"Rate Republic to Empire" Topic

Writing in the June issue of Miniature Wargaming, authors Bob Barnetson and Bruce McFarlane reached this conclusion about Republic to Empire:

…the gaming experience is simply awful.

How do you rate Republic to Empire? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is terrific and 1 is terrible.

Bill, this one is difficult for me, because in the balance between complexity and playability I go for the latter whilst R2E plumps firmly for the former camp. I will say that the production values seem solid, unlike some other softback rulesets I could mention, and much thought has clearly gone into them. 5?

Kind Regards,

Sparker

I think the gaming experience rating of "simply awful" is unnecessarily harsh. I had two attempts at it and neither were satisfactory. On the other hand, seems to me, playing it with people already familiar with the rules would be very enjoyable. To me the firing/combat rules are excellent.So too the the treatment of skirmishers. But I found myself getting bogged down with the movement rules. Simple things like when/if you can change formation and at what if any movement cost took me for ever to sort out. Even then I didn't know if it was right. (Attempts to join the web site to ask ended in failure.) And then I'd get lost in the sequence of play.
Eventually I decided that perseverance with the rules would result in an enjoyable game but it produces more non-figure table clutter than I prefer. Like Grande Armee I liked the game just didn't like a large amount of MP chips, orders markers, artillery ammunition markers and refits markers needed for play.
So I think they are nice rules with a required commitment to learn but not quite my cup of tea. Rating 7

I've played them and find them easy to use. While the mechanics take a bit of getting used to, once you get your head around them the games fly along.
I honestly don't think they are any complex than lots of other rule sets I've tried and they give the feel of a Napoleonic game as opposed to any old horse and musket set.

8

Ray

This is like a vegan saying he hates steak. Not every ruleset is for every player. Some complain about complexity, some of simplicity. There are rules for both types of players and they should be reviewed in that context.

A breath of fresh air I think, particularly with a view to large battles and if big battalions and the visual effect are part of the attraction for you. Designed for 28mm but I play them in 15mm scale( as God would you understand – as it is after all the one true scale :-) )

Once you get into them some really nice touches, like any rule set not perfect but the criticisms I have a relatively minor

As a set of rules I really like these but like most rule sets you have to suspend your preconceptions and prejudices, probably the reason why we don't always like whatever rules we play or can find holes in them.

In short probably better than anything I've played and just shades GdeB but I'd qualify that by saying that I'm wedded to 1:20 scale

Oh and before I forget at least an 8

"…the gaming experience is simply awful."

I think that this comment says far more about the reviewers than the rules.

Jim

An easy 8.

Jupp 8 atleast

Please TMPers rate away, neither Clarence nor I are on suicide watch at the moment. I have of course read the review and have included here the response letter which I wrote to the editor of MW regarding it.
What was clear from the review was that the dynamic duo from Canada went into the exercise with their minds made up.
Knowing the deadlines required to put together a magazine taken in conjunction with the time that would be necessary to read let alone playtest 4 new sets of rules plus, the time taken to pull together an article, I suspect the activity was pretty much a cut and paste job augmented by a couple of moves at best run on Mr McF's midget table. Hardly in my opinion a level playing field.

When any rule set is released the cycle goes :
1. Pre release hype and excitement
2. Fanfare and initial impressions both +ve and -ve
3. Backlash from those with a view
4. Fallow period whilst those who do more than flick through read and absorb
5. A few games set up and the first trickle of questions
6. Lots of questions
7. If supported by answers and guidance – adoption, if not, oblivion.

R2E is currently somewhere between 6&7 and that has taken 9 months to achieve. Commercially it is a success, Clarence and I have no complaints on that front. We are running R2E residential weekenders regularly now. The next one has 20 paying attendees over a weekend .. effectively a full house. The following weekender in February also has good advanced bookings.I am not forcing anyone to come to these events and the 'repeat' attendance is about 50%.

HERE IS MY LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF MW. As yet, it has not appeared:

Dear Sir,
Having briefly been introduced to you at Historicon 2010 by Alan Perry I herewith submit a response to the above article written by Bruce Maccfarlane.

