TSATF compared to Triumph & Tragedy

[n815e]

I realize this may be a biased place to ask, but how do these two sets compare for colonial games?

[Mosstrooper]

TSATF usualy use units of 20 figs  and I find games of about 6 units per side about right ( solo gaming ) . T & T  are are designed for smaller games with more detail and the use of 'character figures' ( not tried them with Colonial expansion rules yet) and have a 'modener' feel to them , whilst TSATF have a more 'toy soldier' outlook , being 20+ years old . Use both sets myself  , TSATF for NW Frontier and T&T for RCW and Pulp games .

[Driscoles]

The Colonial T+T Supplement allows now larger games with native units up to 20 figures if you want to but you dont have to. My experience with TSATF is that you need lots of figures for the natives to have an exciting game. I recommend both games because I like both very much 
Cheers
Björn

[Darkoath]

I also use both sets of rules... each have their own uses and I would highly recommend both sets to anyone
interested in the colonial period.  I tend to love smaller skirmish style gaming now with named characters, so Triumph & Tragedy fits that bill better in my opinion.

Darkoath

[Doc Twilight]

I would say I disagree on T&T being designed for smaller games. TSATF is an older set, with a slower combat mechanism and a system for carrying the wounded, which bogs down badly with anything bigger than, say, Rourke's Drift. I would argue that T&T plays slightly better for the larger Zulu War battles, for instance. If I ever get back to my Wahehe War project, I'll be using T&T to do the battles I'd previously been fighting with other rulesets.

It is, however, entirely a matter of personal opinion . Both fine sets of rules.

-Doc

[warrenpeace]

I have not played Triumph & Tragedy, as nobody in my area seems to be playing it.  However, I can offer some observations about The Sword and the Flame:

The TSATF rules are very flexible, and many people have modified the rules very extensively, still using the same basic mechanics.  There is a Sword in Africa variant which uses 10 man units instead of 20 man units, and I have played in a variety of games involving 10 man units.  One of my former friends adapted the basic mechanics for use with fire teams of 4 to 6 men in WW2.  When adapting the basic mechanics for use with different sized units, it is important to adjust some aspects of play, including the number of "fall backs" in a charge (the number of guys who don't charge with their unit), and to firepower.

The firepower in the original rules was intended to reflect that in the Zulu War of 1878 through the 2nd Boer War 1899 to 1902, so adjustments can be made to firepower for later periods involving machine guns and clip fed bolt action rifles.  I normally play in games in which a d20 is used to resolve fire attacks, as that gives finer gradients of firepower between different qualities of rifle, training of the men, and terrain effects.  However, I have played in games which use a d10 to resolve fire combat, when such finer gradiations of firepower are not needed.

[warrenpeace]

TSATF continued:

The TSATF system for play sequence involves pulling cards to activate the various units within a movement and charge phase, and then pulling cards again to activate the various units for firing. This provides a nice element of chaos, but can become cumbersome when trying to run a large convention game with 8 to 12 players.  The chaos system works well enough for 6 players of less.  It is important not to leave players sitting around too long with nothing to do.

The original TSATF system for dealing with wounded has wounded men being completely incapacitated.  The only real reason to deal with these incapacitated men is to cost the imperial side political points or morale when wounded men are captured by the natives, although the rules do allow wounded natives to make an attempt to kill imperialist men in contact with them.  Ian Croxall, of "Red Shadow" fame (www.warflag.com), created a better way to deal with this.  He uses a "wounded" result in which the wounded men are still mobile, but melee on a -1 (on a d6) and fire on a -2 (using d20).  He uses an "incapacitated" result which is equivalent to the "wounded" result in the original rules.  (He had suggested these changes for the 20th Anniversary edition, but that particular change was not adopted by Larry Brom.)  I think Ian Croxall's way of playing works better, particularly when using TSATF for smaller scale skirmish actions in which each figure represents and actual man.

Speaking of scale, TSATF may have a stated scale of each figure representing multiple men (5? or 10? men per figure), but I have almost always played the game thinking of each figure as representing individual men.  Variants of TSATF such as The Sword in Africa are specifically oriented toward skirmish level action with each figure representing individual men.  At that scale it is not hard to include individual heroic figures and to include rules for their use.

[warrenpeace]

TSATF continued:

Hmm, I forgot to mention another modification to TSATF.  I think the TSATF system for using artillery is a bit bland, although it fairly reflects firing grapeshot (throwing multiple dice, as with machine gun). But another system is available for firing shells which involves rolling to hit, and if there is a miss, then rolling for distance and direction to see where the shell actually lands.  Then a die is rolled for an air burst or a ground burst, resulting in changes to the size of the blast affected area (shell template). That second artillery firing method is not in the original rules, but it adds a great dimension to play.