"New edition coming? Empire 7?" Topic

Guys, seems there are some more rumours of a new edition of Empire coming as early as next year. It seems this is a Scott Bowden Empire, follow on to Empire 5, not the Revolution to Empire version.

Apparently there is a Facebook Group but I cant find it. Anyone heard any rumours? Very exciting.

What's this "need" to come up with new editions?
We're playing a 5th Ed game tomorrow. Suitably modified for the hard of coping, of course.
I never had anything to do with 1-4, but if my friends want to do it, I'm ok.

From what I've heard, every new edition requires massive rebasing, because the geniuses had a brilliant breakthrough. When my friends have thousands of figures, screw that.

Exciting?

With regards to basing, the mounting measurements for EMPIRE 7 will be the same as the current edition (E5). For those interested in history of the rules, please note that the frontage for infantry and cavalry castings have never changed since the introduction of the first edition. What's more, the FRONTAGE of an artillery battery, depending on the number of pieces in the unit, has never changed since the first edition. However, the representation scheme of using one model of ordnance to represent one section of guns was changed with the introduction of the third edition and has remained the same since. Thus, the infantry and cavalry have never changed, nor will in E7, and the artillery battery frontage is the same as it has always been, with the number of castings per battery being the same since E3.
In addition, since E7 has four different casting-to-combatants ratios to help facilitate different command levels being played, and thus the rules have four different ground scales depending on the game currently being played, participants will be able to use the same miniatures for each of the four different command levels represented by the rules. For example, gamers may wish to use their miniatures for a 1:60 game (what EMPIRE has always been), or they may wish to play a simulation at a level in which one casting represents only 10 combatants, or they may wish to play at one of two other levels. However, regardless of the command level at which the participants wish to play, there is no re-basing of existing miniatures for the EMPIRE system. Also, miniatures based for other systems will be able to be used as explained in the new edition of the rules.

John the OFM, you state you have heard rebasing is required by every new edition. That is truly an odd statement and has not been my experience. I have played Empire since E3 and have never had to rebase.

I hope you enjoy the E5 game with your mates. Reassure them that E7 will NOT require rebasing their figures.

The new edition is not just a tweak of any previous edition, but an expansion to encompass different levels of play. Empire, including E5, uses a 1:60 ratio per figure. E7 is being designed to allow players with figures based to other systems to play Empire without rebasing. This flexibility is cool because any ratio of men to figure can be played, and is a big change. E7 will facilitate gamers who want to play a small skirmish game, for example with a 1:10 ratio, or a battle with multiple Corps. There is so much more to come.

The Empire Rules Facebook Group is "The Alan D. Simmons Empire Napoleonic War Game Rules Discussion Forum"

Sounds like an attempt to capture some of the levels simulated in "Chef de Bataillon," as well as the corps/small army level of action.

Interesting that the starting point is EV, rather than R&E. I do hope they keep the artillery and skirmish mechanics from R&E.

Will they have siege and campaign rules?

I'm interested

This is a tough crowd for announcing any new product. It's like a small elite unit, the handful of survivors of decades of campaigning. The grognardiest of the grognards, who have beaten back waves of advertising and every attempt by marketing since the Beatles broke up, and who can still muster hostility even at the notion of an "Empire" revision. Huddled around Major Cambronne, their numbers too reduced to form a proper two-rank square, they still glare ferociously over the rusty tips of their bayonets and vow to die rather than surrender.

Yeah, this is certainly not the friendliest of forums on the internet for discussions of Napoleonic rules. Always with the negative waves around here. It does get depressing.

Garth, a new product is one thing, an altered product something else and a repackaged old product yet a third. First we have to find out which this is. And there are TMP who haven't just heard it all before, but have heard it all many times. Take scales. I played with 54mm, was excited by 30mm, saw the potential of 15mm and intrigued by 5mm. Hard to work up the same level of enthusiasm for 28mm, 32mm, 18mm and 13.5mm. (I think I saw someone pushing 34mm lately. Be still, my beating heart.)

And if John the OFM exaggerates--or generalizes--on basing, Empire's record is not quite as pure as Froglodite implies. I remember a fair bit of heartburn when they moved out of compatibility with CLS basing with either Empire II or Empire III. (There was more when Napoleon's Battles introduced yet another incompatible basing to Napoleonic Miniatures.)

Mind you, I love Napoleonic miniature warfare. It's far out of proportion what I build and what I play. But exciting as I find the period, and some of the battles when I fight them, I seldom get excited over a new commercial product at this stage. What's a new rule set going to do that makes is strikingly better for--well, anyone, really--than the previous hundreds? Not that such a thing is impossible, but expecting excitement based on promises is a bit optimistic of any salesmen.

