"Which of the Prussia wars are the most gameable?" Topic

Looking at the wars of German unification which do you think are the most playable? What I mean is were the Prussian campaigns of the 19th century not too challenging or were any of them close enough to make a good game? Always seemed to me that the FPW was too stacked in thew Prussians favour with the poor performance of the French. Was it closer than hindsight suggests?

My favourite is the Six Weeks War as it is so asymmetrical.

Tactically the FPW is rather more evenly matched.

Not one of Bismarck's but how about the First Schleswig War?

I don't understand your concept of gameability. Why does a battle need to be close to make for a good game? We've done lots of FPW battles and Koniggratz. They were all interesting and challenging. The Germans might have the superior artillery in the FPW, but the French have chassepots, so both sides have their challenges.

I like the 6 weeks war, if your Prussians are too unbeatable, fight the actions away from the main theatre. I ran konigratz as a acw disguised game that was fantastic, with the 'austrian' sides morale collapsing when the last corps marched on. Until then they were winning a hard fought action.

Franco-Prussian War – +1 AussieAndy

Do you want a campaign or a battle? As a campaign, I'd go with the Sex Weeks War. FPW generally gives better battles, especially in the Republican phase. But as noted, both the SWW and the FPW have some interesting asymnetries.

I'm with AussieAndy.

"playability" is much more about scenario design than anything else. I have played an Alamo game and it was an absolute hoot. Not a detailed game by any means but loads of fun, and every game came down to the last turn.

If your scenario assumes winning is doing better than your historical counterpart, a little thought can make any battle interesting and fun to play. For example, my big summer project is Cold War Gone Hot. I'll have 300-400 Soviet tanks, with supports, against a much smaller NATO force. NATO can win, not by "winning the battle" but by delaying the Soviets long enough.

Take a look at the rule sets 1866 and 1870 which have fantastic scenarios for those wars (at a grand tactical level).

Robert piepenbrink@ the Sex Weeks War is a new one on me 😳. Not sure I have the miniatures or rules for that one 🤣

Austro-Prussian.

seven day of sex makes one weak.

seven day of sex makes one weak. I guess I have become old enough to make bad puns.

There is great gaming to be had from all the "hyphenated wars" of the later nineteenth century. None of Prussia's victories were walkovers and they can generate good tabletop contests. As others have mentioned above, the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars in particular were very asymmetrical – in weapons, doctrine and leadership. Those asymmetries make for rich tactical challenges – hence interesting games – as each side tries to exploit its strengths and the enemy's weaknesses.

Extra Crispy's point about scenario design is spot on. We originally created the "Bloody Big Battles!" rules (BBB) to fight Franco-Prussian War battles and have done historical scenarios for all the major FPW battles. The victory conditions are designed along the lines Extra Crispy suggests: the historical result is roughly the "par score": achieve that and you get a draw; do better and you earn a win. BBB scenarios nearly always produce close games because they're designed that way. Witness this comment from Jim Owczarski of the "Armchair Dragoons", who fought Gravelotte online recently:

"The French gave it an honest go at Gravelotte for "Bloody Big Battles" but, in the end, the Prussians were just too much. Strangely, the scenario proved a tightly-designed one and the game ended far more closely than it felt." (Jim's game was a German victory; last time I played it, the French won.)

There are a lot of free scenarios available from the files of the BBB io group (now over 1,000 members). I'd encourage you to join and take a look. Even if the BBB ruleset doesn't appeal, you might be able to adapt scenarios for your preferred rules and (hopefully) get good games out of them. Group homepage is here:
groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
Austro-Prussian War files here:
link
Franco-Prussian War files here:
link

Also plenty of game reports on the BBBBlog so you can see if APW, FPW etc sounds fun to play:
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com

And lots of good advice to be had from the 1,100 helpful people on the BBB Facebook page:
link

Sorry for going on at such length but I hope you'll forgive my enthusiasm. It's a great period to wargame and I'd definitely encourage you to try it.

Thank you gentlemen. Great discussion. I understand it all comes down to scenarios and victory objectives. I guess my original question came across differenlty than i intended. I just wish that the Perrys would release some French command then i would jump into FPW like a shot.

FM

1866 is much more even than the later FPW. Prussian artillery doctrine was not what is was in 1870. The Austrians have a chance. They will pay a price but can win.

Thanks.

John

I enjoyed doing research on the Danish-Prussian conflicts. I published them in Time Portal Passages which were available on the Magweb site. I even did a 1:20 expansion for both eras in the Fire and Discipline series. So that would be my vote.

👍+1 for the Sex Weeks War.

Some of us refer to the Austro-Prussian War, 6 weeks war, or as 1866.

Ok, I get the concept of comparing whether the underdog has done better than the historical commander, but I don't really get why this is seen in terms of "winning". We run historical battles because it is interesting to do so (and, sometimes, we even learn something from the process), but it's just a game. I choose not to game with folk who actually care about winning.

I want both sides to focus on winning the game, not just the battle—there's a difference. Winning a battle doesn't always mean that side has truly won. Sometimes, victory comes from achieving specific objectives or simply mitigating losses. It all depends on the victory conditions.

Yes, victory conditions. Without them—or some defined mission—why even play? How else do we measure success? The challenge of trying to win is part of the fun, and along the way, players can gain insights into the battle and the broader conflict.

Victory conditions shape strategy and tactics. Without them, what's the point? I've found that players without clear objectives often become passive and overly defensive. I prefer games where players are actively engaged and genuinely care about winning.