"TMWWBK Thoughts" Topic

I finally got my copy of the rule book, and have now had a chance to give it a thorough read. On the whole I think Dan has very cleverly adapted the Lion Rampant system to this period to produce a fast, fun game that's flexible enough to cover a huge range of colonial conflicts… although I do have a few misgivings.

The first thing that struck me was the disappointingly high number of typos and grammatical errors. Despite having been in preparation for over a year it looks like a very sloppy rush-job. From a company with the industry stature and longevity of Osprey I'd expect a much more polished, professional effort.

As usual it's liberally sprinkled with colour illustrations and photos of figures, most of the latter having no apparent connection to the rules, beyond being of colonial miniatures. If rules publishers are going to use a random grab-bag of photos I wish they would at least ensure that they don't contradict the text, like the shot of Egyptian regulars on page 58 shown in two-deep close-order line alongside two medium field guns (Krupp 12 pounders?). The list on the preceding page rates these troops in game terms as irregulars – a troop category that, according to the rules, can't form close order (!) – and all forces are allowed no more than one artillery piece, and that no larger than a mountain gun.

On the subject of artillery, its presence in the game as a functioning playing piece (along with machine guns) seems out-of-step with the size of engagement represented. The figure to man ratio is one-to-one. This is the same level of play set for Lion Rampant, in which the author very sensibly stipulates that the actions represented are too small and short for artillery to be fielded, and so it only ever appears as a scenario objective. It seems to me that the minimum size of engagement in which it's feasible for the smallest battlefield artillery unit (a section of two guns) to see action is battalion level, so units should probably be regarded as companies/squadrons or their equivalents. I don't think this should affect any aspect of play other than the participants' mindset. In fact, it brings the weapon ranges much closer to being realistic.

I have to take issue with a few of the troop classifications in the army lists. The aforementioned Egyptian regulars historically were drilled and fought in close order, so should be rated as regulars in games terms. Their inferior training and morale would be better represented by rating them as unenthusiastic, and possibly poor shots.

The Camel Corps is classified as regular mounted infantry, a category that also can't form close order. As everyone knows, historically they deployed in close order, usually in square. I suggest that they be fielded either as per the list in the rule book (for say, patrol actions and the like), or as regular infantry, as a player wishes. After all, at Abu Klea and Abu Kru the battle started well after they'd dismounted and formed up.

The 'Arabic' (a language, not an ethnicity) list is very wide-of-the-mark where cavalry are concerned: North African mounted tribesmen's (Arab and Berber) tactics consisted of repeatedly firing from the saddle at close range and retiring, so all are best represented as irregular cavalry, and you have to go beyond the limits set in the rules and change the free action 'attack' to 'skirmish'. The points cost stays the same.

Representing mounted Plains Indians as tribal cavalry is probably fine if it's the reel west variety you favour, but to more accurately represent the behaviour of the warriors of the real west they should be treated the same as mounted Arabs/Berbers.

I was surprised that the overall commander concept from LR was dropped for this game, and can't apprehend the rationale behind that design decision. I see it as an essential ingredient of the period, and will therefore more than likely invent my own rules for independent senior leaders.

Henry, thanks for taking the time to write this thread on your impressions of the rules.

It is interesting that the Camel Corps, as being classified as regular mounted infantry, can't deploy in close order, does this then also mean that regular mounted infantry cannot form in close order when dismounted?

good thoughts. Thanks for the write up.

Yes – see the final dot point at the bottom of page 28, FlyXwire.

At first I wondered if this meant only when mounted, but given that there is no on-table distinction between mounted and dismounted status for this troop type – they're abstractly assumed to be in the appropriate posture for whatever situation applies – it must mean both when mounted and dismounted.

Thanks Henry – I haven't got the rules here, so doing my asking in the blind.

The Camel Corps is an interesting one – the infantry companies should certainly be able to volley fire. However, evidence would indicate that the Blues & Royals and Household Cavalry were poor at volley fire indeed their volleys were described as decidedly ragged. This is possibly in part to unfamiliarity with the Martini Henry rifle (they were trained with the carbine) and lack of training/awareness of care of ammunition which, for this weapon, was essential to prevent jamming.

It is also the case that where (through seniority) Cavalry officers commanded infantry (e.g. Abu Klea) they caused confusion and impacted the effectiveness of infantry volleying due to using a different set of unfamiliar command words.

So in my view the CC were very mixed and not at all the classic well regimented infantry square one thinks of. The downgrading in this case may therefore be appropriate in this instance.

These rules sound rubbish. I have not played but they sound it.

