"Republic to Empire review" Topic

You can exploit with more than one brigade at a time provided you had enough MP's.

I understand that, but for the specific example (1km advance in 20 mins at Austerlitz), you would have a French division of 5 brigades (assuming that 1 French regiment counts as a "brigade" for R2E).

To calculate MPs you roll an average dice per brigade – so that's a typical score of 18 MPs for 5 brigades, then add 6 MPs for Soult, and 8 for Napoleon. Total 32.

To advance one brigade 1km is 5 advance moves in R2E. This costs 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 MPs for a total of 20 MPs. So only one Brigade of the 5 can get there.

That leaves 12 MPs left over, so another brigade could perhaps move part of the way there as well, or else the extra MPs might be needed to get the one brigade out of march column into a fighting formation, and Napoleon/Soult did have two divisions to advance up the Pratzen. If I got this wrong, I apologise.

Arteis – 2 posts in more than 2 years is not a long standing issue! But that was a good thread.

Again, what rules do you actually play?

Kerpob,

Can I buy your set? I'll pay for the postage too.

Well the real problem is that game designers have to work with trying to build a set of rules that will allow most individuals to play a game on tables that are at best 4-6 feet across and 8-12 feet long.

Now most individuals can reach approx 3-3.5 feet across a tabletop without any problems (knocking figures over or throwing their back out).

This gives you the 6 feet across table. Which means that you only have 72" of gaming on that table across whys.

Now depending on just what figure scale (6mm, 10mm, 15mm & 28mm) you are using and the ratio to figure to men (1:20, 1:60 or 1:120) determines just how big will be your battlefield.

Now most Infantry Battalions during the Napoleonic era had any where from 540-720 men normally. The Austrians Battalions were bigger.

But lets use a 720 man battalion. This would mean that the frontage of this Battalion when it was in Line Formation would be somewhere between 160-240 yards (three ranks of 240 men each with a 30 inch space).

This is where the ratio of figure to men comes in. At 1:20 using 15mm (my preferred scale) means that a 720 man battalion would be 36 figures. I base my figures 4 to a base thus this means I would have 9 bases. The distance from one end to the other in inches is around 8 inches or around 200 yards

If I use a ratio of 1:60 that is 12 figures and the distance is around 3 inches for 200 yards.

Now using my 6 feet table using the 1:20 Ratio means that the distance across the table is just a bit over one mile (72"/8" = 9*200 yards = 1800 yards. One mile is 1760 yards.

At the 1:60 ratio the distance across the table would be around 2.7 miles (72"/3" = 24*200 = 4000 yards or 2.73 miles).

This is using a scale of 15mm. At 28mm using the same 4 figures to a base you can expect to cut these in half.

Either way you need to do something because given regular movement rates of the time a battalion will across that 6 feet in one 20-30 minute turn.

Well as stated earlier unless you can set up your games on a basketball/tennis court live with the fact that movement rates will do funny things when gaming on a tabletop.

Or you can drop down to 6mm and get closer to those standard movement rates.

All of which rather begs the question why would most 28mm gamers want to be bothered recreating the WHOLE of Soult's approach march up onto the Pratzen in the first place?

If your typical tabletop width using 15mm or 28mm figures represents little more than a mile you could just squeeze it on but there wouldn't be much room left to recreate the actual fighting on top of the Pratzen – and presumably it's the latter that is of more interest to your typical gamer?

Most 28mm gamers refighting the vital contest on the Pratzen will logically start their game with Saint-Hilaire and Vandamme's divisions just breaking onto the top of heights (the approach up the slope will be taken as read). And so it must be, unless you are a 28mm or 15mm wargamer with huge resources and a massive table with the DEPTH to allow the recreation of the whole thing. Great if you can – but a pipe dream for the rest of us ordinary mortals.

If you want to do the whole thing from initial French deployment and encompass the fighting on the Pratzen your only alternative is the smaller 2mm (yes – Irregular Miniatures make them), 6mm, or (at a pinch) 10mm figures, and you'll still need a very big table. None of which has much relevance to REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE – a rules set clearly aimed at the LARGER figure scale gamers. The full implications of which seem to have rather passed over kerpob's head…

And just on a point of detail kerpob – I'd be wary of hanging your definitive interpretations of Napoleonic time and motion studies on just one or two famous historical examples, like Soult's advance up the Pratzen. For a sound hypothesis you will need to collate and study a lot more mundane historical examples than that.

