Sunday, May 3, 2026

Bavarians at it Again! - 2nd FPW Test Game

After my first playtest of my FPW rules for hexes (see here), I made a few changes. The main ones being:

  1. Changing the range of opposed chance dice results to +1 to -1 based on the attacker and defender winning the roll.
  2. The comparison of opposing unit grades will also give a +1 to -1 spread.
  3. I've added a little more flesh to the results ladders.

Basically, the first two are to keep a consistency of climbing or descending the results ladder in single steps.

Things I'll be looking for are:

  • Plausible result.
  • The above changes make it smoother.
  • What changes I need to make on the ladders in light of the above tweaks.

I decided on replaying the same scenario as a direct comparison.  However, this is less of a game report than my thoughts on what happened.

French infantry await the assault.  The marker is to show that they are prone.

This is the position after the Bavarians (bottom) have left the woods.

They're keen but perhaps not as keen as their Prussian allies.

I took a number of this type of picture throughout the game.  Here you can see the opposed "chance" rolls.  In this case the Bavarians, coming under heavy, fire won.  Thus inducing a step down on the ladder for the French.  All in all, no effect!

As I said, I took a number of these types of photos.  I then calculated and recorded the effect based on:
  1. The rules as I played them last time.
  2. The amended rules but with only the attacker grade being included, and
  3. The amended rules with the attacker and defender grades compared, with the winner getting the step up or down... or nothing if a draw.  This is the one I will be applying throughout the game.
This took some time but led to interesting results that I'll comment on later.

As you will see I did this a number of times... and a few more that I won't bore you with.





Both sides exchanging fire.

The Bavarians are drifting to the right, just as in the last game.

Two charges against batteries are attempted...

... but heavy and massed volleys from the French infantry on the heights force the attackers to go prone before they can contact.

Plenty of lead being directed at the Bavarians, with surprisingly limited effect!

Three charges are attempted.  This time two are stopped but the bottom one on the French left flank goes in.

It goes in because previous shooting from the Bavarians forced the French unit prone.  Because it was now being charged it had to stand up.  This meant that it could not now fire and possibly stall the assault.

You can see that the luck was on the side of the Bavarians.  They also had two units supporting the assault - giving two advantages or steps up the ladder.  The French had one unit that could support but it couldn't as it was in an enemy zone of control.

With the defenders swept aside, the lead attacking unit was able to occupy the position, make a face change and initiate another melee.  Which of course it did!

At this point, where the Bavarians were turning the French left flank, I called it a job done.

So, I declare this one a Bavarian victory.

Afterthoughts
This was less of a fun game than an exercise in comparing the results of the varying shooting and melee mechanisms.

I set out three things that I'd be looking for in the game:

  • A plausible result.
  • The changes making play smoother.
  • What changes I need to make on the ladders in light of the above tweaks.
I actually found the result was not plausible considering the fire power that the Bavarians had to face.  This was in both the end result and during the general advance in the open.  Nor was it a case of the French suffering continual bad luck; they didn't.  From the table of results that I kept, the amended version I was applying to shooting gave results that always favoured the target.  However, the other versions tended towards something more plausible and would certainly have caused more issues for the Bavarians crossing the open.

With everything being converted to one step movements up or down, the use of the ladders was quicker.

So, what changes am I considering?

For shooting, I would remove the comparison of the firing and target unit's grades - they tended to do nothing but negate each other.  I would keep it for melee.  I would also add two levels of cover instead of having one - to allow for towns, trenches etc. on top of soft cover.

In melee, I would consider changing the supporting unit to just one step for support instead of one step for each supporting unit.

I am also considering changing the movement/shooting so that every unit has two actions per turn.
The turn sequence makes the Germans move first, French then shoot and then melee, the players are then reversed.  Moving to actions would mean that infantry could either move twice, shoot twice or move and shoot once.  This would give the French something to think about when they commit to shooting - fire twice and they won't be able to move.  For the Germans, move twice and they won't be able to shoot.  If shooting with two actions there would be a one step advantage.

Alternatively, it might be better to completely start from scratch again.  Whichever way I go, I will take a little break for some subconscious reflection.

Apologies for my navel gazing.



3 comments:

  1. Interesting reflections after playing this scenario again Richard, as as to what worked or what might need tweaking. It's a long time since I played any FPW games, but we did enjoy Chris Pringle's Bloody Big Battles, which allowed big actions to be played in a few hours. Terrain was always a challenge though!

    ReplyDelete
  2. An interesting analysis. I think two levels of cover sounds sensible and distinguishes well between hard and soft cover. I know what you're saying about supports but my thought is that a unit supported by multiple friendly units is harder to shift than a unit supported by just one other. Perhaps you could distinguish between just flank and flank and rear support to reward defence in depth? It will be interesting to see what adjustments you come up with.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love seeing these ‘rule evolution’ type posts. The exercise is relatively straight forward and constrained enough to withstand repeat stress testing.

    I would be inclined just to introduce one changed rule at a time and then re-run. It will give a wide range of test runs that test everything repeatedly, while isolating the single change, so that the impact of that one change is clearer to see.

    ReplyDelete

Most Popular Posts