Written by the Victors
It’s easy to feel like historical gaming is a closed room. I’m something of a history buff, and I even feel like it’s an inaccessible, alluring place. All those chits and blocks and rules exceptions…there’s something arcane about it that pulls me in even as it pushes me away. I, Napoleon looks like it belongs in that tradition, as if it were a dense historical simulation designed for true believers. After all, designer Ted Raicer is best-known for Paths of Glory, the epic World War I card-driven game. Why would I, Napoleon be any different?
It turns out there are lots of things that separate I, Napoleon from the dense subculture of historical gaming. First of all, it’s a solitaire-only game, a fact that honestly elevates its playability above that of its peers. In this it joins older GMT titles like Comancheria and Navajo Wars, as well as last year’s massive Mr. President. But the thing that I found genuinely surprising about I, Napoleon is that it’s not really a simulation at all. Raicer and GMT have both been open that I, Napoleon is first and foremost a narrative experience. It’s not unusual for epic historical games to be strong narrative experiences, and that is often the draw for many players. But I, Napoleon foregrounds this goal to an extent that bumps up against classics like Arkham Horror and Tales of the Arabian Nights.
I honestly was not prepared for this. As I set up the game and began running through the rules, my first thought was “is that it?” But as I’ve sat with it longer, I believe that I, Napoleon represents a pretty great accomplishment in solo historical gaming. It isn’t a dense strategic experience. Instead its pleasure comes from seeing events unfold in unexpected ways, all from the point of view of Napoleon Bonaparte. You get numerous interesting decisions along the way, but there isn’t really any win state. Instead you get to the end and reflect on the story that you wove. Maybe you died as a no-name general, or maybe you established a long line of French emperors. Most likely it’ll be somewhere in between.
The somewhat dense rulebook notwithstanding, I, Napoleon revolves around a very simple mechanical core. You begin in 1793 as Bonaparte the French commander, during the Revolution. In each year you draw a series of cards, and follow their instructions. These cards mostly represent specific historical events. Sometimes those instructions will have you adjust your various abstract resources, things like “glory” or “administration.” Often you will be told to place the card on the board, sometimes allowing you to use the card at a time of your choosing later. I’m leaving out a lot of detail here. These cards represent a dense matrix of causality, since they often depend on each other to resolve in different ways. Cards are added depending on the year, and removed as they occur. But this rhythm of flipping a card and reacting to it represents much of the game.
The other major component is the military campaigns. These represent the biggest potential for decision-making for the player. As Napoleon consolidates his power first as Consul and then Emperor, there are more and more opportunities to become a legendary commander. Even here though, the decisions are quite zoomed out. Mostly you select commanders and battlefield tactics, all of which modify a roll to simulate battle. The result will determine what happens next, whether you subjugate your enemies and force them to accept a treaty, or whether you are defeated, or forced to go through a protracted stalemate that drains your resources. The resource management here is genuinely interesting and challenging, and if someone wants lots of strategic grit, this is where they will find it.
I, Napoleon has an interesting arc. The game is divided into three eras: Commander, First Consul, and Emperor. The Commander era is far and away the simplest, almost amounting to an elaborate setup process. Certainly the Commander era is the most random. There will be several turns where you do basically nothing, since there aren’t many campaigns for this era. It is only when the First Consul era begins that it feels like I, Napoleon really gets going.
There are scenarios to begin in either the First Consul or Emperor era, and you might understandably want to bypass the much simpler and random era at the beginning, since it can feel like so much throat-clearing. Nevertheless, it can be very satisfying to look back and see the whole arc of your campaign behind you, so I have not yet skipped the Commander era. But there’s no denying that I, Napoleon is a rather random experience, and the Commander era is the most random section of the game. There are plenty of places where a single die roll can end your game before things really get started, through no fault of the player. It’s trivial to set up a new game at that stage, but it will still feel frustrating.
In case it isn’t clear, I actually really like I, Napoleon. It is indeed a rather random experience, and not one that is loaded with difficult strategic decisions, hand management, or many other standards of solo experiences. But it does succeed admirably as a narrative experience. Whenever I finish a full campaign (usually around 3-4 hours total) it’s very satisfying to look back at how everything played out. The handsome production helps a lot here, lending a very early 19th Century vibe to the whole affair. This is a solo game that I’m actually interested in playing again, and not one that I kind of dread setting up and tackling.
The randomness also makes for a somewhat subversive take. Napoleon is often held up as one of the “great men” of history, one of those people who bent history around themselves. That’s true to some extent, but I, Napoleon seems to be saying that no one bends history without getting very lucky in the process. If it allows you to play the “main character,” it also says that there are countless people who simply never got the opportunity. History is not fair, in other words. Why should this game be any different?
While it’s not in the absolute top tier for me, I, Napoleon has been a lot of fun. It has evidently made a significant splash in the hobby too, which I think represents a desire for solo experiences that aren’t entirely brain-burning, and historical experiences that aren’t very demanding. As a potential product line, it has a lot of possibilities too. How about a game about Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan? I would definitely want to explore their lives, just because I’ve had so much fun exploring Napoleon’s.
Nate bought I, Napoleon. You can follow Nate on Bluesky.
Thanks very much for visiting the site and reading this article. You are welcome to comment on the piece below or join our Discord. If you would like to support us financially you can do so via Patreon or one of the other methods on our site.
