"More from My Conversations at Historicon" Topic

Since my original post on conversations at Historicon regarding "The Sword and The Flame" (TSATF), I've heard privately from many gamers on how they handle large numbers of troops. It seems there are three options and I'd like, if I may, to get your input/feedback on those options.

Option 1 – They use "800 Fighting Englishmen" (800FE) because it's "enough like TSATF but there are only three game phases and it has a different way to handle morale. Plus it works with moving all the figures and doesn't take a long time."

Option 2 – They use "By Battalion, Volley Fire" (one of our Fast Play Rules) that guarantees large, convention style games in 4 hours or less. "Larry seems to have concentrated on the maneuvering and simplified other actions and close-combat is again an exciting part of these rules."

Option 3 – They use "The Sword and The Flame/20th" (TSATF) as is but always with a GM. "We make a few tweaks here and there, and yes the games take a little longer but we don't mind."

And of course there is Option 4 – we don't play TSATF. That's okay and I don't really need to know why; that are many rules available and it's ridiculous to think one rule set fits all.

So I'd like to ask those who play any of these rules to please give me your experiences or even some AAR's so I can, in detail and honestly, answer these questions in the future. Nothing beats first-hand experience on the game-table. And thanks in advance!

Winston and I have run both AWI and 1812 games using TSATF and a modified version for larger battles.

The biggest change I do is get rid of the cards (make it IGOUGO for movement) and try to get the scenarios set so gamers are "doing something" by Turn 2 at the latest.

The other main thing I consider is how many people/units on the table.

My two shillings worth.

Eric

I have done 800FE with a "large" AWI battle, but just once.
Jim has done it with Ansar and Dervish a few times.
Very quick games.

The main objection to "large" games seems to be the melee phase. We don't mind, since if the British are doing it right, the natives rarely close.

I rarely see a large number of melees in a game. They are usually the climax of the game, as it was designed to be.
I have also seen it resolved with Battles by GASLIGHT. That works too, but I prefer TSATF. That would be Option 3.1 I suppose.

And Eric and I will be doin' the '98 this coming Saturday, at the Rising of the Moon.
Pike armed Irish!
We'll report on that and how it worked.
The most any one player will have will be 3 units. He also could have just one.
And they will not be that large either.
I am really leaning towards the Chamla Valley scenario in the back of the book. You can't do 1300 figures in three hours.
I personally find smaller battles more fun.

For large games, every player on the black side gets to move a unit when a black card is drawn; same for the red. It keeps people from standing around doing nothing. I also don't use the wounded rule. If you are hit, you are as good as dead.

The only thing we change to do larger battles is H-t-H combat. We just give everyone a base of 4+ to hit and then change the modifiers in the game to make sense based on that. Everything is rolled at once and you just take out as many guys as are hit like you would normally only not in individual combats.

TSATF is more of a tool box than a rule set. But my god it has stood the course of time…….