I forgot to reply to your other points, Mark. We did tend to play larger actions
using the rules. Natives had Fieldcraft so could be hard to detect in terrain.
Cavalry was needed or your infantry could be in for a NASTY surprise. I think I
may break them out for my Boxer Rebellion games.
I think they would work fine for Mexican American. The rating system he has
models disparate units quite well.
I have believed that he should update the CnC rules and rerelease them. I don't
think they were widely known back in their 1st incarnation. They certainly ARE a
very good set of rules. The author knew his stuff.
Thanks,
John
--- In ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com, "Mintz, Mark" <mark.mintz@...> wrote:
>
> What colonial did you do with them John?
>
> I've thought about using them for MexAm or Colonial China, but have yet to
actually get around to trying it. I like the way they read though.
>
> Huh...in rereading the section of rules around colonials it actually states:
> "I feel that this rules set is ideal for those battles for which the
ever-popular 'The Sword and the Flame' is not good -- actions involving entire
brigades on each side (or at least one side), instead of merely a few
companies."
>
> Interesting that it talks directly to the point that was being discussed on
TSATF and scale, and mentions TSATF by name!
>
> Mark
>
Hey Mark. We did a few Boer War games with them. We also did Sudan and Zulu war
games. Cavalry was vital to flush out natives in terrain. Reflected Colonial
warfare quite well, I thought. The rules allowed smaller veteran or Elite units
to have staying power even vs larger units. We scaled them up for 1866 and 1870
so that units were Regiments rather than Battalions. We also used them for
Spanish American War. We REALLY liked the rules.
Thanks,
John
--- In ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com, "Mintz, Mark" <mark.mintz@...> wrote:
>
> What colonial did you do with them John?
>
> I've thought about using them for MexAm or Colonial China, but have yet to
actually get around to trying it. I like the way they read though.
>
> Huh...in rereading the section of rules around colonials it actually states:
> "I feel that this rules set is ideal for those battles for which the
ever-popular 'The Sword and the Flame' is not good -- actions involving entire
brigades on each side (or at least one side), instead of merely a few
companies."
>
> Interesting that it talks directly to the point that was being discussed on
TSATF and scale, and mentions TSATF by name!
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of JohnL
> Sent: February 8, 2010 21:50
> To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ColonialWars] Republic and Empire.
>
> My group and I played a lot of games of Republic and Empire. We did Acw,
Crimean, Naps, Colonials, 1866 and 1870. The author is Arofan Gregory. It's a
shame the rules didn't gain a wider audience. They were quite good. I'd probably
tinker around with the CnC to update them a little. Very flexible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
I am interested in the map.
Thanks,
Dennis
From: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of myron shipp
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:39 AM
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ColonialWars] Boxer Rebellion Buildings
Hi
I have found a map do you still need one?
Cheers
Myron
--- On Fri, 6/11/09, robbo6138 <Arobinson1@... <mailto:Arobinson1%40aol.com>
> wrote:
From: robbo6138 <Arobinson1@... <mailto:Arobinson1%40aol.com> >
Subject: [ColonialWars] Boxer Rebellion Buildings
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ColonialWars%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Friday, 6 November, 2009, 5:22 AM
Guys im wondering if anyone out there can point me in the right
direction, i'm looking for plans of the Legation buildings during
the Boxer Rebellion in Peking. I'm hoping to get as accurate
as possible with these for a demo game we are planning to put
on next year as a group. Thanks in advance.
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Too true Ron! I will definitely admit I was only thinking in terms of European
armies oppressing the natives (in whatever form they may take), and not thinking
along the lines of "native on native", though that has some very interesting
possibilities as well. Over on the Cape Wars list at one point we'd been
discussing possibilities for a Zulu vs Xhosa game, which is nicely supported by
historical reality!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of myron shipp
Sent: February 8, 2010 20:38
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ColonialWars] Heresy II
Hi all
Thats a bit of an Anglo centric view, the Tia ping rebellion was the biggest war
up until WW2, in terms of casualties.
Cheers
Ron
Ducks back down behind parapet.
Me again
Another idea I like is to have a table with a Colonial settlement at each corner
and one in the middle, these are joined by tracks each of which passes through a
defile, the native player moves on a map ( the table is divided into 1 foot
squares on the map) and the Colonials have to defend the settlements from
attack, not knowing when or where they will be hit with a possible ambush
waiting at every defile. Victory points are allocated for each settlement burned
or saved, this makes a good one night at the club campaign.
Cheers
Myron
--- On Wed, 10/2/10, M C Monkeydew <raminad9@...> wrote:
From: M C Monkeydew <raminad9@...>
Subject: Re: [ColonialWars] Re: Musings
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Received: Wednesday, 10 February, 2010, 1:36 AM
Â
>I greatly enjoy Peter Pigs PITS-Patrols in the Sudan. the game has a 1:1
figure ration, lots of tense feeling, and gives plenty of amusing anecdotes.
>Just a lark with toy soldiers. I tend not to play larger actions in Colonials
because many of them seem to devolve into White Men shooting hordes of >Brown
Men. Not so much fun. The games just feel like a carnival shooting gallery.
Not to argue, but rather to open discussion, the situation you relate has more
to do with scenario design than with any particular scale or rule set.
It's been my experience that successful native armies need space above all. A
scenario where the colonial power is set in the middle of the table and the
native told to shift them won't do at all.
A scenario where the colonial power has to cross the table, or worse yet,
re-cross the table provides plenty of opportunity for the patient native. The
colonial player usually will have a hard time extricating his forces and
imposing some sort of time limit will greatly facilitate such a game.
This is of course just what PITS does, my point is merely that large actions can
also be fought this way using rules like Piquet, Battle for Empire, Fields of
Honor and so on.
Now clearly not every wargamer wants such a challenge and many prefer futile
charges to successful skulking. Must say I enjoy both.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There is one theatre that provides a good crossover where semi-regular native
units team up with irregular hoards to defeat the Russian advancing armies and
that is the Conquest of the Central Asian Khanates from 1850-1881 by the
Imperial Russian army. The Central Asian Khanates often had European trained
units within their armies.
Just a thought.
Geoff
----- Original Message -----
From: David Crowell
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ColonialWars] Re: Musings
There is definitely some truth in this as applies to me. One of the aspects of
wargaming I enjoy most is storytelling. I like my games to have a backstory, a
narrative during, and a what happened afterwards? For Colonials I find this in
smaller actions most usually.
Even though TSATF isn't my personal cup of tea, I can see why those who like
it like it a lot. It aims at that feeling of fireside anecdote.
I greatly enjoy Peter Pigs PITS-Patrols in the Sudan. the game has a 1:1
figure ration, lots of tense feeling, and gives plenty of amusing anecdotes.
Just a lark with toy soldiers. I tend not to play larger actions in Colonials
because many of them seem to devolve into White Men shooting hordes of Brown
Men. Not so much fun. The games just feel like a carnival shooting gallery.
In periods where the conflict is European vs European or Native vs Native
there is more of a sense of tactics and strategy, rather than sheer firepower
being the decider of the day in mass battles.
Just my experince, yours may well vary.
cheers,
--dave
----- Original Message -----
From: bloodandchivalry
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:32 AM
Subject: [ColonialWars] Re: Musings
I think David has hit the nail on the head here. Colonial Wars are quite often
narrated at the amusing anecdote/character/skirmish level. Much of our
inpsirational reading is fictional as well (Flashman, Boys Own Adventures,
Kipling) which adds to the chaacter driven aspect of the game.
Until Sharpe came along to inspire Napoleonic skirmishes there wasn't much.
Because most of the books were talking divisions and corps.
As a prominant author of Napoleonic rules once commented, "Why play
Napoleonics if you can't be Napoleon?" so why play colonials if you can't be
Bromhead or Hamilton winning his VC?
James
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi
I have found a map do you still need one?
