"If it's an encounter battle, is it really FPW?" Topic

I've seen a few reports lately of Franco-Prussian War games that are typical tabletop meeting engagements: both sides advancing towards objectives in the middle of the table, both sides bringing on reinforcements from their table edge.

These prompted me to run through in my head all the FPW battles I'm familiar with. The only one that comes close to being that kind of battle is Mars-la-Tour, and even then, although the Germans are rushing reinforcements forward into the line, they are really on the defensive.

Hence my question in the subject line: if our FPW troops are fighting a battle of a kind that never really happened that way, is it really FPW? Or is it just a generic wargame in different hats?

NB – this is not meant to disparage. It's always good to see FPW on the table and the games in question were attractive spectacles and evidently good fun, which is surely the primary objective and there's no "wrong way" to do that. I'm just curious about people's views on the more abstract question.

Hmm. My opinion isnt binding, but I'd say it's a plausible brigade action or so, but not how FPW "Big Battles" were conducted, which means other things won't feel right either.

I'm afraid dual-attack battles, like symmetrical terrain, are the wargaming defaults--the way to obtain an indisputably "fair" or "balanced" game. Attacker-defender battles are much harder to balance. Me for either (1) a flat historical battle, or (2) a plausible hypothetical. Either way, one player designs the game and the other picks which side he plays.

As Robert says, at levels below Division or Corps possibly. But generally late nineteenth century battles weren't like that, usually one side attacked the other. There is no doubt the odd exception, maybe Langensalza? I'm sure there were plenty of ACW engagements where both sides blundered into each other but I'm only familiar with the big ACW battles.

I've fought a few of these C19th battles where both sides are advancing to seize objectives and they never feel right to me, not helped by their usually is no logic as to why taking the objective now is so important.
I know attack-defend battles favour the defender, but, if not a historical ecounter, the attacker should have plenty of troops, but ideally some time pressure as well to stop them just standing off and bombarding.
Even if the 'battle' is unfair (is war menat to be fair?) you can always swap sides and play it again to see if you can do better than your oppoenent in the refight.
Failing that, chip-games are a fun way to play unbalanced games.

How I play chit-games: link

OP, are you saying it is not FPW because it is a hypothetical battle?

79th, be fair: He's saying it's not the TYPE of battle fought in the FPW. I could write a scenario in which two Western Front 1917 armies simultaneously leave their trenches and attack one another and call it a hypothetical, but I think everyone's first thought would be "1917 castings, but not not a 1917 battle." Same thing if I had a hoplite army defending a ridge line.

My thinking is that you need at least half a dozen battles at the same level to make a period for rules purposes--which is why I tend to think "Second Empire" rather than "Crimean War" or "1859"--but if you get near a dozen and certain types of battles never appear in the historical record, there's probably a good reason.

Dual attack tends to be the norm for field engagements through the Napoleonic Wars. Afterward, you find "meeting engagements" with smaller forces told to seize some critical bridge or road junction, but you have to look pretty hard to find two divisions attacking each other.

"Convenient for scenario designers" isn't the same as "typical of the period."

If the troops on the table are French and German from 1870 it's FPW regardless of the scenario imho. I think that one of the major "turn-offs" for gamers over the years to gaming the FPW is the very one-sided nature of the historical event. I am all for scenarios that actually have the French advancing. Toward anything. 🤣

TBH most FPW game reports I see are at a level way below the scale of the massive, sprawling historical battles. A battle with a total of a couple dozen battalions or even brigades on the field isn't FPW size – but it is fun. It's perfectly reasonable to presume the rest of the army is off-table in one or more directions and the action on the table is just the focus of a limited contest between sub-generals over a terrain feature, line of communications, or across a line of march. There has to be some point at which troops arrive, and another at which the enemy arrives, so a small snapshot of a large battle could look like an encounter battle to those conducting the fight. If you force one side to start dug in, you've determined what kind of battle it's going to be; leaving it to the commanders on the spot to decide what kind of battle they want to fight is a legitimate scenario design consideration.