My issue in not with whether the rules were praised or criticized. What did irritate me was the play test described by the reviewer which was not set up to give a realistic and balanced impression of the game itself. The reviewer is fairly well known for his liking of DBA/DBM type mechanisms and appears to have chosen this type of set up to review rules written for gaming on tables at least 4 times the size of the one used for the play test.

There are also numerous inaccuracies in communicating how various mechanisms work. The language is by no means neutral and is designed to convey a less than even handed impression. As a well established brand in the marketplace you will know how much effort is necessary to produce a quality publication. To see one's work subjected to such a superficial, one sided and cursory piece of negative press serves no one including your own publication. If you are going to publish reviews, good or bad please use your editorial prerogative to quality check your content.

I have no issue with unfavourable reviews these are part and parcel of creating and selling any kind of product. I do however object to inaccurate, prejudged and obviously biased reviews which I believe this to have been.
In the interest of balance, information on how the rules play can be found at leagueofaugsburg.com . The commercial performance also continues to be strong with in excess of 700 copies already sold in the first 8 months.

Whether you print this response will I think, mark whether you have an open policy towards dialogue in the Hobby.

Yours faithfully

Barry Hilton.

Hope this demonstrates that CH and I are not averse to any comment good or ill. All we would ask is that the commentator first of all forms his own opinion after playing the game and doesn't simply stand at the back of the crowd shouting 'burn the witch!'

A fine response from Barry Hilton I think. I have not played BLB or RTE but I am thinking of buying both. I also enjoy AAR of both. As Clay says above 'Not every ruleset is for every player.'

I have never seen R2E but I have read an article in Wargames Illustrated number 245 in which Barry Hilton is rather critical of GdeB. Its a rather strange article because firstly he writes that he bought GdeB and never played it.

Quote p14
"…General de Brigade that I myself a have bought and done nothing more with than treat as lavatory reading."

He then goes on to totally contradict himself later in his piece by writing on p17:
"…looking for a simple alternative to the very involved General de Brigade rules…"
he adds:
"As few of us had used General de Brigade before, this caused umpire meltdown and a very stressful two days".

Having read such a piece I really don't know what to make of it all…

2

I'd give at least a 9. I would be judged as being biased but so are we all. I've played the game, read the rules front to back numerous times and I've found them to be the best mix of historical realism versus playability.

Great concepts, but I still can't figure out the command system. I posted some questions on the forum but didn't get much by way of response.

Did you? Possible but highly unusual. What is you ID there?

Don't worry about me contradicting myself Timmouk, I am always doing that and haven't died from it yet.

9
I played at Historicon in a large group in a game run by Barry Hilton. I think, on reflection, that Republic to Empire has a steeper learning curve than something like Black Powder. The question then become, is it worth learning? I think so. In fact, I think it's more rewarding than a simpler game which may take less time to learn but provide less enjoyable play down the road.

Here's a review I wrote: tyler.provick.ca/?p=1018
Here's a quick description of the movement system for people who have trouble with it:
You roll a die for movement points, decide if you're changing orders, if not, pay to maintain orders and use leftover points to make whichever individual maneuvers you need. If you have lots of points you can make an exploitation move, which is multiple moves with the same unit.
All this occurs quickly. If you consider that you have to roll for every unit in Black Powder to determine if they move, compare the result to the unit's stats to determine how far, and then decide based on that move – which you cannot fully predict – how you want to move the rest of your forces.

"Did you? Possible but highly unusual. What is you ID there?"

Footslogger

I would go for an "8".

Yes, it focuses on realism, but IMHO not sacrificing playability.
I personally always prefer realism, as long as the rules remain easy to play. R2E does that.

Such a harsh verdict as "awful" is in my experience usually based on one of three factors… The person passing the verdict is either:

a) only interested in rules that are easy to play and do not care for historical accuracy

b) was too lazy to read the complete rules and give them a couple of games to try them out

c) has a stake in another set of rules.

Cheers,

Burkhard

I much prefer simple rules. But Bruce is a known fan of DBA style rules, so I'd take his "awful" with a handful of salt.

I haven't bought the rules and probably won't as they don't seem my cup of tea, so no score from me.

Footslogger or idontbelieveit is being economical with the truth saying he got no response to his questions on the forum. He got many explanations and examples so much so that even guys who didn't speak much English understood the rules.

