Wednesday, May 20, 2026

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.


32 comments:

  1. Great to see your rules getting refinements. The chance of discussing and sharing ideas, will always be thought provoking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Neil. It certainly gave me opportunity to reflect.

      Delete
  2. An interesting read and well worth brain storming session with Jon, your rules are really taking shape.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Donnie. Jon acts as a good foil.

      Delete
    2. In other words, in contrast to me you provide a different, usually better, perspective to reveal or emphasise aspects. In this case the rules under inspection. Kind of like bouncing or highlighting ideas.
      You definitely did not foil the testing, and I may have used it with the subject and object the wrong way round. Oh well, I'll stick to tin foil and roasting chickens in future.

      Delete
  3. Very enjoyable session, Richard! Looking forward to doing this again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very, very interesting rules Richard!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like ‘situation trials’ and of course you can have no better translator of figures / stats than Jonathan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Norm, Jonathan was always going to be an essential ingredient in this regard.

      Delete
  6. A very useful exercise for your rules development, I am sure, Richard! My eyebrows aren't raised, but what the thinking behind not giving charges any bonus?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that to always run in the open towards an enemy who can see you coming and is prepared for you automatically and successfully confers an advantage is not always bourne out in history. Charge bonuses are best used to compensate for an attribute that might be difficult to replicate in some other factor.
      To further clarify, cavalry get a bonus in melee vs infantry. Effectively, this is a charge bonus.
      I have other points but I hope that helps, Keith. Good question.

      Delete
    2. Yes it does Richard - and it reminds me of a recent comment from JBM on his blog about his rules development - it made me genuinely "laugh out loud" but he makes a good point, as have you - " (there is no wounding in my rules only “out of the fight”). If you think that might be an abstraction too far, I challenge you to pick yourself up and carry on fighting when a 30gram lump of lead has just hit you at 1000 ft per second. Yeah, thought not"

      Delete
    3. Very funny, yet very true.

      Delete
  7. Interesting to read about your testing methodology Richard. Good explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A sound and good way to give the rule mechanics a run out in mini-situations as you did here. I can't remember how much close combat there was during the FPW, but I think the French still believed in the 'furia francese' then, but I coud be wrong? I know the Austrians mis-read the outcomes from the 2nd Schleswig-Holstein War and so still believed in getting 'stuck in' as it were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Steve.
      By the FPW, I understand that the French had a more confused military doctrine muddied by their interpretation of the Austro-Prussian War and the introduction of the chassepot. That helps to understand why French commanders were so locked into their "position magnifique" and unwilling to exploit situations such as at St Privat.

      Delete
  9. Interesting read. Always useful to understand design thoughts. Nice insite into the rules. Looking forward to future developments and especially games.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It all sounds very interesting Richard!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Looks like you are making great progress here Richard. The discussion of +1 and -1 reminds me a bit of DBMM where most of the factors are around that order of magnitude which, on a D6, can create quite significant differences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Lawrence. I feel like real progress is being made. It's also nice to get validation from Jonathan along the way.
      I should clarify that there are no D6 rolls as such. The opposed D6 rolls for chance determine whether there is a step up the ladder, a step down or no step either way. So, no factors added to dice rolls in the accepted sense. You are right, the +1 to -1 makes a big difference.

      Delete
    2. I wonder if the "Chance" opposed roll could be thought of or renamed as "Surprise" where one of the unit's is surprised or not?

      Delete
  12. Interesting insight into your rule development!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
  13. You picked the right bloke to test your ideas with!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I certainly have... even if it might mean binning them on his good advice, I know they'd been given a severe scrutiny.

      Delete

Most Popular Posts