"Colonials, Sword and the Flame, and burnout" Topic

Okay, here I go again, Sword and the Flame has legions of defenders, including here on TMP. However, I like a number of others, have burned out on it. Sure, great beer and pretzels rules for a couple of close friends. But no flanks, can only satisfactorily put a limited number of figures on the table. (Yes, I know you can put masses of figures on the table but then it takes masses of time to get through a single turn)

So, my challenge, rather than defend Sword and the Flame, venerable as it is, is to hear from all of you about better rules systems that allow for faster play (simultaneous?) with larger numbers of figures, not necessarily individually based. (even preferably multiple figure basing).

Think in turms for those of us who might like to do a tabletop version of Omdurman or Islandawhana (sp?). Think in terms of full battles rather than 'glorious' skirmishes.

How say you, gentlemen?

Fields of Honor, Battle for Empire, Principles of War or Victorian Warfare by Saga all are 'big battle' colonial. TSATF is really a skirmish set and I'm not sure anyone would try Omdurman with it.

I dont recall the name of the system(lotta help i am), but it centered around issuing orders. the cool thig about it was when a unti needed to deviate from their "issued" orders (example; a unit is sent to take a hill, in the process they come under fire from a unit in an adjacent terrain feature and moved or fired to face this new threat you had some penalty to roll to "change" orders.) i played it several years ago and have a set downstairs. if i get a chance later i will post it.

i love SatF but i remember having a blast with this set. also, unit sizes varied from 4 to 24 another nice change from SatF

cheers,
Hal

I asked for rules recommendations to fight proper sized battles recently:

TMP link

I can't say I'm overly bowled over by BFE, but it is OK. Anyway, various recomendations therein.

If you like RPG elements then give Science vs Pluck a go.

Have you looked at "800 Fighting Englishmen?"

It is the Battalion level version of TSATF that takes the emphasis off the Skirmish game the rules were originally designed to provide (brilliantly, I might add).

Aside from going to four figure trays or stands, no real change is required to convert an existing TSATF collection to 800FE.

It's available from sergeants3.com for about $8.00, though it does require TSATF in order to play completely.

Also, you might tell us what types of games you play. That is, what objectives (if any) you establish, and whether you do anything to add more variety and uncertainty to play.

Too often other people have played the same "game" over and over again, using too many figures, no terrain, no surprises, and then blame the rules for their lack of imagination or knowledge of the subject.

As you obviously know, there are so many fans of TSATF that if you were to ask for new ideas to add spice to your games, you'd be swamped with them in no time.

Try any other set of rules you like, they all have something to add to the subject, but look to your scenarios first!

TVAG

I've had many fun games of 'Fields of Honor.'

Used it for Maori Wars, Crimea, Zulu War, Sudan, all sorts. It uses stands to form units and the units form into command groups (forget exactly what they call them in the rules). The unit scale is variable, so the units can be battalions or brigades, or whatever. It has rules for regular troops, skirmishing, irregular mobs, you can form lines, columns, square etc. Has optional orders system.

Out of print, I believe, but you might be able to find a copy.

There are variants around to speed-up play of games with large numbers of figures, like this one:
link
I'm just about ready to put 200 Boxers on the table, and I'm going to tinker with using scrap CDs as bases to move the mobs around the table to speeed things up.

I love a topic that disses fans of a particular game in it's first sentence.
Sorry, Bud. I like TSATF, and I won't play your game.

Try Principles of War. I played them for a couple of years and I thought is was really good.

TVAG, it is not a problem with scenario design, amongst the local gamers I have a reputation for being good at that, my basic rule is a scenario needs to be fair (not necessarily balanced, but fair), have surprises – preferably unpleasant, and inject a sense of humor. In addition, I use a diverse range of terrain, off table movement, reserves – the whole gamut. TSATF was fun for a while but too limiting on number of figures, completely ignores flanks which any good commander knows cannot be abided, and the worst of all, is a card driven system. My time, and my fellow players time, is too valuable to sit around waiting forever for a turn to complete. I really prefer the JRII type system where both sides act simultaneously, a much better representation of the chaos of battle.

As to types of games – think of a scenario, any scenario….
enough said?

GG S Man

Look at the Piquet group of rules as a possibility – Feild of Battle or Din of Battle. The latter is currently being revised.

gavin

@G&GS:
Please could you explain what you mean by "completely ignores flanks"?
I think I know, but want to be sure what I think you mean is what you actually mean !?!

I'll give another vote for Principles of War. We used it for several large battles including Khartoum. link

It worked well.

Oggie

I'm with Mike Snorben on this one.

Yes, please explain what you mean when you say "Completely ignores flanks."

Have you ever looked at any of the Scenario collections offered by The Brommer? Have you ever used anything like the Event Decks to add uncertainty to your games?

And why would you think that the myth of "simultaneous movement" would improve your gaming experience in any subject?

Why don't you take your own good advice from elsewhere and revisit the Major General's site and recharge your batteries? Or start a campaign, read about a new Colonial Era subject you think you'd enjoy?

In any event, you don't have to like TSATF, or Colonials in general, but as the OFM sagely pointed out, you really don't need to insult those of us who do--and after well over 20 years have never "burned out" on this classic title.

TVAG

Here here !

Larry Brom is working on a fast play version of Colonial rules that (I think) will be available in a few months or so. You can field hundreds of troops on each side & play to a definitive conclusion in 3-4 hours. I was one of the playtesters for this back in October.

Interesting coopman. That's good news. I know it's in development, but do you know if it will use singly-based figures or multiples?

Fast Play just released. Can't answer your question though.

