"Black Powder v Republic to Empire?" Topic

From what I have read here on the TMP they both are aimed at the same level of play and they both came out at about the same time. But Black Powder seems to have more traction than Republic to Empire.

Anyone familiar with both of these rulesets and willing to compare the two?

RtE is Napoleonic specific, and is more complex than BP.

BP is a 'beer & pretzel' type and is aimed at a larger period (entire Horse & Musket era).

It's two different style imho. Depends what you're after. I think both games have merits and both are good games.

Here's my take on Black Powder : link

I have yet to try RtE, but it's only a question of time before I do.

Iannick
clashofempires.ca

Having gone over both set of rules I will say that BP is a much easier game to play and easier to learn.

For me, BP is the better of the two games, and you can play more than one period with the rules.

Having played both sets of rules in numerous games BP gives a very quick game that players seem to pick up very easily but gave no feel of a Napoleonic game as individual units seemed to zip all over the place with very little need for command and control. The only periods I thought BP worked for was the AWI and Colonial period but my club used them for a very large SYW weekend game with about 40 battalions per side and everyone seemed to have fun but the fact that the French and Austrians seemed to be running rings around the Prussians didn't seem right to me. R2E on the other hand are written specifically for the period and are full of flavour of the period where command and control are the most essential aspect of the rules. Although at first glance they look complicated the basic mechanisms for shooting and combat are very quick and after a couple of games all you will need to use is the playsheet. There is also a seperate Appendix for fighting the Revolutionary period and one for the 1812 American war. If you want a very quick 'fun' game then go for BP if you want to fight a Napoleonic battle, go for R2E

First up I sholud make clear that I haven't even read R2E yet, although I have studied some pretty comprehensive reviews by guys I trust. They are at pains to point out that the intial 'Oh my god its sooo complicated' assessment of R2E is unfair….

The point I actually want to make is that, IMHO, Black Powder, though indeed designed for the whole horse and musket era, should not be dismissed out of hand as an authorative way to play Napoleonics because of that… It can be used to give a good feel for any of the phases of the Napoleonic Wars.

The current fashion in Napoleonic rules is an emphasis on limiting C2, possibly as a backlash against rules that were too freewheeling. But by accident or design, BP seems to me give just the right amount of friction, blunders, and the occassional sweeping breakthough.

I think its possible to get too wound around the axle when it comes to Napoleonic C2. At the end of the day, the Commander did or did not get his orders to the right formation in time to do what he wanted. Some of the units in that formation dithered, some got carried away, and some did pretty much what he hoped for, with CO's reacting to events in the immeadiate vicinity according to doctrine and their individual ability on the day…It ain't rocket science – well apart from maybe the RHA at Leipzig!

Kind Regards,

Sparker

We're all different and like different things, but I like to try and play how the history reads. The books I read always talk about the decisions the commanders are making and then describe how the troops are executing those orders. So for me a good C3 (Command, Control, Communications) set of mechanisms is crucial. It doesn't have to be complicated but it has to be there. Its my biggest problem with LaSalle for instance.

For this reason I am interested in RtoE but still very happy with LFS III.

Others mileage may vary.

Sparker Mate … you said all that standing on your head! How is 'Oz and thanks for the outline. Baghdad and Bahrain are redders!

Hi Royal,

Oz is great – f---freezin at the mo – 18Degs Mate – LOL!

Can't believe your on OpTour again. You take care now – pulling that pension is a nice feeling!

I guess yo've got Ramadan coming round soon – good timing! BTW I hear they've got a good salad bar at the 5th Fleet NSA – never used it myself!

So have you been in the O Club yet? – All a bit plastic IMHO

Any wargamers in your mob?

Kind Regards,

Sparker

I concur with Dave O'Brien. having played both sets of rules I think RtE give you better feel for the period. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with BP. They just don't seem to give you the feeling that your fighting a Napoleonic battle. My vote would go with RtE if it was a straight choice. Yes they are a bit daunting at first, but the mechanics are really simple and easy to pick up.

Can you describe what you missed in BP to let it feel as a napoleonic game?
I have both sets ordered so am interested in the remarks that were made.

