Empire Games

Napoleonic Campaign System

Reviewed by Bob Coggins

The Empire Campaign System (ECS), published by Empire Games, is advertised as a system (not a game) to recreate Napoleonic warfare on a strategic level. The boxed package includes a 1/500,000 map of Saxony and its neighbors,, two small planning maps, four counter sheets representing the major powers, a 22 page rules book and a booklet of 7 tables and charts (meant to be copied) for $25.

The system was designed to interface with Empire III (E-3) and has no built-in combat system to resolve battles, no combat results table. Other than patrols and screening actions, all fighting is done on the miniature board. The buyer had better be familiar with E-3 as the rules make constant references to that game (or is it a simulation), using what can only be construed as vague terminology for the uninitiated.

A turn equals one day which is divided into a weather determination phase, six alternative movement phases (4 hours per phase) and a simultaneous record keeping phase. As the function of the movement phase is also resting and administering maneuver elements (ME), much of the record keeping will be done during movement. Battles, patrols and screening actions are resolved according to a series of charts which assign numerical values to the types of troops involved and according to their activity determine the casualties and information, if any, gained. The rules do not, unfortunately, make any provision for the formation of patrols or screens. It is not stated how a patrol or screen is formed or designated and there is no area on the corps or Maneuver Element Charts for their listing; I would suggest they could be designated next to the regiment on the ME chart.

Oh yes, Maneuver Element Charts. Well, prior to starting a campaign, the player must list each cavalry regiment, infantry battalion and artillery battery, including the number of castings in each, on a chart which identifies the division or brigade; and each division or brigade, if not independent, must be listed on a corps chart. Remembering, you must keep track of fatigue accumulated or worked off for each ME during movement: even an old Grognard such as myself recoiled at the potential paper work. Then, of course there are supply trains of two types; food and munitions. Trains count against stacking and affect movement and carry a finite amount of supplies which must be kept track of.

If you over mark your MEs or fight battles, sick and casualties are the result. The solution? HOSPITALS which must be SUPPLIED... on a daily basis, which means the expenditure of a SUPPLY TRAIN! Of course when units lose figures due to combat or disease they are eligible to receive REPLACEMENTS. Replacements enter the board in march battalions and march to the MEs they are to reinforce. Naturally one doesn't just put replacements into depleted units. That's too easy.

Therefore, when veteran units receive replacements their E-3 morale is recalculated as per the equation NW=(S)(Ns)+(R)(Nr)/S+R. So the player must keep track of morale changes as well as casting losses for each battalion or regiment. Additionally, if the army is out of dispatch distance each unit suffers a morale loss on a per day basis. The player cannot just trace a line of communications from a source of supply but rather must receive a daily dispatch, which starts at the source of supply, or lose morale on a daily basis.

Putting the pieces together; there are no scenarios and there is no OB provided. So, first you must develop a scenario include the OB's, supplies, reinforcements, replacements and victory conditions for two or more major armies. A chart must be made for each ME listing every regiment, battalion and battery and its morale per E-3. Following weather determination, each player moves alternatively keeping track of fatigue depending on whether a unit was moved rested or administered. All patrol and screening combats as well as full blown battles are fought at this time, with strategic movement continuing on the map during the battles. At the end of the day, in the record keeping phase; you take replacements, re-adjust morale, establish hospitals and expend supply.

ESC fails on so many levels it is painful to review this product, and my previous admitted admiration for E-3 and Empire Games makes it all the more so. I am not saying the game is unplayable but the paper work required is so extensive as to make it impractical for 99.5% of the potential buyers. I am reminded of Rube Goldberg's mousetrap. Yes, it works, but...

The designer, Kip Trexel has more accurately simulated Napoleonic staff work rather than a Napoleonic campaign. The responsibility of an army commander is to develop a feasible plan of operations to defeat the enemy based on the capabilities of his army versus those of the foe. Except in the most general way, it is not the responsibility of an army commander to see to the administration of each individual ME, indeed each regiment and battalion in the entire army. Fully 50 to 60% of the rules in ECS can be, and have been, built into numerous sophisticated Napoleonic boardgames, freeing the layer to make command decisions and not do staff work.

It is difficult to fathom how Mr. Trexel arrived at dividing movement into six 4 hour segments per day. This movement sequence is in direct contradiction to the movement philosophy of E-3 and I am surprised that Scotty Bowden did not catch it. Indeed Bowden and Goetz developed the Telescoping Time Concept to circumvent on a grand tactical level what 4 hour movement phases encourages on a strategic level, immediate reaction to the enemy's movement regardless of orders. Napoleon issued orders on a daily basis, not an hourly basis, and sometimes not that frequently.

If reaction to a battle in the vicinity is Mr. Trexel's aim, I suggest he read the Sound of the Guns rule in Avalon Hill's STRUGGLE OF NATIONS and change movement to a daily basis. Indeed, I recommend Mr. Trexel study all of Kevin Zucker's Napoleonic games, NAPOLEON AT BAY, BONAPARTE IN ITALY, STRUGGLE OF NATIONS, and 1809 to discover how a professional designer can reduce to 15 to 30 minutes essentially the same thing it would take ECS from two to five hours (my estimation) to simulate, not including battles (I'm not asking you to agree with his conclusions).

It is surprising with all the paper work that one of the most important factors, the ability of the corps commanders, was overlooked. Indeed, E-3 rates their battlefield performance so it is surprising that Mr. Trexel missed the chance to modify the command of a player with the historical abilities of the corps commanders.