Cheers
Myron
--- On Fri, 6/11/09, robbo6138 <Arobinson1@...> wrote:
From: robbo6138 <Arobinson1@...>
Subject: [ColonialWars] Boxer Rebellion Buildings
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Received: Friday, 6 November, 2009, 5:22 AM
Â
Guys im wondering if anyone out there can point me in the right
direction, i'm looking for plans of the Legation buildings during
the Boxer Rebellion in Peking. I'm hoping to get as accurate
as possible with these for a demo game we are planning to put
on next year as a group. Thanks in advance.
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi all
Thats a bit of an Anglo centric view, the Tia ping rebellion was the biggest war
up until WW2, in terms of casualties.
Cheers
Ron
Ducks back down behind parapet.
--- On Tue, 9/2/10, Mintz, Mark <mark.mintz@...> wrote:
From: Mintz, Mark <mark.mintz@...>
Subject: RE: [ColonialWars] Heresy II
To: "'ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com'" <ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com>
Received: Tuesday, 9 February, 2010, 3:39 AM
Â
I've been following this thread with great interest!
I have to put myself in the ranks of those who aren't that interested in the
"big battles", being drawn rather to the small actions instead. I don't find it
limited or restricted, rather I find it freeing. I think for me big battles for
the colonial period are just too much work, too many figures to buy and paint,
too few and far between, and really the outcomes are (to my mind at least)
"set". This happened, and unless I can recreate the landscape exactly, I'll
never really be able to try and refight it.
For my own chosen period theatres, China, Canada, Mexico and the Cape Frontier,
there really aren't that many big battles to fight, and those big battles aren't
that big to begin with. Nothing really "set piece" like FIW Plains of Abraham
or something like that. And even FIW was a skirmish compared to the full out
battles of the SYW in Europe.
I also like the challenge of seeking out those 'unknown' small actions, trying
to put parameters on what I read to make them into playable games. And more
often I think these are the types of actions that could go either way, an
outcome that hangs in the balance until the final shot is fired. Ulundi, wagon
train aside, was pretty much a done deal when the marching started, which was
what they tried to make sure of when they set out.
That all said, Chris, I may have a rule set for you to try! Don't know if
you've run across it yet, but the "Republic and Empire" rules seem to fall into
the gap between skirmish and the Napoleonic style "4 figure battalions" rules.
The scale for RE is units as battalions with 4-8 bases per, but can also be
scaled to company units (again 4-8 per). Periods in the rules cover Napoleonic
to Spanish American, and everything in between, with writeups on 8 different
theatres/periods (including ACW). I don't remember where I picked them up, but
I do seem to recall that the author had released them free onto the net (they
were originally published in '94). Here's a link to a link I googled up...can't
tell if it works though, I'm at work right now...
http://www.miniatur ewargaming. com/index. php/mwg/comments /republic_
and_empire_ rules/
Thanks for the pointer to the Dando books...I'll have to see if I can hunt those
up...
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ColonialWars@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ColonialWars@ yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of Chris
Sent: February 5, 2010 11:31
To: ColonialWars@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [ColonialWars] Heresy II
First of all I want to offer my thanks to all who have replied to my heretical
statement that TSATF wasn't for me and I couldn't see what you see it them.
Rather than reply to all the comments one by one I thought I'd post Heretical II
to present a few facts. You see I'm not criticising TSATF in the sense that I
think they're no good, it's just that I feel they are limiting and wanted to
know if anyone else felt the same. There's nothing wrong with having fun - umm
it's why we play isn't it - but I'm not Gunga Din and don't wants to be.
I began Wargaming in 1964 when I think I picked Don Featherstone' s book up at
the library. I must have then subscribed to Wargamer's Newsletter because some
short time later I attended (with my father) the first Wargamers Convention to
be held in the UK at Caxton hall in London. After that I went to two weekend
conventions at which we had a FORMAL dinner with speeches! One from the great
man himself who lauded Wargaming as fun and berated the 10 year old boy (not
present) who had thrashed him that very afternoon.
So I can look back on those days with pleasure and admire anyone who can still
play the, well let's say, "small unit" actions with as much enjoyment as I did
back then when I rolled a 5 or 6 to hit and another 5 or 6 for a saving roll.
The first troops I bought were Airfix ACWs (in blue and gray plastic so I didn't
have to paint them!) followed by metal British colonials with strange looking
Zulus. (I still have them.)
My only problem these days is that I don't want to fight skirmish/small unit
actions. I do play 21C skirmish games but only because the ranges of modern
weapons make company size games silly. (The only exception being Fistful of
Tows)
So as one gentleman said, I am comparing apples with oranges but only in an
attempt to find out why TSATF is so poplar and seems to be the only decent set
of colonial rules extant. I've used all the rules except Black Powder mentioned
on this site and don't like any of them! The only rules I've found to my taste
are the wonderfully named but so badly written "The Great Game". (Must be the
best title for a rules set of this period.) These will allow me to fight big
battles but I still, rules junkie that I am, need to find the perfect set.
I've since read Larry (Is it?) Brom's explanation of why he wrote the rules as
he did and couldn't agree more. No criticism in that sense is intended. But I
still can't see why colonial gamers are happy to fight tiny actions when big
battles (even if fictitious) exist in history.
I think I've done you a service (runs and ducks <g>) by promoting all this
discussion on this aspect of this great hobby of ours, but I'll do you one more!
If you like small unit actions and the flavour of the period then beg borrow or
buy the Dando series of books by the late William Clive. You won't find many big
battles, or for that matter many small ones, but you'll come away wanting a
Dando figure in your collection.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi all
I agree mowing down the natives is no fun, I like Pony wars style rules which
all players are on the Colonials side and the natives move randomly. The players
should be given odjectives like escorting a convoy across the table or saving
missionaries or settlers, this even things up and works not just for the
American West but also China and the Sudan as well. 55 minutes at Peking is a
good example of this with each power having secondary objectives as well such as
stealing other allies stuff.
Cheers
Myron
--- On Wed, 10/2/10, M C Monkeydew <raminad9@...> wrote:
From: M C Monkeydew <raminad9@...>
Subject: Re: [ColonialWars] Re: Musings
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Received: Wednesday, 10 February, 2010, 1:36 AM
Â
>I greatly enjoy Peter Pigs PITS-Patrols in the Sudan. the game has a 1:1
figure ration, lots of tense feeling, and gives plenty of amusing anecdotes.
>Just a lark with toy soldiers. I tend not to play larger actions in Colonials
because many of them seem to devolve into White Men shooting hordes of >Brown
Men. Not so much fun. The games just feel like a carnival shooting gallery.
Not to argue, but rather to open discussion, the situation you relate has more
to do with scenario design than with any particular scale or rule set.
It's been my experience that successful native armies need space above all. A
scenario where the colonial power is set in the middle of the table and the
native told to shift them won't do at all.
A scenario where the colonial power has to cross the table, or worse yet,
re-cross the table provides plenty of opportunity for the patient native. The
colonial player usually will have a hard time extricating his forces and
imposing some sort of time limit will greatly facilitate such a game.
This is of course just what PITS does, my point is merely that large actions can
also be fought this way using rules like Piquet, Battle for Empire, Fields of
Honor and so on.
Now clearly not every wargamer wants such a challenge and many prefer futile
charges to successful skulking. Must say I enjoy both.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob has hit it on the head for me. I enjoy a game in which I maneuver around the
Imperialists, attack and am rebuffed repeatedly, and never break the square, as
much as one in which I do. I think it is because I always believe that, whatever
the odds, the good guys will win...
We have played PITS too (in 54mm, to which it adapted fine with minimal
changes), and it has produced some enjoyable games. The mechanics for giving the
good guys a chance against the European firepower are fiendishly clever, and
properly handles present the bad guys with a real challenge.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: M C Monkeydew
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ColonialWars] Re: Musings
Not to argue, but rather to open discussion, the situation you relate has more
to do with scenario design than with any particular scale or rule set.
...
It's been my experience that successful native armies need space above all. A
Now clearly not every wargamer wants such a challenge and many prefer futile
charges to successful skulking. Must say I enjoy both.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What colonial did you do with them John?
I've thought about using them for MexAm or Colonial China, but have yet to
actually get around to trying it. I like the way they read though.