Duc

It's a case of 'horses for courses'. If you want a set of rules for a Napoleonic wargame, covering the many aspects of the period in detail, then go R&E. If you want a set of generic rules that give you scope to play a Napoleonic wargame in a simpler way then go BP.

I think it is strange that people do not think BP gives 'feel', as IMHO they are designed to allow wargamers to play games based on their own view of how particular periods should 'feel'. We all have different views of how a period should feel and how they should play and that's what BP gives. I have both, but have not used R&E as yet (but I will eventually), but have had enjoyable games of BP.

BP are generic and not period specific and because of that it is the wargamers approach to any period that is important, not the authors. Certainly BP has a style of play that is not to everyone's taste, but you could say that about every set of wargame rules ever written.

Try both and make your own mind up. As I said I have not yet played R&E, but when I do I might find that I use them for Napoleonics and BP for other periods. I am presently developing BP for 1866 and Marlburian, adapting some of their 'useful' additional rules.

Chad

Black powder is to Napoleonics what Elmer Fudd is to rabbit hunting…..

Never played RTE…., but if the choice is between suffering black powder ever again or it, there is only one choice.

Never played RTE but love Blackpowder. I like its versatility , and its simple but very effective mechanics. I like how its presented and I like how it plays, and Im more entertained by a BP Naps game than by anything else Ive played….except possibly an amazing Royal Navy V Martians game I played at gamecon once.

How does General de Brigade compare to BP and/or RtE ?

GdeB is pretty easy to pick up on, and so looks better than R2E on first glance. But I am currently trying to make the transistion as R2E has some more interesting mechanisms.

Both look good sets, and I enjoy GdeB, so I definitely not dissing it, but R2E has a more modern feel to it, so maybe a fashion thing.

I wish that I could make it to Historicon this year to try out R2E firsthand from the author himself.

TASEOTTIFI

(There are some elements of this thread I find incomprehensible)

Black powder is to Napoleonics what Elmer Fudd is to rabbit hunting

Famous for it, and entertaining.

'famous for it, and entertaining'

..more like uses stupid language and never gets the rabbit!

I am not sure that you should be comparing the two as they are aimed at diference audiences. BP is aimed at a more Beer and Pretzels laugh a minute audience and RTE is aimed at a more high end user. BP is a simple sytem whereas RTE is a medium to high level complexity game. If you said compare Napoleon to BP then that would be a fairer comparison.

Just my 2 cents worth! :)

But I still get a good game that feels right with BP

me too. It works well, though its mechanisms are simple the results are impressive.

And its hilarous.

'And its hilarious'

I'll give you that…….Another similarity to Elmer!

Its mechanisms are simple, surprisingly interlinked in a disjointed way and the results are very hilarious.

oh…it also destroys the visuals.

I particularly liked someone telling me you didnt have casualty removal in BP so you got all your figures on the table, then within seconds removing 50 odd figures that were unfortunate to find they had been in support of a routed unit and were in their original deployment position.

I have reached the stage where I just refuse point blank to entertain them in any way, shape or form because they are pure Elmer Fudd.

Kevan, you really have it in for these rules, don't you? Despite the masses of people who like them very much, and despite Black Powder's much played development history.

The person who told you casualties are not removed is right (see p48). In fact, bearing in mind your interest in visuals, casualty figures can actually be *added*.

But, as with many other rules, if a whole unit breaks, it is removed. If that worries you, you could just turn your figures round and give them rout moves for visual reasons.

Supporting units *only* do a break test if the unit they were supporting breaks. That may mean they too break … entirely feasible, and also common amongst many other rulesets out there.

Finally, you are fully in your rights to refuse to play these rules … the authors themselves state that the rules are not for everyone. But please don't forget your dislike of 'Black Powder' is due to your opinion and preferred play-style, not that the rules themselves are bad (which many, many happy BP gamers would disagree with!).

I beg to differ.

I consider the rules to be very very poor, not anything to do with the play style.

Hmmm, how can a set of rules that many people find enjoyable be "poor"? By what criteria? How would you define a "good" set of rules? On whose authority to you act as arbiter?

To me, a "good" set of rules is simply one which is coherent, logical and plausible in its mechanisms and from which any number of wargamers derive enjoyable games. Based on this, Black Powder certainly counts as a "good" ruleset.

