EricThe Shed | 19 Oct 2016 1:20 a.m. PST |
We fought a major battle using TMWWBK ruleset in the shed on Monday night – 150 points of Zulus versus 100 points of British Full AAR plus pictures and a critique of the rules on my blog link
|
Ney Ney | 19 Oct 2016 3:45 a.m. PST |
Looks great. Them rules sound rubbish. What a pity as I like Lion Rampant. |
EricThe Shed | 19 Oct 2016 3:58 a.m. PST |
…would not say the rules are rubbish – easy to pick up and very simple. |
EricThe Shed | 19 Oct 2016 3:58 a.m. PST |
just missing some key ingredients |
advocate | 19 Oct 2016 4:24 a.m. PST |
Good looking game! A few points. I'd definitely agree it's an IGOUGO game – given that not all troops may activate it works well enough. However, I presume you were aware that for regular/irregular infantry, they have a 'free activation' of 'Fire' so can always fire – as tribals can always move. Cavalry get a free 'attack' but I modified my 'Irregular Cavalry' to have a free 'move' instead – seems to work better for the irregular cavalry of the AZW. Bear in mind that the points are there for a reason – for a straightforward battle I'd have expected the points to have been closer to even. British fire can probably (but only probably) stop two units attacking in the open (by targeting them alternately and – hopefully – pinning each one in turn). Add a third and they are probably not going to survive – and that's what happens if they are outnumbered 3:2 on points. Yes, it would have been a hard ask for the Zulus! They need cover to break up the lines of fire (being tribal means it won't slow them down). There are some optional rules towards the end that allow for units to break more easily, but I take your point. I like your idea of possibly acquiring multiple pinned markers – maybe 1 additional marker for every 4 (rounding fractions down) that you fail the Pinned test by? I am considering allowing a British unit in skirmish line (single line, not close order) to divide it's fire among two units. This represents the British early AZW tactics, and is (in game terms) something of a gamble – it might stop two units in their tracks, or it might stop neither – and it loses the benefit of close order and volley firing. However, I'm just not sure how well they work at the scale you are playing. We have certainly had enjoyable games at 24 points per side – and played two or three games in a night. But it may be that they don't scale up so well. |
EricThe Shed | 19 Oct 2016 4:37 a.m. PST |
Thanks for your feedback Advocate We were aware of the free moves – we gave all the auxilliary horse and boers the Skirmish order as there freebie – seemed to feel right Ultimately the cobat resultion works well but the pinning/rallying needs some more work. Like your idea of the British being able to split fire |
Ragbones | 19 Oct 2016 10:08 a.m. PST |
Nice looking game. Thanks for posting this AAR. Definitely inspiring for my own effort. |
Tony S | 19 Oct 2016 1:42 p.m. PST |
Allowing cavalry to evade infantry is a great idea. We played a Zulu game where the British horse was indeed caught by the Zulus. Interesting idea about flank attacks. That was one of the big issues that annoyed me about Lion Rampant. Although flanks are quite important for troops in close order, as they are unable to fire at units behind their front, so those enemy units will be able to stand and fire at them with impunity. But yes, charging into the flank or rear of a close order unit is pointless. Worse than pointless, as suddenly the close order unit can fight, and rather effectively, since the attackers cannot outnumber them for melee purposes. Which, honestly, doesn't really describe Zulu tactics very well does it? Unless you whittle down the close order unit's numbers to the point it is no longer in close order, and then charge in to get the full effect of their greater number of figures. Still, as you say. in smaller games (which is all we've played) TMWWBK is really fun. Which surprised me a bit, since I really disliked the its other cousins, the Rampants. |
Henry Martini | 19 Oct 2016 7:20 p.m. PST |
