If, like me, you are French (and maybe even if you are not), your views on medieval warfare will be informed by <PERSON> classic War in the Middle Ages. In that book, battles are part of a larger tapestry, with logistics, strategy and even warrior ethics examined. On the contrary, most wargames on the period narrowly focus on the battle tactics, so when I heard there was a new operational system in the works, my hopes got up. I played two introductory games of Nevsky, then the full campaign twice (switching sides), and here are my impressions so far.
The material is evocative, and the wooden bits work extremely well, in that they are elegantly abstract, and you can see at a glance what army your opponent is fielding. With few components, the game state is easy to save and setup (a few photos will do the trick), so it is a plus when, like me, you need to interrupt a game to take it back later. The campaigns took us about two afternoons each, so less than ten hours or so.
The reason behind it is that the game is unabashedly operational: there are few armies in the field, and they do not comprise many parts each. The focus is not on exploiting tactical opportunities, but preparing and executing operations. In that sense, the sub-title ("Teutons and Rus in collision") is particularly apt: a game of Nevsky is the collision of the plans of the two players, who are tightly constrained by the system in what they can do. Each turn is split in two phases, levy (raising troops and transport) and campaign (planning moves and the actual moving and battling). Events (and the opponent) will alter plans, so it is wise to leave margins for unexpected contingencies. In any case, to achieve anything of value, the player must think backwards: what do I want to do this turn, what will I need at my place of arrival, how do I bring it there, and when should I start moving, with whom.
The calendar in Nevsky takes a larger chunk of table space than in most games, and for a good reason; managing time is extremely important in the game. Lords have a limited service, and means of transportation are only usable in season. So when to muster (and, more importantly disband) a lord, and what to equip him with, will depend on what he is brought in for. For instance, the marshals (each side has one), in particular, can drag a whole army with them, and are most useful for offense in Summer, when days are long and all pathways are usable. 449
This means the lesser lords should occupy the map in Spring, gathering supplies and transportation in advance so that no time is wasted. This is particularly true for the Teutons, whose capacity to remain in the field is more limited (the Russians can extend the service of their men more easily by spending Novgorod coin).
The asymmetry is marked in this campaign, with Teutons better in battle, but brittle, and the Russians less suited to offense, but more resilient. Due to logistics constraints, it is better to move with lean armies and muster vassals when needed to replace losses, than to muster everyone at once, except when expecting a big battle. These battles are few, because most of the times it is possible for the weaker side to retreat. This means that when battle is accepted, both sides expect to win, though one of them will be disappointed – a feature that strikes me as particularly historical. I recommend playing with hidden information, as capacities and events can make a difference, and introduce additional uncertainty that makes bluffing possible.
Battle resolution a step more complicated than a single die roll, but much faster than elaborate tactical battle boards, and it works well in my experience.. The main mechanism is roll-to-avoid, which means less die rolls needed than the usual roll-to-hit and interesting choices as to the target of the hit. Russians will typically have large number of low quality troops (militia and serfs) to absorb losses, whereas Teutons will have enduring knights, but few in numbers. Being the defender allows to strike first at each stage of the battle, and the Russians who are strategically on the defence will want that tactical advantage as often as possible. Conceding a losing battle early is a good idea, and can even turn a tactical loss into a strategic victory, though it still has negative consequences.
Battles, as memorable as they can be, do not by themselves bring victory. What does is raiding and occupation of enemy strongholds. Raiding is best done by small forces that can live on the country, though deep incursions can get dangerous for the raider. Sieges are more ponderous affairs, requiring extensive preparations. While the smaller forts can easily stormed, the cities, especially if an enemy lord is inside, would be very costly to take that way. 100