Ambush Alley's 'Bush Wars'.

[Arlequín]

I got my copy of this through the post today and while it wasn't quite what I expected, I can still say I was pleased. As you might expect, as it covers several conflicts, it doesn't go into great depth, but sufficiently so for most people's needs as regards using it to play Force on Force.

It covers the Congo (60's), The Portuguese Colonial Wars (60's-70's), Rhodesia (60'-70's), South Africa's Wars (70's-80's) and 'More Recent Wars', which concentrates largely on Sierra Leone. For your money you get conflict/faction specific 'special rules', 'Fog of War' cards, organisational details and vehicle stats.

I've gone into a little more depth here, but as a general aid for Force on Force, it's well worth the money imo.  

[mpennock]

I'm glad to hear that it's been released. I've been looking forward to this book. 

[Marine0846]

Thanks for the review.
Been thinking about picking up the book.

[Johnny Boy]

Thanks for the review Arlequin, my copy is on it's way as a birthday present end of the month so I woh't be seeing it quite yet. Nice to hear it's covering the main conflicts I have in mind and it'll give me the proverbial boot to get on with all those projects!!

[carlos marighela]

I downloaded the PDF version as some holiday reading and to be honest, I'm disappointed with this offering but maybe I expected too much.

The section on the Portuguese  Colonial Wars is pretty poor IMO. Very little real detail on the TO&Es, some of whicht appears erroneous and none at all on the cavalry units or dragoons.  No vehicle stats either, which is a pity as the Portuguese fielded some unique vehicles.

The section on the various guerilla groups is very poor.I have a couple of texts which give the organagrams for the various opposition forces, PAIGC, FRELIMO, the MPLA. I'll make a point of transcribing them here when I get back to reference material.

Some of  it can probably be slated to mis-translation, some to fitting the game mechanics but over all I think the research is subpar. OK, you can say that paper organisations are rarely used but then why does FoF go to such trouble to give the paper orgs for other forces?. Give the actual orgs then let gamers play with them is to me the best solution. The authors of the previous offering on Vietnam similarly fucked the pooch when it came to the Australians.

The gaming scenarios in the Portuguese scetion  weren't terribly exciting and are all fictitious or rather, as they say in Hollywood, 'based on a true story'.  Bit disappointing. Still, I'm quite happy to create my own so that's not a biggie for me.

Like Jim I would have liked to see a broader range covered but that's probably impossible given production costs. I would have thought something like Kolwezi in 1978 would have made perfect FoF gaming fodder and Biafra would probably have been a better choice than the earlier part of the Congo Wars.

Sadly gamers wanting to use this as start point for there own research are going to be disappointed. The bibliography is piss poor and very shallow. Whilst it probably doesn't reflect the extent of source materials used it is none the less irritating for those who want to read further. A goodly chunk, no surprises here, is made up of refs to Osprey MAA books.

I'm sure the Rhodesian and South African bits are ok, that's the real focus of the book although from my perspective  I find it amazing that the Portuguese get very little credit for their innovations.

It's OK but for my purposes I'm distictly underwhelmed.

[Centaur_Seducer]

But for us casual gamers who can't be bothered on the precise facts and just wishes to indulge in bingespending on miniatures, it's alright?

[carlos marighela]

'Spose so but then the point of these things is that they purport to represent some form of historical accuracy.

Of course you could play the game using the organisation of your local boy scout troop, using figures you've fashioned from cardboard and tinsel and create scenarios based on episodes of Dancing with the Stars. More power to those who do, I say

 

[Arlequín]

I sort of took the view that as a starting point into the conflicts, it did its job. There's no depth to it, I'll agree, but to get people putting figures on the table and then hopefully going off and reading up on it as their interest develops it's the ticket. I was a bit underwhelmed at the sources used too and you can't really blame translation either, as one of the authors of the Osprey 'Portugal' book is Portuguese iirc.

A whole book could have been done on any of the wars and you can also argue that South Africa's forays into Angola in the 80's were conventional operations rather than a 'Bush War' as such too. They've gone for a broad overview of several conflicts, which inevitably has a cost to content.

I do think the choice of wars was largely dictated by what Osprey have in their library and it shows in the Congo section as there is no pretty art work to go with it. I thought the scenarios were fine and the first Portuguese one quite a departure in its subject matter, although I wonder how many people will buy the figures for it.

Had the whole book been done on the Portuguese Wars, I think I'd be as disappointed as I was with the Osprey title to be honest... to read about the Portuguese Army's organisation for a page or so and then to be told 'but that wasn't used in Africa' was frustrating to say the least.

I didn't pick up on that there was no Portuguese vehicle list till Carlos mentioned it, although most of the vehicles can be taken from the other lists... the inclusion of the 'Rooikat' seems ambiguous too, as even the notes say that it wasn't used during the Border War.

Point taken about the organisations and I'd really like to see the ones Carlos has... I've spent many hours looking for them myself! FoF does normally make a point of showing the paper organisations, but I've found myself that material for these are often hard to track down and many are often full of fantasy or a wargamer's 'wants', rather than reflecting reality. So I'm willing to excuse 'Bush Wars' for not committing itself to following that course by making its own up.

I still think it is a good addition to FoF for these sort of conflicts, but yes it could always have been better, covered more suitable ground and provided enough material for several books, rather than one catch-all supplement.

