In the latest edition of THE COURIER (No. 64, Spring 1994), Pat Condray authored an interesting review of three sets of Franco-­Prussian War Rules. Pat went into the tactics permitted by the rules, movement distances, ratio of cavalry to infantry movement, unit sizes, unit frontages, the ratio of men-to-figures on the field, relative weapon ranges... in short, all the "recognizable patternry" of the era... those parameters that identify the game as being one associated with the period of the Franco-Prussian War. In accordance with the recognizable patternry of the weaponry factors of the era, Pat acknowledged that, in all the rules, the French infantry weapons outranged those of the Prussians. His summary went into great detail concerning this item. One factor commented on, but not analyzed, however, had to do with the casualty rates imposed by the rules on units in combat. In THEY DIED FOR GLORY (a scale of 50 men per figure), although Pat didn't discuss this, in the firing procedures, so many figures get so many 6-sided dice (Frenchmen getting somewhat more dice than Prussians) and we have the usual "4,5,6 hits at short range, 5,6 at medium range, and 6 at long range". In GRAND BATAILLE, GRAND VICTOIRE (GBGV), Pat did mention that each Prussian figure that fires gets a 12 percent chance to hit, each Frenchman gets 16%, and you multiply figures x percentage to get the total chance of a kill. In GBGV, each figure represents 60 men, hence people always die in groups of 60. The third set had yet a different scale (100 to 120 men per figure), and used a fire table (the usage was not really clear in the Condray write-up), but Pat indicated that 8 firing Prussians knocked off 1 Frenchman, a 12.5 percent ratio per firing figure. Now, sez I, what exactly does it mean that "a '6' hits at long range"? And what does it mean when you say that 60 Frenchmen have a 16 percent chance to kill 60 Prussians each time they fire? And 120 Prussians have 12.5 percent chance to kill 120 Frenchmen? Pat's analysis stated that one set of rules had the Prussian rifle firing effectively to 430 yards, another set to 800 yards, and the third set to 600 yards. These are arguable, said Pat. But he didn't take up arms against the prescribed casualty rates, accepting them as given. He did state that for one of the rules sets, the one with the lesser Prussian rifle range, "... the problem can be overcome if ... (the rules)... allowed firing lines 2 deep..." indicating, I think, that he wanted more firepower in the battalion frontage than the rules allowed. "The artillery ranges are more or less arguable." But, aside from focusing on range, here, too, the casualty rates were taken as given. One comment on kill rates, concerning the artillery, was: "All these rules give a pretty hefty melee value to artillery..." But we weren't made privy to what the authors thought the melee effectiveness of the gun crews should be. Guesswork What it all comes down to is that after you analyze the hell out of the rules, and the scales, and the weapon ranges, and the cavalry versus infantry movement distances, and whatever other physical parameters you can lay your hands on, the kill rates themselves are pure guesswork... instituted solely to make a playable game of the system. Hughes' FIREPOWER is often cited as a source, but as soon as I see a reference to the Hughes book, I know it's a fake-out, mentioned solely to impress the reader with the well roundedness of the rules author's grasp of military history. I've never yet seen a set of rules implementing any of the figures Hughes gives. In fact, as I remember, George Jeffrey wrote a convincing article or two, showing some inherent errors in Hughes's analyses. For casualty assessment, some rules rely on 6-sided dice, with their consequential 16 percent levels between gradations. Others use percentage dice in an effort to achieve a smoother probability curve. But for the numbers themselves... a guess is a guess is a guess. In the Franco-Prussian rules reviewed, each casualty removed a figure, thus reducing unit size and effectiveness. This approach is fairly standard throughout the hobby. My preference is to use data sheets to record "casualties". In truth, I'm not sure just what constitutes a "casualty"... it's an amalgam of a decrease in unit strength and size and coordination and morale and confidence and cohesiveness, etc. About the only definite thing I can say about casualties is that, should a unit get enough of them, the unit goes away. On the Simon casualty sheets, the effect of each casualty doesn't always produce an impact on unit size; each noted "casualty" reduces a unit's combat value or decreases its morale level or lessens some appropriate parameter. Different games call for different parameters. Back to PW Review June 1994 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1994 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com