Game: Friedrich

Image

-toni- — 2008-09-04T15:26:45+00:00

Army bits (Russia and Sweden) and their covers - friends of mine made them for me as a birthday present

Image

-toni- — 2008-09-04T15:05:12+00:00

Army bits - instead of writing their numbers on paper

Image

-toni- — 2008-09-04T15:00:36+00:00

Army bits for Austria - cylindrical like the generals, but smaller

Thread: Re: Playing Time??

Dr Schlotter — 2008-09-02T13:46:49+00:00

Wow, richard

On the weekend we had played 5 games, and I am happy to give the times:

game 1: 11 turns, 2h 30m
game 2: 15 turns, 3h 10m
game 3: 23 turns, 5h 15m
game 4: 17 turns, 4h 10m
game 5: 16 turns, 4h 30m

That's almost 20 hours of play! It was some weekend I'd say!

Thread: Re: Review and comment

erickleung — 2008-09-02T08:26:49+00:00

I agree with all above. I think the game has a very clever system. Each players has different supply rate of their cards. and they always to make decision either to build army or to reserve for one battle. A general has to go home when he lose all his army. the general cannot win a battle when he is out of card in matching suit. This system works very smoothly and simpler than tradition die rolls with CRT.

Thread: Re: Wonderful game of maneuver & strategy-far better than Shogun

Wolfshade — 2008-08-27T06:12:31+00:00

Cleitus the Black wrote:

Friedrich is the real deal. But I haven't solo'd it yet and doubt it will play that way at all.

How are you liking Bitter Woods?

I recently introduced Tide of Iron to the gamers I play with.
So when they feel comfortable with that I plan to take them to Bitter Woods.

In the meantime I got myself a copy of Friedrich as well . Now I'll (try to) stop gathering games (except @Spiel 2008 ;p) and start playing those I have .

Thread: Re: Review and comment

talrich — 2008-08-25T17:45:48+00:00

wargamer55 wrote:
Typcally, in a dice game there's some kind of odds table.That's a fair point. I'm meaning to compare Friedrich to other wargames that explore strategic decisions, but are lighter on battlefield tactics.

Compare Friedrich and Crusader Rex. Both involve disposition of forces, supply, feints, and retreats, but neither has "take that hill" style battlefield decisions. In both games, once the battle has begun, you're largely only deciding when to get out.

Between these two games, the card to dice comparision works well.

wargamer55 wrote:
As far as the map being the heart of the game, I have to disagree. While the map is important, this sort of point-to-point map has been used a hundred time before and there isn't anything particularly notable about it. No, it's the card and how they are used that sets Friedrich apart.I think we're talking about two different things. I agree that the cards are Friedrich's innovation, but when you say "heart of the game", I'm thinking of where the game is decided. The game is decided on the map. I've never had a card draw that won me the game, but I have had manuvers that have.

Best,
-Greg

Thread: Re: Review and comment

wargamer55 — 2008-08-25T17:08:49+00:00

frunkee wrote:
wargamer55 wrote:
As far as the map beiung the heart of the game, I have to disagree. While the map is important, this sort of point-to-point map has been used a hundred time before and there isn't anything particularly notable about it. No, it's the card and how they are used that sets Friedrich apart.

I think it's the cards and how they are used in relation to the map that sets Friedrich apart. The sectioning of the board into suits forces maneuver choices that wouldn't be made otherwise if it was strictly a point to point affair.

Perhaps it's a matter of emphasis. I think the map supports the card system. Perhaps you consider the cards supporting the map.

Thread: Re: Review and comment

frunkee — 2008-08-25T16:56:34+00:00

wargamer55 wrote:
As far as the map beiung the heart of the game, I have to disagree. While the map is important, this sort of point-to-point map has been used a hundred time before and there isn't anything particularly notable about it. No, it's the card and how they are used that sets Friedrich apart.

I think it's the cards and how they are used in relation to the map that sets Friedrich apart. The sectioning of the board into suits forces maneuver choices that wouldn't be made otherwise if it was strictly a point to point affair.

Thread: Re: Review and comment

wargamer55 — 2008-08-25T16:38:36+00:00

talrich wrote:
You call it a wargame, and there we're agreed, but also say, "This system...bears no discernible relationship to actual battle tactics or conditions".

Would you make a similar statement about wargames that use dice for combat resoultion?

I consider the cards an improvement on dice. I differ somewhat with your review in that I believe the heart of the game is on the map, rather than in the cards.

I ask if a game forces the player to make war decisions - where to fight, who to fight, when to retreat, how to supply...etc. This game has players asking all the right strategic questions, even if the mechanism is the player thinking "hmmm, I'm weak in hearts right now". It's not that different from thinking about CRT modifiers.

Thanks for the review,

-Greg

While the dice and the cards themselves don't resemble battle tactics the card system in Freidrich is much more abstract than the typical dice-based system. Typcally, in a dice game there's some kind of odds table. There are often explicit modifiers for terrain or formations. There may be die roll modifications for leadership or the presence of elite troops. there are no explicit modifiers for any of this in Freidrich. Perhaps playing that last "10" to win the battle in Freidrich represnted a flank attack, or seizing a dominant hill or committing the grenadiers. In a traditional hex-based wargame these things are made explicit and DO bear some resemblance to the decision-making of the generals. Do I send troops around the flank? Will seizing that hill give me a critical advanatge on the field of battle. Is it time to send in the grenadiers? In Freidrich this is abstracted.

As far as the map beiung the heart of the game, I have to disagree. While the map is important, this sort of point-to-point map has been used a hundred time before and there isn't anything particularly notable about it. No, it's the card and how they are used that sets Friedrich apart.

Thread: Re: Review and comment

talrich — 2008-08-25T16:05:15+00:00

You call it a wargame, and there we're agreed, but also say, "This system...bears no discernible relationship to actual battle tactics or conditions".

Would you make a similar statement about wargames that use dice for combat resoultion?

I consider the cards an improvement on dice. I differ somewhat with your review in that I believe the heart of the game is on the map, rather than in the cards.

I ask if a game forces the player to make war decisions - where to fight, who to fight, when to retreat, how to supply...etc. This game has players asking all the right strategic questions, even if the mechanism is the player thinking "hmmm, I'm weak in hearts right now". It's not that different from thinking about CRT modifiers.

Thanks for the review,

-Greg

Thread: Re: Review and comment

Capt_S — 2008-08-24T15:55:36+00:00

After reading so many great things about this game on BGG, I went and bought it yesterday. It looks really sweet.

Thread: Re: Review and comment

wifwendell — 2008-08-24T00:41:57+00:00

Koldfoot wrote:
There is some minimal zone of control elements.

Without digging out the rules, armies within 3(?) spaces prevent control tokens from flipping.

