Boots and Saddles - BLAM Report

[Hu Rhu]

I have been planning this project for over a year but other matters (not least other wargames projects) have got in the way.  However with BLAM out of the way, I thought it about time I got off my a*** and put some effort into it.

Thus I present - Boots and Saddles - a plains/pony wars project in 28mm.

The piccie above is a holding picture for the front page of the rules.  As usual I have adapted some existing mechanisms from different sets of rules (none of them from the Old West).  However I have tried hard to represent the different fighting styles of the Cavalry (and other White Eyes) from the Indian style. More of that to follow.

However I also wanted to capture the cinematic flavour of the old Hollywood films, especially from John Ford's iconic cavalry trilogy, so the terrain will have a more of a Monument Valley feel rather then the plains of Dakota, Wyoming etc.  So expect to see more of this:



than this:



More to follow.

[Doug ex-em4]

Blimey, Gary - I'm still waiting breathlessly to hear all about your Ice Station Zebra game and here you are, straight into this...! Which I'm already gagging to hear more about. For goodness sake man - you're in danger of matching Giles (Eric the Shed) in terms of productivity and invention.

Looking forward immensely to seeing this develop.

Doug

[Malamute]

Can't wait to see and will enjoy this coming together. 

[DintheDin]

I mark this thread, eager to see the continuation!
Cheers!

[Dr DeAth]

Looking forward to seeing the project develop.

[Romark]

Woohoo! Can't wait 

[Bugsda]

Can't wait to see and will enjoy this coming together. 

Ditto 

[Mason]

Joining the queue.
 


Let me know if you need anything for this mate, as I still have a few things left in my Old West bits box.
 

[Hu Rhu]

Thanks for all the encouragement.  I will be sharing my ideas on the rules over the next few days and I would welcome people's feedback on them, especially from the point of how Indians fought. 

I have some ideas but I know there are some quite knowledgeable people on the forum, who can give me some more hints and tips.

I will leave you with the inspiration I am using for the cavalry and the terrain.  I know it is pure Hollywood, but that's how I want it to look.

Let me know if you need anything for this mate, as I still have a few things left in my Old West bits box.
 

Thanks for the offer, I will bear it in mind.

[Hu Rhu]

First up I would like to consider the rules and more importantly, the premises that I have built into them to represent the contrasting methods of fighting between the plains indians, who I describe as 'Redskins' and the various european adversaries, who I collectively call 'White Eyes'.

US Cavalry.  The US Cavalry are usually understrength, badly equipped, poorly trained especially in equestrian skills and shooting. 

Riding.  Although the heroic portrayal of Sgt Tyree as a ‘Southern Gentleman’ fallen on hard times after the Civil War and enlisting as a trooper, might appeal to most wargamers, the truth is that most recruits were unable to ride and the horseflesh provided by the US Army remount system was poor. 

Shooting.  The amount of ammunition available to units to train with was risible and thus most troopers couldn’t ‘hit a barn door at 10 paces’.  Most accounts of actions emphasise the amount of ammunition expended for very few hits on the Redskins and in most cases running short of ammunition was a significant factor in the outcome. They did however have a decent firearm, the Sharps single shot carbine, with a high rate of fire which was reasonably accurate.

Discipline.  What the cavalry had was discipline (mostly) and good NCOs as well as a few outstanding (if hot headed and conceited) officers.  They almost always obeyed their orders, even when the orders themselves were poor.

Indians.  The Indians were polar opposites of the cavalry but suffered from a number of disadvantages, some tactical and some strategic.

Riding.  The Indians were very good riders, having been in the saddle from their early teens.  Their ponies were well bred and used to the harsh conditions on the prairie, however they were smaller in stature than the Army mounts.  Where the Indians scored was on their mobility, especially across poor terrain and an extensive knowledge of the local area.  The Indians have a slight advantage when crossing broken terrain.

Shooting.  In shooting terms, the Indians were better, having hunted game for many years.  What they suffered from was a lack of modern firearms, with most Indians armed with bows, a few outdated weapons and a lack of powder. This made their shooting effective but the lethality of their hits relatively low.

Discipline.  The Indians way of fighting was very different from the whites.  Each individual and group of warriors, often from different tribes or sub-tribes, decided for themselves when and if they were prepared to fight.  Their way of fighting was intensely individual, with the warriors gaining great prestige from carrying out dangerous actions (such as counting coup) when watched by other members of his tribe.  They were also concerned about the loss of warriors to the tribe. Consequently, the Indians could rarely stick to a plan, especially when trying to lure the whites into an ambush, as any individual warrior or group might decide to attack (or even withdraw) when it suited them and not in accordance with any plan.  This often played out as uncoordinated actions by groups of Indians, ignoring the ‘Chiefs’ orders.

Thus I have two different styles of fighting to represent - one who would obey orders, almost without fail, but were tactically disadvantaged by their relatively poor mobility and marksmanship - and the others who were highly mobile light cavalry and good marksman but badly armed and unable to follow orders. 

The movement and firing differences are easy to game. 