Empire's record is not quite as pure as Froglodite implies. I remember a fair bit of heartburn when they moved out of compatibility with CLS basing with either Empire II or Empire III. (There was more when Napoleon's Battles introduced yet another incompatible basing to Napoleonic Miniatures.)

You can't blame the latter on Empire.

But the general "Hey, we're not grumpy old grognards!" argument is sort of underscored by the fact that you're complaining about decisions that happened in 1981 and 1989, respectively.

What's a new rule set going to do that makes is strikingly better for--well, anyone, really--than the previous hundreds?

Well, greeting each new product release with contempt would be exactly the correct approach if you never want an answer to that question.

Having moved myself from "Fire & Steel" basing, I can say without reservation that Empire was a big improvement: you got more units out of fewer castings.

Not contempt, Garth. But suspicion. And I was explaining why we're suspicious--like veteran troops who 've charged works too many times already. Find me an actual--not "trust me on this"--improvement, and I'll be sufficiently enthused. That's why my Medievals and fantasy play with Mersey rules these days. And I'm in the market for two SF rule sets--a skirmish with maybe 6-12 a side, and something more Mersey size.

But considering I was fool enough to buy Rogue Stars on trust--get back to me when you've played Empire VII, and have a really good reason I should rebase.

"… and have a really good reason I should rebase."

robert piepenbrink, the author states emphatically that NO Rebasing is required. If you have Empire based figures, use them. If you have figures based for other rules, use them.

I understand the dislike and refusal to rebase figures. The good news is no rebasing is required for E7.

Excited? Yes, I am excited because even prior to learning about E7, I made the decision to increase figure ratio from 1:60 to 1:30. In E7, if I want to increase the number of figures from my current norm of 12 figures to something larger, such as 1:30 with 24 figures, I can. I can scale up or down., playing skirmish battles or multi-Corp battles. E7 will be familiar, yet different, with 4 levels of command and control. Maybe I'm just easily excited when I receive news that makes my favourite game even more fun.

I concur that until the rules are in hand and we've played them, a review at that time will be useful to share impressions objectively.

So, I probably take a different approach, and its ok to have many different approaches, we're all individuals and this a hobby supposed to relax us.

I'm quite ready to accept that there is no one true way to wargame Napoleonics. I have routinely played a number of different sets of Napoleonic rules over the past 40+ years, depending on what I am trying to model on the day. I have a large library filled with a wide range of historical accounts speaking to many different levels of battles and actions. From Leipzig that requires a high level, army level overview set of rules, all the way down to the stand of the Grenadier Company of the 51st line in the Church yard at Fuentes de Ovejuna, that can only be modeled with a low level set of rules where platoons and individuals are important.

I'm always interested in new innovation and especially when it comes from a stable that has a track record of innovation, creative thinking and solid research. Now, that can change of course and various rules designers and publishing houses can go in different directions. I recently bought a set of new Napoleonic rules from a well known designer who has created many interesting rules sets over the years but who is starting to diverge, in his recent designs, in a different direction than MY personal tastes and interests. Because I had bought a 1st Edition of these rules several years ago and been truly appalled at how bad they were, this time round I just paid for a pdf of the heavily modified 2nd Edition. Sure enough they were very different and improved over the 1st Edition but nevertheless heading in a completely different direction, and I wont be using them at all.

I feel that Empire and the team that writes them, has, over the years, proven to be innovators. They've got a strong track record for producing rules that model what I am after, what I think is important, to me, from the histories I read. I dont currently play any of the editions of Empire but I have in the past played Empire II & III, indeed they were my introduction to historical miniature gaming.

I'm therefore keen and excited to see what they will potentially come up with in a new edition. Just from this thread I've learned that they will have some focus on flexible scaling. That sounds innovative to me and might potentially allow me to use one set of mechanics to play at different levels. That could be really useful, as I'm getting older and swapping around 3 or 4 sets of rules in and out of memory can be a challenge. I'm already cutting back to just 2 or 3 sets in regular use.

I'll wait and see, with excitement and anticipation, for a new set of thinking and ideas and innovation from a proven team of designers.

Bring 'em on :)

Looking forward to seeing them

Condotta, I admire your conviction that every Napoleonics player must have an Empire-based army around somewhere, but it's not true. Played it, watched it and decided against some editions back. I've been cutting down, but I still own 30mm based for CLS, 15mm based for NB (though I do not play NB) 5mm on a 2" frontage, 2mm on a 1.5" frontage and 1/72 and 54mm individually mounted. So I was paying attention, and I would have to rebase to play Empire VII. I'm not sure, these days, that I even know a player with Empire-compatible basing.