Soult's 20 minute thrash up the Pratzan was conducted by experienced, superbly drilled and led brigades of a Grand Armee at the peek of its powers. They were unmolested by the enemy for the duration of the march; they knew the ground well, and they knew exactly where they were going (their commanders having had the advantage of studying the area carefully during the proceeding 24 hours after Napoleon had told them they were going to fight a battle on it). Few Napoleonic commanders were ever so fortunate.

Soult's advance up the Pratzan might have been representative of what other units in the Grand Armee might have been POTENTIALLY capable of achieving c.1805-07, but there's more than a good chance it was otherwise extraordinary in terms of distances the French (and other nationalities) could manage to cover during the rest of the wars.

Taken on its own the Soult example is hardly a sound basis to construct a time and motion frame work for a whole set of Napoleonic wargames rules – nor is it a sound basis on which to attempt a DE-construction of someone else's rules. Especially when the rules you are reviewing aren't really designed to simulate the type of event (an approach march – under ideal conditions) you are pinpointing!

kerpob,

I think you're being selectively skeptical to try and belabor an apparently favorite gaming issue – which is common enough, but hardly productive. First, while I don't have the rules yet, why assume that a regiment equals a brigade for the rules purpose? Why not go the easier path and assume that, for instance, a brigade equals a brigade? Second, why assume that Soult's advance actually took twenty minutes just because he (supposedly) said that to Napoleon before the advance occurred? It could easily have taken 30-40 minutes for any number of reasons and no one in the midst of a chaotic battle would be any wiser. Try your "math" with 3 brigades instead of 5 regiments, and extend the time by 50-100% and you will probably get much closer to the actual historical parameters.

As I said, I went through all of this years ago and ended up concluding that the "hard data" just weren't all that reliable in the first place – numbers on paper can seem seductively positivist but prove chimaerical.

Kerbop,

Do you want to sell me your copy of the rules? I'm still interested.

Myself and a few of the lads recently played a corps v division level scenario recreating the rearguard cavalry actions at Genappe on June 17th 1815. The table was 10 x 6 feet and we played long ways up the table. The scenario was a time limited affair which was over in 10 turns. This had 4 players and about 700-800 figures. We finished it in about 4.5 to 5 hours playing time with plenty of chatting in between turns. This time simulated just over 3 hours of battle time.
The game involved 5 batteries of artillery as well as about 16 French Battalions and around 10 Allied and 6 French cavalry regiments.
Plenty of movement, plenty of action, plenty of exploitation.
A scaled down version of the scenario will appear in one of the mainstream mgs over the next couple of months.

This is a typical multi player game using Republic to Empire

And the main part about the game was that it felt and played like a Napoleonic battle and the important part was that it was great fun and you didn't need a maths degree to workout time or distance calculations.

Seems Mr Wordtwister02 (aka Barry Hilton) is a bit annoyed at TMPers who've posted in this thread. He's posted his opinion about them on his LOA forum.

link

I wonder why he didn't post his thoughts here?

That rant wasn't about this thread, it was about the ridiculous argument bashing publishers of glossy books. In the interest of full disclosure maybe you'd care to reveal the reasons behind this post…

TMP link

… or the early one in this thread. Sounds like something personal between you and Barry for a cheap shot like that. BLB sold out by the way and the second edition is in the works. You may notice Barry has 7 total posts on TMP, all in this one thread, so it's not a place he frequents (as opposed to more than 2300 posts on the LoA forum). I don't think it's hiding to post your thoughts on the forum that carry's your name.

My name is Barry.

Is that your contribution to the thread Paul?

Well, there is your answer..

"That rant wasn't about this thread"

My apologies for stating the comments were for this thread, and not for the correct thread about glossy books.

Still, if you have a comment or two about TMPers then logic dictates you post them on TMP – but I suspect the comments Barry posted on the LOA forum would have got him into the Dawghouse here. So nice to be able to spout off on a forum that will never chastise you for such comments.

"Is that your contribution to the thread Paul?"

As for my contribution, I post what I like when I like, in (I hope) accordance to the forum rules. All I did here was highlight your TMP comments – others have done the same in the past, I see nothing wrong in doing so.

"Sounds like something personal between you and Barry for a cheap shot like that."

Nothing personal. I do have a dislike of his Banners rules, which resulted after over a years worth of playing them.

And as for cheap shots, look no further than comments posted on the LOA forum about TMPers – I haven't used bad language to describe LOA members here on TMP, yet the same isn't true about the description of TMPers on the LOA forum.

There are your answers, gentlemen.

