"How do you rate Afghan “regulars” in Victorian Colonial wars" Topic
3 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to The Sword and The Flame Message Board Back to the Victorian Colonial Board Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
 John the OFM  | 12 Sep 2026 7:57 a.m. PST |
I rate them as "Egyptians" in Sword and the Flame. I want to show a quality difference between them, and British. Of course Splendid Sikhs rate as British!
Some Sepoys rate as British, some as Egyptians. I realize there are other rules out there. Some I own, but never played. 😄
So, how do they handle Afghan Regulars? This is vital if you're doing Maiwand. |
| Frederick | 12 Sep 2026 8:07 a.m. PST |
That would seem to be the sensible thing (i.e. rate as Egyptian troops) |
| glengarry6 | 12 Sep 2026 11:57 a.m. PST |
In the "Men Who Would Be Kings" rules Afghan regulars are considered "Irregular Foot", troops trained in the tactics of European regulars but not up to Regular standards. Thus Afghan regulars may not form Close Order or use Volley Fire, are inferior in close combat, Discipline, carry "Obsolete Rifles" with shorter ranges. Irregular Foot also have a range of Options including "Poor Shots" to "Sharpshooters" to customize ones force. I've read that the British considered the Afghan tribal warriors more formidable opponents than the Afghan Regular Army, although the Afghan artillery was the elite arm of the army and well respected. |
|
