Battles of 1866:
A First Look

As the totals begin to slowly climb for Classic Wargame titles that are not Leyte Gulf, we’ve been working on a number of them, including Battles of 1866.

This one was, from the start, the one I most wanted to do. And also the one I least expected to actually get to finish. When we drafted the original list of Classic Wargames, we put Leyte Gulf on it knowing there it would clear the production hurdle. We felt it important to put a sure winner on the list. And we balanced that with a sure loser.

Instead, the game’s pledges have held steady with those for seemingly better-loved World War II titles like Alamein. The people have spoken: they want the last ride of the Austrian cavalry, the heroic stand of Battery of the Dead, the fearsome power of the needle gun.

The game itself has been on my mind for many years. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the 1866 war, and have long wanted to express some of those ideas in game form. The basics were laid down while we did Dave Powell’s Gettysburg in 2002, as it was always the intention that Dave’s game spawn two closely-related series, War of the States and War of the Empires.

Unfortunately, while Gettysburg sold at a reasonable level it was not the hit it should have been. Nor was its sequel, Chickamauga & Chattanooga. Bringing out a game on a battle most Americans can’t pronounce, as large as the other two put together, would have been the utmost foolishness.

Then came Classic Wargames, and now comes Battles of 1866, seven battles of the 1866 war between Prussia and Austria.

The enemy

At the center of the package is the Battle of Königgrätz, largest fought in the Western World up to that time and indeed until the First World War changed the definition of “battle.” For example, the Union army in Gettysburg is represented by 55 “long” counters. The Austrians at Königgrätz have 88 plus 10 more for the Saxon Army.

Austria lost the battle and control of Germany, thanks almost exclusively to over-aggressiveness. In the Königgrätz game, the Austrian player’s forces start entrenched, with much better artillery than the Prussians and large reserves. Their command is not as good as the Prussians, but on the defensive it doesn’t need to be. The Austrian cavalry is much better than the Prussian, but if this comes into play, the Austrian player — like his historical counterpart Ludwig von Benedek — is in deep trouble.

In the actual battle, Benedek’s men held off the Prussians in the early phase of the battle and stood in very good shape. Then two of his corps commanders impulsively attacked the Prussians rather than await them in their trenches. Austrian tactical advantages (including a rifle of much longer range) were thrown away as they played to the exact advantage the Prussians held (a much greater rate of fire from their breechloaders).

“What a glorious weapon is the Needle Gun!”

While the two corps stood entangled and a third tried to extricate them, a Prussian army swept down on their exposed flank. The Austrian position crumbled, and only fierce attacks by the Austrian cavalry and a stand to the death by the artillery held off complete destruction.

In many secondary works, the Prussian needle gun and Austrian incompetence are held out as key factors. In actuality, the Austrians had learned from their early battles with the Prussians and adopted measures to compensate. In game terms, Austrian-initiated attacks give the Prussian an advantage to simulate the breechloading advantage vs. Austrian storm tactics.

Prussian firing line

As far as Austrian impulsiveness, the standard game system already models this fairly well. In Bohemian Campaign, a poor command roll will cause some corps commanders to attack (most Austrians, Prussian Prinz August of the Guard Corps) and a handful to retreat (Eduard Bonin of Prussia’s I Corps, the perpetually drunken Clam-Gallas of Austria’s I Corps (only at Gitschin; he gets fired before Königgrätz)).

Ludwig von Gablenz,
Austria’s top corps commander

Terrain analysis is the key to this game system and its Napoleonic and Roman siblings. The lie of the land determines how units can move, and where they can stand. These battles, especially Königgrätz, have received a very close analysis of the ground over which they were fought. This relies on the maps crafted by Austria’s chief military engineer Ernst Pidoll in the week before the battle plus the extensive after-action maps and reports filed in Austria’s War Archive. I’ve also walked all of the battelfields in question. This should be one of the most accurate wargame maps we’ve done.

Since we put the proposal out, we’ve gotten a few questions as to why we included the other battles: Trautenau, Gitschin, Soor, Nachod and Skalitz. All are much smaller than Königgrätz and not nearly as interesting.

I like to work with small battles when designing a game system, and Trautenau was the test case for developing War of the States/Empires. It’s a small puzzle, as are the others except Gitschin (itself a respectable clash of armies). But every game piece used in these was already needed for Königgrätz; trimming them saves only the map. Had we dropped them, it would have dropped the price only about $10, and we still would have rounded it up to its current price. So, in essence, these battles are “free” even though I have to work on them. But I like working on them, so that’s OK.

At the current pace, Battles of 1866 probably won’t appear before the end of 2005. But feel free to make us work harder by putting in more pledges. I very much want to finish this one.

Mike Bennighof
November 2004