wargame playtesting
Nov. 10th, 2007 07:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerNot playtesting as in rules development, but testing out a published set of rules to see if we like them. In this case, Might and Reason, a set of wargame rules for refighting 18th century battles.
Thanks to Phil and![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gr_c17for coming over. We had a good first outing for M&R, trying out the Lobositz scenario. Phil took the Prussians against a split Jan-and Bryan Austrian command.
We held the main body of Austrian infantry in the sunken road that formed the center of the Austrian (withdrawn) center, harassed the Prussian left with our Croat skirmishers from Lobosch Hill, and aggressively pressed the Prussian right with our main force of cavalry, while garrisoning Lobositz itself and Sulowitz on our left with contingents of grenadiers.
Phil screened our grenzers with a division of Prussian infantry, marched his main body toward our centre, and fought back with a large body of his horse against our cavalry on his right. The main action of the first several hours of the day was a constant back-and-forth mounted engagement. Prussian quality and Austrian quantity made it about even, but the Prussians eventually broke several of our divisions.
Their infantry eventually reached our main line of defence and began battering it with volleys, but after an initial effusion of Hapsburg blood, the Hohenzollern attack seemed to have stalled. We had to end the game before we reached either our break point or the end of the (game) day, but I suspect the battle would have ended as the historical one did, a bloody draw favouring the Prussian army.
Like the author's Napoleonic game (Grand Armee), M&R is very abstract. The systems are very simple to implement once one has learned them (at which point, of course, the challenge becomes how to gain the best advantage from them). Prussian musketry is very formidable, as it was historically; the Austrians should not count on winning the infantry battle without an advantage of numbers and generalship, terrain, and/or luck. Their chances are better of overwhelming the Prussians by defeating their (better but usually less numerous) cavalry or by finding a good defensive position and bleeding the Prussians white as they try to take it from you.
The centrepiece of the game is (again like GA) the command system, and both armies had a number of small mistakes and a number of opportunities to seize the initiative, though none of either turned out to be immediately decisive. The Prussians routinely had better command resources (again, like their historical counterparts), and I would say that part of what allowed them to gain the upper hand in the cavalry battle was a greater proportion of valorous leaders (though most of these were killed or wounded as a result of their bravery) and greater and more effective use of the initiative.
I think all three of us were left unsure whether the game seemed historically convincing or satisfying, but I think we all felt we would like to give it another go and see what happens.
Thanks to Phil and
gr_c17for coming over. We had a good first outing for M&R, trying out the Lobositz scenario. Phil took the Prussians against a split Jan-and Bryan Austrian command. We held the main body of Austrian infantry in the sunken road that formed the center of the Austrian (withdrawn) center, harassed the Prussian left with our Croat skirmishers from Lobosch Hill, and aggressively pressed the Prussian right with our main force of cavalry, while garrisoning Lobositz itself and Sulowitz on our left with contingents of grenadiers.
Phil screened our grenzers with a division of Prussian infantry, marched his main body toward our centre, and fought back with a large body of his horse against our cavalry on his right. The main action of the first several hours of the day was a constant back-and-forth mounted engagement. Prussian quality and Austrian quantity made it about even, but the Prussians eventually broke several of our divisions.
Their infantry eventually reached our main line of defence and began battering it with volleys, but after an initial effusion of Hapsburg blood, the Hohenzollern attack seemed to have stalled. We had to end the game before we reached either our break point or the end of the (game) day, but I suspect the battle would have ended as the historical one did, a bloody draw favouring the Prussian army.
Like the author's Napoleonic game (Grand Armee), M&R is very abstract. The systems are very simple to implement once one has learned them (at which point, of course, the challenge becomes how to gain the best advantage from them). Prussian musketry is very formidable, as it was historically; the Austrians should not count on winning the infantry battle without an advantage of numbers and generalship, terrain, and/or luck. Their chances are better of overwhelming the Prussians by defeating their (better but usually less numerous) cavalry or by finding a good defensive position and bleeding the Prussians white as they try to take it from you.
The centrepiece of the game is (again like GA) the command system, and both armies had a number of small mistakes and a number of opportunities to seize the initiative, though none of either turned out to be immediately decisive. The Prussians routinely had better command resources (again, like their historical counterparts), and I would say that part of what allowed them to gain the upper hand in the cavalry battle was a greater proportion of valorous leaders (though most of these were killed or wounded as a result of their bravery) and greater and more effective use of the initiative.
I think all three of us were left unsure whether the game seemed historically convincing or satisfying, but I think we all felt we would like to give it another go and see what happens.