Join the LoA forum and have a rant there..
I don't mind

[Nothing personal. I do have a dislike of his Banners rules, which resulted after over a years worth of playing them.]

About BLB from Mr Hurst:
'He must be smoking something really good to suggest using a ruleset that is so bad!'
'For a ruleset described as '18 years of playtesting' it smacks of 18 minutes of beer-mat scriblings!'

It wouldn't have taken me a year to figure out the rules were that bad. That was in response to a query about using the rules for the ECW. All you needed to do to contribute was suggest a set you liked better.

About R2E from Mr Hurst:
'As for R2E, I saw a copy at Smoggycon, and got bored reading it after 10mins.'

You obviously didn't even get R2E a chance, yet felt the need to chime in on a thread offering a review for people who might be interested. That contribution was worth less than the BLB one.

BTW, Here's Charles Grant on R2E:
'The superb presentation and wonderful pictures might lead the casual observer to believe that Republic to Empire is the equivalent of a coffee table book – a visual spectacle to be admired. And so they should be but there is far more than that! The rules are very well researched, clearly explained and most importantly eminently payable. They are admirably suited to big battles but also to smaller games. Barry has introduced mechanisms designed to reduce the all seeing and instantly reactive abilities of the wargamer while rewarding initiative and forward thinking. This development really does help to reflect the realities of the tactical battlefield of the time. Suffice to say that this is not just another set of Napoleonic rules – it represents a real step forward in reflecting Napoleonic warfare on the wargame table.'

Barry didn't disparage all TMPers, only TMPers like you. Why bother to comment on a rule set after a 10 minute look?

If there are real questions or criticisms about R2E, I'll be happy to entertain them. If I see misconceptions posted as facts I will answer them. As far as the rest, I'm finished to responding to the kind of posts we've gone back and forth on now…

Barry,

"Join the LoA forum and have a rant there.."

I don't play Banners anymore, so I don't see the need to join a forum for a ruleset I don't play. Neither do I want to join to post comments ad infinitum or to claim credit for other peoples' work, like Mr King.

"Barry didn't disparage all TMPers, only TMPers like you."

All this because I dislike a ruleset and posted a link to Barry's comments. Gee, I hate to see what pathetic mental state you get into if I pulled the wings off a fly!

Mr Grant posts a glowing review and everyone connected to R2E wants to have his babies. Someone else posts a negative thought, and you guys want to hang him from the nearest lamp-post!

"If I see misconceptions posted as facts I will answer them."

And, apparently, personal opinions should only be posted if they agree with you. My opinion is fact for me, as yours is for you. Yet I don't see the need to crap over your opinion because its different to mine.

Seriously, Paul…

Your opinion is fine. No one commented that you think the QRS is too long. That's an opinion even though you formed it after a ten minute look. Zero negative response to your opinion. I didn't comment earlier on your BLB rants either because they were your opinion, though framed in an unnecessarily snarky language.

The OP in this thread didn't like the command system. No comment from me… that's an opinion. A misconception, such as there being '70 different outcomes on the Resolve Table' deserves a response because the poster made a mistake based on a look through. I will respond to things like that every time.

The only other thing you offered were 'Nice book quality. Lovely photos. Shame about the size of the rules.' Thanks for the first two BTW. I have no problem that you think the rules are too long. That's an opinion, again formed after a ten minute glance, but whatever. Black Powder which you like has thirty more pages. Both books have lots of 'fluff' that has gotten them panned in other threads and neither requires all those pages to play.

Honestly, this kind of back and forth is childish. I don't have any ill will against you… I don't even know you. I responded to what seemed like an attack on a friend after seeing several such posts – It simply seemed like someone making trouble. If your intentions were innocent then I apologize.

To everyone else, as far as the LoA forum and combating a MISCONCEPTION (willful though it may have been), there are over a dozen categories there, only of two of which directly relate to BLB or R2E, of which Paul is well aware since he obviously lurks around there to have found all the posts he mentioned.

It seems to me that people get very upset if you question their rules or even say that they are not for you.

I myself would not waste my hard earned pennies on these rules which is of course my perogative as they are not for me.

I have read here a suggestion that these rules are good for both small and Large battles. However, it would be interesting to see a refight of waterloo on a 40 foot table or even more impressive Austerlitz on a 104 foot by 65 foot table

You pays your money you makes your choice.

I have to say a thought the comments on LoA forum unfair to TMP contributors, if you produce wargames rules you have to in the market for criticism, unless these are the definitive rules for the period

There are threads on many forums where people decry members of TMP (or, in some cases, the silly pun of 'PMT') as a group. It is almost de rigeur on some boards to do this.

