"Where Are The Camp Followers?" Topic

Most of our tabletop armies march and fight in isolation but historically they rarely did.

From the vast baggage trains of ancient and medieval armies to the civilian tails that followed forces in the Napoleonic period, non-combatants were everywhere. They clogged roads, slowed marches, consumed supplies and ,crucially, could trigger panic if threatened. They occupied BUAs and came to sight-see battles (Bull Run in the ACW?).

Even in modern conflicts, we see the same pattern in a different form: columns of displaced civilians and refugees shaping movement, logistics and sometimes even operational decisions.

Yet in wargames, these elements are usually absent—or at best abstracted away.

Are we missing something important by leaving out camp followers, baggage and civilians?
Would their inclusion actually improve games, or just complicate them?
Has anyone tried modelling them in a meaningful way (raid targets, morale effects, road congestion, etc.)?

So, speak up. Especially from anyone who's experimented with this on the table.

I have played in and run a few science fiction skirmish games where there were civilians on the board. These were typically urban-like scenarios where government forces were opposing insurgents or enemy special forces.

The civilians were 25-28mm civilians from various sources and they looked OK. There could also be civilian vehicles on the table.

Typically the civilians would move according to rules prepared before the game.

There would usually be at least one civilian unit that was actually an undercover unit for one side or the other. Each side would tell the referee in secret where it wanted its undercover unit to move.

Player units for the government side could (or might have to) stop and inspect civilian units. This would be a secret opposed dice roll. If the government won, that player would know whether the unit was really civilian or an enemy. The other player might get to take action or not (like close assault or break contact), depending on the dice roll. If the government won the dice roll by a lot, it would capture the enemy unit. If the anti-government side won, it could remain hidden or take some action (like a close assault).

Of course, the owner of the hidden unit could reveal it at any time by making it do something. And the government could attack apparent civilian units, which would deduct from its victory points.

Civilians added some work to the game, especially for the referee to write movement rules and gather and possibly paint extra miniatures. They did add to the fog of war and an immersion into the world of the game, so I think that they were a net positive.

Many of my armies have baggage trains including civilian porters etc.

Granted, the numbers are improbably low compared to the combatants.

I also have unarmed civilians to be driven ahead as human shields by Kitans or Mongols.

Battleground clutter has been my main goal for a few years.

I buy non-combatants for every thing I do.

I suspect most miniature wargames set up battlefields that are far too "clean". It is interesting to hear from others who have considered this "truth".

Historically, the presence of non-combatants must have made movement, control and even basic awareness harder—not easier.

That said, there's an obvious danger here. Too much added detail quickly becomes unplayable or just slows the game to a crawl.

So perhaps the question is not "should we include civilians and baggage?" but what's the simplest way to represent their effects without bogging the game down?

Oberlindes' undercover unit example above is interesting in that it adds uncertainty without adding much visible or mechanics clutter. I have used civilians needing protection in several AZW games I've played.

So, do Last Conformist, 14Bore & Flashman14 only use their "camp followers" as 'eye-candy' or for something more?

For our 28mm WW2 games I like to put out civilian cars, wrecked and still intact, as well as items that would be seen outside houses and businesses. Don't use any actual civilian figures though, the assumption on our part is that the civilians have fled from the fighting or are hiding.

In our ancient games we have camps as objectives but they're pretty abstracted with a tent, a few figs and spare shields, vases etc.

Most tabletop war-games assume that the camp followers are "over the next ridge", or never got to the battlefield. The thinking is usually that there is no need to add further complexity to the rules, so they are conveniently left out. Our group is guilty of this as well except for our Sudan games where there are usually large numbers of camp followers, who can at times cause traffic jams! Many historical battles during colonial campaigns had large numbers of baggage animals, traders, families, etc., that tagged along. I remember reading Satin's Fire & Sword in the Sudan and was struck by the large numbers of camp followers for the Egyptian and Sudanese forces.

For our grand tactical gaming, as noted by Aegiscg47, the camp/camp followers/train are "just behind that hill to the rear" – but we do factor that into our campaign games – slows up advances but a reckless advance that leaves them behind also leaves troops who starve/desert/etc

Some armies almost totally depended on those camp followers for a lot of things we currently consider responsibilities of the quartermaster – the Mexican army for example for the entire 19th century and much of the early 20th – there are a few good books on the role of the Soldaderas (Arrizon, Soldaderas" and the Staging of the Mexican Revolution)

As noted, most tables are not large enough to have an army, the reserve, and the camp followers deployed.

I have painted ammo and baggage mules water, forage and baggage cart/wagon for my colonial forces. I also have civilians for european and native forces.

I have purchased figures and vehicles for most of my periods but, for 15mm, have only painted some ACW vivandieres.
That said I do utilized civilians in my Dark Age games.

