"Republic to Empire review" Topic

Republic to Empire (R2E) is from the same team (Barry Hilton) that brought us the excellent 18th century set of rules "Beneath the Lily Banners". R2E takes the Napoleonic wars as the subject matter.

First a caveat. This review is purely based on a read-through of the rules. I have not played them, having only received them by post a couple of days ago.

First impressions: The production quality is high, with good quality paper and printing, and many, many, many pictures of 28mm infantry, expertly painted and posed, along with some nice drawings. The rule book is 144 pages long.

Along with the rulebook, there was a player aid card – A4 in size (letter paper, for our American friends). Or at least that is what I thought when I first saw it. "This seems unusually thick" I thought. That was when I noticed the fold. This was not one A4 sheet of card, not even two, but it folded out again (that's three times) to a 1 yard piece of card. Printed on both sides. Everything looks important too. One side covers control (morale), combat and charges. The other side covers movement, orders and firing. Lots of tables and modifiers. "Under the Lily Banners" this ain't.

Inside the rulebook, reading between the many pictures, there is still a lot of information to absorb. The scale is 1 turn = 20 minutes of real life and 9 inches (22cm) = 100 yards/metres (effective musket range). 1:20 for men to model ratio for the 28mm models R2E is aimed at. A battalion is the standard maneuveur unit. A battalion, in line, should have a frontage of 100-150 yards, depending on numbers of men and ranks. This is 9 to 14 inches to fit the recommended 30-40 figures for a typical battalion. So, in 2 model ranks, your 28mm figures need to have a frontage of about a third of an inch (8mm).

R2E is scarily honest "This section once again stretches reality" starts one. In fact, let's look at this one. It's movement, so quite important. R2E notes that in 20 minutes, at the standard (British) Napoleonic regulation rate of march, an infantryman could cover 110 inches. However, the rules only allow him to march a miserly 16 inches. That's 200 yards in twenty minutes. 10 yards in one minute. This is nuts. Bears no relation to reality. If you have to shoe-horn your game into this, there is something seriously wrong. Apparently, according to R2E, this distortion of speed is "perhaps less so that many other rule sets". Can you name them?

Command and control rules have the look of "design by committee" about them. There are C in C ratings, then brigades have a different rating factor, and then you can combine brigades, and this has all manner of repercussions on MPs (Manoeuvre Points)– covered by a full page of typed examples. It's too much. There are pages and pages detailing MPs to change order from one type to another. Life, and my wargaming time, are too short for this.

There are some good points. There is recognition that infantry melees were very rare, and usually typified by one side running away before contact. There are very many commentaries of interest. The piccies are lovely.

To be further complimentary, the shooting and melee rules are sound. The artillery rules are very good – with an interesting commentary that at shorter ranges, the size of the gun didn't make much difference (except, of course, against hard targets, like walls). R2E takes a fresh approach to fortified areas (like Hougemont) – fortified areas are rated by size and "toughness", which determine the size of the garrison, maximum attacking force, and the defensive bonus of the terrain: no more arguments about figures being half-in or half out of a villiage!

Overall though, I can't take in 144 pages of rules, with a 6 page player aid sheet. It's too much for me, although I'd forgive R2E the verbosity if it was matched by an accuracy to real life worthy of the length. But R2E is not a Napoleonic rule set meant to simulate real life/history; it is a mechanism to show your 28mm figures to great effect at a scale that is absurd for them. That is not for me.

Sounds rather Empire-ish.

Any positive comments or rebuttal?

I'm all ears!

mjc

Don't take this as defending R2E please. I don't own the rules and am not sure I'll get them, but isn't the following a problem with just about every ruleset? I mean you recollect that the brits standard march rate would take them a little over a kilometer in a 20 minute interval. How many games does one play where the table is much more than a kilometer wide?

"R2E is scarily honest "This section once again stretches reality" starts one. In fact, let's look at this one. It's movement, so quite important. R2E notes that in 20 minutes, at the standard (British) Napoleonic regulation rate of march, an infantryman could cover 110 inches. However, the rules only allow him to march a miserly 16 inches. That's 200 yards in twenty minutes. 10 yards in one minute. This is nuts. Bears no relation to reality. If you have to shoe-horn your game into this, there is something seriously wrong. Apparently, according to R2E, this distortion of speed is "perhaps less so that many other rule sets". Can you name them?"

