Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Hopefully this will only get posted once!
I have put together a page of ideas from what I have read on the subject. Go to:
http://nhwc.20m.com/awi/formations.htm

John,

Interesting reading. I disagree with many of your details, but your conclusion that players need to use their battalions as one unit and stack tight reducing frontages are dead on.

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

Which details?
Thinking on, I'd go for a modified pdt and oob plus stacking maximum and minimum limits.
Both limits are needed, maximum modified in the pdt, the other for the players to adhere to. Either that or change the ground scale, which is another can of worms entirely.
I'd be careful about having major's commands in just any scenario. This would be an expedient for a given mission rather than a spur of the moment detachment. The games already give players the ability to react instantly with any number of companies, so building in more flexibility should be done warily.

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

Interesting reading. I disagree with many of your details, but your conclusion that players need to use their battalions as one unit and stack tight reducing frontages are dead on.

Major Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<b></b><b></b><b></b>

Edited by - John Rice on 04/05/2002 08:10:05

John is correct, but one further thing, firing sections were told off according to several schemes depending on the conditions, the commander's preferences and the training. A firing section could be composed of one or more companies, or even by corporal's commands, (down to a quarter of a company.) I have to go, more on this later. But the dividing of regiments into two Major's commands would be a step in the right direction. Good thread, nice debate.

Larry Davis
Major of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

John is correct, but one further thing, firing sections were told off according to several schemes depending on the conditions, the commander's preferences and the training. A firing section could be composed of one or more companies, or even by corporal's commands, (down to a quarter of a company.) I have to go, more on this later. But the dividing of regiments into two Major's commands would be a step in the right direction. Good thread, nice debate.

Larry Davis
Major of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

File closing would be on the centre, where the colours were. Sub-units normally reform and dress by the right, but units do so by the centre, being commanded from there. The idea of the third rank (or second if in two ranks) dressing forward is probably incorrect, as the formation is by definition in a given number of ranks. True, I am partly drawing on drill more recent than the revolution, but drill ever since has its roots in that century.



Gents,

I'll freely admit, I don't have the technical knowledge to really contribute here (my interests are strategic and political, more than unit tactics.. but that's another story for another time).

However, if you do as Al suggests, something occurs to me. My understanding is that one of the roles of the third line was to "fill" the forward lines as they were lost in combat. So, say a 30 man company loses 5 men, I would think that they would have 10 front, 10 middle, 5 back.. thus lowering the loss in firepower... or do I misunderstand, and did they close ranks to a shorter 3-man line?
Now having images of a 3 man company in a 3 man line *L*



Sgt. Gary McClellan
12th Light Dragoons - 1st Reg, 2nd Brig, 2nd Div.
Northern Department
[/quote]

John,

Gathering information, rereading your page and clearing the cobwebs out of that part of my memory before I respond.

It may be faulty memory or incomplete knowkedge on my part, but as I read your thoughts something sounds 'off'.

Once I have my ducks in a row, I'll post a detailed reply.

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

The long awaited response! hehehe....

http://www.geocities.com/albert_amos/18 ... ponse.html

Just kidding.

John was right on the mark with his comments, I found. I disagree with some of his suggestions to implementing the proper information into the game.

So who want's to redo the sceanrios? hehehehe..

Well crum! Never try to right with three kids fussing in the room <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>.

I made mention of a 12 file platoon of 3 ranks, and how it would translate to unit strengths in the game but forgot to show the 2-rank verson <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>! So...

Working with 2 ranks if you had 12 firing platoons you would end up with a bn strength of 288 and one with 18 firing platoons would field 432 men.

So in this case the rule-of-thumb-numbers would be 288 men or less in a unit use 12 firing platoons, and anything above use 18 firing platoons.

This, of course, would be the guide for most of the Brit units to use while the one in the web-page would be for the Hessians and French (providing they use 12 or 18 platoons when 'telling off'.) Although, the Hessians should be using 8 as the Prussians did, shouldn't they?

More questions ... hehehe...

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

Edited by - Al Amos on 04/06/2002 12:40:29

Edited by - Al Amos on 04/06/2002 13:22:10

Bravo to John, Al, and Larry for putting this all down on virtual paper.

Discussions like this really help one get a firm grip on the concepts in the game.

I am looking forward to one oof you guys applying this to a scenario.



Maj. Mike Cox
New Jersey Militia
(1st Hunterdon Cty)
AdC American Army

Mike,

Of course we got make a scenario or two with this info and see how it plays out <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.

Rod was kind enough to give further guidance about telling off over at the Napoleon Series. ( http://www.napoleon-series.org/ )

He stated that the Regs indcated firing platoons were tobe 10 files to 16 files in size. So....

I think I will make a small scenario with the Brits already in thier firing platoons, and rated as Light Infantry to allow them to go into extended order, and double check the American oob to make it reflect what is written in the online book (link give in first message) and see what happens.

A quick excerpt from that source:
"Washington overruled Steuben's desire to classify it as a state secret because he hoped that the militia would also adopt the drill so that replacements would be properly trained before they joined the Army.55

Steuben's Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, Part I (better known as "The Blue Book") covered all aspects of infantry service. It specified that a regiment deploy tactically in eight companies, each under its own officers. (Chart 10) This system prevented the type of confusion that had crippled the Hessians at Trenton. A regiment with more than 160 files (320 privates and corporals) formed as two 4-company battalions; those with less than 80 files (160 men) either temporarily combined with a second small regiment or did not take a place in the line of battle. A special 12-man color guard gave each regimental commander an emergency reserve force. Light infantry companies either deployed as skirmishers or in provisional battalions. The column became the standard maneuver formation; training emphasized movement through broken terrain and rapid deployment into line. Bayonet charges were designed to maximize their shock effect.56 "

Not to steal John's thunder, but he was musing about having bns as our basic unit not companies or platoons. So...