Shooting. The white eyes are poor shots but when they hit their lethality is high.  The redskins are good shots but their lethality (compared to modern firearms) is quite low.

Movement. Rates of movement are similar but the redskins have no penalties for crossing broken terrain and can thus disengage (or charge) more easily.

Orders.  The white eyes will always obey their orders. The redskins must check to see if they are 'in control' when they will obey their orders or 'uncontrolled'.  If the latter then they will carry out a random activation ranging from retiring, circling, skirmishing or charging.

Any suggestions or views about the above info or my interpretation gratefully received.

[Remgain]

At last!!! 

I don't know if this would be too much "tactical" but keep in mind that the US cavalry carbines are quite subject to jam. Usually because the spent cartridge remained stuck in the overheated chamber.
So, maybe, if a US unit is keeping firing for "x" consecutive turn, there could be a chance of reduced effect due to jams.

Furthermore, as you correctly point out, the Redskins could retire for good, when they believe that they've done what they're supposed to do, that usually is not "destroy the White Eyes" (or Pale Faces?)

My 2 cents,

Marco

[Cerdic]

It maybe just me misunderstanding, but....

I would think 'lethality' of old and new guns would be about the same. An 18th Century musket ball could do a lot of damage if it hit you. My guess would be that the most important factor would be the ability to hit the target rather than how modern the gun is.

Maybe arrows would tend to do less damage to a body than a bullet, though!

[Remgain]

Maybe arrows would tend to do less damage to a body than a bullet, though!

Cerdic,

Probably yes.
But probably bows have an higher rate of fire.

Marco

[guitarheroandy]

It maybe just me misunderstanding, but....

I would think 'lethality' of old and new guns would be about the same. An 18th Century musket ball could do a lot of damage if it hit you. My guess would be that the most important factor would be the ability to hit the target rather than how modern the gun is.

Maybe arrows would tend to do less damage to a body than a bullet, though!

Muskets were notoriously inaccurate at any distance unless firing at closely packed troops. 'Modern' rifles and carbines were more accurate but ultimately, the firer still had to be able to shoot worth a darn!! Arrow wounds would probably be as likely to kill in the long run due to gangrene, especially given that army medical care was rudimentary at best (despite what the movies tell you!) And yes, faster rate of fire, but shorter range.
What is interesting is that although the cavalry were pretty rubbish shooters, the Native Americans weren't necessarily that much better. Look at all those Apache ambushes where the tribesmen are sitting hidden in prepared positions and still don't cause hugely significant casualties. Their fire was ultimately more 'suppressive' than anything else, keeping the soldiers pinned down while the families escaped... If you're writing your own rules, pinning or suppression is an essential element to slow or prevent movement and reduce return fire...

[Hu Rhu]

Thanks for the responses. It's always useful to bounce ideas off other knowledgeable folks.

At last!!! 

Yes its taken a while for this project to get to the front of the queue.  You'll be seeing some of the figures I bought from you shortly.

I don't know if this would be too much "tactical" but keep in mind that the US cavalry carbines are quite subject to jam. Usually because the spent cartridge remained stuck in the overheated chamber.
So, maybe, if a US unit is keeping firing for "x" consecutive turn, there could be a chance of reduced effect due to jams.

I had planned to fire in groups rather than individually, which would require too much detail, but I had intended to use a 'low on ammo' rule and I could weave this into the reduction in fire effect from both ammo shortages and jamming.

It maybe just me misunderstanding, but....

I would think 'lethality' of old and new guns would be about the same. An 18th Century musket ball could do a lot of damage if it hit you. My guess would be that the most important factor would be the ability to hit the target rather than how modern the gun is.

Maybe arrows would tend to do less damage to a body than a bullet, though!

I think you are correct about individual weapons being as lethal as each other but the effect I want to achieve is the fewer number of firearms amongst the Indians, their shortage of powder and the relatively poor lethality of bows.  Overall it seems to me that the Indians were less likely to cause casualties, even if their shooting is more accurate.

Muskets were notoriously inaccurate at any distance unless firing at closely packed troops. 'Modern' rifles and carbines were more accurate but ultimately, the firer still had to be able to shoot worth a darn!! Arrow wounds would probably be as likely to kill in the long run due to gangrene, especially given that army medical care was rudimentary at best (despite what the movies tell you!) And yes, faster rate of fire, but shorter range.
What is interesting is that although the cavalry were pretty rubbish shooters, the Native Americans weren't necessarily that much better. Look at all those Apache ambushes where the tribesmen are sitting hidden in prepared positions and still don't cause hugely significant casualties. Their fire was ultimately more 'suppressive' than anything else, keeping the soldiers pinned down while the families escaped... If you're writing your own rules, pinning or suppression is an essential element to slow or prevent movement and reduce return fire...

I hadn't considered suppression effects but you are right, they need to be factored in.  I will consider how a pinning effect can be included in the firing outcomes that would prevent movement but allow the target to return fire from its current position, but with a reduced effect. Thanks for the tip.