To: swordflame@yahoogroups.com
From: "Lori Brom" <loribrom@cox.net> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoogroups.com. Learn more
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:21:16 -0000
Subject: [swordflame] By Battalion – Volley Fire Clarification
These Fast Play Rules are specifically for Colonial battles using
larger forces (800 – 1200 figures). Sorry for any confusion.

Good Gaming!

And why would you think that the myth of "simultaneous movement" would improve your gaming experience in any subject?

Ahem!

Do you honestly believe that only one side moves at a time in a real battle????

So simultaneous movement is not a "myth".

Fair enough, it might be best to represent it with sequential movement, but to call it a myth is silly.

And, his point was that it keeps the players busy. Not that it is more realistic.

His point is valid -- sequential systems can leave players twiddling their thumbs rather a lot.

I have used Volley and Bayonet to play colonials.

Thank you, Mr. Plant! John the OFM is often spicy, but sage? Hmm. And, where, TVAG, did I anywhere insult anybody in this thread? Called some things into question, yes. Insult, I don't think so, certainly hope not. As to flanks, I don't recall a rule (I've both of the originals and the original supplement – published originals, anyway) that gives any benefit to flanks in TSATF and yet, if you read the history of warfare in general and great captains in particular, flanks are critical to success in war. Now, it has been a long time since I've played so maybe I've forgotten something but I recall two stellar facts of why I gave up on TSATF, too much sitting on thumbs while waiting for cards to come up (we played with 6 or more players per game) and no flanks. Of course, when I saw the part two post the first thing I did was check out the site for the new rules and the second thing I did was start a new thread to hear from people about how they work (if they're not too new to know). That would be because I admire what Mr. Brom accomplished with TSATF, probably the first truly successful 'universal' rules that had long legs and because I hope they may benefit my gaming experience. Curious that when you go the the site for TSATF, Larry and his partners own comments, in a way, reflect mine (vis-a-vis a need for faster rules for many figures). And I thought I said some nice things about TSATF to start this thread for those who are fans – because it has such dedicated fans – and only then turned to my real topic, better rules for larger figures, a point many picked up on and responded to in a positive way. So, in future, perhaps I will take John the OFM's advice and not play your game, either. Which would be sad, because you often make good contributions to the discussions here. Or, were you suffering indigestion when you wrote your post from too much T-day leftovers? Happy gaming, either way.

Different strokes for different folks, and all that, but …

1. Your point about card sequence systems sometimes slowing down game-play is well taken, especially in larger games. However, there are easy work-arounds such as moving multiple units on the same card, which are commonly used when games *exceed* the recommended number of units for the system. That's an important point – gamers often exceed what systems are intended for (which I don't know, of course, was your particular problem). Also, a good GM will have people draw following cards if the movement of one unit is designated or won't effect other movement.

2. On the other hand, your complaint about TSATF specifically not rewarding flank attacks is unfounded. Does it have a specific list of modifiers? No – however, if a British unit is actually flanked, it gets no fire defense, which is tantamount to suicide in most cases. Add to this the fact that only figures in contact, and those within 1", actually fight the close combat, and a mass of natives hitting a British unit in line will often be fighting at 5-10:1 odds. They will win the fight and the entire British unit will be forced to fall back, which often is the tipping point of a game. Trust me, there's nothing that a British player worries about *more* in TSATF than suffering a flank attack.

I play a lot of very complex rules, but on the other hand I have come to admire the way that TSATF does what it set out to do with very simple rules. It just takes a bit of experience and an open mind to see some things in the proper perspective. On the other hand – hey, it's a hobby. If it doesn't feel fun to you, then best of luck finding something else. When I wanted bigger battle rules that had a different focus than TSATF, I just made my own.

Good Gaming!

Christopher

PS – might as well add Point 3. I actually *do* believe that simultaneous movement is just as abstracted and "incorrect" as sequential movement. Commanders would "wait and see" more often than not, which subject to the flow of battle (deployment and chance, i.e. current tabletop positions and card draw here) effected when they would give their orders and the units would act. In fact, sequential movement may indeed be *more* realistic than attempting to model simultaneous movement.

Yo, CAT, my preferce for simultaneous movement is really because it speeds play. My personal perception is it gives a better 'feel' to a game as well, though your point about commanders waiting to see what develops is valid. However, to the limited extend possible, I like games that get players stomachs churning nervously and simultaneous movement can achieve this to some degree. Of course, there are those who will wait and see what others are doing during 'simultaneous' movement. My cure if I am GM? I tell players that if I see them watching what others are doing rather than moving their own figures is that I will move their figures for them and promise I will move them adversely! Seems to solve the problem the vast majority of the time. My saying simultaneous movement is more realistic is based on getting this 'in the gut' response rather than a truer simulation.

True enough, the actual use of simultaneous movement in games requires a firm and fair GM, and I'll often do the same as you (or just have the player "pass" for the turn if he's not quick enough, hanging back, etc.). However, in my experience this can introduce misunderstandings and hard feelings – this depends on the group, of course, and is more of a game-play issue than a "realism" issue.

You can use some of the same GM skills when running a game with sequential movement. What I will often do is draw a few cards myself, and then divvy them out in multiples if it makes sense – for instance if sequential cards are on the same side, or in different sectors. This speeds things up and avoids some of the judgment calls you have to make when GM'ing a simultaneous movement game.

Obviously, both work, and have certain effects and strengths and weaknesses. I just want to point out that card-based systems, which certainly *can* be a bottleneck and slow down the game, can be run a bit more quickly if you use different techniques.

Cheers