I did like lion rampant but not this I figure

Thank you for your thoughts. As a newb, I learn something every time I read a post like this.

I also just received the book yesterday and have only had a chance to read bits and pieces. As a professional writer and proofreader, I know what you mean!

However, overall my initial impression was positive. I think the rules will accomplish what I am seeking for now – a fun game pushing colonial minis around with no apparent regard for historic scenarios or OOB. In that sense, it appears to be a useful introduction to the period for people like me. Now, for those with deeper knowledge of the period, the tactics and whatnot, well, your mileage may vary.

With that, it might be a bit before I actually get to play a game. Painting is progressing nicely on the Anglo-Egyptian side of things, and I have placed an order for about 200 Dervishes. Time to get busy!

We've found them to be great – bags of fun, excitment and characterisation. However, we play them in the style (which we think is the intended one) as a Hollywood rip roaring adventure rather than a historical simulation.

I think MacSparty and Nick B have got it right: a fun introduction to colonial gaming, with quite a good feel for the period (see Eric the Shed's threads for more on this) and some solid mechanisms which can readily be tweaked to meet our own perceptions of how any particular colonial campaign was fought.

I'd tend to agree with most of HM's comments on particular troop ratings. Egyptians in the Sudan might probably be best represented as Unenthusiastic Regular Infantry, Poor Shots, possibly Poorly Armed, and (optionally) with a negative die-roll modifier when rolling for Leadership value at the start of the game.

I also share HM's irritation at the various typos and,maybe it's me, the book seems laid out in a rather haphazard fashion, which makes use of a home-made QR sheet almost essential.

The Camel Corps is a strange one. Absolutely they should be treated as Regular Infantry, as they only used their mounts as transport from one point to another and, once dismounted, stayed that way. I'd probably ignore the final bullet point on p.28 for the Camel Corps but still apply it to other Mounted Infantry units on a case by case basis.

I also miss the presence of a separate Force Commander but, again, that's easily rectified according to personal choice.

Again, I might have missed it, but I've not seen anything in Dan's introduction where he says the man/figure scale is 1:1. I've always assumed that a unit of 12 figures is intended to represent a typical company at anything from 1:5-1:10, and visually this works fine (even better using a stand of 3-4 15mm figures instead of a single 28mm) and also makes it easier to rationalise a Force with several different troop types present – three or four companies of redcoats supported by a couple of squadrons of Sikhali horse and a company of NNC, for example. It also explains the inclusion of a single crewed weapon, as a section of 1-2 guns might typically be detached to support a punitive force of several hundred men.

Just for the record, I've no association with Mr Mersey or Osprey. I played a couple of games earlier this year with one of the play testers and, with some tweaks as described, found them to be an excellent framework on which to build to produce a fast moving, atmospheric, closely-fought game. They should promote a much greater interest in colonial gaming, in much the same way that TSATF did 40-odd years ago, which can only be a good thing.

And, Ney Ney (aptly named?), rather than just repeating 'those rules sound rubbish', if you've any interest in colonial gaming, why not try them out and then make an informed comment on them?

Time for Tiffin chaps

I've only played one game and really enjoyed it. As has been said, it's best to play them in a Hollywood style. The author says they are flexible and they are. One thing I did learn, if you're playing tribal forces use the terrain, do not bravely charge a British firing line. British 24 Pathans nil!

^ That is sound advice regardless of the rule set.

Foxweasel – historically the Pathans did use the terrain, and when playing TMWWBK you need to do the same because of the relatively low unit and figure count of a Pathan field force. If you were using say, an all tribal infantry force with eight units and 128 figures you could probably afford to play a bit more recklessly, in keeping with the tactics such peoples often used on the battlefield.

sjwalker38 – The fourth dot point under IMPORTANT RULES CONVENTIONS on page 8 says 'Each model notionally represents one soldier or warrior,…'.

For a game pitched at this level the abstraction adopted for the mounted/dismounted status of cavalry and mounted infantry strikes me as quite odd, however, if you regard your units as representing companies/squadrons it seems easier to rationalise.

The rules assign the same free actions to all cavalry. The more I read the description of Irregular Cavalry the more I wonder why this is so. The rules suggest that this designation should be applied to '… cavalry who were adept at using carbines or rifles from the saddle or quickly dismounting rather than favouring an old-fashioned charge…', and also says 'This category includes those regular cavalry units who were less inclined to mix it with sabre drill (sic), preferring to stand off and shoot…'– and yet, its principal free action is 'attack'. It seems to me that 'fire' or, as with my previous suggestions, 'skirmish', would be more consistent with this description.