Huh...in rereading the section of rules around colonials it actually states:
"I feel that this rules set is ideal for those battles for which the
ever-popular 'The Sword and the Flame' is not good -- actions involving entire
brigades on each side (or at least one side), instead of merely a few
companies."
Interesting that it talks directly to the point that was being discussed on
TSATF and scale, and mentions TSATF by name!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of JohnL
Sent: February 8, 2010 21:50
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ColonialWars] Republic and Empire.
My group and I played a lot of games of Republic and Empire. We did Acw,
Crimean, Naps, Colonials, 1866 and 1870. The author is Arofan Gregory. It's a
shame the rules didn't gain a wider audience. They were quite good. I'd probably
tinker around with the CnC to update them a little. Very flexible.
Thanks,
John
On a side note I happened to walk into a local antique store last week with my
sweetums and there on a shelf was VOL I & II of Kipling's Collected poems and
stories, as well as a copy of Kim and all for $10! They were in excellent
condition and are on the bed stand waiting their turn to be read.
Later that same day my great price wass offset when my 6'4" body knocked a
basket from it's hanging position with my head so that it could fall and smash
one jar and the lid of another. They were around $25 each. The lady at the store
was gracious enough to let me off the hook for one, and I kept the body of the
second, a ginger jar, because it was ornate and now holds my small paint brushes
on my desk.
Ying and Yang I guess.....
Cheers
I agree with this. In ACW everyone wants to be Lee, Longstreet Grant or Sherman,
or maybe Bufort (sp), Custer or Stuart
In WW1 Naval the folks to look for are Sheer or Jellico, for WW2 either the
individual sub commander or the likes of halsey or Nagumo.
We game the actions from the persepctive of the "people" who are most written
about, most read about or most interesting.
In WW2 land action you see this as both skirmish and large scale actions are
popular as is the stories of Pattons and Montgomeries and Rommels but also the
Rangers on D Day and the SAS or LRDG
For Colonials Chelmsford is part of the back drop and even even Sir Garnet isn't
as interesting.
Thinking about this in this fashion it also seems like there are no even
match-ups between Great Captains in the colonial setting to inspire players on
both sides. What would Napoleon be without Wellington? Montgomery without Patton
(oops) Rommel? Lee without a range of Union Commanders until finally we get to
Grant?
On the skiromish level in colonials there are many many brave and resourceful
groups of fighting men that can go toe to toe with Tommy Atkins but there are
few commanders that can face a British Army and hope to win and only one or two
that can stand up the The British Empire and survive.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: bloodandchivalry <jamesmanto@...>
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2010 7:32 am
Subject: [ColonialWars] Re: Musings
I think David has hit the nail on the head here. Colonial Wars are quite often
narrated at the amusing anecdote/character/skirmish level. Much of our
inpsirational reading is fictional as well (Flashman, Boys Own Adventures,
Kipling) which adds to the chaacter driven aspect of the game.
Until Sharpe came along to inspire Napoleonic skirmishes there wasn't much.
Because most of the books were talking divisions and corps.
As a prominant author of Napoleonic rules once commented, "Why play Napoleonics
if you can't be Napoleon?" so why play colonials if you can't be Bromhead or
Hamilton winning his VC?
James
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>I greatly enjoy Peter Pigs PITS-Patrols in the Sudan. the game has a 1:1 figure
ration, lots of tense feeling, and gives plenty of amusing anecdotes. >Just a
lark with toy soldiers. I tend not to play larger actions in Colonials because
many of them seem to devolve into White Men shooting hordes of >Brown Men. Not
so much fun. The games just feel like a carnival shooting gallery.
Not to argue, but rather to open discussion, the situation you relate has more
to do with scenario design than with any particular scale or rule set.
It's been my experience that successful native armies need space above all. A
scenario where the colonial power is set in the middle of the table and the
native told to shift them won't do at all.
A scenario where the colonial power has to cross the table, or worse yet,
re-cross the table provides plenty of opportunity for the patient native. The
colonial player usually will have a hard time extricating his forces and
imposing some sort of time limit will greatly facilitate such a game.
This is of course just what PITS does, my point is merely that large actions can
also be fought this way using rules like Piquet, Battle for Empire, Fields of
Honor and so on.
Now clearly not every wargamer wants such a challenge and many prefer futile
charges to successful skulking. Must say I enjoy both.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There is definitely some truth in this as applies to me. One of the aspects of
wargaming I enjoy most is storytelling. I like my games to have a backstory, a
narrative during, and a what happened afterwards? For Colonials I find this in
smaller actions most usually.
Even though TSATF isn't my personal cup of tea, I can see why those who like it
like it a lot. It aims at that feeling of fireside anecdote.
I greatly enjoy Peter Pigs PITS-Patrols in the Sudan. the game has a 1:1 figure
ration, lots of tense feeling, and gives plenty of amusing anecdotes. Just a
lark with toy soldiers. I tend not to play larger actions in Colonials because
many of them seem to devolve into White Men shooting hordes of Brown Men. Not so
much fun. The games just feel like a carnival shooting gallery.
In periods where the conflict is European vs European or Native vs Native there
is more of a sense of tactics and strategy, rather than sheer firepower being
the decider of the day in mass battles.
Just my experince, yours may well vary.
cheers,
--dave
----- Original Message -----
From: bloodandchivalry
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:32 AM
Subject: [ColonialWars] Re: Musings
I think David has hit the nail on the head here. Colonial Wars are quite often
narrated at the amusing anecdote/character/skirmish level. Much of our
inpsirational reading is fictional as well (Flashman, Boys Own Adventures,
Kipling) which adds to the chaacter driven aspect of the game.
Until Sharpe came along to inspire Napoleonic skirmishes there wasn't much.
Because most of the books were talking divisions and corps.
As a prominant author of Napoleonic rules once commented, "Why play
Napoleonics if you can't be Napoleon?" so why play colonials if you can't be
Bromhead or Hamilton winning his VC?
James
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Perhaps a lot of this derives from the question, "What inspires you to wargame
this period?"Â In addition to colonials, I have Vikings, and while I hate to
say that a lot more thought went into what I wanted to do and what rules I would
use, that is pretty much the truth. I bought and painted an army of Vikings
for one of the WRG Ancients editions.  I set it up, I looked at it, I thought
about the situation, and I realized this was an army for fighting Stamford
Bridge. However, I was buying and painting Vikings because I'd read
the Icelandic sagas.  A really huge battle in the sagas, like the fight at
the Althing in Niall's Saga, might have 200-300 men per side, but most were much
smaller, right down to 2-3 guys being bushwhacked by half a dozen. So, I sold
off half the Vikings and went in search of rules that allowed me to game the
saga battles. One stop along the way was tinkering with TSATF, trying to
create a Viking and Saxon version.
>
>
>
> I suppose a Civil War game could be put together based around Scarlett O'Hara
shooting any of Sherman's bummers who came to Tara. However, for whatever
reason, few of us are inspired to do Civil War by this movie. I've visited
and read about Civil War batles from Glorieta to Gettysburg, and the accounts
and even the descriptions on the battlefield talk about regiments or brigades,
so it just seems natural to do Civil War by regiments (Johnny Reb rules) or
brigades (Fire and Fury).
>
>
I think David has hit the nail on the head here. Colonial Wars are quite often
narrated at the amusing anecdote/character/skirmish level. Much of our
inpsirational reading is fictional as well (Flashman, Boys Own Adventures,
Kipling) which adds to the chaacter driven aspect of the game.
Until Sharpe came along to inspire Napoleonic skirmishes there wasn't much.
Because most of the books were talking divisions and corps.
As a prominant author of Napoleonic rules once commented, "Why play Napoleonics
if you can't be Napoleon?" so why play colonials if you can't be Bromhead or
Hamilton winning his VC?
James
My group and I played a lot of games of Republic and Empire. We did Acw,
Crimean, Naps, Colonials, 1866 and 1870. The author is Arofan Gregory. It's a
shame the rules didn't gain a wider audience. They were quite good. I'd probably
tinker around with the CnC to update them a little. Very flexible.
