In Issue 15 of the British magazine
Perfidious Albion, Steve Clifford called the campaign game this product's "main innovation," but pointed out that in order to bring the four maps together to make a campaign map, the edges of each map had to be trimmed, making them unusable for the four individual games. Clifford found the leadership rules, "an interesting attempt to simulate the effect of commanders on this scale, but are perhaps still a bit cumbersome." In his 1977 book
The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming,
Nicholas Palmer noted "plenty of interesting terrain added on the highly attractive maps." He also commented on the "Interesting command rules that appear in the campaign game, with units separated from their leaders unable to make attacks." Palmer also reviewed each of the four games: •
Quatre Bras: "A gripping battle for the crossroads, which swings dramatically to the French and back again." In Issue 4 of
The Wargamer, Chris Hunt commented, "The real difference which puts ''Napoleon's Last Battles'' in another league from other quad games is the leadership rules [in the campaign scenario]." In Issue 11 of the British wargaming magazine
Phoenix (Jan–Feb 1978),
Ian Daglish called both the map and the counters "vastly improved" over previous SPI Napoleonic products. And despite having a large number of counters to maneuver, Daglish found the game "still flows very nicely." He concluded with a strong recommendation, saying, "''Napoleon's Last Battles'' is a set of four highly enjoyable games. It is also one of the best simulations of the whole Waterloo campaign that you will come across." A year later, in Issue 17 of
Phoenix (Jan–Feb 1979), Jeff Parker compared ''Napoleon's Last Battles
and 1815: The Waterloo Campaign'' by
Games Designers Workshop, two wargames published in 1976, and held both of them up as better Napoleonic wargames than previous products, saying, "Any collector of good boardgames who is also a student of Napoleonic warfare would have these two games. A moulding of the best ideas from each will give a game which goes far towards ameliorating many of the criticisms which can be levelled at the earliest Napoleonic games." In Issue 6 of the French games magazine '''', Michel Brassinne noted "All the rules are clearly written, but require a certain learning time (12 pages!). The search for a certain 'verisimilitude' has led to more rules. This satisfies players accustomed to wargames but can dismay those who try to get started." In Issue 3 of the French games magazine
Casus Belli, Jean-Jacques Petit commented, "If the French player fails to knock out one of the two allied armies before the 17th turn, he will have a hard time winning this campaign. The English player has an interest in backing away until all of his reinforcements have arrived (13th turn) but also in worrying a few French corps (a very difficult strategic exercise). The Prussian player must play his trump card from the first turns before the hypothetical arrival of d'Erlon's 1st corps. In any case, the French player will have a hard time emerging victorious from this campaign." In
The Guide to Simulations/Games for Education and Training, Martin Campion commented on the possible use of this game as an educational aid, saying, "The campaign game is large [...] but it offers many opportunities for involving a lot of people in the command structures of the three armies represented in the campaign, and the campaign game rules are very informative on command structure and its problems." In the 1980 book
The Complete Book of Wargames, game designer
Jon Freeman called this collection "less enjoyable than SPI's
Napoleon at War quadrigame." Freeman felt that these battles were attritional set pieces, and lacked the ability to maneuver found in
Napoleon at War. Freeman concluded by giving an Overall Evaluation of "Good to Very Good." In a retrospective review twenty years after publication, Monte Gray noted that on the first day
Marshal Ney is somewhat constrained, controlling only a single corps on the British flank, which "precludes his trying anything more imaginative than a
frontal assault on Quatre Bras. His wire-puller, the French player, faces a major dilemma once the Duke [of Wellington] receives all of his reinforcements: send
Grouchy (or even Napoleon himself) to help out Ney, but then how to punch out those pesky Prussians?" Gray suggested using the advanced rules with the campaign game, saying, "This is a decidedly lite basic rules carriage. You need those extra rules horses to get a stimulating ride backward in time." Gray felt that the individual games tended to swing in Napoleon's favor due to limits laid on the Allied generals, but felt in the paired games and large campaign game "the advantage shifts quite a bit [...] mainly because the weight of the added command rules puts a brake on France's ability to conduct double envelopments." Gray concluded on a positive note, saying, "If I'd been familiar with ''Napoleon's Last Battles'' 20 years ago, it undoubtedly would have been one of my favorites. Time has been kind to Kevin Zucker's design. It remains easy to learn, difficult to master." In a retrospective review thirty years after publication, Matt Irsik called this game "One of the best [SPI] Quads. [...] Each game was pretty interesting and very different from all of the others. The mandatory attack rules did a good job of portraying operational level combat from that era and the end result was pretty satisfying." ==Other recognition==