If I can find baggage units I will get them. Besides eye candy they can be an objective unto themselves. Think of a colonial campaign, when it took months or more to acquire pack animals and personnel to tend them. Think of the irreplaceable cargos they contain as well. This is especially important in a campaign game.

You may have a campaign where units burn x amount per whatever and the train has several multiples of 'eXes.
An asymmetrical strategy would be to hit the train to steal and or destroy 'eXes'. It sure beats charging Gatling guns.
The colonialist may win every battle and lose the campaign.

For a single set-piece fight, capturing the baggage train can be a victory condition or extra points.

In any case, they sure add a lot of visual chrome to the tabletop.

I am a massive sucker for civilian models and I always make sure to buy a lot of them for time periods Im interested in

A few years ago I posted this thread where I went over ideas I had about using civilian models as "board hazards" for low discipline irregular units.
TMP link

I am fighting a battle when I play. Don't see many camp followers getting in the midst of the fighting. So, no I don't need to spend even more money on figures I don't need.

Civilians are a nuisance and should be ignored. Not an objective.
Camp followers would be with baggage.
The use for baggage would depend on the era.

What about civilians armed as militia?… like in the Vendée or Medieval times…

Armand

Good call, Armand. I have a Clubmen for the ECW – local vigilantes who sometimes savage one side or another in an ECW game.

I have units in Nap Era (Fantasy) which I still game from years ago of civilians armed as Spanish, Dutch (like Boers), Muslims etc
also civilians militia ready to fight against Zulues, Matabeles etc.

Armand

I keep civilians in 28mm for skirmish/RPG stuff. Formal battles top out at about a weak division, and at noted, that puts civilians off table somewhere. (I do have a baggage train which fantasy and horse & musket have to share, but that's just another sort of skirmish/RPG.)

Down in 6mm and 2mm camps and baggage trains are more common, but are largely objectives. The refugee thing would still be so far back as to be abstracted into arrival times. Good for novels or RPGs, I'd say, but not much in a full-bore battle.

In the center of the Union line at Nashville was a unit of civilian military warehouse workers pressed into service. Being an old civil service logistics guy, I kind of identify with these guys, and keep meaning to look into the unit. Presumably, since the warehouses were right there, they were in Union blue, but I don't know that for sure.

Aside from that, I do have civilians in 28 mm for my Viking skirmish games. You never know when you might run into a troupe of acrobats and jesters while chasing an escaping prince through the woods.

I think the usual procedure for logistics elements is what Brigadier Peter Young and Lt. Col. J. P. Lawford did in their book, Charge! or How to Play War Games: They determined how long it would take to evacuate the supplies from the town, and the defenders had to hold on for that long so the supplies could be evacuated.

Grelber

I have civilians for modern games but they are RR figures and painted either neutral gray, hostile red friendly blue, ot objective green. I also have some reg minis for westerns but outside if those I don't play at a level where there are masses of them.

Respectfully, I ask: Are we gaming battles—or sanitised versions of them?

Civilians seem to be "filler", for most of us _ &, to be frank, I fall into the same bat.

I think you should be asking what role civilians played in the particular battle that you are gaming before you get to your question of "sanitizing". For example, there were civilians watching 1st Bull Run but they had minimal to no involvement in the battle. Is it sanitizing to exclude them from your table?

What others have already said is important, it depends on the era and scale of the game. Some of what you cite would be more applicable to a campaign setting, ie; civilian refugees clogging the roads effecting logistics, etc.

A good Civilian column in the center picture of this thread…

TMP link

Armand

I have plenty of wagons, cassions, pack mules, pontoon trains and fleets of lorries which are of varying use depending period, theatre and level of game.

Civilians not so much apart from columns of porters and various partisans/bandits. I do have some refugee columns though, which certainly get in the way.

I am not sure camp followers would be present at a battle. I am sure there are some rare instances that they were involved in a battle. For the most part no. So for a historical or period correct scenario, I don't see a place for camp followers. They would be back at camp. They were in the rear with the gear.

So, do Last Conformist, 14Bore & Flashman14 only use their "camp followers" as 'eye-candy' or for something more?

They can be attacked, with bad effects on the morale of their masters/clients/husbands/etc.

In answer to the original question:

In the tents, making more camp followers?

The wargame answer. Got some, used for specific scenarios (eg Capture The Wagon Train), and a couple because I really liked the figures (eg the Eureka cantinière in hussar dolman and her cart). But they rarely escape their cardboard prisons.

I remember one of the 'Old and Bold' saying something about the amazing way they would go into a village/town that was totally unoccupied, or just occupied by German's but then after it had been cleared/occupied all the Belgians/French/Dutch would appear on the streets; they'd all been hiding in the cellars. I think your average civilian in any period has far too high a sense of self preservation to actually appear on a battlefield. Baggage trains were certainly looted but that is only a factor if it prevents the return of successful troops after they have pursued off field, unless of course you want to engage in 'black' games deliberately.