"Solo Wargaming FPW" Topic

Hello,

I'm realtively new to FPW, but it seems to me that the French were particularily passive in the Imperial Phase of the War. This jumped out to me as a easy way to play solo with the player as the Prussians. Has anyone experimented with this? Are there any rules that seem to be ideal for this? I have read several and I enjoy the period flavour of TheyDiedForGlory, to my very limited reading there is quite a bit to differentiate the FPW and not have it as Napoleonics with Mitrailleuses.

Thanks!

I have been solo gaming the Franco Prussian War in 15mm scale for many years. I use modified Fire And Fury rules and quite enjoy them. My games are large scale though with regiments as the main units. IIRC They Died For Glory are meant for battalion level and more suited for smaller actions. The rifles used in the FPW definitely need changes from the Napoleonic muzzle loaders most of which were smooth-bore muskets.

I've soloed the FPW quite a bit using 1871 for rules. The only concern is coming up with a way to make the French command as passive as they were historically.

You could try the Piquet Field of Battle v3 rules. They use a card initiative system, which makes playing solo much easier. Plus the initiative decks can be varied to reflect the command's quality.

There was a very interesting blog on solo-playing the early campaigns of the FPW as a campaign with the French controlled by the rules to replicate their historical passivity. The blog seems to have disappeared.
Te rules were called BRAVE GENS by Pierre Laporte, it is hex-based but I'm sure could be adapted if that's a 'no-go' for you.
I did download the rules, scenarios and supporting bits'n'pieces and could email them to you if you'd like.

I'm a big fan of Field of Battle, the use of separate (and differently composed) army card decks allows for good solo play. The rules are pretty easy to learn.

For a campaign I've used Realtime Wargames rules "To the Last Gaiter Button". I think they're pretty well done so you might check them out.

It's the French passivity in real life that has made Franco Prussian wargaming unpopular for years. Why would anyone want to play historically accurate Franco Prussian War??? My whole interest in the period came from reading Robert Howard's excellent narrative on the conflict,and learning how many chances the French had to claiming victories in many of the battles. "The myth of German invincibility" was just that. Why play rules that reinforce that myth? I want to play games where BOTH sides have an equal chance of victory. There are enough differences (both tactical and technical) to make it interesting enough without restricting the French command to the low standards of history. I would add that the French high command improved significantly when many of its commanders returned from foreign posts. I believe that the general wargaming public would have much more interest in the period IF the French have a chance of winning a game now and then. I have always believed that one of the principle foundations of wargaming has been to see how things may have been different if different decisions were made. Not slavishly repeating the mistakes of the past. Where is the fun in that? Why refight battles or campaigns of history if the outcome is a forgone conclusion? Rant over.

Perris, that isn't a rant – I totally agree, even down to Howard's book..

You might consider "Bloody Big BATTLES!" (BBB).

BBB was originally created to fight entire FPW battles in an evening. The rulebook includes nine scenarios for all the largest battles of the war. Another seven are freely available in the files of the BBB groups.io group:
groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles

As far as solo play is concerned, BBB was positively reviewed in Lone Warrior, the journal of the Solo Wargamers' Association, as reported here:
link
For collected reviews of BBB, see here:
link
Lots of FPW battle reports on the BBBBlog too.

On the particular question of French passivity: BBB's unit activation mechanism explicitly addresses this in two ways. The first is that the scenarios mostly give the French fewer Generals than the Germans, meaning fewer French units will get the +1 bonus on their movement rolls that a general provides. The second is that French forces in the Imperial phase are generally afflicted with the "Passive" attribute that is a -1 penalty on their movement rolls. These two factors mean the French forces will generally be less agile and responsive and their manoeuvres less well coordinated than the Germans'.

In response Perris's understandable point about players being put off FPW because it seems one-sided: the French army was a defective machine and FPW games should reflect that. That doesn't mean you have to make the player an inept Bazaine or ban him from making different decisions from the historical ones, but you do have to impose some command and control limitations on the French so that the player then has to operate under realistic constraints. Making best use of an imperfect tool is an interesting challenge in its own right.

But that certainly doesn't mean the French can't win on the tabletop. The BBB scenario design approach is basically to take the historical outcome as the "par score". Even if the French can't possibly turn it around entirely and achieve a genuine victory (e.g., Sedan), if they can lose a given battle less badly or less quickly than their historical counterpart, they can win in game terms. BBB games have provided plenty of French victories.

The result of this approach, plus the wonderful asymmetry between the two armies in terms of weapons and doctrine, is to produce really different and interesting tactical challenges and many exciting games that usually go down to the last few dice on the last turn.

Good luck with finding the ruleset that works for you. Plenty of choice out there.

Our club uses "They Died For Glory" and has enjoyed them immensely. Highly recommended!

link