Did none of you read the introduction to the rules? In all of this discussion (and criticism) I'm utterly mystified as to why no one has raised the obvious and salient point that TMWWBK is a grand SKIRMISH game; it wasn't designed for playing a 'major battle'. You are using the wrong tool for the job, and expecting it to perform like the right tool, which could fairly be seen by some as marking you out as a… (reread this sentence in the British idiom). Could it possibly be that Daniel Mersey's design brief led him to incorporate only elements of colonial warfare that he considerd relevant to the level of action TMWWBK is actually designed to represent? For instance, on how many occasions were rockets deployed during the AZW? And more importantly, in how many minor actions were they used? Could it be that by the time they were set up an engagement of the scale of those TMWWBK is intended to represent would have been over, and thus they weren't deployed or even available? If you want to play major battles would it not make more sense to use a set of rules purpose-designed for that scale of action, such as 'Battles for Empire'? |
EricThe Shed | 20 Oct 2016 12:07 a.m. PST |
Henry Martini thanks ever so much for replying. I did indeed read the introduction rules and as I said in my blog we were trialling these to see if they might work for big battles. Fundamentally the rules do work, they are very easy to pick up, the game has pace and captures the atmosphere of the period.I have thanked Mr Mersey publically for bringing us these rules in my critique. I do not not believe I have been harsh at all. My concerns were with three key things… 1. No reactive play – cavalry cannot evade, formed infantry cannot give closing fire etc…for me this is essential in any ruleset. Especially for skirmish games 2. This is a grand skirmish set and some units have formations and firing site lines – eg close order for the British – and yet there are no advantages for flank or rear attacks 3. The pinning & rallying rules do not take into account the number of casualties a unit has suffered – whether they have lost 10% or 90% the dice rolls and the impact are the same. Now all of these are easily rectified as I have mentioned in the blog. Indeed I have made recommendations which I feel do not destroy this great game but rather enhance it. As regards to Rockets I accept they were hardly used BUT we are wargamers and we want to use our toys. I merely mentioned this as an absence and came up with an option. |
Mike Mayes | 20 Oct 2016 8:24 p.m. PST |
Eric You feel that these rules capture the atmosphere of the period – that is exactly what I am looking for, especially in how the Zulus play. Could you (or anyone else) elaborate on this? Thanks Mike |
advocate | 21 Oct 2016 2:53 a.m. PST |
If I could comment on that… Firing inflicts casualties but more importantly can 'stop' the target unit by pinning them – and if they fail to rally, they will slowly move back. So it is possible to hold back the Zulus to a certain extent, but it is by no means guaranteed. It is possible to tweak the units quite considerably, giving the Zulus better firepower, for example, and choosing between irregular cavalry and mounted infantry for the mounted troops. You could improve the firepower of the British, on the other hand, you'd have to pay by having fewer units. Beyond that, each troop type has a 'free' action that they don't need to roll for, and while the rules specify what these are they can be changed to give a better flavour – as Eric demonstrated above giving his cavalry 'skirmish' rather than 'attack' as the free action. Finally, a couple of aspects not used in Eric's 'large' battle. Each unit rolls for leadership, and a characteristic for the leader of the unit, so you could end up with some very good units – or some that might hamper you. And there are a number of scenarios which vary from punitive expeditions to pursuit of a defeated enemy, each having their own victory conditions. |
EricThe Shed | 21 Oct 2016 4:23 a.m. PST |
Hi Advocate Thanks for your thoughts… We deliberately didn't use the Leadership for each unit – it would have been very confusing and indeed too time consuming. This certainly dumbed down our game. However we did introduce Vanilla Leaders for each brigade If they were within 6" of a unit that unit gained +1 on his rally roll. Plus once per turn he could issue an automatic order to one unit that they did not have to roll against |
advocate | 21 Oct 2016 5:15 a.m. PST |
I had read that you had used standard values – very wisely, in my opinion. I added the information for Mike's benefit. I do like the idea of a 'brigadier' though, since it enables the player to provide a little focus where it is needed. |
FlyXwire | 21 Oct 2016 6:44 a.m. PST |
Eric, are you finding any feeling to mod the rules are more from expectation for grand-tactical results (rather than focusing on presenting skirmish-level encounters)? |