So the reason I persist in this thread after my initial one-word comment, is that I dislike being slandered. Failure to show mindless enthusiasm for a product which hasn't even been built yet is not torpor, but learned wisdom. Yes, Empire VII--if that's what they do call it when it is actually released--will play quickly and cleanly, realistically and on multiple levels. It will probably wash your car and vacuum your home when not otherwise employed. You know, political parties and auto manufacturers maintain sites for people who believe pre-release hype, but I still tend to think of historical miniatures gamers as being above that sort of thing.

When someone has actually seen and played a commercial release of Bowden's latest, please post a long thread, and I might even watch a video. But I'm not paying for any more promises.

Rebasing baaaaad!

Last time I read over the Empire rules, I was struck at how complex they were. Additionally, there is a lot of concern over simulations, suffocating command limitations and hierarchies for troop types like 3rd class landwehr etc. That doesn't really work for many today's hectic schedules. Perhaps if you only game Napoleonics but for the person or group who only games it a few times a year that sort of heavy rules set is a burden.

Interesting.
Need troops class a bit less dramatic. Give up or re arrange the ups and downs of acu so no 200-300% assured victory.
Miammiam….

I dislike being slandered.

I missed that somehow.

I saw the part where you said that you were opposed to rebasing, despite being told twice that no rebasing was required.

I saw the part where you complained about a 1981 version of Empire not being compatible with a different game from 1966 (CLS).

I saw the part where you referenced a totally unrelated game (Nap's Battles) from 1989.

I saw your adamant stand(s) against enthusiasm for new things.

But I didn't see where you got slandered. Who did that and what did they call you?

I dont think you can slander an Internet username; not in the legal sense. In any case, slander is an oral utterance while a written one would be libel.

But he's right about one thing elsewhere, the CLS Napoleonic rules are a lot of fun if you can avoid getting bogged down in all the sniglet errata that got added over time. The key in CLS is to keep the game tactical with really no more than 8-12 units per player and hopefully limited to two to three "players" per side. You could have more real people playing but then you'd have to sub-divide the maximum number of units per person.

But the real value to CLS is that you get a kit of functions for each troop class and then it is up to you to accomplish your goals. There aren't the endless +1/-1 charts that other rules have or the dreary, over attention to achieve a simulations effect. By contrast, CLS has flow to its gaming experience while the Empire system comes across as tedious, ponderous and pedantic.

Interesting variety of comments, some of which display angst about particular likes or dislikes that have no relation to the OPs comment, question or emotion regarding his post.

However, this is the Internet, so like static electricity attracts lint on my socks, Empire rules seem to attract posters who have anxiety about anything Empire and a proposed update they know nothing about.

I realize English is not the first language for some posters, or even their second language, so give them the benefit of doubt. Many posters responded in the spirit of the discussion in reply to the OP, have been intrigued and shared ideas and information.

So, nsolomon99, thank you for the post. More info and answers to questions will be forthcoming over the next year from the author. For those who actually play and enjoy Empire, from the preliminary information available, this is an interesting development.

For the others who have nothing positive to add to a discussion about the OPs post other than negatively charged static, why worry about developments in a game system you dislike. Oh yeah, as noted, it is the Internet. Fortunately, for every negative charge, Bill has provided access to a tool to provide a positive charge, causing the static to disappear.

"…tedious, ponderous and pedantic."

I like that! And yes, I find watching Empire players flipping from chart to chart trying to figure out what has just happened more depressing than inspiring. But I would have let it go with a single sarcastic word if Garth & Co hadn't insisted that any lack of bubbling enthusiasm at the rumor of another revised set of rules stems from an inherent opposition to the new and good and attachment to the old and evil.

What you're seeing is the rational response to a call for support based on--nothing. When someone has actually played a few games, please post something. I don't say I'm likely to buy a couple of 6mm armies and start a new project, but I've done dumber things. Information comes first, and then excitement.

Good observations on CLS, MiniPigs. I think most of the old vets would agree with you. The "formal" games with 15-20 players sometimes looked good and were the closest we had to conventions, but they tended to be poor wargames, while two players each with a division-size force often had good games.

I haven't played Empire in decades. By today's standards, it was pretty ponderous. Has the system evolved, or is it substantially the same?

Like anything, if people want a new edition, they will buy it. It's not like there are Empire tournaments and people are being forced to change.

If you like 11 (12?) gradations of morale and/or quality you will love Empire. I for one don't think the differences between Conscript and Landwehr are all that relevant. Some do.
But I don't have any Napoleonic armies, and don't intend to. But a good friend does and he likes Empire. So when his turn comes up to put on a game comes up, I'll play. Despite what everyone else thinks, I think I'm a decent player. I only lost units I was willing to "soak off" last night.