I did have a look at these at Reveille and agree they look very impressive from the quality of material viewpoint. Unfortunately I was immediately put off by the size of the player aid card. I'm sure plenty of wargamers will view the detail it appeared to incorporate positively but I'm not one. However, whilst not for me I would say take a good look as they are clearly a quality set and may suit you admirably.

"the excellent 18th century set of rules "Beneath the Lily Banners"."

ROTFLMAO! Quit with the funnies!

As for R2E, I saw a copy at Smoggycon, and got bored reading it after 10mins. Does a wargame need so much to get a game going? And I agree, the QRS is waaay too big!

Nice book quality. Lovely photos. Shame about the size of the rules.

I'll be sticking with Black Powder.

I confess I'm a bit conflicted, and I echo many of Kerpob's comments. Lovely artwork and nice clear writing. An obviously serious piece of work. I do wish that all the pictures were more useful for game explanations, though. There are no graphic examples of game situations in the whole book, except for one photo on page 58 that is used to illustrate flanks and fronts. The rest of the pictures are just eye candy.

Nice eye candy, mind you. Some of the figures are gorgeous. The French Hussar officer on page 93 is so detailed you can see the cleft in his chin!! Fabulous work on the figures and the photos.

There are other things I like, too, besides just pretty pictures. I like the movement rates that get units into action quickly. And the Exploitation Move is a nice concept. A lot of games have similar things, but this seems unpredictable and fun.

But wow, it's… detailed. Fifty-four possible combat modifiers!! Twenty-three possible modifiers for fighting in towns! The "Resolve and Control Checks" table is a matrix with 70 different possible outcomes! And you need thirteen different kinds of markers to play! Holy carp.

When do you roll on the Brigade Charge Threat Reaction Check table, or the Unit Charge Threat Reaction Check table, or the Artillery Charge threat reaction check table, or the Changing Formation to Receive a Charge Table?? I'm not making this up.

I think the best part is the narrated battle report on pages 123-132, where he goes step by step through most of a small game. That really helped and made me think, "Okay, maybe it's not so incredibly hard.. maybe I could get my head around this." I wish more games did that. Still, it's sobering to read examples of play like this (skirmishers shooting at a farmhouse):

"10 pairs target the garrison. They start with 10 shooting dice. As Veterans they gain 1 X D3 additional shooting dice each turn. Dave throws and gets 1 extra dice. His intiial 11 dice are are halved to 5.5, rounded to 6, because 1/1 Leger moved this turn. This is halved again to 3 because their target is in hard cover. The 3 is quartered to 0.75 as, at 11 inches distance they are beyond Effective range for muskets. As 1 shooting die is allowed no matter what the circumstances, the 0.75 is rounded to 1. Dave throws a 2, so no casualties and no Resolve Checks."

I've gone through it twice now and maybe I can get one of my regulars to take a swing at it. We'll see. I suspect it will become the new standard set for the High-Detail-Realism crowd: a kind of "Empire" for the 21st century gamer?

I got my Lassalle set today?

I don't know if I'll ever play R2E, but I have to admit that I sort of liked the complexity of it. It took me back to those older style Naps games where you really waded through lots of information…. Except this is a lot better-written, and full of interesting commentary along the way.

And I agree about the nice figures. I really envy the British figures in particular. I wish I could get my red coats to look that good.

Oh oh, hide … the no-reviews-if-you-haven't-actually-played-the-game police will be here soon!

Arteis, you naughty devil! I was thinking the same, but you beat me to it! :)

What that review has done is saved me the cost of buying the rules though. I don't need to play them to know they aren't for me.

I don't mind reviews from people who haven't played, but even a careful reading might lead to a few misconceptions.

For instance…

[Fifty-four possible combat modifiers!!]

There are 16 to 17 modifiers for each situation (infantry v infantry, cavalry v infantry, or cavalry v cavalry) many of which appear on each table (unit quality, etc.) and many of which will not be applicable in every situation (uphill) or exclude each other (formation).

[The "Resolve and Control Checks" table is a matrix with 70 different possible outcomes!]

There are only four possible outcomes for each situation. All of the possible tests for Resolve are simply listed in two tables, divided into infantry/artillery and cavalry. The reason for the required Resolve Check is on the left with four outcomes, depending on the modified die roll on the right.

