"Colonial Gaming- How to get started?" Topic

Hello all. Recently I've been bit by the Colonials bug, a period which had never seemed all that interesting to me in the past. However, as is often the case, all it took was a little bit of reading and some Osprey color plates and… Anyway, I'd like to get into gaming this era, but I feel somewhat overwhelmed. As to specific conflicts within this broad range, I'm not certain. Any suggestions for a complete beginner on how to tackle this? Suggested conflicts, armies, rules, etc. are welcomed. Thanks!

Larry Brom's The Sword and the Flame (TSATF) rules are an industry standard for the period. They are a "large skirmish" set, with individually based figures. Units run about 20 figures for infantry and 12 for cavalry (if memory serves).

sergeants3.com

There is a TSATF sub-board here at TMP:

TMP link

Ron

The Sword and The Flame is played by a LOT of people,
and there are many variants/spin-offs.

Go to Sergeants3DOTcom to see what other Colonial rules
are available from them, including US plains wars.

TSATF was inspired by the 1930's film 'Gunga Din' and a
lot of Kipling reads. Rules can be played with little
outlay for figures (a British unit is 20 figures,
although there are variants for 8 and 10 figure units)
and Native units are 20 figures. The general ratio is
3 native to 1 British unit, although this can vary with
the specific conflict.

There is a Yahoo group for TSATF and also one for the
Colonial period, in addition to fora here.

You've set yourself up to answer a LOT of questions! And only you will be able to answer them:

"Colonial" gaming is a wide ranging topic that can apply over millennia, from Greek colonists in Asia Minor to (arguably) modern days. Even limiting yourself to European colonialism, that ranges from Spanish, English and French colonists in the 15th and 16th centuries up to the mid-twentieth.

Assuming (for sake of argument) that you're interested in 19th Century European colonialism, you can consider the British in India and the NorthWest (or Northeast) frontier, French in North Africa, Americans in the Philippines, Germans in southwest Africa or Tangayika, British in southern Africa, Americans versus Sioux, Cheyenne, Apaches, Canadians versus Metis, anyone and everyone versus China, and more.

Then you'll have to consider scale – both the actual size of miniatures you prefer and the size of battles (dozens per side, thousands per side and anything in between).

It will really depend on where you want to devote your time, energy and pocketbook.

Do yourself a quick favor before you jump in… find some "Colonial" minis (or artwork) that INSPIRES you. Research it. Find out who they were, who they fought, and when. If your inspiration is "French Foreign Legion in blue coats and white kepis" (or "hordes of Zulus" or…) then you are halfway into enjoying the period. Once you know what YOU want, it becomes easier to ask all the right questions and still get our (mostly) wrong answers ;-)

One of the best places to start is the now sadly defunct Major General's website. Fortunately, its been preserved here:

link

It covers just about everything you want to know about colonial gaming. However, some of the manufacturer info, etc is a bit out of date.

I'd suggest you schedule yourself a movie weekend and watch some of the classic movies that are placed in this era, and see which ones strike your fancy.
Zulu, Gunga Din, 55 Days at Peking, The Four Feathers, Beau Geste, to name but a few.

Khartoum and Zulu Dawn were on TCM last weekend.

The Sudan is a rewarding one to begin with. The Mahdists are colourful and varied, and you can fight them against Brits, Egyptians, Abbysinians, and Italians. Bonus: many of these can fight each other too!

,Peter Pig offer Patrols In The Sudan or PITS. Rules and miniatures for the British in the Sudan. It is a very manageable first bite at the Colonial Apple.

The Virtual Arm Chair General offers a two volume Sudan Sourcebook that provides excellent reading and research.

Uniform guides can be found on the Perry's website as can their range of28mm figures.

Welcome to the madness, and I will second and third The Sword and the Flame. Like others stated find the period and figures you like to determine where you want to go. British against the Madist forces is an easy route in particular if you want to do 28 mm and Perry Miniatures makes it easy with their plastics and metals.

Zulu Wars is another easy entry and affordable with wonderful plastic figures from Warlord Games and others in 28 mm.

