Review: Absolute Emperor- Osprey Games

[Easy E]

I will start this review with my usual caveat.  I really do not know that much about the Napoleonic Wars.  I have been interested in them, but have kept my distance.  The pageantry, uniforms, combined arms, and of course the big hats have always been of interest but...... the many rulesets, depth of knowledge of the players, and so many models and painting have kept me away. 

To date, I have really only played Blucher with any regularity.  The joy there being I have been playing it with the cards.  I have La Salle,  Chosen Men, Black Powder and a few others but have never quite pulled the trigger on Nappies.  To be honest, making the large units and all the nomenclature has scared me off for the most part. 

It was these factors that made me interested in Absolute Emperor.  I read through the introduction and recognized a kindred design spirit.  He was advocating for "Big Battles with Small Armies" which is an approach I have found near and dear to my heart.  In fact it was one of my main design goals with Men of Bronze, Heirs of Empire and Wars of the Republic.  In addition, abstraction and units acting as a foot print for larger elements was another theme that matched my style.  Finally, he was a strong advocate for not having to re-base anything!  Basing is the bane of wargaming.  I felt I had found a kindred design spirit! 

This intrigued me enough that I wondered if I had finally found the Napoleonic wargame that would get me to pull the trigger on Nappies and buy some models.  With all that pre-amble out of the way.  Let's get into Absolute Emperor and see what is under the Shako.....



You can read the full review at the Blood and Spectacles Blog here: https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2021/08/review-absolute-emperor-osprey-games.html

[vtsaogames]

Have you played a game yet?

[vodkafan]

I think the designer included the formation change feature because it wouldn't be much of a Nappy game without it. Honestly that is one of the most fun aspects of Nappy gaming is picking the right time to deploy into line (or sometimes not!)
But at this tiny level with 1 base per whole division? I don't like it one might as well play the boardgame RISK. It will feel about the same in my opinion. It won't feel like Napoleonics at all.

[has.been]

one might as well play the boardgame RISK.

James the boardgame 'Campaign' would be a better comparison.
If you haven't played it (yet) I have a copy.

[Easy E]

Blucher has no formation changes, and that does not feel anything like RISK.   

However, I do suspect it was kept in simply as a genre convention, just like the command radius piece.   

[SteveBurt]

I agree formation changes are an anomaly at this level. Napoleonic warfare at army level is attritional, as well shown by Blucher, Grand Armee, Volley & Bayonet or Horse foot & guns

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Very nice review, thanks for sharing!

I agree about the formation changes. Especially by the 19th century and the huge armies employed those wouldn't be something an army commander should have to deal with. Doing something just because "people like it in that other game which depicts something entirely different" is a bit odd. Indeed, Blücher doesn't have you deal with petty formation changes and games at that level shouldn't. (also, Risk is a pretty bad game ).

I'm not a huge fan of command ranges either. I get why they exist, and it's probably faster than alternatives I could think of (having formations roll for having received their orders, maybe modified by command structure or the number and quality of AdCs or something).

I'll probably pass on these rules. Like you, I got some rules sets for that already, I even got an army, but I lack either a second army or an opponent.

[black hat miniatures]

The author has said that the formation changes merely represent the state of the corps and whether they are in an offensive or defensive position.  He kept the Line, Column, Square designations because people know what they mean but you could easily change them.

I have played one game with the rules and found they gave a good, fast game.  They might need some tweaks but difficult to judge after just one game.

[Easy E]

Have you played a game yet?

Based on my usual rate of rules to games, I would wager I will have my first real game in about three years.   

That said, this did interest me more than other Nappie rulesets I have read since the armies involved felt like an achievable goal I could build or paint up to.  With many Nappie games, I do not feel that is the case.   

If Blucher did not have cards, I would not have played that by now either! 

That said, I am also interested in learning more about La Salle II and Est Sans Resultant before committing to a Nappie project.  I would have to "go it alone" to get started, so that is always a bit daunting to create two sides, board, etc.   

[SteveBurt]

Lasalle 2 is brilliant, but it is at a much lower level. I feel it does the same thing General d’armee doesn’t, but using a much simpler system. The to and fro of initiative is a bit like Crossfire and makes for a great game. But it is a divisional set, not an army game.

[kerpob]

A friend lent me a copy of these rules - we will probably try them after I write up a playsheet (the rules weirdly don't have one).

If anyone has played them, I hope you have answers to a couple of questions please:

1. If a 2-base frontage unit charges into a 4-base frontage unit, do they both only get 2D6 in combat because only 2 bases in each are touching? Or does the 4-base frontage unit get 4D6? The example in the book is very unclear - a cavalry unit hitting a flank but only with 1 base seems to get all 4 of its bases as dice to roll.
2. Waver test - book does not say what happens if you pass or fail, although reading on strongly suggests failure means unit is removed.

Thanks! Dave.

[Belisarius]

We’ve played Blucher , and like it , indeed I like all of Sam Mustafa’s games . Could you use the Cards from Blucher to play Absolute Emperor ?  That might be a way to test the system without collecting and painting figures.

[whill4]

After reading through the rules I have yet to find the hit numbers for close combat and musketry. Does anyone know what the hit number is and what page it can be found on? I could only find the artillery to hit of 5+.


Thank you,

Wayne

[kerpob]

After reading through the rules I have yet to find the hit numbers for close combat and musketry. Does anyone know what the hit number is and what page it can be found on? I could only find the artillery to hit of 5+.


Thank you,

Wayne

When my friend lent me the book, the first thing he said was that it was poorly organised and brought my attention to page 9. The bit under "Activation" heading clarifies that these same rolls are used for hits in shooting and combat: 5+ for conscript, 4+ for seasoned, 3+ for veteran.

As per my earlier question, while is seems implied that failing a "Waver test" results in elimination, in the advanced rules there is a suggestion under "Elite/Guard infanty" (page 35) that failing a waver test results in disorder.

Another confusion: Page 36 defines Grand Batteries, but I cannot see what they are supposed to be in the rules.

[whill4]

Thank you so much! I guess I need to read slower and more carefully.