modern weapons

[Invisible officer]

Well let's agree that we don't agree about the bayonet

I will let my British attack AWI Militia or Victorian Afghan hillmen with that nasty item and see them run .
And if the Mahdists brake in my Zariba I hope the platoon on the other side will not shoot. Missing them they will hit.... Friendly fire.

[Cubster]

Some people have dismissed the bayonet as a mostly psychological weapon ... I would champion it as a psychological weapon. If you can get your opponent to refuse to close with you (in attack) or flee/surrender (in defence) then that's a pretty good weapon in my book. War isn't just about killing people, it's about imposing your will on someone else through violence or the threat of.

[HobbitMiles]

I think it is quite funny that what started off as a discussion about modern weapons has ended up as a discussion about bayonets!

I don't think anyone is argueing that they bayonet was ever a primary weapon, but the point is that the British (and quite possibly others, I don't pretend to know) were trained and willing to use it. Therefore it was a viable option as a secondary close quarter weapon under appropriate circumstances. Another colonial example of its use was during the Pathan attacks on Malakand Camp in 1897 companies of each regiment defending the camp were held in reserve with bayonets fixed to counter-attack any penetration into the camp because it was felt too risky to fire within the confines of the camp for fear of hitting friendlies (see - it IS possible to plan to avoind "friendly-fire" incidents). These companies did their work very successfully - a number of Pathans entered the camp, but none left under their own power.

Getting back to game mechanics, if we use the reversed firing and h-t-h stats suggested it would be virtually impossible for the British to successfully charge as per historical examples from the Zulu, Sudan or NW Frontier wars, and no player is ever going to voluntarily take on an opponent with twice as many h-t-h dice.

[zedeyejoe]

I think it is quite funny that what started off as a discussion about modern weapons has ended up as a discussion about bayonets!

Yes, I noticed that.

Getting back to game mechanics, if we use the reversed firing and h-t-h stats suggested it would be virtually impossible for the British to successfully charge as per historical examples from the Zulu, Sudan or NW Frontier wars, and no player is ever going to voluntarily take on an opponent with twice as many h-t-h dice.

It actually works quite well, the main reason to do it is to rescue a unit of yours which is already engaged in combat.

On the other hand if you leave the stats as per the rules, it actually promotes the Brits charging into combat - and makes it more difficult to halt the Zulu just by shooting.

Now which of those options is more historically accurate, is of course the choice of the players. We prefer the British to be better at shooting, which means they operate on the table more like they did in real life.

One solution to make the Brits better in combat is just give them 6 for everything. That way they should be able to both out-shoot and out-fight the Zulus.

[jazbo]

Hey I love heated debates.

zedeyejoe - I'm directing this reply at you. I am not having a "go" just to clarify, so please don't think this is personal, but I do fundamentally disagree with the historical points you are making as a rationale for halving the close combat ability of British troops.

The example of British troops in WW1 is like comparing apples to oranges, completely irrelevant I'm afraid, it was a different era, different weaponry and European armies.

To dismiss the bayonet in colonial warfare as a psychological/romantic weapon and to cite low casualty rates caused by it, makes the point while actually missing it!

The fact there were low casualty rates is simply because the natives 99 times out of 100 would run in the face of a determined advance by British troops in close order with bayonets fixed. So yes it was a psychological weapon mostly if you are talking about real combat death rates, but to dismiss it on that basis misses this fundamental point of using it (fear of the point - literally) and of "hand to hand" - most hand to hand fighting is actually about one side giving ground and running rather than everyone fighting in a Hollywood melee, it was mostly about resolve, and the bottom line is that most natives, including the Zulu, did not have the resolve to stand against a close order bayonet charge.

It is an indisputable fact that all colonial opponents of the British army hated the bayonet because of its reach and power, even 1-on-1 and all of them, including the Zulu have in their memoirs etc stated that fact. To dismiss that ignores history. As an example, even when the British line was broken at Isandlwana, and the remnants formed rallying squares/circles (clumps?!), the Zulu did not just charge in, because they couldn't or woudln't. So despite the smell of victory, these elite warriors refused mostly to take on close order bayonets, and instead used throwing assegai's, guns, and even throwing bodies at the bayonets to try to bring them down so they could charge in. That does not sound to me like proof that the British should be half as good in hand to hand?

Taking the British company of say 100 men as a unit, are you saying that frontally, in close order with bayonets fixed, they were half as good at fighting as 100 Zulus in similar close order? If you are not, then your rationale for half dice falls on its bottom. The British, when in close order and not disordered, when fighting frontally with the bayonet, were virtually unbeatable. That is a simple fact.

The argument that giving the British full dice promotes the British to charge, simply ignores history - the British did, on every possible occasion when they were in close order, had secure flanks, and especially if the natives were wavering, would always try to advance to "seem them off at the point of the bayonet". Look up the "Aldershot three-step" (think thats what it was called from memory) to see how the British military thought in terms of colonial opponents. So to gve half dice takes away the historical confidence the British army had and ignores its doctrine.

