"Abandoning Wounded; a rules modification for TS&TF " Topic

A lot of old guard TS&TF gamers know that in games against "savage natives", the Imperial player is under a rules imperative to carry wounded with him lest unpleasant modifiers accrue to his morale rolls. The problem is that once wounded have been lost to the enemy, and the unpleasant morale modifier of -2 kicks in, there is no further incentive to try to save or rescue any additional wounded. (Unless a GM builds this into the scenario or the Imperial player is mindful of historical precedent.) So at that point, wounded are treated most cavalierly, and this just doesn't come off as appropriate. So this is what I shall implement henceforth: each turn the Imperial player loses wounded to the savage enemy, he accrues a -1 critical morale modifer. Track this with a big scary red d6 if you fancy. These negative modifiers will accrue by a factor of one on ANY turn in which the Imperial player loses wounded to the enemy, up to a maximum modifier of -6. It makes no difference how few or how many wounded figures are lost in a turn.

This rule is easy to add to the existing rules and has the advantage of being cumulative as a game goes on, so that an Imperial player gets penalized the first time he gets sloppy or careless but still has an incentive to not let it happen again. If it happens repeatedly, he gets penalized more and more, until he reaches a point where his units are almost sure to break if they face a morale check.

How does this strike you?

Quite right – reading memoirs and first hand accounts, this issue of the wounded is a huge part of operations that often becomes the primary tactical objective once things turn sour. The same applies today.

No more of:
"Aaarrrrrrgggghhhhh!"
"Blimey, Fred. Yer on yer own now."

Usually by the time the second batch of wounded would be in peril, the situation is too far gone.

Yeah, sounds good. I remember playing a game against the Zulus where I was reduced to just a handful of stalwart Brits manfully guarding a lot of wounded against the overwhelming Zulu attack. We went down fighting in that one.

Jim

The intent of the rules is to compel the Imperial player to protect his wounded, which is historically sound. The restrictions this places on Imperial movement and actions is also part of the play-balance, in my view. The problem is that the rules sort of stop being effective once any wounded have been lost. My idea is to keep the penalty active as long as practicable, start it low but permit it to creep up.

Once the rule kicks in, the situation is already rather desperate for the Imperial player.

On the one hand, a rule making them keep their wounded is good, and the existing rule certainly does that. However, I wouldn't go overboard….if the "savage natives" torture your buddies, either of two things will happen. A…you will fight to the death and take as many of them with you as you can, or B….you'll be filled with hatred and fight like a mad man.

I do not agree with it getting worse as time goes on. At the least, if you use that rule, I would allow morale to improve if you recapture your wounded.

I don't see a morale degradation like that either.

No, I think Piper909 has hit it squarely on the head.

There's no ONE reaction to hearing your mates being cut up, but a burning personal desire for revenge defeats the purpose of discipline and organization. A Platoon/Company can't have its members acting independently and retain cohesion.

Then again, a collective desire to fight to the bitter end is entirely possible--but so is cutting a chogie through the tall grass to the rear. It would depend on the strength of the unit's identity as a "family," and that's going to tend to be high in the British Army, and a lot lower in the Egyptian of '82.

But, overall, it's the shame and the sense of letting one's mates down that makes the very idea of leaving them to the attentions of a savage enemy a serious obligation they hate to fail to meet. Increasing the weight of that shame as units repeatedly fail to meet it is all too real, and would be a short track to breaking a unit's effectiveness and even it's ability to survive.

Good on you, Piper909!

TVAG

Also knowing that leaving one's wounded to the "tender care" of the natives in such a manner one would be cashiered quickly!

Revisiting this thread.
A "reaction test" on having abandoned wounded might be fun to try.
On a 6, all on your side are battle mad and get an additional +1 on hth that round. Or on a 11-12 on 2D6 or something.

In smaller games (not the 12 player con ones), using the injured rules, and cavalry hore casualties, and the obove mentioned morale modifiers for leaving troops behind really changes the game for the Colonials.

Turns lots of games, where the natives get crushed, into challenging contests.

Running a Colonial unit, wounded figures and horseless cavalry really sucks. But it's realistic.

So many accounts of officers running back into certain death to save the wounded, so use it.