1871

[Leman]

Into the FPW in your dress shako - I don't think so.

[ronan]

Not really, got lost after about three sentences.

The original writing is supposed to be great litteracy. I mean, he wrote ( a century ago ) with great style.
It is not what's written nowadays, and may be difficult to understand. ( Children in school have to read some of the books from the Rougon-Macquart Cycle.. they don't like it !    But as an adult, I changed my mind.) (1)
So I can understand you were a bit 'disappointed'...

There may be new translation ?

    The Downfall (1892, Tr: E.A. Vizetelly, Chatto & Windus)
    The Downfall or The Smash-up (1898, Tr: E.P. Robins, The Cassell Co.)
    The Downfall (1902, Tr: W.M. Sloane, P.F. Collier & Son)
    The Debacle (1968, Tr: John Hands, Elek Books)
    The Debacle (1972, Tr: Leonard Tancock, Penguin Books)
    La Débâcle (2000, Tr: Elinor Dorday, Oxford Uni. Press)

Into the FPW in your dress shako - I don't think so.

(...)
Intelligible - 'Near the canteen behind the stacks of muskets, two soldiers were stubbornly trying to coax a fire from a small pile of green sticks, the trunks of some saplings they had cut earlier with their sword bayonets, but they were obstinately determined not to burn'.

You should work on it !



(1) Although my daughters often say I'm not an adult !

[d_Guy]

Into the FPW in your dress shako - I don't think so.

Classics Illustrated never liked to confuse young readers by having anyone change costume. IIRC they had all French regulars in the "parade" shako (one of the best pieces of headgear ever!), the National Guard in red kepi's and North African troops in red fez's.

[paulr]

(1) Although my daughters often say I'm not an adult !

Well done that man

[kipt]

Just received my copy and am starting to read. (Thread back on track?)

This weekend we are playing 2 more of the scenarios in "1870", The Hallue and Ladonchamps.  Not a lot of troops using my Sappy Nappy adaptation and we will have 11 players, 5 on one table and 6 on the other.  We will see how it goes.

Pictures and batreps to follow.

[paulr]

Sounds an interesting weekend, looking forward to the batreps

[Leman]

Have just found Bruce Weigle's new website:

www.grandtacticalrules.com

The old one is now defunct and no longer reachable. The good news is that the new website now has downloadable fat play (i.e. 1871) QRSs for 1859, 1864, 1866 as well as a downloadable 1871 sheet. There are also some info sheets on rule adjustments for the other rules, including Austrian formations for 1866. I like his new fast play system, particularly for some of the smaller battles that BBB doesn't deal with. I think I have mentioned previously using the same 1" square basing system as used with my 10mm C19th figures for BBB, but using a reduced size battlefield and measuring stick for 1871 so that I can fit the battles on a 6x4 (and the frontages of my bases are smaller than the 1871 recommendation).

The QRSs can be found in downloads in the menu at the bottom of the page.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Ohh thanks Sir

[mollinary]

Bruce will be at COLOURS. In Newbury again this year, doing San Martino, the Italian part of Solferino 1869.

[Steve J]

That's great news . Now I just have to make sure I'm back from a round trip to Edinburgh (taking daughter to Uni) and recovered to attend the show!

[Ben Waterhouse]

Thanks Leman

[Glorfindel]

Interesting stuff.   I read Howard and thought his history of the FPW was excellent.   

I only had a sketchy understanding of the FPW before reading this and was surprised
how much of the conflict happened after the 'Imperial phase'.

[Leman]

Came as an eyeopener to me as well when I read Howard back in the 80s. My Head asked if he could borrow it after hearing me talk about it in the staffroom, absolutely loved it, then asked if he could borrow The Debacle and loved that as well - didn't half get me some brownie points back in the days when senior management were part of the gang rather than OFSTED's enforcers.

[Westmarcher]

Have just found Bruce Weigle's new website ......

Beginning to see why you like Weigle's rules, Leman. The information about the various versions and eye candy on the site is quite seductive.

[Leman]

When 1870 first appeared, somewhere around 2001, I played it for two or three years. It was the first rulebook I recall that had Republican phase scenarios. However, most of the scenarios were massive and impractical to stage, so apart from Wissembourg we only ever played made up scenarios. Further there were aspects of the rules which were very confusing, e.g. what exactly was supposed to happen to a unit that entered woods. On top of all that there was the four page QRS, so after about 2004 it was quietly dropped with only the occasional outing (I had another go at the original Wissembourg about four years ago). 1871 has addressed those problems. Troops in woods is now clearly and simply explained, all combat has been streamlined and unnecessary complications removed and the QRS is now two sided and coloured. There are also suggestions on how to break up the bigger battles, which I would be inclined to do as BBB allows me to fight practically all of the bigger battles on a 6x4.

[Westmarcher]

Thanks, Leman. That's really useful to get an insight into these rules from someone who has actually played them and discovered their imperfections.  For the newcomer to these rules, what do you reckon is the way ahead for this stable of rules? Should the 1859 to 1870 versions be avoided and only the 1871 version used with reliance placed on downloading the faster play QRSs if you wish to play the other years? 

[Chad]

I was one of the Uk testers for 1870, 1866 and 1859

[Westmarcher]

I was one of the Uk testers for 1870, 1866 and 1859

That's interesting to know also, Chad. Looking back almost twenty years now, and given the above observations, your experience in playing other rules since then and the general direction wargaming rules have taken since then, what are your observations on this stable of rules today (including 1871, which you were not involved in the play testing of, but presumably would still involve many of the ideas and concepts you either had a hand in or play tested)?  

[Steve J]

The books are worth it for more than just the rules (which you probably know), as they have great scenarios and loads of background info on the periods covered. I think the 1871 rules came about in response to the elegant simplicity of Chris Pringle's Bloody Big Battles, but I could be wrong.

[Leman]

I think you may be right Steve. There are certain similarities in the way dice rolls determine both the loss of stand and the result of both shooting and melee, thus dispensing with morale rolls. My preference would be to buy the rulebook for the periods you are most interested in, but use 1871 as the overall rules. The conflict differences are covered in the 6 page downloadable explanation of the changes to the QRS for 1859, 1864 and 1866. The new system of play is very slick, and I am likely to use Bruce's own suggestion to try out parts of very large battles using the new rules at half or quarter scale.

I am attending Colours again this year where Bruce will be playing his San Martino scenario from 1859. I assume he will be demonstrating how the fast play rules and QRS can be used with this older scenario.