"Zululand or Sudan?" Topic

I want to start wargaming one of these two British colonial wars. If you had to choose just one of them which would you choose and why?

I will be collecting a lot of natives so am only going to do one of Zululand or Sudan, so your advice is welcomed.

Longer, more complicated conflict in the Sudan so there's more situations to choose from, more variety of troop types.

With Zulus I sometimes feel that once you've done Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift nothing else brings a whole lot.

Do both.

I did both but for a pick- Sudan.

as you said that you're starting to set up native army..i may suggest you Sudan…Sudanese are more versatile..not only you ca use them for other arab/n african types like Rabah Tchadians who fought French for example..but a Dervish Army..above all if made of Ansars not Fuzzy Wuzzy..could be fielded in other different theaters than Sudan desert..and in addition to Anglo-Egyptians..have other interesting opponents like African tribes, Belgian Force Publique askaris, French Tirailleurs Sénégalais at Fachoda and Italian askaris at Kassala ecc…

Not a lot to choose from but my preference leans towards the AZW. I really like the British uniforms: red infantry jackets, the blue of the 17th Lancers, the various frontier Horse units, the Natal Carabiniers…

And the natives on both sides are magnificent.

The Sudan. More troop types, cavalry and artillery on both sides, gunboats, etc.

Both. You know you want to.

The SUDAN ! ! !

plus you can use AZW Brits for the 1st Boer War…..

Sudan for the vatiety of troop types and replay value.

The Sudan, definitely.

Sudan. Indian brigade, night march, rail, gunboats, Canadian whale boats…what more do you need!

I would go with the Sudan. Not only, as mentioned above, can you use the natives for more campaigns, but you can also use the British forces for more campaigns (Northwest Frontier, Boer War, Boxer Rebellion, etc.).

The Zulu War was my 1st foray into metal minis back in about 1980. We still play Zulu games today. We have used TSATF since then also. Still use those rules. What more can I say? Oh, and what TonicNH said!
Peter
Some pics of my last Zulu War Game: TMP link

Bigger variety of troops on both sides in the Sudan. Your British will do for 2nd Boer War and the North-West Frontier.

If you are playing lower-level games, then the Zulu War can have some variety on the British side (regulars, native contingents, irregular cavalry) but you won't get much beyond your 'regular Zulu' on the other side. And I speak as one who has just about finished his own AWZ project in 20mm.

Well, I went for Northwest Frontier, but given this choice, I'd go for the Sudan. Camels, gunboats, bashi-bazouks and Fuzzy-Wuzzies!

Grelber
Maybe I should start Sudan armies!

I started with the AZW – the Zulus are cheap to pick up and very easy to paint.

Once we have played a few games I'll switch across to the Sudan. Suspect many of my Brits will appear in South Africa, Sudan and Afghanistan….yes I know they have red jackets

There were some British regiments that wore red coats in the Sudan.

I'd go with the Sudan:

Camels (Camel Corps and Dervish camels)
Highlanders in kilts and trews
Grey-blue tunics for some of the units at Tamai, etc
Nile River boats
Dervish are very colorful with the patches on their jibbahs.

and did I mention camels?

Jim

I've got collections for both but if forced to choose, another vote for the Sudan for all the reasons already given. And you can use your Mahdists against Italians and Abyssinians as well, if you ever get bored.

The early 1883-85 campaigns are the more interesting and translate well to the tabletop.

"The sands of the desert are sodden red…" What's not to like?

What size figures are you thinking of, and are you thinking of big battles or skirmishes?

the only minus..is that Dervishes are a mediocre and quite unpleasant army..in practice everibody if fieded against those ugly looking fanatic but clumsy slavers is a good boy and his cause it's acceptable…on the other hand the zulus are proud, brave and fought for a reasonable cause..and their valour is normally refelectet in wargame rules ..(speed , mélée ecc…) .so .if we spoke about natives…i prefer to piant zulus, xhosas, abyssinians, chineese..but certainly not Dervishes , Tchadians, Tippu Tib arabs or similar thugs

I would go for the Zulu war myself. Plenty of variety in the battles, much more than the attack on emplaced Imperial forces at Rorkes Drift or Khambula. There's ambushes, surprise flank attacks by the zulus, raids on villages and whilst Ulundi is more massacre than a battle this can also be said of British squares in the Sudan.

Zulu armies paint up very quickly and are visually impressive. Do a decent amount of Boers to go with a large Zulu army and you get yourself four different conflicts to game- Boer v British, Imperial V Zulus, Zulu's against the Boers and Zulu civil wars. The Zulu can also pass off as Matebelle as well for a later period game.

n 1877–78 the Ngika and Gcaleka sections of the Xhosa, eager to regain lost lands, rebelled against the colonists and their allies, the Mfengu. Your Zulu figures again.

I'll confess there's no real amphibious action or railways but there's plenty to go at in Zululand. As others have said though…do both, the real question is which to do first.

Finally you have the earlier British expedition against S

Usuthu!

Despite a lot of the rest of the guys getting into the Zulu thing some time back, it left me cold. We played a Rorke's Drift game a few times and it all got dropped.
More recently we've got into the Sudan and I'm still looking at extra things I can add earlier today.

