"American Indian Wars and Horse, Foot and Guns rules." Topic

Hello everyone,

The multiple conflicts against the Indians of the northern or southern plains, the Apaches as well as the formidable Nez Perce are not taken into account in the excellent Horse, Foot and Guns rules of Phil Barker.

How would you classify the warriors of these different Indian nations?

"Horse Foot and Guns" (HFG) is a set of quick-play army-level wargames rules for large land Battles for the period 1701-1914. They work best for Napoleonics. I hardly think they'd be suitable for the plains Indian wars.

I don't know, but you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The rules were simply not made for what you want to do.

I have read that these rules work well for irregular combat, and they are stand/element based.

link

link

+1 79thPA HF&G are just not suited to the tiny, irregular clashes that typified the wars with the N American tribes.

The best rules for these are Yellow Ribbon, IMO, because they actually reflect how and why the tribes fought. They did not engage in large set piece battles.

I agree with the above. I would also suggest looking at the free The Men who would be Kings variant on the Facebook group. It called the V4 Partizan MWWBK PLAINS WARS SUPPLEMENTARY RULES AND AMENDMENTS in the files section. I am a long time advocate of Yellow Ribbon. However, this variant is quite good and roughly achieves what YR does with a lot less work and understanding needed. We have played it several times now involving medium and large battles. They did a really good job on this! I know that he ran the LBH using them at a show in the UK.

Thanks

John

@MajorB
You write that "Horse Foot and Guns" (HFG) works better for the Napoleonic wars, why?

@79thPA
I'm not trying to push a square peg into a round hole.

You write that the rules were simply not designed for what I want to do, but read carefully what I write at the bottom (@all) and you will understand where I am going with this, but you must know first that I love "Horse Foot and Guns" (HFG) and will not play any other rules for the period covered.

@Extra Crispy
I owned Yellow Ribbon for a long time and almost everyone gave it the reputation you just wrote, but I didn't like it.

@John Leahy
Thanks John, but I am not registered on any social networks and never will be.

@all,

What a lack of imagination, I was simply asking you how you would classify the elements which would represent the Indians in the excellent "Horse, Foot and Guns rules" of Phil Barker and nothing else.

Even if "Horse, Foot and Guns rules" a set of quick-play army-level wargames rules for large land Battles for the period 1701-1914 we can use it with a representation of troops different from that proposed, because in "Horse , Foot and Guns rules", for 25 mm figurines, 15mm equals 100 paces equals 75 meters equals 82 yards, so the front of an element corresponds to 400 paces equals 300 meters equals 328 yards, do you agree?

But if, as Emory Upton recommends to fight the "brave" Indians, that a dismounted U.S. cavalryman occupies a front of 6 yards in combat, this would give us at least 54 real cavalrymen deployed on the 328 real yartds represented by the front of an element in "Horse, Foot and Guns rules", plus 18 other riders 109 yards behind to guard the horses.

In conclusion we find ourselves with an element representing 72 U.S. cavalrymen, or one or two real companies.

For the infantry, Emory Upton advising his officers to deploy their soldiers into "four". As most infantry companies were normally only assigned 40 privates, a company deployed over 80 yards with the nco's 10 yards behind the skirmishers, the captain 80 yards behind the skirmishers and a lieutenant with a reserve 150 yards behind the skirmishers.

So on the front of an element we can deploy a maximum of four infantry companies as skirmishers.

So you see that we can play at a scale much smaller than that desired for the rules, moreover the scale of the rule is not realistic given the real length represented by the front of an element.

So if the U.S. army can easily be classified for example the U.S. cavalry as REPEATERS all graded as INFERIOR, representing cavalry mostly armed with repeating magazine carbines as well as with saber and revolver, and at least as likely to fight with most troopers dismounted as to fight entirely mounted, such as later Union cavalry of the American Civil War.

How to classify the U.S. infantry?

Like RIFLES all graded as INFERIOR, representing infantry armed with higher velocity breech-loaded?

And the U.S. artillery used against the Indians?

Like MIXED ARTILLERY all graded as INFERIOR with a mixture of smoothbore guns and Gatling machine guns?

But how many pieces would an artillery element represent?

And for the Indians?

All the plains Indians dismounted like MARKSMEN, with different firing ranges depending on the weaponry used and a different classification according to the nations?

Graded as Basic for the Apaches, Elite for the Nez-Perces and Inferior for the plains Indians.

And if an dismounted Indian element didn't have any figurines with a bow or a gun, couldn't we count them as SPEARMEN all graded as Elite or MARKSMEN all graded as Inferior?

What about the mounted plains Indians?

We could count them as LIGHT HORSE, the mounted plains Indian all graded as Elite ,on the other hand the mounted Nez-Perces graded as Basic and mounted Apaches are more like REPEATERS given their tactics and all graded as Elite.

And if an mounted Indian element didn't have any figurines with a bow or a gun, couldn't we count them as SIPAHIS, representing fiercer native cavalry charging wildly in loose swarms and superior to U.S. soldiers in a confused melee and all graded as Elite or if LIGHT HORSE, all graded as Inferior?

