Currently Reading

[martin goddard]

It is a matter of taste of course.
I would not want to see a civilian convoy being shot up.
Reminds me of an IRA game at a convention.
Having said that, I am guilty of upsetting some gamers by making casualty figures.


martin

[Leman (Andy)]

Bismarck's Wars: Wargames Rules for the Franco-Prussian War Period 1859-1871 by Nigel Emsen and Tony Hellard, pub. Helion

A while back I was asked to comment on these rules, which have been many, many months in development. Having recently received my copy I have not yet actually played them, but I do feel they will give me a good solo experience. However, there are a few problems which is why I have spent more time than usual reading and re-reading these rules several times. Some wargamers I previously played against in the UK used two expressions which I think are relevant here. Mates rules, i.e. the people who wrote them know how they work but have forgotten that not everyone has played them, causing omissions which to the authors are obvious. Secondly - a good game trying to get out, i.e. the rules have several areas which are confusing or unclear, but once clarified should give a good game. So, first of all the pros:

The rules have an easy to follow sequence, which is laid out clearly on the QRS, though not so much in the body of the rules. They are grid based and I shall be trying them out on my 4 inch gridded mat with 6mm figures. The units can be depicted on a single base. Activation is by playing cards, ideal for a solo player, with one army using the red suits and the other the black. Different cards allow different numbers of brigades to be activated, but these are different for different armies, eg. the Prussians can activate more than one brigade on more cards than the French can. The entire pack, shuffled, acts as a single deck and is the entire game, i.e. there is no reshuffle. The game can also end sooner. Terrain is very straightforward to deal with. Everything is done using D10s.

The cons: I shall work my way through, but the major problem is poor proof reading. The game introduction contains information pertinent to an earlier version which is not actually in the current rules. The flowery introduction is unnecessary. The introduction to the major wars of the period is overlong and unnecessary. If you are going to play this period then presumably you have an interest and have read up on it already. 16 pages on the four major European wars of the period are not going to give enough background information to dive into this period. A one page intro to the general development of tactics and weapons, accompanied by an easy to acquire bibliography would be much more useful for a novice player and not take up 16 valuable pages. The rules design section is useful, but classing all muzzle loading rifles the same ignores the fact that the Austrian Lorenz rifle outranged the Prussian Needle Gun.The sequence of play appears to be move or charge. If charging, then if morale successful the melee takes place immediately. Then movement of other units within the brigade(s), then shooting. Morale is taken as needed. This sequence is not actually stated in the rules I am still not sure if I have it right. The morale table is confusing until studied really, really closely. I would not have used the < and > signs; words are much clearer, e.g fail value of >2 is much clearer as break on a roll of 1, as stated in the rules but not on the table. A lack of worked examples of play could avoid these problems, but that unnecessary intro used up those valuable pages.

In conclusion I think there is a good game, and a relatively straightforward one, trying to get out, but a lot more thought needed to be given to the written explanation of the rules to minimise any confusion or misunderstanding. My final thought, if you are willing to work through the rules several times (51 actual pages of rules, including the design notes) you will probably get a good game. Otherwise stick to Walter Schnaffs/Krupp Bashing.

[Martin Smith]

Andy, that's a pretty thorough summary 👍🏼. I hadn't encountered the term 'Mate's Rules', but it's a great descriptive for any set where the writer thinks things are self evident (but they're not...). Nice one.
Proof-reading absence / glitches are a bugbear with me...if you're going to go to the bother of publishing, why not get someone else to read the damn thing with a critical eye?

[Leman (Andy)]

Andy, that's a pretty thorough summary 👍🏼. I hadn't encountered the term 'Mate's Rules', but it's a great descriptive for any set where the writer thinks things are self evident (but they're not...). Nice one.
Proof-reading absence / glitches are a bugbear with me...if you're going to go to the bother of publishing, why not get someone else to read the damn thing with a critical eye?

Clearly this kind of thing is a bugbear. I wonder how many potentially decent sets of rules have rarely seen the light of day owing to these kinds of problems.

