Indian Mutiny / First Indian War of Independence Project

[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.

[Steve J]

Good points Alexander. I feel these sort of games, like many, would be greatly enhanced by playing them as part of a campaign, rather than single battles. Then the 'irregulars' at least have a fighting chance.

[paulr]

Good points FK

Steve, I am basing this project on the campaign to relieve Cawnpore and Lucknow

[paulr]

The first two battalions have been prepared and undercoated

I've sorted all the figures and my calculations appear to have worked out  

[paulr]

As I start painting the first two units I need to finalise the design of my unit labels

Some people prefer no labels at all and I understand many of the arguments for this

With our group playing so many different periods and rule sets we find clear labels invaluable

The labels need to clearly show:

• what side a unit is on
• the brigade the unit is part of
• the name of the unit
• the rule stats needed for the unit

For my ECW and AWI forces I've used blue and green backgrounds for the labels to identify the sides.
This won't work for my arid base cloth which is a sandy colour.

I can use a similar sandy colour for the labels of the Indian troops. But what colour should I use for the Company units?
I want something that doesn't stand out too much.

I'm also going to use flags to differentiate between the Queens and Company units and the different Indian contingents.

I'll be using my coloured box approach to show the side, brigade and battalion.

Below are examples of some AWI labels and some initial thoughts on some labels for this project. I'm open to thoughts or suggestions on how to improve the labels

[fred.]

Your labels look good - you get a lot more info on them than I manage.

You say the 3 boxes cover side, brigade and battalion. But I'm struggling to see how side works, looking at the flags too. 

I think the blue vs green works well to show the two sides for AWI, and is probably more important for the mutiny as I think the flags will be less familiar to the players. I'd probably go for the brown and sand/yellow that you have used for the two Bengal examples as the two base colours. 

[mmcv]

I like the light yellow ones.

My only thought on the brown would be the contrast might be a bit low as the black on the brown is less noticeable than the others. The darker yellow is similar, though may just be the screen. Possibly a few shades lighter on the brown background?

Another possibility, would a kind of light stoney grey fit okay with the base sheet?



 hex code #918E85 or similar

[John Cook]

Although a keen student of the Napoleonic wars, Assaye doesn't interest me.

Odd that, although Napoleonic is where wargaming all started for me, several decades ago, and I've read about Wellington's Indian campaigns, they don't float my boat either. 
Anyway, it is good to know that I'm not alone by any stretch of the imagination and having looked at all the replies - thanks for that - I think I know what the problem is.
I do like large battles but my perception of so many colonial adversaries is that they seem to be amorphous mobs with no apparent organization that I can get to grips with. 
I also use a 10:1 ratio for all my armies from the 11th to 19th centuries so the prospect of having to paint 2000 Zulus, for example, does not appeal and that is another perception.  They all seem so drab and uninteresting from a painting point of view.
Happy to be persuaded otherwise and I have to confess that the Zulu War is an itch I have not yet scratched for all those reasons.

[paulr]

...You say the 3 boxes cover side, brigade and battalion. But I'm struggling to see how side works, looking at the flags too...

First box is the side

• Red for the Queens/Company
• Orange for the Indians -saffron dovetail flag of the Maratha Empire

Second box is the brigade - Red, Blue, Yellow, Green...
Third box is the battalion within the brigade- Red, Blue, Yellow, Green...

HM 84^th is Queens/Company, first brigade, second battalion

...probably more important for the mutiny as I think the flags will be less familiar to the players...

Definitely more important as the Indians were still carrying the Company issued colours, with Union Jacks!
The only Red coated units will be 2 battalions of Oudh Infantry (on the Indian side)

I like the light yellow ones.

My only thought on the brown would be the contrast might be a bit low as the black on the brown is less noticeable than the others. The darker yellow is similar, though may just be the screen. Possibly a few shades lighter on the brown background?

Another possibility, would a kind of light stoney grey fit okay with the base sheet?

Thanks, I shall try some experiments, light stoney grey is a possibility I hadn't thought of

Also just describing the issue has been useful in clarifying my thinking

[John Cook]

Some people prefer no labels at all and I understand many of the arguments for this

I like your labels very much and have evolved a similar system which is common for all my armies.  I must say, though, I have never had a problem identifying which side units are on.  It is pretty much evident from their appearance, flags and so on.
My coloured boxes tend to be pretty discrete, though visible from a players view point.  Bottom left of the stand are up to three differently coloured boxes for the unit, the brigade (or equivalent) and division (or equivalent) if necessary.  Bottom right is a coloured box for the corps if necessary. 
The unit box also has the unit identifying number on it, essentially its rank within the formation of which it is part. 
Only the command element has the unit name on it, black on a white strip   I experimented with differently coloured strips but they only caused confusion and tended to 'disappear' at a distance from the viewer.  So I went with a universal white strip with black lettering, which stands out against all kinds of backgrounds, a long time ago.
Full unit details, weapons, number of men, commanding officer, that kind of thing, is on the underside and is really only a repeat of what is in the army list anyway.
The system is also a storage solution as much as anything else and indispensable in that context.   

[fred.]

Thanks for the further explanation Paul - I think orange vs red is probably going to be hard to pick out the differences on the table. Keeping red for the British seems a given in this era! So whether a blue or green work for the Indians. 

John - as to telling sides apart does rather depend on the period and the sides. ECW and Indian Mutiny both seem like conflicts where a lot of units dressed very similarly on both sides - I suppose not uncommon in a Civil War.