Henry, thanks for some very informative posts and for pointing out the nominal,scale specified – like most typical gamers I instinctively ignore anything headed 'important rules conventions' I guess. :-)

Whatever the original intended convention, I do think things fall into place more readily if you take the "1 unit = 1 company/squadron" approach, though it may then require a few further tweaks to get a more realistic/historically accurate (all terms to be used with care when pushing toy soldiers around a table).

For example, I'd look to further restrict the arcs of fire available to units whether in 'normal' or Close Order (front arc only for the former, directly ahead for the latter, at least where Regular Infantry are concerned) and add modifiers in melee for units attacked in flank or rear for a start.

We're still discussing whether an additional 'Form Square' order for Regular Infantry already in Close Order is needed, and what its effects might be – this might just be over-complicating things given the heroic style of the game.

I agree with you on the handling of some Irregular Cavalry. We've substituted Skirmish instead of Attack as a Free Move for those (like most mounted irregulars of the AZW) who preferred to engage the enemy at a distance with rifle fire but which could fight mounted when required, and this has worked well – Durnford gets to make his fighting withdrawal across the donga more easily as a result.

We're going to experiment with the suggestion made elsewhere of giving mounted troops the opportunity to try and evade or counter-charge as appropriate enemy troops trying to Attack them under certain circumstances, needing a Leadership roll to be successful, as there must still be the opportunity for the mounted arm to be caught out and at a disadvantage. But it's an easy rule to bolt on to the existing mechanisms which is the key to not over-complicating things.

For a new set of rules to generate so much (mainly positive) discussion and constructive criticism speaks well of its likely long term popularity – not yet the TSATF of the 21st century but could become so maybe? I read Eric's AAR comparing Black Powder and MWWBK with interest – would be good to see a similar exercise from someone familiar with TSATF.

Played a few games and really enjoy the rules. Like the ability to get a couple of games in an evening. The period and fighting styles is so wide that it's hard to cover everything ? My take is that you're supposed to tweek the forces to somewhat resemble the theatre. The author has given some suggestions. Just my dos centavos.

One other peculiarity I've noticed is that, in stark contrast with other colonial rules sets, forces which historically were homogenous in terms of their national/ethnic identity, and shared the same characteristics and abilities – being formed from the same tribe or people – have different characteristics and on-table limitations depending on the classification of the units they belong to under the rules; e.g. the Pathans, who move at different rates in difficult terrain and have different tactical options depending on whether they're armed with firearms (irregular infantry) or melee weapons (tribal infantry).

I think the only way to rationalise this is to assume that tribesmen with firearms are more likely to be slipping from cover to cover in search of good firing positions and perhaps constantly halting to fire, thus slowing their movement. For swordsmen this obviously wouldn't be a concern, and they would therefore pass through such terrain more quickly.

Henry or SJ, that was going to be a question of mine – whether mixed weaponry (such as firearms or throwing spears) could be incorporated into the same unit? At the skirmish level I'd certainly think this could/should occur – but as the scale goes up, it becomes less important.

Thoughts?

Also, is there a pre-melee throwing spears mechanic in the rules?

(btw, from all the commentary [and discussion], these rules sound very good)

Given its been mentioned by sjwalker38 here are my blog posts on the subject

My initial views of TMWWBK are at the end of this battle report

link

For those interested the comparison with TMWWBK and Black Powder can be found here..

link

cheers

FlyXwire – in the rules the difference between weapons is represented by assigning different ranges, and each troop type is assigned one class of weapon. The only mixed classes apply to Tribal Infantry and Tribal Cavalry: Tribal spears and rag tag muskets for Tribal Infantry, with the addition of … /Mounted Bows in the case of Tribal Cavalry (6 inches with no long range in both cases). Differences in firing ability are rated independently, and seemingly not linked to weapon class.

I've noticed that the more you play around with the troop categories with up/downgrades, the more the distinctions between them blur, and points cost anomalies start to creep in. For instance, as it is the difference between the basic Irregular Cavalry and Tribal Cavalry profiles is no more than the firing stat and weapons, but if you upgrade Tribal Cavalry's firing stat to the same as Irregular Cavalry's(+5) as sharpshooters they still have inferior ranged weapons to Irregular Cavalry, but their points cost increases by +1 to 4, the same as that of Irregular Cavalry.

