"Tired of the same few Colonial scenarios" Topic

I'm mostly a Big Battle colonial wargamer- using Black Powder – and I've run into a major design wall with the period.

When you look at most scenario books, the tactical options feel incredibly limited compared to other eras. If you aren't playing a small-scale skirmish game, almost every large-scale setup boils down to the exact same repetitive tropes: attack the marching column, relieve the isolated outpost, or hold the fort.

The main issue is that once you try to scale up past those basic scenarios to run genuine, multi-brigade army actions, you run straight into the historical reality of the late Victorian era: the biggest battles were often absolute massacres.Think about grand tactical clashes like the Battle of Ulundi or the Battle of Omdurman.

Unless you default back to those minor convoy or outpost scenarios, a true "Big Battle" usually means one side forming a massive infantry square or manning a zareba, sitting back, and letting superior Imperial firepower blast an oncoming horde off the table.If you recreate these accurately, it makes for a spectacular layout but a pretty miserable, one-sided game for the native player who gets mowed down by lines of Martini-Henrys and Maxims before they can even test for a charge.

How do other Big Battle players break out of this loop? How do you create unique, objective-based scenarios for massive armies that don't just default to "save the convoy" or "hold the fort"?

I'd love to hear how any of you design massive, army-level colonial games that offer fresh tactical challenges without turning into a boring, historical turkey shoot!

Terrain (hills, gullies, tall grass) to block LOS, hindering the ability of the European firepower to dominate the field?

Weather (darkness, sandstorms, intermittent squals) to do the same?

Natives outnumber the Europeans 5-1 (as at Adowa)? nb if figures lacking, allow a portion of the natives to "recycle" once or twice.

Native civil war, with small European force backing one of the contenders for the throne?

The Great Game goes hot, with Imperial forces tangling with Tsarists and various Afghan tribes picking sides?

1850s-60s rather than 80s – muzzleloading rifles and smoothbore guns for the Europeans rather than breechloaders and Maxims?

Mini-campaign with one big battle worth 2 VP and three smaller ones worth 1 VP each, with the European and native commanders secretly allocating forces to each engagement?

I'm a bit of a Boxer Rebellion fan and there are elements within that conflict that offer better big battle opportunities than some. The Chinese regular army involved itself at best sporadically and half heartedly and was certainly both better armed and trained than the Boxers. While not historically accurate but certainly plausible, a more robust involvement by the Chinese Regulars against both Seymour's column and/or the Legations might add a bit of balance. In addition, the varied nations involved in the defense and rescue operated surprisingly smoothly. A game where each nation has slightly variant goals might, if you have enough players, might make it a bit harder to simply bring all the Imperialist power to bear. Multiple Chinese players representing the Boxers and both Chinese regular formations potentially available with different goals and objectives might make playing that side a bit more enjoyable as well.

@ Eumelus. thank you for some interesting ideas.

This one, "Native civil war, with small European force backing one of the contenders for the throne?" has me intrigued for a Sudan game…Gordon doing his best to subvert the Mahdi? And having only Egyptian troops to back him. Hmmm…I think I'll write a scenario for that.

@ McKinstry.
"A game where each nation has slightly variant goals "

For the AZW, this might be the way to go for now on….different commands with differing objectives. eg Boer commander doesn't want casualties whilst Lord Pomfrey wants a VC etc.

And the Zulus on "auto pilot". I have to work out a good system for this. Suggestions?

Great Topic

Love the big battle look – but recognize the need for balance in scenarios – everything doesnt have to be a historical re-enactment – though needs to be rooted in some reality so the game feels right

I have tried a few things

My favorite – Having players act as native force and pre-program the colonial power (British) – similar to Pony Wars just reversed

Used the scenario in "Defense of Duffers Drift" and enlarged to a much larger battle

A scenario where a river ford has to be crossed (limited passage per turn) for the colonial power to reach their goal – breaks up the formidable firing line

Using a lot of hidden movement TSATF style – throughout the gaming area with line of sight rules modified by terrain (wadis, hills etc)

Giving different goals to colonial players – slight adjustments

Using "enviornment" cards – to reflect weather conditions, water shortages, and disease – adapted deck from the Virtual Armchair General

At the Sydney Wargames Club we have been playing through the 11 biggest actions of the Zulu War. Every one of them has significant historical differences that completely change the nature of the game. Be sure to set the victory objectives so that it's not too easy for the regular side to win. Victory points are potentially a very flexible tool.

I'm trying to convince my buddy, who bought all my Sudan War figures, to have a game where the Limeys and Egyptians have to traverse a 16' table to reach an oasis in a limited time.
I do not want the Pommies to have the time to form square. Then I (the Ansar, of course!) will not attack. Move on!

Everyone has seen Zulu. And everyone enjoys playing Rorke's Drift.
That is my experience.