You're right. That is zoc-ish.

Thread: Re: Review and comment

Koldfoot — 2008-08-24T00:36:49+00:00

There are some minimal zone of control elements.

Without digging out the rules, armies within 3(?) spaces prevent control tokens from flipping.

Thread: Re: Review and comment

wifwendell — 2008-08-24T00:01:10+00:00

Good commentary. If there is such a thing as a "waro", Friedrich would be at the top of the list.

Great game, too.

Thread: Review and comment

wargamer55 — 2008-08-23T02:57:44+00:00

Friedrich is a historical wargame.

Friedrich is a historically themed euro game.

Can both statements be true?

Histogames' Friedrich, designed by Richard Sivel is clearly a wargame. Markers representing generals, armies and supply trains march back and forth across a map of eighteenth century central Europe fighting battles, conquering territory and enduring historical events.

Friedrich is clearly a themed euro game. The heart of the game system is a clever combat system using decks of standard playing cards (minus Aces) keyed to locations on the map. This system provides a unique and interesting way to resolve conflicts between the players with a lot of strategy -- but it bears no discernible relationship to actual battle tactics or conditions.

A note on the cards: While bearing Friedrich-specific artwork, the cards are basically a standard deck, less the aces.

Freidrich is a really different game design and one that's hard to pigeonhole. While it includes a handful of elements that have been seen before such as point-to-point movement and random event cards, it bears little resemblance to wargames designed over the last 50 years in the Charles Roberts tradition. There are no zones of control, hexes, squares, CRTs, blocks or even dice.

Like many euros it seems to be designed around an interesting game mechanic, in this case an elegant card-based combat system keyed to map areas that provides tremendous scope for bluff, strategy and resource management with a minimum of fuss. I couldn't come up with any explanation for how that mechanic might related to actual battlefield events except in the most tenuous and abstract way.

Another euro-like touch is the provision for players to take over minor powers as their major powers drop out of the war against Frederick. While there's country elimination in Friedrich, there's no player elimination. I'm not sure how often players parlay a minor power into a winning position, but there's at least the prospect.

It's a very charming game design, overall, whether considered as a wargame or a euro game.

From my game blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Image

wizardless — 2008-08-11T18:51:15+00:00

austria pulls a win, friedrich pulls a sad!

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

markluta — 2008-08-11T07:31:27+00:00

hancock.tom wrote:

The only thing I would disagree with in your review is your attempt to defend the abstract nature of the card play (and the related grid on the map)as some sort of representation of the unknown in combat, or the fog of war, or resources that now cannot be sent to another front, whatever.

The fact that the grid is 100% predictable kills this argument. Its not the unknown in combat! If the french player sees the russian and the austrian both attack prussia in spade territory, and lots of cards were spent, the french can jump on prussia in spade territory too, with knowledge thats his best shot. He can't see all the troops pouring towards the east and attack in hearts territory... he will get crushed.

Its actually the opposite of fog of war, as you know what suits prussia has been drained in and you know what suits he hasn't been. Still, some level of abstraction is necessary, and I like where Friedrich draws the line between realism and gamability... I just think you can't defend it.

Actually, I see this as perfectly defensible, and still a great application of fog of war. Fog of war should not be a complete lack of information, no army operates in a complete fog, and messengers travel much faster than armies, even in an era preceding the telegraph. Remember, the implied role here is not the commander at the front, but rather a Ruler back at Court (though these are one and the same for Friedrich) who is trying to coordinate overall strategy and diplomatic efforts on several fronts!

If the bulk Prussian Army is in Silesia, to use your example, it cannot also be in southern Hannover. So, for the French to know Prussia would not be strong there (in Spades) is perfectly legitimate--since someone of the Allies has to attack to obtain this information!

It is most definitely a 'for effect' rule, but I think it actually abstracts relative strengths better than a block game does. How often in land combat is an entire regiment/brigade/division wiped out? Yet in an area movement block game, that is essentially what is simulated by losing a step (or, perhaps two regiments take 50% casualties, also unlikely) whenever a '6' is thrown. What happens in a campaign is men fall at battles, of course, but also an army attrits away through desertion, stragglers, accidents, disease, infection of wounds, detachments left behind on the route of march to defend key points. Heavy enemy activity accellerates this process, while little probing by the enemy allows the commander to take action to mitigate these losses. And so a lull allows strength to be rebuilt.

After all, it is not just the strength of an army in terms of numbers of men, guns, horses, and so on that matters. Rather, it is the relative strength of arms which can be brought to bear at the correct moment for favourable battle, which is what any wargame needs to measure.

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

Sun Tahzoo — 2008-08-11T03:17:13+00:00

Great review! Can't wait to play this one. I would also recommend Duffy's "Army of Frederick the Great" - gives you good insight into his generals and the battles. Less of a "big picture" view, but lets you really admire the Prussian war machine.

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

fusag — 2008-08-10T19:30:08+00:00

Charles Vasey wrote:
Try The Seven Years War in Europe: 1756-1763 (Modern Wars In Perspective) by Franz A.J. Szabo
Kingdaddy wrote:
Showalter, The Wars of Frederick the Great
Thanks. Not much info about them on Amazon, but I'll take a look.

hancock.tom wrote:
I also thought your review was very well written, exactly the type of review we need more of on BGG!
Thank you. I have to say that the review is in part due to the game. When I sat down to play, I was amazed how such simple mechanics could create such gameplay. So I dug and dug until I arrive at what you see before you.

As you note in my defending the abstract TCs, maybe I dug a little too far. But that's the story I tell myself when I'm playing.

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

Kingdaddy — 2008-08-10T16:44:29+00:00

fusag wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Very well done. I think that the reason you don't find the game immersive is your lack of interest in the era. A good book on the subject might well change that.
Thank you for the compliment. Can you suggest a book? My reading list usually seems grow rather than shrink, but there's always room for one more.

Showalter, The Wars of Frederick the Great

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

hancock.tom — 2008-08-10T13:02:32+00:00

Great review, thanks for writing it. I recently played friedrich, and I enjoy the game. My gripes about it were the same things you mentioned, but I would play the game again in a heartbeat. The abstraction with the card suits is kinda obnoxious, but it isn't enough to make me dislike this great game. Its got a LOT going for it....

The only thing I would disagree with in your review is your attempt to defend the abstract nature of the card play (and the related grid on the map)as some sort of representation of the unknown in combat, or the fog of war, or resources that now cannot be sent to another front, whatever.

The fact that the grid is 100% predictable kills this argument. Its not the unknown in combat! If the french player sees the russian and the austrian both attack prussia in spade territory, and lots of cards were spent, the french can jump on prussia in spade territory too, with knowledge thats his best shot. He can't see all the troops pouring towards the east and attack in hearts territory... he will get crushed.