I may make a different version of the same scenario to see how the two different approaches work.

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

Edited by - Al Amos on 04/07/2002 06:31:17

It all boils down to this

http://www.geocities.com/albert_amos/18 ... _test.html

A test.

Let's change some things around and see how we like it <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.

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

The design of the "new" scenarios sounds interesting. One point to consider is that the turns are 5 minutes long. So it may not matter how the firing was done, as the game is designed to approximate the conditions and tactics of the time. By the time of the ARW, the British army was using "Alternate" firing, an improved version of platoon firing. The main difference being that the platoons were usually the companies themselves, rather than being broken down into smaller units. Wolfe used both methods in the 1750's when he commanded the 20th regiment, and preferred the alternate version due to being less complex and better for morale; the men were with their own officers and comrades. Wolfe said this method ".. is the most simple,plain and easy and used by the best disciplined troops in Europe, which we are at all times to imitate them in that respect." (He was referring to the Prussians and the French.) By the time of the '64 regulations, the alternate firing was the standard for line companies. The regiment was the basic tactical unit, but major's commands were often used, and even single companies were used for detachment as the need arose. For a set piece battle, the bulk of the regiments were lined up European style, but at anytime, a regiment might be broken up to act in a "lights" capacity. Of course some regiments were better at this than others. Good examples of this were the 40th during the Germantown campaign, and the 24th in the Saratoga campaign. I would caution about making all British regiments as lights for the game. Perhaps only a one or two out of an entire army for a given scenario. Despite the advanced training many regiments received upon coming here, the preferred method was still a line battle. Giving too many units the light capability will deviate from the fighting style of the period.

To get back to firing, keep in mind that the platoon or firing subdivision as it was termed could consist of a company or multiple companies, and in this game would be approximated by either firing companies singlely or grouped. The problem is that each turn consists of 5 minutes time duration. A regiment of 8 line companies firing as 8 platoons would in theory fire 3 times a minute. This is governed by the fact that the purpose in utilizing this method had to do with maintaining a constant rate of fire, a heavy rate of fire and to keep a good portion of fire in reserve. The fire rate and subdivision make up was governed by the enemy force being faced. A weak force would not require as much fire power as a strongr one. Theoretically, a regiment could fire 15 times in 5 minutes. However, that high rate was never attained. The standard issue cartridge box used by the British held 36 cartridges. Sometimes the men were issued more to be placed in their pockets. However, muskets fouled and flints broke making them less likely to fire, so volleys became ragged and less disciplined.
So firefights were usually fairly fast and furious, but over quickly. The time in a battle was chiefly spent manuvering. I liked the idea Rich had with the alternate pdt file used in 1812. The close range firing was made more effective. To that I would add a reduction of range for all muskets and rifles.

The British army manuevered in column, and fought in battlelines just as you suggest for the American units, so they should both be the same in that regard. Because of the 5 minute turns, It may not be possible to really give a good approximation of the 2 vs 3 rank firings or even the alternate firing method. Breaking the regiments into 2 sub commands is a good idea. I also like the idea of limiting the hex to 150 or so men. On the scenarios i've made, I also have the American regiments armed with both types of muskets, except for the few who were documented as being all armed with bayonets, or rifles. Rifles were rare in those days, and only a few companies should have them. But if only a few companies have them, then rifle effects should also be used. All these are of course my opinions, but I a must say, this has been a great discourse. None of us can really know how things were done and we are limited in our knowledge to the writings of just a few people, but these little debates can bring together alot of sources that we each may not have access to on our own.

Larry Davis
Major of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

Larry,

the time limit doesn't seem to bother me at all and I don't think matters at all on how the units are organized.

One of the objectives I have is having units sub-divided as they really were. If companies, fine if firing platoons fine as well.

The Prussians had a 'walking fire' tactic of a platoon fire advance reload while another fired, etc. etc. Perhaps the Brits did something like that as well.

By breaking the bns down in a more realistic manner may allow us to use more historical tactics.

For the 1776 test, I will not be sub-dividing the regts into major's commands. I will be giving each bn two leaders so the player can create his own 'major's command' depending upon game conditions and needs.

Yeah the Brits moved up in column and ployed into line, too. I didn't mean to short change them.

My empahsis, primariarly for me, was noting that the American units under von Steuben did not appear to train in the 'open' formation therefore not deserving the Light unit type rating in game terms.

Of course the war was, what (?), 8 years long so I'm sure each the unit type and quality ratings for each battle could be completely different for the armies.

This is merely an experiment to show what can be done with this engine in terms of tweaking and personalizing scenarios to match your expectations <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.

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

I just ran across another tidbit. When in "open" order, the British light's files were 4 feet apart, and the files were 10 feet apart for "extended" order. The definition for these terms were obviously different from those used for line infantry, where I believe the open order was 6-12 inches and extended order was 18 inches between files. By the planets! This can be difficult sometimes.

Larry Davis
Major of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

Larry,

I'd agree with you all the way around.

Open order - meaning skirmish order was files of 6 to 10 paces apart.

Open order - meaning extended order meant an arm's length interval between men.

So in the game, I would say extended order formation (when you click the x button) would be the arm's length interval, and if you want to show skirmishers you have a full hex interval between the skirmishing units and the ZOC area is were the skirimishing troops really are and thier formed supports are in the hex where the counters are.

Confused everyone? good. hehehe...

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