ValleyBoy,

Designed for 28mm but I play them in 15mm scale( as God would you understand – as it is after all the one true scale :-) )

It doesnt take the brains of an Archbishop with a Doctorate in Theology to realise that if God wargames, He does so in 28mm – I don't want to get mediavel on you but be warned – do not take the name of 28mm lightly or cause it to be impugned – you have been warned!

Kind Regards,

Sparker

"Footslogger or idontbelieveit is being economical with the truth saying he got no response to his questions on the forum. He got many explanations and examples so much so that even guys who didn't speak much English understood the rules."

You misquote me. I said I did not get "much by way of response." I still don't have a clear understanding to when you do and when you don't need to pay for single unit actions. It seems like that would be easy enough to articulate?

I think "much by way of response" is being interpreted as "much of a response" or "no response. Perhaps "I couldn't get a clear answer to my question." would have been a better way to phrase it.

Hopefully Barry can correct me, but a brigade order allows you to do one thing from the must column for each battalion. So, in an attack order a battalion within charge range of the enemy must charge. If it isn't within charge range it must move towards the enemy within the restrictions of the brigade order (only 50% of the brigade must move, and any battalion which moves must move 50-100% of they movement capability)

The confusion is, after it moves as part of the brigade order, if it moves into charge range, does it charge for free. It does not as it's already moved under the brigade orders. However, you can pay for a single unit action to charge.

Hopefully I got that right, and hopefully it answers the question.

This is what I meant by the learning curve. I've seen many games ruined for players who didn't understand the rules. My learning curve was accelerated by playing a couple of games with Barry Hilton and Clarence Harrison, so I had the luxury to play the game where everything was explained.

"I think "much by way of response" is being interpreted as "much of a response" or "no response. Perhaps "I couldn't get a clear answer to my question." would have been a better way to phrase it."

I think you're right about that.

"Hopefully Barry can correct me, but a brigade order allows you to do one thing from the must column for each battalion. So, in an attack order a battalion within charge range of the enemy must charge. If it isn't within charge range it must move towards the enemy within the restrictions of the brigade order (only 50% of the brigade must move, and any battalion which moves must move 50-100% of they movement capability)

The confusion is, after it moves as part of the brigade order, if it moves into charge range, does it charge for free. It does not as it's already moved under the brigade orders. However, you can pay for a single unit action to charge.

Hopefully I got that right, and hopefully it answers the question."

On the thread on the forum that went dormant, Barry had already said you always have to pay for single unit action to charge. This is fine and I understand it. The only problem is I can't generalize from that a rule to understand when I do and when I don't have to pay for a single unit action.

Barry has sent me a couple of private emails now so hopefully I can get that figured out. That is the only thing blocking me from playing more games with it.

"This is what I meant by the learning curve. I've seen many games ruined for players who didn't understand the rules. My learning curve was accelerated by playing a couple of games with Barry Hilton and Clarence Harrison, so I had the luxury to play the game where everything was explained."

I guess this would be a knock against the game. If the only way you can play it is to learn from the authors, then there is something that could be improved in the rules writing.

I haven't found anything else in the rules that is causing me any difficulties, so I'm hopeful that once I get past it I can have some games. Perhaps this could be clarified in future revisions?

The MP system seems to be at the heart of the game and strikes me as something that could make for some interesting command decisions.

Ummm

Designed for 28mm but I play them in 15mm scale( as God would you understand – as it is after all the one true scale :-) )

Surely God wargames in 1:1, prototype scale…heh.

I agree, the Gods (all of them) game at 12" to the Foot scale…

idbi – would you be interested in sharing Barrie's responses to me – marc dot flack at gt do co dot uk

I have struggled to get my head round this aspect – which says far too much about me than the rules.

As to the rules – I have really enjoyed reading them, visually they are great and most of the mechanics seem fine to me. I need to get a game or two, and as soon as Barrie plays down south I will try and get to one of his events, as my age seems to make the learning curve quite steep.

So, at present, an 8, hoping to make that a ten.

RtoE rate an 8 to 9 for me. A very good set of rules – perhaps a little daunting when you first read through them, but well worth sticking with. Command & control + movement takes a little bit of getting used to at first but works fine, and all the standard combat mechanisms flow smoothly and quickly. Contrary to some of the other opinions expressed here these rules play quickly once you're familiar with them. Some aspects are genuinely innovative.

