"Unfair French Advantage in "Empire"?" Topic

What is it about the Empire rules that Favor the French, or create that impression? I'm not arguing yes or no, just curious as to what mechanics in the rules might create advantages for the French? I have won as the French playing Empire, but lost too. It's been awhile, and as it may be pulled from its drawer for retro game, I wanted to see, if some of these questions about bias come up, what some of the experiences people have had with this are…?

The writer of the rules decided to give the French better unit numbers.

Like the French are given a 14 points per figure where the Austrians only get a 10. This can be a big difference when it comes to shooting.

A 10 figure unit of French having a total of 140 will cause 1 kill and have another 40% chance for a 2nd.

Austrian 12 figure unit has a total of 120 so 1 kill but only a 20% chance for a 2nd.

There are a few others but the French having the higher shooting values will wear down their opponents quicker.

Which will mean that they will break and rout sooner.

There are a few more reasons but this is one of the main reasons.

The writer wanted the French to be far better than everyone else and he made that happen with the unit values.

Without arguing the validity of the impression or not, it may be that a shooting bonus was the best alternative available to make the distribution of end results come out right (in the author's view).

Morale, speed, or responsiveness are other avenues one might take , with corresponding rules mechanisms.

Is it really that unfair, they did win a lot… Now penalising Russians in GdeB, that is Unfair!

The real advantage given in Empire, for the French, is in command… as it should be. Yes, French of 1805-07 are definitely rated better than the Austrians… I can't imagine why. For 1809 the French and Austrians are rated the same (giving the advantage to the big Austrian regiments) and worse than the Austrians in 1813-14 (and the French get even smaller battalions. The majority of Austrian cavalry is rated better throughout.

Bias exists IMHO to drive results that mimic those of the era. As noted, the results vary by year, just as they did based upon campaigns. This is a strength, not weakness, of Empire for me and the lads I game Empire with.

Regardless, I detest Old Guard artillery. I suspect the Russians, Austrians, etc did as well : )

Regardless, I detest Old Guard artillery. I suspect the Russians, Austrians, etc did as well

Did they use Empire too?

One thing I have noticed is the "Grand Battery" rules allow much more compression of frontage than any actual deployments I've looked at would seem to justify…

I would have to say that a command & control advantage seems a better mechanism for French advantage at the tactical level than a musketry advantage at first glance.

I've been on the receiving end of the Old Guard artillery….not pretty.

The writer wanted the French to be far better than everyone else

More "Stupid McClellan" rules.
These factors should be produced by the players' decisions, but some seem to think that unless the French are forced to win, the game system is bogus.

Warrior does the same with Romans. It can't be left up to the players! The game system itself must force the desired results.

I lean toward game mechanics that guide decision making, but don't "force" results. In other words, they would guide a player to make decisions based sound tactical principles and historical practices by more often rewarding them.

They would also give both a French line bn and an Austrian bn with essentially the the same morale, experience, training, formation, numbers and fatigue the same firepower and combat ability.

It always amazed me (and still does) that the authors expected their readers to buy into the ridiculous notion that soldiers won battles, not because they were better trained, better led, better equipped, or more highly motivated, but because they were French.

It always amazed me (and still does) that the authors expected their readers to buy into the ridiculous notion that soldiers won battles, not because they were better trained, better led, better equipped, or more highly motivated, but because they were French.

Is that fair? Surely the authors just thought that the French were, in general better trained, led, equipped and motivated than their opponents?

Regards

Which version of Empire are you talking about??? In one edition of the rules, the French were the only nation to have units rated "S" in the tables. The rest of the units were rated 1 through 10, and the best of the best on any other force were only rated a 10, while the French Old Guard were rated as "S" which was one column higher so they shot better, fought better, and virtually never failed morale.

So, yes Empire does favor the French, but it is still a workable set of rules.

In the most current version of Empire the driving force for firing is your morale (training level). So a veteran is a veteran. While the French and British have more "name" regiments that are rated elite (in many cases incorrectly IMHO) and those tend to get painted, but in most things the ratings are even for the ground pounders. If you use the suggested ratings for a given year, you get a balance. Usually a bunch of conscript battalions have to be fielded by the French. Artillery has the French and British having a noteable advantage. Not sure anyone would disagree. Cavalry is all over the place. The Saxons are the gods of the cavalry plain. The author once inferred to me that the Austrians were the base line against which all others were rated.

