Nick Stern  | 30 Sep 2025 7:54 a.m. PST |
The Russian colonial army was very successful against the Central Asians but I wonder how they would have done against the British Indian Army? |
| Nick Stern | 30 Sep 2025 7:54 a.m. PST |
The Russian colonial army was very successful against the Central Asians but I wonder how they would have done against the British Indian Army? |
| Nick Stern | 30 Sep 2025 7:55 a.m. PST |
The Russian colonial army was very successful against the Central Asians but I wonder how they would have done against the British Indian Army? |
| Nick Stern | 30 Sep 2025 7:55 a.m. PST |
The Russian colonial army was very successful against the Central Asians but I wonder how they would have done against the British Indian Army? |
| Nick Stern | 30 Sep 2025 7:55 a.m. PST |
The Russian colonial army was very successful against the Central Asians but I wonder how they would have done against the British Indian Army? |
| Nick Stern | 30 Sep 2025 7:55 a.m. PST |
The Russian colonial army was very successful against the Central Asians but I wonder how they would have done against the British Indian Army? |
| Nick Stern | 30 Sep 2025 7:55 a.m. PST |
The Russian colonial army was very successful against the Central Asians but I wonder how they would have done against the British Indian Army? |
| Nick Stern | 30 Sep 2025 7:55 a.m. PST |
The Russian colonial army was very successful against the Central Asians but I wonder how they would have done against the British Indian Army? |
 John the OFM | 30 Sep 2025 9:10 a.m. PST |
I would rate the "Regulars" as "British", and any lower troops as "Egyptians".
This system has worked well for me in the past, using "vanilla" TSATF.
It's deciding who is dependable, and who I'm stuck with. It's like that in the British Army too. I have "Splendid Sikhs", rated as British, and "they'll do in a pinch" Sikhs, rated as Egyptians. I do that in the American Revolution. (No rifles, except the rare unit, btw. Muskets use "carbine".)
Good troops, British, Hessian, French and experienced Continentals get British, while Boston British, most Loyalists and newly raised Continentals get "Egyptian".
My system boils down to evaluating each unit. If they have a history, go by that. |
 ColCampbell | 30 Sep 2025 9:23 a.m. PST |
|
| Frederick | 30 Sep 2025 9:54 a.m. PST |
Agree overall with John but I would make the observation that while the enlisted soldiers were solid and could take a lot of suffering, the officers were probably much more variable – and often much less functional – than their counterparts in British India. For one thing, the Brits paid better – and they had overall better educated officers. While there were certainly some Russian officers who were serious about getting to know their troops and the terrain, there were lots who weren't – there is a good book by Morrison published in 1960 focusing on Russian colonial rule in Samarkand that has a good chapter on military leadership – I have a PDF if you want a read Bottom line, I would have a negative bonus for command for at least some of the Russian regular units based on officer quality |
| DisasterWargamer | 30 Sep 2025 11:24 a.m. PST |
I believe the Russians were a little slower in adopting more modern rifles – based on Russo Turkish war of 1877 – Depending on Colonial date – may list down one level based on weaponry |
| TimePortal | 30 Sep 2025 12:20 p.m. PST |
The Russian Manifest Destiny Eastward Drive was conducted different than the American version. The Russian used a lot of military settlers which made a settlement tied to the land rather than free uncontrolled pockets. This tactic provided a source of partially trained troops. Military column campaigns were conducted as well. The border buffer zones would be mostly Russian Army with troops expected to stay on the frontier after discharge. |
| John the OFM | 30 Sep 2025 9:29 p.m. PST |
Pat Condray famously chided Larry Brom about making no difference in the effectiveness of the many rifles in use in the "approved" period for TSATF. "And he didn't care!" Meaning, if you really wanted to be fussy about it, go ahead and downgrade for "out of date rifles". But that's not what TSATF is about. It is absolutely not a "rivet counter" game. Unless you want it to be. But the charts don't give you all that much leeway to tweak them. They're really about RELATIVE effectiveness of Regulars who are steady, not so good regulars who are lesser, irregulars who are even less so, and so on. Keep that in mind. |
| DisasterWargamer | 01 Oct 2025 7:49 a.m. PST |
John – from a Morale perspective – agree 100% From a rate of fire perspective – the Remmingtons, Peabodys, Sprinfield 73s, and Berdans were an improvement over the Chassepots and Needleguns and were even more an improvement over the Muzzle loading Enfields and Springfields Never a rivet counter – however I do believe there are times were in makes a difference – scenario dependent |
| TimePortal | 01 Oct 2025 4:05 p.m. PST |
Pat Condray made similar observations when he reviewed my man to man skirmish rules titled "Glory" in 1984.
I had four rifle ratings but he thought there should be more. |
takes another stab at building a more perfect flight stand.
