Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

As I think I have fought more battles against Al Amos than against all my other opponents combined, and as I have had the privilege of trying many of his newly created scenarios with him and of thereby learning a lot about the thoughts behind them, and how they were meant to be played (thanks, Al! [^]), and as Al loves forts, I have defended near a score forts (from tiny stockades to large fortresses) in my carreer and attacked probably even more than that. You may say I know a little bit about forts. [8D]

Now I have a slight problem with the way tiny forts work in the game. I am not talking about medium to large size affairs like Tico, or the fortified town on Al's four-mile map used in my "Long Way Home", or Louisbourg. These things, IMHO, work as they should - they are very defensible, but can be taken by a determined all-out assault. (Still a pity that we don't have siege guns that can damage fortifications.) I mean really tiny six to ten hexes things like Fort Stanwix (in 1776) or Fort Edward (in F&I) or Fort Washington (is that for 1812? It's a while since I have played it). (I am writing this at the office and don’t have my games here.)

You know of course the best way to take a tiny fort is not to attack it at all, but bang away at the defenders until they rout. In a small fort, there is not a single hex that is not adjacent to a wall hex - in fact, in the really tiny ones, there is not even a hex that is not a wall hex itself. That means every hex that has to be defended, and hence occupied, is adjacent only to other such hexes. Hence all occupied hexes can be fired upon, and there is no way of preventing rout spreads.

The problem gets aggravated a lot when the fort has bastions. As invariably in such a small affair the bastions stick out like so many sore thumbs, and as we have no formation that would have no flank and rear (like the skirmisher in the Nappy games), the bastions need to be occupied by companies in line facing outwards, and hence they can be enfiladed by enemy troops adjacent to the main walls. Now as you can't leave the bastions undefended which would mean inviting the enemy into the fort, you invariably have to occupy them just to expose the defenders to enfilade fire and have them rout, and as the adjacent hexes have to be occupied as well, a bastion is nothing more than a guaranteed trigger for a general rout.

Now what I think is a bit weird here is that I believe that general routs are not very likely events for garrisons of besieged forts. The rationale behind a rout in the open is the desire to get the hell out of the trouble ASAP, hence you make for the rear with your best speed, and tell you what, it works - at least as a rule.

Alas!, there is no rear in a fort, and even less so in a tiny one. And routing from the walls, thus leaving them undefended is - and I am convinced every defender of a tiny fort besieged by a numerically superior force of blood-thirsty Frogs and Indians is perfectly well aware of that - about the worst course of action to take, as it means inviting disaster and probably slaughter for the entire garrison. I am convinced that for this simple reason alone general routs in besieged forts are not a very common event (but I am prepared to learn about them if they exist).

But there is something more. I wonder if being in a fort should not in fact mean a positive modifier on morale checks. Think about it - I believe that in an age of linear tactics and volley fire at 50 paces you feel awfully vulnerable in the open (I would!). Wouldn't you feel a hell of a lot less vulnerable even behind makeshift earthworks, not to mention regular fortress walls? I reckon it should cheer you up quite a bit to stand on top of six feet of stone with two feet more in front of you to cover the lower three quarters of your body, while the bad guys out in the open have no cover whatsoever.

Hence my question, would it not make sense to give defenders of a fort a hefty positive morale modifier on rout checks, both in game terms and in terms historical accuracy and common sense? I have simply seen too many forts taken just by making the garrison rout and lose stragglers until there was no-one left to defend the fort (btw, where do stragglers go in a stockade 250 feet across?). I don’t know if, and how, it can be done within the game logic, but I figure it could look something like this – the modifier would apply to all troops who are facing two wall (embankment?) hexsides combined with an elevation drop (to prevent the attackers from getting the bonus).

(And: I don't think rout limiting is the answer. Personally, I consider RL a flawed logic in itself, as it doesn't lower the chance of routing, but just makes routs partial instead of general - some guys run, some guys stay, and <b>that</b> is certainly a most unhistorical picture to me. No-one can convince me that when a brigade in the open began to run, some companies would have stayed behind just to be gobbled up by the bad guys. In any case, both sides would benefit from RL being on, and I think that only the fort defenders should get a morale boost.)

Dierk,
I would agree with you 100%, having seen this very thing at Stanwix myself.

I still recall the old (1990 or so) Battles of Napoleon game from SSI. Aside from the usual run of formations it also had an "open" formation. Now this is not "open order" like Extended line represents. Instead, it was a "formation" that was expressly intended for defending points like towns, and in our case, fortresses. In the open field, it was a terrible formation, able to be run off by about anything, but in towns it was a very tough nut to crack. I think that would be the real solution, but, what you mention is also important and wouldbe part of the solution as well

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br />
Hence my question, would it not make sense to give defenders of a fort a hefty positive morale modifier on rout checks, both in game terms and in terms historical accuracy and common sense? ...but I figure it could look something like this – the modifier would apply to all troops who are facing two wall (embankment?) hexsides combined with an elevation drop (to prevent the attackers from getting the bonus).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually - you could tie it to a supply source (found in most forts I believe). Units X hexes from a supply source (not a supply wagon) gain a +Y modifier on morale checks. (Might be the simpler solution.)

