"Napoleonic Wargame Rules written by Scott Bowden?" Topic

Hello everyone

Who knows the rule of Napoleonic Wargame Rules written by Scott Bowden ?

Thank you

Ah, you're talking "Empire" in its various editions, I-V, "Revolution and Empire," and the anticipated (by some of us) "Empire VII." Also, possibly, his "Chef de Batallion," on a considerably different scale (1:5 instead of the 1:60 of Empire).

I have played E III at home since 1981 exclusively, definitely will get EVII when available.

14Bore I'm intrigued. Why go for VII when you've not gone for intermediate versions? Genuinely interested – it's not a ruleset I've ever played.

Though t of the upgrades, but sometimes read things didn't seem better. I like the involvement of EIII, solo I play everything from battalions to Corp commanders.

14bore, you solo play empire – oh to do is something I dream of doing! I got E4 and E5 recently, ( I got E4 then read all the problems people had with it, so got E5) but you think E3 is better for solo?

I find EIII easier to handle with new players or when longer periods between games versus subsequent editions

Also I can set up a large game board and leave it up weeks if I want.
Often it's a week to set up, 3 weekends and two weeks to play though take down can in 1 day

I've played Empire a few times, decades ago. Certainly, much to like in the rules but it doesn't lend itself to Fast Play to say the least.

The way 14 Bore plays it – over a period of time – is, I think, the only way. The game demands time and if you haven't got it, it's a very frustrating rule set.

Disagree my club for years played Empire, they look complicated but we played out campaigns and re fights to our own constructs and to this day I think Empire are the best Napoleonic set available. Looking forward to Empire VII I hope they drop all the nonsence in Rev and Empire

@Nine pound round

I'm talking about the one he talks about in his book "Armies at Waterloo: A Detailed Analysis of the Armies That Fought History's Greatest Battle".

@14Bore

Is EIII the only one that can be played solo?

@advocate

Me too I'm intrigued, because it's a ruleset I've never played.

@Georg Buechner

You too think that E3 is better for solo?

@DisasterWargamer

EIII is the best editions?

@ochoin

How long does a game last?

@marmont1814

Empire is the best Napoleonic set available?

@all

Scale 1:60? But do you need lots of figurines?

That book was published in 1983, so it would have to have been Empire III or earlier. Here's a wiki article on the various Empire editions:

link

Number of figures is roughly the number of troops in a given battle divided by 60. So, Wagram had roughly 300,000 troops which would require 5,000 figures if you're playing the whole battle. Austerlitz would require about half the number while Leipzig would need double if you're playing all days of the battle.

As for the "best" Napoleonic set, there's no such thing since it depends on "purpose" and no specific set of rules will suit for all gaming "purposes". However, I do remember doing a tactical study of the multiple cavalry charges at Waterloo. Empire replicated the historical evet very well. No other rule set I used at the time did so – i.e., too many squares were broken or else the cavalry were blown after too few charges.

I like the way cavalry works using E3 fatigue points, 1 Regiment can't keep running over opposing units.
I don't get other rules in the 1 =20 or so and not having skirmishers.
Units can't go through friendly units but front units who are spent have problems getting out of the way, but then ran into other rule sets that do the same. Carnage and Glory seems to be better but never exactly read them yet played at least 8 games so far at conventions.

1:60 shadoe01 is perfectly right. It's the highest ratio which permits individual infantry battalions and cavalry regiments. If you think it's too many figures, you have to maneuver by brigades as in Napoleon's battles, or go completely abstract as in Command & Colors Napoleonics.

Note that it is possible, with judicious choice of basing system and rules, to use the same castings to represent different-size units and play with different rules. But that sort of decision is much easier to make early on. Once you actually build and base an army your options are more limited.

I'd also agree with shadoe01 about there being no such thing as the best rules. I always advise people to start with what battles they wish to fight and what size table they can realistically put up, followed closely by what size/scale of figures they want. Once you've established those three things, you've eliminated most rules, and can better choose among the remainder.

I don't have it with me, but IIRC, Bowden makes reference in the book to a set of "morale classes"; he does this in some of his other OOB books, and those classes match the then-current version of Empire.

The point about 1:60 is well taken: a mid-Imperial French infantry battalion is twelve figures, and the infantry battalion, cavalry regiment and artillery battery are the basic "playing pieces" of the Empire series (fortunately, they have never revised the rules on basing, so you can play different versions with the same figures). I like the idea of having those units be the basic maneuver units, so I am prepared to accept that the level of detail I like works best for armies that probably don't exceed ten divisions or three or four corps in size.