Thanks,
John
--- In ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com, "Mintz, Mark" <mark.mintz@...> wrote:
>
> I've been following this thread with great interest!
>
> I have to put myself in the ranks of those who aren't that interested in the
"big battles", being drawn rather to the small actions instead. I don't find it
limited or restricted, rather I find it freeing. I think for me big battles for
the colonial period are just too much work, too many figures to buy and paint,
too few and far between, and really the outcomes are (to my mind at least)
"set". This happened, and unless I can recreate the landscape exactly, I'll
never really be able to try and refight it.
>
> For my own chosen period theatres, China, Canada, Mexico and the Cape
Frontier, there really aren't that many big battles to fight, and those big
battles aren't that big to begin with. Nothing really "set piece" like FIW
Plains of Abraham or something like that. And even FIW was a skirmish compared
to the full out battles of the SYW in Europe.
>
> I also like the challenge of seeking out those 'unknown' small actions, trying
to put parameters on what I read to make them into playable games. And more
often I think these are the types of actions that could go either way, an
outcome that hangs in the balance until the final shot is fired. Ulundi, wagon
train aside, was pretty much a done deal when the marching started, which was
what they tried to make sure of when they set out.
>
> That all said, Chris, I may have a rule set for you to try! Don't know if
you've run across it yet, but the "Republic and Empire" rules seem to fall into
the gap between skirmish and the Napoleonic style "4 figure battalions" rules.
The scale for RE is units as battalions with 4-8 bases per, but can also be
scaled to company units (again 4-8 per). Periods in the rules cover Napoleonic
to Spanish American, and everything in between, with writeups on 8 different
theatres/periods (including ACW). I don't remember where I picked them up, but
I do seem to recall that the author had released them free onto the net (they
were originally published in '94). Here's a link to a link I googled up...can't
tell if it works though, I'm at work right now...
>
http://www.miniaturewargaming.com/index.php/mwg/comments/republic_and_empire_rul\
es/
>
> Thanks for the pointer to the Dando books...I'll have to see if I can hunt
those up...
>
Jeff at Outpost has released Russian Guard infantry (conversions of existing
line) which are suitable for The Great Game and a Turkish Artillery crew in the
uniform described in the book The Defence of Plevna.
I've been following this thread with great interest!
I have to put myself in the ranks of those who aren't that interested in the
"big battles", being drawn rather to the small actions instead. I don't find it
limited or restricted, rather I find it freeing. I think for me big battles for
the colonial period are just too much work, too many figures to buy and paint,
too few and far between, and really the outcomes are (to my mind at least)
"set". This happened, and unless I can recreate the landscape exactly, I'll
never really be able to try and refight it.
For my own chosen period theatres, China, Canada, Mexico and the Cape Frontier,
there really aren't that many big battles to fight, and those big battles aren't
that big to begin with. Nothing really "set piece" like FIW Plains of Abraham
or something like that. And even FIW was a skirmish compared to the full out
battles of the SYW in Europe.
I also like the challenge of seeking out those 'unknown' small actions, trying
to put parameters on what I read to make them into playable games. And more
often I think these are the types of actions that could go either way, an
outcome that hangs in the balance until the final shot is fired. Ulundi, wagon
train aside, was pretty much a done deal when the marching started, which was
what they tried to make sure of when they set out.
That all said, Chris, I may have a rule set for you to try! Don't know if
you've run across it yet, but the "Republic and Empire" rules seem to fall into
the gap between skirmish and the Napoleonic style "4 figure battalions" rules.
The scale for RE is units as battalions with 4-8 bases per, but can also be
scaled to company units (again 4-8 per). Periods in the rules cover Napoleonic
to Spanish American, and everything in between, with writeups on 8 different
theatres/periods (including ACW). I don't remember where I picked them up, but
I do seem to recall that the author had released them free onto the net (they
were originally published in '94). Here's a link to a link I googled up...can't
tell if it works though, I'm at work right now...
http://www.miniaturewargaming.com/index.php/mwg/comments/republic_and_empire_rul\
es/
Thanks for the pointer to the Dando books...I'll have to see if I can hunt those
up...
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Chris
Sent: February 5, 2010 11:31
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ColonialWars] Heresy II
First of all I want to offer my thanks to all who have replied to my heretical
statement that TSATF wasn't for me and I couldn't see what you see it them.
Rather than reply to all the comments one by one I thought I'd post Heretical II
to present a few facts. You see I'm not criticising TSATF in the sense that I
think they're no good, it's just that I feel they are limiting and wanted to
know if anyone else felt the same. There's nothing wrong with having fun - umm
it's why we play isn't it - but I'm not Gunga Din and don't wants to be.
I began Wargaming in 1964 when I think I picked Don Featherstone's book up at
the library. I must have then subscribed to Wargamer's Newsletter because some
short time later I attended (with my father) the first Wargamers Convention to
be held in the UK at Caxton hall in London. After that I went to two weekend
conventions at which we had a FORMAL dinner with speeches! One from the great
man himself who lauded Wargaming as fun and berated the 10 year old boy (not
present) who had thrashed him that very afternoon.
So I can look back on those days with pleasure and admire anyone who can still
play the, well let's say, "small unit" actions with as much enjoyment as I did
back then when I rolled a 5 or 6 to hit and another 5 or 6 for a saving roll.
The first troops I bought were Airfix ACWs (in blue and gray plastic so I didn't
have to paint them!) followed by metal British colonials with strange looking
Zulus. (I still have them.)
My only problem these days is that I don't want to fight skirmish/small unit
actions. I do play 21C skirmish games but only because the ranges of modern
weapons make company size games silly. (The only exception being Fistful of
Tows)
So as one gentleman said, I am comparing apples with oranges but only in an
attempt to find out why TSATF is so poplar and seems to be the only decent set
of colonial rules extant. I've used all the rules except Black Powder mentioned
on this site and don't like any of them! The only rules I've found to my taste
are the wonderfully named but so badly written "The Great Game". (Must be the
best title for a rules set of this period.) These will allow me to fight big
battles but I still, rules junkie that I am, need to find the perfect set.
I've since read Larry (Is it?) Brom's explanation of why he wrote the rules as
he did and couldn't agree more. No criticism in that sense is intended. But I
still can't see why colonial gamers are happy to fight tiny actions when big
battles (even if fictitious) exist in history.
I think I've done you a service (runs and ducks <g>) by promoting all this
discussion on this aspect of this great hobby of ours, but I'll do you one more!
If you like small unit actions and the flavour of the period then beg borrow or
buy the Dando series of books by the late William Clive. You won't find many big
battles, or for that matter many small ones, but you'll come away wanting a
Dando figure in your collection.
On Feb 8, 2010, edgington52@... wrote:
It must have been about the same time I picked up a copy of Featherstone's How
to Go Wargaming at our library out in "the heart of the Western wilderness."Â
By some obscure bit of logic, it lived in the fine arts section, which I rarely
visited. Based on that, I diverted our family vacation out to California a few
years later to include a stop in Visalia, where Jack Scruby had a wargames
store.  We found the store, with the shadow of the name still visible, but
all vacant. He'd looked old (to a teenager) in Don Featherstone's photos, and
I assumed he had gone to that great wargames table in the sky. Years later, I
found he'd just moved to Cambria, on the coast, and was happily selling toy
soldiers, along with collectables for tourists driving the coastal highway.
I remember photos of colonial battles from other books Mr. Featherstone wrote
over the years. These featured larger battles, and I dare say I could have
happily played in such games. By the time I started collecting colonial
figures in the early '80s, TSATF dominated the market, and I don't believe I
gave much thought to other rules, though I did have one other set at the time.Â
It does have a cinematic quality, but I think most of us knew little about the
colonial wars back then, aside from what we'd seen in the movies, and on
television. It put us in positions where we were leading the charge, trying to
hold the wall, riding to the rescue, just like in the historical (!) accounts
we'd seen on the big and little screens.
