Absolute Emperor - new napoleonic rules

[Norm]

I have just bought the newly released Absolute Emperor by Boyd Bruce and published under the Osprey Blue Rules series.

I have not played any of the mechanics, but have done a bit of a blog write-up on first impressions, should that interest anyone.

The game has a unit representing a division and so it is all about army and Corps commanders, having said that, it does appear to drop to a lower tactical scale rather easily. Blog LINK.

http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2021/06/new-napoleonic-rules-absolute-emperor.html

[Steve J]

Thanks for the initial review Norm and I look forward to more thoughts as and when you get to give them a run out.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Thanks for that

[steve_holmes_11]

Thanks Norm,

A useful review, and the first one I've seen that includes details of the figure and ground scales.
That is THE information I need to know whether the rules will be viable for me and my armies.

I consider myself part of the new fangled "reduced scale" movement.
Gamers who play on smaller surfaces with smaller numbers and home to finish before rulebook induced migraine ruins the day.

Given a number of disappointments with rules that claimed to be "quick play" and "enable the biggest battles on your tabletop", I resisted the usual impulse buy with Absolute Emperor.
The big question was whether I could re-use some of my 6mm French and Russian divisions for the game.

Infantry battalions on 4 40x20mm bases would appear to map to Absolute Emperor's Divisions rather nicely.
A full muster (Division of 12 battalions) provides up to 4 corps in Absolute emperor terms.


I'm convinced that the rules offer something new, and won't produce a game that bogs down in "rule churn".
Will probably make a purchase soon.

[Norm]

Steve, I think that is exactly right.

[Westmarcher]

Agreed - good review, Norm. Look forward to further posts on this set in future.

Thought you might be interested in these, Steve (was thinking of your under used Russians). I'll hold fire on getting these though until I read some more similarly positive reviews.

[steve_holmes_11]

Agreed - good review, Norm. Look forward to further posts on this set in future.

Thought you might be interested in these, Steve (was thinking of your under used Russians). I'll hold fire on getting these though until I read some more similarly positive reviews.

I would need to get to work on my under-painted French to make up a full set.
But yes, a Black Powder Russian Division looks like several Absolute Emperor Russian Corps.

It's also an opportunity to get all my different fancily dressed light cavalry onto the table.
Or at least a base or two of each regiment.

[AndyT]

Having p!ayed several games of Absolute Emperor i like many parts of the rules but i am a bit frustrated by a few aspects:

1) The orders system which essentially requires attacking cavalry to dash themselves senselessly against infantry squares rather than adopting a combined arms approach.
2) Moving Infantry squares
3) The points system which i think is designed to limit certain troop types but only serves to make some armies cheaper to build a decent force than others, unhistorically in my opinion, but then if combined with the optional National Characteristics some armies (looking at you Austrians) become very powerful
4) Some aspects seem confused or poorly thought out. The Austrian "attack columns" characteristic is a case in point.
5) The author is very responsive on the facebook page but sometimes his answers are along the lines of "the rules are just a framework, do what you wish"

Just my opinion of course, i am aware from facebook that there are many satisfied AE players out there.

[hammurabi70]

Having p!ayed several games of Absolute Emperor i like many parts of the rules but i am a bit frustrated by a few aspects:

1) The orders system which essentially requires attacking cavalry to dash themselves senselessly against infantry squares rather than adopting a combined arms approach.
2) Moving Infantry squares
3) The points system which i think is designed to limit certain troop types but only serves to make some armies cheaper to build a decent force than others, unhistorically in my opinion, but then if combined with the optional National Characteristics some armies (looking at you Austrians) become very powerful
4) Some aspects seem confused or poorly thought out. The Austrian "attack columns" characteristic is a case in point.
5) The author is very responsive on the facebook page but sometimes his answers are along the lines of "the rules are just a framework, do what you wish"

Just my opinion of course, i am aware from facebook that there are many satisfied AE players out there.

Are there?  I am not an FB devotee but I am told that there is a lot of traffic there. for AE  Members of the club, including me, have bought quite a few copies but people have given up with them as unsatisfactory, with better products available for use.  I am always interested in finding out what enhancements there have been. 

[AndyT]

Having p!ayed several games of Absolute Emperor i like many parts of the rules but i am a bit frustrated by a few aspects:

1) The orders system which essentially requires attacking cavalry to dash themselves senselessly against infantry squares rather than adopting a combined arms approach.
2) Moving Infantry squares
3) The points system which i think is designed to limit certain troop types but only serves to make some armies cheaper to build a decent force than others, unhistorically in my opinion, but then if combined with the optional National Characteristics some armies (looking at you Austrians) become very powerful
4) Some aspects seem confused or poorly thought out. The Austrian "attack columns" characteristic is a case in point.
5) The author is very responsive on the facebook page but sometimes his answers are along the lines of "the rules are just a framework, do what you wish"

Just my opinion of course, i am aware from facebook that there are many satisfied AE players out there.

My other issue with AE (how on earth did I forget to mention this first time around !?) is that it cannot make up its mind whether is it a division/corp or batallion/regimental game. It proposes to be div/corp but has low level tactical formations which I think the author now admits are confusing and (in my view) unnecessary.

A wargaming buddy of mine had just bought Blucher which would seem at first glance to scratch my div/corp gaming itch but not the cheapest set of rules in the world.

[hammurabi70]

My other issue with AE (how on earth did I forget to mention this first time around !?) is that it cannot make up its mind whether is it a division/corp or batallion/regimental game. It proposes to be div/corp but has low level tactical formations which I think the author now admits are confusing and (in my view) unnecessary.

A wargaming buddy of mine had just bought Blucher which would seem at first glance to scratch my div/corp gaming itch but not the cheapest set of rules in the world.

Yes, Blucher is our current club go-to set of rules for Napoleonics.  Good but not 'perfect' (as with all rules! ).

[Dave Fielder]

What set of rules are perfect? Frankly, none. However, do these rules provide a fun game for an evening? I think the answer is (probably) yes. Still to play a game but looking forward to giving them a run out quite soon. And I haven't seen any need to count the number of rivets or overly worry about the angles of the dangles.