Hi Everyone
I have ordered a copy of the book for when then reprint it.
Just a couple of questions about the rules. Does anyone have an AAR to read?
How does the mixed formation work? Is it skirmishes in an extended line followed by the rest in line in support? AUstrians have two bases in extened line and everyone else in column in support?
Really looking forward to getting my hands on a copy. Even if its only for the rules. Im sure the whole of it will be fantastic.
Simon
Hi Simon,
Congratulations! I am just off to Partizan, so I shall try and answer your questions when I get back.
Cheers,
Mollinary
Hi Simon,
I am back from a lovely sunny day at Partizan, have mown the lawn, and am now focusing on the web. The book itself contains descriptions of a number of games using the rules, including the OOBs, covering the main corps on corps battles in Bohemia, namely Gitschin, Nachod, Trautenau, and two versions of Skalitz. It also includes a discussion of tactics and how to fight the armies. While we were writing the book. I put up an AAR on this site on one of the Gitschin battles, it should be easy enough to find. I too would be interested to hear of others AARs using the rules. Regarding the mixed formation, it simplifies basic Prussian doctrine. Companies and battalions formed up in three double lines on the field. Normally as they closed on the enemy the third double line would be deployed in advance of the rest of the company/battalion as the firing line. The remainder of the unit would be in support in column. As they felt the enemy, often the second double line would reinforce the first, broadening the front and feeling for a flank. Sometimes, even the final double line joined this firing line. By this time, with everywhere up, you no longer have a mixed formation, but an extended line. In the amended rules this is very difficult to manoeuvre, and vulnerable against an Austrian charge. Your challenge is not so much deploying an individual battalion, but deploying a brigade to best advantage. We had great fun with this, and even experienced players found it very hard to do effectively.
For the Austrians, two stands is the maximum we allow a battalion to deploy as the skirmish chain, the rest, as you say, in column. Funnily enough, a lot of gamers did not bother with the skirmishers. I think this was a mistake, as they protect the column from the initial firepower of the Prussians. Once you have the book, and play the games, I will be very happy to answer specific questions. Bear in mind, we were writing a book, not a set of rules - that is a bonus!
Cheers,
Mollinary
A few Austro-Prussian pics here, Simon. Not a scenario from the book, but an entertaining game nevertheless.
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7656.msg79935.html#msg79935 (http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7656.msg79935.html#msg79935)
Thanks Guys.
Im just excited about getting the book. Everything is a bonus.
We have been using RFF straight for 10mm 1859 games and are going to try some of our own modifications for that
The little book birdie tells me the reprints should be with Ken Trotman shortly, if they have not arrived already!
Mollinary
Brilliant maps for building a battlefield. Much more straightforward than in '1866' rulebook. Something similar for 1870/71 would certainly come in handy.
I've just received my copy of the book. Fantastic book, very informative.
The games are simply mahoosive though! 12 base battalions in groups of 12 battalions is common, table sizes approach 15ft x 7ft! Great news for Pendraken sales I reckon?
However even in 10mm these style of games are well beyond my megalomania!
Glad you like the book, but you are correct to identify our megalomania! :D
But, remember, you do not need to imitate slavishly to use the scenarios. For example, you can halve the number of figures required just by going for 2 figures a base. You can always also think of using one base as representing two, and using a marker for the odd ones. Or you can look at using all the scenario info and using Brigade level Fire and Fury rules, with some mods. Look at the Wyre Forest Wargamers site and their amendments called Fire and Furia Francese to see if you can get some ideas. Or see if you can use Neil Thomas' rules from his 19th century book. Lots of options!
Mollinary
Hi Mollinary
It's a fantastic book on a fantastic subject! Something to be proud of to be sure!
I'm working my way through possible rules sets for the war. However I'm beginning to suspect that, although fascinating, it's a bit unplayable rather like the Anglo-Zulu War!
So far we've tried Neil Thomas's rules, Black Powder, Bruce Weigle's 1866, and yesterday we trialled 'Volley and Bayonet' by Frank Chadwick. Yesterday's game ground to a halt amidst a version of V&B rewritten to be principally Napoleonic plus 8 pages of errata! I'd like to try the Polemos variant but I'm a bit put off by needing to play unfamiliar rules plus amendments, frankly that's never easy. Next rules on the list for trial are Peter Pigs ACW rules.
