Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Which do you prefer...

Playing a game within strict time period limits, or game engine limits?

An example. If you have decided to smash the enemy with your right flank, which do you think is the proper manner to handle your center.

A. The game approach - Disperse it and hide the units behind woods, etc and assemble a grand battery with your 3 & 6 lb battalion guns? or,

B The historical approach - Keep your units in the open in proper line formations, perhaps withdrawing it to stay more than 500 yards of the enemy, keeping your battalion guns with their battalions and accepting casualties on your exposed center while your right wing moves in for the kill?

My answer is B, and I am happy to lose to a player that picks B. Why? Because I enjoy watching the parade like nature of the time period and then I can practice time period counter measures to see if I can win.

If a player picks A then I figure he is just moving several counters around not really caring to portray time period flavor thereby robbing me of my gaming enjoyment of not seeing the 'grand spectacle of battle'.

When my opponent picks the A style of play I can't really tell if we're playing chess, checkers, WWII, AWI, Space invaders (okay since its not a realtime game its not space invaders <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.)

Afterall, the Age of Reason was all about grandeur and splendor. Symetrical, linear formations, wheels and firefights, etc. etc.

It is not if I win or lose, but if, for the time spent playing the game, I was transported back to era of the game I am playing and was able to in some part taste its flavor.

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

B.
I like historic fighting, Most of the time I'll fight like an 1776 soldier and not like a WW2 combat marine. If you army is large, show it off. Which is why I really like the Bar Fight scn. After all this is a "civilized war" where gentlemen fight, not like Morgans riflemen at Saratoga. <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

Maj. Gen. Sean Coffey
23rd Royal Welch Fusiliers
British CiC

I'll be up front and honest and pick A, the game approach, since that is after all what we're playing. Though Tiller's games are great, they don't necessarily encourage totally accurate, 100% historically based tactics. Nobody loves the spectacle and grandeur of linear formation fighting more than me. I love it in movies, reenacting, paintings, etc. But it's absurd to demand the use of this style of play in 1776 or 1812. Massed batteries concentrating fire on line hinges and weak points may not be ARW "official" style tactics, but in these games it will lead to collapsed enemy lines and worse for them. Conversely, having friendly units just stand around on open ground well within reach of enemy artillery was stupid in 1776, and it's equally disasterous in these games. You don't automatically gain points for playing "historically", in fact, you'll likely lose a ton of points if you do play very historically. As much as I admire the courage to calmly march into a line of bristling bayonets and hell fire, I can't swallow the sheer stupidity of it.

It doesn't matter to me one tiny bit, nor should it be a concern of mine, what my opponent chooses to do or not do. If I can handle and counter whatever he throws at me, perhaps I deserve a win. If not, I definitely deserve a loss. Winning isn't so important to me, but not playing stoopid is!

<center><font color=gold> Brigadier General Sir Phil Natta Esq. KB</font id=gold></center>[url="http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/cccbritisharmy/FootGuards.htm"]<center><font color=red>HM First Foot Guards</font id=red></center>[/url]<center><img src="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/b3df3682/bc/1776/footflg4.gif?bc3b6F9Ajy932yH0" border=0></center>

I prefer B myself, though I will openly admit that my knowledge of the details of the tactics and deployments of the era limits my ability to do that.

Honestly, I've always been more of a strategist than a tactician... even before I left WWII behind, I'd play Third Reich gladly, but never even tempted to play Squad Leader.

Though, as a general rule, I do try to fight as historically as I know how, and if there is to be fighting in the woods, I try to get my light infantry in there, where it's more their cup of tea in any case. Still though, I openly admit that my ability to do so is limited, and I'm sure that everyone who has played me could give 1000 examples of my failures, but I'm learning.