What they fail to understand is that *they* are also TMPers, (or PMTers, if they prefer) if they are also posting here.

The internet is not a real place where people belong to just one specific area. People belong to lots of message boards. A TMPer is just as likely to also be a LoA member, a WD Loves Me member or a Frothers member, and vice versa.

One thing about TMP, though, is that its sheer size means you'll nearly always meet TMPers who have contrary views to yours, whereas many smaller boards are made up of members who generally share the same viewpoint (especially boards focussed on specific rule-sets or manufacturers).

My feeling is if you haven't taken the time to read the rules cover to cover and/or play them (hopefully more than once) then your criticisms are of no value to anyone.

Everything else is just hot air. You are entitled to your hot air but the rest of us don't need it.

I think you want it both ways Paul…

You like to put the 'boot in' with provocative phraseology to try for a cheap laugh or a 'hooray' from the 'many headed' and then get all moralistic, offended and take the high ground when people question your motives. That is precisely what makes many TMPers the focus of negative reaction. The Internet offers the ultimate hiding place.. there is no accountabilty and people can be as big as they like in here.. right?

For someone uninterested in what goes on at leagueofaugsburg.com you seem to have lurked around the LoA forum enough to have picked up various threads which are nothing to do with 'Banners'.. by the way, why not shorten it a bit more to Ban or Ba or B?

I personally don't get upset with comments or critique about any of my work. I grew out of short trousers a long time ago. If folk disagree with mechanisms, concepts, fluff, photos, playsheets etc … cool… nobody died.. I am happy to engage in constructive conversations as long as someone is getting something out of it.
You will not find me defending or justifying anything I have written in this thread. why should I?

If people who like my work offer some defence, I consider it an honour that they would even take the time.. it's nice to have friends…

What I do find craven are the 'cheap shot men'..
crass comments, jump on the band wagon, get a laugh (or not) types. Noise without substance.

They TALK a LOT about their hobby. How much they actually DO is a moot point.

I've written something else you might not like.. it's in WI this month..borrow a copy… maybe you'll recognise some of the people in the article.

We should meet, I'll buy you a beer sometime. I'm sure that would be an interesting chat.

"No one commented that you think the QRS is too long. That's an opinion even though you formed it after a ten minute look."

Didn't take 10mins for that – I held it in my hand and unfolded it. Looks more like a DnD DM's screen that a wargamers QRS.

"I didn't comment earlier on your BLB rants either because they were your opinion, though framed in an unnecessarily snarky language."

I've seen far worse from people who claim to be above such things – quite recently, too.

"If your intentions were innocent then I apologize."

My intentions were merely to show TMPers what sort of description they were attracting from an author. If said author, or his friends, don't like my linking then perhaps its his words that need to be used more carefully, not my link ability.

"of which Paul is well aware since he obviously lurks around there to have found all the posts he mentioned."

I've known about the LOA forum since playing BLB. My recent "lurks" came about because of the Ray King fiasco. I went through the forum to see what else was happening and came upon the TMP thread. Up until a few days ago, I'd never visited the LOA forum for many months – the last time was to download the errata to see if BLB had been improved to my liking. It hasn't so I haven't been back, until recently.

This thread seems to have been diverted from a review of R2E to just having a personal pop at Barry for his views of certain posters. It appears that certain people are keen to make personal attacks yet object to anyone else having a personal view of their comments. Perhaps cetain people should pick up their toys and get back in their prams and get the thread back on track. And before anyone decides to comment I am a friend of Barry.

"I think you want it both ways Paul"

It appears we are two peas in the same pod – at least I post my comments in the appropriate place, and not behind the safety of my own forum.

"For someone uninterested in what goes on at leagueofaugsburg.com you seem to have lurked around the LoA forum enough to have picked up various threads which are nothing to do with 'Banners'"

See my reply to Quindia's comment above.

"What I do find craven are the 'cheap shot men'..crass comments, jump on the band wagon, get a laugh (or not) types. Noise without substance."

You missed out "and guys who use their own forum to berate members of another".

"I've written something else you might not like.. it's in WI this month..borrow a copy… maybe you'll recognise some of the people in the article."

Bought said copy, and I've already read it. Personally, I wouldn't have written an article like that and aimed it at the people I'm hoping will buy rulesets I publish. Its akin to Gerald Ratner telling everyone his jewellery is crap then expecting people to buy it.