[And you need thirteen different kinds of markers to play!]

You don't need any markers to play. Casualties can be recorded on a roster and any other battlefield condition can be added there or represented in the time honored tradition of wargames throughout history… i.e rather than use a Disorder marker, simply skew the unit's stands, place a paper chit, a casualty figure, etc. On page 24, lots of examples are given, though most gamers I am sure have their own methods for such things…

[When do you roll on the Brigade Charge Threat Reaction Check table, or the Unit Charge Threat Reaction Check table, or the Artillery Charge threat reaction check table, or the Changing Formation to Receive a Charge Table?? I'm not making this up.]

Really? Brigade Threat Reaction may be modified by the brigade's leader and is useful if the entire brigade falls under threat, say from a charging cavalry division. If only one unit in a charge is threatened, the player may opt to test only for that unit, which is modified by the unit's quality rather than the brigadier. The Artillery Charge Threat Reaction chart is used when… ummm… artillery is the target of a charge. Finally the Changing Formation check is a second check if a unit chooses to change formation (normally infantry changing to square) rather than counter charge, evade, etc. assuming it passes the first check to react at all. I think is pretty well explained on pages 84-86.

[A battalion, in line, should have a frontage of 100-150 yards, depending on numbers of men and ranks. This is 9 to 14 inches to fit the recommended 30-40 figures for a typical battalion. So, in 2 model ranks, your 28mm figures need to have a frontage of about a third of an inch (8mm).]

Not exactly sure where this came from. At 2.25mm to 1 yard, a base of six model soldiers in two ranks of three has a frontage of 45mm or 20 yards which is the distance a real life British company of 60 men in two ranks would occupy. We recommend units are based on a frontage 15mm per model and infantry units may be anywhere from 18 to 48 models strong. Most of my units are 24-36 models, but I favor the Peninsular theater where sometimes units had trouble mustering 400 men. My 36 model French units are 10.5 inches wide which seems pretty universal for 1:20 rules…

I appreciate that there seems to be a lot to keep track of, but the rules have been used for battles of 600-700 models per side for club engagements that lasted about ten hours. The game presented in the book between two divisions played out in about 3.5 hours. Most of the play testers were playing games using only the QRS after a couple of games.

Anyway, thanks for the reviews so far!

As one of the main playtesters I can confirm that after a couple of games the playsheet is the main item you will need for using the rules. One of the biggest complaints about Lily Banners was a lack of explanation of the rules mechanisms so the main bulk of RTE is examples and explanations which at first might seem a bit daunting but it is worth taking the time to go through them. Having wargamed Napoleonics for more than 30 years with many rule sets these have come the closest in my view to reflecting Napoleonic warfare and still keeping the systems reasonably simple.

I've ordered a set and plan to read it AND THEN PLAY it before I post a response. No, I'm not one of 'those' police but I'm trying to figure out why people post on TMP the way they do. Seems like people want a simple, fast playing, fun, highly realistic, detailed, historically accurate, easily played simulation and a QRS of one page (duplexed).

I think that about sums it up.

The problem with any new set of rules is getting through the first play test and get yourself moving up the learning curve. It is helpful to play the game with someone who knows the rules and can walk you through the game.

Of course, there are also rules that are easy to learn and are possible to learn by own's self.

Hey I am one of those review without playing police … but even I might give out a 'suspended sentence' on not having played this set first :)

But on the plus side it seems we are blessed with a few new sets which cover the gamut of wants from H&M players … so whose complaining!

Having played the rules a couple of time, I find kerpob's "review" rather surprising as virtually nothing that he states reflects my impression of the rules and how they play.

As to the negative comment about the time/distance relationship, this is indeed a problem with virtually every set of Napoleonic rules so I wonder why it was mentioned in this "review".

Colin

Becks Dark –

10 pairs target the garrison. They start with 10 shooting dice. As Veterans they gain 1 X D3 additional shooting dice each turn. Dave throws and gets 1 extra dice. His intiial 11 dice are are halved to 5.5, rounded to 6, because 1/1 Leger moved this turn. This is halved again to 3 because their target is in hard cover. The 3 is quartered to 0.75 as, at 11 inches distance they are beyond Effective range for muskets. As 1 shooting die is allowed no matter what the circumstances, the 0.75 is rounded to 1. Dave throws a 2, so no casualties and no Resolve Checks.

