Blood and Spectacles: Review: Absolute Emperor- Osprey Games

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.....

The French army at the bottom is for the Waterloo scenario, that gives you an idea of size of a big game.

Things I Liked

Well, I always like when a game starts or has some design notes. This game starts off in the Introduction laying out what to expect in the rules and what NOT to expect as well. This will make it much easier to judge if the game accomplished what it set out to do. Plus, I really value this glimpse behind the curtain and into the mind of the designer.

As I have eluded to, the game is scale and model agnostic. The rules were written for 28mm, but there is discussion of how to use 2mm to 54mm scales in the rules. In addition, the game strongly encourages you to avoid re-basing! Those are strong elements that I like in my wargames. To be base agnostic, the rules use a standard "frontage" size that allows you to use various basing to meet the needs. Infantry is 6 inches, and Cavalry is 8 inches, with different scales modifying the frontage up and down. Therefore, I can probably still make use of my Blucher cards to get a game in.

The footprint of each unit is supposed to be a Division of troops. Now, naming conventions in Napoleonic warfare for units is pretty all-over the place, so this is the naming convention this game uses. These footprints are the main bodies of troops. The game abstracts skirmishers and battalion batteries into the shooting mechanics. It assumes the 4 inch space between units in a firefight is full of people fighting and dying in these units. The exact deployment of brigades and battalions is not relevant to the rules. This aspect reminds me of Blucher since the focus of the two games is at the same level.

One aspect of Napoleonic warfare I had not appreciated before was how up close and personal so much of the fighting was. My games of Blucher and reading these rules have made this much clearer to me. Musket range is generally equivalent to charge range, which is equivalent to movement ranges. Sometimes, movement range is further! Therefore, there could theoretically be a lot of "free" maneuver where enemy firepower does not come into play. What constricts movement and maneuver appears to be the density of the formations due to command rather than firepower. Now, with this ruleset and the few others I have dabbled in this "truth" of the period fighting is obvious to me.

The game abstracts and simplifies limbering and unlimbering a great deal. It also allows Interspersion freely as long as the unit can completely clear the other. Both steps helps the game avoid so much of the "If This/Than That" of this periods wargames.

Each Corp Commander has Elan points. These can be used to give Corp Commands and impact upon gameplay, establish initiative, but more importantly they are also the Victory Points used to decide the winner of a game. You can lose Elan by using it as a resource, losing Division, etc. If you defeat an enemy Division, there is also a chance you can overrun them and gain Elan. If a Corp Commander is ever reduced to 0 Elan, his entire corp retreats. As Corps are removed from the game and forced to retreat, it can cause an army to collapse very quickly as nearby Corps must make a test to not switch to defensive or retreat orders.

The first 8 pages are introduction. Pages 8-33 are the basic game rules. The last 34-42 is advanced rules. 43- 54 is setting up the game and scenarios. 56-61 is a walk through of a game using Scenario 1. The last few pages are author's notes and appendix stuff. I like the format of the book as it allows me, the Nappie Newbie to get my head around the core gameplay rules, then layer in some of the eccentricities of the period, and the walk through at the end helped me put it all together.

Things I Did Not Like

One interesting choice I noted was that units can change formation in this game. Considering the "scale" of the game as being divisional, this seemed like an odd. tactical element in a high-level army game. Different formation also impacted firepower, movement rates, etc. I am considering this a convention of the genre so that is why the author felt compelled to add it. Honestly, such details at the army scale should not matter much as the unit officers should handle that level of detail. The unit is just a footprint.

The game makes use of single based Corp Commander and Army commander models. This is to facilitate the Command Radius mechanic so common in Horse and Musket style games. I prefer a more abstracted commander level and am not a fan of radius. However, this also seems to be a staple of the genre. One interesting aspect was that you also placed your order token under the base of the Corp Commander to be revealed in the right phase of the game.

Meh and Other Uncertainties

These rules include "Conforming". This means that when a unit charges, they are aligned "face to face" in the battle. Flank attacks are lined up on the side, and rear attacks on the rear. In addition, shooting is always straight forward from the edges of the unit. No firing at an angle. This may not be to some people's taste, but to me they seem like a good way to "simplify" the battlespace and keep the game orderly. I point out the conforming aspect of the rules as this approach was surprisingly controversial in Men of Bronze. For an abstracted game like this, I prefer it; but other opinions vary a lot.

Combat in this game is attritional in nature. This fits the period very well. Each unit can take 8 hits, and at 5 hits it moves down in skill level which impacts its target numbers. Various hits during combat or shooting may also cause other effects. Artillery uses a d4, but can be destroyed from a single combat hit. You may need more d8s and d4s than most gamers have in their collection. In addition, most modifiers are simple dice add or subtract but a Quick reference Sheet will be useful to recall which apply when. I did not see one in the book, but have not checked online yet.

The game has several pages of advanced rules to allow more experience Napoleonic gamers to add things they particularly like such as Horse Artillery, Guards units, and Lancers. There is also some National traits and historical Commander Elan to quibble over. There are rules for scaling it down as well so instead of playing at Army level you are playing at Corp or lower levels. There are rules for smoke, ammo, secret deployment, terrain generation, and other period flavor elements as well. Finally, there are some rules for list building that I am sure will be controversial.

There are 6 scenarios. Three are relatively large, famous battles; Eylau, Wagram, and Waterloo. Three are smaller engagements designed to help new players escalate their games as they build forces and learn the rules, they are the battle of Bumville 1-3. There is also a walk through of what playing the game with Scenario 1 might look like.

The allied army for the Waterloo Scenario.

Final Thoughts

This is the type of wargame I would design. It uses a high degree of abstraction to get the right feel of the battles, but with smaller numbers of troops needed. You are maneuvering footprints and rolling dice pools to get results. Modifiers are about adding or subtracting dice looking for a target number based on skill level of the unit. The game adheres to a couple of genre conventions that I would probably have done away with such as formations and Command Radius, but they work within the context of the game and help Nappie Newbies get a feel for the period and battles.

Since this game follows a design ethos similar to my own, I am pretty excited about it! Will old grognards of the genre like these rules? I have no idea! However, as a Nappie Newbie they really seem to hit the spot. They are easily digested, seem to give a flavor of the period, and are an easy gateway into the period. Even the biggest battles look like doable painting projects with each division being about sixteen 28mm models that will help Newbies get into the game, and still be able to have forces for Chosen Men, Rebels and Patriots, La Salle and Sharpe's Practice and other games as well.

Of course, I will want to be odd and use 6mm or 10mm to give me that "army" feel and then use them for Blucher or Est Sans Resultant as well. If I am not too busy with Ancients, I might have a 2022 personal project!