Tag: fire and fury rules

Testing the Rules

How do you compare rulesets? empathy or process – which factors give you a good ruleset?

My recent challenge has been to find a preferred ruleset for mid 19th century European warfare. And that provides the first criterion – what exactly is mid 19th century warfare? Maybe we should be saying post Napoleonic Warfare or Pre Franco Prussian Warfare? Or should we classify with technology – percussion cap, needle gun, sabre, rifling, telegraph, ironclad…..

The thing is that between 1815 and 1865 not a lot seemed to happen. Apparently things regressed as West Point Officers tried to emulate Napoleon in the early years of the Amercian Civil War despite their Mexican war experiences.

1865 to 1915 is the same timespan – would the ACW soldier have recognised the trenches of Europe – well sort of but not the aeroplanes surely.

In fact between 1815 and 1850 warfare was still largely smoothbore in weaponry and equipment and uniforms remained similar. Changes were afoot as more accurate muskets made their mark with percussion caps and more rifling. Uniforms saw frockcoats, trousers and kepis appear.

And between 1850 and 1870 breechloading rifling transformed infantry and artillery capabilities.

Quite a bit going on which means your chosen ruleset is either narrowly period, even campaign, specific or has to be clever and flexible.

My recent simple testing of a series of rulesets has caused me to reflect on what those Criteria for my gaming preferences might be.

I have ended up with 4 areas on interest. First of all I am assuming the choice of ruleset is not limited to an examination of mechanisms.

Production
Philosophy
Game Mechanics
Action Mechanisms

Production includes everything about the printed or e delivered publication. So images and print clarity matter as do the range of wargaming aspects covered.

Philosophy I suppose could be called game design and includes period choice, scale and game size as well as chosen outcomes.

Game Mechanics covers things like army lists, pre battle activity, player numbers and figures.

Finally Action Mechanisms are aimed squarely at movement, combat resolution, control and turn structure.

When I had finished my long list of criteria a massive 43 items had been generated. I did consider some rationalisation when I looked and saw a lot of similarities. And then I decided to leave my longlist intact for now.

I used it to score my rulesets and accepted the potential weighting due to duplicated criteria. Otherwise there is no other weighting in terms of importance of one criterion over another. Action mechanisms are not prioritised over Production Values for example.

In each case a criterion gets a single mark.

That mark is relative to my perceived ideal. The scores can be +1, 0, -1. positive values are favorable.

Lets look at Production first:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Relevant Images	0	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	0
Fair Wear & Tear	0	0	+1*	-1	-1	+1	+1
Logical clear layout	+1	0	+1	+1	-1	+1	+1
Plain text	0	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
Lots of Design Thinking	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
Simple Rules	+1	+1	0	0	-1	+1	+1
Scenarios included	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
Campaigns included	0	0	0	+1	+1	+1	-1
Totals	+4	+3	+6	+5	+2	+2	+5

Table 1: Production Criteria

So GW comes out top followed by F&F and PW. Before I list the rulesets in question the scoring is “relative” and not absolute. It is best thought of as indication of preferencing.

In my case these rules have all been through some sort of preselection in my decision to buy them in the first place. So they all score positively. It is how much more I value them against each other that is measured here.

When it comes to historical wargames rulesets today – in a 60 year old industry, we are talking about marginal gains. I think with fantasy/scifi etc. it is still possible to deliver up a “game changer”!

I have used the following abbreviations.

NT19e – Neil Thomas’s European Warfare in the Nineteenth Century – hardback edition published by Pen & Sword Military 2012

BwMS – Battles with Model Soldiers – hardback edition by Donald Featherstone published by David & Charles 1972

GW – Gentlemans War – “e” publication by Howard Whitehouse and Daniel Foley and published by Pulp Action Library 2018

Fire & Fury – 1st Edition in softback by Richard W Hasenauer 1990 published by Fire & Fury (2nd editions under Brigade and Regimental titles available)

Field of Battle – Piquet 1700-1900 by Brent Oman 2nd Edition published by Piquet Inc 2011

Table Top Battles – by Mike & Joyce Smith 1st Edition published by Mike Smith 2007 (2nd Edition 2018 available)

Practical Wargaming – hardback edition by Charles Wesencraft published by Elmfield Press/Shire Publications 1974

Is it fair to compare rulesets which are published decades apart written for vastly different audiences? I believe so. Despite visually apparent differences, there are some common threads in wargames.

