Help support TMP


"The Good the bad and the ugly of Empire rules" Topic


54 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Empire Message Board



Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

5,298 hits since 3 Jan 2011
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Skarper04 Jan 2011 12:08 a.m. PST

An attempt to get something useful out of this board before it gets shut down….

What I thought was good (+) and worth keeping about Empire…

(+) The idea of simulating history – even at the expense of the game.

(+) The basic unit is the Inf bn/cav regt/battery – no fudging around with brigade size units.

(+) The way in tactical combat you have to keep the pressure on or lose the initiative.

What I thought was bad (–) and shouldn't be copied in other rulesets….

(-) The extreme complexity of many subsystems that in the end didn't give a commensurate return in accuracy/realism. [% multiplied by decimals multiplied by number of guns/figs etc really was too hard for most people to handle]. Elan flowchart was a dumb idea too.

(-) Far too many troop morale grades.

(-) Some apparent bias in the way some armies were portrayed. It's generally accepted that the French should get some advantages but it sometimes seems to go too far. Ditto the Brit/KGL thing.

(-) Excessive cost. Rules have to be cheaper to get any kind of following.

(-) Being able to fire infantry/skirmishers and even cavalry and keep the initiative. This allowed players to mess about wasting time and boring the other players to death. I would want to replace all this with a kind of ‘skirmish combat' or ‘attrition combat'.

What I found just ugly (~) and wouldn't want to see in a future set….

(~) Too many gun models in a battery. Double ranked artillery firing on compressed frontage! Simply using fewer gun models and more crew and leaving a space between them (unless compressed) fixes this.

(~) Small bns. Ok. So when you're going to play a whole army a side in 15mm then it helps to use 1:60 but – when you're playing in 1813-14 and many Bns are only 4-6 figures it's kind of annoying. 40:1 might have been a better compromise. I always played in 6mm using 15:1.

(~) The ground-figure scale was ‘off'. 15mm figures looked like they were all in open order.

All the above is highly subjective of course. What do others think?

nsolomon9904 Jan 2011 4:19 a.m. PST

Agree with a lot of what you've listed here. I also liked the the telescoping time stuff that allowed for reserves back behind the lines to move quickly and re-deploy. Rules that encourage the forming and maintaining of reserves and encourage the sensible timing and commitment of these reserves are important to me. I've subsequently played other rules sets that achieve this in a simpler, cleaner fashion but Empire must take the credit for introducing this sort of thinking, at least to me. Maybe others had done it earlier but nothing that I can remember.

John the OFM04 Jan 2011 8:18 a.m. PST

I agree with your +s, except that bit about "simulating". Please.

I really like the way you have to keep applying pressure, and how the initiative can be suddenly snatched away if you screw up an attack.
It also keeps the opponent involved.

You are spot on with too many morale grades.

14Bore04 Jan 2011 8:18 a.m. PST

Your positive points I agree. Nationality differences are not in my game having only Russian Prussians to mainly work with (no it dosn't bother me to do it, I wish I hadn't gone this way but) Turning French horse arty into Renault FT-17's is excessive. And my 1/1/11 game is bogging down w/ units clogging front and holding everything else behind up

Defiant04 Jan 2011 8:36 a.m. PST

Andy, I have to agree with you on all points, well said.

Personal logo Saber6 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian04 Jan 2011 10:07 a.m. PST

(~) Small bns. Ok. So when you're going to play a whole army a side in 15mm then it helps to use 1:60 but – when you're playing in 1813-14 and many Bns are only 4-6 figures it's kind of annoying. 40:1 might have been a better compromise. I always played in 6mm using 15:1.

Who ever played with less than full strenght battalions? One reason I like the Brigade games, easier to change strenghts

Skarper04 Jan 2011 10:37 a.m. PST

If you build your armies for 1813 or 1814 (and if you want to have anything even remotely 'balanced' that or perhaps 1809 are your only choices) then many Russian battalions come out at 4-6 figs and the French at 6-9 figs. Seldom do you get anybody near their full strength.