Also, if each figure represents one man stats correspondingly represent the abilities of individual combatants. If you then elevate the representational scale such that a unit is a company/squadron, and your figures each now represent a number of men, the stats become more abstract. For example, at one-to-one the upgrade 'Fierce' can only represent the superior combat skills of individual soldiers/warriors, and should thus only be applied sparingly to types of fighters with superior combat training or martial arts skills, such as Boxers, or specific individual combat advantages, such as armour. At the higher level though it could incorporate other factors, even to being an oblique means of representing the advantage of superior numbers; so you could then assume that native figures represent more men than imperial figures. Who's to say they don't? After all, the natives are depicted in loose non-formations, with plenty of room for those imagined hordes. It would then be appropriate to apply the upgrade much more broadly.

Further pontification has led me towards the view that applying differing troop type designations to units of historically ethnically homogenous native forces purely on the basis of their armament is counter-intuitive, and results in an inaccurate representation of their combat performance and capabilities.

For example, Pathans had the same martial qualities no matter what their armament. In fact, the clear distinction drawn in the TMWWBK list between riflemen and swordsmen didn't exist historically. Every Pathan carried a melee weapon or two, and all those who could obtain a firearm did so. By the last decade of the 19th century only a minority were without a rifle, musket or jezail, and the majority of the firearms in their hands were relatively modern. Aside from those who had no choice due to not possessing a gun, and ghazis who eschewed missile weapons, tribesmen would serve as swordsmen or riflemen depending on the tactical situation. Rating swordsmen as Tribal infantry and riflemen as Irregular Infantry results in drastically different tabletop capabilities which I don't believe are justifiable either historically or cinematically.

In the rules Irregulars have more in common with Regulars than Tribal warriors, particularly in regard to movement, and although I had a stab at an explanation in an earlier post, to me it ultimately makes little sense to assign differing movement characteristics to the same people according to their weaponry.

I'm thinking at this point that I'll be rating all native fighters as Tribal, and leave the Irregular category for undrilled or inadequately drilled Imperial units and other European forces (e.g Boers).

Interesting pontification in your last couple of posts, Henry, very thought-provoking. I'm inclined to agree with the points you make.

However, on the specific point of how to represent Pathans, I'm thinking that they should mainly be classed as Irregular Infantry, probably with fieldcraft, to encourage historical tactics of long-range sniping, with only the odd unit of Ghazis classed as Tribal, maybe without 'Stand To' as a Free Action to make them more inclined to charge uncontrollably.

Firearms rating (Modern, Obsolete or Ancient) should be relative to their opponents and historical period.

Equally, 'Fierce' should be relative to the opponents – there are so many colonial troop types that, due to popular perception rather than historical fact, could be considered 'Fierce' (Highlanders, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pathans, Zulus, anyone else with large pointy weapons) that it can easily become a much over-used rating if you are not careful.

just my two cents…

As I intimated in an earlier post, sj, the categories become fairly meaningless anyway once you start seriously up/downgrading, particularly if you find yourself using mods from outside the recommended list, and even more so once you're obliged to change free/ordered actions to more accurately reflect battlefield behaviour, as with the above examples. At that point you're creating new categories unique to yourself.

Swordsmen – who could constitute up to half a Pathan force, depending on the period – are already rated as Tribal in the list provided, which is entirely realistic: they're melee troops – and there's a suggestion for how to treat Ghazi Fanatics in the Theatre-Specific Rules section on page 36 ('stand to' is indeed an ordered action). Interestingly, in the text therein Dan Mersey refers only to up/downgrading, but doesn't comment on the fact that by completely changing free and ordered actions for ghazis he's creating a fourth, one troop-type category.

I know the text claims that comparative firearms ratings are relative and period-dependent, but if you look at how they actually work in the rules and how they're classified it's very obvious that modern rifles always means single-shot breech-loaders (despite those Sikh Wars lists), and other types are positioned according to their effectiveness compared to that baseline. Why else would there be a specific upgrade suggestion for magazine rifles on page 36? If relativity genuinely applied as claimed in the rules you'd just treat such weapons as modern rifles and single-shot breechloaders as obsolete rifles. This being the case, if I was playing say, the Indian Mutiny, I'd downgrade British Regulars to being armed with obsolete rifles, and mutineers would be armed with antiquated muskets.

I don't see 'Fierce' as being in danger of being over-applied. If you know your chosen campaign well enough you'll know which units to 'fiercify'. The NW Frontier being a particular interest of mine, while I accept your other inclusions I'd question rating Sikhs and Pathans thus (I gave my interpretation of Fierce above, so I won't repeat it). Sikhs had a reputation for being reliable, stoic and highly disciplined; certainly enough to justify a rating of Veteran or Elite, but not Fierce. Even though Ghazis were suicidally brave, if they actually made it into hand-to-hand combat with regulars they were dealt with easily enough, and they were the Pathans' close-combat 'specialists'. Consequently I don't believe their combat skills were any better than the average Pathan or a British or Indian regular trained in bayonet drill, who were all probably more or less equally effective.