Ensign Gary McClellan
12th Virgina Light Dragoons
CO, Northern Department

Couple of thoughts on this..
1) If the engine were more robust, you could come close to "B", but the reality is..
2) More like "A", so that's how I tend to play

The battleview itself is unrealistic so any attempt to be "historical" is limited at best. No General has the overall instantaneous view of the battlefiled we do in these games. IMHO, a timed, MPG online with issued orders, a third party or judge, and order changes by courier only get closer, but the problem remains. We just see way too much of the battlefield

Mingoe "High Head" Rodes
Okla Hannali Choctaw
1812 American Army Irregulars

To clarify, this question pertains to 1776 only, as the War of 1812 requires different play style to reflect the nearly 40 years between the start of the two wars.

When you play War of 1812 you should model your efforts off of Napoleonic battalion tactics and brigade movevments.

BTW, although organized like the Brits, US forces studied and attempted to follow French practice.

An interesting mix of the two military philosophies altered to fit the unique conditions of North America.

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

A slightly 'strange' topic as I'm not aware of too many battles in the ARW where one side 'accepted' casualties indefinatly and carried on regardless with the exception of Bunker Hill - and it appears the British learnt some lessons there for most of the rest of the war.

Are we talking about actual 'historical' play or what we 'believe' we should play as? - there are many incidents of 'sneaky' British tactics (GreenSprings Farm for example) and woeful Colonial headlong blundering (Monmouth?/Germantown) - which the media/jingoistic historians would have us believe didn't occur, they did - and 'our' battles (given the restraints of the game engine) should reflect that.

Hmm, perhaps not such a 'strange' topic after all!

CCC Rank = Major(bvt Gen)
CinC Colonial/US Army

"I'm not aware of too many battles in the ARW where one side 'accepted' casualties indefinatly and carried on regardless with the exception of Bunker Hill - <u>and it appears the British learnt some lessons there for most of the rest of the war.</u>"

And there's the crux of the matter. I am very much aware of those mistakes made in the past, and have no interest at all in duplicating them in a game of competition just for the sake of playing "historically" and satisfying a player/historian. Were I to always play in a strict and rigid historical manner, I may as well just pick an opponent, a scenario, and send in an immediate game report as a loss. On the other hand, I don't do anything wildly ridiculous either. I keep my command and formations together and in order, and do follow some basic tactical principles that hold true for the ARW and for 1812. But to severely hamstring yourself by not playing with some imagination and alternate plans is just plain silly to me.

Al, you sure you're playing on the right side? You're starting to sound like Lord Cornwallis, or maybe Lord Cardigan! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Forward, the Light Brigade!
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

And don't forget the men who were innovative and daring enough to reject old and ineffective military doctrine, Frederick, Napoleon, Natty Phil...<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>


Edited by - phil natta on 05/21/2002 02:09:58

Gents,
I reckon I will throw my two cents in this topic. I prefer to play as historical as I can within the limits of the game and the opponent. That is one reason I prefer to use the single phase, all optional rules, except the dreaded two, (rifle fire and Cornwallis Cannon). I feel that it forces a bit more historical play. I simply love the line movement disruption rule. I believe it tends to make us move a bit more slowly to dress the lines so to speak. I also think that the ability to change formation anytime in movement is good and tends to make us move a bit more historical as well, especially with the line disruption on. Others may disagree, that is their right. After all, that is history is all about! If a person wants to play the "wham bam, thank you mame" rigid zone, traditional, then I can play that too. I believe, like the good Chief Mingoe, that the major thing we have to overcome to get a good historical feel is the " 2d zoom out satillite imagery" we all use. I know that on a big field, like Monmouth or Brandywine, I lose track of my units and go back and forth from 2d zoom to 3d zoom to ensure I have everyone moved etc. I have been toying with the idea of playing one in 3d normal only. At the beginning of each turn you can find your CO and view it from 3d zoom out with the visible hexes only showing, no movement is allowed. Make your decisions and then go to 3d normal and execute. I can see all sorts of neat things happening. Taking the wrong road, advancing too far and leaving a flank open, missing opportunities, etc. You know, all the stuff that made life worth living back then! That should definately add to the flavor and make us a bit more cautious in moving, sorta like they were way back then. I reckon that once I finish up some business, I shall see if anyone would like to try that on just for the heck of it!
Ensign Hopper
21st Infantry

Chris, you need a command style game to get this feel. On each side you have one player and one commander. The commander never gets to see the map. His orders may be total nonsense when actually executed on the field. Wow, that's real FOW. Add delayed information, lost orders, and other frictions, and we are as close as we'll ever get. Those games where I had some good guys to go along with that were among the best I have ever played. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<font color=gold>Lt.Col. D.S. Walter O.S.M.
Commanding 4th Regiment of Foot, "The King's Own"
Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold>

As for the general question posed by Al.

