The Sword & The Flame - and Realism

[brasidas19004]

I recently got back to playing TSATF, using the deluxe 3rd edition box rules that I got years ago. 

After having recently done a lot of modern warfare gaming, I was pretty impressed at how realistic the game is, as well as being playable.

My main complaint with "realism" would be that there isn't a suppression mechanic for fire.  I think suppression is even more important in skirmish games than large battle games where it usually needs to be abstracted.

Wondering if anyone has thoughts on other aspects of the game that would help me pull it further forward in time, to use it with my Mexican Revolution and Spanish Civil War figures.

[pallard]

Personaly I much prefer Chris Peer's rules for the period: A good day to die!
The rules include a supression effect in a very clever way: on a D20 roll, say 19 and 20 are incapacitating hits and ( from memory) 15 to 18 are supression close shots. You just need to implement the idea into another set of results. Hope this will help.

[Smokeyrone]

There are suppression variants, I've been in games with em..

Let me think....

GOAT rules, IMO

update  no, I was thinking about opportunity fire. My bad

[Inkpaduta]

Have to admit, I hate suppression rules.
I play to kill things. To see a game move forward.
Hate it when all you get is a suppression, then you have to roll
to remove it ect. Yawn.

[Mad Guru]

brasidas19004:

I'm a longtime TSATF player, since they were first published in 1979, and have played in a good number of Mexican Revolution and a few SCW games over the years.  I like what you said about the realism of TSATF, which some (maybe many!) may disagree with but which is one of many things that have kept me playing the rules over the decades.  Like Inkpaduta, I'm not a big fan of suppression rules, but I understand the argument for them in an era featuring dramatically increased firepower at all levels.

One way you could incorporate "suppression" into TSATF would be to make one or two suits of casualty cards "suppressions" rather than actual casualties.  If you keep Hearts as KIA and let's say make Spades WIA, then Diamonds and Clubs would be Suppressions -- or if you don't want to reduce casualties that much, you can choose just one suit and make Clubs into the "suppressed" cards.  I imagine the impact will be suppressed figures are unable to fire until...?  Maybe it's just a one turn thing, suppressed for that current turn if target unit has not yet fired, or for the coming turn if they have.  But what if the target unit that now has suppressed figure(s) in it wants to move next turn?  Do they leave the suppressed figures behind the way Stragglers get left behind during a Charge?  IDK.  I guess it depends on how "chaotic" (and potentially complicated) you want your 20th Century TSATF tabletops to become.

Whatever Suppression impact(s) you use, if you're playing smaller skirmish games I think the "make certain suit(s) of casualty cards into suppression cards" idea could work, BUT if you're playing larger skirmishes with many units per side, it could be a problem applying suppression to particular figures within units rather than to an entire unit at a time.  In this context I think of suppression as a cross between the imposition of a morale state and the infliction of a casualty.  In TSATF casualties are always assessed on an individual figure basis but morale status never is.  It's always checked -- and passed or failed -- by an entire Unit.

An entirely different method would be to have a single turn casualty number for a unit -- based on its size and quality -- that would result in it becoming suppressed and unable to fire and/or move.  That could apply to the current turn or extend into the next turn as well.

[huevans]

Why don't you make suppression effects part of morale and tie it to casualty figures and a dice roll?

[brasidas19004]

Why don't you make suppression effects part of morale and tie it to casualty figures and a dice roll?

The winner!  I decided to try it as rolling against the number of Hits subtracted from morale, using the original fire charts.  Usually, you only get a hit or two. Subtract these from morale, roll against it, and if you fail you're Pinned.  Rolling in Morale Phase to recover,  you can be back in the action for next turn on a pass, so it mostly has to do with when you were Hit in the Fire Phase.

Going to try it with my FFL v. Arabs and see how it goes.

Any combat game from 1870 on without suppression is lacking a key aspect of the period.  And it is still a major consideration today, as achieving fire superiority [suppressing the enemy] gives you opportunity to maneuver and take the objective or close in for the kill!

[Old Contemptable]

I'm in the no suppression camp. I like simple and pure. Suppression would slow up the game. Something else to keep track of. Colonial battles are usually fought against natives who would ignore something like suppression. They are fanatical. The only conflict that would involve suppression would be the First Boer War. The Second Boer War would definitely involve suppression and there are rules more suited to that conflict.

[Plynkes]

I'm in the no suppression camp. I like simple and pure. Suppression would slow up the game. Something else to keep track of. Colonial battles are usually fought against natives who would ignore something like suppression. They are fanatical. The only conflict that would involve suppression would be the First Boer War. The Second Boer War would definitely involve suppression and there are rules more suited to that conflict.

While it's fine to decide you don't want suppression rules because they spoil the flow of the game, such historical justification is not really warranted. If we take just the Zulu War, there are numerous cases of the Zulu being suppressed by British fire, even in the battles in which they were victorious. The idea that the Zulu were somehow immune to the suppression effects of modern firearms due to fanaticism is not borne out by historical accounts, I'm afraid. Off the top of my head Isandlwana, Rorke's Drift and Khambula all contain examples of Zulu forces being pinned down by British fire.

[brasidas19004]

I'm in the no suppression camp. I like simple and pure. Suppression would slow up the game. Something else to keep track of. Colonial battles are usually fought against natives who would ignore something like suppression. They are fanatical. The only conflict that would involve suppression would be the First Boer War. The Second Boer War would definitely involve suppression and there are rules more suited to that conflict.

There are numerous examples of all the natives being suppressed - you just have to read the right accounts that have a bit more depth and are often of direct military interest.  Also, I disagree that it would slow down the game - I am halving all the casualties of shooting and Close Combat and also having Units check morale at 25% instead of 50% for a more realistic game. If you are going to have a campaign, the casualties need to match their logistical impact better.

I would say that pinning clearly does affect forces that are short on rifles more than those who are well supplied, like Pathans, Egyptians, Boers and Arabs [which is most of the Native forces!]. If one enforces the 30 arc of fire on individual figs, however, per the rules, zulus will regularly be able to reduce some of the impact, or one could increase their morale a point to '9', making them only 1 less than the Brits.

There's nearly zero difference between the Pathans in TSATF and the modern Afghans who fought Russians and Coalition - just AK47s and RPGs.  And yes, they were affected by suppression.

[Smokeyrone]

With equal(ish) units (20Brits vs 20 Zulus) it's not really an issue.    Those 20 zulus become 5 zulus after a couple turns, (ya better come out of nowhere and close in one turn  ). 

 Some rules, with say a unit of 10 Brits vs a unit of 100  zulus, requires a pinning/suppression mechanic, Id say . 

Using Zulus as generic example.   For Mex Revolution, I've found that open charges get blasted even quicker.  The "supression" is the players reluctance to come out from cover.   

 But, as I always say:  Sgt. Guinness will decide if you're suppressed or not!   

and whether some clown's  Bejas can use hidden movement to materialize (in open desert in the center of table)) right in front of a British firing line like those worms from "Tremors"!!!   (Remember that one, Jeff?   )