Its actually the opposite of fog of war, as you know what suits prussia has been drained in and you know what suits he hasn't been. Still, some level of abstraction is necessary, and I like where Friedrich draws the line between realism and gamability... I just think you can't defend it.

I like friedrich and the abstraction doesn't bother me too much. I also thought your review was very well written, exactly the type of review we need more of on BGG!

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

Charles Vasey — 2008-08-10T08:47:32+00:00

fusag wrote:
markluta wrote:
'Frederick the Great on the Art of War'
That seems closer to what I'm looking for. To get into the mindset of a strategic/operational game on the Seven Years War, a book on the what's and why's would be ideal.

Try The Seven Years War in Europe: 1756-1763 (Modern Wars In Perspective) by Franz A.J. Szabo

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

fusag — 2008-08-10T08:17:10+00:00

markluta wrote:
'Frederick the Great on the Art of War'
That seems closer to what I'm looking for. To get into the mindset of a strategic/operational game on the Seven Years War, a book on the what's and why's would be ideal.

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

markluta — 2008-08-10T05:21:14+00:00

There are many, many books out there about Frederick the Great, and a fair number about Maria Theresa. One in particular I would suggest is 'Maria Theresa' by Edward Crankshaw, who is probably the preeminent Hapsburg historian. The first half of her reign was so shaped by the Wars of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War, and the aspects of a female head of the Hapsburgs and her decisions taken to protect and try to reclaim her inheritance are key to understanding the motivations of Austria in this war. The whole political situation of the timeperiod was an extremely difficult one. She was also a driving force which much improved the Austrian Army between 1748 and 1756, including starting the first formalized Military Academy to train her Officers in 1752 and modernizing the taxation system, changing the Army organiztaion from a system of feudal levies to a standing national army, paid for by taxes from the nobles in place of providing levies (except in the case of the Hungarians, the reasons for which are made clear in the book). These improvements were so stark that Frederick himself exclaimed at the Battle of Lobositz, the first battle of the Seven Years War in 1756, "These are not the same old Austrians!"

Also very interesting and useful to understanding warfare in this era are the design notes from the various Clash of Arms games of battles of the Seven Years War (titles include Lobositz, Leuthen, Zorndorf), and even the GMT Prussia's Glory/Prussia's Glory II contain some decent notes about the four battles included in each.

For the Prussian perspective, a good book you can read over a period of time, as it is heavy going, is 'Frederick the Great on the Art of War' which was originally published in the 1960s. This is a translation (from German and French) and compilation of many of Frederick's writings on how war should be conducted, from parts of the famed 'Instructions to Generals' to some contemporary works he had translated and wrote the introduction for, to more general commentary, much of which was intended to instruct his successors on how to be King and command the Army--a key foundation of the Prussian state, as in the 18th Century they had the twelfth largest population (after the siezure of Silesia) but the fourth largest army in Europe. Interesting details on such factors as how important it was to take measures to avoid desrtions (given the Prussian Army was largely pressed into service in the same manner of the British Royal Navy of the era, and had not even the help of the revolutionary fervor which Napoleon's conscripts later posessed, most soldiers probably would consider desertion now and again). For example, the entire battalion was mustered all at once, and marched out immediately. Night marches and pursuits were normally avoided. On the other hand, his armies (as with those of his enemies) were much better cared for than Napoleon's would be, they were always provided tents for camp when local quarters could not be arranged, and rarely would march beyond the range of their supply magazines.

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

fusag — 2008-08-10T00:47:32+00:00

Sphere wrote:
Very well done. I think that the reason you don't find the game immersive is your lack of interest in the era. A good book on the subject might well change that.
Thank you for the compliment. Can you suggest a book? My reading list usually seems grow rather than shrink, but there's always room for one more.

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

markluta — 2008-08-09T21:32:35+00:00

Indeed, I agree fully with the previous post by Mr. Fagin. Reading upon who Empress Maria Theresa, King Frederick II and Empress Elizabeth of Russia really were, what they were about, will tend to show how the feel of this game captures exactly what the rulers of this era wanted out of the wars. Maria Theresa became in many ways the first modern ruler, often placing the welfare of her subjects above her own desires to keep and expand her inheritance. Even while at war with Austria and the Empire, much of Prussia was actually a part of the Holy Roman Empire. The commanders of the day were so hamstrung by the constraints of both politics and the realities of the limited resources of the day, yet unlike Napoleonic armies of half a century later, which foraged and despoiled the land, these armies brought their own supplies, generally paid for quarters and supplies obtained locally, and truly made efforts to mitigate the effects of the war upon the local civilian populace (other than, of course, when they fought a battle in a village, the village usually burnt down, owing to the nature of the firearms of the day!).

These Seven Years War was really the first world war, and very modern in scope--no wars of conquest, very limited objectives, just a desire to use military victories at the diplomatic table to exact concessions from adversaries. And the feel of the game seems to capture the campaigns of limited war beautifully.

Thread: Re: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

Sphere — 2008-08-09T19:34:36+00:00

Very well done. I think that the reason you don't find the game immersive is your lack of interest in the era. A good book on the subject might well change that.

Thread: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

fusag — 2008-08-09T08:59:59+00:00

('Sum of its Parts,' formally 'As I See It,' are game reviews that spotlight game mechanics and how they work for or against the design. They are written from the perspective of a gamer short on time and attention span, who would rather spend that time and mental energy having fun and making key decisions rather than bean counting or fiddliness. Therefore the review spotlights innovative, clean, and elegant mechanics. I play both eurogames and wargames, but since eurogames tend to be well reviewed in BGG already, I'll be mostly be reviewing wargames.)

Introduction

As an engineer, I pride myself in my analytical abilities, i.e. breaking things down into its component subsystems, understanding how they work and interact, to better understand the whole. This also applies to games and game mechanics, which is why I'm always going on about how mechanics are king (and components are just icing on the cake). Thus, I have a (inflated) belief that I know how a game will play after reading the rules, maybe after a short session.

But in the case of Friedrich, I was wrong. Dead wrong. So if you're like me, get off your high horse and play the game before you pronounce final judgement. Despite the playing cards and square sector grid labeled with suits, this is a wargame. A light wargame, to be sure, but I've been drifting in that direction for some time.

Oh, right, I should actually talk about the game. Friedrich is a strategic-level game of the Seven Years War in Europe, pitting Prussia and Hannover (and English subsidies) against Russia, Sweden, Austria, and France. Fellow Americans know this as what started the French and Indian War. Other countries know this as the war that established Britain as the premiere colonial power and Prussia the rising continental power, to the detriment of the traditional powers France and Austria.