I do like Revolution & Empire, but the errata is a must and I have often found that there are rules I need to pull in from V, particularly those pertaining to terrain effects. The artillery mechanics are an improvement; I like the skirmish mechanics, but they don't work quite as easily as those in EIII.

@shadoe01

I have 4 books published by Scott Bowden on the Napoleonic Wars: Armies at Waterloo: A Detailed Analysis of the Armies That Fought History's Greatest Battle – Armies on the Danube: 1809 (Armies of the Napoleonic Wars Research Series) – Napoleon and Austerlitz: The Glory Years 1805-1807 (Armies of the Napoleonic Wars Research Series) and Napoleon's Grande Armee of 1813 (Armies of the Napoleonic Wars Research Series) and I found them so valid that I said to myself that a rule written by the same author might be interesting.

@14Boron

EIII is the only one that can be played solo?

@robert piepenbrink

To be continued if Scott Bowden's rules are as good as his books, it's encouraging, since according to you and shadoe01 there are no better rules.

@Nine pound round

So the best is 'EIII?

I play a mix of III and V incorporated into my own 'house rules.' I play solo on a 6' x 4' table and like 14 Bore can leave a game on the table for weeks. Restrict myseld to small Corps/Divisional games hence house rules. Only have French, Austrian and Russians. French 1809-14, Austrians 1809-14 and Russians 1812.

Paskal, you are, as we say in English "putting words in my mouth." I said there was no such thing as a best set of rules--and meant that was no objective standard which would establish such. Shadoe wrote something very similar. If I were to say of a book or a set of rules that "there is none better" that would be very different, and high praise indeed. But it's not what I said.

I'll play Empire when there's nothing else on offer, but for myself, it's slow and visually unsatisfying. I prefer to go downscale to a purely tactical game with 28mm, or fight corps and above with 6mm figures and Wessencraft rules. But those are personal preferences. As you can see in the discussion above--and by the number of editions--many people are quite happy with the various versions of Empire. You may be one of them, or you may not. Try to see and play a few games before committing yourself.

Word of warning: I have seen a wargamer try to overcome difficulties with Empire's ground scale vs his table space by using 6mm castings and halving all distances. I would be very careful pursuing such a strategy. Few of us are happy moving troops with tweezers. On the other hand, keeping the ground scale, reducing the figure scale and using more figures in multiple ranks should play the same and--to me at least--look better.

So far my best solution solo games is rarely play both sides in the same day. Mostly play one side as a defense so counter attacks at most.
Also found when moved to large tables maneuvers are very Important and if table is bigger than your troops can hold is challenging just as real battles often worked.

@Paskal,

I've only have owned the following editions of Empire – 1st Edition, Empire III, Empire V and Revolution & Empire; although I only still have the latter two due to downsizing to meet weight limitations for international move. I can't remember if I played the 1st edition or only used it as a reference. I have played III and V solo. I'm still trying to understand R&E well enough to play that version.

I've had no problems with solo play. Rules that present the greatest challenge are ones that rely on hidden units or use simultaneous movement, but if one is creative it's not a barrier – just a greater challenge than I-Go-U-Go rules. However, any solo game requires something to prevent you bias creeping in – after all, when you play solo, who's to know that you re-rolled that "bad roll". LoL

(@Nine Pound Round, where can one find the errata for R&E? The Facebook group?)

Best rules? You need to answer some questions:

1) Why are you playing? Fun, tournaments, historical analysis, etc.
2) Who are you playing with? Solo, friends, club, tournament players, etc.
3) What are your resources? Table size, number of miniatures, time available, etc.
4) What size of battle interests you? Skirmish, division, corps, grand tactical, theatre operations, strategic.
5) What will be visually appealing? Figure scale, figures per unit, basing, etc.
6) Are you just starting out or do you have a sizable legacy collection?

That's not exhaustive, but you get the idea.

A brief history of rules I've played:

1) Napoleonique by Jim Getz & Duke Seifried (Note that Jim Getz is a co-author of Empire III and V – I can't remember if he was for the 1st Edition and I don't know about the others. He is not a co-author of R&E): These are the first set of rules I played with friends on the weekends while I was in university. There are some of most fun Napoleonic games I've ever played. I lost my well-torn original copy but I recently purchased a copy in an ebook. They are tempting as they are still the top of the list for fun – but that might just be memory. Note: the scale was 1:30 and a unit was an infantry battalion, cavalry regiment or artillery battery.