The elements of REPEATERS, RIFLE, SPEARMEN and SIPAHIS being three figures could represent a company of U.S. cavalry or infantry and an Indian band with an average strength of 36 men.

The two-figure elements are an Indian band with an average strength of 24 men.

You write that "Horse Foot and Guns" (HFG) works better for the Napoleonic wars, why?

No, I said that HF&G works best for the Napoleonic Wars. That is, of all the periods you could play with HF&G, games set in the Napoleonic era will be the most satisfying. YMMV.

And for what I wrote for @all, do you have anything to say?

"Horse Foot and Guns" (HFG) is not a model developed for use specifically for the Napoleonic Wars, or the SYW, or other conflicts, but for the 18th and 19th centuries.

The actual surface and especially the real front represented by the front of an element or 400 paces is much too small for the troop scale given in this rule, so my demonstration is valid.

Moreover, the U.S. army being classified in these rules (due to its participation in the Civil War) all that remained was to classify the American Indians, which is the question of this topic.

How would you classify the warriors of these different Indian nations?

Units in Horse Foot and Guns represent brigade sized formations.
400 paces is the correct frontage for a brigade – about 3 battalions at 120 paces or so each.
The rules are designed for large set piece battles.
Neither the Indians nor the US cavalry fought in brigade sized formations during the plains wars, so the rules are not suitable for those battles.

The Men Who Would Be Kings is a popular, fun rule set pitched at the right level for US Indian Wars battles. You can even represent non-plains tribes such as the Nez Perce and Apaches with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

An alternative option is 'Legends of the Old West' with the 'Blood on the Plains' supplement, although both are long OOP.

@Mad Anthony Jones

You know very well that I cannot point out a single case where the Indians operated as an army large enough to be taken into consideration in "Horse, Foot and Guns rules", but that is not the question, it is enough to know that if the front of an element represents 400 paces you can simply use "Horse, Foot and Guns rules" differently and even in more realistic ways, because with much smaller units, therefore the only thing in this topic and that I ask again is how would you classify the warriors of the different American Indian nations?
I don't want Austrian Croats or Cossacks, but American Indians with the system of "Horse, Foot and Guns rules" which is not incompatible.

@Dexter Ward

I know that originally it is written in "Horse, Foot and Guns rules", that the largest infantry units represent formations of the size of the units of a regiment or small brigade of 2 very strong or 3- 4 average battalions (usually 1,500-2,500 men).
But for you 400 paces is the correct frontage for a brigade – about 3 battalions at about 120 paces each -? But how many real men are in your brigade and what formation is it in? Training for a massacre? What real front does your brigade have when deployed in line? I know that neither the Native Americans nor the US Army fought in brigade-sized formations, but forget your brigades and think only 'at the real field front – i.e. 400 paces – represented by that of an element. 400 paces is perfect for deploying small units like those which confront each other in the wars against the American Indians. As soon as I I read in the rule the "TROOP REPRESENTATION" and the "PLAYING AREA AND GROUND SCALE" in the "REPRESENTATIONAL SCALES" I immediately saw that there was something wrong, but didn't you?
So the only thing I ask again and it is the only question of this topic, how would you classify the warriors of the different American Indian nations?

@Henry Martini

Thank you, but I want a rule with a DBA – DBM – DBR – or DBMM system… But on a scale in relation to the real front represented by that of an element. As "Horse, Foot and Guns rules" is for the 19th century I had the idea that I explained in this topic, but as a curiosity I re-ask the only question in this topic, how would you classify the warriors of the different American Indian nations?
​

I think Rosebud would count where Indians behaved more like and army. Also, fought in large numbers there as well.

@Grattan54

Yes because the Battle of Rosebud Creek which is a battle of the Indian Wars which took place on June 17, 1876 in Big Horn County (Montana Territory) is a battle "en ligne".

The Plains Indians fought there in large numbers, but they were fewer in number than at the Little Big Horn.

But that's not the point, because the Indians were never numerous enough on a battlefield to be played with "Horse Foot and Guns" (HFG) as it was written.

But by changing to make them more realistic,which does not change anything in the system of the rule, the "TROOP REPRESENTATION" and the "PLAYING AREA AND GROUND SCALE" in the "REPRESENTATIONAL SCALES" of the rule, there is a way to play the Indian wars with "Horse Foot and Guns" ( HFG), but the question is:

"How would you classify the warriors of these different Indian nations?".

Back in the 90s, when DBX was fresh and popular, someone here in Australia created a suite of colonial variants for that style of game system covering various campaigns; one of them might have been for the US Indian Wars.

I used to have the whole set in one folder, but I have no idea where it is now.

@Henry Martini

DBX,these rules were intended to replace those originally produced in 1971 to cover the period 1750 to 1850.

The greatest innovation was the introduction of an alternative game system developed from that used in the highly successful World War II rules and modern armies.

But the more innovative a set of rules is, the more it will be unknown to players.

This is why I have difficulty getting people to admit that "Horse Foot and Guns" (HFG) can be used without modification, which is miraculous, for the post-1850 wars against the American Indians, so I ask my question again:

"How would you classify the warriors of these different Indian nations?".