To be honest, I don't know much about the Seven Years War, so I can't really judge the historical accuracy, which is a danger when reviewing a wargame. As the survey of military history course I took in university covered ancient warfare to the American Civil War, the Seven Years War was only part of one lecture. What I gleaned from the course was that, surrounded by enemies on all sides, Prussia used internal lines to concentrate on individual enemies to keep them off balance.

Gameplay

]]>]]>(courtesy of Rednax)

Tactical cards: Before going into the sequence of play like I usually do, I need to explain the Tactical Cards (TCs). The game comes with 4 decks of cards with 2 through 13 in the four traditional bridge suits. There are also 2 jokers called Reserve cards which can be played as any number, 1 through 10, in any suit.

Okay? Okay. That's all you need to know for now.

Turn sequence: The game fields up to 4 players controlling 7 different nations:

Frederick: Prussia, Hannover
Elisabeth: Russia, Sweden
Maria Theresa: Austria, Imperial Army
Pompadour: France

If either Elisabeth or Pompadour's countries are knocked out of the war by the Clock of Fate (which sounds like something out of a horror game, but I digress; more on this later), they take over the tiny Imperial Army (whoop-de-friggin'-do), but at least they're still in the game.

Pieces

]]>(courtesy of Kevin Moody)

Generals: Each nation has a number of generals, ranging from Prussia's 8 to Sweden and the Imperial Army's 1. These are their basic units of maneuver. In fact, they are their only units. Each general has from 1 to 8 armies, the exact number of which is unknown until revealed.

Supply depots: Each nation also has 1 to 2 supply depots. These keep generals in supply in enemy territory but also can by your vulnerability.

Sequence of Play

Each country, in the order above, performs the following 5 phases:

1) Draw: The active country draws a number of tactical cards, ranging from Prussia's 7 to Sweden and the Imperial Army's 1 (guess who's the whipping boy in this game ). For the major powers, this number can decrease over the course of the game as their war fortunes suffer.

2) Movement: Armies can move up to 3 spaces, supply depots can move 2. If movement is entirely on the main road, pieces can move one further space. Up to 3 general may stack. Really simple movement rules with no terrain effects on movement besides the main road.

During this phase, players can also recruit armies (this is also hidden information) and rebuild lost generals and supply depots. However, rebuilt pieces cannot move during this phase. Each army and supply depot requires 6 points of TC, and you don't get change.

3) Combat: Generals adjacent to enemy generals must attack, and each battle is resolved by a miniature card game (please suspend your disbelief): Each stack sits in a sector of a particular suit, and it's possible for the attacker and defender to be in different suits. Both sides may only play cards of their suit during the battle.

In a nutshell, the each side has strength equal to their number of armies plus value of TC played. The player currently at strength disadvange has option of playing a card or accepting their fate. If they play a card and are still losing, they can go again.

Once the battle has stopped, the defeated general loses a number of armies and retreats a number of spaces equal to the difference in strength. If the defeated general can't retreat the full distance (say, they're surrounded), the general is removed entirely.

I have much much more to say about the combat system later.

4) Retroactive conquest: Generals conquer objective cities by moving on/through/away from them. Objectives are defended by a protecting general within 3 spaces. Retroactive conquest allows players to flag an objective during the Movement phase if the protecting general is chased away during that Combat phase.

5) Check supply: If an active general is not in his home territory or within 6 spaces of a supply depot, he is flipped to his unsupplied side. If he is not back in supply by the end of his next turn, he and all his armies are eliminated.

Victory

When any country has secured all of its primary and secondary objectives, that country's player wins. So although Elisabeth, Maria Theresa, and Pompadour are all fighting Frederick, only one of them can win. Once countries start dropping out due to the Clock of Fate, some countries don't need their secondary objectives to win.

Clock of Fate : Starting on turn 6, at the end of the turn, one of 18 Clock of Fate cards are drawn. 12 of these have only minor effects; 6 of these have game changing effects ranging from a permanent decrease in TC draws to forcing major powers out of the war (again, please suspend your disbelief). If the Frederick player manages to prevent any other player from winning before Russia, Sweden, and France drop out (4 fate cards total), he then wins.

Offensive option: In the advanced game, Prussia has the option of winning by taking objectives in Austrian Bohemia, presumably knocking her out of the war. However, going this route has its risks and may backfire. I haven't played with this variant, so I can't say much else beyond Prussia is on a timetable and Austria has eased victory conditions.

Ooh! Shiny!

This is where I usually talk about chrome. However, looking back, my Gameplay section is much, much shorter than usual. The thing is, mechanically, the game is quite simple (that doesn't mean strategy is simple), and there isn't much chrome either.

Okay, here's one: each of the 12 minor Clock of Fate cards have small events that affect the next turn. Examples of these events:

* A nation or general gains or loses an army
* A general receives a movement bonus or penalty
* Some restriction is placed on attacks or TC usage

In general, these events are pretty minor, and I don't think anyone really plans ahead for them. But they are big enough to add an interesting wrinkle to the game. Maybe Richelieu moving 1 less space will entice Prussia to move so that he cannot evade combat next turn?

I would say the person who initiates combat has a slight edge in the game: not does he choose who suit to attack in (though, of course, the defender has already chosen what suit to defend in), but he has one more turn's worth of cards than if the defender attacked instead. Actually, I'm not sure if that's chrome, I just wanted to comment on that.

Sum of its Parts

Trivial? After reading the rules for the first time, my gut instinct was to do a little mathematical analysis. If every point you play means one less army loss for you or one more for your opponent, an army which will take 6 points of TC to place, why would you hold back? Why would you ever use a Reserve for less than the full 10? Slam down it down, crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women. If you don't, you're the one who's going to get it.

But after playing the game, I've realized this can be playing into your opponent's hand (literally). Think about it this way: if everyone played with open hands, it would be clear who can muster the most strength (this is oddly deterministic for a wargame). Thus, one player should be thinking about how to minimize their loss and fight another day. Pick up your hands again, and now neither player knows whether they should press the attack or disengage. Like Napoleon sending in the Guard, pinning your hopes on your last big card with little or nothing to back it up can sow the seeds of your own destruction. Thus, while abstracted, card play mimics battlefield decisions of whether to continue risky combat or withdraw to fight another day. Remember that this game is strategic in scope; abstracting tactical combat below that scope is an acceptable design decision.

This is, by the way, why the designer and everyone else calls Reserves golden. They are your get out of jail free card, allowing you escape from the Battle That Went Wrong with minimal casualties. Losing an entire stack can be pretty devastating. Not only is replacing the armies costly, but the map is fairly sparse (not much slack for defense in depth here), so the wide front the army was covering is now a gapping hole in your lines. And since movement is only 3-4 spaces per turn, it may be a while before you can plug the hole.