Col. Cox
NJM

Of course the simplest solutions would be to have specific oob's which have the defenders quality boosted to an A or B. I'm not a big fan of that option, however, as it makes creating campaigns more cumbersome.

Al, that creates other problems in any case, especially if you use quality modifiers.

It also doesn't address the problem that all those "free" flank shots degrade the protection of the fort by sticking that 20 modifier in there. If you think about it, it's pretty silly, as those units at the base of the fort are firing *up* at the defenders as a general rule, and so are unable to see anyone other than the few guys closest to them.

Maybe another idea (yet another engine change though) would be to have no flank shots on units in forts allowed if the shot comes across a fort hexside UNLESS the firing unit is at a greater height than the wall. Thus, that would allow for those times where artillery was able to set up on a nearby hill and pour shot down into the fort, and things of that nature.

Good point Gary. Forts and towns are odd in that they allow for flank shooting. And Dierk pointed out something I learned as well - you dont have to attack a fort IF you can rout the guys back from the wall. Case in point - Burlington Heights - you can snipe at the flanks of the British and rout them back (did this in one game) - your units cross the wall hex in the next turn or thereafter without having to have scaled the walls.

I would also say this to Al - the campaign game allows for OBs to flow into others. If you merely use the same OB but with different morale grades the unit losses should carry over if that is what you desire. On the other hand you can filter it so that they dont in which case the differing OB is not significant. Just copy the OB and change the morale grade.

Question: does this series have the Fanatical Morale type as in the NRC and Nappy games? If so perhaps the defenders could be treated as Fanatical?

On forts - one problem that I have learned from studying forts was that the defenders could and did take some flank fire. Which is why various defenses were erected to stop such fire. But as was pointed out here the fire is coming from a lower elevation (10 to 15 feet less I would say correct?).

Bill,

I said it made it more cumbersome, not impossible.

By having different oobs, you then have to make org files to get casualties carry over, etc, etc. Too much of a bother.

I would prefer to see a modification to the scenario editor that allowed one to alter the quality ratings of units in the same manner that we can alter strengths. [:)]

No we don't have golden morale.

Taking the morale bonus tied to a supply source one step further, it would be nice to have units rout to the supply source. This would, if the scenario was built properly, would have units fall away from the walls to the interior of the fort when routing. One can dream....

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
One can dream....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hey, you are on the design team, you can do much more than just dream. [;)]

I gather from the responses that a change as suggested seems to be desirable. Re individual suggestions for implementing it -

1) Bonus for being near a supply source. Has the beauty of simplicity. Would require that sources be placed in every fort (they usually are anyway) and nowhere else (I think sometimes they are, but not often). Problems - in a large fort, you'd need several to have troops in all wall hexsides benefit from the rule.

2) Increasing the morale in the OOB, SCN, or by other means (golden morale). Can be implemented without an engine change (the former two that is). Problem - would apply to all troops in the scenario. I.e., if troops start in a fort, they get the bonus, and keep it even if they make a sortie. Or the other way round, if troops start in the open and withdraw to the protection of a fort, they don't get any bonus.

3) Have a special formation for defending forts, bastions, buildings, villages, towns - one that takes hardly any losses from fire and has no flanks. Would fix the flank problem, but not the morale problem as such (let's face it, "D" quality guys run anyway, enfilade fire or not). Requires engine change. Also, the formation would have to be very weak, or not usable at all, in the open.

4) Disallow enfilade fire (effects) across a wall hexside, unless from higher elevation. Would probably be easy to implement, but still require engine change. Other problems - as with 3).

5) Give a morale bonus on facing wall hexes <b>and</b> down-elevation combined (my suggestion). Is flexible in that it applies only to troops that actually man a wall. Would apply to field fortifications, outer works, even actual nature-made embankments as well - whereever there is a defensive value. Requires engine change. Don't know how difficult it is to do.

Maybe a combination of any of those would be most helpful.

Would anyone of those who have contributed to this thread support a petition to HPS that suggests <b>any</b> change that would improve the fort defence situation? [8)]

No Dierk, I can only dream. You are talking about engine changes, and only one man can change that. So dream on. [;)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
Would anyone of those who have contributed to this thread support a petition to HPS that suggests <b>any</b> change that would improve the fort defence situation? [8)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not one? [B)]

I'll support a petition [:)], doubt it will move John much [V] But I'll certainly support it[:)]

*bump*

Thought I'd bring the original discussion where people can easily see it

Thanks Gary!

I musta had my head in the club books when this past by the first time. [8)]

I know I get more then a little miffed when my fort defenders cannot stand up to fire from lower elevations.

Even a fort the likes of Ticonderoga cannot hold back the hordes and I find myself having to devise defensive strategies and loose formations that allow routing wall defenders to "flow" away from the walls. Makes no sense .. we ought to be able to stay "at the wall" and bushwack those people out there in the open [:)]