Help support TMP

"Mounted infantry TMWWBK" Topic

19 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board

584 hits since 28 Feb 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member28 Feb 2017 3:31 a.m. PST

It's not entirely clear but working backwards from an army list, these units seem to be 12 figures strong.

Seems rather strong or am I missing something?

Matt Black28 Feb 2017 7:14 a.m. PST

Hello Ochion,
Using the Camel Corps and Boers as a guide then yes Mounted Infantry are 12 figures per unit.

Their relative strength is reflected in their higher point cost, @8 points per unit rather than 6 for regular infantry.

Ragbones Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 8:40 a.m. PST

If you don't like the look or feel of twelve figures per unit of Mounted Infantry I'd suggest reducing the number to ten or perhaps as low as eight. Having a twelve figure unit, however, doesn't mean they'll fight twelve figures because of the need to tell off a certain number of men as horse/mule/camel holders when the unit dismounts. The spirit of the rules seems to suggest a certain amount of latitude given the players to tweak things to their individual taste.

Mike Target28 Feb 2017 9:27 a.m. PST

If 12 is to many why not use the Irregular horse option which only requires 8 bods on horsies?

Henry Martini28 Feb 2017 2:06 p.m. PST

Strangely for what's putatively a skirmish game, TMWWBK as written doesn't represent mounting/dismounting; it abstracts the dual posture of mounted units.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member28 Feb 2017 3:17 p.m. PST

Thanks for the responses, all. Food for thought.

TMWWBK as written doesn't represent mounting/dismounting;

I'm going to modify this. Not only because I think it'd add to the game but because I have a bunch of AZW mounted units with both mounted & dismounted components.

I *think* I'll allow them to fire short range only when mounted & long range when dismounted – thus giving the unit a reason to dismount. Additionally, I *think* I'll subsume moving & mounting/dismounting into a single action. If it becomes too dangerous, no-one will do it.

Ceterman Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 3:49 p.m. PST

Ochoin, That sounds good to me! I am thinking about using these rules for my Plains Wars minis instead of TSATF simply because it takes fewer figs to start with! I too want Mounted/Dismounted Troopers. The range thing is pretty much what TSATF uses also, if not exactly. But first, I have to paint a bunch of figs. A daunting task indeed! IF I ever get them ALL painted, I will, if I don't care for the MWWBK Rules, go back to Plan A, "The Tomahawk and the Flame" Rules. I don't really anticipate not enjoying "Kings" tho, but we all already know "Sword" very well.

Nick Stern Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 4:02 p.m. PST

TSATF suggests the expedient of representing groups of mounted troops (Boers, at any rate) by placing one mounted figure in the middle of a group of dismounted figures. I know it's not the prettiest sight on the game table, but I simply don't have the resources to field 40 mounted Boers in 54mm. I have ten mounted Boers, which I'll use for man for man skirmish games like the attack on the British prison in Breaker Morant.

Ceterman Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 5:10 p.m. PST

Nick, makes sense using 54mm guys, or any other mm for that matter. n our Zulu War games I don't have any dismounted, so we just never dismount! There is too much of an advantage in staying mounted anyway. But for some reason, I just HAD to buy Mounted/Dismounted Plains Wars US Cav. If I didn't, I would do it as per TSATF rules though.

Nick Stern Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 5:44 p.m. PST

Ceterman, I also do Plains Wars, but in 15mm. That was the only way I could afford to do both mounted and dismounted for both sides. I need to try TMWWBK for that period. I have tried several rules for the Plains Wars, including TSATF, but so far none have captured the unique native American mode of warfare. I hear good things about Yellow Ribbon too.

Ceterman Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 6:02 p.m. PST

I do everything in 25/28(too hard to paint 15's with these old eyes!) so all my terrain is to that scale plus I have wanted those Foundry Custer Figs since the day they came out, & yep, I do remember it! So, I got em from several folks here on TMP at a good price & there ya go! I do have ACW 15's(my only 15's) but we don't do that period much anymore. Not that I won't in the future it's just on the back burner. So, I did think about Plains War in 15's for about a minute… Have you tried the Plains War Variant for TSATF? If not here it is to take a look at: link
It looks very good, but I really wanna try "Kings" since I bought it, I wanna use it, ya know?!

