This is less of a "How to" article and more of a "What
to think about" list. There are a number of good books on
wargaming campaigns, and a number of articles describing
specific campaigns have appeared in various wargarhe
magazines over the years. The basics of campaigning are
the same for all periods, the differences arise when one
tries to introduce distinctive features of a period into the
campaign. Objectives can vary from one period to another,
and in the colonial period objectives vary with the different
types of campaigns engaged in.
There are a number of features of colonial period campaigns that seem to be ignored by most wargamers. These features are found in the objectives of the campaign itself, and in the political factors that influence the military capabilities of the opposing sides. Realizing that most wargamers, myself included, view campaigns mainly as an excuse for a regular series of battles, I do not intend to suggest that all colonial campaigns adopt the rules and format of Diplomacy before a single figure is placed on the board. But some consideration of non-military factors (other than weather) can be made so that the campaign itself is not a cut and dried matter of who wins the most (or the last) battles.
In the history of colonial conquest it was the political disunity, technological inferiority and sometimes even the limited scale of the economic base of the colonized peoples that contributed to their ultimate defeat. However, recent studies of many African campaigns have shown that Africans frequently had the military capability of defeating those troops sent aginst them. It is the military capability that wargamers are interested in, but in campaigns some of the other factors must be introduced. The differences in internal organization of opposing countries, the political commitment of the populace (or government) of each country to the campaign, and temporary restrictions on resources can all play their part.
Three Types
There are three main types of colonial campaigns: the campaign of conquest, the campaign of rebellion and the campaign of the punitive patrol. The campaign of conquest is straightforward as it involves capturing territory and defeating armies.
The main question about it are what type of country is being conquered, and from where is the invasion being launched? These will be dealt with later. The campaign of rebellion is almost the reverse of the above, for it involves a country that has been conquered, with the conquering troops trying to hold on to what they have, or at least in limiting the extent of the rebellion.
The punitive patrol is more limited in scope and objectives than any of the above, and while on the face of it is the easiest to set up and fight, it is frequently rather more difficult to determine an outcome. This patrol is designed to punish, which is obvious, so as to end local resistance to the imperial presence or an administrative policy. A local leader is supposed to be captured, or cattle confiscated, villages destroyed, "young bloods" shot up just to show them who is boss, or villagers taken hostage.
The only trouble is that the punishment might not subdue the people, but increase their distrust of the imperial power and their resolve to resist. Another problem is that imperial intelligence might be faulty, the wrong people are punished for an offence they did not commit, and rise in revolt! It is clear the outcome of a punitive patrol cannot be determined in military terms alone.
The conduct of these campaigns depends chiefly on the types of countries involved, and it is perhaps best to think of organizing campaigns around the different types of "native" and "european" countries listed below.
NATIVES
STATES: For wargaming purposes the state is characterized by some form of central organization in government, the army and the economy. They have political capitals and trade centers, the loss of which can influence the outcome of a campaign. They have reserves of food, weapons and ammunition, and for this reason can maintain a standing army in the field for some time. They have a regularized, if limited communications system, and can replenish the supplies of their armies periodically either through their own efforts (local ammunition factories and armories where weapons are repaired), or through trade. Their arsenals usually contain a large proportion of fairly up-to-date weapons, and many late-nineteenth century states could boast breechloading rifles, crank operated machine-guns, and modern field guns.
States were frequently mini-empires in that they were composed of many minor kingdoms and contained a number of subject peoples. These were not always willing to fight for their overlords, or positively encouraged and aided European conquest. States could also have rivals for leadership with strong factions competing for power. Some rivals might be lukewarm in their support against an invader, or might even join them. The use of such "friendlies" is a relatively cheap way for an invader to increase his military force, and "friendlies" can also provide knowledge about the terrain or the enemy's strength and movements. But beware -- "friendlies" can play a double game!
Some examples of 19th century states are China, the Sikhs, Afghanistan, Persia, Abyssinia, Egypt, the Sudan, Madagascar, the Sokoto Caliphate, Dahomey and Ashanti.
SEMI-STATES: For lack of a better name, some of the military kingdoms of the nineteenth century might be classified by wargamers as "semi-states", for though there was central organization in some things, especially the army, the scope of that organization was not as great as in the states. The Zulu and Ndebele kingdoms, the "Ruga-Ruga" armies of East Africa, the merchant-slave empire of Zubair Pasha and his son Sulaiman, the itinerant armies of Rabih Zubair and Samori Ture would all, for wargaming purposes, be considered "semi-states".
All were marked by some form of military organization, all armed themselves to some extent through the firearms trade, but most could not supply extended campaigns and could not maintain an army in the field for long periods of time without resorting to some form of pillage and looting. For the wargamer a campaign with a "semi-state" poses great problems, for though the military organization of the army is such that it makes a formidable foe on the table top, the periods in between battles can be fraught with difficulties as the wargamer tries to resupply his army and prevent it from disbanding. Some foodstuffs can be obtained from local cultivation or the cultivation of subject peoples. Most other supplies must come from raids on other peoples not directly involved in the campaign, or by capturing supplies from the enemy.