Abstraction: Another problem that wargamers may have with the TC are what are the suits supposed to represent? I mean, somehow sectors hundreds of miles apart are intimately related so the Austrians bleeding spades from me around Breslau makes Gottingen untenable. This is a little harder to explain, so let me dust off my soap box...

Among wargamers, there is a school who believe Clausewitzian friction of war should be reflected in wargames, more than just the uncertainty offered by rolling on a combat results table. Maybe it's the Ambush! combat card in Wilderness War. Maybe it's a weapon malfunction or thrown tread in Advanced Squad Leader (ASL). Maybe it's the blocks of unknown strength and type in Napoleon's Triumph.

In short, there are things outside a commander's knowledge or control. In a game like Friedrich, this could be terrain, weather, manpower, supply, fatigue, discipline, disease, surprise, intelligence from scouts, the general's indigestion, etc. The designer, Richard Sivél, smartly leaves these up to the players' imaginations. This is not a detailed simulation; this is very much a design for effect game.

So what effect is weakening Gottingen by using spades around Breslau supposed to represent? In my mind, each army under a general represents a trained officer cadre while TC reflects the manpower, supply, training, etc., as well as all the intangibles above. Spending TC in one battle consumes resources that now cannot go elsewhere. This adds another historical consideration for the battle mini-cardgame: conservation of force, so you have enough when you really need to go all-out.

Your mileage for this justification may vary. For instance you may ask why generals in one particular suit are affected while others are not. I could spout something about war not being as clean and simple as that, but after some point you either buy the level of abstraction is justified under design for effect principles or you don't. Since this review is my opinion, I'll continue on with it.

So the question should not be what do the TC simulate but what effects do the TC mechanism engender. To my mind, at least two things: First, there is bluffing. How many histories have you read where a commander was duped into a situation where he was at a disadvantage? And, proportionally, how often does that happen in wargames? The thing is wargames have inherited from their ancestors a bias of perfect over hidden information, with all the numbers right there on the chit for both players to see. But by using cards or hidden army strength or double-blind refereed format, players can fake out their opponent (as opposed to their opponent making a mistake because of some overlooked detail).

And the penalty for getting caught in Friedrich (say picking the wrong battle, withdrawing when you should have counterattacked, or opening yourself to lose big when you can have gotten away lighter) is not something to take lightly: if the Imperial Army loses its 6 armies, it would takes about 5 turns worth of TC to rebuild, and then it wouldn't have anything to fight with.

(courtesy of Aldaron)

Location, location, location: The other effect it creates is that your hand is another piece of what I will call the positional puzzle. Say you're trying to choose the optimal position for a general. There are a number of factors you should consider (as I am not a master in the game, I do not claim this is an exhaustive list):

1) Objectives: This ties the generals to the historical realities of the map.
2) Opposition: The general's position relative to enemy forces. In particular, pieces that can attack him, pieces he can attack, and how this prevents/allows generals to seize Objectives.
3) Supply: Is the supply situation such that the general is able hold this location or launch offensive operations as needed? If supported by a supply depot, is the depot vulnerable thereby making the general's position vulnerable?
4) Retreat: If forced to retreat, does the general have a retreat route and is that position tenable?
5) Suits: Depending on his hand, each location has a suitability for offense and defense.

To elaborate on point 5, the ideal defensive position is sitting in a sector you have plenty of TC in and the Opposition can only attack you in one suit: either not on the border, or on the border but all the attacker options are the same suit. Even better if they are depleted in that suit. On the offense, a cross-border attack can be advantageous because, if you force a retreat, you threaten to attack again in a fresh suit. Thus a general can be in a good defensive position, have good offensive prospects along one axis, poor prospects along another, or any combination thereof. And don't forget that a general, while just one piece, has considerable influence as he can 'defend' a region by threatening to attack enemies that come within striking distance.

Without this 5th element, I can imagine the game becoming pretty static. Players will look at the map, maybe make small adjustments due to opposing pieces, and sit. The TC injects fluidity into the system by making players richer and poorer in certain suits, battles will cause fluctuations, and don't forget hidden information prevents players from knowing whether or not that defensive position is really secure or not. Even winning a battle makes the victor vulnerable (his men are tired and bloody, after all).

(courtesy of Lawrence Hung)

Thus the game is about position and bluff and ultimately Maneuver. Yes, that buzzword among wargamers. You can play the numbers game, but they you're just relying on the luck of the draw. The player who leverages position and maneuver has a force multiplier. And that is why, my friends, Friedrich is a wargame. Q.E.D.

The position puzzle is not an easy one. I've spent hours staring at what has to be the most complex point-2-point map ever made. The extra space of movement offered by main roads may not seem like much, but it's one more wrinkle in the puzzle of where to move generals so they have the maximum effect.

Clock of Fate : This is last complaint I wish to address. Russia, with its 4 TC draws, can be taken out of the game by a single card. Two cards can break France. Two cards will also cripple the Prussian war machine from 7 to 4 TC per turn. Thus the deck can be stacked strongly in favor of Prussia or the allies, and it's completely outside the players' control, and this randomness can (and has) annoyed wargamers and eurogamers alike. But, as mentioned in the design notes, the death of the Russian Tsarina was a sudden, unexpected, miraculous event (at least from the Prussian perspective). The Clock of Fate simulates these sudden, surprising events.

Russia should get crackin'. (No pressure!)

The bad: Thus far in the review, I've been defending the design decisions. What do I have to say against the game? Well, mainly it lacks a certain atmosphere. Maybe it's because I'm not familiar with the era. Maybe it's the lack of chrome; all the generals are (almost) exactly the same, so they lack personality. Oh, there's action and narrative and tension and excitement, but it lacks that paper time-machine feeling.

As far historicality goes, Prussia needs to choose its battles carefully and has the benefit of internal lines. Though at 3 spaces per turn, travelling between fronts feels excrusiatingly slow. No wonder why Germans built a superbly efficient rail system and then developed warplans around knocking out France and then crushing Russia, but that's another war...

Decisions, Decisions

As stated, I feel most of the decisions players make come down to position and maneuver:

* Where do you position your generals so they are most effective to achieve your objectives?
* Do you attack the enemy or sit and make him decide whether to battle or not?
* In battle, do you play to minimize losses, conserve TC for another battle, or crush the enemy?
* If you wish to rebuild armies, which general should receive them and what suit(s) do you use to pay for them?

Conclusion

Friedrich manages to create a game of strategic and (abstract) tactical considerations using only 35 pieces (24 generals, 11 supply depots) and playing cards. Playing cards! The elegance of the game mechanics and innovation of the design are phenomenal. And, as the header blurb states, that's what this series of reviews is about. My hat is off to you, Richard Sivél, for you are a craftsman.