As sjw says,scale,both figure and battle size,would be helpful. Also location. If you're in the US,and thinking 15mm,you can get Blue Moon 40% off with the Old Glory Army card. Or the same discount from Old Glory 15s/19th Century Miniatures with a $400 USD-worth order,which would make their infantry 24 cents each. For that price,you ought could do both! As others have said, more variety with Sudan. For example, OG 15s makes 42 packs for Sudan, only 11 for Zulu War.

I tried(unsuccessfully) years ago to persuade the Steves to add Abyssinians and Italians. That would expand the usefulness of Sudan figures greatly.

If I had unlimited funds, I'd go for the Castaway Arts 25s; they do accurate figures for the early Sudan: Riverine Arabs(pre-jibbah),Egyptians, Bashibouzouks,Bazingers,etc. And they do Abyssinians and Italians. When I become a muti-millionaire. . .

For now, I'm picking up flea market additions to my Ral Parthas;now that's a true "niche".

I chose the Sudan for the reasons noted above – troop variety and plenty of colour. I have some companies in red. My collection is slowly being leaned towards an 1886 what-if campaign – I also have the Post Office Rifles.

It's just a shame the Bengal Lancers never wore full dress for an action.

I went for the Northwest Frontier, but if that's not an option I'd go with the Sudan, for the reasons DAF lists.

Plus Peter Pig's really neat "Patrols in the Sudan" rules.

PITS…plays well for Zululand too, without needing too many tweeks. It's a good system.

Two other things…the Zulu war has rocket batteries. You can;t beat the fun of having those on the table. The Zulu war has two inspiring films and soundtracks too. It's possible to play as the Zulu player and feel some justification as they were bady wronged and were defending their very independence and culture. I personally find it hard to feeel any empathy with the Mahdi or his followers.

BB--Don't forget "Khartoum"(though not very inspiring,IMO).

BTW,on the subject of price,OG25s does both also. Army card makes them about 72 cents.

Hmm,seems to be a miserly tone in my posts. Call it "penurious",and you'll be right.

Going in the other direction, Sash and Saber has a small Zulu War line in 40mm. They run $45 USD for 20. Of course,they do 6 for 5 at cons.

I chose the Sudan.

I am doing Zulu at the moment but find myself drawn to the Sudan as there is so much more variety there. If I were a bit younger I think I would do both but for now will concentrate on making Zulu as interesting as possible.

I have had the same dilemma, but added a third option, Northwest Frontier of India.

Zulus I eventually removed as an option simply because, in my opinion, they are essentially just a melee army. Their effectiveness with firearms, both in numbers of them and marksmanship, is just too poor to make them matter. So, all you can do is charge.

Having said all of that, I realize I may be mistaken and perhaps they had a lot more firearms and were better shots than my limited historical knowledge would lead me to believe.

So I was afraid the games would become boring and repetitive.

Tom

I love both periods but if I had to choose it would be the Sudan. There's more variety – Arabi's revolt, the Mahdi's rise to power, the campaign to rescue Gordon, the Eastern Sudan, and the reconquest. There's a huge variety of forces (Camel Corps, Highlanders, Arab cavalry wearing chain mail, gunboats, Arab dhows, Bluejackets, red and khaki-coated British infantry, Indian infantry, Bengal Lancers, and on and on). There are a few good opportunities for historical "What-ifs," too. The historical siege and assault on Khartoum versus the Hollywood version, for example.
There are huge number of really good books on the various campaigns in Egypt and the Sudan (both historical and wargaming-related). I've got an extensive library on both the Sudan and the Anglo-Zulu War and I'd say that overall the depth and breadth of the writing on the Sudan has satisfied my inner military student more than that of the AZW.

Working on Zulus right now. The Sudan has a bit more variety, though. And just what's wrong with the NW Frontier ? I do 'em all in two sizes

How lots of responses. Thank you people's.

I'm leaning to Sudan on balance of these answers. I'd like to do both in the end but probably do Sudans first.

Zulu war, more chance for the Zulu to win.

You can add to 'even' battles, Hiobane, Intombe. And of course fighting against the Boer settlers.

Ney,….if was you i'll opt for bot 2 options….once you 've finished with your Ansar..you can begin to piant zulus..much easier to piant..an army in two weeks..also less…an as your firts zulus are ready..you can pit them VS Ansars..and disguise them as Azande or similar Congo tribes (not to different if you're not a purist) and/orand use your native african shielded warriors as allies of the Belgians (you'll require quite a few of them of this effective modern armes askaris…in turn also disguisable as Egyptians/Sudanese auliliaries/French askaris..and again use VS Dervishes..

Neither. Indian Mutiny for the sheer variety and much more balanced opponents.
But if you really twisted my arm- Sudan. For the same reason.

Great info everyone.

No WillieB, Mutiny is not for me. Not the period I want to play.

If you ever want to reverse the odds,do Maoris:lots of Redcoats(or bluecoats), few natives.

Started with Zulus and had the Sudan on the back burner for years. Now have both. One of my favorite Zulu actions was some volunteer mounted troops and 4 natal native contingent platoons vs. 6 Zulu units at a river crossing.

Did I really say "ought could?! Good grief.

BTW,anyone considering Sudan in 15mm should be aware that whoever sculpted the dismounted Camel Corps for OG 15s did standing camels with "camel holders". I asked Big Steve if they came with ladders. He was not amused.

Ha. . .my Auto-Dolt changed "considering" to "conifer ingredients". I wonder what those are. . .