Austro Prussian Wars of 1866 Rules

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I have counters behind mine for any formation that isn't attack columns, which we assume troops default to, unless it's French 1870, where they default to supported during line...

[Leman]

In Altar of Freedom the base is the base and is assumed to be in the appropriate formation for the situation. This means the base can be presented as a diorama, so my Austrians tend to be based as columns with some skirmishers out front.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Very cool!

[Leman]

It represents two Austrian regiments with jager skirmishing out front and artillery support (8 gun battery). Military doctrine, strength, morale, etc. are taken into account using factors. Altar of Freedom is a high level game, akin to the cardboard bases games that came out in the 80s for the Austro-Prussian War and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign.

[Techno]

Very cool!

'Wot Will said'.!
Cheers - Phil

[cameronian]

I've been so strung out with work this last year I haven't even looked at rules or figures, however as life settles down and a favourable outcome now seems likely, I can spare the time to do both. The first thing was to send my remaining unpainted FPW French to Fernando for painting. This brings me up to 3 corps and a division of Guard, two reserve cavalry divisions, corps cavalry and two brigades of Chasseurs D'Afrique; its enough.

A week in Bohemia revisiting the battlefields and walking the Swiepwald (twice) was suitable preparation for John and Andrew's excellent book on 1866. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to volume 2 (nice photo of a Nachod board by some Gerry Henry fella, who he?). Having played RFF I must say I'm not overly smitten. Play is slow and  for me at least, a bit turgid. I'm also uncomfortable about the rules concerning artillery depletion; my Austrian guns were shot out by mid morning, hardly reflective of the period or the arm. Having to negotiate a beaten zone is no fun (ask 1st corps) but nevertheless reflective of that war. You will need a scale small enough and a table big enough to allow the Prussians to feel for a flank.

We're well on with the translation of Heidrich's classic on the Swiepwald and should be ready to publish in time for the 150th anniversary in 2016. This leaves us with the decision - what next? I'm tempted by Theodore Fontaine's account of the 1866 war, excellent apparently, but I'm open to suggestions, so - which german text on 1866 would the group like translated and would you buy it?

Re rules for this period I must say I have a preference for Brent Oman's Field of Battle. The basic construct lends itself well to the vagiaries of both 1866 and 1870 and the card driven play introduces a pleasing element of chance. I've published 1866 house rules on the Yahoo Piquet site and will update them again this year. Any suggestions from other hyphenators re improvements or modifications would be appreciated.

Just finished BBP's Armies of Bismarck's Wars; quite enjoyed it though daft errors that should have been picked up have slipped through, all in all a good read.

[Leman]

Well Field of Battle II is definitely up there for use with my 6mm figures on 40mm frontage.

[mollinary]

Hi Cam,

Glad you've got your mojo back!   On the book front, I think translating Fontane is on a bit of a different scale to translating Heidrich. The volume on the Bohemian campaign alone runs to over 700 pages!    That said, it is very good stuff.  Sorry you don't like RFF, but please don't blame it for the artillery exhaustion rule, that is home grown to prevent certain of our number firing the guns regularly and continuously at ranges which no sane artillery officer of the period would have been allowed to .  It is also entirely possible to set the limit at whatever you think is reasonable - the intent, which we remain committed to, is to get players to realise that artillery are not automata who can fire all the game through with equal effect.  It is a resource which needs to pick its targets carefully, and is husbanded to fire at its maximum effect.  Interestingly (!  ) of course, Gablenz' artillery did exhaust itself on the morning of Koniggratz, and wore out its barrels. But it did that firing at ranges of 2k or less, and thereby prevented a Prussian advance in the centre up from the Bistritz. The Austrians also had hundreds more guns in reserve.

Mollinary

[holdfast]

It's a great relief that Cameronian approves of the book!
Good news also that he is progressing with translating Heidrich which will be much in demand when we do the Swiepwald in mind-numbing detail. Have you decided on the print run yet? Perhaps Forum members could indicate their enthusiasm for this Teutonic bodice-ripper. It has about 20 different words for evergreen tree, all of which translate in non-horticultural dictionaries as 'spruce' or 'fir'.
Turning to Cameronian's objection to not being allowed infinite ammunition, the reasons that we limited artillery ammunition were threefold. First, to stop the wargamer's habit of firing at improbable long range targets on the off chance that they might hit. Having a finite limit makes the player think about whether the target is worth it. Second, the limited amount reflects both ammunition supply and gunner fatigue, as having to relay guns with no recoil mechanism every round is knackering. Third, the bronze Austrian guns did shoot out their rifling in sustained firing and there are accounts of batteries retiring, having shot their barrels out.  The ever vigilant Mollinary can give us chapter and verse. We placed no limits on short range ammunition, on the basis that however tired, gunners would defend themselves if approached at short range.
So we were convinced that some finite limit should be placed on artillery ammunition. Just what that amount is, is certainly worth debating, and I am sure that we will have that debate before we start to do out Koniggratz games.
But the idea that gunners can fire all day and never run out of ammunition and never get tired is fanciful and I know that was not what Cameronian meant at all.

[holdfast]

Mollinary's response confirms that he is, indeed, ever vigilant.

[cameronian]

We know from returns that some of the batteries facing 1st Corps fired 2400 rounds in the course of the battle (Craig); divided by 8 that makes 300 rounds per gun; that's one round a minute per gun for 5 hours; not much evidence of exhaustion there. Gunners are a tough breed Mr. General of Engineers  

The book is excellent BTW.

[mollinary]

Cam,

Glad you finally got a copy!  Could you possibly give me a page reference for Craig's figure?  I think the point is that this was remarkable, not the norm.

Mollinary

PS as pointed out by John, this would probably include large amounts of close range fire, which as we have adjusted the rules, is unlimited. It also must be pointed out that the fact (?) of number of rounds fired is no indication of effect!

Cheers,

Mollinary

[mollinary]

Come on Cam, I cannot find your figure in Craig in spite of devoting more time than it is worth looking for it.  Does it really exist?   

Mollinary

[cameronian]

We're not all gentlemen of leisure Andrew, I'm currently fielding the afternoon surgery; I'll have a good look at Craig and Wawro (might have been him) and let you know; the figure stuck in my head, wouldn't have imagined it.

[mollinary]

We're not all gentlemen of leisure Andrew, I'm currently fielding the afternoon surgery; I'll have a good look at Craig and Wawro (might have been him) and let you know; the figure stuck in my head, wouldn't have imagined it.

.  Don't worry your busy little head over it, Cam, I have found it. It is Wawro, not Craig, and it is in a footnote on p147 dealing with Trautenau. As so often in Wawro, the note refers to a large part of a paragraph, and quotes two sources, so it is not clear which battery, or which of his two sources it comes from.  Neither are readily available to the casual reader.   2,360, for the record.

Mollinary