Personal logo Saber6 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian04 Jan 2011 10:50 a.m. PST

Every one I played with built to Full Strength. Usually 1812 for the Russians and French, 1815 for British and Prussians and 1809 for the Austrians. No one ever wanted to play with reduced strenghts.

Personal logo Der Alte Fritz Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2011 11:22 a.m. PST

( --- ) the little 12 figure infantry battalions just do not look good or right. Wargaming is a Visual hobby.

(-) you can create a good simulation without the degree of complexity that the Empire rules had

( – ) activation roles. I always hated these.

Prussian Glory04 Jan 2011 11:23 a.m. PST

The rules are complex but then again there is a consistancy and logic behind the rule system. I have never mat a simple one size fits all game system that would present a challange to experienced minature gamers. Invest in calculator as well.

Too many morale grades? This is Napoleonics I've seen more.

Bias in armies? Well once again this is Napoleonics. Generic armies are boring.

Small battalions well this is 60 to 1 usually the biggest limitation is depth of field and once you get to 33 to 1 in 15mm it is a disaster. Go to 6MM and double the size of the units is one solution of number of castings in a unit is a problem

Initiative once fired upon the defensive player fires back or depending on the situation form square or counter charge so the defenisve player needs to be awake. What is the alternative simultanious movement??? Ever tried it advice don't

Excesive Cost? Compared to minatures, scenery and painting that is the least of my worries.

I agree with gun models in additon to expensive to paint. I base on half batteries and use markers to record hits.

Space between units? Man I can barely cram in AB figures on the width of those stands. What castings are you using.?

quidveritas04 Jan 2011 11:57 a.m. PST

Not again!

John the OFM04 Jan 2011 12:26 p.m. PST

It didn't take long for the "negatives" to be dismissed as the complaints of those who are not manly enough, did it? grin

That is the main negative I have for a lot of games. Thge diehard fanbois.
If you do not like a particular part of the rules, you are not a SERIOUS student of that particular period. You do not appreciate the "challenge" that experienced gamers lust for.

Sundance04 Jan 2011 1:06 p.m. PST

I haven't seen a game yet that there isn't pros and cons to. If a player isn't willing to admit that, he either doesn't understand the history behind the game or doesn't understand the game – or both.

Personal logo Der Alte Fritz Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2011 1:36 p.m. PST

Invest in calculator as well.

Get serious. If a set of rules requires a calculator, then I'm not playing them.

Sparker04 Jan 2011 2:36 p.m. PST

Yes I agree with all your points, apart from cost. Not having played them for a long while, I am left with an abiding memory of Empire V's strong points – the opportunity for stacks of breakthrough movement, and the brilliance of the telescoping time concept.

But I've never been comfortable with the idea of 12 figures representing a Battalion of Infantry – ridiculous! Even with the stunted 300 man Guards Battalions that troop the Colours at Horseguards these days its possible to sense the enourmous length and complexity of a 2 deep Battalion in line, and 12 figures ain't up to even suggesting that!

WarDepotDavid04 Jan 2011 5:33 p.m. PST

I understand all the negatives you guys mention but really most of those can be avoided or worked with by simple adjustment.

I frequently play 6mm at 1:15 ratios. Looks fantastic but when I have a 6x4 table and want to play a few corps I go back to the 1:60 so everything fits nicely.

I cut out 2 of the morale levels a while back but when I tried refighting a couple of historical games, I realised I needed them back.

I just played a 2 corps games last weekend and never once touched a calculator. Not sure why it would be needed. Pretty simple calcs to me. Maybe earlier editions had lots of different calcs, I use Empire V.

Artillery. Our group also found the footing for the batteries were twice what they really should be. All the other base sizing is pretty accurate but when we tried making a grand battery during a historical game on the same piece of terrain that it was, we could only fit about 1/2 the guns. After a bit more research we found 1/2 the models and space was more accurate. Been using that ever since.