But as already stated, the big advantage for the French is in command and control. Love it or not, the superior staff system and wealth of officers willing to risk all to make a name for themselves confers an advantage to the French with few exceptions. Add to the the positive modifier to the initiative system up through 1812 and the French will statistically act on their orders more often, and get more tactical "impulses" to act. That said, of the major campaigns I've run using Empire, the French are only +1 and that because Wellington got "too busy" when he found himself in a strategically bad position.

Per Rabbit…"Is it really that unfair, they did win a lot… Now penalising Russians in GdeB, that is Unfair!"
These rules have national charactoristics to emphasize or de-emphazie certain capabilities just like all other have such. They are going to be what the club and or the author thinks per the evidience at the time (to back it up). Today we can find info with a simple click that would take them perhaps month of research to find back then (plus travel overseas to conduct it.
Sorry…. if the rules had everyone the same ( no national characteristics)I don't think I would use them.
A club can decide to water down to LvL "B" an ability that the author though should be "A". That would be the choice of the group before play…. Rules are guidlines right! So it give a media for everyone playing the same game! I can't think of any gamer with out a house rulke or GM change for the scenario.
This rules bashing in TMP is getting tiresome. If you don't such and such rules – simply don't play it. I admit I have mine ( issues with certain rules sets) but not going talk about my issues with them here unless the auther requested some and required feed-back/dialogue that all need to read and discuss its merrit as part in the consideration of an adjusting before revision/press time!

BTW rabbit
Russian musketeers proabaly should be rated lower… can you imagine the same amount of regular/conscripts fire rate would be (who had to make there own balls, had poorest gun powder in Europe ( or almost), 4 different calibers of muskets or more with in the platoon alone, cartitage box that always leaked and thus most of the ammo stored in their shirt then) poor sole's fire rate "as compared" too that of the same training level adequately equipped French! I would bet my hard earn cash on the the fact more Russians will be dropped per minute in the FFight.

Kind of echoing what John the OFM said, to me its the lack of command and movement flexibility playing Austrian, Russian or early Prussians that I have issues with. You don't get much of a sense of how could I have done things differently if I had been in charge of this army.
I think it works fine if you are say Archduke Charles in 1809 and can attach yourself to units and have a positive effect. But if you are playing General Mack 1805, you are stuck as General Mack. You don't really get feel of being a hey I would grab the standard and lead those guys back into battle to change the outcome.

"But if you are playing General Mack 1805, you are stuck as General Mack"

Ashenduke – I think that is rather the point!

"…and those tend to get painted…"
21eRegt – except of course, if you are sticking to proper orders of battle they dont.

"These factors should be produced by the players' decisions, but some seem to think that unless the French are forced to win, the game system is bogus."
John the OFM- If you are interested in playing a Napoleonic wargame, then why not at least try to recreate the 'military environment' in which was fought. Sorry but Spanish troops were t – get over it. Landwher were not an awful lot of use either. The French did tend to be more succesful on the battlefield, you cannot avoid that.
Making everything equal means its not Napoleonic. In fact even if all your soldiers are painted to represent Napoleonics, it doesn't make the game Napoleonic if you dont pay some sort of attention to the factors that made it Napoleonic.

I think Empire is (if you buy into their model) a very good stab at recreating a Napoleonic Battle and all the advantages or disadvantages/ and characteristics that each army had.

@wyeayeman – Almost all of the people I've gamed with paint up historic OBs for a year range we all kind of agree upon. 1809-1812 being the most common for les francaise. However you would be surprised (no you wouldn't) at how many times Davout's corps, or Massena's from 1809 get painted. :-) In the interests of full disclosure, I have Ney and Suchet from Spain in 1810.

When it gets interesting is when you have a campaign and MUST employ some of the lesser commanders on all sides.

"Sorry but Spanish troops were – get over it. Landwher (sic) were not an awful lot of use either."

Spanish troops performed rather well on occasion and did beat the French in a couple of battles; their leadership was often poor and they were badly supplied and trained, but to describe them as is well wide of the mark. As to landwehr, some Prussian landwehr units performed rather poorly on occasion, while others performed at least as well as the line units.

As to the French tending to be more successful on the battlefield, that is a statement that requires some qualification as they were not wonderfully successful at several battles during the period, and not just against the British.