If only I'd got a first edition of your book I'd have been able to afford armies of size suitable for your RF&F scenarios! Lol!
Cheers
Jules
Thanks Jules, we put a lot into it, and got a lot out of it. We are about to start work on a second book looking at Koniggratz, and a variety of scenarios from within that battle. Even we could not envisage doing Koniggratz at a scale of 48 figures per battalion. However one of the useful characteristics this war shares with the ACW is that bases designed to serve as a corps in one scale can, with a removal of some command stands, serve as a division, brigade or regiment for other scales. The starting point for my armies was Bernie's "Trapped Like a Fox" rules, so battalions of four bases and an officer. My Prussians also serve for 1870. A corps for those rules (which give a really fun game, by the way!) deliver enough figures for a brigade in our level of RFF. When we look at parts of Koniggratz, and at Podol (which is going to be a rule tweak test) we may move to 24 bases a battalion, simply because we have the figures, and you can have fun with the tactics that way! But the scenario, which only involves less than a Brigade a side, without guns or cavalry, could be done at the bigger scale. The aim of the books is to give all the info any wargamer might need to fight this war, whatever scale he/she might wish to use. As to suggestions which might help you into this fascinating period, what about still going for 12 base units, but making the units regiments? So, instead of 72 bases a brigade, you would need only 24. The Jäger Battalions can be small units of 4 bases. This is essentially using the Brigade level Fire and Fury scale, with the regimental rules. Your regiments could still use the sort of formations we talk about, which would give you the feel for 1866, which was so much of what John and I were looking for. Or, why not go for two figures a base, half the base width and depth, halve all the ranges, moves and table size. You still have good looking units, in half the space. If we are spared, we hope to move onto something for 1870 after the Koniggratz book. Anyway, thanks for your interest, and good luck whichever way you go.
Mollinary
PS we are taking a battlefield tour to Bohemia at the end of next week for Cultural Experiences Battlefield Tours, so will walk the fields again. Retirement is a wonderful thing!
M
QuotePS we are taking a battlefield tour to Bohemia at the end of next week for Cultural Experiences Battlefield Tours, so will walk the fields again.
We will be in Linz in Upper Austria in early August and Bohemia is just a stones throw away. So out of interest, where abouts are you going?
Ordered my book ages ago, heard nothing from Ken Trotman as yet, has the new print run been released yet?
Hi Cam,
Suggest you contact Richard Brown of KenTrotman direct. The new print run has certainly arrived.
Mollinary
Done that, no answer as yet :(
Quote from: Steve J on 13 July 2014, 08:10:06 PM
We will be in Linz in Upper Austria in early August and Bohemia is just a stones throw away. So out of interest, where abouts are you going?
Hi Steve,
We will be doing the APW, so it is NE Bohemia for us - but the trip is only a week, so we will be out by the end of the month. We will take in all the major actions up to and including Koniggratz, so that includes Podol, Jicin, Nachod, Trautenau, Skalitz, Burkersdorf, Scwheinschadel, Koniginhof and the big K itself. Staying in Jicin and Hradec Kralove, it really is a lovely country.
Mollinary
Yep, beautiful part of the world, as we took a day trip there a few years ago. Fingers crossed we hope to do the same again.
A tardy and rambling response for Dour Puritan on the issue of the maps from the map and board designer (and co-author).
We start by walking the ground and reading the reports. From these two activities we identify the ground features that are/were key. These do not always feature on maps as the contour interval is usually greater than a man's height. A significant bump or dip that hides a unit or allows a covered approach may not appear as such on a map. The obvious example is the Gully of the river Cidlina at Gitschin which is appears on maps as a small trace but actually allows units with a 50 yard frontage to advance in cover. It has to be represented in such a way as to allow the attacker to use it as a covered approach, with no single blocking position available to the defender. The question is how much you then put out on the board, since both sides have a bird's eye view of the covered approach. Here it all depends on how many and how good your umpires are. If they have walked the ground and the players have not then the umpires can announce extra detail in the micro terrain as units arrive at a particular point.