That said, I'm personally not that into straight-up even fights over a blank field. I find it more interesting to have asymmetrical battles, with a larger context that defines the players' goals, and issues that fit the narrative, like the timing of reinforcements, coordination problems, the mismatched goals of commanders on the same side, something like that.

"I am all for scenarios that actually have the French advancing. Toward anything."

Surely not that hard to find historical ones after Sedan?

I don't game the Republican period. So…

Does it matter? All war games by their very nature are "… just a generic wargame in different hats…" because they are just games. Is playing game out of character any more unrealistic than a refight? I have read many reports of refights and most only have a passing likeness to the historical action. In most cases a rough approximation of the terrain is set up, the units are set up in fixed start positions. In some cases there are some constraints on arrival times, but generally players are permitted to act as they wish. It all seems as historical as Ridley Scott's "Napoleon".

I have two basic issues with historical refights. First, the players have the benefit of knowing what actually happened and, since you can't unknow what you know, any player worth his salt is going to avoid the historical mistakes – no gamer is going to dither as Bazaine did at Mars-la-Tour knowing that he outnumbers his opponent 3:1. Second, you can't accurately recreate the risk that existed in real battles – after the game you are just going to pack your figures back in their boxes and go home instead of trying to figure out how to extract yourself from a disastrous situation or how to exploit a victory.

To that end I prefer to take a more creative approach by presenting a challenging situation, often with a nod to an historical situation, and make players think…of course all that falls apart the moment the game starts because few gamers are able to think as a real general would – build fire superiority before launching an attack, maintain a reserve, etc – they just want to get stuck in and start rolling dice in the limited time available to play the game.

Very early in the war there was a 'what if' moment where encounter actions could have been possible. From 28 July to 4 August the French enjoyed a numerical superiority in the Palatinate with four French Corps in position facing two Prussian Corps of First Army, before the Prussian Second Army had begun to make passage through the Hardt. Indeed Marshal Leboeuf actually proposed an offensive in that direction. Of course, the incompetence of the French Intendance meant that such an operation could not have been supplied, but what if Louis Napoleon had for a brief moment had acted like his uncle?

"…what if Louis Napoleon had for a brief moment had acted like his uncle?"

Now THAT's a pretty big "what if?"

Napoleon III was no Napoleon.

Thanks very much for all the thoughtful replies.

I myself am firmly in the historical refight mode. The point of my question was to try to peer out of that rut and get some other perspectives. It was more a critique of my own narrow view than of anyone else's approach, in the spirit of my popular "Reflections on Wargaming" essay, "Reasons NOT to refight historical battles":
link

I therefore particularly welcomed the responses from BillyNM, Perris and Mark.

Billy: the "chit games" idea is not one I've encountered before. Very interesting!

Perris: I can understand you want to see your gallant imperial zouaves etc advancing for a change. Actually there are places you can do that in a historical way, eg attempting a breakout at Sedan, or the sortie from Metz at Noisseville.

Mark: "Does it matter?" In short, no! (By the way, I have great respect for your knowledge, craftsmanship, and the fine games you run.) It's a question partly of definition, but even more a question of what the aim of a game is. Historical representation is only one element and itself has multiple aspects (the troops, the tactics, the generals' situational awareness and fog of war). Presenting a challenging and interesting tactical puzzle is at least as important. If that means a "what-if" that diverges from the history to some degree, go for it.

Thanks also Robert, Martin, Yellow Admiral for your contributions. The point about the level of game is a good one.

I have done four hypothetical meeting engagements and they were all fun. One as an attack on a town near the a historical battle which could have part of a larger battle. An other was a race between two divisions to capture the last train station before Metz was surrounded.

Don't know if it actually happened but I don't care. Looking back, I should have placed more terrain out. But it was loads of fun. The third was a game to get everyone familiar with the rules. I thought they were historically plausible.

I prefer historical scenarios. They can be just as challenging as a made up one. I am never worried about the players knowing the outcome of the battles. Because they do not go to the trouble of looking it up. So what if they did, good for them. If I caused someone to actually learn something about the conflict then that's great. They earned the advantage they have.

I did a fun scenario where we refought 1815 Plancenoit using 1870 armies.

link