How do 1799 Russians compare to same year French? The Russians seem to have done rather well in Italy IIRC.

The editors are clear in the Introduction: Empire is a simulation, not a game. I haven't made up my mind how I feel about that but nobody is forcing you to play it so I wouldn't mind taking it for a spin now and again.

Given the strong points and weak points, as a simulation I've always thought it was at the least well ahead of what was available when it first came out, and many of the concepts were borrowed and modified in other rules that followed….I also thought it hard to use-except when other people who really knew the system ran the games, and then it was a lot of fun. I have seen Napoleon captured and disgraced at Austerlitz also, so there must be room for different outcomes!

Played IV, I think.

Never played one of the regimental armies. It was mostly Germans and Russians against French. In our group the French I think lost just about every battle. They lost because the people playing the French commanders were not very good. When we (quietly) did a switch of key people for one battle, all the sudden it was the French winning.

So our experience was that the while the French had a lot of advantages, they could be overcome. I think the most embarassing moment was when my tiny unit of Landwehr Cav. (III Corp?) routed some major French cav unit that managed to get charged in the flank, cleared things up nicely for when the Death Heads Hussars shortly thereafter showed up, only to find there was nobody much around to fight.

"Like the French are given a 14 points per figure where the Austrians only get a 10. This can be a big difference when it comes to shooting.
A 10 figure unit of French having a total of 140 will cause 1 kill and have another 40% chance for a 2nd.
Austrian 12 figure unit has a total of 120 so 1 kill but only a 20% chance for a 2nd.
There are a few others but the French having the higher shooting values will wear down their opponents quicker."

Not sure where you get that from. 10 French Veterans firing in 3 ranks is a % per figure while 12 Veteran Austrians also firing in 3 ranks is the same % per figure. There is no nationality differences in the shooting tables, only quality of troops and if they are in 2 or 3 ranks.

"I lean toward game mechanics that guide decision making, but don't "force" results. In other words, they would guide a player to make decisions based sound tactical principles and historical practices by more often rewarding them."

Exactly what Empire V does especially with a couple of minor houserules as well.

"In the most current version of Empire the driving force for firing is your morale (training level). So a veteran is a veteran. While the French and British have more "name" regiments that are rated elite (in many cases incorrectly IMHO) and those tend to get painted, but in most things the ratings are even for the ground pounders. If you use the suggested ratings for a given year, you get a balance. Usually a bunch of conscript battalions have to be fielded by the French. Artillery has the French and British having a noteable advantage. Not sure anyone would disagree. Cavalry is all over the place. The Saxons are the gods of the cavalry plain. The author once inferred to me that the Austrians were the base line against which all others were rated.

But as already stated, the big advantage for the French is in command and control. Love it or not, the superior staff system and wealth of officers willing to risk all to make a name for themselves confers an advantage to the French with few exceptions. Add to the the positive modifier to the initiative system up through 1812 and the French will statistically act on their orders more often, and get more tactical "impulses" to act. That said, of the major campaigns I've run using Empire, the French are only +1 and that because Wellington got "too busy" when he found himself in a strategically bad position."

Good summary.

"They are going to be what the club and or the author thinks per the evidience at the time (to back it up). Today we can find info with a simple click that would take them perhaps month of research to find back then (plus travel overseas to conduct it.
Sorry…. if the rules had everyone the same ( no national characteristics)I don't think I would use them."

Correct!

"So our experience was that the while the French had a lot of advantages, they could be overcome."

Just like back in the day! Amazing.

John the OFM- If you are interested in playing a Napoleonic wargame, then why not at least try to recreate the 'military environment' in which was fought. Sorry but Spanish troops were t – get over it.

That is not my problem.
My problem is that the game forces the PLAYER to be stupid.
Are we supposed to duplicate the stupidity of … Mack? If a moron was the C-in-C, we have to be a moron too?
If that is the case, then we no longer have a wargame, but a clumsy moving diorama. Hook your thumbs in your suspennders, blow some smoke from your pipe, HARRUMPH! loudly and pontificate like Major Hoople, "Yes boys, that is the way it REALLY happened!"

It's fun to be the French, you get to club baby seals. When you are frantically trying to reverse the "historical" stupidity of your counterpart, not so much.

