Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

"Scholarly" sounds like an offence!<img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle> At least when you say it about a hard-fighting officer in H.M. army! So shall we meet at dawn, too? <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

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

Cheerios!

<b><font color=red>Ernie Sands
LtC,3rd East Kent,CCC
Cpt,1 Konig,VIII,AdR
BG, 3/XXIII AoO
President, Colonial Camp Club
Sch,183Inf,VIII,PzC
Pvt B Co, 3/3-MBC </b></font id=red>

Very interesting arguments all around.

I'd like to add a couple of points for discussion. First, for all the late 18th, early 19th century battles that I've read about, the victor was never the one who left the field. Hence, if you leave the field you cannot win and any withdrawl while you were in a "victory" condition could be construed as gamesmanship (unethical being a strong term).

If your desire was to preserve your forces, then your opponent has scored at least a moral victory even if his losses were more than that of the withdrawing side. To hold the field was as important to the grunts as it was to the officers.

To the argument about map edges and sides, we have to remember that engagements were broken off and the pursuit had various levels of success. It was entirely possible to withdraw from the field of battle and break contact with your foe. It kind of boggled me how this could be possible, but one has to remember that the rabbit always has more incentive to run than the fox. Pursuing commanders had to preserve their forces' cohesion much better than their quarry wanted or was able to do. The pursuers therefore moved at a somewhat slower pace, also being slowed by rearguard actions, limited visibility and so on.

The crux then is that withdrawing from the field is entirely acceptable as a defensive maneuver so long as it is recognized that the side that withdraws cannot claim a victory; perhaps at best, a draw. The pursuer, if in a 'Loss' condition would be upgraded to 'Draw'

Even should the departed side have inflicted incredible loss (why then are you leaving?) on his opponent, abandoning the field will be looked upon by contemporaries, the soldiers and future CCC historians as a loss.

Obviously, if your scenario was to withdraw as many forces as you can, then you can leave the field with any victory condition you can muster.

Simply put, no flag on the field, no victory. The best you should hope for is a draw.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<i>First, for all the late 18th, early 19th century battles that I've read about, the victor was never the one who left the field. Hence, if you leave the field you cannot win and any withdrawl while you were in a "victory" condition could be construed as gamesmanship (unethical being a strong term).</i>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes. The option to leave the field should not be used to obtain a victory by trickery. May be this is the reason why this debate runs around in circles: the assumption was that one side was extremly outnumbered and there seems to be no way to win the scenario or even stand it without beeing massacred. In this situation it is historical as well as logical that this party tries to leave the field to save its army. Making a good retreat in a situation like this is a science by itself.

But, this may be used by some players to achieve a victory "through the backdoor". To prevent this there could be some house roules. Like you have suggested, the maximum outcome for the retreating party should be draw. This may go along with the number of turns played:

- 1/2 of the turns played: maximium outcome for the retreating side is a draw ("they made a gallant stand and withdrew in best order")
- 1/3 of turns played: minor defeat ("they run as fast as they could")
- less than 1/3: major defeat ("they turned around and went to hell")

At last don't forget the victory hexes! In most scenarios they give enough points for a major victory. If one side is in controll of all victory hexes (what it is when the opponent runs away) this side must have had its army butchered in this game to not achieve more than a draw.

"Making a good retreat in a situation like this is a science by itself."

Exactly, if your forces are in that poor a condition and your opponent cannot take advantage then does he really deserve a "victory"? He should realize that he is fortunate to have a draw.

"At last don't forget the victory hexes!"

Exactly again. If your opponent quits early, then chances are he didn't inflict enough damage on you to offset the loss of victory points. In that case, a retreat will likely end in a victory for the party on the field anyway.

On the other hand, if you've been badly handled, then all the victory points on the field might not be enough to balance the losses. In that case, you don't really deserve the win anyway as you've taken too many casualties. A Draw can then be seen as a sweet but bitter victory, at least to your own ego!

One of the problems is victory points themselves. They are really in place to make players follow a semi-historic path and to help when playing the AI. There is nothing strategic about Lundy's Lane. The actual possession of the hill meant nothing to the war. A true battle would be determined by casualties only. Once one side lost enough it would withdraw or surrender. In human vs. human contests, only the points for casualties should matter. The determination of the value tactical locations is solely determined by the commander on the scene. Hougoumont wasn't a vital possession to the battle, but Jerome turned it into a place of some importance.

This is especially true in campaigns where, as we all know, losses carry over and the more you can inflict on your opponent, the less influential his forces will be in coming engagements.