As for the physical package, the counter sheets representing the four major continental powers are so poor as to be unacceptable. The counter mix including only four corps counters (one being cavalry) and eleven divisional counters is inadequate to represent a Napoleonic army. The Austrians and Russians are provided with a cavalry corps counter which they historically did not have.

Ten counters are wasted simulating dispatches and 48 are used to represent trains and convoys. The unit counters contain no identification, players are advised to add their own.

The lack of a way to resolve battles without fighting them on the miniatures board is a serious flaw. There are often times when it is impossible to fight a battle in miniature. Indeed, there is no mention in the rules of what to do in case of a double battle with numerous forces in the vicinity. It appears that both battles must be fought simultaneously with forces moving to reinforce. If the battles are not fought at the same time then how will the strategic movement be represented?

Finally, I was more than taken aback when after spending $25, I read in paragraph 3 that the player needs to have 3 ECS games to play the optimal game, implying the expenditure of an additional $50 for two extra copies!

The designer's notes were no more encouraging. The philosophy of professional designers is never make a rule that is not necessary. Mr. Trexel is telling the reader "All rules in ECS may actually be considered optional, whether stated or not." and "... players are encouraged to devise their own rules for those things they think important." Perhaps I am very old fashioned but I think I should receive more than a compilation of non-related optional rules for $25.00.

It is impossible to recommend the purchase of this product when there are so many excellent Napoleonic boardgames on the market which offer so much more for the dollar and are easily adaptable to miniatures.

A personal note. I worked closely with Kevin Zucker in the development of STRUGGLE OF NATIONS and 1809 and am aware of what goes into a strategic simulation of Napoleonic campaigns. I mentioned and used these games in comparison because of my familiarity with them. I have 'in the past conducted a miniatures campaign using NAPOLEON AT BAY and EMPIRE // with little difficulty.

RESPONSE BY THE PUBLISHER


by Charlie Tarbox

To our knowledge, there is no boxed miniatures campaign system currently on the market today other than the Empire Campaign System. To try and compare such a system to a boxed boardgame entirely misses the point of the EMPIRE CAMPAIGN SYSTEM.

After a number of clubs had great difficulty in attempting to convert the OSG/Avalon Hill Napoleonic Campaign games to miniatures we were requested to provide a workable system in the alternative. I notice that the reviewer does not attempt to suggest any rules, rudimentary or otherwise, to allow the reader to use use a boardgame for a miniatures game. For the reviewer's edification a miniatures campaign system needs several essentials:

    1. The ability to convert a battle to miniatures rules.
    2. Realistic supply rules.
    3. The ability to be adapted to the miniatures actually available to the wargamers playing the campaign.

The reviewer demeans the readership and The Empire Campaign System by suggesting that supply/casualty rules are too hard and unnecessary. What good is the 'Manoeuvre sur les derrieres' across your opponent's supply line if there are no supply rules? The supply rules abstracted into "Napoleon at Bay" (A favorite of mine actually) with "Administrative points" simply do not compare with the actual availability of food and munitions on a Corps level basis.

The reviewer needs to compare the advances of The Empire Campaign System with perhaps "Warplan 5 X 5" (The English 1971 vintage boxed campaign system), with Tony Bath's Setting up a Wargames Campaign (WRG 1973) or with Donald Featherstone's War Game Campaigns (Stanley Paul, 1970). These are the forebearers of actual miniatures campaign systems.

Upon these foundations and against these systems The Empire Campaign Systern needs to be judged. Whilst on the topic of "Supply", it is clear that the reviewer had not had the benefits of reviewing literature on the subject such as Supplying War by Creveld or Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army by Engels or he would have recognized several concepts from these sources. (The same reviewer will doubtlessly respond that "Mules carried more in Napoleon's time" or some other comment in line with the tenor of his review.)

Turning to the last criteria of workable miniatures rules, the ability to play without painting up hundreds of new miniatures to fit a set order of battle provided with the rules. The orders of battle for the Leipzig campaign were and are available to Empire Games and their designers from the Austrian and French archives. (indeed I supplied one to Kevin Zucker for his Leipzig simulation, and as it arrived after he had gone to press he declined to correct several errors in the then OB of the boardgame.) Eventually, when current obstacles are overcome Armies at Leipzig will even publish these for anyone interested.

However, as we do not expect Courier readers to have to paint up hundreds of castings as a prerequisite to campaigning in Empire III, we declined to insist on an order of battle for them to follow. So, instead, if you have a Corps of 1805 French, one of 1809 French and a division of 1814 Cavalry you may use these in the counter and administrative set provided and begin active operations against a similar opponent. Vengeful and deserved criticism should be leveled against rules which forced The Courier readership (North America's Foremost MINIATURE Gaming Magazine) to try to meet rigid orders of battle. We preferred leaving the readership the ability to use their existing armies in one of the most fought over areas in the Napoleonic era.

Certainly no rules system is perfect, nor will all wargamers agree on which rules they wish to use. It would have perhaps given a less distorted view of the EMPIRE CAMPAIGN SYSTEM to have compared it to something which relates to the subject - such as other miniatures campaign rules rather than to say it is not playable as a boardgame -- which it never was intended to be.

The Reviewing Stand

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VI No. 3
Back to Courier List of Issues
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1985 by The Courier Publishing Company.

This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com