However, for me, the game lacks that certain immersive quality. It may be my inability to get into the topic, but the abstractedness might also contribute. Thus the game's simplicity, which I laud it for, may be inseparable from what mars it in my eyes. Thus (for now) I give it:

Very good game. I like to play. I'll probably suggest it and will never turn down a game.

Thread: Re: Are Army Cards necessary?

rsivel — 2008-08-07T11:41:09+00:00

Unfortunately not: These cubes have only 8mm in size, while the supply trains have 10mm.

Thread: Re: Are Army Cards necessary?

markluta — 2008-08-06T20:53:54+00:00

Heh, so one can sneak another supply train or two onto the map, then Richard?!? (Joke)

Thread: Re: Are Army Cards necessary?

rsivel — 2008-08-06T07:40:59+00:00

Playing with or without fog of war is a huge difference.

But coming back to your initial idea, that of the poker chips instead of the army sheet: Note that during the Friedrich World Championship army sheets are also not used, but small cubes for the armies which are hidden under the "drawer" of a matchbox, see here for an example:

The small white cubes on the upper left corner are the armies, the white boxes with the names are matchboxes with some paper glued on them.

Thread: Re: Are Army Cards necessary?

markluta — 2008-08-06T05:54:47+00:00

It would make an enormous difference early in the game to know where the forces of each side are strong and weak. Russia would dearly love to know the strength of the Prussian army in East Prussia, and both Austria and Prussia would benefit hugely from knowing the disposition of the forces arrayed against them. France likewise would be tremendously helped by knowing right away how Hannover's forces are deployed.

Later on, forces are generally known (as historically, when the Seven Years War changed from maneuver and seeking positional victores, to the later strategy of the anti-Prussian Allies beating on Prussia from all sides, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, while Prussia worked only to survive the onslaught each campaign year). But even then, there are some opportunities to change the strategic picture hugely by clever redeployments, see the 2007 Friedrich World Championship replay on the Histogame site for some excellent examples of how secretly changing the strength of an army by one point suddenly created huge problems for the enemy, a case in point being the change of the Hannover Cumberland force in midgame.

I do not think the game would play well at all if force strengths were not secret--the sizes are so small, a difference of 1 in 8 is pretty big! And a stack of generals always looks formidable, but could be less than it seems.

Thread: Re: Are Army Cards necessary?

Sphere — 2008-08-06T05:19:39+00:00

Fog of war is seldom given its due in wargames. To play with less than was intended seems madness to me, but to each his own.

Thread: Friedrich Tournament at Los Angeles--Saturday, 30 August 2008

markluta — 2008-07-30T04:57:41+00:00

For all those who need a warmup before Berlin in September...

For those who want to play Friedrich against people other than the same three opponents over and over...

For anyone who is interested in playing Friedrich for the very first time...

There will be a shorter version Friedrich Tournament at the next Los Angeles Strategicon event, held over Labor Day Weekend. Coincidentally, the weekend before the Friedrich World Championships in Berlin! The venue is the Raddison Hotel at the Los Angeles International Airport, so it is even quite convenient for overseas visitors! It is possible to purchase just a one day pass, or a pass for the entire weekend for just a little more (which comes with a discount for BGG Patrons!) details are here:

http://www.strategicon.net/

The event kicks of at 5:00pm on Saturday of the convention. Exact format will depend on the number of players, but the intent is to use the same scoring method, chess clock timing and so on as will be used at FWC in Berlin. Due to time constraints it will not be possible to play the complete format of 4 initial round games plus a finals, but certainly a couple of games are possible depending on attendance, and even a finals in the wee hours of the morning if there is interest! (I know I would play in that...)

So, this will be an excellent chance to see how the scoring system might affect play before going to Berlin. But anyone who wishes to play for the first time is certainly welcome as well, the format used at Strategicon requires a teaching session roughly half an hour before game start so rest assured there will be plenty of demonstration and rules discussion for those who need such. (Last time, in May, three players were new, though all experienced wargamers, and they had a great game!)

Thread: Albany, NY, FRIEDRICH tournament, 11am, Sat. Aug. 9th

DrFlanagan — 2008-07-24T17:51:53+00:00

As part of the Schenectady Wargamers Association's monthly Gameathon, I'll be running at least a two round tournament for Friedrich. I own three copies of the game, and might trade for a fourth (or someone else could bring a copy) so I can accommodate 12 or 16 players. The winner of each board would play once more to crown a champion (or if tons of people come with their own sets, I'll run it as a three round tourney with the final game timed on a chess clock). If you lose or don't want to continue, a card driven multiplayer game will start at 5pm, as will a minis game and a Euro. Oh, yeah, the game is teachable if someone wants to try it for the first time.
The Friedrich tournament will start at 11am at the Studio of Bridge and Games (the regular SWA spot), Price Chopper Community Room, 1639 Eastern Parkway, Schenectady, NY 12309. It costs the club to rent the room, so $6 for the day of gaming, $4 for one round, or free if you are a continuing full-time student. Four of our regulars will be at the WBCs that day, so if you are not heading to Lancaster, Pa., head to Schenectady, NY, to play some games with us!

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

markluta — 2008-07-24T06:09:24+00:00

It is actually a legitimate strategy for Austria to try to win with the Empire, in exactly the case you describe, where there is no chance of clearing out Silesia. And it does risk losing the game as Austria--I have done this, was about to win with the Empire as Austria (after the Prussian sent a massive army to Silesia), when Empress Elizabeth died, and Russia won...

But interesting, then, that Prussia does need to be sure to force some battles if the allies hang back. Just in case the cards dropping them out are at the bottom of the fate deck.

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

Fletchard — 2008-07-24T00:51:16+00:00

I lost my game. I made all sorts of mistakes. My generals were too weak for one. I had one near-full-general army in East Prussia to face the Russians with, and two in Silesia. That left the rest of my generals with 1 army each basically. Secondly,I did not move my strong armies around. I just camped them in a sector and waited for an assault, because they had to attack eventually. The problem I ran into was that Austria and Russia gave up on their eastern objectives and went West: Austria to help the Holy Roman Empire out and Russia to force a battle somewhere outside of spades (which my army was waiting for him in). One of his generals ran down to Silesia. Third, I also didn't see the HRE victory coming until too late. Through their cumulative maneuvering the allies were able to get my supply trains and weak armies and eliminate them. I eventually sent my Prussian army holding the French off in their part of the triangle to deal with the HRE, but it was a turn too late and I lost to the Elizabeth player who took over the HRE that turn.

Given my mistakes, one thing that gives the allies a chance is their saturation in Prussian territory late in the game. They had each lost their battles in the respective suites I assigned to defend against them, but through sending their armies to help each other they limited my room for maneuver. That allowed the HRE to win, and would have worked against me for any other power whose objectives they had happened to surround.