"We should meet, I'll buy you a beer sometime. I'm sure that would be an interesting chat."

Why not. As you say, it would be an interesting chat. I'm planning on being at York, Falkirk, Edinburgh, and Derby (so far!) next year, we may 'bump' into each other.

(*yawn*) Anyway…. back with the rules…

Just about read mine now, despite frequent pre-Christmas domestic distractions and interruptions. I like what I see, and I'll certainly give them a good go, with perhaps one or two minor 'in-house' alterations. However, nothing major – I like the way all the main mechanisms appear to work. Easy to remember as well.

In my opinion the original reviewer failed to get his head around the overall philosophy behind the rules and couldn't see past his obsession for 'authentic' movement distances within the recommended time scale. Several posters have already highlighted the flaws in that – especially the limitations of the main piece of historical evidence he was offering to support his claim. A rather misleading review resulted.

So – Anyone else want to talk about the actual rules? Something critical – yet constructive perhaps? Or is it back to the boring pointless personal agenda stuff?

Robespierre, I'm with you on that.

As I said before, any straight questions about mechanisms I am happy to talk about.

What 'in house' alterations did you have in mind?

What 'in house' alterations did you have in mind?

Oh – before I start shooting my mouth off about what those might be I should probably do you the service of first playing your rules straight Mr wordtwister – and with Christmas looming I'm unlikely to get the chance to do that for several weeks. But fear not! What ever 'in house' amendments my very small group of gaming buddies (four of us) might eventually try they will doubtless be fairly superficial experiments which will say more about our gaming prejudices than anything that might be missing from your rules!

We are fans of variable movement for example – nothing too drastic, just a dice based system that can add or knock off a couple of inches or three here and there to reflect unexpected obstacles. (We are of the opinion that just because a table top might look like clear terrain doesn't mean it actually is). Something akin to the system in the AWI rules British Grenadier perhaps.

But I must stress such experiments – assuming we decide to try them – will be just added layers to what looks to be a very sound gaming system. I don't think we'll be messing around with your basic combat resolution and command and control mechanics. You are to be congratulated on a very fine product.

Actually I considered the variable movement principle as I too like it but decided to leave it out only as it added an extra layer of detail that did not add proportionate realism. I have used it in The March of Eagles for Victrix because those rules are aimed at 'brigade sized' battles with alternate unit movement. I felt that with the large engagements which are the primary focus of Republic to Empire I would speed things along as much as possible. That is the main driver behind the brigade level orders and the amount of detail availble within the brigade order descriptions. Each brigade has some flexibility at individual unit level to do what it needs to as long as this is in line with the general order definition.
I am not in favour of all troops moving all of the time. It simply did not happen. Many (perhaps most) Napoleonic battles hinged on the decisive activities of a brigade or Division. General engagement across an entire army frontage simultaneously was very uncommon. This more than anything is the driving mechanism behind Republic to Empire.
Decisive, planned activity by chosen 'segments' of a force. Concentration of effort, command and leadership to create or exploit an opportunity. This is also why artillery fire is limited, refits are necessary for batteries and the chain of command is vital to make things happen.
The player who squanders his precious artillery ammo on long range, speculative fire is wasting his time. The most marked change I have seen in behaviour when gaming with the rules is the way players really think before firing their cannon. Long range fire has all but disappeared from games. This also speeds up play. Napoleonic artillerists were unlikely to blaze away at distant targets for a wide variety of reasons, so why should gamers apart from the gamey outcome of causing some more casualties and hopefully getting some dice throws to boast about later over a beer!

There will be a few Republic to Empire demos on the circuit this coming year for those interested in coming along to see the rules in action. So far you'll be able to see them at
SALUTE April, London : Waterloo 7.30pm
PARTIZAN I, May, Newark : scenario tbc
HISTORICON July, Baltimore?? scenario tbc

Clarence and I are also expecting to upload some FREE downloadable scenarios either on leagueofaugsburg.com or via quindia.com.

Should also be a sceanrio for the cavalry rearguard action at Genappe on 17th June 1815 appearing in one of the main mag titles in January or February.

thanks

Bought copy at Salute and impressed so far. Looking forward to playing a game in anger.

And Barry – appears I have already registered at your website as it will not accept my work email – how can I find out what name I used (!), as nice to use work email as I spend most of my life there!!!!

Nice report of one chap's experience participating in his first game of R2E here:

link

Marc, not sure how often Barry check in here – drop me a note (http://www.quindia.com/studiocontact.htm) and I'll make sure Barry gets back to you ASAP…