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.

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.

Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 August 2014, 06:45:00 AM
Very cool!

'Wot Will said'.!
Cheers - Phil

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!    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.