As mentioned when I think Colonial gaming I think of the mid to late 19th Century and going into the early 20th. This not only includes the vast British Empire but the Belgians in the Congo, Italians, Germans, Spanish, and many other European or other powers (Russians has some colonial attempts) against all sorts of "native peoples"

I personally do both the German colonial powers in East Africa as well as the American Plains Indian Wars. At some point I will collect and do the Sudan as it is a classic. Unless of course I finally decide to do that French Foreign Legion idea.

March or Die with Gene Hackman was an inspiration to my FFL gaming. Don't miss it!

Colonial gaming is so much fun, Zulu's, Boxers, Masai, Boers, East Africa, Sudan, Pathans, Maori, FFL, wow can't at the moment think of them all.
Chris Leach has a company sized rule set, "Battles for Empire" which has a second edition out on sale by download. We play this set and it's a lot of fun.

Boxer Tigermen:
[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Colonial%20Gaming/IMG_3038.jpg.html]

[/URL]

FFL:
[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Colonial%20Gaming/IMG_0265.jpg.html]

[/URL]

I'd suggest you schedule yourself a movie weekend and watch some of the classic movies that are placed in this era, and see which ones strike your fancy.
Zulu, Gunga Din, 55 Days at Peking, The Four Feathers, Beau Geste, to name but a few.

Seconded!

I ended up doing Northwest Frontier gaming, roughly the time of the Pathan Revolt in 1897.

I think the Sudan would be more colorful, the Northwest Frontier is generally pretty drab. Raj troops in khaki, almost all the Pathans in dingy white. But you can play with the turban colors and it won't be too far off. Especially if you have some Bengal Lancers… Green turbans on the Pathan leaders (figuring that someone who has gone on the Hajj to Mecca would be a leader), and the occasional brightly-colored vest or sash to show the richer tribesmen.

If you like the idea of an armored train or river gunboat (or both!), the Sudan may be right up your alley. Could also play China Station, but that means different opponents.

Once you find the conflict you like, the question becomes one of scale. I've gone with 15mm for terrain reasons (and relatively cheap minis), but the Perrys make some wonderful 28mm minis for the Sudan.

Peter Pig's Patrols in the Sudan rules are quite nice, and I love the ever-changing terrain.

I own TSATF, need to paint more models up and buy lots more Pathans before I can play. I'm on the wrong side of the curve for my Raj:Tribes ratio (should have about 3 Tribes for every 1 Raj)

I was also messing with Ambush Alley rules, though it'd be nice to have a slightly more detailed set of rules for the late colonial period. You need to be able to model the difference between someone using a Brown Bess while their opponent is using a Lee-Enfield, and the Ambush Alley rules as written struggle a bit to do that.

I'm kinda lucky, since a friend of mine takes great pleasure in shooting up Englishmen on the wargames table. The problem is, he's an old Soldier and plays the bloody Pathans a bit too well-disciplined!

>>>I was also messing with Ambush Alley rules, though it'd be nice to have a slightly more detailed set of rules for the late colonial period. You need to be able to model the difference between someone using a Brown Bess while their opponent is using a Lee-Enfield, and the Ambush Alley rules as written struggle a bit to do that.

Hold that thought…. ;-)

Martin

I would start with getting a copy of TSATF and then stopping by a plastic toy soldier company and picking up a few boxes of 1/72 scale HaT miniatures for the period you want to do…Anglo Zulu war seems to be a great jump off point. and this way your not investing a huge amount of money in figures but can have a great army in no time…

link

link

Oh, forgot one other set of rules you may want to take a look at: Space 1889's Soldier's Companion.

@Martin/TrenchRaider: Looking forward to it!

Boer War for me – lacks the 'colour' (literally) and romance of the Zulu War or the Sudan Campaign, but lots to keep players interested and busy.

I find many (not all, before anyone starts) 'traditional' colonial games get a bit boring as the 'western' player basically sits in the middle of the table and rolls dice to shoot, and the 'native' player basically charges at him. I am generalising, but it is something I have seen a lot, and which I grew quickly rather bored of. Sure, there are ways round this, but I found a lot of them to be pretty 'gamey'.