It's more about the base size than the figures on that base. In 6mm we use the 15mm basing but half it. This works exact when we compare to 720men in 3 ranks in line or column or whatever. Maybe this was intended, maybe it wasn't. Not sure. So if you double the amount of figures to have 2 ranks of figures you also need to double the wide of the formation and then all the ranges and movements rates. Not a problem if you have plenty of figures and space. Thats why 6mm at 1:15 ratio still works well. This is one reason why I am playing around with 2mm blocks on 6mm basing. These look a treat!
link

My point is. A lot of this is personal preference but I tend to believe that if you don't like a few things about something, you just change them. I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

14Bore04 Jan 2011 6:20 p.m. PST

David- your scaling is simular to what I thinking only up 1, 15s in 28 scale. your set up looks great but your flags are as big as a barn.(would work for me my eyes arn't getting younger)

21eRegt04 Jan 2011 8:06 p.m. PST

To the pluses I'd add (yes, I'm serious) speed of play. We could do multi-corps battles in a night or afternoon. I'm sure the absence of rules lawyers and familiarity with the rules helped, but trying to play a game with 60+ battalions a side in another system that each move 4-6" each means you can't get to any conclusion unless the reserves start moving on turn 1.

Minuses: Several of our players objected to the cost of a four model French battery so doubled the frontage, kept the same number of gunners and viola! Firing on a compressed frontage was still simple to portray.

Artillery frontages: Seems a little broad but part of it may have been driven by the need to hold a model? We never worried about it. IIRC a two gun section would have 40-50' between pieces and you have the same distance total between the two sides base. [20'+ gun + 40-50'+ gun + 20'] Movies portray artillery too closely deployed in the open IMHO.

Infantry frontages: 2' per man with 40 files for a two-figure stand in three ranks equals 80'. 3/4" base at 1" = 50 yards is about 100'. Again, driven by the need to hold the figures plus you have the supernumeraries and such.

12 figure battalions: Never seemed to bother us. We were more concerned about the depth distortion by deeper bases and more figures.

Cost: Empire V seemed to have cost 50USD which is about the cost of current rules. Seems like everything starts $40 USD and up these days.

Using generic troops get old. You may as well make them all imagi-nations, use points to purchase your army and match up. Fine now and then, but Napoleonics is all about the differences in doctrine and training. Playing to the strengths and overcoming the weaknesses. Plus the pretty uniforms. :-)

As has been said, no rules set will satisfy a majority in all aspects. I have a quibble or two with every game system I play, but the experience and social aspect make up for it.

elsyrsyn04 Jan 2011 8:15 p.m. PST

game system that would present a challange to experienced minature gamers

I've never really thought that rules should be challenging. A challenging game is great. Challenging rules are a mistake.

Doug

lebooge04 Jan 2011 9:24 p.m. PST

Ripping Empire for the cost of the rules is silly when you look at what's available in the marketplace today. Most of the main Napoleonics rules sets weigh in at $40 USD or more. The latest edition of Napoleon's Battles retails at $75, which is too much IMO for a game where your ability to roll a 10 makes you a military genius.

I played Empire III for a number of years and never had to break out a calculator. If you can function in the business world then you can do the necessary calculations for Empire in your head.

I run Russians and liked the look of one gun per section but was the only guy in my local group that did that. Most others used 1 gun per 3/4 RL tubes instead and had more gunners per gun model.

Picking out special morale and fire characteristics for individual companies in a battalion got out of hand IMO, but other than that if you played with a group of gamers that knew the rules well it flowed no better or worse than any other system. The games we had that were really slow got that way due to too many units jammed on to the table. More a function of scenario design than the rules.

Mark Plant04 Jan 2011 11:11 p.m. PST

What is the alternative simultanious movement??? Ever tried it

Yes. Works fine. I prefer it.

WRG 7th ancients was simultaneous, more or less, and people all over the world appear to have managed.

Skarper04 Jan 2011 11:25 p.m. PST

Thanks for the input guys.