On to Philosophy

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Period – technology emphasis	+1	+1	+1	0	0	-1	+1
abstraction in scaling	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	-1
no figure/base removal	+1	0	-1	0	+1	+1	-1
cavalry ineffective	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
irritant skirmishers	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	+1
vunerable yet destructive artillery	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
column and line infantry formations	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
attack defense objectives	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
morale dominant	+1	+1	-1	+1	+1	0	+1
battle narrative	0	0	+1	0	0	0	-1
Totals	9	6	6	5	8	1	4

Table 2: Design Philosophy

So NT19e along with FoB seem to have edged it on philosophy for me. I should say that by having a lot of scores to make, it may reduce my own unintentional bias (of course on the other hand wargames magazines are all about bias – “Buy me” bias).

Talking about bias – my requirement concerns European Warfare so I am effectively biased against other “continents” warfare considerations that are different.

Ok next up is Game Mechanics:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
option to solo game	0	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	-1
measure not grid distance	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
army selection/lists available	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0	-1
pre battle actions available	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1	-1	-1
game time required (<2hrs)	+1	+1	0	-1	-1	+1	+1
units per side (6-12)	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	+1	+1
unit ratings (varied)	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
table size (5’x4′)	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	+1	+1
concealment/ambush/surprise	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	0	-1
chance (situations/ cards etc.)	0	+1	+1	0	+1	0	0
figures per basic unit (12-20)	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1
support functions (engrs/ sappers) rules	0	0	+1	0	0	+1	-1
Totals	9	10	10	0	3	4	-1

Table 3: Game Mechanics

Earlier I asked is it fair to compare rulesets from different decades? Now the question might be should you compare battle rulesets with skirmish rulesets or measured games versus grid games. The answer is of course. Just be consistent in the criteria used for the scoring and try to avoid criteria that directly preference one solution. In my case grids games are not a requirement so do score badly on the requirement for a measured game that I chose to include – some personal bias there.

Battles with Model Soldiers and Gentlemans War seem preferable when it comes to Game Mechanics.

Finally we turn to Action Mechanisms:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
alternate moves with opportunity	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
initiative	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
simple manoeuvre rules	+1	+1	0	0	+1	+1	+1
measure ranges	+1	-1	0	+1	+1	+1	+1
move and fire in a move	+1	0	+1	-1	+1	-1	+1
road movement restricted	+1	0	0	-1	+1	-1	-1
simple interpenetration	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
saving throws	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	-1	-1
leadership/pips/orders	0	+1	-1	+1	+1	+1	+1
written orders	0	+1	-1	-1	-1	-1	+1
cards for actions	0	0	+1	0	+1	0	-1
turn structure is fluid	0	0	+1	0	+1	0	0
simple combat resolution	0	-1	-1	+1	-1	+1	0
simple firing resolution	0	-1	-1	+1	-1	+1	0
	8	4	3	3	6	4	5

Table 4: Action Mechanisms

Neil Thomas 19th century European rules come out preferred for Action Mechanisms along with Field of Battle.

In summary we have table 5

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Production	4	3	6	5	2	2	5
Design Philosophy	9	6	6	5	8	1	4
Game Mechanics	9	10	10	0	3	4	-1
Action Mechanisms	8	4	3	3	6	4	5
Totals	30	23	25	13	19	11	13

Table 5: Summary

So there you go Neil Thomas rules are to be preferred in meeting my perceived gaming requirements. But……

I really like the liveliness of Fire & Fury while sometimes the grid games using Table Top Battles are just so easy and convenient. And then Gentlemans War offers a sense of detail which drives narrative – an essential requriement for the solo wargamer I would suggest.

Field of Battle uses the house theme of the card driven randomised turn structure of Piquet. I like it a lot but you need to invest your concentration in that ruleset even with the simpler FoB version. Like GW it offers narrative benefits.

My least liked set was actually BwMS even though Donald Featherstone has been the mainstay of my house rules over the years. This is because much of what he wrote was about design philosphy rather than pushing a particular ruleset. You could say nearly all his books were design handbooks for wargames rules writers.

So which ruleset will I go with?

At the moment it must surely be Neil Thomas.

Whatever ruleset you use – happy wargaming.

wargame rules wargaming

Rules Test A3: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 25th May 2022
5 Comments on Rules Test A3: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

This is the third of a series of battles testing the simple aspects of Fire & Fury (1st edition).

As before Marshall Radetzky and his Austrian forces are engaged with the Piedmontese of King Charles Emmanuel.

The commanders are equal rating under the rules and each move initiative is diced for on opposed d10 dice throws.

All the units have the same Brigade effectiveness rating of 4/3/2 Fresh/worn/spent. As the battle rages units decline in effectiveness going from 4 though 3 to 2 rating. This value modifies the opposed d10 dice rolls which are characteristic of the game rules.

