Au pas de Charge | 17 Sep 2018 12:15 p.m. PST |
Are the Zulus a bore? After the first several games does the Zulu War become routine and repetitive? If they dont trend towards the trite, what are possible scenarios? And if they do, then which British native enemy is most interesting? |
ochoin | 17 Sep 2018 12:42 p.m. PST |
One of the reasons we switched to 'The Men Who Would be Kings" rules. To be fair, we've "tweaked" these with a lot of TSATF mechanisms. However, you can vary unit stats with Zulu units in TMWBK so as to have none of the boring "sameness" of TSATF. This unit of Marrieds are steadier but not quite as fierce in melee as that unit of Unmarrieds whilst this unit are slightly better shots & that one is better led etc. |
Winston Smith | 17 Sep 2018 1:14 p.m. PST |
The rules recommend that Zulus outnumber the British 3:1. Then use the horn, chest, loins formation. It works. You want to pin Brits so they will have a hard time reinforcing the critical sector. One side of the British formation, attack in waves. You are Shaka. Be ruthless. Let the first two waves absorb British rifle fire so the last wave has an even chance. It might not work. But it won't be boring. (And sneak dead Zulus back on the table when the British aren't looking! ) |
79thPA | 17 Sep 2018 1:51 p.m. PST |
Yes, I think they are boring. Many more troop types and possibilities in the Sudan |
Wackmole9 | 17 Sep 2018 2:01 p.m. PST |
No Boers are boring. Unless you have a train. |
aegiscg47 | 17 Sep 2018 2:03 p.m. PST |
Northwest Frontier is very interesting due to the terrain, the large number of actions that were historically fought there over the years, and the fact that the Pathans can usually shoot back! The issue with the Zulu War is that it's really hard to simulate the stealth and ambush tactics of the Zulus in a skirmish game. I'm also always fascinated by many of the posts about The Men Who Would Be Kings rules where a large number of them involve changes and tweaks to the rules. It only reinforces my opinion of the Osprey rules sets that they're more of an "ideas" book with fluff Men of Arms pictures and not very good sets of rules. |
ZULUPAUL | 17 Sep 2018 2:33 p.m. PST |
Well I don't think Zulus are boring…but I guess that would be obvious! |
robert piepenbrink | 17 Sep 2018 2:34 p.m. PST |
There's some verbal confusion. When people say "boring" I hear "well-suited for solo games." aegiscg47, I think generalizing about the Osprey rules is a bit unfair. Mind you, I'll grant the fluff pictures. But It's not as though they all share an engine, and a number of them are by established authors and do share an engine with non-Osprey sets. About the only thing Rogue Stars and Lion Rampant have in common is the publisher. Might have been more interesting if Osprey had decided on a house engine of some sort. I'm not sure we're getting an adequate return on all the variety of rules and basing. |
Mister Tibbles | 17 Sep 2018 4:16 p.m. PST |
They are kind of like painting and playing barbarian hordes. So many figures to paint, way too much flesh to paint, and rather limited tactics in big battle games. That's why I find them boring to build as an army. (Though I enjoy Dacian armies!) The British are like the Early Imperial Romans. Everyone just loves playing and modeling them. Africans are fun in games like The Sword in Africa, with its adventure aspects. NWF is my favorite setting for TSATF. I will side with Aegis' views, including Osprey rules in general , but I don't want to get off topic. |
aegiscg47 | 17 Sep 2018 5:46 p.m. PST |
Robert, you could very well be correct, but the few that I've played just felt like they could have been fleshed out with more rules, pre-made rosters, etc. Instead, you get pages with a lot of blank space in the margin and content stretched thin to the size of a standard Osprey book. There's some good ideas here and there, but they need more development. I get why they're popular as they fit in with a good percentage of today's hobby, i.e., paint as few figures as possible to get in a game, preferably of the skirmish variety, and get it done in 1-2 hours. My advice is to just get into TSATF, take the time to paint up several units, and have a much better gaming experience. |
Ed Mohrmann | 17 Sep 2018 7:30 p.m. PST |
Zulus are only boring if the scenario design lacks imagination and the Zulu player(s) don't use the terrain potential (which should be there) to use the ambush and 'surprise' tactics which the Zulu used at times. As far as Zulu stats go – there is nothing in TSATF to prohibit creating Zulu units in different categories and with different capabilities. I personally would draw the line at crack-shot Zulu units, but that's just me and I'd find no problem with a Zulu army which had say 25 % to 30 % firearm units. Larry always said TSATF was more a tool box than a hard and fast set of rules and encouraged 'tweaking'. |
Winston Smith | 17 Sep 2018 11:22 p.m. PST |
Yes. I can never understand those who ask for a set answer with TSATF. As far as I'm concerned, the heart of TSATF is the card draw for both movement and shooting. Then comes the die roll to close and to stand. I happen to like the melee system but never felt bound by it. It's fine in small battles, not so much when, like an idiot, you have 1300 figures on each side. Play 800FE instead. You can give up in despair in the NW Frontier, since the rules proper don't give stats for sepoys or Afghan regulars. Heck, make "Splendid Sikhs" British and run of the mill Sikhs Egyptian. Make Afghan Regulars Egyptian, and if they really suck, throw a Bashi Bazouk rating at them. Do you want really fierce Zulus with an attitude? Give them British morale to close. I learned that when my impi took a lot of casualties from shooting and then failed to close. Not all your Zulus. Just the best painted ones. That should count for something. |
Liliburlero | 18 Sep 2018 9:43 a.m. PST |
I can honestly say that I have never played in a boring game of TSATF. And I've played in many, many games with many different GM's. IMHO the key to making any game interesting is to have an imaginative scenario (as per Ed Mohrmann) and to not be afraid to realize that there is no "…set answer with TSATF" (as per Winston Smith). Dad encouraged gamers to improvise and go find a period you're interested in. While AZW may not be the one for you, there's always NWF, Sudan, etc. But boring, never. |
The Virtual Armchair General | 19 Sep 2018 8:07 a.m. PST |
Hear! Hear, Daughter of The Immortal Sergeant! |
Fitzovich | 20 Sep 2018 7:37 p.m. PST |
I believe it is more in balancing a scenario as opposed to any particular opponent being boring. One needs to learn the strengths and weaknesses of their forces and use them to the best advantage. Sometimes that takes a few games to get the hang of it, but a well balanced game through whatever means should not be boring. |