We also try to look at the approaches to a position from the viewpoint of both the attacker and the defender. It is surprising how much 'dead ground there is, and how difficult it is for the defender to identify all the dead ground.
The best maps are often those drawn at the time as they show the features that were known to be important at the time. A modern map can have too much detail or too little detail. The sort of micro-cover that the Prussians were trained to use - and did use - does not show up in any maps and has to be assumed to be there. Again the umpire has a role here.
Generally we will only reproduce an unique, odd looking hill if the shape was significant in the action being gamed. Fancy shaped features on the periphery where very little happens, are too much trouble. Water courses are somewhat more important to portray as areas that are well drained today might not have been then, while areas that were simply boggy then may have been deliberately flooded to produce significant water features (again, Gitschin has areas that are now lakeside holiday camp sites that were just soggy and poor going then).
In the end it all boils down to common sense and umpires. In 1866 the Prussians will always squeeze more advantage out of whatever cover is available that the Austrians, by dint of their tactics, training and their small unit leadership. So if you want to give a Prussian unit an advantage for using cover in an area where the Austrians would not get any advantage that is entirely supportable.
Holdfast
Thanks for that Holdfast. In the past I have used green card squares on the table which, when turned over, give info about the terrain and its advantages and/or disadvantages. It really helps to walk a battlefield, as I discovered at Mars la Tour. I have returned today from 2 1/2 weeks on the canals, which took me through Market Drayton so I took the opportunity to walk up to Blore Heath (1459). Still cannot really see what prompted Audley to make a mounted charge across a stream and then uphill, even if the Yorkists were pulling a fast one on him by way of a feint withdrawal. Can only assume chivalric honour as Audley was a French Wars veteran. This battlefield is virtually untouched, other than by farming, and there is a fascinating booklet on it edited by Paddy Griffith. Caliver may have a copy (?).
The rules are here and I have nearly fought off the jet lag enough to have a look at them.
For just a quick game down at the club for 3 or 4 hours how many units do you recommend?
Simon
Simon,
If you haven't played these rules, or any variant of them before, I would be inclined to start off with just a brigade, a battery, and a cavalry regiment a side. So say 8-9 units a side. Anyone else have a view?
Mollinary
I have played RFF a lot. So maybe two brigades a side then.
It's very easy to be over-ambitious when playing a new set of rules. Remember Sod's First Law - "everything takes longer than you think". The more troops you deploy the more set-up time is required and the the more time spent packing up. With small forces, if the game finishes early you can always play another.
So very,very true.
Do bear in mind also that these APW brigades are large and take a lot of punishment. An ACW Brigade is rarely more than 2,000 whereas an APW brigade is rarely less than 6,000. Obviously you can make a stand represent any number you like but it takes a lot of casualties to bring a brigade to a grinding halt. Especially at the start when the Austrians (and most of the world) are supremely confident that their tactics will work. So an Austrian brigade action, perhaps against a Prussian Advance Guard of 2-3 battalions, is a good start. Think early moments at Nachod, when that is precisely what takes place.
Unlike the original Altar of Freedom, where a Civil War brigade is represented by a 60x30 stand, for the European Wars I have put a regiment on a 60x60mm base, so two large bases represent a brigade.
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 04 August 2014, 03:39:22 PM
Unlike the original Altar of Freedom, where a Civil War brigade is represented by a 60x30 stand, for the European Wars I have put a regiment on a 60x60mm base, so two large bases represent a brigade.
Sorry, not sure I understand this post, DP. Have you adapted AOF for 1866? Am a bit surprised, as I can only imagine it being useful for Koniggratz. But then, no-one in UK stocks hard copies, and I am old school when it comes to rules!
Mollinary
Yes, looking for the quick game with a relatively small number of units. Have played some FPW with it very successfully. And fear not; I am preparing my vast 6mm collection for use on 30x20mm bases for 1859/66/70 and RF&F.
Ok so I'll start with a brigade of Prussians and two of Austrians.
So how do you know what formation your one big base, representing 3,000 men, is in? March column or shock column or extended line and so on? Or do you just roll marbles at them?