[Leman (Andy)]

The Battle of Koniggratz 1866 - by Gordon Craig

My dad saw this and Caporetto, from the Great Battles series, on sale in Smith's, Llandudno, around 1969, when I was 16 or 17, and bought both of them for me. The Caporetto book was an excellent read, but it was Koniggratz that really fired my enthusiasm. At the time there were no figures available unless you were prepared to spend hours converting Airfix WWI figures. That was out of the question at the time as I was either preparing for the O Level exams or starting the A Level courses. Anyway, I am reading it again as I am preparing the armies for the 1866 campaigns (the Italians may come later). I had no figures for this until the early 2000s, and then only played small encounter battles, but now I want to play out the entire Bohemian campaign. Craig's book is something of a masterpiece as it is concise, well written and gripping, with really clear maps that would transfer well to a wargames table. These are a particularly good aspect of the book, as many books since have relied on reprinting old, highly cluttered, C19th maps. The clear text explains the opportunities that were grasped, the windows for victory that were missed and the tactical mistakes made by both sides. With a different command structure the Austrians may well have won as Moltke's plan of spliting his army into thee separated parts left him open to defeat in detail had the Austrians employed a more flexible and diciplined approach. However, only one Austrian commander, Gablenz, was of that disposition, and he was not the army commander-in-chief. This is the kind of book that inspires wargamers to want to try out this period. There are numerous rulebooks to further point the way, most notably Bruce Weigl's 1866 (coupled with his newer fast play rules, 1871, for which there is an 1866 playsheet), Chris Pringle's Bloody Big Battles, with scenarios in the supplement, Bloody Big European Battles, and Neil Thomas' C19th Wargame rules, which features two scenarios for 1866, with some additional rules to create 'what if games' from those two scenarios as well. I am also going to try out a couple of scenarios using the new Bismarck's Wars rules, which I reviewed earlier, as they are gridded rules specifically for this period. If you ever come across a copy of Craig's Koniggratz in a second hand bookshop then snap it up. It is an excellent read.

[Colonel Kilgore]

I'd forgotten that I'd pre-ordered "The Siege" by Ben MacIntyre (about the SAS at the Iranian Embassy) until it arrived today.

Looking forward to reading this one.

Simon

[Sean Clark]

That's caught my eye too, Simon.

[Leman (Andy)]

Well, I had been reading French Fiasco, a supposedly historically accurate novel set in the Franco-Prussian War. However the historically accurate turned out to be pure tosh, and the plot resembled a badly written Carry On farce. Needless to say I did not pursue this twaddle to the end.

So I am now giving my brain a rest by perusing the photos and their captions in the Pen and Sword book, The Germans in Flanders in 1914, which is much more interesting.

[John Watson]

Just finished reading Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift Minute by Minute by Chris Peers. Puts the two battles into the perspective of the overall campaign and highlights how important communications are between split forces and the necessity for clear orders both in terms of content and to whom they are directed.
Now onto The Eagle and The Hart by Helen Castor about the struggle between Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke.
John

[John Watson]

Sorry the title was Rorke's Drift and Isandlwana Minute by Minute.
John

[Sean Clark]

Ah, that sounds like a totally different book John 😂🤣😅

[martin goddard]

I think they are 9 miles apart, which is very close in 19th century military terms. 

It would be very helpful if you can tell us the comments on the quality of the British command. System and personalities.  I know little about this aspect of the war.


I assume they had side burns and went to Eton?

martin

[Leman (Andy)]

I think going to Eton was probably a harrowing experience.

[John Watson]

One of the major themes is about the quality of command and orders issued from Lord Chelmsford and his HQ. Apart from splitting his forces, it seems the general would issue an order without considering how the person receiving it would interpret it, thus creating confusion and uncertainty. Hr also created situations where officers of equal ranks joined forces but neither was sure which one of the was in command, as no order was given.
At Rorke's Drift Chard assumed command over Bromhead as his commission pre-dated Bromhead's by a couple of weeks (I think).
It is an interesting read and I can pass it on to you Martin, if you like.
John

[Colonel Kilgore]

Ah, that sounds like a totally different book John 😂🤣😅

And it was written by Piers Christopher? 

Simon