INDEPENDENT PEOPLES: The American Indians and the peoples of East Africa or German South- West Africa are the best known examples of independent peoples. Not organized into states or kingdoms, frequently living on the fringes of them, sometimes banding together into loose, ad hoc confederations, war against these peoples usually involves war against the entire population. In pacification campaigns their villages are burnt, their crops are destroyed, their livestock captured, and their civilians either massacred or taken hostage.
Depressing as a campaign by itself for in the end they can win only by restricting their losses, independent peoples can be added to campaigns involving states and semi-states to introduce a civilian component. In campaigns of punitive patrols it is best to have two or more independent peoples involved in varying degrees -- the main purpose of the patrol being to punish one without bringing the others into rebellion.
GUERRILLAS AND REBELS: In many ways the introduction of guerrillas and rebels is a way of militarizing an "independent peoples" scenario even more. Such a campaign would be fought in a country which is occupied by a network of outposts which do not necessarilly administer the country closely. It would involve attempts at spreading the rebellion to different parts of the country, of denying supplies to the occupier, of raising an army which is varied in its organization, for it can contain components of an older, disbanded military system.
The organization and armament of the army can improve step by step until, by fully occupying large sections of the country, it is virtually a state itself. As in many guerrilla armies, the first phase of the revolt would concentrate on procuring more and better arms.
EUROPEANS
INVASIONS FROM A FIRM BASE: These are usually invasions from an established colony into a neighboring territory. Campaigns along the northern frontier of India offer many examples. The invasion of Zululand from Natal and of the Sudan from Egypt are two others. Most American campaigns would also fall into this category. The organization of supplies is easiest in this game as the base provides most of the supplies, as well as many of the troops.
Supplies are rather nearer at hand than in some other types of campaigns, communications and transportation within the base are quick and secure the line of supply from the base into the invaded territory being the most pressing and limiting problem. Commitments in other sectors of the base's frontier can also be used to limit supplies during the campaign.
While political conditions in such bases are usually more stable than in others, the possibility of political unrest is not entirely absent. The removal of troops from a frontier area to invade a neighboring state or subdue peoples over the border might be the signal for a rising on the frontier. In fact, such a rising might even be encouraged by the state being invaded.
Similarly, the news of a defeat might encourage similar risings or strikes in other parts of the colony, forcing the relocation of troops. Political intrigue can also be used to provide any native state with intelligence of the enemy's strength and intentions. It might also be possible to introduce a few "guerrillas and rebels" in a native arsenal to discomfit any over-confident colonial invader.
SETTLER COLONIES: Southern Africa, New Zealand the Americas provide the main examples of campaigns waged within or against settler colonies. Here settlers live next to or mixed up with independent peoples, or on the edges of a semi-state. Settlers can provide militia or irregulars, but most of the fighting is done by imperial troops. However, the more imperial troops are relied on, the more expensive a campaign becomes. It is often difficult for the imperial nation to include the settlers to contribute their "fair share" either in men or monies.
After all, settlers are there to make a living, not waste their time fighting wars -- that's the army's job! Settler militia can often be unreliable, either in deciding not to fight that day, or deciding to fight too much, taking advantage of hostilities to attack independent peoples who occupy good land or in some other way pose a threat. This can often go directly against imperial strategy when war is being waged against one group of independent peoples while trying to keep others neutral. While the imperial government and the settlers have similar objectives, divisions between them can be exploited by the native side to reduce the number of troops in the field at any given time.
COLONIAL OUTPOSTS: Colonial outposts represent colonies that have been militarily occupied, but do not have settlers or have only a skeleton administration. The network of garrisons are tenuously linked to another colony or the imperial power, with communications being slow and shipment of supplies and reinforcements also being slow. Resources have to be conserved as best as possible.
As the occupied colony is made up of a number of independent peoples or even semistates tiving just beyond the effective reach of the garrisons, alliances have to be made with them to maintain the imperial hold on the territory. Pacification campaigns, wars with guerrillas or rebels are the most usual campaigns the outposts would be involved in. Needless to say these would involve a lot of political intrigue and maneuvre.
AND FINALLY -- THE HOW
The complexity of a wargame campaign is up to you, but in all these set-ups it would be best to allocate certain "budgets" for different factors. Each type of country would be allocated a strength, certain reserves of supplies, and certain abilities to resupply itself periodically with certain commodities.
Each would also have a "budget" for food, ammunition weapons, intelligence and political intrigue, and each item would have a basic price. Intelligence would be money spent on spies, "friendlies", etc., to gain information on terrain, the enemy's strength and movements. Political intrigue would be money spent on getting different groups to change sides or sit out a campaign. Where only two persons are running a campaign which includes a number of different types of countries, perhaps the outcome of both intelligence and political intrigue could be determined by percentage dice and tables, adding and subtracting certain factors, just as most casualties and morale are determined on the table top.
If you wanted to spend more than your budget allowed for one commodity, you would have to do it at the expense of the budget of another. You might decide you need more food than ammunition more intelligence than reinforcements, or more political intrigue in the enemy's camp than food. You then subtract from one budget to add to another. However complex or simple you want to make your campaign, just keep the limitations and strengths of the different countries in mind, and then you might truly have a colonial campaign.
Related
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 1 #4
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