Perhaps a lot of this derives from the question, "What inspires you to wargame
this period?"Â In addition to colonials, I have Vikings, and while I hate to
say that a lot more thought went into what I wanted to do and what rules I would
use, that is pretty much the truth. I bought and painted an army of Vikings
for one of the WRG Ancients editions.  I set it up, I looked at it, I thought
about the situation, and I realized this was an army for fighting Stamford
Bridge. However, I was buying and painting Vikings because I'd read
the Icelandic sagas.  A really huge battle in the sagas, like the fight at
the Althing in Niall's Saga, might have 200-300 men per side, but most were much
smaller, right down to 2-3 guys being bushwhacked by half a dozen. So, I sold
off half the Vikings and went in search of rules that allowed me to game the
saga battles. One stop along the way was tinkering with TSATF, trying to
create a Viking and Saxon version.
A short pause here, while I toddle off to the next room, and pull out my 1979
edition of TSATF. What I've been nattering on about is pretty much what Larry
Brom says in the introduction--he was inspired by Kipling's poems, by movies
like Gunga Din and Zulu, and he created a game around just that.
I suppose a Civil War game could be put together based around Scarlett O'Hara
shooting any of Sherman's bummers who came to Tara. However, for whatever
reason, few of us are inspired to do Civil War by this movie. I've visited
and read about Civil War batles from Glorieta to Gettysburg, and the accounts
and even the descriptions on the battlefield talk about regiments or brigades,
so it just seems natural to do Civil War by regiments (Johnny Reb rules) or
brigades (Fire and Fury).
Aside from the issue of inspiration, I think part of the thing about TSATF is
its longe vity. This, in turn, goes back to the fact that it does what it sets
out to do very well, and has the flexibility to be adapted to many other things
(if I had persevered, I could probably have developed a decent Viking game based
on TSATF) and include all sorts of strange things Mr. Brom never intended .Â
Finally, yes, I do think you have done us something of a service, getting us to
think about somethng we just take for granted.
David Edgington
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <donnieitaly@...>
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2010 9:30:38 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: [ColonialWars] Heresy II
Â
First of all I want to offer my thanks to all who have replied to my heretical
statement that TSATF wasn't for me and I couldn't see what you see it them.
Rather than reply to all the comments one by one I thought I'd post Heretical II
to present a few facts. You see I'm not criticising TSATF in the sense that I
think they're no good, it's just that I feel they are limiting and wanted to
know if anyone else felt the same. There's nothing wrong with having fun – umm
it's why we play isn't it – but I'm not Gunga Din and don't wants to be.
I began Wargaming in 1964 when I think I picked Don Featherstone's book up at
the library. I must have then subscribed to Wargamer's Newsletter because some
short time later I attended (with my father) the first Wargamers Convention to
be held in the UK at Caxton hall in London. After that I went to two weekend
conventions at which we had a FORMAL dinner with speeches! One from the great
man himself who lauded Wargaming as fun and berated the 10 year old boy (not
present) who had thrashed him that very afternoon.
So I can look back on those days with pleasure and admire anyone who can still
play the, well let's say, "small unit" actions with as much enjoyment as I did
back then when I rolled a 5 or 6 to hit and another 5 or 6 for a saving roll.
The first troops I bought were Airfix ACWs (in blue and gray plastic so I didn't
have to paint them!) followed by metal British colonials with strange looking
Zulus. (I still have them.)
My only problem these days is that I don't want to fight skirmish/small unit
actions. I do play 21C skirmish games but only because the ranges of modern
weapons make company size games silly. (The only exception being Fistful of
Tows)
So as one gentleman said, I am comparing apples with oranges but only in an
attempt to find out why TSATF is so poplar and seems to be the only decent set
of colonial rules extant. I've used all the rules except Black Powder mentioned
on this site and don't like any of them! The only rules I've found to my taste
are the wonderfully named but so badly written "The Great Game". (Must be the
best title for a rules set of this period.) These will allow me to fight big
battles but I still, rules junkie that I am, need to find the perfect set.
I've since read Larry (Is it?) Brom's explanation of why he wrote the rules as
he did and couldn't agree more. No criticism in that sense is intended. But I
still can't see why colonial gamers are happy to fight tiny actions when big
battles (even if fictitious) exist in history.
I think I've done you a service (runs and ducks <g>) by promoting all this
discussion on this aspect of this great hobby of ours, but I'll do you one more!
If you like small unit actions and the flavour of the period then beg borrow or
buy the Dando series of books by the late William Clive. You won't find many big
battles, or for that matter many small ones, but you'll come away wanting a
Dando figure in your collection.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It must have been about the same time I picked up a copy of Featherstone's How
to Go Wargaming at our library out in "the heart of the Western wilderness."Â
By some obscure bit of logic, it lived in the fine arts section, which I rarely
visited. Based on that, I diverted our family vacation out to California a few
years later to include a stop in Visalia, where Jack Scruby had a wargames
store.  We found the store, with the shadow of the name still visible, but
all vacant. He'd looked old (to a teenager) in Don Featherstone's photos, and
I assumed he had gone to that great wargames table in the sky. Years later, I
found he'd just moved to Cambria, on the coast, and was happily selling toy
soldiers, along with collectables for tourists driving the coastal highway.
I remember photos of colonial battles from other books Mr. Featherstone wrote
over the years. These featured larger battles, and I dare say I could have
happily played in such games. By the time I started collecting colonial
figures in the early '80s, TSATF dominated the market, and I don't believe I
gave much thought to other rules, though I did have one other set at the time.Â
It does have a cinematic quality, but I think most of us knew little about the
colonial wars back then, aside from what we'd seen in the movies, and on
television. It put us in positions where we were leading the charge, trying to
hold the wall, riding to the rescue, just like in the historical (!) accounts
we'd seen on the big and little screens.
Perhaps a lot of this derives from the question, "What inspires you to wargame
this period?"Â In addition to colonials, I have Vikings, and while I hate to
say that a lot more thought went into what I wanted to do and what rules I would
use, that is pretty much the truth. I bought and painted an army of Vikings
for one of the WRG Ancients editions.  I set it up, I looked at it, I thought
about the situation, and I realized this was an army for fighting Stamford
Bridge. However, I was buying and painting Vikings because I'd read
the Icelandic sagas.  A really huge battle in the sagas, like the fight at
the Althing in Niall's Saga, might have 200-300 men per side, but most were much
smaller, right down to 2-3 guys being bushwhacked by half a dozen. So, I sold
off half the Vikings and went in search of rules that allowed me to game the
saga battles. One stop along the way was tinkering with TSATF, trying to
create a Viking and Saxon version.
A short pause here, while I toddle off to the next room, and pull out my 1979
edition of TSATF. What I've been nattering on about is pretty much what Larry
Brom says in the introduction--he was inspired by Kipling's poems, by movies
like Gunga Din and Zulu, and he created a game around just that.
I suppose a Civil War game could be put together based around Scarlett O'Hara
shooting any of Sherman's bummers who came to Tara. However, for whatever
reason, few of us are inspired to do Civil War by this movie. I've visited
and read about Civil War batles from Glorieta to Gettysburg, and the accounts
and even the descriptions on the battlefield talk about regiments or brigades,
so it just seems natural to do Civil War by regiments (Johnny Reb rules) or
brigades (Fire and Fury).
Aside from the issue of inspiration, I think part of the thing about TSATF is
its longe vity. This, in turn, goes back to the fact that it does what it sets
out to do very well, and has the flexibility to be adapted to many other things
(if I had persevered, I could probably have developed a decent Viking game based
on TSATF) and include all sorts of strange things Mr. Brom never intended .Â
Finally, yes, I do think you have done us something of a service, getting us to
think about somethng we just take for granted.
David Edgington
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <donnieitaly@...>
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2010 9:30:38 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: [ColonialWars] Heresy II
Â
First of all I want to offer my thanks to all who have replied to my heretical
statement that TSATF wasn't for me and I couldn't see what you see it them.
Rather than reply to all the comments one by one I thought I'd post Heretical II
to present a few facts. You see I'm not criticising TSATF in the sense that I
think they're no good, it's just that I feel they are limiting and wanted to
know if anyone else felt the same. There's nothing wrong with having fun – umm
it's why we play isn't it – but I'm not Gunga Din and don't wants to be.