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...
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.
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g440/dourpuritan/IMG_1321_zpsd2dedbe4.jpg)
Very cool!
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.
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.
Well Field of Battle II is definitely up there for use with my 6mm figures on 40mm frontage.
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! :o 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
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.
Mollinary's response confirms that he is, indeed, ever vigilant.
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 :P
The book is excellent BTW.
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
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
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.
Quote from: cameronian on 16 August 2014, 12:33:30 PM
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
Wawro can be notoriously wrong on all sorts of stuff. If his is the only reference I'd treat it with kid gloves.
Yes I'm no Wawro fan myself but nevertheless he's quoted a primary source which we either accept or verify ourselves. Good work Andrew.
So, dear Cameronian, the friend of Gunners, rather than just rubbishing everyone else's efforts, let's have a proposal for what the number of shots for long range artillery ammunition might be. Remember that we take one point of artillery fire as what is fired over 12 minutes. Our number of 8 rounds allows for an offensive long range fire and a defensive long range fire each move for 48 minutes. I am sure that you will back up your ideas with meticulously researched work into the number of rounds of what sort in each limber and caisson.
OK Guys, let's put this into perspective for Wargames rules. Ever time we allow a battery to fire, we have a chance of causing casualties on the enemy. A single base in our scale is 80 men. The Prussians at Trautenau suffers some 1400 casualties. So, if we assume that EVERY SINGLE Prussian casualty at Trautenau was caused by this individual battery, they scored a rate of of about .6 of a casualty for every round they fired. Exactly what is it about our rules that fail to represent this success rate?
Mollinary
Why don't you simply restrict artillery fire to the effective range? Yes, this is a fudge, but it does achieve the desired result, cuts out a whole lot of book-keeping and speeds the game up in the initial moves. If there's one thing I've learned in forty years of writing wargames rules, if you make a mechanism too complicated the players will ignore it.
You are absolutely right that 'fudge' or 'about right' is needed when your rules are trying to span a large period. Keeping artillery fire to effective range avoids speculative long range fire that, with unlimited ammunition, allows unrealistic sniping at no cost; but it does not cater for the moments when it is an option if there is a high value target of opportunity, or when the chance to begin attrition at long range presents itself. I don't think there is much market for a bespoke set of rules for 1866, because the very specific circumstances of that war were never repeated in Europe, so we are left with tweaking a well tried and tested rules set to cater for period specific circumstances.
Restricting everything to its effective range is hard on the Austrians in 1866 because almost their only advantage was the longer range of their weapons, and especially their generally better artillery. So the challenge is how to represent the opportunity to fire at long range, which the Austrians certainly did, and sometimes with some advantage, while not allowing gamers to blaze away at long range in an unrealistic way. We use 'dial dude' counters to show the number of shots left, which avoids paperwork. It suits us, and in running the large games that we did to produce Vol 8 we felt that the results were 'in the right ballpark'.
As we prepare to stage the extensive series of games of segments of Koniggratz at a number of different scales that we will need to produce the narrative of the next book, we are certainly open to suggestions that will hep us get realistic results. The fact that there are very few moments when infantry report that they ran out of ammunition gives us confidence to allow limitless small arms ammunition in most circumstances. But there are quite a lot of mentions of Austrian artillery having to retire either with low ammunition or with barrels 'shot out', so we do need a mechanism of some sort, and a marker is the best way to date that we have come up with that avoids paperwork and is player and umpire friendly.
There are almost no mentions of Prussian artillery running low, but this can be explained by the Prussian habit of leaving the guns back with the gulaschkanone in the order of march, a habit which they changed for 1870.
A polite disagreement between friends does not constitute 'rubbishing' John.
As far as getting a satisfactory outcome using RFF is concerned, I really don't know. Having looked at all the rules available for this period I elected to write a modified version of FOB, some features of which were later incorporated into FOBII. Its certainly not right yet, simply haven't had the time to test them properly, but the feel is better and the issues you raise re artillery don't occur. There is no sequenced turn structure so if your guns are loaded they can fire at any point of the game. This reduces any temptation to bang away at extreme range because a better target may hove into view at any time; also the Austrian in the 1866 variant (and the Prussian in the 1870 variant) will want to form a grand battery and having formed it, will want to fire it but unless he holds two Arty Fire cards he can't, this is very effective in persuading the Austrian player to exercise a self denying ordinance in respect of his - ahem - ordnance :D sorry, couldn't resist that.
