Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

I guess our different opinions are based on how we view the scenarios themselves. I don't limit myself to the bubble of "this one scenario is the whole world". I imagine the manuevering that might have went on before the battle started, and the aftermath of the battle itself. So in the context of an <u>orderly and fighting withdrawal</u>, (not just running for the nearest border hex!) it's acceptable to me, though my one personal example is likely to be my last. Capitalizing on ruining a fighting withdrawal is the challenge for the aggressor. It's just another facet of the cat (British) <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle> and mouse (Colonial) <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle> game that's fortunately inherent in a lot of scenarios.


Edited by - Phil Natta on 11/17/2001 17:40:26

Phil, let's not start all over again, or we will finally have to fight this duel, from one AdC to another, quite a show <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>... Mike Cox got his one (and he is beating me). <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

<font color=red>Capt. Walter
4th Regiment "King's Own"
AdC, Royal North American Corps of 1812</font id=red>

Edited by - D.S. Walter on 11/18/2001 16:44:42

Guys - as a former member of the club I want to approach this carefully - not making myself to sound like a kibitzer but as a Designer of scenarios.
Ok - here is what I feel about Scenario Design:
1. If every situation would herald a victory for holding the field then it is up to the Scenario Designer to make it such.
2. Add to #1 that in order for a victory to be such there must have been a holding of the main objectives BUT of not losing too much of your force.
3. If a withdrawing enemy destroys a 1/3 of his enemy but would be outnumberd by say 3:1 who is the victory? The guy that held the field but lost 1/3 of his army or the guy that fell back and preservered his army?
4. #3 depends on the operational situation.
5. If the British under Burgoyne had left the field at Saratoga then isnt it a given that no matter how many Americans they had destroyed that their retreat was to be construed as a loss? Their goal was to link up with the other forces that were supposed to be marching to the south. BTW I have read of very few operations where the wings ever came together. Only those of the Americans in the south later in the war seem to have worked to any degree. Most of the time a combined army was smarter.
6. Losses were important however and I think that this is to be reflected in the VP loss rate. I have had some misgivings of this in the system and try to make the VP losses for troops in my scenarios a bit different than the stock games. I have noted that it is all too easy to accomplish what Phil has done (was speaking more of 1776 than 1812 here) in some cases. We have had this club rule in all of our clubs and withdrawing has always been a Minor Defeat at the least. Was it?
7. My final point is that it is the burden of the Designer to put a game together where the losses are outweighed by the value of objectives in order to give the occupying force the victory. If that was the intention then put it in the scenario. If on the other hand to stand and fight was NOT the intention (Battle Road) then dont penalize the bloke that pulls back. Since the campaigns allow for this then why not let that speak for itself. Otherwise Scenario Deigners - put em together so that the land is worth a bit more than the troops!
Washington lost Germantown due to not holding the ground if I am not mistaken. On the other hand he did lose SOME troops. Surely alot less though than what I lost to Phil in my game with him! If I had been George we would still be paying that tea tax!
I hope my post helps - Phil has done alot of design work too as well as Famous Amos and Rich. They all know what I am talking about. From what I have seen of Rich and Al's scenarios they were very good. In my Eckmuhl scenarios I also had to keep that idea in mind. Was the job of the forces assembled to hold ground or destroy the other guy's army. I prefer the idea that the latter was more important. HOWEVER, most of the men in armies tend to get demoralized by constant retreating. Or do they? Borodino and the entire Peninsula battles of Wellington were one defensive battle after another. Napoleon and Burgoyne were destroyed by weather as much as by the troops they faced!
If you dont mind I plan on looking at the battles a bit and posting a set of threads that have stats on many of the scenarios. The idea will be "How many troops must I wipe out to negate the VP locations?" I will give some for instances in each and will also post the results on a website!
Miss you guys and hope you are all well and had a good Thanksgiving or good Fall!

Capt. Bill Peters, Morgan's Rifles, American Army