The Forces are

Austria

Left Flank – Brigade Ritter Von Benedek (Green Facings)
Centre Left – No1 Battery Field Artillery
Centre Right – Brigade Von Baden (Orange Facings)
Right Flank – 5th Graf Radeztky & 8th Ferdinand, Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha Cavalry Brigade

Piedmont

Left Flank – Pinerolo Infantry Brigade
Centre Left – “A” Battery Field Artillery
Centre Right – Bologna Volunteers Infantry Brigade
Right Flank – Piedmont Lancers 3rd & 6th Regiments

The initiative went with the Austrians who as one “well handled” moved forward in one line.

In response some “desultory fire” came from the Piedmontese.

in turn the Piedmontese line move forward “well handled”.

The Austrian Hussars had achieved a breakthough and promptly fell upon the Piedmont “A” battery field artillery.

The attack “faltered” miraculously for Piedmont, as it looked like their whole line was about to collapse under the first assault. (hussars rolled modified = 4 against artillery unmodified max die throw of 10).

It was all over so quickly – one swift attack by the Austrians and the Piedmontese turned tail! The Empire is restored, the rebels suppressed and folk can return to drinking coffee and smoking in the cafes of Lombardy…….

Victory Points are usually won by destroying enemy units. The emphasis is not on objectives. Not surprising as a 1990’s era ruleset rarely made objectives the focus. Not so today where often it is the dominant aspect of working out the winner.

Here Austria accrued 7 victory points versus 2 for the Piedmontese.

Just to be clear – no arrangement was made in these battles – the die rolls were as you see them. I suspect it was such as the hapless artillerymen holding off rabid hussars that caused so much ire when these rules were first published.

The rules contain outcomes with descriptions that feed a narrative easily. Telling fire or desultory? you know which one is having an impact.

The Fire and Fury rules (FaF1ed) use scales to help the gamer play Gettysburg on the table top! So the Brigade is the key unit size. Battalions and Regiments don’t figure. This actually also narratively worked for me, which I had not expected.

All in all three very enjoyable games.

Before I conclude my thoughts on FaF1ed, I will run some more rulesets out for a canter.

Tags austrians, fire and fury rules, fire and fury war game rules, piedmontese, rules test, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, WRG 6th edition

wargame rules wargaming

Rules Test A2: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 24th May 2022
2 Comments on Rules Test A2: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

King Victor Emmanuel gathered some more troops and returned to the battlefield, this time his infantry were supported by some cavalry.

The forces were

Piedmont

left flank – Pinerolo Brigade
centre – Bologna Volunteers
right flank – 3rd & 6th Line Cavalry (Lancers) Brigade

Austrians

left flank – Brigade IR59 Von Baden (orange facings)
centre – Brigade IR28 Graf Latour (green facings)
right flank – 5th & 8th Hussars Brigade (5th Carl Albert, Konig von Sardinien with 8th Ferdinand, Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha)

I used Fire & Fury Rules 1st Edition with no amendments. Again each unit had identical Brigade effectiveness 4/3/2 fresh/worn/spent ratings.

Initiative was diced for with unmodified d10 opposing rolls.

Again Charles Emmanuel and Marshall Radetzky faced each other. As it happens the 5th Hussars were already being renamed Marshall Radetzky given Piedmont had turned its back on the Empire.

The Marshall won the initiative no doubt buoyed by success in the previous engagement.

However both infantry units were “tardy” in moving to contact while the Hussars galloped ahead.

In the opposed rolls using modified d10’s the results were

Graf Latour scored 6 against the Bologna Volunteers scoring 12, the minus 6 forced the Austrians to retreat 8″
The Austrian Hussars scored 9 while the Pinerolo Brigade could manage just 4, the Piedmontese Infantry were driven back

In the melee there is nothing between the Lancers and Von Baden so a “desparate struggle” begins.

The Lancers charged home against the Austrian Hussars. The Hussars “checked” the Lancers charge forcing them back.

The Bologna Volunteers held and the “attack faltered” for the Austrian infantry who lost many men.

The Hussars drove back the Lancers inflicting heavy casualties, and they achieved a “breakthrough”. Yet it was hollow and the Lancers were able to retreat intact.

As evening draws in the Austrians quit the field. No victory celebrations for the Marshal tonight.

Tags austrians, fire and fury rules, fire and fury war game rules, piedmontese, rules test, Vienna Treaty Wars, wargame rules, wargames rules

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

Prelude to Wargames Rules tested II*

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 4th May 2022
2 Comments on Prelude to Wargames Rules tested II*

Which rules are best for mid 19th century warfare. Of course it helps to know which continent your on because apparently the North America Civil Wars were nothing like those happening in Europe…..

My current preoccupations are with the Italian Wars of Unification that, depending on your viewpoint, ran from 1820-1871 or 1848-1870 or even just 1859-1861!

Whichever timeline you choose the events threw up numerous conflicts across the Italian peninsula.

