"any Reports using "Empire" from Emperor Press?" Topic

are there are battle reports here or some where anyone mightknow of that use Empire – i would really like to know what this ruleset is like, as it sounds grand but then i also hear alot of people expressing their dislike of it

It should perhaps be noted that there are something like seven editions that have considerable differences.

well i woould be interested in just reading about even just one of the versions that would be fin :)

"Empire" has its own board on TMP. Have you been there to look around?

oh sorry i didnt know that – thanks

Some would argue that Empire and the Gillotine have the same thing in common. While the study of its mechanics can be fascinating….. practical application can cause one to loose ones head…. and it's practical useage is considered antiquated and barbaric.

TMP link

JSchutt, you're being negative without being helpful. If you list specific features of the rules, surely Georg can decide for himself whether they're good or bad things?

Georg,

1:60 representation in single ranks. There's talk of a new version which will cover different levels of representation, but it isn't published yet.

Intended for 15mm. Can be done in 25/28 if you've got enough table. Some players use 5/6mm and halve frontages, but they wind up maneuvering with tweezers. Others keep the frontages and use twice as many 5/6mm for aesthetic reasons.

Intended for corps and army-size battles, but the maneuvering units are battalions and batteries. (Cavalry regiments I think, but it's been a while.)

Many fine distinctions in troop quality. As a result, generally even among veteran players, one usually casts a die and then consults multiple tables to determine results.

Speed of play improves with experience--when does it not?--but I think most players would agree that it's closer to "set up the table the night before and play all day" than it is to "set up after lunch and be done before dinner."

Hope this is helpful.

OP, I don't know if I came across as short or not. If I did, it was not my intention. I just wanted to let you know about the board.

I have not played Empire in years but, as Robert noted, it is considered by many to be overly complicated in many aspects, which results in slow gameplay.

IIRC, a Russian infantry battalion was 8 figures (that's what we used anyway), and a French battalion was 12 figures. Cavalry was by the regiment. Maybe 6 or 8 figures? It's been too long.

Art one time, Empire was the dominant set of rules for the period, at least in the U.S. As mentioned above, it was overly complex, hard to teach new players, and you really needed to invest time with the rules to play the game properly. However, it was the standard and many gamers did whatever they needed to come to grips with it. My group did get in a few games with Scotty Bowden at a con and his style of playing was much, much faster than ours was! A 3-4 corps per side battle would take us sometimes three gaming nights, but with him playing alongside us it was about 6-7 hours!

Unfortunately, most gamers could not replicate that and somewhere in the mid-90s many decided that it was time to move on and our group switched to Age of Eagles, while many other groups went to other rules sets as well. Other versions of Empire have been released since then, but the number of players has shrunk dramatically over the years.

Empire is a lifestyle game.

Apparently satire is lost on on some. I thought it best to warn of an approaching iceberg before wasting time on enumerating it's various attributes. If it helps I played editions 1-3 since it's inception and found it exceptionally well researched, detailed… producing results that understands the dynamics of a Corps and opposing forces. One could not quibble too much about it as a simulation. "Detail enriched games" tend to reflect complexities while "Casual mass appeal games" lean to the abstraction of such things. To be enjoyed Empire must be a lifestyle as mentioned, not "one rules set among many." Probably not a great solo endeavor other rules might be. I have found arguing with myself to be no fun at all. Lastly "Mechanics" are like "Medicine"… too much of it can kill you.

Love quite a few of the concepts in Empire and Stars and Bars (Civil War version) – However – it is not a casual pickup game – The more you play it – the more it flows and the nuances come to light

We play Empire 5. We like it and find it scratches all of our itches for a Napoleonic era game. Much research and new insights are available since E5 was published, and thus a new version is in the works. See the Empire board for more info, or join this forum: link

As for the Empire rules, we find them the most satisfying. The ratio is 1:60, making it easier to field an army. All arms are represented, and all formations. If you want skirmishers, line, columns, squares, wave attacks by cavalry, it is all there. Simple or as complex as you want. Complete lists of nationalities and personalities, with characteristics and capabilities by unit and/or year.

