A few short words on the Lion's review of Empire III/IV from the co-designer of Napoleon's Battles. My first inclination was to see if I could got Walter's article published in the Courier. After all, when you are selling a product/there is nothing like severe criticism of your competitor to make your day. On consideration, however, the two products are not competitors, any more than two books on Napoleonic warfare are competitors. I would rather think of the two rules sets as different approaches to the same subject, neither being better nor worse than the other. I always approached miniatures wargame rules with the questions: does a set of rules have a basic philosophy concerning its subject, does a set of rules have an original approach and can the rules be played? Based on this criteria, I class Empire II, Empire III/IV. Column, Line and Square and Vivre L'Emperor, to name a few, together when it comes to Napoleonic rules. All present original ideas concerning Napoleonic wargaming, they each have a basic philosophy, not conflicting with each other, but rather allowing the wargamer to examine Napoleonic warfare from different points of view and they all provide a playable game. Now, there is not a game on the market which does not have its own jargon, when it comes to defining its own terms, and Empire III/IV is no different. Indeed, because Empire is so detailed and so comprehensive, it uses more jargon than most. Whatever can be said for or against Empire, I think it is unfair for Wally to use Empire's jargon against it without having read or played the rules. I have read and played the rules and Wally for your information, "engaged" is a term which defines a maneuver element's status for the tactical combat round and not the individual battalion's status. The question of changing the ability of a unit attached to an ME which is engaged to change formation. is rot so earth shattering as your comments make it clear. It is rather a technical change, which allows more flexbility. It does not change history, it changes and enhances the rules. One of Walter's ingratiating traits is his ability to jump to conclusions, whether justified or not. In miniatures wargaming, this trait serves him well because most sets of rules are written by gamers who are not professional writers or game designers. For my money, the chief offenders in rules writing are the British. A few issues back Walter and Bob Wiltrout got into a battle royal over the validity, hell ... the playability, of Peter Gilder's rules, In the Grand Manner. Now. Peter needs no introduction, what with his Wargaming Weekends, Connosseur Figures and his articles and photos in Miniature Wargames. Because of his name and, I suppose, the fact he is British, many give him credit where it is not due. While other members of PW were manfully trying to make sense of the rules (after all, Peter Gilder wrote them and everyone knows his reputation) Wally, who actually attempted to play the game, said, "The Emperor has no clothes! The rules stink. tie writing stinks and I can't understand the game." Bob, with an inner sense that Wally is always wrong, jumped to to the defense of In the Grand Manner. In this case. however, Walter was CORRECT! So correct that it must have hurt Wiltrout. In an effort to make sense of the rules he made a number of telephone calls to Britain to got clarifications from Peter. Armed with these clarifications Bob has edited the rules and I hear made them playable. How valid are the clarifications? I wonder if Peter is being consistant in his answers to questions. The question is who can afford the time and expense to do the same and who other than Bob's group play the rules? Just like the rest of the British brigade, when Peter Gilder produces a product, gamers expect it to be worth the price. In the Grand Manner is not. On first reading, it seems as if it is a redone Column Line and Square The rules such as they are, are poorly laid out and so badly written as to be open to too many interpretations to be valid. They appear to be a collaboration. It seems that as gaming buddies made suggestions, Peter merely included them in the rules. I hive no doubt that, when at Peter's wargaming cottage during a wargaming weekend with Peter monitoring the rules, everything goes swimmingly, just as I have no doubt that without Peter, the rules, as written, are not the same as the rules that Peter plays. Curiously enough, this is not the first time I have heard, read or seen explanations from British miniatures rules writers concerning why their rules don't appear to work. I suspect that British miniatures rules designers are no better or worse than the majority of the American rules designers. The difference is their ability to write in a pleasing manner, writing skills really should be taught in the US, and their access to publishers. It must be good. just look at that slick paper, just look at those color photos and the perfect binding. The slick product establishes their credibility, whether deserved or not, which their American cousins can only wish for. I will, however forget George Jeffries' ill fated Variable Length Bound Napoleonic Rules. Brought over to the Colonies to teach the unwashed a lesson, he gave very impressive lectures and demonstrations or the VLB game. He dazzled almost everyone who played in one of the games he monitored. The Napoleonic Wargame grail had been found. Few gamers seemed to mind that there was nothing written and few seemed to remember his one published set of rules was unplayable. Most failed to realize that, without George, the rules were unplayable because there were no rules. But, never mind, he is British, we all know the British fought the French. so he must know what he is doing. Following Origins, George returned to Britain with a few thousand Yankee Doodle Dollars and a contract to put the game on paper. After one or two years and a few thousand more Yankee Doodle Dollars, his benefactor and a battalion of rules designers decided George did not have a set of rules, just a bunch of ideas which only became a set of rules when George was present to monitor them. Alas, George could not be cloned and the entire project collapsed with the American benefactor a few thousand poorer for the effort. After this fiasco, George finally found his niche: writing articles and letters in EE&L. Finally, there is Bruce Cuarrie and his Napoleonic Campaigns book. Mind you his miniatures rules were first published by Airfix in the 1970's only to reappear as part of the Napoleonic Campaigns. It wasn't enough to give miniatures gamers a set of unplayable miniatures rules, Napoleonic Campaigns expands the package to include a set of unplayable Campaign rules. Now, I'm sure that when Bruce runs a game using his rules everyone has a good time and the rules seem perfectly logical and playable. I defy anyone to take the rules as written in his book and play them. To call what is presented as rules, rules. is an injustice to the English language because there are no rules. just a bunch of disjointed charts and ideas. If the chaps in Britain wish to write chatty little books on Napoleonic warfare. that's great. Hell, I'll buy 'em. I just think it is ingenuous for Napoleonic Campaigns to claim to have a set of playable rules. Indeed, when a number of foolish gamers had the temerity to ask Bruce about a sequence of play, they were informed that it is simultaneous. They were also informed that absent their willingness to play a simultaneous Napoleonic wargame they should consider Ludo. I'll keep my eye out for the reincarnation of Bruce's rules in the year 2000.. Perhaps, given another 10 years they will be playable, without his presence. Its a classic, sort a like, you know, Cinderella. It keeps returning every 10 years whether you want them to or not. Back to PW Review January 1990 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1990 Wally Simon 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