block game, but I don’t see any reason why I would choose it over one of my favorite Columbia games instead. The game, and the combat especially, is a little too simple for my taste and I wish it had just a bit more weight and grime to it. If you are already interested in the French and Indian War and/or the siege of Louisbourg specifically then there is probably something here you’ll like, but as someone who is generally uninterested in this period of warfare it didn’t have enough to get past my general malaise. I’m glad I played it, if a friend asked me to I would almost certainly play it again, but I can’t see myself picking it off my shelf and trying to convince someone else to join me for a game.