Tag: rules test

Stop Press – another ruleset

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 30th Oct 2022
4 Comments on Stop Press – another ruleset

I do have a general idea about an order of postings, yet every now and again I get derailed. The usual suspect here was a wargame show – the other partizan. And that show found me browsing the extensive rulesets on offer at Dave Ryans Caliver Books stand.

I had seen this ruleset before, but moved on many a time. The cover was more Franco Prussian – I had kept avoiding this conflict simply because my interests were 10 – 20 years earlier and there seemed a gulf between these warring times: 1848 to 1870 was a transitional period especially for technology.

“There are you Guns” derives from the “General de Brigade” rules system

This time I looked through a bit more, no, I read the introduction. Somehow the words immediately offered something broader. Never judge a book by its cover they say.

Well the upshot was I parted with some “plastic” notes (I like to take a budget in my pocket – when its its gone, and it kind of adds to the immediacy of a decision) and this ruleset added to my burgeoning ruleset collection – yet again.

A few days later I set about reading the book cover to cover. Not usually my method – I often just get a few figures out and tinker with parts of a ruleset first off.

On this occasion I felt the ruleset could be read as a book. This was because the design philosophy as well as gaming examples are intervweaved amongst the rules chapter by chapeter.

Each chapter is self contained and includes contemporary illustrations and suitable military quotes of the day. It proved a good read.

When I had finished the book I put it to one side and got on with some figure painting. This was after a lay off, the usual “I was painting one day and the next – nothing”. I even had one unit just needing some base foliage adding – but no – production had ceased.

Then I suddenly decided I had to play a test game and yes I had to try for sufficient forces to look at the “divisional” set up. I felt anything smaller might not help me explore the rules sufficiently.

So “Blue on White” was born and I had one division per side comprising 2 brigades of infantry and artillery plus some divisional cavalry. I opted for most of the variables to match on both sides and also headcounts as well.

In effect I took out lots of variables regarding quality. I also discarded all the terrain rules by virtue of fighting the action across a plain.

The Battle of Gatehouse Road: Set on a small rise the road to the Gatehouse described a very low ridge.

The result was a long game where the game was left set up for several days – something I tend not to do. The reason was I felt compelled to find what the result would be by playing out the game.

The rules are not fast play and quick kills were not obvious where forces are very well balanced. At this point I should say that mostly smoothbore ruled the field. The exception was some muzzle loading riflemen. We are talking 1840’s not 1870’s.

I also suspect my use of the smallest size of units made the task of defeating an opponent harder. Although it should follow that units were eliminated quicker – which did not seem to happen.

I might just get a report out discussing the detail because I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed the ruleset mechanisms.

So where do I reckon “there are your guns” (TAYG) comes out against the basket of rules I tested recently?

In short with an overall score of 25 its looking very promising.

“there are your guns” (TAYG 1848) ruleset scores

Criterion	Score
Production	4
Rule Philosophy	8
Game Mechanisms	4
Action Mechanisms	9
Total	25

At 25 this ruleset came in joint second

The best thing about the rules were their feel – having read quite a few books now around the mid 19th century – the rules seemed to reflect well the descriptions/opinions I have encountered. Now one test does not answer every question and crucially I had in effect boxed off 4 brigades against 4 others with some divisional command on top. No flanking and no variability in force quality. No terrain influencers either.

There are your Guns or TAYG1848 – I can never resist an abbreviation

Overall I will be using this ruleset but I am not yet sure how. They feel like they need a sizeable force on the table.

Blue (with a bit of Green) on White – who won? or in this case did the rules win me over?

Happy wargaming.

Tags 19th century wargame rules, Blue on White, Caliver Books, dave ryan, general de brigade, mid 19th century wargames, rules test, TAYG 1848, The battle of Gatehouse Ridge, the other partizan, there are your guns - general de brigade, Vienna Treaty Wars, warfare in the age of steam, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe

Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame rules wargaming

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.

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

Ruletest B: The Battle of Symmetry Ridge: Piquet Field of Battle 1848-1861

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 9th Jun 2022
2 Comments on Ruletest B: The Battle of Symmetry Ridge: Piquet Field of Battle 1848-1861

The Battle of Symmetry Ridge

Following on from three simple battles using Fire & Fury, Piquet Field of Battle is the next ruleset for consideration. Published in 2011 – 20 years after Fire and Fury and card driven the ruleset should give a different feel.

The battle comprised the same forces that were used in the Fire and Fury ruletest A3 covered in a previous post.

The objective was to secure the ridge and drive off the opposing force.

The Forces this time were……….

Austria

Left Flank – Brigade Von Baden (Orange Facings)
Centre Left – No1 Field Artillery Battery
Centre Right – Erzherzog Albrecht Brigade (Red Facings)
Right Flank – 5th Graf Radetzky & 8th Ferdinand, Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha Cavalry Brigade

Piedmont

Left Flank – National Guard Milan Brigade
Centre Left – “A” Battery Field Artillery
Centre Right – Bersaglieri di Vignola Brigade
Right Flank – 3rd & 6th Piedmont (Lancers) Cavalry Brigade

The Battlefield itself is slightly altered from that used in the Fire & Fury battles.

The road bisects the battle field on the diagonal but notionally there is a ridge which it crosses and where an enclosed Orchard is located.

The Orchard is inpenetrable to all arms for all the remaining rules to be tested. So in effect it is a flank and divides the action into two areas.

The fence supplier is unknown but the orchard dates from the early 1970’s – by german model railway company Noch, not bad for 50 years of play.

In Field of Battle (FoB) terrain is classed for its impact on the game.