Boer War gives plenty of scope for hidden units, need for tactics, interesting forces (balloons and armoured trains etc).

But each to their own – play whatever grabs your fancy.

>>Space 1889's Soldier's Companion.

Yeah, that is a fun little set of rules. If anything the background material on the various countries is well worth the trouble of tracking down a copy.

>>Martin/TrenchRaider: Looking forward to it!

Me and you both! Between brainstorming, development, and testing it's been almost two years.
But to be honest, I don't know why I'm dropping hints, being coy/cute, or whatever as I've been given permission to talk about the set pubicly as it's close to publication ready.
So here goes…..

We're talking about a rules set that will be called "To the Last Cartridge" which we developed for Ambush Alley Games. It's a stand alone tactical rules set covering the colonial wars of the late 19th century and uses 10 figure units representing company sized formations for most regular infantry and units of up to 20 or so for some native troops such as Zulus/Mahdist/etc. It's designed with 28mm figures in mind, but has been tested with and works well with smaller scales.

It borrows much from the core Force on Force mechanics (especially the way units react to one another and the use of "die types" to represent troop statistics), but contains many inovative game mechanics as well. It's also the first AAG product that includes a fully developed point system, army lists, and provisions for "pick-up" games as well as the scenario driven play that previous AAG products have been known for. The core rules have extensive army lists, troop statistics, and scenario guidelines for the Anglo-Zulu War, The 2nd Anglo-Afghan War, The Sudan Campaign, and the 2nd Boer War.

Given the nature of the genre, we have included a bit more detail in weapons and such than you see with the parent rules set. To give a little "teaser" along the line that Lion in the Stars mentioned above, troops with a smooth bore musket shoot 12" and suffer a serious penalty for attempting to fire on the move. On the other hand those with modern bolt actions shoot 30", get and extra firepower die at optimum range, and additional bonuses when firing on troops in formed units. (ie not in skirmish order)

Originally we hoped to have it published this summer, but it's been delayed a bit. But with any luck it will be released soonish. I'm a bit biased of course, but I'm very pleased with the resulting game and it's been well received in the hundred or so test games I have personally run. We are already looking at adapting the mechanics for other mid-late 19th century conflicts if the game proves commercialy popular. In any event, I'm in the process of painting up 28mm Franco-Prussian figures for use with a possible expansion.

Ok, enough of my self-serving plug! ;-)

Finally…

Greenleader (love the screen name if it's referencing what I think it is, btw), yes, Boer War makes for a very intersting game when compared to the other colonial wars. I highly recomend folks give the conflict a try if they have not gamed it before.

Martin

Welcome to Victorian Era Gaming. "TSATF" is a good rules set for this period. Check out the Colonials War Yahoo Group aka "The Hive." I do the French Empire and 2nd Boer War battles. I use The "Sword in North Africa" for French Victorian games and "Fields of Honor" for 2nd Boer War games. Our group also does the Sudan and Northwest Frontier using TSATF.

link

Some people can be daunted by the need in this period, if you want a realistic game, to amass vastly more natives than colonials. Historically the odds were often ten to one or more, so most rule sets get around this problem by distorting the reality of colonial warfare: exaggerating native effectiveness or downgrading colonial effectivenes (or both) so that you need far less natives than in reality.

This isn't really necessary; you can represent the effectiveness of the opposing sides faithfully simply by recycling your native units. Just vary the number of 'incarnations' per unit according to the requirements of the scenario. Native armies were rarely so organisationally or tactically sophisticated as to be able to coordinate their movements and attacks effectively, so this is perfectly realistic.

I find many (not all, before anyone starts) 'traditional' colonial games get a bit boring as the 'western' player basically sits in the middle of the table and rolls dice to shoot, and the 'native' player basically charges at him. I am generalising, but it is something I have seen a lot, and which I grew quickly rather bored of. Sure, there are ways round this, but I found a lot of them to be pretty 'gamey'.

That's what I like about the Northwest Frontier. The Raj player (the guy running the British and Indian troops) usually has objectives like "get to village X, stomp it flat, retreat to camp." No problem advancing to the village, there's usually just some desultory sniping until the Afghans figure out which village you're going for. The actual assault on the village tends to require a LOT of troops, on the order of a couple battalions. Retreating is where the Raj player should suffer most of their casualties.

