Help support TMP

"TSATF, AWI, fortifications and Maham towers " Topic

5 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 Sword and The Flame Message Board

Back to the American Revolution Message Board

695 hits since 2 Sep 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 3:03 p.m. PST

Partially inspired by der Alte Fritz's scratch built Maham tower. Btw, if you Google "Maham tower", half the images are his work.
Another inspiration is the "need" to do 96.
Finally, I have a lot of twigs in my back yard, and it would be a fun way to kill an afternoon.

Now to rules.
Playing TSATF, there are Class 4 targets, troops behind fortifications. I sometimes play it that if the troops defending do not shoot, nor intend to shoot that turn, they cannot be hit. When the card comes up, McIntyre's militia company declares they are crouching and not shooting. Or, if Blaine's company declares they are shooting at McIntyre, they can forfeit the next card and declare crouching. Then they cannot be hit. Only if they actually man the walls, can they be hit. They cannot pop up that shooting phase after being shot at unless they intended to shoot previously. Is that clear?
The purpose of the Maham tower is to negate the fortifications as a shooting target. A maximum of 5 figures could Man the tower. It is assumed that the tower was built and manned at night, and they are behind a bulletproof loopholed wall. Their target becomes Class 2. Consider the men in the tower a Class 4 target. Only a heart can hit them.
The unit defending it (and it really should be rifles…) can replace casualties during movement, but any one unit can take a free shot at the poor soul climbing the ladder as a Class 3 target. Or 2.

Again, "during the night", regular approach trenches can be built. Let's not go into that now… grin
But let's say a few things.
Troops "crouching" with no intention of moving or shooting, cannot be considered a target. But they can be shot at for the purpose of "pinning", but in a different context than pinning in the rules. Shoot at them to force a declaration of intent to "crouch".
Let's make an arbitrary declaration that an approach trench section longer than … 6"?… is not cover, and troops in it are suddenly Class2. This is to force the lovely zig zag trenches we see on maps.

You can have a regular siege, with approaches, assigning work, careful calculations based on quality of the soil, but I would rather not. It might be fun for some, but…
I would rather do 96 as a fait accompli. It's done Lads. Have at it. The above are to see if your gaming opponent is an engineering genius, or prone to mistakes.
For now, I just want to build a Maham Tower, and then figure out how to use it in a game.

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 5:30 p.m. PST

Winston, I am not any sort of knowledgeable about
siege warfare, but I thought the zig-zag of the
approach trenches was to prevent the artillery of
the besieged from getting a straight shot at the
head of the sap (the unfilled gabion nearest the

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member03 Sep 2017 10:11 p.m. PST

How many enemy figures need declare an intent to shoot at a Class IV target in order to "pin" that targeted unit? IOW, in your example above, Blaine's company wants to shoot at McIntyre's; McIntyre's declares they will duck behind the battlements and not shoot, rather than be shot at and possibly hit. What happens if the Blaine's CO then says, "OK, if McIntyre's is going to duck and cover, then I will only direct ONE figure to shoot at them and I'm shooting the rest of my company at Mugwump's company over there instead"? What would be the minimum number of declared shooters to force an enemy to "duck"?

I.e., how to deal with players trying to fudge those rules to their benefit?

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP03 Sep 2017 10:40 p.m. PST

KISMIF, stick to the original rules whenever possible. Get too fancy and you will ruin it.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP04 Sep 2017 12:48 p.m. PST

Just floating a few ideas for battle scenario specific rules.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.