I've played Empire from Empire 2 through Revolution and Empire. I normally don't play the French, usually play years up to 1809, and not the Peninsular… and I was on the winning side more times than not. The huge advantage the French have is the ability to react to a changing situation. Playing the early Prussians, Austrians and Russians requires a sound, aggressive, initial plan. You have to force the French to react to you while not allowing them time to force you to react to them.

As for being stuck as Mack… it is far more satisfying to win as Mack than as Napoleon

WarDepotDavid – couldn't agree more, well said.

That the French are biased in Empire to the point of being in any way unbeatable is a myth.

I've played the game for 20 years and in many ways it depends (like any wargame) on how you set up the scenario and in particular what year you play.

I played 1813/14 for years with Empire V and it was certainly very easy to match forces with the allies (if that's your bent). As a French player being hopelessly outnumbered in cavalry every game was difficult and tiresome just to start with.

If you choose to play 1805-7 you might have problems, but the reason for that I would have thought were relatively obvious.

The French advantage tends to be more pronounced the larger the game gets (the mentioned command and control benifit). In a 28mm corp or corp game, the allies can be very hard to beat… depending on what they turn up with..

My problem is that the game forces the PLAYER to be stupid.
Are we supposed to duplicate the stupidity of … Mack? If a moron was the C-in-C, we have to be a moron too?

I can see how people can arrive at that sort of conclusion about any rules that have any sort of command restrictions and leader ratings … but that is far from true.

For a player to be stupid, means making decisions and issuing stupid orders that are just plain stupid. I don't see how any rules force that on anyone.

(I lie – I do know of some drinking games that 'force' the players to do really stupid things !! … but that's another story)

Mind you, Empire is a big set of pages to read through, and there may well be a paragraph in there that I have missed that says that you have to act stupid if playing the role of a certain commander. I haven't seen it yet though.

If you are playing a Napoleonic game as Mack – then that means that you are stuck with 2 realistic constraints.

1) You are surrounded by a less than competent staff system which is not overly effective at changing a plan on the fly.

2) You are not well liked by your troops, so if you decide to 'lead from the front', they may not be impressed enough to follow your example.

Those are real life constraints, and perfectly valid to model on the tabletop for a historical game. Where is the problem ?

Neither of these game-level constraints forces any player to act stupid in any way.

If you want to play it differently – fair enough, then the rules (pretty much ANY rules), allow you to do that by assigning ratings for professional skill, inspiration, leader ratings, etc to suit the game you want to play.

Its not rocket science, and its not an issue specific to Empire.

Back to the OP question :

The OP asks if Empire gives the French an unfair advantage.

Good question. Yes, there are some advantages and disadvantages, but the question is whether or not they are unfair.

There is an appendix at the back of the rules that lists suggestions for applying ratings for different units in different armies in different campaigns.

Where Empire is very clear about this, is in the introduction chapters where it is explained that as a player, you will get the most out of the system by doing research in the period, and applying what you discover to the game via adjusting the ratings. BlackPowder does the same thing very well – by describing itself as a toolkit for modelling different types of forces.

So – Yes, a French Napoleonic force will have some advantages over some other types of armies depending on the situation. No, these advantages are not unfair – they are a reflection of reality. And No – none of these issues about different capabilities of fighting forces is specific to Empire.

The question is far more to do with the scenario and how the players select ratings for the units on the table, and that can happen with any ruleset.

Good question OP !

As for the whole attitude from some other quarters along the lines of : 'Empire is rubbish because the French are +1 at everything' … ah, its hard to respond to that sort of comment.

For example – I know of at least 1 set of WW2 skirmish rules (which shall remain nameless for want of starting a another flame war) that dares to give belt-fed machine guns a higher rate of effective fire than a bolt action rifle. This is clearly unfair ! Fanbois of that rule system though are known to overlook the obvious unfairness of this rule mechanic, and smugly smile as they reach for a handful of dice whenever it is time to fire the MG. How such players can sleep at night is beyond me.

138SquadronRAF,

How do 1799 Russians compare to same year French? The Russians seem to have done rather well in Italy IIRC.

