Mad Guru | 16 Sep 2015 2:54 a.m. PST |
Just put up a rather large post on my blog describing the first test-run of this game pitting approx. 200 British and Indian figures against approx. 400 afghan regulars and tribesmen in a refight of the October 6th 1879 Battle of Charasiab from the Second Afghan War. Thanks to my gracious fellow gamers it was a very fun learning experience and thanks to their wise observations and positive critiques the next play-test should go even better. If interested please click on the link below and thanks in advance for your time if you do so: link Meanwhile, here's a few sample pics…
EDIT: Whoops -- was supposed to cross-post to 19th Century Battle Reports -- my sincere apologies to the Age of Reason crowd! Perhaps the Editor or one of his associates can fix my mistake… |
sausagesca | 16 Sep 2015 8:10 a.m. PST |
Beautiful looking game -- I love the blog too. Not being a TSATF player I wonder how the Afghan regulars are differentiated from the tribal irregulars. Cheers, Chris |
jambo1 | 16 Sep 2015 9:49 a.m. PST |
Lovely looking game, the figures are lovely but th eterrain is superb!! |
Mad Guru | 16 Sep 2015 3:10 p.m. PST |
Thanks very much for the encouraging words, guys! @sausagesca: Afghan regulars are rated the same as Egyptian regulars in TSATF -- basically second or third class European style trained infantry, cavalry and artillery. They can operate in line, square, march column and open order, while Tribesmen can only operate in mass or open formations. Afghan regular infantry all carry rifles, while only 50% of Tribal units carry rifles or more primitive Jezails. For melee and morale purposes, neither are particularly reliable, though Ghazi fanatics -- who are armed only with sword-&-shield so have no firepower whatsoever -- have more dependable morale when it comes to completing charges and are more ferocious when it comes to melee. |
Rhingyll | 16 Sep 2015 8:06 p.m. PST |
I have only been giving Afghan Regulars a unit strength of 16 to cut down on their firepower and make them a little more brittle. Also I didn't have enough figures so my 80 regulars made 5 units instead of 4. I liked how it worked out in a solo game I played. Mad Guru – Looks like a great set-up and gonna be worth the years of work put into it. I am sure everyone will have a great time playing in November. |
Mad Guru | 16 Sep 2015 10:38 p.m. PST |
Hmmm… Afghan regular infantry units having 16 figures instead of 20 seems like a simple and effective way to reduce their firepower and their endurance without any complication whatsoever -- just pull 4 figures from the unit when you set it out on the table. BRILLIANT!!! I will probably use it in my next play-test. |
Lion in the Stars | 17 Sep 2015 8:45 a.m. PST |
Beautiful game, oh Guru of questionable sanity! I need to get back to painting *my* colonial troops (15mm), now that I have the Coat d'Arms horse color set. Still need a crapload more Afghans, but I don't think a NWF player can ever have enough Afghans! |
sausagesca | 17 Sep 2015 9:09 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the input, Mad Guru, regarding Afghan regs. I would do exactly the same with BFE2. I might try your scenario with BFE to see how it plays compared to TSATF. Cheers, Chris |
alan L | 17 Sep 2015 12:38 p.m. PST |
Great game. Did you use TSATF or 800FE? Alan |
Mad Guru | 17 Sep 2015 3:35 p.m. PST |
Alan, Thanks for the compliment! As usual for my large Colonial games (ala' Maiwand) I used my own homebrew mix of TSATF and 800FE, as outlined in my blog post. I take the movement, morale & command rules from the "Big Battle" variant 800FE and combine them with the old-school fire and melee rules from the TSATF 20th Anniversary edition. This speeds up movement by allowing entire "Maneuvre elements" which are brigades composed of multiple basic units, sometimes including mixed arms, to move or fire at one time, rather than applying movement or fire cards to one basic unit at a time. I also use the 800FE "Command" rule which requires units beyond 12" distance from their "Mounted Commander"/General/Amir to roll a 1-4 on a D6 in order to move. IMHO this provides a simple and fast way to add a level of complication to larger scale games like this one which involve a higher echelon of command than the usual TSATF game. In the next play-test I am thinking about allowing British and Indian "Out of Command" units to move on anything but a 6, making them more reliable than their Afghan opponents, though it might be better to have the Afghan units needing a 1-4, making them even LESS dependable. Actually, now that I think of it, I may do that instead. Another Idea I came up with from this game and wrote about in my blog post is using HELIOGRAPH TEAMS to extend the reach of the British Mounted Commanders, enabling them to keep units "In Command" an additional 12" from wherever the heliograph team is located, so long as