I began Wargaming in 1964 when I think I picked Don Featherstone's book up at
the library. I must have then subscribed to Wargamer's Newsletter because some
short time later I attended (with my father) the first Wargamers Convention to
be held in the UK at Caxton hall in London. After that I went to two weekend
conventions at which we had a FORMAL dinner with speeches! One from the great
man himself who lauded Wargaming as fun and berated the 10 year old boy (not
present) who had thrashed him that very afternoon.
So I can look back on those days with pleasure and admire anyone who can still
play the, well let's say, "small unit" actions with as much enjoyment as I did
back then when I rolled a 5 or 6 to hit and another 5 or 6 for a saving roll.
The first troops I bought were Airfix ACWs (in blue and gray plastic so I didn't
have to paint them!) followed by metal British colonials with strange looking
Zulus. (I still have them.)
My only problem these days is that I don't want to fight skirmish/small unit
actions. I do play 21C skirmish games but only because the ranges of modern
weapons make company size games silly. (The only exception being Fistful of
Tows)
So as one gentleman said, I am comparing apples with oranges but only in an
attempt to find out why TSATF is so poplar and seems to be the only decent set
of colonial rules extant. I've used all the rules except Black Powder mentioned
on this site and don't like any of them! The only rules I've found to my taste
are the wonderfully named but so badly written "The Great Game". (Must be the
best title for a rules set of this period.) These will allow me to fight big
battles but I still, rules junkie that I am, need to find the perfect set.
I've since read Larry (Is it?) Brom's explanation of why he wrote the rules as
he did and couldn't agree more. No criticism in that sense is intended. But I
still can't see why colonial gamers are happy to fight tiny actions when big
battles (even if fictitious) exist in history.
I think I've done you a service (runs and ducks <g>) by promoting all this
discussion on this aspect of this great hobby of ours, but I'll do you one more!
If you like small unit actions and the flavour of the period then beg borrow or
buy the Dando series of books by the late William Clive. You won't find many big
battles, or for that matter many small ones, but you'll come away wanting a
Dando figure in your collection.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Chris,
Ah, the joys of the Internet! My computer shows the first of your e-mails
coming in at 7:48 pm, while the 2nd and 3rd arrived at 7:49. When I open the
e-mails, it shows them to have been sent over a seven and a half
hour period. Go figure!
Guessing from your address, you are in Europe. Here in the United States, it
has been Super Bowl Sunday, and folks have been watching pre-game, game and
post-game television from noon or so until just a little bit ago. This is a
largely inexplicable local custom, usually accompanied by consumption of large
amounts of generally unhealthy food, and copious quantities of alcoholic
beverages.
David Edgington
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <donnieitaly@...>
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2010 3:41:01 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: [ColonialWars] Heresy II ?
Â
I have commented at length on the various helpful remarks made by people on this
site but although I've posted twice nothing has been shown. Shall I post again?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From the Con Director -
Williamsburg Muster was a totally enjoyable time. I understand that a large
number of our gamers decided to take the wiser course of action (in what was
certainly one of the bigger winter storms in years), and stay home, but we will
certainly welcome them back for next year!
For those of us who were in Williamsburg for the 2010 Muster - we had a great
time! Barring 1 illness, all of our vendors were there, and the majority of our
events went out off without a hitch! Attendance was light, but at all times
Friday evening and Saturday, there were games all over our gaming ballrooms, and
even our Flames of War tournament went off. Although Warhammer Ancients and the
other Warhammer events were cancelled (due to the referee staff being
weather-bound), there were still a few Ancients and Fantasy Battle games played.
We had a great time, and are looking forward to next year. Keep an eye on the
ODMS website for pictures and more AARs about specific games from the event.
Thanks,
Chuck
Convention Director
Williamsburg Muster 2010
http://www.odms-club.com/convention/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi all
I don't know those rules but I use Principles of War which are generic Colonial
battalion level rules with army lists for the NW Frontier. Actually an element
can be whatever you want 3 individuals,a Platoon, a company or a battalion, with
3 elements to each unit. Then multiples of that.
Cheers
Myron
--- On Sun, 7/2/10, alan_lockhart <alanlockhart17@...> wrote:
From: alan_lockhart <alanlockhart17@...>
Subject: [ColonialWars] 800 Fighting Englishmen
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Received: Sunday, 7 February, 2010, 3:46 AM
Â
I am looking for rules to game large actions on the NW Frontier with
perhaps 3 or 4 British and Indian battalions, a couple of squadrons of Indian
cavalry and a mountain battery against perhaps 100 Pathans. I know The Sword
and the Flame are for skirmishes and I was considering 800 Fighting Englishment
which I understand is at battalion level for units.
Can anyone comment on how these rules compare to some of the newer colonial
rules such as Black Powder or Battles for Empire?
Alan
I am looking for rules which give a nice fast moving game with a feel for the
period.
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi all
All these posts especially the one by larry have won me over and I just bought a
copy of TS&TF on e-bay including the Boxer supplement as this is my favourite
period and will give them a second look, with a view to a fun "pulp" game, and
use the other rules for historical refights, I will let you know how it went in
a few years when I have painted up 20 figures and got to the big smoke for a
game, such is the pace of my gaming.
Cheers
Myron
--- On Fri, 5/2/10, Mark Horan <mhoran@...> wrote:
From: Mark Horan <mhoran@...>
Subject: Re: [ColonialWars] Re: Heresy!
To: ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com
Received: Friday, 5 February, 2010, 12:31 AM
Â
This comment is not meant to be in direct response to Myron's post, so
please don't take it that way - it is just a general comment on the TSATF style
rules!
I knew Larry Brom a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, in Springfield, MA.
He made our game club's first miniatures rules for the American Civil War. All
his other rules have followed the same guiding principle. They are basically
fun "beer and pretzel" rules that, while representing the period in question,
are meant to be fun and easy to play. We played games that were part of a
large, ongoing campaign, and the battles fought with anywhere from 5-15 people
on a side. In the CW rules, you commanded a brigade of 20 figure regiments. We
all know what you get in TSATF. Usually the battles outcome would be determined
by one or two key moments at the apex of some attack. The resulting melee was
something that often stopped the action elsewhere as each side cheered on their
respective troops as the die was rolled and stands/figures were forced back,
wounded, killed, or captured.. Some 30 years later when the group sees each
other, we pull out
pictures and usually everyone can recall not only the battle, but the players
and troops that decided it. That would never have happened unless the players
had a hell of a lot of FUN!
With TSATF colonial units, some folks, like me, give every officer and key
figure (at least) a name; some name everyone! When figures earn awards, they
often get their figure modified to show their award. When they die, if they
were truely memorable, their figure might even be retired! This is definitely a
"beer and pretzels" environment.
So, if you are looking to do colonial battles with every possible historical
fact figured in, TSATF are not the rules you want. However, if you want to
fight a colonial era battle and have a memorably fun time, TSATF is THE rules
set to play.
Just one old guys opinion.
Mark
____________ _________ _________ __
From: myron shipp <ronshippau@yahoo. com.au>
To: ColonialWars@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 11:59:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ColonialWars] Re: Heresy!
Hi all
I myself tried TSATF once and didn't like it, it seemed like a throwback to the
'70s and rules like Charge by Brig Peter Young. I use Pony wars for solo games
or games where no ones wants to be the natives but mostly principles of War
which cover all Colonial periods and these are for unit based actions. I have
about 20 sets of Colonial rules and all have their good points, at least their
authors thought so. Even the free set 55 minutes at peking is fun. For me
wargaming is either a TEWT as in the Army or for fun, and as a recent post put
it, if your not having fun your not having fun, so lets not be rules nazis.
Cheers
Ron
--- On Thu, 4/2/10, rjnorton4@verizon. net <rjnorton4@verizon. net> wrote:
From: rjnorton4@verizon. net <rjnorton4@verizon. net>
Subject: Re: [ColonialWars] Re: Heresy!
