Most discussions about the feasibility of colonial wargames have centered on rules. It is the
old savage vs. soldier controversy, and it is concerned with writing rules which allow equal
chances on the wargames table for both large, poorly armed native forces and small, well-armed European troops.
It is indeed an intriguing and challenging problem, one that has been greatly helped by the attempt in ancient wargames to solve the same problem between barbarian and trained troops. It is a problem that has yet to be fully solved, and I know of no privately circulated or commercially produced set of colonial period rules that has won general acceptance.
But over the years I have come to the conclusion that rules are not the main problem for colonial wargames. As long as a set of rules contains adequate troop classification and a flexible system of set-up points that reflects national characteristics and differences in training, morale rules that are reasonable in their application to all troop types, and firepower rules that are controlled and do not reproduce an average day in Flanders during World War I, then it will probably provide a reasonable and fairly accurate colonial wargame.
Set Up
The real problem is not rules; it is the set-up of the wargame itself. Wargames of any period, from ancients to the present day, represent battles between armies fighting in wars of imperial conquest or national interest. The objectives in these wargames are usually straight-forward: to seize ground and inflict casualties.
Because the forces involved are usually balanced in weaponry and ability, there is little need to set up more complicated scenarios, such as fighting retreat. When wargamers, wedded to the concepts of other periods, try fighting colonial battles, they usually adopt the same set-ups used in those other periods.
Frequently, when they find these set-ups are not suitable for a true colonial war, they change history slightly to suit the wargame and have battles between European armies each with a few native auxiliaries. These are not colonial wargames. They are wargames fought with colonial period figures, which can be a different thing entirely.
I have recently suggested in Savage and Soldier (X/4, 1978) that there is, or should be another way of fighting colonial wargames which would not be a repetition of more standard wargames but would more accurately reflect the types of battles and skirmishes that predominated in the colonial period.
Ways of Thinking We are used to thinking of the colonial period as being a series of major campaigns concluded by battles like Ulundi and Omdurman with only an occasional Isandhlwana, Maiwand, Khartoum or Adowa strewn about on the way. It is true that such major campaigns resulting in a resounding victory were the ideal of the colonial period, but they were not the rule. Most of the campaigns, at least in Africa, were a series of skirmishes in which small European forces, frequently armed with obsolescent weapons and on a tight budget, tried to hold on to or extend slightly what they already held, until the home government could finally turn its attention and funds to the locality to make a major and final effort of conquest.
In the campaigns that led up to or followed conquests, European forces were frequently constrained by political, financial and military problems that were generally absent in major European wars. Thus the final test of the result of a military engagement was as much how it advanced European aims within these constraints as the actual outcome on the battlefield.
Most wargames are fought individually and do not form part of a campaign. They are isolated battles that are judged solely by the results on the board. As long as wargames are not fought as parts of a campaign, external factors which may represent features of a campaign must be built into the wargame scenario. In the types of wargames I am suggesting there should be objectives off the board, that is, the individual battle should be judged in part by how it may have advanced some objective that is not actually part of the table-top battlefield.
This undoubtedly sounds both vague and daft to most readers, presented as it is theoretically. But if you look at the wargames board as the temporary meeting place of two armies that originated some place off the board and will end up some place else, also off the board, it may begin to make sense.
Movement and Maneuvre
Basically what I am advancing is battles of movement and maneouvre where one army is trying to get some place off the board as quickly as possible, and the other is trying to stop it. The victories attained will be strategic, rather than tactical.
A simple example is this: a European relief column starts at one end of the board and must get off the other end within a certain number of moves (a few more than it would take to traverse the board at a steady infantry rate), with a certain percentage of its force intact (anywhere from 3/4 to 100%: to lose the battle with casualties of anything less than 1/2 would probably put the Europeans at a disadvantage, and to be allowed to lose anything more than 1/2 would probably make them too difficult to beat).
A native force occupies the board, starting at a minimum distance from the European base-line. It merely has to delay or reduce its enemy enough to prevent it from gaining its objective (in some games it may be wise to add the restriction that the native force muct maintain from % to % of its own force intact as well).
Square?
The European force must then decide whether it will adopt a slow moving square which may take too long to traverse the board, or whether it will try flying columns which are faster, more flexible, but also more vulnerable. The native force will try to maneuvre in such a way as to threaten flanks and force the Europeans to adopt a square.
It will try harrassing rifle fire from concealed positions, and only as a last resort launch a charge and attempt a melee. The objectives of the two forces are thus not the same, but they have an equal opportunity to achieve them.
This is just one type of wargame using negative objectives. Another type is the reverse of the above: a native force enters at one point on the board and tries to get off at another with a minimum of its force intact, while a European force tries to find it and prevent or reduce it in time.
Yet another type may involve a native force trying to drive off herds of animals, fill in wells or water holes, or escort a civilian population to safety while a European force attempts to stop them. The final result of the battle would be decided by points. The total number of objectives (wells, herds, total points of civilians) should equal the points of either army.
The points values of the casualties of the native force would be subtracted from the total points of the objectives gained. It that exceeds the remaining points of the European force, then the natives win. It should be emphasised here that the objectives the natives are trying to attain are not necessarily permanent; they are attempting to do something within a time limit, not seizing and holding ground.
Variations
There are a number of variations on these themes possible. More have been outlined and discussed in Savage and Soldier (XI/1 & 2, 1979) than there is space to do here. But whatever type of battle you set up, a few ground rules should be observed. Limited observation should apply mostly to European troops, allowing native troops to make the most of hidden movement. It should usually be assumed that the native forces have a better idea of the size and position of their enemy on the field; thus all the European troops should be placed on the board at the beginning of the game, while only those natives directly observed should be placed on the board at the start.
European intelligence of its enemy can be improved by the addition of friendlies to its own force, who can force an additional percentage of the native force to be revealed at the beginning of the game. Artillery should be limited in numbers and range, and perhaps in ammunition. It is best confined to medium field pieces or light mountain guns. The models of Boer War naval guns now on the market are probably best confined to the Boer War; their range would be so great that they scarcely need to be placed on the wargame table. A similar restriction should be placed on machine-guns.
Remember that most of the campaigns of the 1880s and 1890s were undertaken with obsolescent or worn-out weapons. The Gatling gun, the Hotchkiss revolving cannon and the multi-barrelled Nordenfelt and Gardner guns were still used more frequently than the modern Maxim.
Those readers who have taken my last article to heart may well find that these types of wargames will get the best out of the mixed and varied colonial armies you have raised.
Related
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 1 #2
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1979 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com