EricThe Shed | 21 Oct 2016 6:47 a.m. PST |
FyXWire They are certainly not grand tactical – but then Anglo Zulu Wars are not really tactical affairs…Zulus charge and British hope to stop them reaching their lines…. THE MWWBK are far more orientated towards skirmish engagements – we just thought we would try them with a big battle |
FlyXwire | 21 Oct 2016 6:51 a.m. PST |
Eric, I went back and read thoroughly your previous discussions here, and realized the targeted level of gameplay was explained – and then edited my question – but, you've also answered my second question too. Well done Sir! |
Henry Martini | 21 Oct 2016 3:04 p.m. PST |
In TMWWBK close order is the exception; the default deployment is extended/open order (it's a skirmish game, after all), whereas in a colonial rule set pitched at the big battle level (such as the aforementioned BFE) the default is close order and the adoption of skirmish order requires some sort of action – so there's no need to represent in detail the various historical permutations of close order formations. I'm not saying TMWWBK is necessarily ideally structured as is, and I might tweak it myself – but any such tweaks will be used to bring it closer to my vision of what's appropriate in a grand skirmish game, not a big battle game. |
FlyXwire | 21 Oct 2016 4:20 p.m. PST |
What would be the opinions on whether directed "rapid" type firing, as opposed to a sustained "fire at will" shooting, would be better controlled [induced] in closed ranks vs. open order? This is where I have a distinction drawn in my own set of home rules – that is, to get a "trained" [and deliberate] rapid fire bonus, a unit must be closed ranks. (it's more of a tactical demonstration of command-ability and intent) Any thoughts? |
sjwalker38 | 22 Oct 2016 5:03 a.m. PST |
FlyXwire, that's how the 'Volley Fire' order works in MWWBK: only available to Regular Infantry, who must first spend an action forming Close Order. It gives bonuses to firing but is only applicable at short range and only at targets directly to the front of the unit. Being in Close Order also gives defensive benefits when in hand to hand combat: a British unit caught by Zulus before they can close up is going to be in big trouble. Yes, it's designed for 'large skirmish' games, but with a few tweaks to some of the mechanisms and troop ratings it can handle much larger games without breaking – and most colonial battles were relatively small affairs compared to those on the European and American continents during the nineteenth century. Most of the tweaks needed for big battles are readily added without using new mechanisms: when your unit of 12 British infantry representing a company of 70-80 men instead of a squad of 12 individuals, is attacked in flank or rear, the house rule we used simply halves the number of dice available to them (same mechanism that applies to a Pinned unit). If the Zulus catch a Pinned unit in the rear, they'll be chopped up like kippers, especially if they've not formed Close Order beforehand. (We preferred the term 'Shocked' rather than 'Pinned', because a unit that fails its obligatory Rally test will start to fall back, and the term seems more appropriate to the period somehow). Mike asked about 'period feel': FWIW, these rules have captured it better for me than most in the last 30-odd years of colonial gaming: simple mechanisms that really make the players think about their options: whether the British should use a turn to form close order ahead of the Zulu charge,or continue firing, will the Zulu make its Leadership roll to get into contact at the critical moment or end up pinned under the weight of gunfire. Using gunfire to pile up the Pinned markers on one unit and then unleashing the cavalry on them works well but is difficult to time properly, especially when there are so many Zulu units sweeping towards you. They're certainly worth experimenting with, whatever level of game you want to play. |
FlyXwire | 22 Oct 2016 6:15 a.m. PST |
SJWalker, this sounds excellent. The requirement to shoot at targets directly to the front of a unit when in Close Order recognizes the impairment to visibility black powder volley fire could produced, and also the inability to direct fire in massed formations "off-center". (this might also indicate an historical limit conceived for the rule's [pre-smokeless powder] period) Is there any angle of fire arc for this volley firing whatsoever? If not, it's a bold change to the usual [assumed] game mechanisms we've become used to playing over the decades. |
