Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

It depends on the era.

In 1812, do doubt there were no 15 man units.

In 1776, the are many extant records of militia units that were in the 10 to 30 man range.

In the FIW, there were also many 10 to 30 man units, very similar to those that were later in the ARW.

Most often these units were from the same town or area, hence the term "Minute Men" that marched to Concord and Lexington.

I can document a lot of this from my own research, including receipts submitted to the governments for supplies, tolls (for being ferried across rivers) and other necessary items. Often a prominent member of the community (sometimes a veteran of the FIW) would gather together a group and actually serve for very short periods of time, when there were threats or notices of expected action. These "companies" would often elect the prominent person as Captain and also Lts, sergeant and corporals. I have some information of these units serving for up to one or 2 months, returning home and going out again during another threat.

These militia units might have been used during engagements as part of a larger force, but there basic unit stayed intact.

A lot of this is true for both the FIW and the Revolutionary War. Possibly, as the Continental Army got better organized, these smal groups were made a permanent part of larger units.

Very interesting, Ernie. [:)]

But even though these companies were organizational units, wouldn't they have been consolidated into large enough bodies to make them functional for tactical use on an ad hoc basis in battle?

For militia and minute men early in the AWI I would agree with you Ernie, but I am thinking about all those 12 man units one finds at Brandywine, or Monmouth. Those are regular units, and at least at Monmouth the army had begun being trained by Steuben. He advocated that any unit under 80 files be held out of the line or grouped with another (also any unit of more than 160 files split into two parts.) Thus a minimum of 160 rank and file for a tactical battlalion group. Depending how closely he would have followed the Prussian drill, this would break down into 4 'divisions' each of two platoons. For our purposes the 'division' would be more of the counter equivilant than the 'platoon' would be. I suspect that two companies would be grouped together to form these 'divisions' and the senior captain would take charge.

For game purposes, and to reflect the intent behind the training I think representing the US regular forces with four counters would be more accruate for the smaller units.

There is a difference, in the game, between four 10 man units firing at one target and one 40 man unit firing. The Brits have an intrinsic advantage within the game due to the rigid adherence to 8 counters per battalion for the Americans. I think the basic desgin should be that compay sizes should be held somewhere near 30-40 with total bn strength dictating the number of companies(conters) fielded for that battle.

Under the Prussian system, Dierk correct me if I'm wrong, the five companies were told off into 8 equal sized platoons for every action or engagement. Therefore, having equal sized sub-divisions within a bn was important to handling a bn properly in the field.

(not feeling well today, sorry for rambling.)

I just think that the game misses a bit with its current 10-15 man companies, and that play would be more challenging and fun if this issue were corrected. Still looking for historical documentation to back up or refute my theory.

BTW, as for F&I War I have seen many recruitment documents of companies that were raised for that war and all of them were of 70 to 100 men.

Al, I dont worry so much as to the number of men per unit as I do the ability of units to fire as often as they do. The benefit the Americans get is that they can surround the larger British units. Is this historical? I doubt it. Does it help balance the game? Yes, in the American's favor alot of times. If a British line suffers the loss of 5 units due to rout (not as likely with their good morale for the most part but of course exceptions abound) it is a major catostrophy. If the Americans suffer that much no big deal.

So to lump the Americans in is not a bad idea. Just make sure that it doesnt result in a total of half of the British movement elements (by this I mean counters). Thus if the Brits have 20 companies against 18 for the Americans (small ones of course) but you decide to group the small units into 9 units then you will have a real problem.

I have always like 25-30 men for a unit as it allows you to hit max stacking with max counters easier. I have often thought that the Brits could use MORE counters in alot of the battles thus if you took some of those 60 man units and broke them down into 2 30 man units it would work out better.

Historical? Hmm, probably not but then why are the Americans allowed more freedom of movement just because they happen to have smaller units?

So when it comes to the number of maneuver elements that is another issue but when it comes to having the same unit fire at you three times in five minutes and then perform drastic movement at you I think that this is a bit much.

I prefer the idea of:

1. If you dont move you can fire defensively

AND

2. If you didnt fire in the previous movement phase you have full firepower in your Defense Fire phase.

Hmm, sound interesting? Would give the defender that "Hold Fire" option.

But all good points made here.