But for us casual gamers who can't be bothered on the precise facts and just wishes to indulge in bingespending on miniatures, it's alright?

Yes imo 

Of course you could play the game using the organisation of your local boy scout troop, using figures you've fashioned from cardboard and tinsel and create scenarios based on episodes of Dancing with the Stars. More power to those who do, I say
 

You swore you'd never tell about all that!

 

[Dave Knight]

Awaiting my copy with rather less enthusiasm now 

[carlos marighela]

in Africa' was frustrating to say the least.

You swore you'd never tell about all that!

 

Oops!  Well I would have stayed shtum had you not decided to go that extra yard in brinkmanship and create an Anne Widdecombe in lycra figure. You only have yourself to blame old boy! 

[Conquistador]

<snip>

 Biafra would probably have been a better choice than the earlier part of the Congo Wars.

Funny you should mention that, I need to brush up on that conflict for work purposes...

Gracias,

Glenn

[Trench_Raider]

Greeting all.

I was the lead author on the FoF Bush Wars project.  I'll try to answer a few of the concerns that some have voiced here.

Aside from the short chapter introduction, I did not write any of the Portuguese Colonial Wars material, so I really cannot speak to the reasearch.  But I can say that our author on that section was not a native English speaker, so that might account for some of the issues that have been pointed out here and elsewere.  I regret any factual errors that might have crept in.

Yes, it does apear that we gave only modest coverage to each conflict and I agree that we could have written a whole source book on any of the wars we featured in the book. I would have loved to have written an entire book on Rhodesia as that's my "pet period" (and to a lesser extent South Africa and the Congo) of this genre but the multi-conflict aproach was what we went with in the end.  We did had five different conflicts to cover and less than 150 pages to do it.  The idea behind the work was to give a basic introduction for new gamers to the genre of post-Colonial African conflicts rather than detailed coverage on any one war, with some basic background material, painting guide, example scenarios, etc.  I hope that the book acomplished that goal.

Now for a few specific comments:

you can also argue that South Africa's forays into Angola in the 80's were conventional operations rather than a 'Bush War' as such too

I fully agree.  That was actually one of the reasons we chose to cover the South African Border War as it highlights one of the forms that post-colonial warfare in Africa took.   It wasn't all just low intinsity/counter-insurgency actions after all. There is a world of difference between it and say the Congo Crisis.    Once again, this was to give a wide variety of choices to the gamer.

it shows in the Congo section as there is no pretty art work to go with it

Again I agree.  Osprey  really does need a title on that war!  Sadly, I did not have access to any painted examples of the excellent Britannia Congo figures for use in illustrating that section untill after it went to press.   Thus that chapter is the sparcest in the pretty picture department.  As it was one of the sections I was actual author on, I do regret that.  Ah well.

 

the inclusion of the 'Rooikat' seems ambiguous too, as even the notes say that it wasn't used during the Border War.

I included games stats for the Rooikat in case someone wanted to field one in their own "what if" type scenario.  The same could be said for the inclusion of T-55s in the Rhodesian vehicles list.  It's such a cool vehicle, it seemed a shame to leave it out....that and the QRF Rooikat model is such a pretty piece!

Anyway, that's enough for right now.  Thanks for the feedback and comments.  I'll watch this thread in case anyone has any more questions about the work.

Martin
  

[Cherno]

No questions, just a big Thank You for taking the time to clarify some points raised in this thread. It's always great to hear it straight from the author, a close communication between producers and customers is what makes this hobby great.

[Arlequín]

Thanks for the feedback and comments.  

You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time...  

I think whatever was included there'd be someone who would have been expecting something that was left out, and you'd have ended up with a five volume work, which still wasn't complete to everyone's satisfaction. I was actually surprised to see the Congo in at all to be honest, as I'm aware there is no Osprey book to draw art from, so more power to the team for that!

The only real disappointment for me was the omission of some 'Bush Wars' specific campaign rules, along the lines of the old ones in the original 'Ambush Valley'. Why that was I don't know, especially as when I went to my new copy of Ambush Valley, I realised they hadn't made the cut there either.

Given that there was a page limit and in all likelihood that there will only ever be one book that covers Africa, I don't feel that any pages were wasted and each period got pretty much an even share... South Africa and Rhodesia got the most, but then more information is readily available and accessible for them. They are also on the whole more popular (probably partly for the same reason). While I might have preferred more on a single topic amongst those offered, so would every one else with their pet period too.

If I was wielding the editor's sword, I would have quite selfishly cut it all off at about 1978-ish... imo after that point the wars in Africa changed into something else entirely. Biafra and the early part of the Angolan Civil War would be shunted into 'Bush Wars' and me and probably four or five other people would have been over the moon with that. I would have pushed to have the SA Bush War, along with the Ogaden-Eritrean Wars and whatever else happened after 1980 in a separate book. I suspect that Bush Wars and the second book, if it ever saw the light of day, would have suffered commercially as a result however. 

I still think Bush Wars is a good addition to the AA range and certainly don't regret buying it. I also appreciate you taking the time to drop by and add your opinions too!

[Cherno]

Maybe some fans will create supplements that fill the omitted rules and background info and put it up on the Ambush Alley website