Just to summarise the above points, when working out how many native figures you need using the recycling system, the question you should be asking yourself is not 'how many units do I need to accurately represent the entire native army deployed for the historical battle?', but rather 'what's the maximum number of units the natives were able to concentrate for a single attack?'.

As Lion says, the trick with colonial gaming is scenario design. The scenario should assign the colonial force an active objective that prevents it from assuming a passive defensive stance, and should handicap it in other ways (limited time to achieve the objective, limited ammo etc.).

Unless these are done very very cleverly, they can risk being very gamey, though – at least in my opinion. If I was in command of a small Imperial column and was threatened with attack, I would not care that my orders said I had to reach a given objective by noon or I would 'lose' – I would take up a defensive stance, fight them off and arrive a couple of hours late. Ammo supply was rarely a factor, so (again) tinkering with this just to try and 'balance' the game or force the Colonial player to act in an ahistorical way would not appeal to me. It strikes me as akin to making an 88mm equal to a 6-pdr so as not to allow the German player to pick off Allied tanks at long range and force him to play in a different way than he wants to.

The reality is that many of the great actions of the period saw Imperial troops holding a position and the 'natives' attacking them: think Rorkes Drift, Isandlwana, Ulundi, Bembesi, Shangani, Omdurman, Abu Klea etc. Holding a defensive position was the logical thing to do when you command rifle-armed troops and are facing large numbers of enemy troops armed with spears (or, if they have firearms, they are pretty ineffectual at using them).
If, as the player, I was prevented from doing the logical thing / what my historical counter part would have done by some contrived scenario rules, I think I would quickly lose interest.

Of course, a re-fight of the classic action of the period (Rorkes Drift) would be fun just for the spectable of it and something any self-respecting wargamer (unless that is a contradiction in terms!) should do at least once, but actually makes for a pretty boring game. What decisions does either player really have to make? The British player spends his afternoon rolling dice, and the Zulu player spends his afternoon moving his men forwards.

Sure, there are some exceptions – Hlobane, Atbara and Tel El-Kebir for example – but many other historical re-fights would follow a broadly similar pattern and this is why – again, only in my opinion – campaigns like the Boer War, NW Frontier etc hold more long-term attraction to me. However, each to their own – we all take different things from wargaming and the hobby is all the better for that.

Isandlwana was a battle where the British defended. However, it is not at all like Ulundi or Rorke's Drift.

Many times the Imperial power got into trouble because they had a logistical or other reason not to simply form square and shoot down natives. History has loads of examples. That's why scenarios designed the same way make perfect sense. Just read Caldwell and you'll see plenty of examples.

Thanks,

John

What if your objective was, for instance, the relief of a fort that was on the point of falling because its garrison was running low on ammo/food/water?

Isandhlwana makes for a balanced scenario because the British start overstretched and poorly deployed. These are the sorts of handicaps you need to incorporate to give both sides a chance – otherwise, there's no point bothering for the native player.

We should never lose sight of the fact that, despite its basis in history, we're playing a game; if it's not fun for all involved it's just a futile exercise in psychological torture.

I'm glad we are focusing on Isandlwana, as it is an excellent example of what I mean. If I was playing Isandlwana as the British player, I would pull as many of my men as I could back on the camp as soon as I could and form a tight square around the ammo supply. This was perfectly plausible and could have been done – indeed, it is almost impossible to understand why it WASN'T done – I have walked the field on many occasions and am still baffled.
So you need to put in rules to stop me doing what I want to do (and what is perfectly reasonable for me to do). Or you start the game halfway through the battle and thus I am not really allowed to do much of anything.

If I am allowed to do what I want, and pull my men (or at least three or four companies) back into a tight formation around the ammo, then it becomes very much like Rorkes' Drift and Ulundi. On the otherhand, if I am prevented from doing what is sensible by some contrived rules and restrictions, then I would feel a little dissatisfied at the options open to me – and would feel a little like I was wasting my afternoon in a 'futile exercise in psychological torture'.

