"regulars vs braves" Topic

Among my many back-burner projects is a set of rules for doing battles (as opposed to skirmishes and blockhouse-and-log-cabin raids, etc) between Indians and soldiers (including well-organized militia). There are more than a few Ospreys on such battles: Monongahela, Point Pleasant 1774, Peckuwe 1780, Wabash 1791 (St Clair's defeat), Tippecanoe. I trust we will soon get one on Pontiac's rebellion and Bushy Run.

Though the Indians can and did win some, my sense of it is that it required some blundering by the soldiers. And of course these wars were not ultimately decided by battles but by the white ability to fight sustained wars out of far superior resources and to destroy the Indian villages. They can, however, be fun to game, and the miniatures available are beautiful.

My assumption is that the entire battlefield is forested, and I have experimented with using LARGE (up to 12") oval wooden plaques (such as Hobby Lobby sells) with trees permanently mounted and space among them for removable individual warriors. Basically the war band carries its trees around with it as it moves. Militia may fight and be based the same way, while regulars have minimal trees and straight lines.

I may or may not ever finish the rules, but am curious what other rules sets people would use for battles such as those listed above, wherein the two sides are so disparate in tactics? I assume morale would be a larger than normal factor in the outcome?

I'd have lots of trees but mounted on nothing larger than a CD

I have pieces of a 'foresty' print that I use to show where the would are. In your case you really need to note what is OPEN.

Yes, open ground would be laid down. And hills are important.

I never have understood why St Clair's defeat at the battle of the Wabash has never garnered the recognition it deserved, especially by the American Indian tribes. It was the largest defeat of an American army by Natives. Far surpassing Custers. It basically destroyed the standing US army on the Frontier. All that is there now is a large monument in the town of Fort Recovery and two block houses connected by a wooden wall with the gate. Representing Ft. Recovery, later built there. The Wabash River has since changed its course and only a dry bed remains. I guess if someone like Custer had died there, it would have been much more famous. Some key Indian Chiefs of the area were present though, Little Turtle of the Miami. Blue Jacket of the Shawnee and Buckongaheles of the Lenape (Delaware). I believe Tecumseh was also a participant as well.

I do like VDH very much. And yes, it is just like Rome vs the barbarians. Except that the Americans were a thousand years more advanced than the Romans, so their edge was even greater.

This very Ground rules would work. They have a historical campaign in them too.

Thanks

John

I do have a home made rule set for the period that our group uses. We have the figures based individually and they are 40mm but it is flexible so you can use it with 25/28mm figures also.
I will send you a copy to look at if you like. You can changes them or duplicate them as you desire. I would just need your e-mail address.

docmcbride@comcast.net

Thanks!

John, thanks, I'll check those out.

I use Rebels and Patrtiots and just ignore the 24 point limit. I like how the rules work and fought battles like Fallen Timbers, St. Clair's defeat, Pecuckwe and Ft. Necessity.

I usually consider most of the terrain as wooded but for Fallen Timbers, I used the scenario map from Land of the Free which had more open terrain but clearly defined areas of fallen trees and brush. I did this because regulars move 1/2 the distance Native Warriors do in wooded terrain and did not want the game to take forever.

I think in many battles armies of regulars and militia did make blunders and the Natives would definitely take advantage. I think Native Warriors would have big edge fighting in the woods.

"Our Moccasins Trickled Blood" Darryl Smith's rules were written with Fallen Timber's in mind. Singly based figures but scale was as I recall each figure represented 10 or 15 men. There used to be a Yahoo Group, but Darryl is on TMP regularly. The rules are good, and fairly simple.

Wow, walk a mile in his moccasins!

I have used Our Moccasins Trickled Blood to do the Wabash. They worked really well. Don't see why they won't work for the other battles you mentioned.

There is far far more to it than weaponry. Political sophistication is a huge factor, as is economic. And much else

We can say that the natives lacked the "civilized" capacity to think in long term. They tought only about the immediate, contrary to whites. An alliance was only for some purposes, not for building a nation. Plus you can add the fact that too many regulars' defeats (either colonials or americans) were caused by understimating enemies' capacities (a common pattern from Braddock until Custer), when a competent commander had the lead, normally where the natives being the crushed ones.

Yes. Indians could fight a good battle but not wage war.

The wars in the East has never been as popular as the Plains Wars.I could never understand this.
Mark

Better movies involving the plains Indians.

Last of the Mohicans stands pretty tall I believe.

Thanks

John

Effectively the wars on the plains where more showed by Hollywood, perhaps were reputed more spectacular,/epic or (bad word for a war) "glamorous". The east wars had been represented with a lot less movies , sugh as Last of the Mohicans' various versions or Northwest Passage (1940), plus some minor productions.