Nick Stern Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 6:04 p.m. PST

Sorry, Gang. I incorrectly remembered TSATF suggestion for mounted Boers. Instead of one mounted figure per unit, Larry Brom suggested four or five riderless horses per unit. The horses are grouped in the middle of the dismounted figures when they are "in the saddle" and when the unit dismounts, the horses are left in place. IIRC, the Boers did not bother with horse holders, but left the horses hobbled or tethered behind the firing line.

Nick Stern Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 6:12 p.m. PST

Ceterman, I was lucky enough to play test the Tomahawk and the Flame with Hans Von Stockhausen, the author. We used 1/72 unpainted plastics (gasp!) to deal with the expense of the mounted/dismounted thing. Those were some of the best games I ever played! I keep asking Hans to write up some of those scenarios and get them published. Come to think of it, he even had rules for counting coup. Thanks for the reminder, I should take another look at them. But I, too, also want to try out TMWWBK for this period.

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP01 Mar 2017 5:42 a.m. PST

i have no experience with TMWWBK but i lay with TSATF.i imagine, if we talk about Boers, that being a force all mounted burghers/infantry that dismount for fighting (behind sangars, trenches, slopes ecc…..they should be represented by 20 castings as per TSTAF..otherwise they 'll be at disadvantage in a fire firing confrontation with , let's say, a British Inf. unit…the 12 castings unit, in my opinion, and above all in colonial warfare, is more suited for a regular/irregular true cavalry unit equipped with carbines which have the role of scouting of the main force, defending flanks or, at best, pursuing routed native not the classic boer mounted burgher

Nick Stern Supporting Member of TMP01 Mar 2017 10:17 a.m. PST

Italwars, l agree that in TSATF Boers units should be the same size as British infantry units of 20 figures. In TMWWBK, non European units are larger than regular European units. This makes sense and aids play balance for most native forces, but is not historic for all, including Boers and Maori who were always outnumbered in the field by their Imperial opponents.

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP01 Mar 2017 1:47 p.m. PST

yes Nick they were outnumbered but, maybe i'm wrong, i don't think they had the subtility, taining and the sufficient number of unit leaders to act in small unit comparable to cavalry troops or squadrons…

Nick Stern Supporting Member of TMP01 Mar 2017 5:22 p.m. PST

I read that a Boer Commando could be anywhere from 3,000 to 60 men, so I guess anything goes. For play balance, I would not make the Boer units too large. They needed to avoid large numbers of casualties, so I would tend to make them smaller and more brittle. If they are larger than an Imperial unit they will be almost impossible to defeat, especially if they are behind cover. Maybe that's historic?

sjwalker38 Supporting Member of TMP02 Mar 2017 12:46 p.m. PST

I'm not sure that the TMWWBK rules for MI as written work well for some troop types so classed in the example lists; Camel Corps, for example.

Our house rule is that regular MI like these can still form Close Order and Volley Fire, as they only ever used their mounts as transport, and rarely (if ever) repeatedly moved, dismounted, fired, remounted etc in the course of a battle. Any firing when mounted would be largely ineffectual so is not an option and they fight at half strength if caught mounted (or, to be really tough, count them as Pinned, so they have to Rally if they survive the melee)

Like you, we've added Mount/Dismount as a new action for such troops. That allows for ambush scenarios when they might be caught mounted, and gives the Imperial player some difficult decisions to make – a failed 'Mount' order at a critical moment could be fatal! We're still undecided if the action could also allow a half move in addition as part of the same action.

Other MI used as scouts are better classed, along with NMP, Frontier Light Horse etc, as Irregular Cavalry but with 'Skirmish' as a free action instead of 'Attack' to encourage historical tactics.

My Boers are Irregular Mounted Infantry, which I field as 12 dismounted figures together with a horseholder base with 1 horseholder and 3-4 horses to indicate their status.

sjwalker38 Supporting Member of TMP02 Mar 2017 12:57 p.m. PST

Nick, think we've touched on this in earlier threads: Boers as mounted irregular infantry, rated as well armed sharpshooters with fieldcraft, will cost 9 points (10 if rated as veterans in addition).

They're likely to be outnumbered by British regular infantry costing 6 points per unit (arguably, most units during the first Boer war shouldn't be upgraded and could even be rated 'unenthusiastic' (as in poorly led) to bring them down to 5 points).

Give the British the objective of driving the Boers from a defended hill-top, put the Boers in trenches counting hard cover and 18 points of Boers (2 units) are going to give 24 points of Brits (3 units of Regulars and a field gun) a hard time unless they adopt historic tactics – and it should be a closely fought and interesting game.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.