I'll buy them because I like reading rules. If they seem interesting enough, I'll even give them a go.

I'll buy them because I like reading rules. If they seem interesting enough, I'll even give them a go.

That's right. Empire are rules for guys who like rules.

If you like 11 (12?) gradations of morale and/or quality you will love Empire. I for one don't think the differences between Conscript and Landwehr are all that relevant. Some do.

Wasnt there like 3rd rate landwehr? 4th rate landwehr who smoke? Few want to keep track of this during a game.

Still, people say they like the rules and maybe they are great but for what? They seem to telescope between tactical and grand tactical and carry a lot of detail. Which means you might have to play 40-50 games to get the rules fully under your belt.

You can not play CLS for years and years and still remember the basic mechanics. Part of this is because Vietmeyer knew the period was popular because of branch of service parities and that's why the rules have a certain rock/paper/scissors element to them. He also seemed to understand that rules dont make a period popular, they simply channel the enthusiasm.

Puzzling!

Guys, the thread has Empire in the title so its clearly labelled, if you hate the Empire rules so much, or feel the need to belittle the people who play them, why bother to read the thread?

What gives? Just move on, read the other threads, the ones without the hated "Empire" word in the title. There are plenty of sets of rules being discussed in threads here, find the one you like and contribute positively.

For Pete's sake, we all like different stuff, thats ok, no problem, its a hobby, live and let live.

nsolomon99 +1

John

nsolomon99, trolls abound. They are obviously posting to get reactions, not to actually contribute positively. Pay no attention to them. Their vitriol against a game they don't understand, like or have even played in some cases, shows their true motivation. It is to get a reaction, not to have a fruitful and mature discussion about Empire.

Interesting that it took hardly any time for naysayers to find this post and begin their negative posts, none of which were helpful in replying to your original post. It makes me wonder as well, but since Empire must be like a bridge to a troll, or a lightbulb to moths, all we have to do is continue our discussion about E7 and not be hooked by their tactics. Most bullies and trolls are looking for a response or reaction from you, so eventually they'll go away if they don't get the satisfaction they seek.

Bill provides tools to handle situations and posters like these. Try these tools. You'll find your TMP experience is enriched, not diminished. We can not change their negative behaviour as evidenced by the attempts on this thread alone. We do, however, have the ability to act in a personal, positive manner to neutralise these bad actors.

I have owned and played both Empire 3 & 5. Empire Five exclusively with a group that only played Empire Napoleonics.. Yup, no ancients or anything else. Just Empire. And, I was in war game heaven. Always had fun.

I could see a resurgence of a streamlined Empire suitable for convention play (4 hour max) or a super detailed set when people have the quarantine time to study and solo play.

War games exist on a continuum of mathematical models: at one end, pure simulations (at the highest level they are so complex and tedious they require computers to run them, and system analysts to program them; they are a profession, rather then entertainment), at the other pure games, which are fun, but make no pretense of producing results that would replicate possible real-world events.

The comment was made above that "Empire is really complex," and, "there's a lot of concern over simulations, suffocating command hierarchies, and 3rd class troops types, and who has time for that?"

Guys, I laughed out loud when I read that, because as a vet, those are precisely the things I expect a wargame to capture! They're the things I remember: the old man, looking at a map as time ticks by, with his staff huddled around him, cursing his indecision silently while things happen around him, is a real situation, as real when it was Lord Raglan as it is today. Yes, it's complicated: real life is complicated. Orders get mislaid, or misunderstood, people hesitate, and commanders turn pale when they get their SP time ten minutes before the prep fires are due to start. I want a game that reflects these things, and produces results that simulate them. If I want a quick game, I'll play poker.

And troop quality? Jeez, I can remember vividly the unspoken hierarchy in our Divisional Artillery about the quality of the units- some good guys, handicapped with a remarkably poor commander, sometimes a mix of the two, guys who were good, and guys who needed work- "more of that shaky-jake First Bat stuff," as my chief of firing battery once summed it up. There really are good units and bad ones, and they really do produce very different results.

Mike Petro: My experiance is similar to yours except we did also play Stars N Bars, which we also enjoyed. I don't think you could find a bigger fan of the Empire games than myself, especially 5. I look forward to seeing what's up with a new edition.

Our gang broke up due to players moving out of state but they seem to miss our games as much as I do.

