Wargame Rules Review – Bayreuth Campaign

Bayreuth Campaign Map

Over the past sixteen weeks I have used the Bayreuth Campaign Phase of our 1813 campaign to play test the new rules.   Rather than set up one off wargames, I have run the Bayreuth campaign as a normal phase of the ongoing campaign.   Bayreuth was the next campaign due to be run, and it has in no way affected the running of the campaign on the computer.  

In fact I planned this when I first decided to rewrite the wargame rules.   In March 2023 I started work on a new set of rules.   At that time I was nearing the end of the Merida Campaign Phase of the campaign.   I expected that it would take at least weeks, and possibly months, to write and play test a new set of rules.   So rather than put the campaign on hold, I decided to use the battles from the next phase to wargame the new rules.  

When I started work on the campaign map for Bayreuth I took care to ensure that as wide a variety of terrain as possible was available.   This is quite normal because the regional map, in this case Erfurt, only shows major terrain features such as roads, rivers and cities.   These are transferred to the district map, which is the one used for the campaign.  

On the campaign map I have freedom to choose where to put hills, woods, villages and farms.   It is these minor terrain features which determine the wargames table and the flow of play. 

The rules worked well playing the wargames provided by the Bayreuth campaign.   There was no need for any major rewrite.   It was only during repeated Wargaming that I could determine how well firing, melee and morale worked.   For example in this campaign the French had a big advantage when skirmishing.   This is because the Russian infantry have good morale, average musket fire but poor skirmish ability.   The French infantry would move to skirmish range (4” from the enemy) and skirmish.   The Russians would then have to advance to musket range (2” from enemy) where they would be on a par with the French musket ability.

On the other hand the Russians have very effective artillery.   I have simplified artillery fire so that all guns have a maximum range of 12”, which is the same distance as cavalry charge range.   In counter battery fire guns need to roll 6 at long range, or 5 or 6 at short range.   However 12 pdr guns have plus 1.   6 pdr guns have minus 1.   9 pdr guns fire par.   The Russians have 2x12 pdr and 1x9 pdr guns.  The French have 1x12 pdr and 2x9 pdr.   It does not sound like a big advantage, but on the table it often proved decisive.   As the French advanced the Russian artillery always got at least one chance to fire before they could unlimber.   One hit would reduce the French fire ability by minus 1.

These changes were deliberate, but they still took a little getting used to in the fast ebb and flow of a wargame.   Cavalry was used to threaten enemy artillery, or at least force them to redeploy to counter the cavalry.   For example if the French artillery were deployed on the left of the corps, the cavalry were placed on the right. The Russian guns could not cover both targets.   They could, of course, use their own cavalry to counter the French horsemen.     But half of the Russian cavalry were Cossacks, who were at a disadvantage against the better trained French horsemen.  These were factors which had to be taken into account before the game started, and would take a little time to adjust to.

There was only one major change in the rules.   All combat is decided by using 1D6 dice, plus or minus factors such as casualties, training, supports etc.   The side with the highest total would be the winner, the other the loser.   This was my first draft:

Total 1          Winner lose 2 casualties    Loser lose no casualty

Total 2-5       Winner lose 1 casualty       Loser lose 1 casualty   

Total 6          Winner lose no casualty     Loser lose 2 casualty

I quickly found that this gave too much advantage to a roll of 1 or 6.   The side who lost the two casualties would often fail their morale and rout.   The winner would have no casualties and could continue to attack.   This gave winning cavalry in particular a very strong advantage.

I only have to make a minor change to remedy this unexpected result.   The second draft was:

Total 1 or 2   Winner lose 1 casualty       Loser lose no casualty

Total 3 or 4   Winner lose 1 casualty       Loser lose 1 casualty

Total 5 or 6   Winner lose no casualty     Loser lose 1 casualty

This still gave a decided advantage to the side that rolled 6, but it still gave the losing side a reasonable chance of winning the resulting melee check.

I am still working on towns, and particularly walled towns.   I am looking at different options to either storm or lay siege.   At present sieges are a paper (or rather computer) exercise.   The garrison can hold for as many days as they have supplies.   But this is often 2 or 3 days, which is a long time is the usual 6 or 7 day campaign.   I would prefer the storm option, but getting the balance right between attacker and defender is difficult, particularly with the high or low dice throw problem

But I am confident enough to have replaced the printed rules with the new ones.