Congo vs The Men Who Would Be Kings

[Rob_bresnen]

I am thinking of breaking out my colonial African figures after a long hiatus. Since I have been away from the dark continent I notice there are a few new rules. So which is best? I have about 20-30 figures for Zanzibar, Masia and British and like fun, easy to pick up and play rules.

[Dunderberg]

I would use Congo for Central Africa style games.   More meat on the scenarios.  A better system for the semi-role playing game that Congo is.   I am working on finishing up the necessary pieces for Congo (which I have).   In the meantime I am playing some Sudan style games using Men who would be Kings.  Fairly simple, straightforward Colonials.  Some clever mechanisms for army/game balance.  Might wish to add a house rule or two.

[Sir Rodney Ffing]

I have both sets. Congo is decidedly focused on African exploration and is small scale (unit size typically 3 -5) while TMWWBK is much wider in scope and assumes both larger units and bigger battles.  That said, TMWWBK does include an adaption for smaller unit sizes (Skirmish Kings from memory) and has lists for explorers and their opponents, so if you only wanted one set to cover everything, that should be the choice. It is also much cheaper than Congo!

However, Congo has more of a story line to it (it includes eight "Adventures" that have more flavour than TMWWBK's generic scenarios), and is a much more impressive package.  So, while TMWWBK looks like a standard Osprey book, Congo is hardcover, and comes with the measuring sticks, cards and tokens used to play. 

My recommendation, for what it's worth, would be to choose Congo.  My plan for TMWWBK is to use it when I expand my colonial gaming to include NWF and/or the Sudan.   

[Genialjim]

Guys could you give me an idea of the minimum number of figures I would need in particular for TMWWBK.  I have spent the last couple of year collecting Bolt action armies for Levant, North Africa and East Africa so am intrested in somthing as a diversion that can share the same terrian and If I could base a game around a box of Perrys plastics I would be very tempted.

[guitarheroandy]

Guys could you give me an idea of the minimum number of figures I would need in particular for TMWWBK.  I have spent the last couple of year collecting Bolt action armies for Levant, North Africa and East Africa so am intrested in somthing as a diversion that can share the same terrian and If I could base a game around a box of Perrys plastics I would be very tempted.

For the Sudan, 36 British infantry in 3 units of 12 vs probably about 5 units of 16 Mahdist swordsmen - you could add some Mahdist riflemen to give the natives some firepower - a unit of 12... That'd probably do it for 24pts each side with a few upgrades or downgrades.

[Genialjim]

Cheers that sounds manageable with my painting rate😄

[gorillacrab]

I just received my copy of MWWBK today - the rules do stress they are flexible with numbers to a degree, so if you wanted units of regulars of 9 or 10 instead of 12 that is perfectly fine.

Remember a major difference of these rules compared to the earlier Lion Rampant is that you only roll 1 dice per figure in an attacking unit - while in LR you always rolled 12 attacking dice or 6 dice once a unit dropped to 50%.

[charla51]

You could try 'The Sword in Africa' which is a small(er) unit supplement to "The Sword and the Flame'  and is contained in the latter.

[Jeff965]

You can also play "skirmish kings" which is TMWWBK using half size units ( it's an option offered up in the rule book) and should have you playing with painted figures on your table even quicker

[FifteensAway]

TWMBK - can it handle a couple of dozen units?  Maybe per side?  Or would that 'break' the rules?  Or take ForEver to play out?

Thanks for replies.

[SteveBurt]

Yes, you could easily have a couple of dozen units per side for TMWWBK - it's a very fast playing set.

[Deckard009]

Sounds good numbers for my NW and fuzzy plastic, just needed this motivation to finish them! 

[gorillacrab]

I own and have played a few games with both sets of rules. To answer the question of "which to get", it all depends on what you are looking for.
Building on Lion and Dragon Rampant, "Kings" is a lean and well-scrubbed traditional wargame.

The rules are well-written and it is easy to play. It also features some "paint box" aspects with simple rules that allow you to take the very basic unit types (regulars, irregulars, native horse, etc) and give them one or two traits for greater realism and period flavour. Likewise, as stated, the scenarios are generic - and sometimes require a little playtesting to find a satisfactory balance.

Congo feels much more like a "game" - but that's not a negative. It's not a big traditional wargame, but a small-scale pulpish adventure game. The scenarios seem very well designed and tested - with exacting instructions for setup and victory conditions. There are a lot of little "cinematic" elements such as random events or "stress" tokens on units that impact very specific actions.

Most notably, instead of the tried-and-true I-Go-U-Go mechanic for activations, Congo uses an excellent card system that really ramps up the tension. You and your opponent get to select the 3 action cards you want (out of a constant hand of 7 cards) that dictate what your units and heroes can do in a turn (shoot, move, rally, etc). Then each side reveals a card one at a time - but the revealed card with the highest "Initiative Number" goes first. If you play a "1 Unit Shoots" Card but the foe plays a "Move" card with superior Initiative - he acts first and might move his unit out of range or out of sight.

In short their are often crunchy and dramatic consequences to which cards are revealed and the Initiative order in which they go.

This mechanism is very engaging and I can see taking those cards using them for games in other "adventure" settings.

Of course, given the card mechanics I don't believe you could easily run a game of Congo for more than 4 people (2 per side, somehow sharing tactical decisions on the card) - as this is more of a 1 vs 1 game overall. "Kings", conversely can handle much bigger games with more players. I'd add that both are generally clear and well-written although Congo's complexity would have been aided with an Index, when dealing with issues such as the difference between Loot and Plunder.

Both are fine games and do what they set out (big traditional wargame, flavorful adventure game) very well.