Very good points Rob and Ralf. Much as I dislike house rules that have to be remembered as exceptions to normal play, I do think that the victory conditions described by you two are fair and reasonable.

In my case, I would never withdraw with a victory just to end the game early with that result. Nor would I end the game prematurely without putting up a decent fight well into the game. By Ralf's conditions (at least half the game played) and with my opponent owning all VP hexes and the game still a draw, you have to come to the conclusion that despite the VPs and the game being a draw, that I did put out a serious effort.

I fully understand the disappointment that could result when someone has you by the tail and you make good a successful withdrawal, but let's assume the tail belonged to a chameleon and in a grand defensive effort...leaves you holding the tail <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

At any rate it's not a new found tactic that I'll be practicing to perfection in the future. It was indeed one of those very rare occurances when all the stars where aligned just so in order to do it.

Thanks for you insightful comments gents!

I think in the situation where a good fight was made, but remaining on the field is hopeless, an orderly retreat is OK for the defender to do. It is historically realistic as well. The person on offense at that point should be able to assertain what's happening and look for opportunities to hack the fleeing forces, so getting away(off the board) is certainly not guaranteed( the draw could have turned into a victory for your opponent). I remember an ACW scenario I played recently where my opponent had a victory and began withdrawing. i was able to catch him in a number of areas and turn the game completely around to my advantage in a few turns.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
A basic question for everyone:

Is it considered "unethical" to withdraw all of one's units from the map in the face of certain defeat in order to preserve a hard fought draw, well into the game?

I recently did this against an excellent Colonial opponent at Bladensburg variant D, playing through 24 of 36 turns.

To set the stage for this example, I had a force of 3859 men, two guns and two rockets already on map...no reinforcements for me. The Colonials had 5540 men, 19 guns, plus two regiments of reinforcements coming on later. More importantly IMO is that the Colonials had probably 3 to 4 times as many actual units than I had, with a long road full of steadily advancing units being fed into the battle.

I started out aggressively enough to hurt some Colonial cavalry and other units to gain a draw in a game that started out as a minor Brit defeat. As more and more Colonial units kept joining the fray, I found myself having to back up a hill just to maintain equal losses and some space. As more and more blues mixed in, I had to go on the defensive just to maintain a backpeddling and weakened line. About turn 20 or so the game was still a draw but I was now being pushed toward a map edge, and Colonial units were starting to surround my position. At this stage I knew for sure that to hang around and exchange fire would only get my whole force isolated and eventually annihilated, so since I had to do a lot of walking backwards anyway, I walked my units (some ran) toward the map edge intending to cut my losses and preserve the draw, which was <u>barely</u> a draw by this time. Each turn I exited what units I could as the Colonials pressed in and tightened the noose. I did exit the last British unit and the game ended as a draw on turn 24.

I'm as competitive as the next guy, but I do not see any merit in handing over a free win just on principal of dieing to the last man. Had I really been in command of an army in that situation, I'd have left the field even earlier hoping to "rise again" as you Colonials are fond of saying

So I guess the point is do we play as armies fought historically (note the many many orderly American withdrawals in the ARW) or do we stick to some sense of ethic which says that one should go down to the last man when facing total rout, elimination, and a certain loss on the record books?

My esteemed and quite skillful opponent BTW was Mark Collino who in no way complained about my withdrawal, but did razz me a little to which I took absolutely no offense at all

To state my position, I truly feel that all's fair in love and cyber-war. If someone wants to try to snag a VP hex on the last turn playing against me, he'll find capable and fresh troops defending it. If he wants to attempt to capture my leaders or supplies with rogue cavalry units that's fine. All the more points for me because I don't leave those units in harm's way or unattended out in the open. I don't employ such tactics myself, but don't mind at all if others practice unsound tactics . Relatedly, I don't make a practice of withrawing, in fact this is the first time I've purposely done it as far as I know, in nearly 70 club matches. But in this particular situation it surely warranted it in my opinion.

I've seen discussions about this in other clubs degenerate into bickering and flaming and that's not what I'm after. I would be greatful for anyone's opinion on the matter though.

Edited by - Phil Natta on 08/23/2001 21:05:56
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

[quote]
"Scholarly" sounds like an offence!<img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle> At least when you say it about a hard-fighting officer in H.M. army! So shall we meet at dawn, too? <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>


It would be a pleasure to test you once the harvest is in. After all, I am just a hard working farmer, trying to protect my home!