I read it twice. Got the gist of it the first time; understood it perfectly the second time.

10 dice for 10 firing skirmisher pairs

Being vets they get a d3 bonus dice roll, which comes up 1 so they get x 1 extra firing dice = 11 dice

Number of dice is then halved because firers moved = 6 dice

Halved again – target in hard cover = 3 dice

Then quartered – target beyond effective range = 1 dice

(Not exactly rocket science is it?)

There are a few good rules sets out there that use different dice types for different situations and then adjust the number of die as a modifier, rather than the usual endless tables of + and – to a single basic dice score. (The excellent 'Stargrunt' springs to mind). Generally it's much easier to memorise that you have to half the number of die in a common situation than it is to have to trawl through the rules / tables to remember what a particular + or – modifier might be.

Jchadderton … you've provided an excellent example of how breaking up text into smaller chunks helps understanding.

The long dense paragraph originally quoted was indeed difficult to read (even you said you only got the gist the first time round, but still had to reread it to fully understand it).

The way you've set it out, however, I got it perfectly first time round.

Hi
Well I've had a quick look at my friends copy and I'll be buying a copy from EUREKA MINIATURES here in Oz, (assuming they will be stocking them).
It looks like a well put together product with lots (and lots) of detail that explains "why it's so".
I'll be using these rules for gaming in 28mm.
I think I'll stick with LASALLE or LFS for 15mm.
Cheers
trailape.blogspot.com

True movement rates in most rules are not realistic.

Yes in 20 minutes that British Infantryman could move 110 inches (over 9 feet). Now unless you are playing on a very, very large table or area things tend to cause you to not move this fast.

Like the enemy being in front of you.
Like you have to cross a small creek and need to reform on the other side.
Like your unit falters/halts due to heavy fire and the NCO's and officers need to get it moving again.
Like maybe your commander call an halt.

So this ruleset has it that an hour would be around 3 turns or playing. Some rules have this at two turns with turns being around 30 minutes.

The writers of the rules are trying their best to put together rules that can be played on a standard size table. This table is usually no more than 6 feet across. So having units being able to march 3 feet beyond that tends to cause problems.

Mithmee – it's an order of magnitude out!

Of course units halt if the enemy is near them, or they are cross country. I gave the march column rate.

It would not be a problem if the timescale was fixed. e.g. each turn is actually 5 minutes.

I plan to do a review of this for various rules I have. Might be interesting comparing them!

Kerpop:
"I plan to do a review of this for various rules I have. Might be interesting comparing them!"

I doubt it.

Just about every set of Naps rules ever written distorts / compromises ground and time scales / movement and ranges to some extent (often a lot) to make them work as a game.

The tiny minority that have tried to stick to a rigid time and motion scale, like the late Bruce Quarrie's old 'Airfix' rules from the 70's were like wading through cold porridge. You could burn many hours of game time, whole days even, and get through no more than 15 turns – by which point your infantry battalions had struggled little more than 3 or 4 feet across the table top and your magnificent 'battle' had lasted less than 40 minutes of simulated 'real' time!

At first glance Republic to Empire looks a little daunting because Barry Hilton has chosen to provide a lot of background and 'Designers Notes' by way of a guide to the thinking and philosophy behind how the rules work. But the author makes it pretty clear that's all they are – a guide. As I understand it the basic parameters of the rules themselves are NOT set in stone and are intended to be quite flexible (the 1:20 figure ratio is only a recommendation for example) so to start obsessing about turn lengths and theoretical distances covered is just so much 'not seeing the wood for the trees'.

I would recommend people read the rules first – maybe even play them – before getting too distracted by all the concept notes and background. You might discover a system that (from what I've read so far) looks pretty straight forward and free flowing – even elegant.

The way I see it, since I have spend years painting my toy soldiers in my nice and big units (I call it my life long project) I don't mind if the game lasts all day or more, this way I can see my toys in action for that much longer, to have a set of rules that are well written and have rich detail and yet are still playable is a joy. Wargaming is a social hobby (unless you always play solo) and being able to spend time with friends makes it all worth it.

Cheers

Kerpob,

Just how long would it take you to play out that 5 minutes turn? Probably close to 30-45 minutes if you are lucky.