Empire rewards effort. Perhaps we have played so long the mechanics are second nature. We game, drink beer and have fun. If you are new to playing Napoleonic wargames, discover what others in your area are playing and join in a few games. You may find players that have personal knowledge of playing Empire. I find, like any rule set, there are detractors and supporters.

I play EIII, alas only solo these many decades. But can put up a big game and it can stay up until I'm done even if it's a few weeks (2 mostly). I use multiple corp on both size yet it is a Battalion or Regiment VS Battalion or Regiment (or cavalry)battles, Skirmishes are used.
As it's layout out it's a telescope, big units working to as said individual battalions to skirmish companies

My apologies, JSchutt. I took your first comment at face value. I too have had trouble highlighting my text and switching to the satire font.

Many people obviously play and enjoy the Empire series. For myself, I feel it's worth the trouble of maintaining two scales to have two much simpler games--a tactical game of around 1:20 with individual casting removal and a microscale game for corps command and up with much of the tactical nuance stripped out. But much depends on taste and interests.

thanks for the replies – these are all helpful, as my focus is on 6mm and 2mm scale (maybe 10mm one day) so whether empire would work for this is something that is good to know – it sounds difficult to do regarding maneuvring at such scale

If you like Empire in other respects, it's possible to keep the 15mm basing and double the castings in 6mm.

2mm is a more awkward fit for Empire. I'm gearing toward 2x2 Napoleonics in 2mm myself, but of the major commercial sets you might want to look at Volley and Bayonet or Grande Armee. Stands are brigades in either case, and my understanding is that basing is more or less identical. A 30mmX30mm base would work at 1cm=1" and still be big enough to contain several 2mm battalions. If I remember correctly, this would make 1cm on your tabletop equal to 100 yards historical, so even very large Napoleonic battles could be played out on a 4'x6' table.

But 2mm is not the scale for tactical nuance.

Irrespective of what one may think of the rules (which I have no opinion on), there was a time maybe 10 years ago when a company tried to turn Empire into some sort of GW-like 'Empire hobby', with rules available only through yearly subscription and some sort of closed forum that was supposed to be the hub of all Empire activities and discussion. Not sure what happened to it, but IIRC the subscription fee was high and the new company was sort of a bully. Kind of killed off a lot of casual interest in the game.

I've only ever played Empire III then IV and finally V. I now have my own houserules which a mix of III and V. The rules are baised towards the French which is fair enough for the period 1796 to say 1807 (I have French (Post 1808 reforms, Austrians (1809 -14)and Russians (1812) only but am thinking of getting some Prussians (1813-14). In my houserules for 1809 to 14 the French are usually better rated but they decline markedly once the retreat from Moscow begins and the Allies improve. The main advantage the French have is leadership and their willingness to lead from the front however costly that might prove. The later artillery ratings gripe me so I the French fire on table I while the post 1809 Austrians and 1812-14 Russians use Table II. I have also reduced the effect of bombardment with only Regular Fire table used and the French firing on table II and Austrians and Russians table III. I also use the optional Howitzer effectiveness rule and also reduce the maximum range of allied artillery due the poor quality of powder. Russian infantry are encouraged to charge not fire.

Poor quality of powder

No. There is a reason why all French towns had pissoirs – they were always short of salt-petre.

The best salt-petre was from India – which the Brits got after Plassey.

All the continentals lavished money, care, and love on their artillery. No ruler would stint on the artillery laboratory.

I am sure that on a calm day with a gun with perfect interior ballistics and a nice band playing you'd be able to tell the difference between gunpowders.

On a battlefield smothered in smoke, sweat, and blood, not so much.

There is another thread which explains why Rooskie artillery appeared to under-perform compared to the French (hint: they didn't put it all out at the same time).