Even if enough artificial contraints are put in place to prevent me from doing what should logically have been done, I am still essentially fighting a defensive action as I described earlier – just one I have more chance of losing.

One alternative might be to have all the players on the British side, perhaps each commanding a company, and have the Zulus played by the umpire, who would also play the roll of Pulleine and thus interfere with things and only commit units piecemeal. But I do not think it lends itself to a traditional one-on-one wargame, nor do I think many other colonial battles do.

I also doubt if arriving 2 hours late (after fighting a successful defensive action) would make any difference if a fort was running low on food or water, and as I said: each to their own.

I should also note I do not have some bitter prejudice against the period – I love the Colonial period and an am avid reader on it. My first wargames were Sudan Campaign games against my brother when I was teenager. But as the years went by, I felt it did not lend itself to the sort of games I enjoy. You are more than welcome to disagree.

Best way to avoid the "gamey" is to avoid Sword and the Flame. Just wish I could offer a better rule set designed for the period. For myself, I've simply decided to have one set of rules for all of my 18th and 19th century gaming – Rank and File by Crusader Publishing. And, yes, it does have some period flavor for different periods. But mostly I just got sick of trying to remember ten or twelve different rule sets. Almost all rules revolve around a core set of mechanics. Speed of man or beast doesn't much change across history. Only real changes are technology and tactics, easy enough to adapt accordingly. Having made this decision for one set of rules I've become vastly more relaxed about my 14 different periods (some from early time frames) and find much better focus on building terrain and painting figures. Oh, and gaming, too. Many of my collections (and I always have all sides so I can always game the period) fit this era, Indian Mutiny (not mentioned above), Sudan, French Foreign Legion, Boxers, and my own Slightly Cracked Colonials which is a variation on African Exploration. Maybe a highly contorted corruption would be a better description. Goal number one is to just have fun whatever you choose.

Hi Sherman

I'm sure you won't regret getting into colonial gaming. Just a few comments and other points to ponder from another addict of the period…

Where are you based? In the US, TSATF is the dominant rule set for colonial games (popular, fun but arguably rather dated, clunky and lacking real period feel) but are almost unheard of in the UK.

What first prompted your interest in the colonial period? What sort of games do you want to play – large set-piece battles, smaller expeditions or skirmishes, and what scale figures do you intend to use?

By far the most popular colonial subjects would be the Zulu and Mahdist/Sudan Wars but with plenty of other contenders as you can see, all offering very varied troop types and potential scenarios.

The early Sudan campaigns of '83-85 have always been a particular favourite of mine for larger battles (in 15mm) but I use 28mm for large scale skirmishes on the North West Frontier, in Darkest Africa, New Zealand and others. For most of these I use adaptations of the TFL 'Sharp Practice' rules which lend themselves to games with a 1:1 – 1:5 figure/man scale.

Hope this helps

What stopped the British from doing what you describe Green leader is fog of war. The British were uncertain about what was going on at Isandlwana. No 100 foot generals there. By the time they knew they were unable to do as you suggest. If you don't like fog of war then Colonials May not be your thing.

Thanks,

John

Battles for Empire does everything required.

Fog of war to a limited degree but mainly sheer incompetence. Fog of War did not prevent Pulleine forming a laager, deploying his firing line closer to the camp, striking his tents or adopting a tighter formation.

Designing a scenario where the player is forced to make the same serious mistakes his historical counter-part made (or is not allowed to correct serious mistakes made pre-battle) is a very difficult art. One can try the whole 'hidden battle' technique, and not let on that he is re-fighting Isandlwana, but even still (and whatever battle I thought we were fighting), the moment I heard of parties of Zulus / natives roaming about, I would strike my camp, form a laager and pull my scattered companies in.

It is the only logical thing to do in the circumstances – my orders (like Pulleine's) are to defend the camp: the Zulus / natives have to come to me to beat me. I do not have to go to them.

If those are not my orders, then we are not playing Isandlwana.

