Starting a Franco-Prussian War project

Started by Glorfindel, 07 January 2019, 03:48:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Glorfindel

I've recently been bitten by the FPW bug and wanted to ask how
others have based their armies up.

I have a basic understanding of how the two armies were organised
and have been trying out a number of basing ideas to allow figures
to be deployed in either line, column or skirmish order.

The current plan is to use 24 figure battalions for the Prussians,
(four stands of six), which can then be used in column or line as
needed.   The French would be based in the same way but only
have 18 figure battalions (3 x 6).

I also thought about using some form of sabot basing so that I can
then drop a number of infantry stands into the middle of a larger base
to represent the wider separation at this point (perhaps two stands).

I would, however, be interested in how others decided to base up
in a particular way and why.

Thank you !


Phil

PS.   If you haven't already seen it, you might find this short series of
articles useful on FPW tactics :
https://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/all_images/WargamesIllustrated/ArticlePics/WI313/archive%20articles/Tactics%20in%20the%20Franco-Prussian%20War.pdf

Duke Speedy of Leighton

Mine are on 75x75 bases as dioramas, but given my time again, I would have the French in line, with skirmishers out front, and Prussians in 2 battalion attack column with 3rd out in skirmish (t-shaped) both with flexibility to go road column and line....
You may refer to me as: Your Grace, Duke Speedy of Leighton.
2016 Pendraken Painting Competion Participation Prize  (Lucky Dip Catagory) Winner

Leman

Mine are on 25mm squares, with artillery on 25x40 - this allows for a large number of rules and formations. Only colour code flag bases and then any sized unit can be produced:





The secpnd photo is the only one I could find showing artillery. The 25mm circular bases are jaegers and chasseurs, as suggested in the To the Last Gaiter Button rules.
The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

Steve J

25mm bases for the same reasons as Leman. 3-4 infantry per base, with 2 for skirmishers and cavalry 2 per base.

Terry37

Phil, I am a big fan of the Franco-Prussian War, and have the figures sorted, jut not yet painted. Anyway, a couple of things to consider.

1. For he French do you want to do the Empire period or the Republic period, as there are some differences in dress and troop types. The latter especially offers ad-hoc cavalry regiments which means you can combine as assortment of uniforms within a single regiment.

2. For the Prussians, do you want an all Prussian army or a combined German States army. Both are appealing, but the latter does offer some good uniform options.

3. The Osprey books are quite good for basics on uniforms, but if you can manage to find the old Stadden Tradition magazine issues with the assorted uniform articles for the French you will find more colorful options available to you.

Have fun!!!!

Leman, I have always found your reports and photos ot be quite inspirational Thanks for them!

Terry
"My heart has joined the thousand for a friend stopped running today." Mr. Richard Adams

Leman

The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

Glorfindel

Some great ideas as always - many thanks.   I never thought of building
large base mini-dioramas.   Given the scale of the conflict, these would
work well and can also be used to illustrate the differences in tactics.

A good idea to differentiate the Jaegers - easy for both sides to
understand.   I like that.   I'm, thinking of using a similar idea for my
formation commanders (increasing numbers of officer / staff figures
depending on the command level with added Uhlan escorts for the
Division and Corps commanders).

The alternative is the approach taken by others (multi-base units), with
the size of the unit left deliberately vague so that the formation can
represent a Battalion or higher.   Again, a good idea.

I've read about the two distinct phases for the French but its useful
to understand the impact this has on the look of formations.


It never ceases to amaze me how many different interpretations there are
out there, even though we are all reading similar descriptions of history,
organisation and tactics.   Everyone has their own view of what it should
look like (which is clearly affected by cost and ambition).

Both a good and bad thing and one of the reasons I tend to build both sides
in a conflict.

Thank you again.   Lots to think about.



Phil


Steve J

For a really good overview of the period, as well as tactics, organisation and battles, Bruce Weigle's book are a must IMHO:

http://www.grandtacticalrules.com/1870-reviews.htm

They also contain rules, but I don't use these, preferring Bloody Big Battles (again a great resource) or Black Powder.

Leman

I would second that. Bruce Weigle's 1870 rulebook is so much more: scenarios, OOBs, a look at tactics and weaponry and an extensive bibliography, plus a little bit on how he actually built his superb battlefields. His latest book, 1871, streamlines and speeds up the rules in 1870, provides more republican scenarios, a further bibliography and also discusses the making of temporary battlefields for his scenarios. Of particular note in 1871 is the reduction of the QRS from 2 double-sided sheets to a single, easier to read and navigate, double sided sheet.

Another contender for FPW scenarios is Chris Pringle's Bloody Big Battles, which contains 9 FPW scenarios, with as many more, plus coloured maps for the original rulebook scenarios, free to download on the BBB Yahoo Group site. These rules allow the likes of Mars La Tour to be played on a 6'x4' table using an activation system similar to Fire and Fury.

If you are looking for rules which give a smaller feel, with battalion level tactics and formations, then there is They Died For Glory, still available from Caliver, although the Yahoo group appears to have folded (see my photos above). Also To The Last Gaiter Button (Imperial) and its companion, City of Light (Republican).  TLGB provides  tabletop rules and a complete campaign game for two or more, whereas COL also has tabletop rules, but the campaign is much more of a group activity.

Another set which I have used for the FPW is Field of Battle 2nd Edition (Lancashire Games). This is from the same stable as Piquet, hence it is card driven, but it is also very streamlined compared to the original Piquet. Again this is a battalion level game. Although all the units are the same size (Four bases; artillery batteries are 2 gun models) there is a dice rolling exercise when building an army for a game, which differentiates the skills and morale of the various battalions, cavalry regiments and batteries. The game uses 6 different dice per side, but it does give a good game once you get used to the system.

All the systems outlined use multi-base units, although they could all be played using large-based single units along with various marker chits. 
The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

Chris Pringle

Hi Phil,

If you want some inspiration, check out Vincent Tsao's report on his group's refights of the whole FPW campaign:
http://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2017/03/la-guerre-est-finie.html

They fought 14 major battles in just over a year, about one a month. Links to AARs of each of the battles can be found easily under his February 2017 post:
http://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2017/02/

I think FPW is a great conflict to wargame. Good choice! And good luck with your project.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/

Sunray

Interesting era.  Some great figures. 

I can remember when Nik Harwood gave it a go.  He got the colours on the Tricolour the wrong way round.  Very embarrassing.

The style of lots of figures on bases looks good ad probably reflects the tactics of the time.

Good luck and be sure to post the eye candy.  :)