An AAR of a game played earlier this week using the ever excellent Bloody Big Battles rules:
http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/nachod-1866-bbb-game.html (http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/nachod-1866-bbb-game.html)
And some pics to tempt you:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jApUko61rQY/VzQwQ4GrgfI/AAAAAAAADic/JXsm7tOuv8w37x17-3f1VvzuSc11WKulQCLcB/s400/Nachod%2B007.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SAXFbQVSK-w/VzQwQRN6sSI/AAAAAAAADiU/xEyVeRTH9r8K_cU02zLuF45jOQRmkrrEACLcB/s400/Nachod%2B008.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9t04Lpdopwo/VzQwRVPPprI/AAAAAAAADik/SiRoKJ5eVxsFxaat7nXLlnTnXT_RhMxUwCLcB/s400/Nachod%2B011.jpg)
Good stuff!
I have a hankering to get onto the 1866, but we're playing the Crimea campaign first :D
Very nice, again, Steve.
Cheers - Phil
Excellent report and I also agree with your post-battle thoughts on what makes rules successful. The days of the innumerable lists of modifiers are hopefully long gone now.
Glad you liked it chaps :).
QuoteI have a hankering to get onto the 1866, but we're playing the Crimea campaign first
Well we might do part of this with 'counts as' troops as Dave wants to play with his cavalry :D.
QuoteThe days of the innumerable lists of modifiers are hopefully long gone now.
Let's hope so as life is too short as it is, without endless cross referencing stuff in a game.
Hurrah for the end of half hour long firing sequences with tables of rubbish exactly duplicating the minutia of the process in ten times the length of real time it took, which then produced a correct result at each step and a totally out of place final result :D
Model the end result and don't sweat the process if it's quick and it works, that's my motto!
Too right!
Apparently in the UK there used to be mass unemployment, no Sunday trading, only 3 TV channels, tightly restricted pub opening hours, no internet, and fewer sources of entertainment in general. So there was more demand for the kind of game that took 17 hours to play. Times have changed.
Steve, thanks for another fine AAR!
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
Nice one Steve ;)
Hoping to get around to BBB once the distraction of SP2 and Baroque have worn off a little :D
The sooner the better mate. One of the best sets out there.
Once again glad you liked the AAR chaps :). Completely agree on BBB being one of the best rulesets around, but then it gives the sort of game I like. Others may disagree but then that's fine by me.
Great report, pity the Austrians won! ;)
Bloody Antipodeans! >:(
I am very confused here. Why do the Austrians get victory points for retiring through Skalitz? The only reason they were there, and had been detached from the main army by Benedek, was to prevent the Prussians from debouching from the Nachod gap. If they had wanted to get to Skalitz, they could have done so without ever going near the Prussians. It also seems bizarre that all the Austrians get skirmish capability, even though they normally used their Jagers as elite storm columns, whereas the Prussians, whose standard tactics involved reinforced skirmisher or firing lines, only get benefits for their single jäger battalion in a corps.. This may be a great game, but it doesn't look much like Nachod to me!
Mollinary
I can't comment on your points Mollinary as Dave knocked up the scenario and may have altered things to fit in the time we had available. I will have a look at Bruce Weigle's 1866 scenario to see how it compares. As for the skirmishers issue, I'm sure Chris will be able to explain...
Id assumed the original scenerio had some sort of "Ramming realises he can't block the pass/take back the heights and instead retires on Skalitz to form up en mass with Leopold" sort of thing going on...
I'd also thought in BBB terms the jaegers justify a single S stand as the BBEB scenarios give them, but your and Chris P's cmment on the blog now make me think they should give an Aggressive rating instead? I know the jaegers weren't used to best effect as skirmishers by the Austrians, but they seem somewhat less "suicidal spear block" than the regulars and were willing to fight and fire instead of storm in very quickly - Or is that they were just being even more gung Ho?
Prussians - had wondered whether to give the Prussians more S per unit as their dispersed firing doctrine effectively makes them *all* skirmishers in BBB terms, at least for that specific war in the context of fighting the Austrians as they stand :D In the BBEB scenarios for the 1866 Chris has each unit wth a single S stand, which tbh given the probable lack effective of Austrian fire is likely enough, but I reckoned underrated them.
