"Can Your Rules & Basing Distinguish Zulus from Sudanese?" Topic

The fun of Victorian gaming is that the British get to engage in very different kinds of battles v inter alia, Boers, Pathans, and tribal blade weapon warband armies like the Sudanese and Zulus. But is there any point in collecting both Zulus and Sudanese to oppose your Brits?
I think a case can be made that the Zulus were more drilled and tended to operate more spread out, using an engulfing "horns" deployment. So I'm thinking of basing my Zulus in straight lines on their stands as 'regulars'. They will melee only 1 stand deep, but have a good melee factor, like DBA "blades". My Sudanese warband will be based more irregularly on their stands, be able to melee 2 stands deep, but have a lower melee factor per stand than my Zulus- eg the Sudanese melee infantry will be more like "warband" in DBA speak. To reflect their better drill and better ability to hook round, I would give my Zulu's slightly better maneuver ability /Pips than my Sudanese. I'm hoping these differences will give a very different feel and require my Zulu army to play differently v the British than my Sudanese. What do you think, anyone? Have I thought of enough differences to justify having both Zulus and Sudanese (already purchased har har)? Any other ideas on differentiation?

One big difference is that the Sudanese used mounted troops, and also more troops armed with firearms than the Zulus

I'm not sure a DBA Type system would represent the differences that well. You may need something like Battles For Empire II which has special rules for the Zulu formations. Also, most battles weren't straight up fights, but rather reacting to ambushes or advances by a horde of natives.

One has different armies for Zulus and Sudanese because they looked nothing alike.
Make up all the rules differentiating one from the other in combat that you wish.
If you are just going to treat them as gaming pieces, why use figures at all?

Why have separate Prussian and Austrian armies in Napoleonics?

Agree with John. Both the dress and the fighting styles are completely different. That's why we game using "The Sword and the Flame" and our cast of hundreds (literally) of native warriors.

Jim

I'm not sure there is much difference, at a basic level, between a Zulu trying to disembowel you with his Iklwa or a Beja trying to decapitate you with his sword. Both relied on a swift charge to contact with a shield and close combat weapon to do the bussiness.

I think the real difference between Mahdists and Zulus comes from the army composition. The Mahdists with access to cavalry, artillery and a specialist corps of riflemen to support their infantry should pose some quite different problems to the British player than a Zulu army.

In all honesty the Zulus (and their cousins the Ngoni, Gazi Nguni and Matabele) where really one trick ponies their tactics where perfect against other, less martial, indigenous peoples who preferred to skirmish with spears but became completely unstuck against European trained soldiers with firearms. Outside of Isandlwana the bulls horns didn't score to many successes.

In game terms with Zulus I wonder if a better game could be had by fighting a campaign with map movement? The Zulu impi where far swifter than British columns and with better knowledge of the ground being fought over. A campaign game where the Zulus could use these advantages to try and defeat a number of British columns in detail using surprise and speed might make for a more interesting games than a regular line them up and fight battle.

Durban Gamer,

You do have a number of options.
Zulus:
married regiments, solid blade (4Bd), others solid warband (4Wb) to represent the chest and loins. unmarried regiments, fast blade (3Bd) or fast warband (3Wb) for the horns.

Other native tribes.
Fast warband (3Wb) for the better trained and others, fast horde (5Hd).

Sudanese/Hadendoa
Sudanese can be similar to ‘other native tribes' (3Wb) or (5Hd).
Hadendoa (3Bd) of course.

The above fast types would recoil on even scores from shooting or close combat with solid British troops.

For me, I chose the Sudan to be able to do river attacks and city attacks like Berber and Khartoum. Plus I can use the Egyptian troops for earlier conflicts. I felt the same way as mentioned above about the Zulu being one trick ponies.

As to the comment above about buying both armies, I guess that would be a way to go, but I have a limited budget and space. So the Sudan gave me more bang for my buck as they say.

Matthew

Yes in Indiana, Colonels and Emirs, a 1:10/15 ration set of rules for tactical combat, 1984, we had several differences in the Dervish and Zulu armies. Mainly organization and types of weapons. Dervish had artillery, more effective rifles and mounted units.

I based my Zulu on 6 figure sabot bases so they are incredibly regular. In hindsight I probably should have had the bases made a little more irregular.

Timurilank, good suggestions.

Personly, I think the Sudan is much more interesting for scenarios and variety of troop types.

My Zulus are very, very fast. Remember not only Isandlwana, but for instance Shaka running for more than 24 hours to reach his dying father. He was not the only one who was able to do this. So I have my Zulu army charge at cavalry speed, and more strategically move like horsemen on campaign. An important difference to the British who had to move with the speed of their ox-driven cars.

Thanks for the input everyone. Timurilank I especially like your suggestion for varying troop types that work and respond a little differently, thus giving some variety in the melee foot types. I think DBX type rules are very nice for representing Colonial battles. The recoil/pushback mechanism works nicely. And one can have muskets firing only in their own turn, while rifles fire in both side's turns, thus neatly showing a greater rate of fire.
Anyone who thinks Zulu War is not so varied should check out Jones & Fastoso Colonial Campaigns The Zulu War 1879. A superb Zulu War scenario book: the main 11 actions each with very different tactical challenges for both sides. Adaptable to any rule set.

Are you playing in 15mm as you mention DBA? If you are what minis are you using? Ive never found a 15mm range that looks right to me and would love to for some bigger battles.

In 15mm Essex and Old Glory make nice Zulu figs. There is also a great new US 15mm Zulu War range I saw pics of. Can't remember the name – maybe a US gamer can provide it?