Qualitatively, the French are roughly on par with the Russo-Austrians of 1799. IIRC, French infantry is a bit better than the Austrians while Austrian cavalry is superior to the French. Russian infantry is solidly average and their cavalry was mostly cossacks (not the greatest, but more than enough to discourage French skirmishers). Where the Russo-Austrian army gets a HUGE advantage is Suvarov, who is one of the few non-French superior commanders, and the French commanders he faced are not the best France has to offer

Wow, an Empire discussion that has stayed civil and factual. No, "I'd rather have my head nailed to the floor" type of comments. Maybe there is hope for the Napoleonics board! <big grin>

Apologies if this is moving off topic but it has been raised elsewhere in this thread. When did training become a measure of a units morale?

Surely experience under fire and quality of local command is the basis for establishing and maintaining a units morale. It could be argued that a unit with a high morale may indeed be poor shots and the opposite also apply. Just a thought.

My problem is that the game forces the PLAYER to be stupid.
Are we supposed to duplicate the stupidity of … Mack? If a moron was the C-in-C, we have to be a moron too?
If that is the case, then we no longer have a wargame, but a clumsy moving diorama.

A valid point, and one I have observed.

As for being stuck as Mack… it is far more satisfying to win as Mack than as Napoleon

True, but a lot of players particularly new ones (and some old hands) don't have the time, endurance or "right stuff" to play the underdog, no matter how good that special day feels. I would prefer to spend some of that time fishing, at least when the big one gets away you don't feel like a whipping boy for some "want to be" Napoleon.

Empire is what it is, I believe that a poster noted that Empire is a simulation of Napoleonic warfare, hmmm, I wonder what that really means? Me personally, I prefer the games I participate in to be stimulating rather than simulating and that is up to the players not the rules, ……I think.

regards
dave

Wow, an Empire discussion that has stayed civil and factual. No, "I'd rather have my head nailed to the floor" type of comments. Maybe there is hope for the Napoleonics board!

Yes, it is a bit odd. The Napoleonics board gets better by the day.

Maybe some people really DID nail their heads to the floor after all, and cant make it to the computer no more ?

I will share what I witnessed at two conventions where Empire III and IV were used in a Napoleonic game. In one instance one of the French players, commanding a cavalry regiment, declared a charge against a British infantry unit. The British unit was on the "other side of a hill." I asked the referee why he allowed a cavalry unit to charge up and over a hill at a target that the cavalry commander could not see (and explained that charging up, let alone down, the hill were perhaps stretching the credulity of what could have occurred on the battlefield). I was not trying to influence the referee's decision, but rather wanted to understand why he allowed the charge. The rules did tend to have "built in" advantages for the French (by that I mean the rules had inherent advantageous factors for some nationalities and types of units that I interpreted as a statistical bias. If French unit "type X," for example, accomplished above average deeds in a battle, then the rules should reflect that with some type of "bonus."). The referee told me that the rules did not specifically forbid such action if the charts allowed the movement (and that the cavalry perhaps received a report about the British infantry, etc.).

What I found interesting was a discussion by the same referee with another player about the miniature figures in use in that wargame. There was an argument about uniforms of that particular time and that the figures being used were not "historical." Now, you must admit that it is certainly strange to discuss historical accuracy of the uniforms and accoutrements of the miniatures (which the referee was quite knowledgeable) and at the same time allow a highly questionable tactical action (a subject which the referee seemed to not know much about).

I will share one more brief example. In a "refight" of Marengo, the Austrian commander had an entire "maneuver element" of over a brigade (Empire IV rules) in line, engaged with French infantry in line. The French commander ordered a cavalry unit with horse artillery battery to move around the flank of the enemy and cut the main bridge leading over the Bormida into Alessandria. The Austrian commander had no reserves to react to the French move so he rolled to disengage one of his "maneuver elements" from line (which he did) and then force march it to "intercept" the French cavalry unit. By getting within "X distance" of an enemy unit the two sides are then "engaged" and must resolve combat tactically. So, in this case engaged infantry were able to intercept and tie up a French cavalry unit aimed at cutting the line of communications of the Austrians.

The referee in this particular battle allowed, what I perceived to be an ahistorical action, for a variety of reasons including that the rules allowed for it. The same referee was also explaining to me how overall historically accurate the simulation was. I asked about the uniforms (I was "playing dumb") of the miniatures on the table. The referee stated that they were hand painted by so-and-so painter and were highly accurate. I made and off-the-cuff comment that I didn't think that the French line infantry in 1800 wore shakos. He looked at me and said that I was incorrect and that I will learn more if I wargame more with them. I did not argue with him.