Both the above thoughts should be taken in context of me not playi g either the combined frontier battle scenario (it cvers Nachod, Tratenau and Skalitz with an option for a third possible day as the Austrians retreat), or Koningratz itself, and these days I'm wary about fiddling until I've played something to death a few times over. Too many previous "hack and slash" modifications to make things "right" that just make things more complex or need more tweaking to balance the balance etc etc ;)
I have a few questions:
1. What happened to the Prussian infantry line deployed on the plateau above Wenzelsburg?
2. Did you not recreate the attacks of the Brigades Hertweck and Jonak on the plateau?
3. What happened to the cavalry action at Wysokow?
4. Wasn't it Waldstatten's brigade that attacked Wysokow?
Chad
It's a fictional scenario, knocked up from the basis of a different original scenario from other rules; it's not a recreation of the actual action ;)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 13 May 2016, 09:04:58 PM
I'd also thought in BBB terms the jaegers justify a single S stand as the BBEB scenarios give them, but your and Chris P's cmment on the blog now make me think they should give an Aggressive rating instead? I know the jaegers weren't used to best effect as skirmishers by the Austrians, but they seem somewhat less "suicidal spear block" than the regulars and were willing to fight and fire instead of storm in very quickly - Or is that they were just being even more gung Ho?
Prussians - had wondered whether to give the Prussians more S per unit as their dispersed firing doctrine effectively makes them *all* skirmishers in BBB terms,
Mollinary and I debated this at length offline last year. I agree that to reflect their tactics properly, the Prussians should be given more Skirmishers and/or the Austrians fewer. As I indicated in my comment on Steve's AAR, in retrospect I should have done this in the BBEB Nachod et al scenario. (Though I still like the scenario for the genuine insight it gave me into the course of the border battles - and a little more sympathy for the much criticized Prince August commanding the Prussian Guards.)
Chris
Ah, fair enough - hindsight is always 20/20 :D
What did you think then - two Skirmisher or more for the Prussians? If the Austrians lose their S and gain A, what does that do to balance in scenario terms? It looks hard enough for the Austians as is ;) I guess that's all you & Mollinary were discussing :)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 15 May 2016, 10:03:18 AM
What did you think then - two Skirmisher or more for the Prussians? If the Austrians lose their S and gain A, what does that do to balance in scenario terms?
I reckon just give each Prussian infantry unit S rating (1 Skirmisher base only) and change the Austrian S to A. I think it's a tough scenario for the Prussians as it stands, so this would actually improve scenario balance.
Chris
This has been a fascinating thread, as I will be launching into the Bohemian arena after Langensalza. These will be home-based games, with the 6mm FPW continuing down the club.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 15 May 2016, 10:25:30 AM
I reckon just give each Prussian infantry unit S rating (1 Skirmisher base only) and change the Austrian S to A. I think it's a tough scenario for the Prussians as it stands, so this would actually improve scenario balance.
Chris
I think there is a case for varying this depending on the scale you are using. BBB is pretty well unique in varying strengths per stand from about 500 to 2500 in its official scenarios, as well as dramatically changing ground and time scale. All these mean games represent rather different levels of tactical feel. My starting point was always Fire and Fury, so I prefer smaller numbers represented by a stand. With 500 men per stand for the corps on corps battles of this war, a brigade would contain about 14 bases. Thus I would tend to split it to the regimental level. If you do this for the Austrians you have the choice of having half the brigade with its Jäger battalion, and the other half without. You could make them all Aggressive, but only give Skirmish ability to the half with the Jägers. Personally, I believe giving each Prussian unit the skirmish capability is the minimum to get proper period flavour (for the FPW I would be inclined to leave it at that, but that is another story) for the APW, and I would be inclined to give them 2. Nachod has a particular problem as a scenario, as the Prussians deployed their advanced guard in half battalions, as the only way to cover the ground above the Nachod defile. Where your smallest unit is a brigade it is very difficult to get this effect. I haven't tried it, but it might be worth a go at doing this in 1:250 per base, and deploying the advance guard in units of 2S strength. This is one of the positive aspects of the rules which appeals to me, the ability to tinker to match a scenario.
