Indian Mutiny / First Indian War of Independence Project

[paulr]

Definitely a good delivery time overall

I've made a start on sorting them into units and am really pleased with the figures      

[paulr]

I've been thinking about how to mix the figures on the bases and blue-tacked some figures to bases to see how they look

The infantry comes in three poses, plus command. Each battalion will typically be 2 3"x1.5" stands each with 12 figures in 2 rows.
Company battalions will have a separate 1.5"x1.5" command stand.

One option I've come up with are to mix the poses up like these





Another option is to split the battalion into 4 'platoons' (2 per base) and group the poses into 3 the same

• 3 firing backed by 3 at the ready
• 3 'command' backed by 3 advancing
• 3 firing backed by 3 advancing
• 3 advancing backed by 3 at the ready

Using the first option for Indian units and the second for more disciplined Company units is a possibility
Thoughts, suggestions

[fred.]

I'd go for more mixed formations for the Indian units, with more organised looking units for the ones with higher discipline/training. Just a little visual thing, but should add to the correlation between figures and game stats. 

[John Cook]

Why is it that colonial wargames leave me cold?  I've got Featherstone's books on India and Africa, plus a book on the Boer War and two on the Zulu War but no clue why none of them get my wargaming juices flowing.  On the other hand Zulu is my favourite film.  I don't have any 'post-colonial' remorse or guilt.  What is it I just don't get?  Am I alone in this?

[Ben Waterhouse]

Why is it that colonial wargames leave me cold?  I've got Featherstone's books on India and Africa, plus a book on the Boer War and two on the Zulu War but no clue why none of them get my wargaming juices flowing.  On the other hand Zulu is my favourite film.  I don't have any 'post-colonial' remorse or guilt.  What is it I just don't get?  Am I alone in this?

Is it the asymmetrical nature of the thing?

[Steve J]

Visually attractive but not terrible exciting for me. Also it can be a bit one sided at times, or at least that's my impression, but stand to be proved ompletely wrong! A lot of the conflicts feel better as large scale skirmishes than pitched battles IMHO.

[Steve J]

A visit to Lacock today and SWMBO and I spent a nice time in the church there. Again another wall plaque commerating an EIC officer that fought at Seringapatam, but fell whilst commanding some of the artillery lines during the siege. The light was not good enough for a photo I'm afraid.

[John Cook]

Is it the asymmetrical nature of the thing?

Not sure.  I quite like to fight one-sided/unbalanced games. 

[John Cook]

Visually attractive but not terrible exciting for me. Also it can be a bit one sided at times, or at least that's my impression, but stand to be proved completely wrong! A lot of the conflicts feel better as large scale skirmishes than pitched battles IMHO.

Maybe that's it, I do like large pitched battles but, on the other hand, I don't mind one-sided either.  More therapy needed I think.       

[mmcv]

Maybe that's it, I do like large pitched battles but, on the other hand, I don't mind one-sided either.  More therapy needed I think.     

Maybe having a think about what does attract you to a particular period or project then working out if those factors are missing or lessened in Colonial? E.g. maybe you like bright uniforms which are sometimes lacking in colonial. They're lacking in 20th century too, but then that provides a completely different style of battle which maybe holds other attractions that you can overlook the uniform monotony? 

[mmcv]

Using the first option for Indian units and the second for more disciplined Company units is a possibility
Thoughts, suggestions

Sounds like a sensible approach, though would the separate command base be fiddly? You probably have enough space on the bases to include the command with them? Did commanders stand in the centre or the flanks in the period do you know?

[sultanbev]

Why is it that colonial wargames leave me cold?  I've got Featherstone's books on India and Africa, plus a book on the Boer War and two on the Zulu War but no clue why none of them get my wargaming juices flowing.  On the other hand Zulu is my favourite film.  I don't have any 'post-colonial' remorse or guilt.  What is it I just don't get?  Am I alone in this?

Yes, having dabbled in it in 28mm (only because everyone else here was) it is a mug's game for the oriental player, if your rules are vaguely historically correct. Most oriental "battalions" are 300-400 men, compared to European 600-1000 men battalions. Europeans operate in brigade-division-corps formations with proper staff and even signalling equipment occasionally, whereas the orientals are led by passionate individuals with little concept of staff work and no people to run it even if they had grasped the concept and were literate enough.

So your oriental units are outnumbered to start with, unit on unit, out commanded, and outshot. The Europeans shoot straight with breech loaders for miles, just shoots any charge to a halt - whereas you're chucking spears if you get close enough, or have inferior firearms with poorer training and ammunition supply. If you're on a horse or camel its even worse unless you manage to get around the flank (try doing that in 28mm). Oh, and machine guns and proper field artillery.

I do have an Ethiopian army which at least had some regulars, and has a decent amount of cavalry if I wish, so it has a bit more resilience. We did a 1986-era game once against a brigade of Italians, it took two division equivalents to beat the Italians over many turns, and that only because we over-valued the effect of spears being thrown.

Afterall, the orientals did lose all the colonial wars, there's a good reason for that which turns out isn't much fun as a wargame, so the era leaving you cold is understandable.

What we have found though more interesting as a game is two oriental armies against each other, eg Mahdists versus Ethiopians, as actually happened - it's a bit like medieval warfare with firearms, which is kinda okay. So when I finish my 1838-40 Afghans they are more likely to be used against Sikhs than Brits if my opponent gets round to doing them.

[fsn]

Why is it that colonial wargames leave me cold?  I've got Featherstone's books on India and Africa, plus a book on the Boer War and two on the Zulu War but no clue why none of them get my wargaming juices flowing.  On the other hand Zulu is my favourite film.  I don't have any 'post-colonial' remorse or guilt.  What is it I just don't get?  Am I alone in this?

I totally agree. I have no interest in the colonial campaigns, and no idea why not. It may be the asymmetrical aspect, but it certainly isn't colonial guilt. I include in the list the various wars in India and Afghanistan, as well as the Antipodes. Although a keen student of the Napoleonic wars, Assaye doesn't interest me.

It's not just the British either; the Conquest of Algiers leaves me cold, the meanderings of the Conquistadores, the doings of the Portuguese and the Belgians are unknown and of no interest, as is anything that happened in the Americas (excluding 1861-1865 obviously.)

 

[paulr]

Is it the asymmetrical nature of the thing?

This is one of the main reasons I went with the Indian Mutiny for my Colonial project. Both sides at least have similar weapons. The better discipline/morale of the Company is hopefully offset by the greater numbers of Indians

Visually attractive but not terrible exciting for me. Also it can be a bit one sided at times, or at least that's my impression, but stand to be proved completely wrong! A lot of the conflicts feel better as large scale skirmishes than pitched battles IMHO.

Wing scale Volley & Bayonet is pitched at small battles, most of the historic battles I'm looking at had 4-8 Company battalions and 6-10 Indian battalions plus various hangers on

Sounds like a sensible approach, though would the separate command base be fiddly? You probably have enough space on the bases to include the command with them? Did commanders stand in the centre or the flanks in the period do you know?

The unit command stands are a feature of wing scale Volley & Bayonet so having them separate is important. They provide a simple way to reflect the different command and control capabilities of the various troops

[FierceKitty]

I found, after an initial total lack of interest, that with rules allowing for ammunition shortages, hidden movement, ambushes, being attacked while still in column, and so on the regulars have a much harder fight on their hands.