I used 6mm H&R and a 15:1 figure scale putting the infantry in 2 ranks. They just fit 8 on a 15mm x 10mm base. H&R Cavalry got bigger part way through, so I rebased them 3 on a 15mm square base and called them 20:1. Looked nice. I think I might one day rebase the infantry at the same scale of 20:1 – just to have more units.

Though if I started over I would probably look hard at 2mm.

All this is academic since my figures are stored at my brother's in England and I am in Vietnam!

What I am more actively looking into is a VASSAL module.

Detailed maps for the terrain and drawing some kind of 'block' for the troops. I would have the right number of ranks and the right number of companies per bn. They can be quite detailed.

This would give me a better idea if I want to play this scale of game or not before I go to the expense and trouble of shipping my stuff here.


On the cost of Empire rules I always thought it was a drop in the ocean, but when you are trying to interest new players an extremely expensive (in the 1980s £15.00 GBP was quite a lot of money) is a double hurdle. Firstly they will not buy them on spec – and secondly you are reluctant to lend such an expensive item to people even if you know them well.

Photocopying was not an easy option and if you had to pay for it in a library or similar at 10p a page – well the saving was marginal.

Also, TBH, Empire IV and V were hardly worth the cost given the minimal improvements. Buying all 3 sets came to about £90.00 GBP

If they could have cut out some of the frills and kept them under $10/£10 that would have given them a fighting chance. In the 1980s UK wargamers were used to paying about £3.00 GBP for a set of rules.

People who are themselves numerate and isolated from the wider community often don't realise how poor their grasp of basic maths is. Something like 50% of UK adults are confused by percentages! And don't start on fractions.

If all the number crunching had actually produced a pay off in credible/accurate results it might have been worth it. But it didn't. It's sloppy design work that really hurt Empire gaining wider acceptance.

The new and successful games companies like GW and FoWs mob know that if you want mass appeal, you need to keep the maths and English simple. I don't like these companies designs and I think there is still a demand for more thoughtful rules sets, but you do have to balance the burden with the return.

Lest my negatives seem to make me a detractor – I am not! I appreciated what they were trying to do and borrowed the ideas for other periods and rules sets that I designed or adapted.

terry195605 Jan 2011 10:30 a.m. PST

hi all,well i think that Skarper hits the nail on the head. I remember back in the 1980,s when the rules came out watching many games of empire, players just had know idea of how to play the game, they wanted their cavalry to be able to fly all around the battlefield, point count before making any move, remember back in the 80,s most armies got made up from so many points,empire did away with all that and allowed players to build up large armies and use real orders of battle if wanted.
yes they had faults, bad lay out for one. I think that now days gamers just want a fast easy game, and with little or know input. this of course as lead to rule systems that have know scale be it ground or figure or in fact any real feel of anything at all. But they need little or know player input, and a game can be over in 2 hours. You may as well just forget the figures and just play dice.
What would be nice but i don,t see it ever happening is if someone would take the best from empire and rewrite the set in a more up to date manor. until that time my napoleonic figures just wait in their boxes. terry

Joe Rocket05 Jan 2011 10:31 a.m. PST

I've played Empire, Napoleon's Battles, and Carnage & Glory and each game has it's advantages and disadvantages. I play C&GII because it gives me the complexity without the bookwork.

Empire
(+)Restricting the 200 foot modern gamer general and force him to play historically. A lot of the Empire rules interfere with command and control- e.g. unit activation, orders, or elan, etc. This can be seen as a necessary evil or overly restrictive and complex. Napoleonic drill is amazingly complex and gnat's ass detailed. When they trained troops to line up in battalions with 16 paces in between, they meant exactly 16 paces with every soldier and every officer in their exact places. Gamers have way more control over deploying and directing their troops than robotic Napoleonic officers ever had.
(+/-) I really liked the different troop classes in that your forces weren't so vanilla, but 8 troop classes would have been about right with less firing classes. The difference between receiving six practice rounds per year and three is negligible IMHO. You could have combined conscripts, trained militia, and landwehr into one class called clueless.
(+) Firing system. Yes, there are % and multiplication, but as a matter of statistical probability, they were about right. You didn't get into many game situations were an entire battalion would fire and no one would get hurt. Bearskins didn't stop bullets either.
(+) Troops degrade. Losses and fatigue hurt.
(+) Historical research. You can love or hate the game system, but the authors understand drill.
(+) Telescopic movement, orders, unit activation. Too many I move, you move systems let the defender react too quickly to events. Empire gave the attacker an edge.
(+) Bombardment and skirmishing. Big parts of Napoleonic warfare that have been lost in rule systems.