I thought the Austrian aiding the HRE to the extent that it did was annoying, and it did lose the game for the Theresa player, but none of the allies had enough cards to beat me in the sectors where I was waiting for them.

Thread: Re: Friedrich Tournament at Los Angeles--Saturday, 24 May 2008

markluta — 2008-07-23T05:27:20+00:00

The Friedrich game at Strategicon went quite well, the winner was Jesse Escobedo who played Austria.

There will be another Friedrich played at the next Strategion on Saturday, August 30 at 5pm. Just by chance, this is the weekend before the World Championships in Berlin!

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

rsivel — 2008-07-22T07:41:55+00:00

Generally spoken: Periods of no (or few) attacks are bad for the allies -- even if they would have endless time.

But, I have seen rare cases where the big Prussian hand suddenly crumbled, also due to the fact because Prussia felt too safe and invincible and simply became uncautious.

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

markluta — 2008-07-21T23:04:34+00:00

Thanks for the explanation on card decks, Richard--I guess we learned to always specify how many cards to keep...

I am curious about these games where the four decks are depleted, with regards the anti-Prussian allies: Do they ever win these games? It seems to me allowing Prussia to get a hand of 60+ cards or more, while Austria has only 45 (assuming no hand draw reductions from cards of fate) after turn 9, and the other Allies even fewer, is a sure prescription for a runaway Prussian victory. Not only will Hannover potentially be a real threat to France by then, depending on the relative card draws (Hannover draws 1 less card per turn, but effectively has 2 more cards if attacking France during their turn, so France has less an advantage in numbers than the 3-2 draw would imply--The quality of the France hand should be higher, due to the discard, but this cannot be relied upon.) The Allies in total will have many more cards, but cannot combine resources and so Prussia can defeat each piecemeal. And even if the Prussia hand does become drained over a few turns of sledgehammer attacks from all sides, they ought to be able to put 3 maneuver elements on many objectives, forcing the other nations to win 3 battles the same turn, and by large enough margins to drive all 3 Prussian armies away--if the Prussians can put their armies on sector boundaries so a nation is forced to attack from the same suit against different defending suits, this would seem nearly insurmountable.

Actually, this sounds more like the War of Austrian Succession, where armies would march around, no one wanted to attack, eventually Maria Theresa would get annoyed enough in Vienna to send out direct orders for her generals to attack!

Anyway, just curious if long delay in attacking has ever worked out for the Allies?

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

alte schwede — 2008-07-21T15:12:16+00:00

Yep that happens from time to time.
I will never again play the game with less than 5 decks.

With defensive players the cards might run out, BUT this could also happen as a result of the cards of fate. It has happened to me many times that not a single allied has left the game after more than 16 rounds and this will effect the available cards a great deal. If this happens the game will feel a bit strange so i strongly advice playing with a fifth deck.

Since getting the right colours play an important part, adding a fifth deck, will also have the positive effect that it makes it easier to get the cards you want.

I wasnt very keen at start to add an extra deck but after i have experienced several games when we have ran out of cards, especially in games where not a single allied has left the game, I changed my mind about adding a fifth deck.

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

rsivel — 2008-07-21T07:36:21+00:00

Yes, in Germany, the standard deck comes with 3 jokers. IIRC, it is for the game Romme, while Canasta uses only 2 jokers (or the other way round?) ...

Anyway: Players should find solution to turn a 52 or 54 or 55 card deck to a Friedrich-deck with 50 cards (with values from 2-13, and 2 wild-cards).

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

markluta — 2008-07-20T21:36:02+00:00

Aha, that may explain the '55 card deck' discrepancy, then. Do your card decks in Germany have 3 Jokers? Because Richard said remove the Aces and one Joker...But would this have meant leave 2 Jokers in? Card decks sold here generally come with the 52 cards and 2 Jokers.

So, I suggest remove the Jokers (if any) and 2 Aces, for the reasons described above, leaving a 50 card deck. (Shows I never yet went through the deck and counted the cards!)

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

-toni- — 2008-07-19T11:32:56+00:00

I would suggest good standardization would be do not use the Jokers, remove 3 Aces=49 cards. 2-10 printed value, J=11, Q=12 and K=13, the one Ace is the Reserve Card.
Keep 2 Aces! There are always two Reserve Cards per deck!

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

Fletchard — 2008-07-18T23:03:32+00:00

Good idea to attack in clubs or diamonds as Prussia. Didn't realize this could happen in only nine turns, but that seemed about right for our game in retrospect. Thanks for the answers!

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

markluta — 2008-07-18T20:17:09+00:00

Heh, what sort of card decks do you have in Germany, Richard? Even with two Jokers, a 'standard' playing card deck would only have 54 cards!

Since not everyone will keep the Jokers in their decks (hopefully at least a few Bridge players will come join us in playing Friedrich, hey?), I would suggest good standardization would be do not use the Jokers, remove 3 Aces=49 cards. 2-10 printed value, J=11, Q=12 and K=13, the one Ace is the Reserve Card. (To keep consistent with the theme, we really ought to rank the Queens above the Kings, but I expect that would be overly confusing since in nearly every other game, the King ranks above the Queen!)

A top of my head calculation posits this situation could occur in 9 turns of no battles, assuming no national draw reductions and no nations exit the war. So it is a bit more likely to occur than I would have thought at first. Though if I saw this happen as the Prussians, I would probably try to go attack one of the major nations in Clubs or Diamonds, just to pull some of the Hearts or Spades out of their hands when they rebuilt the lost army points....

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

rsivel — 2008-07-18T07:55:32+00:00

If there are so few fights that you run out of TC's, then indeed you should take a standard cardgame (with 55 cards), remove one joker and all aces, and treat J=11, Q=12, K=14.

(Alternatively, you can remove all Kings, and treat Ace=11, J=12, Q=13, if you prefer)

Thread: Re: Completely running out of cards to draw from

frunkee — 2008-07-18T03:06:30+00:00

Fletchard wrote:
What is the appropriate course of action if the allies are so yellow-bellied that they delay attacking for long enough for all four of the decks to be drawn into the players' hands?

This came up in a game with beginners. I taught them the rules and told them to not commit too early and they took my advice to heart. We played that if there were no cards to draw, the player whose turn it was to draw wouldn't get any. However, if that player then fought a battle and used some cards, the next player would be able to draw up to the number of cards used for his or her turn. Something I didn't like about this was that the players started planning on how to deprive Prussia of cards through this rule. It turned out to be very hard on France, who hardly drew any cards for 8 or so turns in the game.

I wish that the 4 cards removing the allies from the game weren't all in the last six of the cards of fate.

I believe Richard Sivél has recommended added more decks of cards, taking out the aces and treating J, Q, K as 11, 12 and 13. Use two jokers as Reserve cards.