This means the orchard is a Class II line of sight blockage and a Class IV movement restriction.

Unit integrity is the key variable for each unit in the game. It reflects status/morale/strength as a variable.

Combat Capability is defined as a Dn (where n=an even value in the range 4-20) so thats D4,D6,D8,D10,D12,D20.

Opposed rolls is the way results are determined.

Command radius determines the limit of a leaders influence on the battlefield and is a variable (Dn x 10 = command radius in inches)

Initiative is determined by opposed rolls of the two Leaders respective dice. The difference equals the total initiative each side can use in this part of a turn. Turns get complicated but the game does not!

The winner of the opposed roll decides order of play.

The game is card driven and a deck for each side needs to be determined. In this case both sides used the exact same variables so ended up with identical card decks. In most games the playing decks would be asymmetrical.

Piquet is essentially an asymmetrical game. Therefore winning has to be defined to ensure the asymmetry does not simply distort the game one way each time.

On Turn 1 Step 1 the Austrians scored 9 on d10 against Piedmont just 4. This gave the Austrians 5 initiative points as the ACTIVE player.

In the event the Austrians drew 5 cards none of which were for movement. Essentially the army just stood transfixed.

Piedmont (REACTIVE player) now promptly drew some excellent cards for move and melee.

Piedmont right wing crash into the Austrians strung out on the road, a now regretted ploy.

The opposed roll dice off in Piquet is usually with different dice as factors peculiar to that melee move the players dice up or down the scale of d4/d6/d8/d10/d12/d20.

The Lancers went from d12 to d12+3 scoring 3 on the dice and adding 3 = 6

The Von Baden Brigade went from d10 down to d6 mitigating some negative factors through a discard of a tactical advantage card drawn in the ill fated Austrian Initiative as the ACTIVE player. Von Baden scored 3 on the dice.

The difference = 3 hits on the Austrians. This equated to 1 unit of integrity which is the value of 1 UI for all arms.

Each Army started with an Army Morale Rating of 4 – determined by the make up of the Army x a variable 1xd12. The range being 3 to 50.

The No1 Austrian Field Battery made short work of the impulsive Bersaglieri.

The Bersaglieri threw their defensive dice in the opportunity fire step. A 1 on the die!

The Austrians had their eye in, with a D10 moving to D12+1 and with a die roll of 4 scored 5. So 4 hits on the Bersagleri meant 1 unit of integrity lost plus a spare hit.

The Bersagleri retired 4″.

Piedmont also now saw their Army Morale drop from 4 to 3.

Piedmont still had initiative and the next cards drawn were Artillery Firepower and Infantry Firepower. Firing is permitted at any time a unit is ready to fire, these cards tell you a unit has reloaded. Hence the puffs denote units who have fired and cannot fire again until they get a firepower card from the deck.

It means you don’t know if that unit will be able to fire when charged…………the sort of randomness that many “face to face” gamers quite simply will find too constraining.

For the Solo Wargamer such an approach offsets the lack of the live opponent uncertainty and simply adds to the narrative.

“A” battery went up 2 from d10 to d12+1 threw 6 = 7

In response to this fire the Erzherzog Albrecht Brigade threw 4 on their d6. with 3 hits they lost 1 unit of integrity and another army morale point and went out of command.

The first round of initiative ended. And we are still in game turn 1!

The Austrians won the dice off again and gained 5 initiative.

The Austrians drew another 5 cards which included a lot of LULL’s – basically nothing happens.

They did managed some movement cards to get their troops into line.

On the Austrian Left Flank things were heating up

The Piedmont initiative started badly with an Army Morale card which meant testing for the army morale. failing the d12 throw meant all units went out of command (OOC).

“A” battery opened up again OOC but had no effect.

No other cards were of use and some more LULL put paid to the Piedmont initiative.

The next initiative die roll saw Piedmont win 8 to 2 giving 6 initiative points to them.

Artillery fire caused more damage to Brigade Erzherzog Albrecht
another round had no effect though
no other cards could be played

The Austrians had a mixed hand and did manage to inflict some more unit integrity loss as well as army morale reduction.

The next dice off saw the Piedmont grab the initiative again with 5 points advantage.

firepower was at first ineffective from the Bersaglieri and Milan Brigades
Bersaglieri then managed to attack the Austrian artillery again causing 1UI damage along with 1 army morale reduction
The Milan brigade then blasted the Piedmont Cavalry Brigade inflicting 1UI loss and a further army morale point deduction.
LULL and ARMY MORALE and MANOEUVRE cards followed

The Austrian response was

their artillery again damaged the Bersaglieri who lost 1UI and army 1 morale point
but then ARMY MORALE came up for the Austrians who had to die role their leadership dice of d10 against a d12 because their Army Morale rating was already reduced to zero.
the throw was lost

As a result of losing this throw the Austrians quit the field.

A victory for Piedmont and King Victor Emmanuel.

In effect this was all one game turn if you say the exhaustion of the deck is a game turn. Both sides had unturned cards.

The Milan Brigade eventually got into action and probably delivered the losses that tipped the balance in favour of Piedmont.

The game did feel different to Fire & Fury however it did play at the same sort of pace. I had played Field of Battle Piquet before which certainly helps as the processes are unusual.

I have some more reports coming, before concluding this rules test series.

Tags austrians, Field of Battle rules, fire and fury war game rules, mid 19th century wargames, piedmontese, Piquet Wargame Rules, rules test, solo wargaming, Vienna Treaty Wars, wargame rules, wargaming, wars of italian unification, wars of the italian unification

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