In the old days, when I was young and green in judgement, I used to think that Avalon Hill's "Squad Leader" were a "good" set of WW2 boardgame rules, on the basis of my definition then of being highly detailed and accurate, but I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a fork now than ever play them again. I think back to endless, eye-watering calculations with Newbury Rules SYW/Napoleonic/ACW sets and their ilk during the 1970s and early 1980s, and how I spent most of my wargaming time faffing around with the minutiae best left to captains and sergeants, and constantly searching back and forth through the rulebooks for clarification, rather than making the command decisions required of brigadiers and generals and, heaven help us, having fun. Actual physical and mental exhaustion amongst the players was a common outcome in those days, and I spent a fortune on paracetamol. The older I get, the more I realise that I prefer lower-level decisions to be found in skirmish-level gaming, and my big games to feel like the sweeping ebb and flow of battle that so inspired me in all those history books I read.

I've played Black Powder a few times, had great fun , and the games had plenty of period flavour, thank you. They may not be perfect, but I defy anyone to find a rules set that is -- by our very nature as wargamers, we like to tinker and fiddle, based on our own prejudices and preconceptions of a period and the gaming aspects from which we derive most enjoyment.

In short, all you can say is that you don't happen to like them, and that's fine. I've not had the opportunity to play RtE yet, but it's clear that they are a worthy, much more detailed and period-specific ruleset, based on Barry's interpretation of the period and the kind of big games that he and his chums at The League of Gentlemen Wargamers like to play. And that's fine too.

Each, as the saying goes, to their own.

Henry
Battlegames
battlegames.co.uk

I am no arbiter nor ever claimed it, I have an opinion and anyone and everyone is allowed to disagree completely with it, just as you have done.

'To me, a "good" set of rules is simply one which is coherent, logical and plausible in its mechanisms'

Yep that does it for me too…..

I can find no coherence, logic or hint of plausibility in the fact it is easier for musket fire to inflict a casualty on a line and/or skirmishers than it is on an attack column. ,,,,,swayed me that it has none of the above.

Was it your magazine or Wargames illustrated that had that review of the four napoleonic wargames rules that slated foundry and rte and praised Black powder and Lasalle?

I couldn't stop laughing when it had a dig at foundry for having this very same effect and then described black powder as 'sound with no serious flaws'

KevanG,

It is your perfect right not to like a set of rules. I personally have always been a fan of anything Rick Priestly has been involved in except GW – 40k and Warhammer Fantasy (despite having sold hundreds of thousands worth of GW through the shop.)

That said I can see why many others would be turned off the BP rules. They are quite generic and simple. Some players just enjoy Medium or High Level games and others low level complexity games in a certain era.

I sell a fair few BP rules through the shop, but do not personally play them as I am supporting Napoleonic playtesting for Koenig Krieg Napoleonics and really like what Siege Works Studios has done with these developing rules.

The great thing about today is the amount of choice players have when it comes to figures and rule sets. There will always be something players will find and really like.:)

Hmmm, how can a set of rules that many people find enjoyable be "poor"? By what criteria? How would you define a "good" set of rules?

I step in it again.

For a start, I call them bad when they are $47.50 USD (discounted to $31.00 USD on Amazon) and they aren't any better then many free rules. Nothing new. Same old D6 hits, throw for a save. Unit size is same as "Fields of Blue and Grey" multi-moves go back to "Clash of Arms", etc

No scale. Yes I know movement won't match time scale. But I'd like to know what the author had in mind. How far does he think a musket is effective. How many turns till the Prussians arrive?

I bought them based on what I was reading here several months ago. Won't happen again. Won't buy any rules I haven't read through completely unless they're a $10 USD PDF.

To be honest they don't seem like particularly good reasons… Or rather, they might be, but those 'faults' aren't exactly unique to bp.

