Event Testing of FPW Rules

After some amendments from my last solo play test of my Franco-Prussian War rules for hexes and remote play (see here), I had a chat with Jonathan Freitag (Palouse Wargaming Journal) and made an arrangement to do some testing.  This was not a game but an examination of likely events during a game, rolling the dice and discussing through the outcomes.

The test table

I set out the following as the events to test in different situations (e.g. in open, in cover, in different formations - skirmish and formed):

• A formation coming under long range artillery fire
• A formation coming under long range small arms fire
• A formation coming under close range artillery fire
• A formation coming under close range small arms fire
• A formation attempting to charge, and receiving defending fire.
• Melee

Prussian cavalry and infantry waiting to be placed in the line of fire.

I also laid out some specific questions to address during and after the test:

• Should the opposed "chance" rolls give a +1 to -1 spread of a +2 to -2 spread - i.e. what degree should be the impact of luck?
• Whether the advantages and disadvantages are appropriate.
• Whether the results at the steps on the results ladder need amending - smoothing out or rewriting.
• Does a unit really need a plus one for charging.

The French load their chassepot.

The arrows for clarity and indication were used a lot once we got to testing out melee.  You can just see the rules within easy reach.  These would see a few notes scrawled on them during our time together, and more in my notebook afterwards.

Still in melee.  We had a good discussion about what should be classed as a unit supporting a charge.

Afterthoughts

That was an enjoyable and productive time spent in Jonathan's company.  He asked pertinent questions about my design philosophy and decisions.  These led to good discussions and an opportunity to reflect, both during and after the session.

The Melee Results Ladder from the rules... with a couple of notes hastily scribbled at the bottom.

After an exchange of thinking about the degree to which fortune should impact events, plus the practical rolling of dice to test, I was confirmed in my view that with the ladder system I've adopted the +1 to -1 spread gave sufficient uncertainty.  The alternative would swing things far too wildly.

The advantage and disadvantages (the factors that step the attacker up and down) for the results ladders was found to be fine with the only major amendment being the removal of "unit charging" as an advantage.  This may raise eyebrows in some quarters.

The results on the ladders went pretty much unchanged, with only a couple of small tweaks considered desirable.

All in all, things are progressing nicely and what we found was that the results were plausible and in keeping with what one might expect from a wargame of the Franco-Prussian War.

My thanks to Jonathan and his excellent advice and continued questioning and clarification after the event.

The next outing with the rules will be to stress test them in a game.

The Retreat Makes It To Big Table

Lee and Ray, after much preparation and long awaited anticipation, finally put on their first game with their Retreat from Moscow project for the Rejects.  They used Sharp Practice, which is new to all of us.

It was very much a "learn the rules" game for players and umpires.  As such, this not an after action report just a few photos of their lovely table and figures.

It ended in a close fought and fairly dramatic draw.

It was entertaining and quite a learning curve for all.  As players we have a better inkling of the mechanics. For the umpires it has given them valuable experience and even more valuable, a list of things to learn, double check, clarify and amend.  So, a really good and productive day in the shed.

Well done to Lee and Ray. They had to sweat and work hard for their supper.

Great Italian Wars Command Stands

Making their way of the "workbench" are six command stands that I've just painted for the Great Italian Wars.

The main figure is from Warlord Games and sold as Gaston de Foix.

The standard bearer is from out of the Perry Miniatures plastic sets.  The flag is from Pete's Flags.

The main, mounted figure is another Warlord Games miniature.  This one is sold as Giovanni de Medici.

Another one of Pete's Flags,

Both models are from Perry Miniatures.  The main character being metal and the standard bearer plastic.

The commander carries one of the emblems of the Sforza family.  Hence the Sforza/Milan flag from Pete's Flags.

Both models are from Perry's and the banner from Pete's Flag.  The main character is metal.

The standard bearer is plastic.

Both models are metal Perry Miniatures with the banner from Pete's Flags.

The flag is one that may have used by El Gran Capitan.

The mounted commander is from Warlord Games and sold as Bartolomeo d'Alviano.  The standard bearer is a plastic one from Perry Miniatures.

The banner is a Venetian one and, I believe, comes from Battle Flags.

That was probably an unnecessary amount of photos bearing in mind the actual number of figures shown.

While I still ponder on my remote FPW rules, I'll be moving some 6mm MDF French Revolutionary Wars cavalry onto the painting table.