The hill-charge wargame battle was based on the battle of Vimiero. The hill which the French cavalry "charged over" was over 120 feet in elevation (and the cavalry charge started at an elevation of around 10 feet). Elevations were represented by cut out cardboard contours each representing about 20 feet (based on a map of the actual battlefield).

The slope was relatively steep enough to cause some problems for cavalry. The reason the French cavalry unit wanted to charge over the hill was because going around it (outer circumference) would increase the distance (i.e. the British infantry battalion was then too far away).

The British battalion had to "roll" to form square.

So, in the charge over the hill the French cavalry unit was not disordered and the British battalion had to "roll" to form square. I've noted the "turn of 30 minutes" comment and will comment on its application below. Given the physics of how the cavalry would have to climb and then descend the hill, in actuality the British unit would have had plenty of time to spot the cavalry and form square. I will leave the discussion of scouts and "how the cavalry saw over the hill in the first place" out of the discussion to keep matters simple.

The reason that I asked the referee about the situation was that a cavalry regiment trying to charge up and down a 120 foot, relatively steep hill with undulations, gullies, and other peculiarities of the ground and not be disordered was immediately caught my notice.

Even if a turn represents 30 minutes, the cavalry would have difficulty (even if it knew the British unit was on the other side) moving up and down the hill, let alone maintaining any semblance of formation (and if they moved slow and cautiously then of course the time that it would take to cross over the hill would be increased). I was also curious as to why the referee could not understand that said hill had natural gullies and undulations (i.e. it was not a smooth "cereal bowl" turned upside down). The map used as the basis for the terrain clearly noted (via contour lines) the irregularities of the ground (but not having served in the military he probably did not know how to correctly read or visualize a map other than for basic information about "height").

I've won wargames playing the French and also the Austrians in Empire. Bowden used the same command system for Stars n Bars for the ACW. We played it one time. One Union corps commander failed to roll to activate six hourly rounds in a row. We wanted to tweak the rules to avoid such ridiculous occurrences in the future, but there were some players than did not agree.

If the scenario was not too unbalanced (command and unit wise), Empire did work relatively well (although if the players were not too familiar with the rules it did seem that hourly rounds took forever).

"A valid point, and one I have observed."
Mr Paint Pig,
I honestly dont believe that that is either the effect of playing Empire nor the authors intention. I appreciate that on the face of it it does look as though you are saddled with an extra burdon but think about it in an historical context.
A great many of Napoleon's early opponants were old men, in command by dint of their social standing, and if they did have military experience its was well out of date, belonging to another age, where military priorities were different. Had you been a commanding general in an 1805 era Austrian army, you would have been one of those men. Your military awareness would be 50 years out of date, you would be riddled with gout, and your AdC's would have been family friends who were there largely to be sociable. If you think about it, if you think that 'you' would have been innovative and bold, then you almost certainly would not have been put in command of the army.
Another good example would be the 1806 Prussians – arguably at the time the most formidable army in Europe, certainly in its own eyes, and still basking in the light of the great Frederick. However its generals did not understand the changes that Napoleon (and others I guess) had brought to the art of waging war. They were all contemporaries of Frederick -why? because He was the greatest soldier in history and his methods and choice of generals were clearly a product of that success. So we had Brunswick in command and other officers still remembering how crap the French had been at Rossbach. They had not moved on at all. Once again had you found your self in command of that army, it would only have been because you had served in the great man's army fifty years before.

Surely it is those legacies and history, as well as innovation, social change and revolution that gives the Napoleonic period its flavour. Unless you can appreciate the character of the world in which it was fought, what ever you do, however many 'games' you play with your model Napoleonic soldiers if it lacks that essence, its not 'Napoleonic'
I just cannot see the appeal of trying to get 'armies' to act in ways that simply would not have been possible for those armies at that time.

@ wyeayeman

I'm merely suggesting that John has raised a valid point.

Your military awareness would be 50 years out of date, you would be riddled with gout, and your AdC's would have been family friends who were there largely to be sociable. If you think about it, if you think that 'you' would have been innovative and bold, then you almost certainly would not have been put in command of the army.

then we no longer have a wargame, but a clumsy moving diorama.

…and so it remains a valid point.

