"Game Balance and Points" Topic

Hi all.

I have a question re balancing up games of TSATF, a new system to me though I've been gaming for a fair few years.

At the moment my focus is on the Anglo Zulu war, and having played a few small games next week were going to try something a little larger. Were looking at a Company of British Infantry vs 6 Zulu Ivivyo (how do you pronounce that by thew way???). All seems to fit the reccommended 3 to 1 comment but here's the quesion…

If I was to use the points table the British to Zulu balance shifts dramaticalls from 3-1 towards the British. So how would you suggest bringing in Artillery / Cavalry and the like??

thanks all

Generally 1 unit of Zulus for each gun or cavalry troop.Terrain can be a great equalizer. You don't need so many Zulus if they have plenty of hiding places.

Why do you want to "balance" it?
there are all kinds of factors that could throw it out of whack anyway?

why not just generate some historical or faux-historic scenarios and let the whote guys shoot and the brown guys charge.

If a gamer demands an equal chance of winning, I don't think he really gets the point (!) of historical gaming.

Some of the best TSATF games I've played have been unmitigated slaughters… typically, my team:)

To the OFM & Sergeant Paper:

"Hear! Hear!"

TVAG

My experience is that the suggested ratios in the rules grossly over-estimate the power of European units. Historically, European forces were much more powerful than they are made out to be in TSATF. In many colonial engagements, European troops were able to hold off native forces 5-10 times their own number with very light casualties. In TSATF, 1:3 odds is most likely to lead to the Europeans being wiped out; at best an ahistorically high number of European casualties (Issandowa being a fluke).

This being said, historically balanced colonial battles would be uninteresting to game with the results being a foregone conclution. 1:2 ratios at the most I think, even less if natives have good firing units. The other thing you could do would be to skew victory conditions in the native's favor. Even a few European casualties on a campaign was seen as a pyric victory.

Thanks for the comments folks, lots of useful ideas to work with.

Whilst I get the concept of not requiring balanced forces there is a much longer disucssion for such a choice.

Laptot I see your point for the larger set piece battles but my view of the 1879 war has always been the Zulu's where a match for the British, when the fight was on their terms, be that terrain or darkness etc. Damn Ive just argued against my own idea of points balance!!!

Oh well will just see how it goes, and if all else fails will take OFM's advice and just charge!!!!