Waterloo was fought from around 10:00am to around 9:00pm. This is around 11 hours or 132 five minute turns. Lets say you get all turns done with 30 minutes of playing time.

You would need around 66 hours or any where from 8-11 days to game this out.

I much prefer to play out my battle in around the same amount or less time than the actual battle.

So this is why you have turns that are around 20-30 minutes of battle time.

Oh and yes I have gamed large battles (3-4 Corps per side) in around 6-8 hours using Inf Battalions and Cav Regts.

OK, well instead of fixing the timescale, fix the ground scale then.

But fix something or resign yourself to playing a game that cannot match real events.

Example: Wellington, at 2.45pm, galloping 3 miles to order Pakenham's 3rd Division's attack on Thomi่res at the battle of Salamanca. Pakenham's division then marches 3 miles, reaching their target at 5pm. Therefore, in SEVEN 20-min turns, a general has moved 3 miles (450 inches in R2E scale), and then a division has moved the same distance. R2E would take almost 30 turns for just one of those movements (and a table 40 ft long!).

Kerpob,

I am happy to debate any sensible issue relating to Republic to Empire but really… you either don't understand what is written or you don't want to understand what is written.

The book is full of detail to answer the type of theoretical questions you keep returning to.

Like learning anything, most concepts and principles become apparent.. once you've played.

There is a six sided play sheet so that users don't have to go back and refer to the book after they get the flow of a game. That happens quite quickly… once you've played.

You haven't played so your comments have to be put in that context. Others posting here have.Some have played infrequently, others more frequently. To me it is clear that practice and exposure to concepts creates familiarity.

Why don't you play some wargames and stop writing about writing reviews about wargames rules? You are working yourself into a hyperbolic frenzy about 40 foot tables and generals marching to the moon and back. Join us back here on earth..

You don't like R2E, that's absolutely OK… stick your book on ebay and do us all a favour.

All the best to you

B

Kerpob,

Basically what you object to is 28mm gaming. Is there a game out there with two minute turns or movement rates of six feet? If you 'fix' the ground scale, how do you handle unit frontage? Do we field units of four models to make move distances 'right'?

In Republic to Empire, units moving forward are not necessarily assumed to be moving at a normal marching pace for the entire twenty minute turn. There may be halts to dress lines, slow reactions to orders given, or variations in the terrain to minor too represent on the table that would still play havoc with orderly formation and movement. The Exploitation concept in the rules allows a brigade to execute multiple moves in one turn, representing the 'full speed ahead' maneuver you seem to be concerned about.

There is a three page essay in the book that outlines all of the 'problems' you have with scale and works through the solutions and compromises that are necessary for a playable game while still providing reasonable results.

If you don't like the command system or the 'buckets of dice' approach to combat, that's fine. Things like that are subjective, will not be to everyone's tastes, and are worth mentioning even without having played a game – the concepts alone may put someone off. Trying to highlight a scale issue that all games share to some degree is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue the point any further because I think you might be deliberately obtuse.

Hear, Hear.

Jim

Persuaded Andrew to try it with me this coming weekend. I'll just say again that the extended play example really helps put things together in my head.

Actually, I somehow had the wrong impression that RtE was a "light" game and was going to overlook them (have enough options), but upon hearing of all the detail I will now order a set!

All of this sounds a bit like my old favorite set of rules from when I first started playing – From Valmy to Waterloo. Same use of a seemingly complex chart book that really sped up play and was all you needed for reference, same division of types of combat etc. into different charts to streamline what you needed to look at. If it's a similar approach, then what looks like a mountain of charts and modifiers at first glance is actually a lot of specialized targeting as a way of presenting specific situations, i.e. a "if you're doing this you only need to worry about this" sort of thing.

Are there any other old Valmy players who can comment on RtE in comparison?