The Miniature Wargames comparative ‘review' article was a right old hatchet job with what looked like a thinly veiled agenda to push its predetermined favourite. I shouldn't be surprised though. Of all the print magazines MW is the worst when reviewing wargame products and books. There are a couple of reasonable contributors, but too many of its reviews are uninformative, mean spirited, nit-picking affairs – sometimes even ignorant of the historical background the product is related to. It's been like this for years and a change in editor / owner does not seem to have improved things much (which is a shame).

A review, by definition, is always going to be a subjective affair reflecting the personal preferences of the reviewer, but good reviewers can usually take a step back and assess a product with at least some objectivity even if that product isn't quite to their tastes. Personally I'm not a fan of Lasalle for example, but I don't think it is a bad set of rules. Far from it – Sam Mustafa has done an excellent job. But it doesn't provide me with the type of gaming experience I want. I happen to prefer Republic to Empire, but I'm not going to bag Lasalle which clearly works and will provide the gaming mechanic that many gamers will enjoy. The amateur scribblers who fancy themselves as product reviewers might do well to remember that this is a very diverse hobby in the ways you can approach it – and no rules system has a monopoly on being right.

Marc

I'll share answers to rules questions with EVERYONE! So no probs. You are on the Fighting Talk Forum right? If so, let me know if anything requires clarification for you too.

I must admit to being pleased with the general tone of comments on this thread. Those who have played the rules (whether with or without CH and I) seem to have a generally positive view of what I tried to achieve with them. The irony of the exercise is that none of the authors.. Sam, The BP team or the Napoleon fella would have had any idea that the others were working on something at the time of conception. Therefore, rivalry of the 'my rules is betta than yours is' comes from the gaming community not the authors. We sometimes find ourselves pressurised into defending our own principles and concepts against each other because gamers force that comparison! I have never had a conversaton with John Stallard or Jervis about BP v R2E (although I have spoken with both of them on different occasions). Sam, I know only through email and his written work.He has always been supportive as I have of him. We are catering for different types of Naps players. Lasalle clearly has a strong following in the competition play catchement. R2E was not designed with competition gaming in mind as I don't like those kind of games.
Matthew I don't know at all. Occasionally though, people want to through us all into the Gladiatorial arena to hack lumps out of each other! When the crowd want blood they will find a way to make it flow. That ain't gonna happen from my perspective as I have the utmost respect for those who want to put something back into the hobby. :)
No one wants to see their work trashed but buyers have a right to express their view. Some people just want to express their view anyway.. thats called democracy I think.
So, keep the votes coming if they're 0 or 10, I would be interested in the justification for either score

Is there any chance that Barry and Clarence could run a R2E Weekender here in the US? I can't go to the UK to attend one of your weekends (although I would love to do so), but would certainly attend a similar event near Clarence's neck of the woods.

In general, I think that anyone who writes a review of any set of rules has the obligation to play the rules before reviewing them.

"Is there any chance that Barry and Clarence could run a R2E Weekender here in the US? I can't go to the UK to attend one of your weekends (although I would love to do so), but would certainly attend a similar event near Clarence's neck of the woods."

I would be interested in this also. DAF and I both are in the Chicago area, so if you're looking for a pleasant destination, maybe we could figure something out.

You missed Historicon! I got two games in with the dynamic duo.

A weekender would be every more spectacular. I vote Ottawa out of pure selfishness.

I was thinking of something closer to Clarence's house so that it would be feasible for him to do a weekender. I wouldn't expect him to travel cross country with all of his equipment.

"Is there any chance that Barry and Clarence could run a R2E Weekender here in the US?"

Not inconceivable, at least for me to host one, but my schedule is a little hectic at the moment – let me get the second edition of Beneath the Lily Banners finished and we'll look into it…

I am actually planning on trying to run a game at some of the local conventions (Williamsburg, Raleigh, etc) next year, but I haven't made any final decisions yet… I think Barry and I will both be at Historicon again next year, but we haven't really talked about exactly what we'll run yet.

People who know me, know I like a challenge! Flying to the US is not the biggest issue, transportation of minis is. We managed such a feat for Historicon this year but that probably shaved 5 years from my life via the stress expectation.