Hello Gents,

Against my normal behaviour on here, I might add my tuppence to the points about the firearm rating. The first premise is that rifle doesn't just mean any longarm, it specifically means a rifled one, as opposed to the smoothbore musket/carbine. In TMWWBK I don't think the firearm classes are meant to be relative regardless of the period. I believe Mersey means the following:
Modern Rifle/Modern Carbine = Single shot breechloading weapon (e.g. Snider, Martini-Henry, Calisher Terry, Westley Richards, etc). If you are playing a period with Magazine rifles you use the upgrade rule on pg 36.
Obsolete Rifle/Obsolete Carbine = Rifled muskets/rifles (e.g. Pattern 1851 and 1853 Enfields, the 1840 Brunswick Rifle, Pattern 1853 Cavalry and Artillery Carbines, etc).
Antiquated Musket = Smoothbore longarms (including smoothbore carbines).

To use Henry-Martini's Indian Mutiny example, British armed with P1853 Enfields would have 'Obsolete Rifles', even though they were the latest technology at the time, and the Mutineers would have 'Antiquated Muskets'.

Interestinf debate Gentlemen…

Can I add my tuppence worth again…dispose of the points system. I believe it is flawed – an extra point for field craft or an extra point for fierce – I think fierce is worth more.

Much better to determine your troops skills/abilities based on the options provided within a particular class and use them.

Unless you are playing a tournament game go with what you think is balanced…ps we never play on a matched points system in the shed…we do try to strike a balance for engagements if required….real life war doesn't operate on points.

Just on your last point Eric, I've often read comments to that effect over the years, but… our hobby is warGAMES, not 'real life war' (thank the supernatural agent or not of your choice). It might draw its inspiration from the squalid reality of the battlefield, but it operates in a completely different realm of human activity.

Personally, I very much appreciate the power of points systems to psychologically distance us from the misery of war and remind us that we're 'ludicians' and not warriors, and value (pun intended) their abstraction of the components of armed conflict.

Getting back to that magazine rifles mod on page 36, the term used is Marksmen, there's no explanation of its game effects, and it occurs nowhere else in the book. I assume that what's meant is Sharpshooters, and this is another editing slip-up.

I was trying to find a way to simplify the morale system. The discipline rating is set at the start of the game and doesn't alter during play, so I was thinking you could just add it to the leadership value and thereby have the need to record only one morale value on your unit roster, but… the final dice score is used independently of its relationship to the numerical leadership rating in Rally actions :-(.

That idea might have turned out to be a non-starter, but I do think having two ratings is excessive. What do they represent? Well, discipline supposedly relates to the training and morale of the unit to which it's assigned, whilst leadership relates to the commander of that unit, and is tested whenever an action (effectively an order) is attempted. Who's actually giving out the orders? Isn't it the force commander, that is, you, the player? I think the quality of the unit leader is naturally a component of the unit Discipline rating along with training and morale. Leadership should therefore reflect the efficiency and responsiveness of the force's command system, and so should be the same for all units. You could then assign say, British a leadership rating of 5+, and unsophisticated tribal forces 7+.

Just to elaborate on the previous post, you'd end up with a three-tiered system akin to DitDC's Disciplined, Organised, and Tribal – which means you could use the DitDC lists to assign command ratings.

On page 34 under 'LEADERSHIP VALUES' it says 'Tribal leaders are the most consistent,…', but on the Leadership Value Table there's an equal chance of them getting 5+, 6+, or 7+, whilst Regular leaders get 6+ on a roll of 2 to 4; so surely Tribal leaders are the least consistent, and Regular leaders the most consistent.

I'm thinking of reintroducing the initiative system from LR, whereby a player turn ends on a failed action roll. Under this mod Regular forces will be the most reliable, both passing their activation rolls more often and thus encouraging the use of non-free actions, and retaining the turn more often, making them more flexible. At the other extreme, forces with Tribal command systems would be dissuaded from rolling for actions for fear of ending their turn, and would thus be encouraged to use their free action wherever possible, realistically representing their primitive command structures. It would obviously become even more imperative that the free action accurately reflects the default, or typical, battlefield behaviour of the troop type in question – such as 'skirmish' for mounted Plains Indians.

Played one game with these rules and realy liked them better then Black powder. Easy to pick up and a good base to build on as we all seem to want to tweek new rule sets.
Particularly like the solo section "playing Mr Babbage"