"variable victory conditions for Comanche raids" Topic

Thinking primarily Comanche vs Texans, but should be generally applicable.

One variable is how many casualties the raiders are willing to accept. The other is what are they after?

Objective might be simply to give experience to young warriors, and also to gain loot and honor BUT not get killed. Big game penalty for casualties.

On the other extreme, goal might be the destruction of enemy forces and/or facility: burn the fort! Presumably more losses would be tolerable.

If game is refereed, the opposing players should not know what their opponents are trying to do.

Thoughts? What factors have i left out or gotten wrong?

From what I read, Comanche's losses to disease changed their objectives somewhat, to capturing slaves and women and children who could be adopted into tribe.

Gringo makes a female captive slung on horse. Or I thought they did? Now I cant find it?

Is it the case that the Comanche did not have warrior societies? Like the Dog Soldiers?

What were the internal dynamics of their raiding parties? Did everyone do what the leader said or wanted? Or, at the other extreme, if one brave captured a horse was he likely to decide then to go home, I've got mine?

According to "Dog Soldiers of the Plains" by Thomas Mails, the Comanche did not have warrior societies, but they did have informal warrior groups that were not 'continuous or permanent.' A full-feather bonnet wearer would be a war leader.

Doc if you have not read it, read "Empire of the Summer Moon". It should answer all your questions.

A method for counting coup would add some flavor to the game.

That is on my list of things to read soon. The reader should note that it has a 'two thumbs down' 👎👎 review from the Comanche Nation for being western centric, perpetuating stereotypes, and not consulting with the tribe/using the resources that they had available.

I've read it. The white settlers don't come across any better.

A raid was pretty ad hoc, and its composition depended on the charisma of its leader and his objectives.
A good scenario might have Texas Rangers in pursuit of a band of Comanche retreating with a herd of captured horses.
Wargames Atlantic makes a box of "empty" plastic horses. Blankets are optional, but I put them on to disguise the mold line down their back.

An example of a leader's charisma would be Iron Jacket. He had some kind of armor which could be a breastplate or mail.
But he thought it made him invulnerable. So did members of his band. Then he was shot and killed, and his followers rolled a 1 for morale. 🤷
I keep asking Ged to include him in the next batch of Comanche figures.

So the cohesiveness of the warband might itself be a variable.

I am actually about a third way through "Empire of the Summer Moon."

Counting coup would be an action replacing a hand-to-hand attack, and I would require a "cool" roll for the warrior to restrain his deadly impulses.

It would be good to play a series of raids as a campaign so that warriors can benefit from increased honor and prestige and loot etc.

hi Chaps…just my pennysworth…Comanche morale
is quite fascinating..take for example the battle
of Walkers Creek..70 odd mainly Comanches against
15 Texas Rangers under Jack Coffee Hayes…i agree
it was and unusual battle due to the introduction
of the five chambered Patterson Colt the Comanches
were not expecting..BUT despite 3/4 being shot out
of the saddle…the return to charge time and time
again..and not until their leader Yellow wof i think
was shot and killed did they break..jus a thought. i gear you John the OFM about Iron Jacket…chain mail i believe! not 100 pct sure and frayed round teh edged i believe…duly noted !! best regards Ged gringo40s.com

Wonder how much of their morale at Walkers Creek was sheer disbelief?

John mentions the leader and his charisma. It would not just be how many were killed, but who was killed in the fighting.

Grelber

Actually I thought the book was equal in portrayal of both sides. Unusual for books on conflict between both factions. Actually fair on Indian Vs Indian as well.

Empire is an excellent book. The Comanches were particularly brutal and more fit the western stereotype than other tribes. I get why they don't like the depiction but that doesn't inherently mean it's wrong. Another good read is The Earth is Weeping. History of the Indian wars west of the Mississippi in the post civil war era. Good coverage of all tribes involved at various points. The Comanches again stand out for their effectiveness and brutality but also for recognizing when they lost and making peace.

An excellent book on the Ranger and settler side of the Comanche wars is available from Amazon: Early Settlers and Indian Fighters of Southwest Texas by A. J. Sowell. Sowell came from a line of frontier Texans dating back to 1830. In 1870-71 he served as a Ranger, and in later life began collecting stories of frontier Indian encounters. He was an early folklorist, riding from ranch to ranch searching for reminiscences, which he published in a book in 1900. An excellent source for scenarios as the old-timers remembered them.

Thanks for the book recommendations. They're in my cart.