Mollinary
The exactness of defiles, where cavalry was placed, the size of Zug formations, the colours of gaiter buttons ... all these details pale into insignificance when playing a fun game with a good set of rules and a decent opponent. BBB and the 1866 match really well, you can mix and match all you want with these rules ... but just have fun and don't get hung up on whether Studnitz wrote his diary on a Tuesday or Wednesday. ;)
... and who said the Austrians won this game? I demand a recount.
Austrian skirmish ability/stands - I'm unfussed in playing at a smaller level than BBB uses (as the default 1000 man, with 500 for the smaller training scenarios at a push), and doubly so for the APW, so dropping to 250 men per stand doesn't really interest me. What I do wonder (as discussed above, off list and elsewhere :D) is - does the Jaeger presence warrant giving each Brigade an S rating, or make one four stands with S rating and one 3 stands without. As I'm more than half swayed away from giving them S at all, you can change that to A ratings instead with the same question :D
Or, should the Austrian Divisions be used in place of the Brigades, so you have a manouvre unit at 7 S/A P T Trn MLR? I think that's too much, as to me one of the "features" is the inability for Corps commanders to actually mass their Brigades up and go in together in a supported attack.
Also, Daves set up has kind of reminded me of a more Austrian favourable Gitchen where the stray "disengage immediately" order arrives just before the Austrians are pinned in place instead of just after :)
Well we played Trautenau last night and certainly a dramatic game full of action. A full AAR to follow in due course. We tried out the Austrians as Agressive instead of Skirmishers, which I think felt more historically accurate but certainly changed the way they played. Again more details to follow when I've collected my thoughts.
Quoteand a decent opponent.
Decent as in 'he's a decent sort of chap' or as in 'he gives me a decent challenge in the game' :-\ :D ;) ?
As in ... "He's decent enough to smile nicely when he is handed back his Corps as a bag of bones"
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Now you've spoilt the outcome of the battle ;)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 17 May 2016, 11:09:18 PM
What I do wonder (as discussed above, off list and elsewhere :D) is - does the Jaeger presence warrant giving each Brigade an S rating, or make one four stands with S rating and one 3 stands without. As I'm more than half swayed away from giving them S at all, you can change that to A ratings instead with the same question :D
Once you get down to that level of granularity, you could reasonably represent a brigade as two units, both rated A, and the one with the Jaegers might or might not merit S. In the pre-publication discussion of this, I think 'flavour' won out over realism, i.e., we rated them S because players wanted Jaegers to get an S. With brigade-sized units that over-rates them, especially when the Prussians get under-rated.
The more important thing probably is to rate all the Prussian units S. If you do that, letting Austrian Jaegers in half-brigade units have S as well is probably OK.
Chris
Quote from: Steve J on 18 May 2016, 06:01:45 AM
Well we played Trautenau last night and certainly a dramatic game full of action. A full AAR to follow in due course.
AAR yes please!
Quote from: toxicpixie on 17 May 2016, 11:09:18 PM
Austrian skirmish ability/stands - I'm unfussed in playing at a smaller level than BBB uses (as the default 1000 man, with 500 for the smaller training scenarios at a push), and doubly so for the APW, so dropping to 250 men per stand doesn't really interest me. What I do wonder (as discussed above, off list and elsewhere :D) is - does the Jaeger presence warrant giving each Brigade an S rating, or make one four stands with S rating and one 3 stands without. As I'm more than half swayed away from giving them S at all, you can change that to A ratings instead with the same question :D
Or, should the Austrian Divisions be used in place of the Brigades, so you have a manouvre unit at 7 S/A P T Trn MLR? I think that's too much, as to me one of the "features" is the inability for Corps commanders to actually mass their Brigades up and go in together in a supported attack.
Also, Daves set up has kind of reminded me of a more Austrian favourable Gitchen where the stray "disengage immediately" order arrives just before the Austrians are pinned in place instead of just after :)
You know an Austrian infantry division comprises two companies not two brigades don't you.
Yes, sorry not that level of division, but the non-existent level below Corps of two brigades which i'd used as mental short hand when translating/thinking about real world to game set up :D Bad habit, compounded by not stating my assumptions ;)
Should probably have said "would it be better to combine pairs of brigades and make them seven stands with A and S ratings etc etc"! Which I wouldn't want to do as it makes Austrian command and control far to simple for the player and doesn't reflect Corps commanders awkwardness in controlling their brigades and getting them into action together instead of however and wherever they contacted the enemy.