To: ColonialWars@ yahoogroups. com
Received: Thursday, 4 February, 2010, 2:52 PM
On Feb 3, 2010, Chris <donnieitaly@ fastmail. fm> wrote:
I'm not quite with you here. (My fault - all the brains in my family went to my
son.) TSATF is so based around the individual I don't see how one can scale up
the rules to regiments. (Melee for example.)
Could you be more specific? It might help others. I simply cannot believe that
TSATF is the only set of colonial rules.
Thanks, tho :-)
--- In ColonialWars@ yahoogroups. com, "Ross" <ross@...> wrote:
>
> Let me start by saying I don't play a lot of TSATF but I enjoy them when I
do. To my mind, 100 figures on the smaller side is close to a minimum size for a
game. Movement trays do come in handy if moving say 400 Zulus about.
>
> The chaps who use different rules for different sized engagements have a good
idea but there is another old school idea that can be applied successfully with
a bit of artistic license. This is akin to the idea of bathtubbing a campaign by
using smaller units, regiments for brigades etc. Applied to TSATF and Colonial
games, your force of say 6 platoons (or 4 or 8 etc depending on time, resources
and number of players) with a gun or 2 and a troop of cavalry stand in for as
many regiments. An accurate simulation? No but in the middle of the action
players tend to think in terms of "wargame units" and not whether each soldier
represents 5 real ones or 20 and thus one gets the impression of a larger action
if the game is designed that way. This is especially true if you normally play
smaller skirmish games with more complex stories and fewer figures.
>
> Ross Mac
> gameofmonth. blogspot. com
> www.lochsloy. ca/macduff. htm
>
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo. com.au/plus7
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
First of all I want to offer my thanks to all who have replied to my heretical
statement that TSATF wasn't for me and I couldn't see what you see it them.
Rather than reply to all the comments one by one I thought I'd post Heretical II
to present a few facts. You see I'm not criticising TSATF in the sense that I
think they're no good, it's just that I feel they are limiting and wanted to
know if anyone else felt the same. There's nothing wrong with having fun – umm
it's why we play isn't it – but I'm not Gunga Din and don't wants to be.
I began Wargaming in 1964 when I think I picked Don Featherstone's book up at
the library. I must have then subscribed to Wargamer's Newsletter because some
short time later I attended (with my father) the first Wargamers Convention to
be held in the UK at Caxton hall in London. After that I went to two weekend
conventions at which we had a FORMAL dinner with speeches! One from the great
man himself who lauded Wargaming as fun and berated the 10 year old boy (not
present) who had thrashed him that very afternoon.
So I can look back on those days with pleasure and admire anyone who can still
play the, well let's say, "small unit" actions with as much enjoyment as I did
back then when I rolled a 5 or 6 to hit and another 5 or 6 for a saving roll.
The first troops I bought were Airfix ACWs (in blue and gray plastic so I didn't
have to paint them!) followed by metal British colonials with strange looking
Zulus. (I still have them.)
My only problem these days is that I don't want to fight skirmish/small unit
actions. I do play 21C skirmish games but only because the ranges of modern
weapons make company size games silly. (The only exception being Fistful of
Tows)
So as one gentleman said, I am comparing apples with oranges but only in an
attempt to find out why TSATF is so poplar and seems to be the only decent set
of colonial rules extant. I've used all the rules except Black Powder mentioned
on this site and don't like any of them! The only rules I've found to my taste
are the wonderfully named but so badly written "The Great Game". (Must be the
best title for a rules set of this period.) These will allow me to fight big
battles but I still, rules junkie that I am, need to find the perfect set.
I've since read Larry (Is it?) Brom's explanation of why he wrote the rules as
he did and couldn't agree more. No criticism in that sense is intended. But I
still can't see why colonial gamers are happy to fight tiny actions when big
battles (even if fictitious) exist in history.
I think I've done you a service (runs and ducks <g>) by promoting all this
discussion on this aspect of this great hobby of ours, but I'll do you one more!
If you like small unit actions and the flavour of the period then beg borrow or
buy the Dando series of books by the late William Clive. You won't find many big
battles, or for that matter many small ones, but you'll come away wanting a
Dando figure in your collection.
I have commented at length on the various helpful remarks made by people on this
site but although I've posted twice nothing has been shown. Shall I post again?
My aplogies if this appears twice but it should have arrived by now.
................................................................
First of all I want to offer my thanks to all who have replied to my heretical
statement that TSATF wasn't for me and I couldn't see what you see it them.
Rather than reply to all the comments one by one I thought I'd post Heretical II
to present a few facts. You see I'm not criticising TSATF in the sense that I
think they're no good, it's just that I feel they are limiting and wanted to
know if anyone else felt the same. There's nothing wrong with having fun – umm
it's why we play isn't it – but I'm not Gunga Din and don't wants to be.
I began Wargaming in 1964 when I think I picked Don Featherstone's book up at
the library. I must have then subscribed to Wargamer's Newsletter because some
short time later I attended (with my father) the first Wargamers Convention to
be held in the UK at Caxton hall in London. After that I went to two weekend
conventions at which we had a FORMAL dinner with speeches! One from the great
man himself who lauded Wargaming as fun and berated the 10 year old boy (not
present) who had thrashed him that very afternoon.
So I can look back on those days with pleasure and admire anyone who can still
play the, well let's say, "small unit" actions with as much enjoyment as I did
back then when I rolled a 5 or 6 to hit and another 5 or 6 for a saving roll.
The first troops I bought were Airfix ACWs (in blue and gray plastic so I didn't
have to paint them!) followed by metal British colonials with strange looking
Zulus. (I still have them.)
My only problem these days is that I don't want to fight skirmish/small unit
actions. I do play 21C skirmish games but only because the ranges of modern
weapons make company size games silly. (The only exception being Fistful of
Tows)
So as one gentleman said, I am comparing apples with oranges but only in an
attempt to find out why TSATF is so poplar and seems to be the only decent set
of colonial rules extant. I've used all the rules except Black Powder mentioned
on this site and don't like any of them! The only rules I've found to my taste
are the wonderfully named but so badly written "The Great Game". (Must be the
best title for a rules set of this period.) These will allow me to fight big
battles but I still, rules junkie that I am, need to find the perfect set.
I've since read Larry (Is it?) Brom's explanation of why he wrote the rules as
he did and couldn't agree more. No criticism in that sense is intended. But I
still can't see why colonial gamers are happy to fight tiny actions when big
battles (even if fictitious) exist in history.
I think I've done you a service (runs and ducks <g>) by promoting all this
discussion on this aspect of this great hobby of ours, but I'll do you one more!
If you like small unit actions and the flavour of the period then beg borrow or
buy the Dando series of books by the late William Clive. You won't find many big
battles, or for that matter many small ones, but you'll come away wanting a
Dando figure in your collection.
--- In ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com, "Ross" <ross@...> wrote:
>
> > But I don't and I still don't quite understand why gamers are happy to
"restrict" their colonial games to small battles and skirmishes when there are
battles like Adowa and Ulundi to play.
>
> AHHH! Now THAT is a different question from what rules to use when playing
them.
>
> 1st off, you aren't the only one for example here is an article about a fight
of Maiwand. I have seen other game reports of entire battles in magazines and on
line and I have seen rules for such things such as Chris LEach's Battles for
Empire. (current;y available on ebay
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230423011590 . Oddly
many of the big battle sets don't seem to stay in print long which brings us
back to your question.
***I have these rules but they don't allow for casualties which is another of my
requirements. (I.E. a unit can keep on taking losses until it simply vanishes. I
don't like that. I like to see my metal men suffer <g>.
>
> Now I also have to say that many, I dare say most ACW or Napoleonic gamers
don't spend most of their time refighting entire historical battles. Much more
common are smaller division or even brigade sized clashes which in proportion
are the Rorke's drift equivalent. There has also been enough buzz generated by
rules like Sharpe Practice and Brother vs Brother to show that interest in small
clashes has draw even for these periods.
*** I've never refought an historical battle (on the table top) in my life and
nor would I. But I find my small ACW battles with seven regiments of 20 men per
side to be bigger than I think TSATF could handle.
