POLEMOS - FRANCO PRUSSIAN WAR - DESIGNERS NOTES

by Peter Riley

Introduction
In this section I am trying to give some explanation to the reasoning, approach and development decisions behind the Franco Prussian rules. I will focus on the modelling and try to explain some of the decisions taken along the way to delivering these rules.

Troop Quality
With some rules the focus of troop quality is more about placing troops in categories, if they are Imperial Guard then they must be fantastic, you are only allowed 5% in your army and that is it, the list is final. What if you want to play with the whole the Imperial Guard Corps? Are they all the same supermen? Are they really unbeatable?

I happen to think that approach is very restrictive and unrealistic. With Polemos we begin to break this down and can give the Guards differing levels of experience and play with the whole Corps if you want to.

If you want to represent your favourite units like the French Marines, then they can be the Veteran Elites they were. Battalions of Jaegers or Chasseurs really can be Trained - Elite (SK2) units and not just be lumped in with the Infantry for convenience. You can even model the Papal Zouave’s as Raw Elites who probably thought they were better than they really were in action.

Base Scales
With the main rules focusing on the “Base” we can be fairly confident, within reason, in handing over the “scale” of the game to the players. This allows you the players to dictate what you want to play, based on how may bases you have and not what should have.

I personally do not like rules that say how many bases there are in a regiment, battalion or cavalry unit; therefore I need 55 bases to represent this Corps and I only have 25. How frustrating is that? In Polemos FPW I can change the parameters somewhat. For example with infantry bases representing from 500 to 1000 men it gives you the control to halve, or double, the amount of infantry bases you need to play the game.

So in creating the following two divisions we have shown that depending on your decisions you can scale the game to what you have in bases.

In choosing the 1000 men per base for infantry some of the formations were not dividing perfectly, so I have rounded some of the brigades up or down or amalgamated them. I rounded the total of men to even up the number of bases in the brigades.

However I could have used 750 men per base and rounded up instead of down. If I had chosen to round up I would have 12 bases instead of 10 bases, so the system is really flexible to you the player. What I really like is the freedom this approach gives to forming armies and formations that I want to play, rather than being told what scale and size of battle I have to play.

Army Organisation
With army organisations I have, again, tried to open this up to the players; so rather than prescribe what you can have, the approach taken is more from a “what do you want” viewpoint. I want players to feel unrestricted by theoretical organisational tables, which they can still use as a guide, and to be able to use historical examples as well.

For example in CDA we have “formations” that are, at this level, groupings of troops either within a Corps (Force), they could be divisions, or can be separate ad-hoc formations (divisions) under the direct command of a general, which would act like a force. As an example the detachment of the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg 1871 had a Bavarian Corps and a number of detached divisions attached to him. Each Corp and Division has a general reporting directly to him and the divisions would be a good example of Formations (divisions) acting like Forces (Corps).

And using the Mecklenburg example:

Detachment - GDk Friedrich

1st Bavarian Corps (2 Formations)

1st Division - 4 Brigades (units)

2nd Divisions - 4 Brigades (units)

17th Division, Schimmelmann (Force) - 2 Brigades (units)

22nd Division, Wittich (Force) - 2 Brigades (units)

2nd Cavalry Division, Stolberg (Force) - 3 Brigades (units)

And in this fictional example:
III Army - CinC
1st Corps (Force) - General
2 Infantry Divisions (2 Formations)
1st Division - 4 Brigades (units)
2nd Divisions - 4 Brigades (units)
1 Cavalry Division (1 Formation)
1st Division - 2 Brigades (units)

The basic premise is to enable the players to use the flexible system to suit the battle they want to play. To fulfil, the sometimes, ad hoc nature of the forces generals had to hand, model the imperfect world battles happened in and to not restrict and confine the games to set lists and so many points a side.

Tempo
I will not say too much on tempo, however my thoughts and changes here were primarily around Generals and rating them.

I felt that the French and Prussian generals in the Franco Prussian war were such an influence on the way the battles were fought and the armies performed, they needed to be included and separated out. This gives us the ability to use the armies more as they would have been the French with their defensive doctrine, the Prussians using their strategic envelopments.