The scholar reference was to your calling as historian. Although, I was certainly trying to stir up a wee bit of trouble in the ranks!

Until then,

Mike

Oh yes, the point of this thread -

I think that most, if not all, of the CCC members would not resort to "gamey" tricks to achieve or preserve easy victories. If they did, they would surely be savaged here in the tavern. As such, let the game handle the victory conditions. A balanced and well thought out scenario will have considered the appropriate ratio of casualties and weighed them with the vicory hexes.

Now back to throwing sand in the gears of His Majesty's war machine....



Edited by - Mike Cox on 08/30/2001 01:36:47

Edited by - Mike Cox on 08/30/2001 01:38:57

This topic needs some 're-visting' methinks..<img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle>

CCC Rank = Major
CinC Colonial Army

How so David? Something happen recently that needs discussed?

Cpt. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

[url="http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/amos/CCC/1812regulars.htm"]<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/amos/CCC/chippewa_s.gif " border=0>[/url]

At this stage Al I'm not going to 'air' this other than make certain parties aware that we've had this topic on the club message board before. (and hopefully the information will be digested)
However, all Colonial officers should receive a briefing shortly through my AdC.

CCC Rank = Major
CinC Colonial Army

These are all very interesting comments which seem consistent with what I have read recently. I just finished a book on the life of Frederick the Great of Prussia( son of Frederick Wilhelm). The tactics were very educational for the period.

As for historical outcomes, when I do miniature American Civil War gaming we like to see historical outcomes if the moves we make are the same as were done in history. That says the rule set is representative. the same applies to the IA algorithms for HPS or any other historically based games. A good way to playtest results could be to replicate the battle and see if the results are close to what happened.

Beyond that I like to try different things to see the result of a change in tactics.

Doug
ACW BGenl AoM/II/I/I
CCC Sgt Continentals/ Eastern/II/II

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<i>
But historically, there was no map edge and no victory points.Would you have got away with your army intact if there had not been a map edge protecting you from pursuit? </i><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A closer look on battles of the 18th and 19th Century shows that these battlefields had some kind of a map edge. Usually the fields had a size of not more than 10*10 Km (most them were even smaller). In this zone all combat did take place. When the loosing side leaves the field the fighting did stop and no serious pursuit was done by the victor. This was in true in nearly all battles of the 18th Century and the majority of the 19th C's battles.

But, you are right: this is a game. And players are much less cautious than the historical commanders.

This leads us to another question, which I have heard in another club: "Do you play games like <i>C1776</i> or <i>Battleground</i> to win the game or to simulate a historic situation?" In the debate this club (in which I didn't participate and which has allready disapeared from the net) the "historians" named this or that historic situation or circumstances in which this or that had happend what they want to see in the game as well, and demanded more and more house rules. On the other hand the "gamers" were angry on everything that limited their choices.

I think, in most clubs the "historians" have their way because "simualting" seems to be more educated than "just playing" (what is, of course, pure nonsens).

In the end this question can only be answered by everyone for himself. May be, one should ask his oppenent what he prefers: useing all cheap tricks between here and the drak side of the moon to win, or behaving as headless as the historic commanders to reenact the situation.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>These are all very interesting comments which seem consistent with what I have read recently. I just finished a book on the life of Frederick the Great of Prussia( son of Frederick Wilhelm). The tactics were very educational for the period.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, I had the battles of the Silesian Wars in mind when I worte my statement. But There were some changes in tactics in the course of the Seven Years War that led to the Napoleonic tactics and to 19th Century warfare.

Which book did you read? One of Duffy's?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Is it considered "unethical" to withdraw all of one's units from the map in the face of certain defeat in order to preserve a hard fought draw, well into the game?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In a recently concluded scenario The Battle of Greenspring Farms against Al Amos I reached a similar predictament on turn 24 of 36 as described by Phil Natta - Still a draw but defeat was inevitable in a few more turns.In my opinion withdrawal from the field is a tacit admission of defeat and ought to be recorded as such regardless of how the game scores the result.

Peter Green
Brant's Volunteers

I view it this way. In campaigns, withdrawal is acceptable and even recommended for both sides as the troop losses are carried over into the next battle.
In regular single games, rather than withdraw from the field I would offer a PBEM termination bid for either a minor loss or a major loss based on my view of what my opponent could achieve. Withdrawing from the field to save oneself from a loss or higher level of loss isn't worth it IMO. Another battle can be fought another day.

Corporal Sam Moon Ferguson's Amer. Volunteers