(-) Relocating horse artillery. Fire, limber, relocate, unlimber, and fire. Never, never charge a RHA battery.
(-) Awful convention game. If you didn't know the rules going in, you were screwed.
(-) Rules lawyers.
(-) Time and patience. Empire is slow and it takes dedication to understand the rules and tactics.
(-) Game balance. Your conscript troops had about a 10% chance of forming square from line formation. While historically accurate, cavalry, which was the weakest service arm in 1813, would roll up entire divisions if you made a mistake and deployed in line. Elite units were tanks.

Prussian Glory05 Jan 2011 10:33 a.m. PST

Yes. Works fine. I prefer it.

WRG 7th ancients was simultaneous, more or less, and people all over the world appear to have managed.


Ancients is completely different animal. I found the worst Napoleonic players to be crossover ancient players.

Joe Rocket05 Jan 2011 10:57 a.m. PST

I've often wondered why the authors haven't invested in writing a computer aided interface. It would remove a lot of the "playability" objections.

Personal logo Der Alte Fritz Sponsoring Member of TMP05 Jan 2011 11:23 a.m. PST

I've had many of these same conversations and comments with the rules author, Todd Fisher*, sitting in his office for hours at a time, and not once did he stifle me. evil grin

Can't say the same thing here though. popcorn

* he's the actual author of E5 and its successor Rev2Empire

lebooge05 Jan 2011 12:47 p.m. PST

he's the actual author of E5 and its successor Rev2Empire

And there's part of the problem with Empire V and beyond IMO.

Joe Rocket05 Jan 2011 1:04 p.m. PST

I'm always confused about the objections to the calculations, expecially the firing calculations. It's eaily been 20 years since I've played and I can tell you 12 castings of French veterans fining at a line or square were 12 x 7 = 84% chance of a hit and 12 x 10 = 120% chance for a hit if the target was in column. Times .9 for light cover and .5 for medium cover. It's the same calculation time after time. It's burned into your memory after you've played five games. Eight castings of Russians firing as conscripts are 8 x 6 for 48% chance for a target in line or square and 8 x 8 = 64% for a target in column.

Really, it's not rocket science.

Joe Rocket05 Jan 2011 2:24 p.m. PST

That's it. That's 90 percent of the firing system. You just change the number of castings firing. Class I French medium cannon are 15 per piece against line or 20 per gun against column. Eight guns are 120 percent against line and 160 percent againt column. Six pounders are 11 against line or square and 15. Eight six pound guns firing are 88 percent and 120 percent respectively.

Sparker05 Jan 2011 2:26 p.m. PST

You know – I may just get my copy down of that shelf and blow the dust off…

My main objection is the figure scale, and I guess I can simply put two deep ranks on a base and ignore the second rank except for aesthetics…

Joe Rocket05 Jan 2011 3:06 p.m. PST

Yea, it's really simple. After a couple rounds you know that if your target's a column in the in the open at short range your 12 castings of French veterans are going to have a hit percentage of 120 percent if the French are in line and 40 percent ( 4 castings) if they're in column. You just point at the unit in line and say 120 percent or point at the unit in column and say 40 percent. Roll dice.

21eRegt05 Jan 2011 4:42 p.m. PST

"he's (Todd Fisher) the actual author of E5 and its successor Rev2Empire"

I hadn't heard that about Todd and Empire. The actual item says the authors are Jim Getz and Scott Bowden. Todd is only listed later as one of the editors of Empire (V).