Some actions are, I think, should not be more expensive because you have won the initiative I argue some may be cheaper. I think this is the case with rallying from shaken should be less expensive for the non-tempo player. They have not been busy moving troops forward, positioning troops for attacks and taking or delivering orders. With this in mind I have made rallying from shaken cheaper for the non-tempo side, this is more about those officers on the non-tempo side spending more time steadying their men, walking the line, cajoling those who were faltering and reinvigorating their troops ready for action. They would have the time to spend doing these jobs, not just waiting around to be attacked.

I have, I think, placed more importance on winning the Tempo bidding phase by streamlining the combat procedure and allowing combats to flow across turns. I think that adding in reserves in the current rounds tends to favour the defence; it should be a function of Tempo and brave generals.

Bombardment
With the Bombardment phase and the new technologies available I have taken the view that it would be an ongoing process, a sort of “whole turn” approach to modelling the phase. It would also be the where the longer ranged artillery attacks would take place as opposed to the closer ranged support role artillery have in the ranged combat phase.

Although the guns available are accurate to over 3,000 metres, judging a distance at these ranges is almost impossible and observation of fire very uncertain. Most artillerists fired at much less than 2,000 meters and anything over 1,500 metres was considered wasteful, unless particular circumstances demand it or the size and composition of a target warrant it. This was however mostly due to crews not wanting to be short of ammunition as ranges closed.

This approach covers lots of things like the French habit of moving batteries out of the line to replenish ammunition, which led to a distinct nervousness among other batteries and troops in the line. The Prussians serviced their batteries in place. The demoralizing effects on batteries of a prolonged duel, and the huge effort of firing the guns for long periods of time; they are only human and we gamers can forget that sometimes.

A further example of this is the shaken result for bombarding artillery; this can represent things like fatigue or the morale effect at making such a poor job of bombardment, a slower rate of fire through not wanting to waste ammunition or possibly a loss of cohesion due the bombardment not having any effect and nervousness of over exposure in the open to the possibility of attracting counter battery fire.

I am sure there are more examples however I am sure you get the idea and there are enough to be going on with. I think the table and the results deliver the impressions of these effects on the game.

Ranged Attacks “Firing”
Here I have tried to show the inherent advantages that the French had in the Chassepot; it was a really fantastic rifle. It had a “very long short” range, if that makes sense, so it can fire at point blank range from 1 BW away this added to their defensive doctrine is their one true advantage and possible downfall.

The Dreyse & Podwills rifles were showing their age by this period and were really outclassed by the Chassepot, hence the contact point blank range. The Prussians were forced into trying to close under their own artillery fire and charge over the last few hundred meters to get into contact. I have tried to model this through the ranged combat outcomes tables adding in the Going to Ground results. Attacks would invariably falter and I think this highlights the problems that the leaders faced in trying to attack troops in good positions. I think this method gives a good feel to attacks in the game with officers trying to get troops on the move again.

The Prussians were generally shot to pieces in the attack; however their superiority in artillery tended to save them. This means that the Prussians must use artillery to support infantry attacks into close combat.

Launching Attacks “Combat”
I have made a large effort to streamline this phase, in the FPW there was no combined arms approach to tactical combat as there was in the Napoleonic period. Weapons had advanced to such a degree that Cavalry was not as effective and Artillery had longer ranges than in the earlier period.

I was not really comfortable with the idea of piling in more troops during the same phase to extend the combat to and try to finish it in one turn. I also thought through the process and realised that by not having this element it makes the next tempo bidding phase a more crucial part of the game. You could bring in supports in the next turn but it would be a conscious decision by the CinC to do this, it does add the ability for the tempo winner (unpredictable to who thinks it’s more important) to react first.

So this places more emphasis on tempo bidding and active command decisions rather than just having troops handy when on the defensive. Even if you have more depth to your organisation by being defensive it makes for a more command driven response to engage in combat. I have also combined some of the tables to make it a more streamlined process through to the outcomes.

Summary
I hope players enjoy these rules and the freedoms I think they give. Please fell free to change them to suit yourselves and the games you want to play. I have tried to deliver a game that you will enjoy that gives each side advantages and disadvantages, challenges to overcome and situations to plan for. Most importantly for me is that I think they play right.