My previous rules shortlist included

Neil Thomas 19th Century European Wars – reviewed here previously
Table Top Battles by Mike Smith – reviewed here previously and here
Gentlemans War by Howard Whitehouse
Practical Wargaming by Charles Wesencraft
Piquet by Brent Oman
These last three were considered here and here for my Kloster Arens Encounter

I guess I had settled on the Neil Thomas set with Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles offering a solution for larger battles generated by my mythical campaigns.

The thing is I had not actually tested Piquet for this period so that was still an unknown. And so was A Gentlemans War for that matter.

And then at Hammerhead 2022 I played Fire and Fury. It reminded me that this ruleset had caught my eye the odd decade ago (!) only to fade away.

I enjoyed the participation game and to cut a long story short, tracked down a 1990 1st Edition courtesy of Dave Ryan at Caliver Books. It included some photocopy extracts of post publication comments which suggested a lot of improvements! There were a lot of complaints at the time it would seem. Nice touch from Dave Ryan to include these contemporary articles with this ruleset.

With so much negative noise why bother with them though? Well they have continued to be published. And it seems they have been morphed into other era’s. My Hammerhead participation game was for the Renaissance: Perhaps this endurance shows the core mechanics work for lots of gamers.

I thought, just maybe an ACW (American Civil War) ruleset might suit my 19th century European wars in Italy after all.

The Italian Wars of Unification fit between the Crimean Wars and the Franco Prussian War while they also bracket the American Civil Wars.

Next up will be some simple tests of Fire & Fury to start with.

*In 2020 I was all Anglo Saxon and shieldwalls and tested a few rulesets to see which might work for me.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battaglia_di_Curtatone_e_Montanara.jpg

This image is to be found in an excellent Wikipedia page about the Italian Wars of Unification.

wargame rules wargaming

Fuoco e Furia or Feuer und Wit, battles in the Po Valley?

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 27th Apr 2022
2 Comments on Fuoco e Furia or Feuer und Wit, battles in the Po Valley?

I have been searching for rules that offer that “something” – that dimension that enhances gaming a certain era. You could call it flavour because most rulesets are basically the same – dice throwing, card turning, measurement, maths, probability and movement around a table sized gaming space.

And of course we all like different flavours.

The Po valley in Northern Italy has seen great armies and leaders pass through, throughout the centuries. Mid 19th century warfare as an era is probably seen by most as a backwater – certainly when it comes to Italy. I guess the wars that get remembered are the Franco Prussian War and of course the American Civil War. These wars it could be argued, framed the next 100 years of global history and perhaps still do.

Back in the Po Valley it was the case of an old empire in retreat.

It was also the time that got us from Napoleon to Kaiser, musket to rifle if you like. Smoothbore and Rifled guns operated side by side.

Battles in the Po Valley in the mid 19th century were short and hurried affairs. But some incurred great loss of life that was noticed. Notable for their apparent lack of professionalism – something about no scouting, lots of surprises and a distinct lack of strategy. The accounts – many contemporary bear out the first two criticisms.

The great strategist Napoleon fought in the Po Valley at the end of the 18th century and his battles were very much confined by the geography. I think his Napoleonic Grand Strategy is more about what went on in the whole of Europe. His wars should been seen in that context. So I would argue Radeztky in 1848 was no less able than Napoleon in achieving his strategic victory in the Po Valley. The difference is that Austria was not fighting a pan european war. But it was fighting battles in the Po Valley.

The issue of poor scouting and too much surprise actually makes for more interesting wargames and throws up opportunities to make a game more interesting. It perhaps beckons to the more erratic ruleset?

For many the war across the Atlantic in the United States is not to be compared – different continents with different outlooks, society and geography.

And yet to my untutored eye while the ACW might have had a grand strategic aspect (western and eastern theatres?), it also seems to have had some campaigns driven by geography limiting the options available to a General. Perhaps there were similarities between these apparently very different wars fought on separate continents?

Even so I had set my mind against looking at the American Civil War as a rules source for my mid 19th century European interests: A case of less is more – something wargamers are often not very good at – me included.

But……

The very nature of limited professional armies, volunteer forces, often with ineffective leadership and disorganisation plus similar technology means that the wars in the Po Valley, seemed quite complimentary to those of the Amercian Civil Wars (ACW).

A bit of a ramble to explain how belatedly, I have considered using ACW rules for my Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU) battles. In particular Fire and Fury.

http://www.comune.torino.it/canaleturismo/risorgimento/webapp/battaglie/index.html

The Wiki Commons licensed image shown here is to be found in an excellent Wikipedia page about the Italian Unification Wars. The image shows a classic hill top town – in this case being attacked by the Sardinians (Piedmontese) while defended by Austrians.

Tags american civil war, fire and fury rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, wars of the italian unification, wikipedia