Cheers,

Christopher

Christopher,

glad you are interested in R2E. I just want to put some of the hyperbole thrown around in a couple of the more hysterical earlier posts in perspective a little now.
There is no mountain of charts. There is a double sided gatefold playsheet which gives all of the commonly used play data in one location. All of the charts are not needed all of the time.
If I can use the analogy of a carpenter with a tool box. He has a big box with lots of tools but he doesn't use them all to fit a hinge on a door, he probably uses two or three at most. R2E is like that :
Job is :Cavalry charge and melee : you may need 3 or 4 tables to refer to. These will cover:
Orders: Move: Morale: combat : result

The same applies to all other actions or instances. The fact that they appear in one place (to prevent endless flicking through a 150 book) is it appears, an inconvenience to some. Many of the charts are repeats of the same format to prevent endless scrolling down through lists to find the right factor. So, cavalry, infantry and artillery data are separated for ease of access.
I am a lazy gamer myself so in order to make everything very easy and painless for players who want to use R2E
the data is divided into three categories:

1. Rule mechanics

2. The rationale and theory behind the mechanics (for those remotely interested, this includes historical reference data and the arithmetic where necessary)

3. Examples of the mechanics in action

The book does not have 150 pages of rules. It probably has 40 pages of rules and the rest helps people who can read to understand.Categories 2 & 3 are not even compulsory reading for those who can't be bothered.
My main reason for including them was.. feedback on Beneath the Lily Banners told me people wanted more explanations!!

So, you have probably guessed, if you put something in print.. you can't win!

Unfortunately, threads like this attract a particular type of individual whose motivation for posting has to be treated with a degree of caution I think.

If you want to know anything about R2E Clarence, myself or I am sure many of the play testers or growing number of people who are now gaming with them will be happy to chip in.
Try the forum at

leagueofaugsburg.com

you can also get a peek at the book at

quindia.com

R2E may not be everyone's cup of tea but having played it many times I know it is:

Smooth in mechanical terms.
Quick in the number of turns that can be run even in very large games.
Decisive in result terms.

It has also been designed to stymie the Rules Twister at every turn. Gamey players needn't waste there time buying a copy.

We are just happy people are interested(well most people) so post away!!

Cheers

B

I play wargaming in order to simulate the battles of the period. If I can't use a set of rules to simulate normal battlefield troop movements, I won't use that set.

To me, you'd be as well painting all of one side's miniatures pink and using tiddlywinks for the other side – it's not a wargame then, just a game.

Movement is a fundamental part of a wargame. The R2E movement rates I quoted are normal march of column rates, and they are far too slow for the ground/time scales.

Napoleon asked Soult how long it would take for his men to reach the Pratzen Heights, to which Soult replied, "Less than twenty minutes sire."

Less than 20 minutes to march at least 1 km. In R2E Soult would say "less than two hours sire".

My personal opinion: R2E needs some sort of "strategic movement" rate for undeployed troops outside the combat zone, like Principles of War, or (iirc) Age of Eagles.

Wordtwister2/Quindia, please deal with the arguements, no more personal attacks.

Sell the rules mate..

They have already answered your arguements you just dont want to understand them. If you like PoW and AoE that's fine, just stick to using those rules and stop trying to pick negative points in rules that you obviously don't understand.

BTW If Napoleon and Soult add their MP's to Soult's troops they would be able to march 1km in one bound using the exploitation moves as has already been explained to you already.

"I play wargaming in order to simulate the battles of the period. If I can't use a set of rules to simulate normal battlefield troop movements, I won't use that set."

Then you won't be playing ANY published wargame rules! Trust me, I went through the same route years ago trying to balance paces/minute versus tabletop movement, and in fact used "Soult's Twenty Minutes" as my illustration as well. Even the most detailed and realistic sets of rules (From Valmy to Waterloo, for instance), whose authors are eminently well versed in the issues at hand, all apply a bit of hand-waving in order to portray the game on the tabletop. It's a question of pacing the action in a controllable and recognizable fashion.

If you're really bothered by it, start another topic! It's really a universal issue of game design, and nothing at all unique to these rules (in fact, perhaps even less so than usual given the Exploitation move mechanic just described).

Cheers,

Christopher

PS – I'll buy them from you! ;)

Kerpob,

Change what you feel should be changed. It's that easy and I'm sure Barry would agree. If you don't like/agree with a particular point within the rules then change it/them. Simple, easy, fast, and fun.

Kerpop –
Wordtwister2/Quindia, please deal with the arguements, no more personal attacks.

Well I suppose they might drop the 'personal attacks' if you drop the repetitive rubbishing of their rules over one minor issue. Especially as they have responded (politely) and in detail to your complaint, yet you don't seem to want to do them the curtesy of actually acknowledging their answers. You just repeat the same complaint!