John

IF you do Facebook (I understand, not everyone's cuppa), see Froglidite's post above. He listed a group that has much more info about E7. Scott Bowden is a member. It is not a public group but you can join by clicking on the Request to Join button. Annual fees are…ha, there are NO fees. It is free (free as anything on FB ; ) and a great community for those truly interested in playing Empire.

Please, no trolls need apply. For your convenience, here is the group to search for:
The Empire Rules Facebook Group is "The Alan D. Simmons Empire Napoleonic War Game Rules Discussion Forum"

Please keep us informed….there is an Empire board on TMP, but not much happens there. I look forward to hearing more as details become available.

Nine pound round, will do.

Condotta, thanks, did it last Friday, just waiting on Moderator Approval. Nick

I don't believe the question was answered about sieges and campaign rules. I can't say with certainty about sieges, but I know the Empire Campaign Rules will be part of the package in some form.

They had a good set of siege rules in "The Art of War in the Age of Reason" that would be eminently adaptable. Sieges played a bigger part in the campaigns in Italy and Spain than is commonly realized.

Sadly not touching Facebook but would have enjoyed conversation on it. Still on E3 and love it, only a smaller battle capability would get games going more often.

It is my understanding that there will be a campaign system included in E7.

Simulation vs Game Play. This has been a bone of contention for the entire life of the Empire rules system. For what it's worth, I have played Empire since the first edition came out in the mid-1970s. I enjoy the multiple facets of its simulations of Napoleonic warfare, which in real life was a complex form of fighting. Yes, Empire is complex, as is the nature of a simulation. If you want something easier, go get your interest in a game that fits your style of play. Simpler game mechanics and levels of complexity. There are enough game systems available for you to choose from that will fit your enjoyment level.

14Bore, FB is certainly not for everyone. We'll use this board as an occasional forum to discuss developments, hopefully without the trolls and troglodytes.

Indications are that smaller games will be supported in E7.

Personally, I look forward to playing some smaller battles and even skirmish level games with E7. I game and like Sharpe's Practice, for example, so if E7 brings the sophistication and satisfaction to that level of a game as Empire does now, this will be an rewarding experience.

There's a lot of merit to a model that allows you to scale the system up or down to simulate engagements on different scales in the course of a campaign. Sometimes you're fighting a big battle, but often they're smaller actions.

This is truly a interesting thread. This would provide for an interesting study. After reading thru this thread, the first thing that came to mind was weight loss pills. People want to take a pill, but they find out they still have to put work in at the gym, and that is not acceptable to them

Everyone wants the experience of Empire, but some do not want to put the work in. It's really simple: if you want a "game", you have plenty of choices. If you want a simulation, a representation of Napoleonic warfare that gets you as close as possible to representing that period warfare, the Empire is for you

Ask yourself, if you want to "game" a battle in four hours, but the battle you are fighting took 10 hours in real life, what in the world could you be accomplishing? The only relevance to the actual event is the representations of the uniforms on the miniatures

Waterloo was (give or take) 9 hours of fighting, not counting g the deployments. If you game it in less than that, you're probably missing a lot of key detail

Everyone wants different things. Empire isn't for everyone. If you want big, huge, blocks of troops with no regard to ground scale, formations or even casting:man ratios, fear not, you have many rules to choose from.

If a person knows nothing about Napoleonic warfare, by the time they finish the introduction and rules in Empire V, they would at least have a very general knowledge of overall ideas. What other rules set can say this?

It's funny, this post was made, a simple statement of a possible release of a new addition. No details, no descriptions, just an announcement. Instantly some took the time to post negativity even without any details, having no idea what is even contained within this work. Why? If you don't want to purchase the new rules, you actually do not have to tell us that fact. That's your choice. If you laugh at players looking thru charts, well, take the time and put all of your armies factors on one page. Charts are information, it's not a requirement to physically handle every chart. I know my army, I place all needed fire factors on one page.

Point being, if you don't like Empire, why be here?

I've gotten a TON of requests for addition to the FB page. I've been fortunate so far in keeping trolls and hackers out. Obviously I don't know everyone's names here. So if you have requested membership, please just email me and let me know why you wish to join, and I will add you
Jshelton22@att.net

I am preparing for an epic Waterloo game next year or year after. A lot to look forward to
Thank you

" It's funny, this post was made, a simple statement of a possible release of a new addition. No details, no descriptions, just an announcement. Instantly some took the time to post negativity even without any details, having no idea what is even contained within this work. Why?"

A quick trawl through the various threads on this board will answer that question pretty effectively.

I believe this was posted on the main board and not the Empire board. I assume the editor moved it to avoid the drive by opinions. Which I don't blame people for posting, even negative opinions. It doesn't bother me that people point out the negative qualities of Empire.

It's cross posted on both.