sjwalker38 | 22 Oct 2016 8:10 a.m. PST |
You've prompted me to recheck the rules and I've mislead you slightly – there's been a change to the Volley Fire rules in the final version (most of my games were with one of the play testers) but nothing that can't be tweaked, especially for 'big battle' games. As a general rule, units in MWWBK have a 360 degree arc of fire, as a single group of 8-12 men in a skirmish game might reasonably do. When they form Close Order (which is limited to Regular Infantry) they may then use Volley Fire, but this can only be used at Short Range and (now) only in the 180 degree arc ahead of the unit. I might be inclined to still limit the arc to targets which are at least partially directly in front of any part of the firing unit, especially for larger scale games where the unit represents a company of 70-80 men. As an indication of the potential effect of Volley Fire, short range is usually 12" for 'modern rifles'. The Zulus will normally move 8", or potentially 8"+1D6" if moving 'At the Double' (which requires a successful Leadership test). So the Brits only get 1 or possibly 2 chances to stop the Zulus in their tracks with Volley Fire. Before volley firing, the infantry must first Close Up (needing a Leadership test to follow orders). So the British player starts to engage the approaching Zulus at 24" range, must then decide whether and when to either keep firing or try to close up – it's a nerve-racking dice roll to make! Close Order also gives benefits to the Brits in hand to hand combat: a +1 combat modifier (but also more vulnerable to enemy fire) and, more important, it limits the enemy to the same number of figures in combat as there are in the CO unit, making it much more difficult for the Zulus to overwhelm the company squares through weight of numbers. Hope this helps your understanding, shout if anything needs further/better explanation. |
sjwalker38 | 22 Oct 2016 8:19 a.m. PST |
Also meant to say, the play test rules included Rockets and optional rules for limbered artillery, which I'm sure will appear in an article by Mr Mersey somewhere in due course. The rocket rules were fun in our refight of Isandlwana (and managed to get off more shots than poor Russell did in real life): rockets may only fire at long range and, instead of causing casualties, force the target unit to take Pinning tests equal to the number of crew figures firing. They can be packed on mules, moving as Regular Infantry, but requiring a turn (and Leadership test) to unpack/unlimber before firing. |
FlyXwire | 22 Oct 2016 10:11 a.m. PST |
SJ, all good info – that 180 degree arc for volley fire being more traditional now (I've used the forward only stipulation in a few company-level ACW scenarios, and the buds do howl their displeasure). |
sjwalker38 | 22 Oct 2016 10:41 a.m. PST |
Let 'em howl; or force them to play the natives in a colonial game and see how quickly their attitude towards what is 'right' changes! |
FlyXwire | 22 Oct 2016 12:21 p.m. PST |
I'm howling as I roll on the ground right now! Btw, the guys who adapted how to "point their battle lines" thought the idea was just fine (post-victory that is). ;) |
EricThe Shed | 25 Oct 2016 4:01 a.m. PST |
I have now written a comparison of the TMWWBK and Black Powder for Anglo Zulu Wars You can find it here link |
FlyXwire | 25 Oct 2016 6:23 a.m. PST |
Looking forward to seeing your comparison of the results achieved with Black Powder now. EDIT: Eric, so sorry to hear of your Father's passing! |
GoodOldRebel | 28 Oct 2016 8:44 a.m. PST |
Sorry for your loss my friend |
Part time gamer | 06 Nov 2016 2:30 a.m. PST |
Beautiful Big Battle.. that had to be really a Full Days worth of gaming. How many Zulu 'warriors' did you have anyway? I have only 60 completed, 30 never opened. Im kicking myself for not getting more before WGF went under. Im sure I 'will be' getting some from WL eventually. Especailly since they have the NNC in plastic. If only they made Naval and Lancers in same?! Your lancers looked GREAT! Just have to decide to build Impis in units of 20, 24 or 30. And a few repaints on my "red shields" that are really too red. |
EricThe Shed | 11 Nov 2016 12:37 a.m. PST |
@Part time Gamer Game was fought in three hours… 450 Zulus on the table – mostly Warlord Games (much better than Wargames Factory) Lancers from AW Miniatures Best of luck |
Part time gamer | 13 Nov 2016 12:16 a.m. PST |