They were all contemporaries of Frederick -why? because He was the greatest soldier in history and his methods and choice of generals were clearly a product of that success. So we had Brunswick in command and other officers still remembering how crap the French had been at Rossbach. They had not moved on at all. Once again had you found your self in command of that army, it would only have been because you had served in the great man's army fifty years before.

I'm completely aware of the foibles of the higher command structure re the armies you have singled out. Your reply, it seems, to be suggesting that even greater restriction be place on players gaming with these armies to generate a historical outcome, is that correct?

In regards to the rules I direct you to my previous closing comment.

Me personally, I prefer the games I participate in to be stimulating rather than simulating and that is up to the players not the rules, ……I think.

regards
dave

I find Empire V to be stimulating and I also class it as a game, not a simulation (though I applaud the attempt). They may say that in the opening blurb… but a game, nevertheless, it is.

And a lot of fun too.

"What I found interesting was a discussion by the same referee with another player about the miniature figures in use in that wargame."

Dude, you cant blame the rules just because the game ref was a !

Wouldn't be the first time a author gave himself a ringing endorsement.
I do think someday I should get a copy of V. w I'm slowly filling out my Brit/Hanover units out and not sure that they don't get put on the same pedistal as the French in III. I have to get more in my next round of ordering but horse artillery to me might as well be a Matilda I.

I think some of this is due to people refighting 1813 with the French army from 1806 or 1809. A French battallion in 1813 should be 4-6 conscripts not 9-12 veterans. The cavalry is also largely absent and weak in numbers. IMO – not severely penalised enough in maneuver though they did achieve some notable successes.

I really liked Empire when it first came out and tried to get friends interested in painting 6mm on a 1:15 scale. No-one could be bothered sadly.

I now find them a little complicated for what they achieve, and I don't like whole battalions wiped out by artillery in just one or two shots, even if you fudge and say it's loss of 'effectiveness'.

The French gained a lot in command and control and a bit in morale ratings and firepower etc. Then they gained again as players chose to build the elite formations – Vistula Legion…Davouts 3rd corps etc.

So I think the perception is fair but maybe it should be hard for the allies to beat the French – it certainly was in 1813-14 despite massive numerical advantages.

Two examples of the bias of Empire.

Take a look at Scotty Bowden's French ratings at the back of his book on the French army of 1813. In my opinion these ratings of generally highly inflated when compared ith the historical capability of the army of that year. I found that Bowden constantly overated French troops.

When comparing the French and Prussian army of 1806 the one superiority that the Prussians were generally conceded to have is the ability of their infantry to win fire fights. The last thing a rules set should encourage is the French standing still and engaging the Prussians in a knock down firefight. And yet, the ratings in Empire V gave the French infantry superior firing ability to the Prussians. Bowden rationalized that the Prussians had inferior muskets. Baloney!! In truth, I gave up Empire long ago for many reasons. Today there are many superior games to play and I don't miss it at all.

I think Empire's Grand-battery rules need serious revision-they create a bias. However, I am of the opinion that unit ratings in any rules set are not(or should not be) written in stone- that is, the learned player should feel free to manipulate them based on reflection and evidence, or agreed opinion. For this reason, while Empire may overweight units or nationalities, there is no reason to feel bound by that in one's own games, and perpetuate any percieved published bias.

I also believe that very often the circumstances of campaign are under, or mis-represented in games that start without a 'back story'. The factors that influence a units performance prior to 'arrival on the table' are exactly the things that would cause unit ratings to fluctuate. Without some study and tweaking, no rules set as strictly written is without a bias of inflexibility somewhere.

The ability of cavalry, particularly heavy cavalry, to perform on extended campaign is one such commonly overlooked factor, but there are several…

In general, if a one-off battle is to have any chance of 'modeling the day',or Most Particularly, to reflect the circumstances and limitations which influenced the large and small decisions of actual commanders, it has to consider the circumstances (from training and experience, to replacements, to food quality and fatigue) that influence troop performance, prior to the time the forces are in position against each other.

I guess I'm saying that in fairness, most rules set unit performance factors as guidelines, not imperitaves, and some flaws in the games, as Skarper suggests, can be attributed to a lack of reality in the set-up- which includes overuse of elite formations-I see that as 'kid stuff' because thats what I did when I was a kid, and perhaps winning was more important than it should have been!