Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)
https://wargame.ch/board/cc/

1812 Expansion Package
https://wargame.ch/board/cc/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=696		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  Rob Hamper [ Fri Aug 31, 2001 10:47 am ]
Post subject: 
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>On the gun boats issue...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Oh ok, so I guess it's up to someone to make a new scenario for Chrysler's! ...Rich, Al, Terry? :)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>On the Peninsula veterans...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Hmmm, I had thought their influence and effect would have been greater. Such a drastic drop in such a short time? Perhaps their effect was more telling in the numbers than their actual performance.

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

I was referring to the 1814 OOB. I was just scanning through all the units and the initial impressio I got was that it seemed the Americans had better overall leadership.

One thing I'm not fond of in the BG/HPS system is how all the lower leaders are pretty stock in terms of their quality/leadership numbers. Now I realize that to definitively rate every leader is impossible as there is a decided lack of such information and in any case the archival time and debate that would be necessary to assign the numbers is prohibitive.

Where this is most telling is in the British ranks where the senior leaders command lower level units as well as being in overall command. Rial, Drummond etc. all have much lower ratings while in charge of lower order units. Now I know that some leaders were less effective at lower (or higher!) command but I think in all cases here, the British officers (and US too I think) have lower ratings indicating poorer leadership. Keeps the game in balance I suppose, but it seems to fit too neatly and doesn't seem a fair portrayal of the leaders. On the other hand you might argue that being in overall command lessens their effectiveness, but that's another catch-all.
Author:  Rich Hamilton [ Fri Aug 31, 2001 2:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rob,

<font color=red>
Quote

One thing I'm not fond of in the BG/HPS system is how all the lower leaders are pretty stock in terms of their quality/leadership numbers. Now I realize that to definitively rate every leader is impossible as there is a decided lack of such information and in any case the archival time and debate that would be necessary to assign the numbers is prohibitive.

Where this is most telling is in the British ranks where the senior leaders command lower level units as well as being in overall command. Rial, Drummond etc. all have much lower ratings while in charge of lower order units. Now I know that some leaders were less effective at lower (or higher!) command but I think in all cases here, the British officers (and US too I think) have lower ratings indicating poorer leadership. Keeps the game in balance I suppose, but it seems to fit too neatly and doesn't seem a fair portrayal of the leaders. On the other hand you might argue that being in overall command lessens their effectiveness, but that's another catch-all.
</font id=red>

I hear what you are saying, and you make some very good points. The problem is, it was next to impossible to get all the leaders names (and many I never was able to get) much less a reliable description of how they performed. This war was increadibly under-covered, so information is scarce.

I will offer this...if you can come up with information to support changing the ratings on some of the leaders I'll be glad to do it and release it with a future patch from HPS...but if you do this, try to get a couple sources...another problem I ran into was Very biased "historians" who did the writing on this war...

Regards,

Rich

<HTML>
Maj. Hamilton, New York Militia, Secretary of War - CCC
</HTML>
Author:  Al Amos [ Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rob,

I made the 1814 campaign.

I agree that leaders, and units for that matter, should have individual ratings. Honestly, it came down to time.

If game design were my full-time job as opposed to my hobby, I would have gone through and rated everything. As it was, I ran out of time.

The references I found about the Peninsula veterans used along the Northern Theater was specifically about the men themselves, not Wellington or any thing along those lines. The men were not happy that they got shipped to America to keep fighting after whipping Napoleon. They let their attitude show in their performance.

al
Author:  Rob Hamper [ Fri Aug 31, 2001 9:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Al and Rich,

In almost every discussion about particular wargames I have seen on the web, not everyone can agree on how good a leader is. Jeez, they're still debating Napoleon's leadership! Between that and lack of information and biased historic records one would have to spend a lifetime trying to comprehensively rate all the leaders. And, as you say, some aren't even available. (I have yet to see a historical account of Captain Ernie Sands!!)
So, you've done the best job you can with the info at hand. It would be an endless debate I believe. For instance, I think you were spot on with your ratings for Andrew Jackson at New Orleans, but believe you were a bit stingy with Packenham, a Peninsula vet and Wellington protege. There are others that would be directly opposite this opinion, especially since the Brits lost so badly.