I'm a fair way into reading RtoE now, and looking back at your review it seems pretty clear to me that you either misunderstood (or didn't want to understand) the philosophy behind them. If you don't like the rules that's your prerogative of course, and if you want to pose negative questions about them in a review that's fair enough as well – but there's a point when endless repetition of the same point without entering into the debate properly starts to sound like prejudice and an agenda. If I had sweated over these rules for many months of my spare time (as the authors no doubt did – they are a very fine production) and you subjected my efforts to such a sustained, petty, and ill informed attack, I think I'd be getting a bit 'personal' with you by now!

So try showing a little respect maybe? You've had your say – now just walk away and carry on playing with your favourite 'super realistic' rules set and leave the rest of us to make up our minds. Oh – and good luck in your quest for the true military simulation on the table top… it doesn't exist.

[Actually, I somehow had the wrong impression that RtE was a "light" game and was going to overlook them (have enough options), but upon hearing of all the detail I will now order a set!]

Chris, you should definitely buy it. It's right up your alley. It has all the "flavor" that you're looking for, in terms of options and process. But it's a hell of a lot better written than those American games of yesteryear that we've struggled through in the past.

best,
Sam

I have pre ordered my set and still waiting and hoping.

More I read this discussion, more I want to get my hands on the rules.

Cheers

Mashroomca,

Did you preorder direct from LoA site? We have no preorders outstanding.. they all went out 3 weeks ago. Email me pls and let me know your details… seems too long unless you are in Tibet!!

wordtwister02

Yes, it was from LoA site, I do not live that far, across the pond in Canada.

Cheers

What is your email address I can send my info to? do not what to post the info here on a TMP.

CATenWOLDE,
Oh those Valmy to Waterloo games. Chris, I am waiting for my copies of RtE to arrive, so I can try them out. They went the long way to Australia and back. I am looking forward to reading them.
I am reading Sam's Lasalle & TFL LeFeuSacreIII at this moment.And have a Carnage & Glory game set up in the warroom. What a great time for Napoleonic gaming. Drop me a line as you try these rulesets, always interested in what you think.
I think as more people try all of these new rulesets we will get a much better idea of their strengths. It does seem like every new rulesets has its designated immediate detractor.

cheers,
rob
eureka miniatures usa

wordtwister@hotmail.co.uk

[I play wargaming in order to simulate the battles of the period. If I can't use a set of rules to simulate normal battlefield troop movements, I won't use that set.]

What set do you actually play? Without going to the book cases, I probably have twenty different Napoleonic rule sets, but I don't have one that doesn't grapple with these issues. The strategic movement option is a neat trick, but messes with the time-space continuum and simply requires a different suspension of disbelief.

Regarding the Exploitation move. This involves cumulating all your MPs together to move a single brigade.

So, when Napoleon asks Soult how long it takes to reach the Pratzen Heights, R2E Soult will reply "Less than twenty minutes for one brigade, but the rest must remain motionless, sire."

At 9 inches = 100 yards, the game has a big scale. A small battle would require a very large table. Example: Quatre Bras was about 4km by 4km, which would require a R2E table 30 foot by 30 foot. The point being, if R2E is involved in small-scale engagements, wouldn't these be over a lot quicker than a large battle? A timescale of 5-10 minutes per turn would then make sense (as well as better fitting the movement rates).

As the rules designers are reading this thread – here's a question: Why was the compromise made on the ground scale, but not the time scale? If a turn was, say 5-10 minutes, would that detract from anything else in the game? A 20-turn game would therefore represent a 2 hour engagement, instead of 6-7 hour battle.

It's obvious from your answer that you haven't read the rules. You can exploit with more than one brigade at a time provided you had enough MP's.

I suggest you sell the rules and give it a rest.

I will not dignify pedantry of this calibre with an answer other that what I have said before..

sell R2E..I'll buy the book back off you.. how much do you want for it?

Take some time off and write your own rules

If you want to take part in debate, recognise the social conventions of human interaction, otherwise waste someone else's time.

Movement rates in wargames has obviously been a long-standing issue with Kerpob!

TMP link

Ok, I don't usually post but I just have to add one additional item to the mix. Can you say "Friction of War" and all that goes with it? There, I knew you could!
Best of luck to everyone in finding the rules they are searching for whether these or any other.