"TSATF battles between civilised foes and wounded" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 19th Century Scenarios Message Board Back to The Sword and The Flame Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
ITALWARS | 14 Apr 2014 6:25 a.m. PST |
Being my favourite set of rules and type of encounters (semi-skirmish) i plan to use for everything excepts, maybe, WW1 in the West up today.. one of the main issue for me is the approach to wounded figures
as in reality European/Colonial forces as obliged to care and carry with them wounded and this peculiarity, in my experience, almost in every case heavily (and realistically) influence the tactical approach and mouvements of my forces..same thing for tribesmen..my approach is simply to leave them where they are with exception of a few types like for example Hereros and late Afghan tribesmen.. BUT..what to do if i play TSATF as an adaptation for European or US conflicts..last year i played a Risorgimento and a FPW small skirmish..i'm sure the Prussian or French would'nt have killed their wounded foes..same for Pontifical, Neapolitan, Austrians..maybe some doubts arose for Garibaldini semi bandits.. So what are your suggestions?..amend or don't consider at all the minus factor if you abandon your wounded figures? thanks |
Grelber | 14 Apr 2014 6:42 a.m. PST |
In his memoirs, Audie Murphy mentions a German who stayed behind to tend a badly wounded buddy, knowing they would be captured. According to Murphy, this was actually an iffy sort of thing: the folks doing the capturing might be having a bad day (best buddy dead 20 yards away) or be in a hurry, and not have time to deal with prisoners. On the battlefield, particularly in a situation where the troops aren't directly under the eye of their officers,wounded might well be killed, maybe before it was realized they were wounded. Of course, a large scale surrender, like Tunis, would be a different matter. A hospital, with Red Cross flags and doctors was probably pretty safe, too. So, I do think some effort should be made to get the wounded out, even if the penalties for not doing so aren't as severe as when fighting uncivilized foes, who would cut them up within sight, but out of range of their comrades. Grelber |
John the OFM | 14 Apr 2014 6:55 a.m. PST |
i'm sure the Prussian or French would'nt have killed their wounded foes
Are you sure about that? |
79thPA | 14 Apr 2014 10:26 a.m. PST |
We tend to play larger games and wounded figs just bog down the game too much for us, so all wounds are "out of action." For a smaller true skirmish game, I'd use the wounded status but I don't use it for "battles." |
John the OFM | 14 Apr 2014 11:41 a.m. PST |
We use wounded up until the heathen massacre the first one, then they get dropped and left to fend for themselves. |
Smokey Roan | 14 Apr 2014 4:34 p.m. PST |
I think there was one wounded prisoner taken the entire Zulu War by either side (that Zulu who was wounded at the skirmish before Rorkes Drift). Patched up and ironically killed in the hospital by his fellow Zulus during the battle. |
dragon6 | 15 Apr 2014 2:11 p.m. PST |
John the OFM wrote We use wounded up until the heathen massacre the first one, then they get dropped and left to fend for themselves. I'm curious John, why? I think seeing your friendly wounded killed would make it more likely to protect them. |
ITALWARS | 15 Apr 2014 3:23 p.m. PST |
Sorry but
my question was referring tot European conflict 's versions of TSATF..ex Franco-Prussian war..maybe in those cases we can consider that troops involved would sport a kind of fairplay towards wounded
so i can imagine wounded Gaston Dupont Garde Mobile of Seine Department cared with kindness by Frau Marlene of the Prussian Red Cross after having been offered a glass of cognac by Prussian Guard Officer
While, on the other hand, Ferruccio Esposito of the sicilian Bersaglieri ad Adwa has not to be left wounded by their comrades at the mercy of those marauding Galla horsemen interested in some specific parts of his body..don't you think it could be an acceptable compromise in our games? |
Smokey Roan | 15 Apr 2014 4:52 p.m. PST |
I like using light wounded (functions but shoots at -1 and melees at -1) and seriously wounded (standard, non functional TSATF wounded) I can see that that might complicate a big game
. |
Murvihill | 16 Apr 2014 9:59 a.m. PST |
I can see treating wounded in battles between civilised armies differently, if it were me I'd say that you wouldn't suffer a morale loss for leaving wounded behind (because of the expectation that the enemy will care for them if you don't), but I'd make another category "captured" for any wounded left behind and make them worth victory points, as well as possibly a surrender option for units that fail their morale miserably (can't remember whether it'd be snake eyes or boxcars). |
piper909 | 16 Apr 2014 10:15 a.m. PST |
John the OFM's point is that once the negative modifier for losing wounded to certain savage enemies applies, the Imperial player might as well abandon the rest, because the modifier never gets worse or improves, so the rules encourage the Imperial player to stop bothering at that time. And since TS&TF only mandates the "loss of wounded" penalty against certain savage enemies famous for NOT taking prisoners but does not require the penalty against less savage foes, I think it's quite appropriate to not apply the penalty to conventionally "civilized" armies. For example, I have matched French and British colonial forces against each other many times as hypothetical clashes in Africa (assume the Fashoda incident or something similar leads to a brushfire war; it makes a nice change of pace from "native bashing") and neither side is penalized for abandoning wounded. What you might try is building loss or recovery of wounded into your scenario victory conditions. I often establish that every dead enemy counts as a point but wounded do not count for points. So there is incentive to capture/execute/rescue wounded. Wounded who are out of action are already a penalty for game play. At the end of the game, wounded left on a field occupied by the enemy are treated as kills for victory point allocation. (or Captured if fighting non-savage foes.) But any wounded who are carried off the board do not count as losses. Realistically, the Imperial forces *should* have to worry more about their wounded when fighting savage enemies, since they could expect little mercy if captured and losses of this type would seriously affect morale in the field and back home when the civilians read their morning papers. |
|