the heliograph itself remains within the normal 12" radius and nothing blocks LOS between it and the Commander. After the battle of Charasiab General Roberts and Brigadier Baker both mentioned how helpful heliographs had been to them exercising effective command-and-control throughout the battle. For the next play-test I will try giving the British two Heliiograph Teams, one for each of their Maneuvre Elements/Brigades. @sausagesca: I believe you know my friend Nick Stern, who recently used BFE to play out a Charasiab scenario from the older "Savage Wars of Peace" rules. One big difference is that version of the scenario focuses all the action onto the Eastern portion of the battlefield, with the British using all their troops to attack the Sang-i-Nawishta Gorge. Although perhaps a bit more manageable terrain-wise, I think that version makes it much easier for the Brits to simply march up the road towards their sole objective, thereby eliminating some of the more interesting aspects of the historical battle, which involve the Brits having to decide whether to attack one or both "exit points", and if attacking both, how best to divvy up their forces. Of course as GM I stacked the deck by making the British victory conditions require taking both exit points, but I think that's in keeping with the historical situation. In reality General Roberts could not focus on only the East or only the West route North to Kabul -- if he had done so, success would only have allowed him to take one road North and then almost certainly find himself trapped on it, between the Logar Valley and the City of Kabul and with his lines of communication and supply to the South certain to be attacked and likely to be cut off. So I would strongly suggest include both "exit points" on one long end of the table for your game, the way we did. If you do try the scenario with BFE I'd love to hear how it turns out! If Nick had managed to come down and join me for this game, we discussed trying to play it a second time using BFE if time allowed. |
sausagesca | 17 Sep 2015 3:49 p.m. PST |
Hi Mad Guru, Thanks for the feedback. I was wondering if there is a scenario with OOB? I don't see one on the blog although much of it can be surmised from the beautiful pictures and the narrative. Looking forward to trying this out. Cheers, Chris |
sausagesca | 17 Sep 2015 3:53 p.m. PST |
|
Mad Guru | 17 Sep 2015 4:25 p.m. PST |
Chris, My pleasure and you're very welcome! You probably just found this same page on my blog, but just to be sure, here's a LINK to the post I did in January re: the British Army at Charasiab. It also includes info on the historical record of Afghan troops present as well as British and Afghan Army Lists for my game… link EDIT: One other thing: For the play-test game I added a second 12 figure basic unit of 12th Bengal Cavalry to General Baker's brigade. After further deliberation I realized that two such units rather than the one I originally had on the list would better represent the historical OOB. I'll post an updated OOB for both sides after the second play-test, at which point I should have everything nailed down for when I will hopefully manage to bring the game to Colonial Barracks V. |
Gone Fishing | 18 Sep 2015 7:56 a.m. PST |
An incredible looking game, Guru! Truly one of the best I've ever seen in pics--and there's not an ounce of hyperbole in that. Honest. If you ever need another playtester, let me know: I can bring claret, champagne, pickled tongue, cigars… |
Mad Guru | 18 Sep 2015 7:11 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the very high praise, Daryl -- wait… I assume you must be the "other" daryl from LAF?!?! …or could there be THREE DARRELL/DARYLS interested in Colonial Wargaming?!?! |
sausagesca | 19 Sep 2015 8:54 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the link and am definitely looking forward to the finalized scenario. I have been inspired by your hill-making technique for some time and will give it a go soon. Cheers, Chris |
huron725 | 19 Sep 2015 12:42 p.m. PST |
|
Ragbones | 19 Sep 2015 7:34 p.m. PST |
|
alan L | 20 Sep 2015 2:33 a.m. PST |
I forgot to ask: what models did you use for the crew and gun in the RHA Battery? The limber and team look like Wargames Foundry. Again, very well done. Alan |
Mad Guru | 20 Sep 2015 3:49 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the compliments, huron725 & Ragbones! Good eye, Alan! They are indeed Wargames Foundry RHA limbers from their Boer War range sculpted by the Perrys. One of the 2 field guns and its crew were from the Empress Zulu War range, the other was an Old Glory gun with Foundry crew, and the mule teams for the screw guns were from Old Glory. The screw guns and their Indian crews were also from Foundry, from their NWF range also sculpted by the Perrys. |
alan L | 20 Sep 2015 6:25 a.m. PST |
Also, Love the waterwheel building: was it scratch-built? I'll definitely have to ponch that idea. |