2) Wargame Research Group (WRG): This replaced Napoleonique for cost reasons – always important when you're in university. The scale as 1:50 for infantry with battalions, regiments and battery. We went from 25mm for Napoleonique to 15mm for WRG. WRG allowed us to play larger battles but never to a satisfying conclusion. It took ages for infantry units to cross the battlefield, so games were decided by cavalry action on the flanks. Will never play these again.

3) Empire III & V: Very suitable for a detailed look at a battle but I only played solo as I had moved on from university. So I can't really comment on the fun aspect as generally that comes when you play with friends. It can still give you a satisfying solo game if you the time, figures, space, etc. Note that the telescoping idea helped alleviate the WRG problem of infantry trudging across the table.

4) Corps d'Armee: An experimental rules with a unique mechanism whereby an opposing player can interrupt your moves to take initiative. Intriguing but the interruption mechanism breaks down when you get to larger games or multiple player games. Interesting rules but time has moved on. The scale was 1:50/60.

5) Napoleon's Battles: One unit = a brigade. Tried it. Didn't like it. Obviously there's a degree of abstraction when a unit is a brigade. I didn't like some of the abstraction decisions within the rules plus it required a unique basing system. Ugh! If a set of rules requires re-basing a few thousand figures it better be one you really like.

6) Principles of War: A decent set of rules with units being brigades. I like that it incorporated things like doctrine as part of unit characteristics. I was possible to play large battles in an evening – important as times people had to play were limited by this time in my life. Better than Napoleon's Battles for me.

7) LaSalle: Tried but it didn't take. Can't say why but it didn't.

8) Field of Glory: Another one unit = a brigade, but I liked the abstractions better than 5) and 6) above. In fact, I liked it so much I re-based my figures which are now bases of 8 infantry in 2 ranks. The base size means that a base of 8 figures with a frontage of 4 figures is the right width for 4 figures in Empire. So….that means that my effective infantry scale is 1:30. Also, I can't have bases represent individual companies. However, I can live with that heresy. LoL I do like the visual appeal of infantry bases with figures in two ranks and, if I use them for Empire, battalions will typically be 16, 24 or 32 figures which gives a nice sense of mass. Note that I used these rules to re-play Leipzig during the pandemic. It was broken into 5 sections for the 16th of October 1813. Communication was via email and lots of photos of the figures on my table. Something to note – attrition is captured via unit cohesion – steady / disordered / wavering / broken. When a unit reaches a "broken" state it's removed. Final note: the 3rd edition of these rules has mechanisms for bombardment and skirmish that remind me of Empire/R&E.

9) General d'Armee: Units are battalion / regiment / battery but the scale is a wee bit abstract as units are small, standard or large, which, for infantry are 300-480, 480-750, or 750-100. When you consider ground scale that will put you in the 1:20 to:30 range. I like them for games of a division plus to a small corps. They are a good set. Note that with these rules don't have figure removal but use a strength roster to keep track of attrition. Units are removed when their roster strength is marked off or when their brigade has a bad morale result.

I'd find it difficult to even rank these rules. Some I won't play again, some I would if someone else suggested the rules and some are my current go-to rules. The latter set of rules are Empire, Field of Glory and General d'Armee.

@Paskal, given your previous posts, I'll stick my neck out an suggest that you strongly look at Empire since it's my impression that you like both the detail and the overall grand tactical. No other set of rules, with which I'm familiar, is designed to this – at least not effectively.

@Rosenberg

I too can leave some of it on the table for weeks, I have the space and the equipment for that, but I won't do it.

@robert piepenbrink

Isn't that what you said? OK its not a big deal. So Scott Bowden's rules are less interesting than his books?

@14Boron

So far, my best solution for single player games is to play both sides in the same day. This is obvious.

@shadoe01

So in solo there are some who make whoever they like win… I have to find myself a copy of Empire III, but be careful, it has to be playable with 25mm.

@Paskal

Re-rolling a bad outcome is an obvious example. However, there are times when it might be warranted.

The easy part for solo play is making decisions at the detailed (unit vs unit) level. The harder part is the overall battle plan. Here something like the mechanisms in Charles Grant's book, "Programmed Wargames for Solo Games", are useful. It's out of print so it's pricy (30 GBP at Caliver Books).

@shadoe01

EIII is now obviously not found ?