Even the simplest game involved at least 1 d6(though I never did work out what you were supposed to do with it) and a lot of them involve some kind of saving throw, I can't think of any game where units don't have some kind of size, or where the scale isn't adjustabile/made up, and i'm pretty sure the vast majority allow for some variation of traveling speed. Nowadays you may have to pay for a book too…

In short a lot of wargaming rules are similar to other wargaming rules, and to say those similarities make them bad…well it's a bit odd ;)

It sounds more likely that in the demo game you played something happened that the other players didn't explain very well and you were left with the impression that the game wasn't well explained. Fair enough, cos that's exactly why I don't like DBM/DBXetcetc….Edit: oops wasn't paying attention to the names, that was the other poster further up…

Was it your magazine or Wargames illustrated that had that review of the four napoleonic wargames rules that slated foundry and rte and praised Black powder and Lasalle?

No, neither, it was in Miniature Wargames and Bob Barnetson was the author. But I enjoyed his article and would have printed it had he submitted it to me.

Henry

One man's useless repetitive game system is another man's successful formula…..

You do seem a bit bitter about these rules though KevanG, are we talking about the same set of rules? I dont recognise them from your comments.

Im not particulalry pro BP (Im an AOE kinda guy really!) but I was pleased with what I got for £17.00 GBP from Amazon.

The pics are inspiring, inset panels of period arms informative and interesting, and the rules look traditional and simple to pick up. Im sure there will be a good game in there if I decide to play them. The writing style is easy and logically laid out for a reader to be drawn into the period. There are sufficient chapter/rule summaries and player reference sheets to make the game easily playable.

All of which the various GDW rules are not. Including their historical sets.

If I was 15 again and a Warmaster/40k player I wouldn't hesitate in buying a few boxes of plastics and trying them out.

Which is probably the point.

In fact they remind me a lot of the Jefferies rules which, with a fex boxes of Airfix 1/72nd Nappys got me started in Napoleonics almost 40 years ago.

Why cant games be just about fun?

Do try them again before you close your mind to them finally.

Otherwise, perhaps Esprit de Corps looks like it will be more to your taste? If so you can have mine with pleasure. I wont be going any further with them.

The criticism that a game "doesn't have anything new!' has always made me laugh.

In many (most?) cases, when a game really does innovate and try a very new approach, it gets slammed by people for being "historically inaccurate" or "lacking period flavor," or just being weird – precisely because it plays so differently from the existing older sets people had become accustomed to, and have decided are "right."

But what sort of "new" do people really expect or want, anyway? I mean, how many ways are there to order a turn sequence? Or to roll dice and resolve shooting? Or to keep track of losses? Doing something differently is not necessarily doing it better. There may be some very sound reasons to use a familiar set of mechanisms. For starters, it lessens the learning curve and gets people involved more quickly.

It's one thing to write a set for your buddies in the basement, and then offer it online as a free download. But for a publisher it usually makes sense to make the game as clear and accessible as possible to the broadest possible readership.

'You do seem a bit bitter about these rules though KevanG, are we talking about the same set of rules? I dont recognise them from your comments.'

No I am not bitter, they are just that bad….

I suggest you actually look at the mechanics and chances to score a 'hit' on various types of target by various types of firer……then consider how much support a large imperial guard unit effects a melee compared to a small spanish militia unit, then look at the chances of them routing in support..

If you havent spotted it by then, I can confirm we are not looking at the same set of rules. I'm looking at black powder. I have no idea what you are looking at, but it's not black powder.

" … consider how much support a large imperial guard unit effects a melee compared to a small spanish militia unit, then look at the chances of them routing in support."

Well, a guard unit may be classed as Steady, so passes its first break test in battle (p91). So that increases its chances immensely over a Spanish militia unit from breaking in support. That is discounting all the other Useful Rules that might have applied to get them into these respective positions (or not) in the first place.

The Useful Rules are a vital part of changing the game from purely generic fun to giving it the sort of period flavour you want.

And there is nothing stopping you tinkering with those Useful Rules (p88) if they still aren't right for you – you could, for instance, let Old Guard be very, very steady and give them two break test saves (not that I'm sure that is historic – Waterloo, anyone? – but if that is what you want, go for it).

Before trashing free rules I suggest you check out the ones offered by War Times Journal ( wtj.com/games ) or Perfect Captain ( link ) . There are others. Then there is Too Fat Lardies ( toofatlardies.co.uk ) and their $12 USD PDFs.

And now some people ( BKCII ) are publishing a version of their rules in 100% black and white with plain covers through Lulu. Cost about half.