Parfitts Tele05 Jan 2011 7:29 p.m. PST

WardepotDavid.
When you play at 1:15 , what ( if any) adjustments do you make to the artillery and small arms firing tables to determine casualties, melee I guess also?
Regards
H

Skarper05 Jan 2011 10:33 p.m. PST

I wonder if the GreatCornHolio is being serious or funny!

I studied Maths at university and I could manage the basic maths in Empire without difficulty. People who work with numbers everyday are probably OK too.

But many people don't and couldn't if they had to.

My point about Empire's arithmetic burden is that it is unnecessarily heavy and produces results that still seem wrong.

Many people say that after about 5 games it all became automatic – which may or may not be true. However. I wonder how many people who would have enjoyed the set never got beyond their first or second game…

Another thought just struck me…in the US all university students have to do some 'Math' in their first (freshman?) year. This is not the case in the UK and only Physics and Engineering and of course Maths majors routinely do.

History majors will almost all have dropped Maths at 16.

Joe Rocket05 Jan 2011 11:50 p.m. PST

Everyone gets math at U.S. universities. You don't graduate without calculus and or statistics and probability as a research requirement.

Most newbies rarely get past the first game. The first fire fight goes ok right up to the point that you have to make a calculation to decide if your troops actually won the fire fight. Explaining 1) why you need to check and 2) how they put a hit the enemy and lost the fire fight is not pretty. You can see the shark taking flight in their eyes.

The game is 30 years old and long overdue for automation. Making all the calculations in the back office would make the game playable and sellable in 2011 and give the authors a chance to tweak the rules without losing face. Math tables went out with the first Texas Instruments scientific calculators. If units are going to degrade with fatigue and casualties, you have multiplication table, there's no way around it. That's a non-starter in 2011. In Carnage & Glory you can customize unit ratings if you don't agree with the author or randomize them. Gamers are stubborn and I don't see Empire giving up that damn ACE table or at least hiding it in the back office. Napoleon's Battles has had two editions to listen to their customers and fix their issues, but they stubbornly cling on to bad or outdated ideas. I'm not hopeful.

lebooge06 Jan 2011 6:18 a.m. PST

Empire is one of those games that has a learning curve to it and bringing new players in was somewhat problematic in that our local group always had one or two folks that enjoyed cutting up the newbies. Combine that with the fact that a lot of gamers prefer to be taught the rules rather than read them on their own and it led to a lot of new players not knowing what they were doing and only seeing that they were getting filleted by someone and they didn't know why. Needless to say a lot of those gamers didn't return for a second game.

To build a up a group for any complex rules system you need a core of people who truly understand the rules and also have the ability to mentor new players in the game and bring them up to speed over time.

Skarper06 Jan 2011 6:27 a.m. PST

New players in Empire should probably start as the French and play scenarios that are equal in numbers. Thereby the inbuilt advantages of the French side will help them not to get taken to school too hard – as would happen otherwise.

I once watched a huge Empire game at a convention in Birmingham (UK not Alabama) some 15 years ago or so. The BAEP set up a huge 1809 scenario. However, the Archduke Charles player made a huge mistake and tried to attack. Only one division did and it got broken straight away – causing a rout that swept away the whole Austrian centre! A two day game was over in 3 hours!! 20+ players – some who had come from abroad!

It's an unforgiving system and that is not a fault – the wars were very unforgiving too. In the introduction – which actually came at the back of Empire III, it said as much.

Joe Rocket06 Jan 2011 8:34 a.m. PST

Teaching new players Empire is problematic, but if the veterans understand that the game won't survive wihout new blood, you might be ok. If the Vets are willing to teach and the new guys are willing to learn and everyone is patient, it can work out. We might start a thread here called the dumbest things I've ever done in Empire just to pass on some tips to new players and have a few laughs. A few nuggets of wisdom would let them learn from our mistakes and move them down the learning curve a little faster. If you haven't made a horrific mistake playing Empire, and had your ass handed to you, you haven't played.

WarDepotDavid06 Jan 2011 4:08 p.m. PST

Do it but be careful how you word it. "the dumbest things I've ever done in Empire" will no doubt result in many responses such as "purchased it in the 1st place" or "try to play a single game in a day". But it is a good thread idea.