Personally I'd adjudge it a Prussian win, as it's likely the Allies won't have enough time to take their objectives anyway.

Thread: Completely running out of cards to draw from

Fletchard — 2008-07-18T02:44:47+00:00

What is the appropriate course of action if the allies are so yellow-bellied that they delay attacking for long enough for all four of the decks to be drawn into the players' hands?

This came up in a game with beginners. I taught them the rules and told them to not commit too early and they took my advice to heart. We played that if there were no cards to draw, the player whose turn it was to draw wouldn't get any. However, if that player then fought a battle and used some cards, the next player would be able to draw up to the number of cards used for his or her turn. Something I didn't like about this was that the players started planning on how to deprive Prussia of cards through this rule. It turned out to be very hard on France, who hardly drew any cards for 8 or so turns in the game.

I wish that the 4 cards removing the allies from the game weren't all in the last six of the cards of fate.

Thread: Re: protecting objectives during retreat

markluta — 2008-07-08T06:19:17+00:00

An excellent more general observation, Richard! Those of us familiar with this period often forget to mention that issue about nearly any city of any size needing a seige, not only were there walls and often improved defenses in wartime, but many of the substantial buildings within the city were intended to be used as stone fortresses. And the narrow streets were a difficult problem for the attacker if an assault was necessary. So siege and submission was decidedly the preferred option, for both sides.

So siege trains were the result after a battle, or the lifting of a siege. And both battles and sieges needed massive supplies, the logistics of the period were tremendously strained even under the best of circumstances. An enemy army operating freely in the area could easily make the situation untenable, hence the need for resounding victories that drove the enemy from the region as a cohesive fighting force.

Indeed, even during the previous decade, when Friedrich pretty much had his way with any Austrian army he met, an unopposed Prussian army without a siege train could not take a major city. He actually did send forces all the way to Vienna, where the Austrians frequently lacked any army after a horrendous defeat (they would eventually learn to quit standing toe to toe against an army commanded by the King of Prussia), yet all those Prussian forces could do was 'demonstrate' (to use the textbook term) outside of Vienna, in hopes some Austrians would come out to fight. They wisely never did, the city was in no danger (Vienna was historically a river fortress town, and only became a major city in the previous century)--Maria Theresa in fact continued building the Schoenbrunn palace throughout the wars.

Thread: Re: protecting objectives during retreat

rsivel — 2008-07-07T08:10:31+00:00

After my general retreats, if he is still within 3 cities of an appropriate objective, then he still protects it. Is there a thematic rationale for this?

A lot of good answers had been given. -- Maybe I can add one?

As long as there is an army around the city to be conquered, the attacker does not dare to lay siege to this city, and so the city will not surrender. -- When you defeat an army only a little, so that it can make a tactical retreat, it still is "around the city in question", and so you do not dare to lay siege to it.

(Obviously, in the game the siege-procedure is abstracted to the mechanics of the protection-radius)

Thread: Re: protecting objectives during retreat

markluta — 2008-07-07T07:35:36+00:00

Most battles historically were indecisive, we as wargamers tend to focus on the decisive engagements. But in a campaign, particularly before the industrial age when resources were more limited, the march and maneuver were really much more important than the actual battles. Friedrich did win a few battles where he was badly outnumbered, but for the most part, the side that maneuvers to fight the battles with advantage of position and numbers will prevail. So, a general might choose to withdraw from a battle he feels will be indecisive, rather than fight on and risk a worse result. Keeping his army in the field, he can still pose the threat that caused the enemy to come and fight the battle in the first place.

The first battle of the Seven Year's War, Lobositz, was in fact an excellent example of this sort of campaign strategy. Though Richard has explained the Saxon army are abstracted in this game (the old SPI/AH reprint 'Battles of Frederick the Great' includes a scenario for the 1756 campaign for anyone who might wish to experience a broad overview of what is going on here), you might imagine a small Saxon force encamped at Pirna at the start, whom the Austrians would like to rescue. The Austrian Field Marshall von Browne had planned such a rescue campaign, when Frederick started probing south, which was exactly what the Austrians needed, so long as he did not march too far south and threaten their lines of communication. So, von Browne and then-Colonel Lacy marched north to meet the Prussian Army, committing their forces piecemeal only as Frederick pressed the battle. A terrible defeat (such as the Austrians had always experienced from Frederick during the wars of the previous decade) would have jeopardized the entire rescue mission, yet inflicting a stinging defeat on Frederick which would have sent him reeling back northward would have been counterproductive as well, since then he would have been nearer the Saxon army once more which they wanted to extricate. Thus, the minor defeat suffered by the Austrians at Lobositz (really only a 'defeat' in the sense the Prussians held the battlefield at the end of the battle, the traditional definition of victory, but Frederick would gain no significant advantage from this battle) was exactly what they needed to accomplish their objectives in the region. (In the event, the Austrians would the following month execute a nice rescue campaign, foiled mainly by the fact the Saxons never moved from their fortifications and Pirna and eventually just surrendered.)

Anyway, think of a small defeat as something like a delaying action, a fighting withdrawl. The battle might have been won, but the victor did not win by enough to gain any advantage from the outcome.

Thread: Re: Playing tactical cards

Adraeth Montecuccoli — 2008-07-07T07:26:18+00:00

In two weeks we made 3 games.

One victory for Austria (first game without advanced rules); One victory for France (second game with advanced rules and eased victory); One victory for the Imperial Army (same as above, advanced and eased victory).

In the first i was Prussia, in the second Austria and in the third i was France... but for a player went away i took Prussia giving France to the Elisabeth Player.

The game is awesome and i give it a 10!!!

Image

-toni- — 2008-06-18T10:38:35+00:00

My chess clock we use in Friedrich games (according to the world championship rules). The nationmarkers denote which side of the clock is for the Allies and which is for Prussia.

Image

desertfox2004 — 2008-03-18T04:16:38+00:00

Prussia's "Eddie the Great" stresses over his next move at the start of Turn 8, while Austria's Emperor "Pat" Theresa confidently peruses a rulebook!

Image

desertfox2004 — 2008-03-18T04:10:59+00:00

This is what a French victory looks like! Turn 11 and it's all over for Prussia and Hannover!

Image

kifty — 2008-01-24T02:36:57+00:00

Simple army solution: laminated cards and dry-erase markers.

Image

Partizan242 — 2008-01-14T16:15:44+00:00

My Lazy, Cheap Solution to the Army Sheets (inspired by the FWC)

Image

rsivel — 2007-11-07T21:40:47+00:00

Friedrich used on stage for the theatre piece "Minna von Barnhelm" (which is settled right after the 7YW). -- On stage in "Schauspielhaus", Hamburg. November 2007.