To go over it again, the British, like all Imperial armies who lost battles, lost for several fundamental reasons:

1. They were outflanked
2. They got disordered/were in loose order
3. They were outnumbered.

So in scenario design, which is what this is really about, the British company should feel very confident in advancing with the bayonet in close order and being able to win. But with native supports all around the fighting unit, and more units stacked up behind and ready to pile on on the flanks if they can manouvere there - thats the incentive not to go in, NOT that you get half dice. So its about scenario design and balancing the forces correctly.

As a final thought, it was over confidence that casued disasters mostly. So giving half dice encourages the British player to merely huddle up and never to go in at the point of the bayonet. By giving half dice, you take away the representation of that inbuilt confidence the British had against colonial opponents, and therefore take away half the potential for a disaster to happen - which is half the fun of colonials !

And my keyboard needs changing, it causes shocking spelling....

[Cubster]

I agree with you Jazbo in all you say, but to play Zed's advocate for a bit, he did say he accepts that outnumbering the British was essential for successful HTH results.

One way to help matters might be to start off accepting that the company (of 80 to 100 men) was the standard unit size for a British fighting unit involved in colonial conflicts. If we then have a company as a 'standard' sized unit ... for them ... we could then have a 'standard' Zulu unit representing a much larger body - maybe 500+ men. This would then give both units a fighting chance against each other and represent the sort of disparity in numbers quite well.

[jazbo]

Thanks Cubster, I missed that point he made.

I think you are right about the unit sizes helping. By using small British units as companies, and large Zulu units, you could build in some of the inbalance in combat due to numbers, and as long as multiple companies are next to each other then the small units would be ok for combat.

Putting my money where my mouth is, this is how I would play it:

1. British small units, tribals large.

2. British get standard sized unit stats for firing and in melee. HOWEVER if disordered or shaken and/or fighting to flank they fight as a disordered small unit, to represent their frontal power and their being brittle if disordered and/or flanked.

3. For firing they get normal 3 dice at long range, but at half range or less they get 4.

4. Natives who are disordered have to roll a 4+ to recover the disorder rather than it comin off automatically, so they could get pinned down in the face of fire for quite a while.

[zedeyejoe]

Indeed am happy to debate it.

Yep it is better to shoot the natives than to fight them HtH, simply because fighting HtH gives the natives a chance - real war is of course about giving the other side as little chance of possible of winning, unlike our games. So in real life we tended to shoot them down. Running away, well lots of examples of natives - not just Zulus - advancing against rifle fire and artillery in order to fight HtH.

WW1, OK I will not mention it then.

Taking the British company of say 100 men as a unit, are you saying that frontally, in close order with bayonets fixed, they were half as good at fighting as 100 Zulus in similar close order?

Nope am saying from the battles quoted, Zulus in contact means British dead. Probably because there were typically 5 times as many Zulus as British (in these wars there were 'lots of them, few of us' as I mentioned earlier. Rorkes Drift and Kambula being two exceptions.

If you are then you need to do some more reading I'm afraid.

Humm, read about the battles is all I can say.

The argument that giving the British half dice promotes the British to charge, simply ignores history

That is precisely the opposite of what I have posted. Giving them 6 dice for shooting and 3 for combat means that the British will shoot at every available opportunity, rather than charge in i.e. like history. So strange to make this statement.

You have it in one, confidence, Chelmsford had it in bucket loads. Simply thought the Zulu could not beat his troops. What I suggest is that we should look at what happened rather than let the ideas of superiority of British soldiers be our guide. From some of the views I have seen put forward here, Isandwalwna should have been a British victory, as the British simply fix bayonets and drive the Zulus off. Perhaps that was what Chelmsford thought would happen.

In summary in fighting HtH in the open the Zulus had the advantage (for whatever reason) and it would be crazy for rules not to give it to them. The Black Powder rules as written make fighting HtH better for the British, than shooting, so we changed it.

But I will repeat, you can choose to play it anyway you like it. The trick is then to try your ideas in the game against what actually happened. If the game does not match history, you might care to think, why not?

[zedeyejoe]

This was the game that we played the Black Powder rules as written and lead us to change the stats (for British infantry only)
http://cack-wargamesclub.net/index.php? ... pic&t=2593

Second game (and you can judge for yourself the realism of the game
http://cack-wargamesclub.net/index.php? ... pic&t=2603

Now I have actually had one combat where a unit of British infantry beat 2 Zulu units in combat, one of the Zulu units charging in from the flank. But that was entirely down to dice rolls - every British dice hit and wounded and the Zulu only caused one wound. So even with only 3 dice in combat the British can win if they get really really lucky.

[Dr Dave]

interesting those who do not consider the bayonet as a modern weapon.

It's not a young weapon, but it's certainly modern as in current - there are Taliban "lying wounded of Afghanistans plains" - well dead actually, thanks to Bayonets. the media just don't mention it much!