"When you play at 1:15 , what ( if any) adjustments do you make to the artillery and small arms firing tables to determine casualties, melee I guess also?"
=> Parfitts. When I play 1:15 I have 4x as many troops so every time the rules say 1 figure is killed, I kill 4.

btw I created a quick learning tool that our group has used over the years on my blog. Make sure the newbie reads it BEFORE starting the game.

link

David
wardepot.blogspot.com

Parfitts Tele07 Jan 2011 4:37 a.m. PST

"When I play 1:15 I have 4x as many troops so every time the rules say 1 figure is killed, I kill 4."


Thanks Mate, I should have thought of that, love your blog by the way.
H

A Boston Terrier12 Jan 2011 2:17 p.m. PST

So this thread seems to have some actual serious players on it, and I will admit that I am too young (In my 20's) to have played Empire when it was THE rule system of choice.

WarDepotDavid, I have seen your blog, particularly the campaign you ran in 09/10 and have become pretty interested, I must admit.

So, if I may pose a serious question… I have been able to find Revolution and Empire online on some websites, but Empire V only as a PDF. What is the difference between the two, if any? (I would rather have a rulebook).

WarDepotDavid13 Jan 2011 1:09 a.m. PST

R+E is a major rewrite with a lot of sections replaced by something else, in some cases a more complex something else. We find Empire V very easy to use and very easy to teach people. I know a lot of Empire players stayed with Empire rather than go to R+E. I would recommend getting Empire V over R+E.

A lot more players who can answer questions too.

David
wardepot.blogspot.com

A Boston Terrier13 Jan 2011 3:11 p.m. PST

Gotcha. Thanks David.

The wealth of information supplied on your blog is also very helpful. I have tons of 15mm that are all based to my club's rule system, so I was thinking of giving it a go in 6mm, one of the major selling points being the sweeping battle scenes the scale can allow you to create, plus the fact that I painted my test packet of 96 French infantry in about 90 minutes. (!)

Anyone know of where to get a hardcopy of Empire V?

WarDepotDavid13 Jan 2011 3:20 p.m. PST

You could try and pick up an unwanted one on here or regularly check ebay but in reality the download via thewarevent.com is probably the quickest. So many people bag it but only a minority of them are willing to resell their rules. Makes you wonder.

David
wardepot.blogspot.com

hohoho14 Jan 2011 8:19 a.m. PST

David,

Is there a way of getting the PDF without dealing with G Pitts? I've just been on the warevent and can't even understand how to get the pdf in the first place. I'd have zero interest in a hard copy. To be honest I only want to flick through them in the first place to understand what all the hype/hysteria has been about. Also, I believe it has some good ratings for units which may be adaptable to other systems? These would be my primary aim.

A Boston Terrier14 Jan 2011 11:31 a.m. PST

Peterborough WGC-

To purchase it you have to set up a membership. (Which I just did, no big deal).

Then go to the 'User CP,' option along the top menu.

There will be a list of options about editing membership, etc. Click the option 'paid subscriptions,' you will see an option to buy Empire V.

A little complicated but I figured it out. So far I haven't had to deal with anybody, so I don't imagine you will have to if you don't want to…

hohoho14 Jan 2011 12:43 p.m. PST

Cheers, found it. I am not in the US though, can you download the pdf or do you have to be in the US to recieve the CD?

WarDepotDavid14 Jan 2011 4:07 p.m. PST

Sometimes you gotta take the bad with the good.

hohoho15 Jan 2011 3:49 a.m. PST

Well having paid for the membership I was refunded as I am not in the US. I'm then directed back to the page that tells me to buy the membership for the rules. At the bottom is a contact so and so for the costs outside the US. Couldn't I just have been told what the costs were by the person who refunded me, or sent me round in a circle?

I've seemingly got what I want from other rules now anyway so I'll wait to pick up a version of Empire off ebay at some point.

Pages: 1 2