One future solution to the pat numbers might be to vary them randomly by 0 to 1 point, up or down, before every scenario. It could reflect a lot of things and in particular, just how effective a leader was that day since all leaders can't have the same effectiveness all the time. Hence, as overall commander, you couldn't have absolute faith in the performance of all your leaders every time you played.

For instance, I know from game to game exactly how a leader will function in the command chain. I don't even have to scan through them if I've played the scenario several times. However, if they were randomly altered according to a probablity spread I would (should) scan through them all and see who was switched on that day and who was the dim bulb. Perhaps a unit had higher officer casualties than usual, perhaps the leader was suffering from illness or wound or perhaps he was just in the "groove" that day and was in particularily fine form. In any case, it might have some effect on how I use my forces at that time.

Not sure if I'd do this for all levels of leadership, but this could lead to intriguing abstractions such as how Napoleon wasn't feeling well the day of Waterloo but seemed fine two days previous at Ligny. Anyway, just a thought.

Overall gentlemen, job well done!! It's a pleasure to finally see and move and fight all those units I've been reading about and there is something particlarily satisfying about re-creating your own history rather than someone else's for a change. Thank you for the opportunity.
Author:  Rob Hamper [ Fri Aug 31, 2001 9:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jeeez, I keep forgetting to ask this!!:

In running through the new 1814 scenarios (without looking inside them) I found I was never quite sure if the 1814 scenarios were historical or whether they were a figurative part of the 1814 campaign design.

The reason I ask is that I was interested in doing all the historical battles HtH in their proper order but I'm not sure if I should now use the original Chippawa_b or the new Chippawa_d (for example). Could you perhaps enlighten this "dim bulb" on how the 1814 scenaros relate historically and specify how it differs from the original??
Author:  Al Amos [ Sat Sep 01, 2001 4:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Rob,

The games in the expansion packet are loosely based on history.

al
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Sun Sep 02, 2001 7:53 am ]
Post subject: 
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Just curious how many people have downloaded this and are playing any of the included scenarios/campaign?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Hi Rich,

I am playing the entire campaign against Ens. Wieck of the Yankee Rebel Frogs.

<font color=red>Sgt. Walter
4th Regiment "King's Own"
Royal North American Corps of 1812</font id=red>
Author:  Rich Hamilton [ Sun Sep 02, 2001 7:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Hehehe, ok Dierk. Give us a reportwhen you're done, ok?

<HTML>
Maj. Hamilton, New York Militia, Secretary of War - CCC
</HTML>
Author:  Tishomingo [ Sat Sep 08, 2001 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Gentlemen,

To chime in on the Peninsula veterans in America. Some important things to remember.

Many of them came by way of Bermuda. The 'East Indies' station was thought of by British Troops only slightly more fondly than the Eastern Front to German Soldaten! An assignment there was viewed as a death sentence from the 'Yellow Jack', 'El Vomito' or any number of other virulent plagues. So lots of the New Orleans force were less than totally fit.

Next, Packenham had just arrived and superceded a popular commander. Further, he WAS a protege of the Iron Duke. And while there is no better mistress than victory, Wellington had lots of enemies in the service. His meteoric rise left many stepped on toes.

Finally, as Packenham himself voiciferously pointed out, good leaders are hard to keep alive when those damn American keep <i>deliberatly</i> shooting them with rifles! The infernal scrubs! Worse than Jacobites.

I have no notion of the veteran troops on the Niagra front but many of the same factors must have applied. Beating 'Boney' was a popular cause. Spilling more blood to protect the French Canadians and Redskins was NOT.

And the Navy was doubley hard hit. the combination of massive paying off of ships and brutal setbacks on the Great Lakes made them really unhappy. Morale was at an all time low at that time. No more Boney and no more chance of promotion in this life. So now it's the beach, and half pay.



<font color=red>'Tishomingo' James Gerbino
1812 American Irregulars
Chickasaw Tribe</font id=red>

Edited by - Tishomingo on 09/09/2001 18:24:03
Author:  Ernie Sands [ Sat Sep 08, 2001 7:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Looking forward to it, Rich. I am sure you and Al did an excellent job, as usual.<img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>Looking forward to the 152 turns scenario!<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>

<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>
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/