"Clash of Empires dead?" Topic

Is Clash of Empires (Great Escape Games) a dead ruleset? I've tried to register on their forums and that seems to be inactive as well. Not so good for getting rule questions answered.

Haven'y been to the COE forums in recent months but our local SoCalifornia group of ancient players play 28mm COE quarterly all the time. Just posted up a recent Battle of Nola 214 BC scenario on Wargamerabbit.

If you have a COE question just contact me via the contact information under "About the Wargamerabbit" tab. Would be glad to try an answer how we understand the rules.

Battle of Nola 214 BC AAR and photos: link

Sadly, it is in my club. After I got done up hundreds and hundreds of Vikings & Saxons….luckily big armies "translate" quite easily to Hail Caesar and To the Strongest.

Its been very dead for a while in my area.

We still play twice a year. Sadly i don't see it played anywhere else. Was it to cmplicated for the average Joe do you think?

I'm a total noob when it comes to ancients. I don't read about it or paint minis for it. But we've embarked on a gaming journey so I picked up the rules and am building my Palmyran force since I already had some unpainted ones. The author has lots of examples and cases but sometimes the wording is different for the same thing (charge distance and march distance). Three things that came up as we play our fam-fire games (familiarity fire);

1. Does Armor of 6 become 0 when the target takes a -1 ARM penalty from sling fire at short range? Or does it end at 6 and never gets worse (like in BKC2)? -We are saying it goes to 0 armor because that's how it happens in similar types of rules.

2. The shooter having a higher hit number (7 – 9) would add armor to a target that didn't have it before? Target with ARM 0 would become ARM 1 if the firer needs a 7. (tied into #1 above and why I'm thinking we are handling #1 correctly).

3. There isn't a stated frontage for units outside of units that plan to charge, in that case a minimum number of minis is listed. So, are players free to create unit sizes in whatever way they choose, with the minimum charge rank number? Assuming a different amount of ranks will impact other rules but if someone really wants a 2 rank deep 24-mini unit they can do that, understanding they'll lose any bonus for having 3 or more ranks, etc.
As I said, I'm totally new to this so maybe that's a question everyone already knows the answer to, but I didn't see it in the book and the author is pretty clear on other rules.

Other than those 3, for now, the rest of the rules make sense and the games we've played have been satisfying and no significant hurdles came up. I'm more disappointed that the forums are dead and there isn't a good chatter going on. It always helps to build and keep interest.

Striker,

Questions answered on how we play the COE game.

1) Yes. If a unit has Armor rating of 6… ie… needs a natural six to save the miniature on d6 die roll then the -1 ARM adjustment reduces the save to "no save" since there is no ARM 7 in the game….. unless you can roll a "7" on a d6 somehow.

2) Yes.. You have it correct. That is how we play the rule. Could be said a "t-shirt" guy shouldn't get any ARM save roll….. he never had any but the group thought is it is accounting for the increased difficultly to hit the target miniatures.

3) Yes. Other than the minimum unit width (5 miniatures) you in theory can make the unit width as wide as miniatures number in unit…. ie… one miniature depth or rank subject to maxim unit size miniatures restrictions.
Remember the measurement for charge distance is from the center of charging unit to the nearest enemy miniature of unit charged. We play measuring from the unit center front edge which basically is the same as noted when using movement trays (p.35 left column of text near center). So in some "very wide" unit charge situations, the "very wide" unit couldn't charge an enemy unit if the distance is greater than the charge movement…. even if part of the "very wide" unit stands directly in front of the enemy target unit. So… because of this we find quickly units over 10 miniatures become charge challenged to charge enemy units out on the units near flank edge.

In summary… don't measure from the nearest miniature to nearest enemy miniature for charge distance determination.

Also pay close attention to the charge distance adjustments of 2cm and 5cm reduction found under "Maneuvering during a charge" section on p.36 they can also impact unit width discussion.

For the notes…. Roman formations typically are two rank deep due to the Legion and Maniple special rules.

Do you have the Errata (Feb 2012) or Optional (2011) rules downloads from the former site?

Michael aka WR

I have the errata and went through it but I'm going to sit down and make the changes to the rulebook so I don't have to bring sheets with me. Thanks for all the info.

I cut a spare printed copy of the errata up and taped into or over the noted sections or out on the page edge.

You are welcome. Best in gaming and roll high dice….

I got to this conversation a little bit late (had to pay my denarii for membership renewal), but, yes, I think that GEG has quit CoE; quit developing it, quit mentioning it,and even quit responding to questions. That's very unfortunate because it's still a GREAT game and one that I play with D6 Junkie above in the Atlanta area (Mike, we must schedule that game!). A couple other players are about to start back up with it, so it's going to continue as far as I'm concerned. I just got the Persia and Crusades supplement while they're still available.

It's a real shame that, once again, we don't see a Successors book. People waited for it back in WAB's day, and it was all written by Jeff Jonas and ready to go. And it was a big promise made by GEG. But one that I've had to finally admit is not going to happen.

In popularity, CoE's problem was in terms of timing and identity. It is a successor system to WAB, and like the Successor when the King died, there were many that came along and had to fight for a piece of the pie. Also, the breakup of WAB's dominance allowed simpler systems (in terms of movement and non-figure removal) to give people a chance simplify in their games in ever busier lives. Personally, I don't like the Hail Caesar/ KoW abstractions – they just go to far in my opinion. Also, CoE was a clarification of the WAB system. A good one, but, as has been pointed out by others, some people just didn't want to change.

BTW, if any of you are interested in a Marian/Caesarean Roman list for CoE then let me know. Stuart really liked my list and said that he would post it, but that was about the time that his communication died out and it never happened. The list is very unusual because of its length (8 pages) and because Allies have to be chosen from a specific region (e.g., Africa, Hispania, Gallia, Syria), so that in Roman v. Roman battles (civil wars) you'd have a Roman core but different supporting units. I can send by email.

(Actually, as I have a copy of JJ's WAB Successor list – made temporarily available online before WH Historicals made him take it down – I could use that as a template for a CoE list like mentioned above. Hmmmmm…..)

Always interested in list Msrs Ultor.

As for COE…. still playing. Today I was wondering what to do with my Chinese army….. COE never went asian. I have the Art of War WAB supplement… easy to convert I guess.

Love to know of your COE games…. a photo or two maybe. Scenario notes a plus. I post mine on the blog Wargamerabbit.

M
email mrverity58 at Yahoo small dot with c o m

WGRabbit,

Sent. Let me know if you don't see it. I'll be checking the blog.

Andy

M Ultor.

Received. Email reply.

Us COE gamers need to stay in communication.