Most of the accounts of batteries burning their tubes as far as I can ascertain refer to X Corps; I wonder if this is due to Gablenz's prodigious use of his guns at Trutnov and Burkersdorf.
If you remember Andrew, Grof said that about a third of the Austrian shells didn't detonate due to faulty ordnance or operator error so you'll need to factor this into any arithmetical hypothesis.
If you haven't played this period using FOB II then I recommend it to you; if you're interested in the house rules they are available on the YAHOO PIQUET site, sign in, go to files, then go to Field of Battle 2nd edition, then Field of Battle 1866 2.doc; the cards can be downloaded at the same site(go to Field of Battle, the cards are clearly described and can be printed off) or purchased from ARTSCOW. If you play the variant I would be interested in any feedback. Remember it is very much a work in progress.
Play nicely boys.
Got my font in a muddle here. Lets try again:
If you remember Andrew, Grof said that about a third of the Austrian shells didn't detonate due to faulty ordnance or operator error so you'll need to factor this into any arithmetical hypothesis.
This is a good point but limited to the anecdote of one battlefield archaeologist on one site. What evidence do we have that this happened elsewhere? Mollinary will know if anyone does.
Indeed but he's a very knowledgeable battlefield archaeologist; if he's take the bait and write the booklet on the Austrian artillery of 1866 we'd have all the answers.
Thought I'd link the card site. These are available for, I think, about $15 a pack. You'll need a set - or you can download a free set (though not so nice) - if playing our FOB 2 variant; see earlier post if interested. The Prussian pack contains cards for 1866 and 1870.
http://www.artscow.com/gallery/playing-cards/austrian1866fob-u7as57cqj7e6
http://www.artscow.com/gallery/playing-cards/prussian-1866-1870-fob-w6znj4jr8ceb
http://www.artscow.com/gallery/playing-cards/french-1870-fob-g1fgjpx03444
I can also recommend these for FOB II. Although the rules come with cards that you cut out yourself they are very generic. The Arts Cow ones are illustrated for each army and handle like proper playing cards.
You'll find they don't exactly replicate Brent's cards, I've introduced some period specific ones like the Prussian 1866 and French 1870 withdrawing batteries for refit, French deployment of reserve artillery, Furia Francese and a few others. The 1870 house rules are still to be written up, why don't you give it a go.
About to start on my first lot of Prussian Infantry. I am going to do 1 Jaeger and 3 Infantry units and 3 arty pieces.
Hopefully, that will give us a start and a two or three hour game. My chum has already got a pile of Austrians.
I also have knocked up a mountain pass and a village.
Simon
Had two FPW battles last night using Neil Thomas' One Hour Wargames rules. Very good knockabout fun, but on a more serious note it is still necessary to plan and set up an attack otherwise the opposition gangs up on individual units and destroys them. Nerxt time I'll try them with the APW and take some photos.
Just got hold of the book (Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames) ... great little book and the rules, although very simplistic, look like fun.
@ Dour Puritan: Any photos of the games yet? Have you tried them for larger actions? I recently played Battle Cry (ACW on hexes) which has really simple mechanics but does require well thought out ideas - Gettysburg in one evening with a result :-)
TBH keep forgetting to take my camera down the club. Recently played scenario 14 as a FPW game using the rifle and sabre rule section. This has been by far the most interesting of the five games I've now played. However I have gone back to Dave Thomas' C19th rules and had a really good few games with them - the Alma in 10mm using 1" square bases and slightly different formations, i.e. one rank of four for a line and two ranks of two for a column. Visually it just looked better. Did the same in a recent Franco-Austrian battle, but this time in 15mm, still on 1" bases. It played well and looked a bit like a game from the 70s, as there were only 15 units a side. His rules, though very simple at first glance, do give enjoyable and very exciting games that reach a definite conclusion in reasonable time.