@Eric, thanks for the 'side by side' comparison review of the two rules sets. BP seems to be 'the' set used at our nearby gaming store. However, while I like the simplicity of an entire unit being removed once the 'stamina/fatigue' points have been reached and the rally/morale tests failing. Im also one that likes to see a unit being reduced as it takes casualties, thus affecting its fighting ability as well. I think a 'happy medium' would be; i.e units of 4 stands for example, once the stamina level is reached and the morale check failed, '1' stand would be removed. Thus also reducing the number of troops that can return fire/attack. Once down to half of the original strength (2 of 4) the 3rd failed rally test would be 'The' break point and the remainder of the unit would then be removed. Just a thought.. still yet to put it in practice to see how it would work. |
Henry Martini | 23 Dec 2016 3:53 a.m. PST |
I hope you won't mind this instance of thread necromancy Eric, but having had a bit more playing experience with TMWWBK, my thoughts on the concerns you've expressed with the rules are crystallising: 1. Cavalry evade – This is a miniature wargame tradition, and appears in most rules across the span of history, from grand skirmish to big battle level. It's almost a given that it has to be there, and I think we might have become conditioned to expect it, in the process perhaps overlooking alternative mechanical approaches to the battlefield dynamics involved. There are really only two options when writing a cavalry evade move from infantry into a set of rules: either it's automatic that they evade infantry… or you incorporate some sort of random distance for the evaders, the chargers, or both that introduces a chance element into the procedure that has you asking 'will they get away or get caught and massacred?' The first option is predictable and takes all the tension out of the moment, and as I'll suggest below, probably fails to realistically reflect the circumstances of colonial warfare. The second option provides the tension, but at the cost of adding another procedure to the rules, thus retarding play. It seems to me that TMWWBK as written creates the uncertainty and tension of the situation without any need to further complicate the rules. As an imperial cavalry commander you can see the native hordes approaching and have to carefully assess how long you can put off retiring, allowing for all possible eventualities: the natives make a free move of known distance, they successfully roll to double an unknown but greater distance, they fail their activation test, or they get pinned by fire. You also have to factor in the small chance that you might fail your activation test, which could represent the effects of the confusion of the fog of war or the stress and anxiety of a dangerous situation. The fate of your unit – and perhaps the entire field force – is in your power. If they're already within a standard move of your unit you should be asking yourself why you let them get so close. I think this mechanically minimalist approach to this unpredictable situation is justifiable for the colonial period, when an imperial force was usually outnumbered and in circumstances that made it difficult to keep track of the proximity of every enemy unit, an effect often exacerbated by plentiful concealing terrain, and facing lightly equipped, fast-moving enemy tribesmen – even those on foot – who could be on you before you knew it. This was of course the reason the square was readopted by colonial armies. British officers in Zululand were instructed to treat the Zulus tactically as cavalry. 2. Closing fire – I think much the same point could be made here. If it does happen that a native unit hasn't been pinned, or manages to unpin, passes its activation, and if doubling rolls enough movement to make contact, that's an extreme confluence of good luck that deserves a pay-off; a pay-off that can be rationalised with reference to the points made above. 3. Flanks and flank attacks figure in big battle rules because the units represented are large enough and cumbersome enough that only the men on the end of the line closest to the point of attack will be aware that it's happening, and it will take more time than is available to alert the commanding officer so that he can order a response, such as a facing or formation change. The units in TMWWBK are so small and flexible that everyone would be aware of the danger and able to respond quickly. This would happen so naturally and automatically that it would be futile and counter-productive to add another mechanism to deal with it. I hope this all makes sense to you. |