My point is that a rule set is bad when I don't get value for my money. I didn't.
I think this is where a lot of rule sets are headed. More money for a rehash of what's already available.

Nobody's trashing free rules. Although if your complaint is that Black Powder doesn't have anything "new" to offer and is just a "rehash", then I'd be curious as to which free rules do offer those stunning new breakthroughs in game design that you apparently crave.

Whenever a new game comes out and becomes popular, people complain on one hand that it's not "new enough," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean… And then they grumble and grouse that it's just a novelty flash in the pan and won't last.

These complaints get raised against games whose sales are very good, like Black Powder. Nobody ever complains that an obscure game is "a rehash." It's only ever a complaint that a popular one isn't "original" enough.

Yet:

1) Nobody ever offers examples for what "New" or "Original" is supposed to be.

2) The widespread popularity of games like Black Powder suggests that a lot of people have indeed found that it offers something new.

The free rules don't always have anything new. But sometimes, maybe one small idea or way of looking at something. "Eagles Over the Empire" had a good idea for Cav. recovery and rally. I just found "Not Quite Mechanized", and they provide me a simple way to force player to hold reserves. But if they don't have any new ideas they don't cost me to read them. Maybe we just need a better reviewer. Those mean critics like on Broadway.

As to the widespread like of Black Powder. Maybe we have a lot of new gamers. If that's the case, then that would be a plus for the rules. We need more gamers under 50.

"I can find no coherence, logic or hint of plausibility in the fact it is easier for musket fire to inflict a casualty on a line and/or skirmishers than it is on an attack column."

The coherence, logic and much more than just a hint of plausability for this are very clearly stated on pages 47 and 48 of 'Black Powder'.

Casualties in 'Black Powder' represent more than dead or wounded, but also the other factors that affect a unit's ability to fight (p48).

On p47 the book explains that infantry units in attack column are better able to withstand damage because the surrounding mass makes it difficult for individuals to halt or flee. Which, after all, is the very reason some armies used attack columns rather than lines. They may be receiving more dead and wounded than a line, but the other factors also counted in BP's casualties mean that the unit as a whole is still more likely to carry on.

Artillery fire, however, negates this due to the extra discouragement caused by cannon balls mowing though the column.

As for value for money, your mileage may vary, but I've had four times the value I expected:
a) the rules themselves
b) a witty and motivating read a la Featherstone
c) the superb inspiring pictures
d) a book on the hobby that I am proud to leave on the coffee table for non-wargamers to browse.

The Useful Rules are a vital part of changing the game from purely generic fun to giving it the sort of period flavour you want.

Yes Black Powder isn't really a set of rules it is a toolbox from which you have to pick and choose.
The cynic in me thinks that the reason this isn't done for you in the rules is so they can sell you another set of books for each of the wars covered.

And there is nothing stopping you tinkering with those Useful Rules (p88) if they still aren't right for you – you could, for instance, let Old Guard be very, very steady and give them two break test saves (not that I'm sure that is historic – Waterloo, anyone? – but if that is what you want, go for it).

Why not just write your own then? Or buy a set that does what you want?

The cynic in me thinks that the reason this isn't done for you in the rules is so they can sell you another set of books for each of the wars covered

Cynic or no, the Naploeonic book is on the way!

Oh, BTW there's nothing wrong with being a Cynic!

Forgot to say the true test of cynicism in this instance will be if when the Naploeonic or whatever book appears, its shrink wrapped like the original, so you can't see if they have come up with any ideas you have not already thought of before you buy it!

I played my first game of R2E last weekend. I was fortunate to be playing with the rules author Barry Hilton and a few experienced players so I could rely on their expertise and knowledge of the details of the rules. I've played many Napoleonic rule sets over the years and each have their merits e.g. I love the stragglers rule in Buck Surdus "Wellington Rules". Having played Barry's predecessor set of napoleonic rules I was keen to see how these differed. The particular rules I enjoyed in R2E were;

FIBUA (Fighting in Built Up Areas)
Never easy rules to get right. I spent the morning successfully defending a town with a Recruit level force against three attacking French regiments. The rules were fast, clear and effective. Knife edge decisions and could easily be used for a stand alone game. A+

Artillery
Artillery is limited to four turns of firing before requiring refitting which can take between 3 and 5 turns. Artillery fire is effective without being devastating other than at short range for consistent targets. The requirement to leave space behind the guns for a baggage / wagon park helps both with the aesthetics of the game and stops gamey playing.