Oh Bugger | 20 Sep 2015 6:53 a.m. PST |
Yeah that is a lovely looking game. |
Mad Guru | 20 Sep 2015 11:56 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Oh B*gger! Alan, Thanks, I agree and love the waterwheel building(s) too! The three villages, each of which includes one or two waterwheels, were all scratchbuilt for me by Chris The Model Maker. The place-name Charasiab means "Four Watermills," so I wanted a total of four watermills to be part of Charasiab, Khairabad and Hinduki villages. For anyone interested, here's a link to an older post on my blog with a lot more info on and pics of the village buildings, as well as the Karez -- manmade irrigation canal -- system: link Here's one pic showing the three villages combined into one, waterwheels included…
|
hunter4a | 28 Sep 2015 10:57 a.m. PST |
Mad Guru, I have been watching the creation of another masterpiece. I can't wait to see it in person! Whatever help you need getting it setup at CB-V just let me know. Sgt Guinness and I will be there for you. Last Stand Dan (Hey nice Charge/Pinned markers) |
Mad Guru | 28 Sep 2015 4:49 p.m. PST |
Glad to hear from you and thanks for your very kind words, Dan! I'm also looking forward to seeing and hopefully getting a chance to play in your Sudan Nile game in person, complete with its custom fleets of gunboats and dhows! I'm hoping to run Charasiab Saturday morning through afternoon. Depending how long the game takes and if enough players are interested, maybe I'll even run it a second time, Saturday afternoon through late night -- if I can still talk, that is! I will be happy for you and Sgt. Guiness's help when the time comes! I only wish you guys were both available to visit, as right now what I really need is to organize "Charasiab Play-Test 2.0" -- hopefully I'll get that done very soon. I just finished making some custom game charts for the scenario which should speed up play. This combined with more strict limits on how many Afghan units can occupy each rough terrain area, and allowing the British players to move all their troops onto the table unopposed during the first turn -- instead of having to move them on piecemeal while the Afghans are also moving -- should keep things moving along more smoothly than last time. I may also use Rhingyll's slightly smaller Afghan Regular Infantry units, as discussed earlier in this thread, to further degrade Afghan firepower and unit resiliency. In and of itself the terrain is a tough nut to crack for the British, so all this tinkering to reduce the power of the Afghans is needed in order to end up with something close to a fifty-fifty shot at victory for both sides, which is my ultimate objective for this scenario. |
Mad Guru | 28 Sep 2015 7:25 p.m. PST |
…AND, DAN -- THOSE "CHARGE/PINNED" MARKERS ARE THE BEST, THANKS TO YOU!!! |
Flying Glove 1556 | 28 Sep 2015 10:44 p.m. PST |
What huron725 said..awesome looking game and AAR! |
SgtGuinness | 16 Oct 2015 2:55 p.m. PST |
Mad Guru, this just proves how truly mad you really are! I had thought that your Maiwand table and game was Epic, but this sir has most certainly surpassed it!!!! I know the game will play as well or better than your Epic Maiwand game did. I look forward to seeing the game (and you my friend, of course)in person next month at Colonial Barracks V in NO and being able to play in it, even if it's only for one session. I'm Sure Last Stand Dan feels the same. I just can't decide if I want to play the same side as him or not……LOL Cheers, JB sgtguinness.blogspot.com |
Rhingyll | 19 Oct 2015 11:43 a.m. PST |
Mad Guru – Do you give your Afghan regular units one or two leaders? I am thinking maybe I will give them one leader and a total of 16 figures but, if they are guards, then give them 2 leaders with a total of 20 figures. |
Mad Guru | 19 Oct 2015 11:58 p.m. PST |
Thanks, Flying Glove 1556! Sarge, I only hope the game will come close to living up to your expectations! It's very different from Maiwand, which was so lopsided it was pretty much a "Last Stand" scenario, where the British had a slim chance of victory. This is meant to be a much more balanced affair. Re: whether to play with or against Last Stand Dan… that's a choice every man must make for himself! Rhingyll: I give each Afghan Regular unit 2 leaders -- one officer and one NCO, same as Brits, Indians, or Egyptians. It's an inherent advantage of Regular units vs. irregular/Native ones. It can be argued that the generally mediocre to poor performance of the Afghan Regular Army during the Second Afghan War could be better represented by reducing them down to only one leader per unit, but there are historical examples of Afghan Regulars doing a decent or even good job in the field, and I already rate them pretty badly for fire and melee and morale, so I allow them the 2 leader figures per basic unit. I won't argue with you for giving them only one! |