It IS a possibility and I would consider it but for it to be cost neutral at worst we'd have to have a minimum number of players say 10-12. It would be a weekend or 3 day affaire.
Probably somewhere close to Clarence's home base would be the most sensible logistical option too.

You know, we just might seriously consider that!

JnR – yep, I am on the Forum, but I think I found the format hard to ask detailed questions – forums tend to be snappy little bits. I think I need a good talk through, or some lengthy email exchanges.

Mind you, I am really pleased to see that R2E is now accepted terminology on TMP, having had my head bitten off by some strange people when I first asked if there were any players. Sometimes, some people on TMP are not very helpful :-)

Maybe some of us in the States could provide the figures to augment whatever forces Clarence already has. It would take a little bit of advance preparation, but if an event were set for sometime in 2011, then that would give us time to bring the forces together.

I'd be game for a 3-day weekend event.

Failing that, it sounds like I ought to plan on attending Historicon next year.

Marc don't feel shy posting on the Fighting Talk Forum, lengthy questions are EXACTLY what I set it up for. It is there as a wargaming community of course but primarily it is to support the rules Clarence and I have published. There are lots of people who will be only too willing to contribute answers. It is not a hostile environment and with very few exceptions over the last 6 years we've had no trouble there. No one has ever been barred or sin binned.. not necessary.

Der Alte Fritz, CH and I will seriously discuss your suggestion. It may well come off. We'll keep the thread updated. I know a few people in the US who I am pretty sure would attend too.

Hey Barry
If you plan to fly to the States to organise a game you just as well carry on around the world and call here in NZ and then OZ on the way home :-)

Hear hear!. Bring Dave O'Brien with you. I've been trying to get the to come here for the past ten years :)

Yeah, well hopefully we'll all be there next year so you had better have some games lined up.

Valleyboy.. Dave can do it, he knows the rules better than I do (most of the time!!!)

Hmm. Interesting.

Dave O'Brien knows Republic To Empire well and gets involved in the big games Barry puts on in the UK. This same Dave seems to know Raymond and appears to be an old mate. Dave hopes to be here in NZ next year. Raymond is domiciled in Wellington, NZ. Raymond and I will both be at NAPCON in a week and a bit and have already arranged to chat about having a few Republic To Empire games (as well as Sharp Practice FYI).

Hmmm. Interesting.

Salute
von Peter himself
web.mac.com/nataliendpeter

Hi Peter.

Dave and I go back a long way (too long probably) :)

See you at Napcon.

that article was a real review?????

I mistook it for a comedy sketch

well actually I wondered if it was just me at the time being slightly over sensitive. Clearly in a previous life I have done something to upset Mr macfarlane although quite what that might be I have no idea. Maybe he just doesn't like Clarence!

Come on guys, that's enough. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bob wrote what was actually a decent, interesting article, and whilst many may not agree with his conclusions, that's hardly a reason to trash the entire piece, nor the impressive body of published work Bob has built up over the years.

Many appear to have overlooked the fact that right at the beginning of the article, Bob made his prejudices perfectly clear: "Our gamers expect rules to have clear concepts, reward historical tactics and allow them to focus on making decisions appropriate to their nominal 'rank' in the rule system. Our gamers also expect to be able to learn the basic mechanics the first evening and become proficient enough to play without an umpire within three games."

Now, that means that Bob is representing a viewpoint of not just himself, but his Edmonton clubmates as well. Their tastes are what they are, and their conclusions were as stated, and that's fair enough.

Thanks to this kerfuffle, Bob has announced that he is no longer going to contribute anything further to magazines at all once his current submissions have been published. Frankly, I think that's a bloody shame and the loss of a talented, thoughful and intelligent voice in the hobby. To carry on kicking a man for expressing what was a reasonably argued opinion is just daft. We may wish their experiences of RtE had been different, but that's life.

I'm not a fan of "author's response to criticism" pieces, but I tell you what, Barry: you write me a piece about why you wrote RtE the way you did, and the process you went through to arrive at your mechanisms and so forth, and I'll publish it. As you know, I like my magazine to get behind the nitty-gritty of rules systems and so forth, so how about it?

Henry
Battlegames
battlegames.co.uk