Command and Control
Complex initially to follow but effective and makes the player think very carefully about forward planning and how to spend their command points. IMHO one of the strengths of the R2E rules.

Although I have a copy of the BP rules I haven't played them yet so won't comment. I have a vested interest in the R2E rules as they contain some photos of part of my personal Napoleonic collection. All that said in as unbiaised a way as I can , I think R2E are a very well designed, carefully considered, historically sound, period specific,playable and enjoyable set and I recommend them to you.

I cant quite understand why any supplements to blackpowder are required: I love the game but wont buy any supplements simply becouse I think the basic ruleset is versatile enough, and only slight modification are required to game any period in history.

'On p47 the book explains that infantry units in attack column are better able to withstand damage because the surrounding mass makes it difficult for individuals to halt or flee. Which, after all, is the very reason some armies used attack columns rather than lines. They may be receiving more dead and wounded than a line, but the other factors also counted in BP's casualties mean that the unit as a whole is still more likely to carry on.

Artillery fire, however, negates this due to the extra discouragement caused by cannon balls mowing though the column.'

Do you beleive it? When you read this, have you ever read any inclining of this anywhere before…ever?

Morale effect from cannonballs is more detrimental to columns than line and the effect of musketry has less morale effect on columns?
Tell me again why Wellington formed columns behind the waterloo crestline and deployed into line to meet infantry fire?

Anyone else think that it is a bit weird that a casulty represents a different thing from differnt firers and different formations yet becomes an absolute measure irrespective of formation and is miraculously equated to a "support" whatever the heck that abstract is?

In my honest opinion, It is blatently obvious that the text followed the development of the rules and is just olde worlde blarny spouting unjustifiable rubbish.

if they were honest, the 'useful rules' would be called !The absolute essential to avoid nonsense 'fixer' rules.

But popular = good, we have determined that

[But popular = good, we have determined that]

You have a better definition for "good" ? One that doesn't involve anybody's opinions and personal tastes? Because if so, I'd love to hear it. (If memory serves, Plato spent about a decade trying to find that ideal objective "good" that everybody could agree on, and eventually had to give up and admit that individual perception was everything.)

One thing I've observed over the past year or so, is that people who are vehemently opposed to Popular Game X, never get around to saying which other games they like better, and why. (Presumably for fear of being hoisted on their own petards as other people react with the same dismay and contempt and say, "Eww… you like THAT? That game sucks! How can you possibly like that?? That game is suitable only for idiots and left-handed Belgians!"")

Unless you happen to be Plato, then I think you'll agree that "good" is a matter of opinion and personal taste. If lots of people think something is "good," then it is… for them.

Kevan, I think we'll just leave it at the fact that you (and probably many others) hate the BP rules; and that I (and by all accounts many others) like them. Nothing wrong with that – two different opinions about what is, after all, just a game, that's all.

One thing I've observed over the past year or so, is that people who are vehemently opposed to Popular Game X, never get around to saying which other games they like better, and why. (Presumably for fear of being hoisted on their own petards"

Hoist away, though I would like to know what people don't like about these. Maybe I'm not playing them right and that's why I like them.

Impetves, LFS, Fire and Fury.
Like what I've read and seen of Look Sarge, WWII version but haven't played a game yet.

'You have a better definition for "good" '

Authentic?

"Morale effect from cannonballs is more detrimental to columns than line and the effect of musketry has less morale effect on columns?
Tell me again why Wellington formed columns behind the waterloo crestline and deployed into line to meet infantry fire?" Ok Ill try…

His infantry needs to be in line to recieve infantry, and in square to recieve cavalry. So expecting both they formed up in a loose column so they had an easier reform when the nature of the immediate threat became known.

Nice attempt to use it prove that cannon balls dont reduce moral though ;) I dont suppose he was to worried about the moral effects of cannonfire, stood behind that ridge…