>
> Which still leaves us with why. Leaving aside the question of putting large
numbers of figures on the table so that a big battle LOOKS like a big battle
(its not technically necessary - a question of game design). To my mind there
are 2 main issues:
>
> 1. The bigger the battle, the less chance the natives seem to have of pulling
off a believable victory. Its easy to convince people that Lee might have pulled
off a victory at Gettysburg. Its hard to see just how the Brits could have
screwed so badly up at Ulundi that they could have outright lost. That tends to
leave one working on very unsatisfactory victory conditions or complete fantasy.
It easier to believe that small force could screw up as we have Isladwana as an
an example. It is interesting that Maiwand which is played in the link above is
the only Brigade sized British force that I can recall being defeated and the
enemy had artillery, modern weapons and some regular troops.
*** This of course is game philosophy. I like to win but I don't care if I lose.
if I'm the underdog I'm quite happy to see if I can make their eyes water even
if I end up running from the field
>
>
> 2. Rightly or wrongly, gamers don't expect a 'native' commander to have chess
like control over their units in a large battle though people are quite happy to
have a wily chieftain controlling his couple of thousand warriors in an ambush.
Part of the appeal of reducing a large all day battle to a 3 or 4 hour game is
to see how the over all battle plans do against each other as opposed to the
drama of unit clashing with unit. (Unless you have a lot of players, space and
time its very hard to do both well). It tends to be that drama that attracts
people to colonial gaming rather than the questions of military principles and
maneuver that leads the to compare the generalship of Lee and Meade or Napoleon
and Wellington.
***Gee if you want drama how's about 2000 Zulus bearing down on the thin red
line of British stalwarts?
>
> 3. Lastly. There are a lot of colonial wars where there either were no big
battles or only very few. This soon leads to fighting the same battle over and
over and over. With smaller actions, one can presume that there are all sorts of
little known fights and its easy to suspend disbelief.
*** I have never had any problem suspending disbelief when it comes to shooting
down metal men. You know in the 1960's Don Featherstone recommended a roster for
player's units so that when a casting was killed it would produced a "tangible
regret". he was shot down in flames by American gamers who were at the time
getting the regrets shown to them on the TV nightly from Vietnam. How times
don't change.
>
> That would be my guess at an answer.
*** My apologies for correcting your spelling. my computer does it automatically
so no linguistic superiority is claimed!
>
> Ross Mac
> http://gameofmonth.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/msoong/3231028180/
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Obviously (It helps to say that) it's all down to personal taste but you
won't find many ACW players who are happy to fight "The Fight at Wilkes Creek"
between ten Yanks and five Rebs (One CSA is worth two USA <g>) when they could
be doing Gettysburg. (Well actually one can't do Gettysburg but one can try.)
> >
> > I just wonder why I seem to be the only colonial gamer who wants to play (I
emphasis "play") the big battles.
> >
> > Many thanks for your reply and the effort put into it. Put it in the files
section!
> >
> > --- In ColonialWars@yahoogroups.com, rjnorton 4@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > >
> > > No game is for everyone's taste. If I were to cast my most critical eye
at TSATF I would say, it's best-suited for skirmishes, sacrifices realism for
Hollywood-like playability and that the rules supports too slim a cast of
characters.
> > >
> > > But I don't cast such an eye on TSATF. Rather all my copies are velveteen
with use, and one of my cherished memories is actually commanding two troops of
Mexican lancers in a late night invitation-only where the Bromster himself was
rolling his habitually abysmal dice.
> > >
> > > So why is TSATF not just admired, but even loved. Well, some of us
remember what the hobby was like before TSATF lifted us out of darkness.
Variable moves, variable turns, easy to understand firing tables. It was
revolutionary.
> > >
> > > But the fading memories of eccentric old coots are not enough to preserve
popularity or to explain TSATF's incredibly long legs. What does?
> > >
> > > In my opinion it's due to two main things. First, Larry understood what
most colonial gamers resonated to - it wasn't calculating artillery tables,
armor pentration capabilities or pounds of oats per horse per day. It was
Kipling's soldier's three, Korda's "Four Feathers," "Flashman," and, always,
"Zulu," - complete with "Men of Harlech" and "... and a bayonet sir, with some
guts behind it." Even those of us who are steeped in the true (if such a thing
is possible) history of the times, resonated to Larry's clarity of romantic
vision. Because of that vision and the brains it took to get it right, TSATF
produces epic adventure - with almost every game bringing a movie moment.
> > >
> > > The second thing is adaptability. I have seen TASTF rules applied to
battles from Natal to Region Four (just off the shoulder of Orion, across from
the Tannhauser gate). Change up unit size (I've seen pictures of TSATF with
hundreds of figures, by the way), introduce vehicles and new weapons and this
remarkable little game still works. If you want to see three masters of
variants, look at Ian Croxall, Mark Fastoso, and Steve Winter. Far from being a
fly in amber TSATF and it's happy family of offspring is very much alive and
evolving.
> > >
> > > I play lots of different rules and respect / like many. Soldiers Companion
(Space 1889), BAPS. BFE, Axis and Allies (infinitely superior to Flames of War
in my opinion), Johnny Reb and Fire and Fury to name a few. All of these have
simply deepened my appreciation of TSATF.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't say I speak for all, but this is certainly how I feel.
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope a little heresy is allowable if I promise to wash myself three
times after I type this . I've spent many years not liking TSATF set of rules,
yet still you chaps love them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WHY?????
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I mean they're skirmish rules aren't they?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How do you play a game where, say, the British square at Omdurman opens up
and the cavalry give chase? The most troops you can get per side must be, what,
100 or so?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I promise I'm not being nasty, I really want to know.
> > >
> >
>
First of all I want to offer my thanks to all who have replied to my heretical
statement that TSATF wasn't for me and I couldn't see what you see it them.
Rather than reply to all the comments one by one I thought I'd post Heretical II
to present a few facts. You see I'm not criticising TSATF in the sense that I
think they're no good, it's just that I feel they are limiting and wanted to
know if anyone else felt the same. There's nothing wrong with having fun – umm
it's why we play isn't it – but I'm not Gunga Din and don't wants to be.
I began Wargaming in 1964 when I think I picked Don Featherstone's book up at
the library. I must have then subscribed to Wargamer's Newsletter because some
short time later I attended (with my father) the first Wargamers Convention to
be held in the UK at Caxton hall in London. After that I went to two weekend
conventions at which we had a FORMAL dinner with speeches! One from the great
man himself who lauded Wargaming as fun and berated the 10 year old boy (not
present) who had thrashed him that very afternoon.
So I can look back on those days with pleasure and admire anyone who can still
play the, well let's say, "small unit" actions with as much enjoyment as I did
back then when I rolled a 5 or 6 to hit and another 5 or 6 for a saving roll.
The first troops I bought were Airfix ACWs (in blue and gray plastic so I didn't
have to paint them!) followed by metal British colonials with strange looking
Zulus. (I still have them.)
My only problem these days is that I don't want to fight skirmish/small unit
actions. I do play 21C skirmish games but only because the ranges of modern
weapons make company size games silly. (The only exception being Fistful of
Tows)
So as one gentleman said, I am comparing apples with oranges but only in an
attempt to find out why TSATF is so poplar and seems to be the only decent set
of colonial rules extant. I've used all the rules except Black Powder mentioned
on this site and don't like any of them! The only rules I've found to my taste
are the wonderfully named but so badly written "The Great Game". (Must be the
best title for a rules set of this period.) These will allow me to fight big
battles but I still, rules junkie that I am, need to find the perfect set.
I've since read Larry (Is it?) Brom's explanation of why he wrote the rules as
he did and couldn't agree more. No criticism in that sense is intended. But I
still can't see why colonial gamers are happy to fight tiny actions when big
battles (even if fictitious) exist in history.
I think I've done you a service (runs and ducks <g>) by promoting all this
discussion on this aspect of this great hobby of ours, but I'll do you one more!
If you like small unit actions and the flavour of the period then beg borrow or
buy the Dando series of books by the late William Clive. You won't find many big
battles, or for that matter many small ones, but you'll come away wanting a
Dando figure in your collection.
Offline 
Send Email
Online Now 