"This was perfectly plausible and could have been done – indeed, it is almost impossible to understand why it WASN'T done"

The British commander at Isandlwana had a very different understanding of what situation he was in, and what he was facing. If he had known what he was up against, he would have done what you suggested also. But he didn't know, and thought he was playing an entirely different scenario.

tuscaloosa

What orders are you suggesting Pulleine had been given? I have always understood he had been specifically ordered to defend the camp.

Also, he DID manage to pull his companies back towards the camp later in the battle, but the withdrawal of irregular forces exposed their flank. If the redcoats were able to conduct a fighting withdrawal halfway through the action and maintain their order, I see absolutely no reason why this could not have been done much earlier and a tighter formation adopted from the start. This could have been done and this is what should have been done.

Again, one would have to put contrived rules in place which stated something like: 'the British can only start to withdraw towards the camp on turn 5' or something.

The whole "Isandlwana, who's to blame?" debate warrants its own separate thread (or look at the threads on the specialist history forums) but underlines why the colonial period is so interesting.

Incredible, isn't it, with so many different contributors to this one thread, that our editors appear to have no interest whatsoever in responding to the many requests/proposals for a separate 'colonials' board?

sjwalker38

Yes – we can argue about Isandlwana all week, but I think there's one thing we can all agree on: Colonials is well worth its own board.
Certainly more deserving than the War of 1812, I would suggest.

And, yes, Pulleine was ordered to 'defend the camp' but it was HOW he chose to do so that got him into an irretrievable situation. Why he acted as he did remains a matter of conjecture but it's generally accepted that the British did not fully appreciate the size of the force attacking them and the outflanking movement of the right horn went largely undetected until too late. Given limited intelligence about the enemy he made some bad tactical decisions and paid the price for it.

His problems were further compounded by Chelmsford deciding to ignore his own standing orders in not laagering the wagons the night before, and then splitting his force when in the middle of enemy territory. Durnford did not help the situation either, and became a useful scapegoat for the disaster afterwards.

"How can Man Die Better" (Snook) is a great but somewhat partizan account of the battle, or try "Zulu Victory" (Lock & Quantrill) for an alternative viewpoint.

sjwalker38

Absolutely – so where does that leave the player / scenario?

As the British player, either you are forced to make the same mistakes by various rules / restrictions to hamper your options, or you are allowed to correct his mistakes and (should) therefore win the battle quite easily.

Neither makes for the best wargame, I would suggest – I would not enjoy playing a game when I am arbitrarily prevented from doing the logical thing, just to balance the game, or give the Zulu player a chance. Obviously there are different views on this, and each to their own (as I have said throughout).

In terms of limited intelligence, Pulleine is generally accepted to have known of the nearby presence of over 4000 Zulus (obviously just a fraction of the c.20,000 which ended up attacking him) very early in the day – this was reported to him by his scouts many hours before he came under attack. He could, and should, have taken this seriously and perpared for an attack on the camp – his explicit orders were to defend this, afterall. Bearing in mind he had only six companies of redcoats, the presence of 'just' 4000 Zulus should have been enough for him to concentrate his forces and perhaps even form a laager – this would not have taken long, despite the excuses given by Chelmsford after the battle. Also, several messages were sent to Chelmsford, requesting aid, so it would seem that Pulleine realised he was in a spot of bother fairly early but had opted to defend far too long a perimeter.

I agree that Durnford's arrival on the scene complicated matters, but he does not seem to have interfered with Pulleine's plan – unfortunately.

I should also stress that such things are not exclusively a problem in Colonial warfare – it is often hard to make a good wargame out of a historical 'classic'.

Another thing we can agree on – straight refights of Isandlwana can look spectacular but, like some other 'must do' battles, doesn't necessarily make for a great gaming experience.

I suggest we now park this diversion, interesting though it is, in order to get back on track in helping the OP

And, of course, getting a Colonial Board up and running!

Just seen on the 'with pyjamas through the desert' blog that Carlo is about to release his version of the classic Peter Gilder rules for the Sudan (remember those inspiring photos in early issues of Wargames Illustrated). There's also a new Black Powder supplement for the Sudan to compliment their Zulu War offering.

Both are (probably) better suited to large 28mm games (much more practical with various plastic box sets available for both campaigns) but might be a good starting point for a new gamer.