1.

This survey is about changes in the Logistics branch of the Empire rules. Nothing arising from this will have any impact on the classic Empire rules (that is, the 1976 3rd edition still exists and it or other versions may be used, and will still be available regardless).

Of course, Empire veterans may scoff at the whole question of written rules. After all, the game didn't even *have* written rules from 1960-69, and the whole question of codification and standardization may be contrary to the originating spirit of Empire. But I for one am big on the idea of trying to make Empire accessible to more people than just those who are taught the game in person, and perhaps with some guidance we can get the original Empire spirit into the written rulebook (more on that below).

Basically, there are a couple of areas where I either did make or could make some significant, sweeping change in the “Logistics branch” compared to the classic rules, and I'm looking for some feedback on the desirability of various options.

I will make some initial decisions by MARCH 11, 2011. Feedback before then would be invaluable.

* 1. Should the rules do more to try to capture the freewheeling spirit behind Empire? We could give examples of wild and fun things that people have done, and talk more about ways to get consensus and compromise that allows players' creativity to be expressed within the game structures (not to mention all the meta-game things one can do).

(More than one answer is possible here.)

* 2. What general direction should the Logistics branch of the Empire rules take? (You can choose more than one of these if you like.)

* 3. The classic rules have sub-squares: cases where a square is divided into two or more logical squares due to river or mountain terrain, and each sub-square acts as a normal full square. These make for prettier maps, but complicate record keeping (and would be a real pain with physical or even virtual counters).

I initially got rid of sub-squares entirely in the Logistics branch, but nearly all pre-existing maps use sub-squares, so my current working solution is to re-introduce them as an optional thread through the rules. What do you think?

* 4. The classic rules have a “Basic Turn Allowance” or BTA concept, where basically each unit gets 12 BTA of movement, and they use up this allowance at different rates depending on the unit type and the terrain being moved over.

Some of my players commented that dealing with fractional BTAs (like taking 1 2/3 BTA per space) was a pain. In the Logistics branch I have converted to an approach using larger numbers, to eliminate the fractions. The most recent variant was just to multiply by six, and that pretty much did the trick. This means larger numbers, but no fractions. It might also slightly affect the oil consumption rate for land units. Initially I called them “phases” rather than BTA, partly to keep track of where I had changed the values in the rules.

Which approach do you prefer?

* 5. The classic rules use the term “coolie” for a worker unit. Unfortunately, this term is racially loaded and often a derogatory word or slur (though usage varies in different places and languages). What about replacing “coolie” with something else (like “worker”) and “small arms coolie” with something else (like “militia”)?

Feel free to comment on political correctness, or suggest other alternatives.

* 6. I'm currently intending to develop some digital pieces (counters) suitable for either printing out (to make physical counters) or for using in virtual games (play-by-email). How useful would these be?

You can pick more than one answer to add nuance (or make comments).

* 7. Rate your interest....

  Yes Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely No
Would you play Empire again, given the opportunity?
Would you play with classic rules?
Would you play with Logistics branch rules?

* 8. When have you previously played Empire? (You can choose more than one option.)

* 9. You can give your name if you want to, or remain anonymous. Either is okay.

Report a problem

T