These games are not historical reality, not simulation, not maneuver, not re-enactment. Yet, neither are they chess. They are a compromise in between, they are trying to capture the feel of warfare of the period while still retaining the "game" approach - they are competetive, there is a winner and a loser, there are ways to victory other than the historical ones, we can reverse history and win at Saratoga, and be it with the advantage of hindsight. But we can as well try to come as close to the feel of the period as we positively can. That must not mean losing, but it may mean trying to win the historical way, and lose if you can't.

I am easy. Some of my most esteemed opponents play the "everything the game engine allows is fine" approach, and then I am no fool and play that way, too. I mention particularly Mingoe Rodes and Mike Cox, two very fine Gentlemen who have given me some of my most challenging fights.

Other opponents prefer the historical approach, and I enjoy those games very much, too. It's a different experience altogether. When I play those games, I feel more like simulating the actual experience of a 18th century British general than playing a game. I am not too well-read in 18th century tactics, and I may still do things that no-one back then would have dreamt of doing, but then it's inadvertently. In those games, however, I know that I can keep my leaders behind my neatly arranged lines because I know those opponents would never even think of taking one isolated company, sending it commando-style around my flank and down the line capturing all commanders. I love to play with the alternate PDT, which makes attacking a hazardous gamble, but sometimes it still works. If it doesn't, I have usually still enjoyed the game enormously, but for different reasons. I have no problem with failing where Burgoyne, St. Leger, or Cornwallis might have failed, too, yet if I win still, it's a good feeling to have given my opponent a fair chance more or less in keeping with historical precedence. Besides, I simply love to play with those 3D counters, building lines of battle with leaders behind the front, cannon on the flanks, lights out front, and then forward! ... and be it into disaster. I am glad to have found opponents who play those games with me and enjoy it same as I do, and I mention particularly Al Amos and Chris Hopper.

So either is fine with me, I just like to know beforehand (and in the meantime, I ask). I admit that I was not quite as flexible when I was a newbie. For a young Regular or Corporal, it's important to win some fights in order to be taken serious. Meanwhile, winning is fine when I play for the win, and winning or losing is fine when I play for the fun of playing.


<font color=gold>Lt.Col. D.S. Walter O.S.M.
Commanding 4th Regiment of Foot, "The King's Own"
Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold>

I'm responding to your quote, "I'm not aware of too many battles in the ARW where one side 'accepted' casualties indefinatly.."

True, this is what often decides battle, that one side or the other decides to not accept any more casualties <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.

In my example, however, the army wasn't just accepting casualties. It was attacking, with its left wing. By setting out in the open, the Center is not being stoopid, Phil, it is doing its job keeping the enemy's attention while the Left attacks. Staying 500 yards or more keeps the troops in long to extreme artillery range and loses are realitively few, maybe as 'high' as one per cannon per turn. If they just sit there won't be any ADF directed at them. So they sit, and 'pin'. They stay formed for battle, in sight, as a threat. If they disappear completely, the enemy could move against the left. If they 'dissolve' the battle line and hide in columns or clumps to stay out of sight, they risk destruction should the enemy advance and catch them.

In our games, we 'see' too much, so catching someone like that is difficult to do, so really there is no risk. I think that is why the Center should stay formed and in sight, and yes by all means stay out of musket, rifle and cannister range. To assist the game engine in creating the feel for the period.

To hide about and remove all or nearly all targets from sight, is to create an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty on the battlefield, causing battalions to stumble into each other in other than the prescribed battle formation of the day. This then is asking the 'non-player' battalion cadres to fight in non-historical ways, and this is where I find fault with the game approach method.

A player should think of innovative ways to win or increase his chances to do so, but he should NOT have his 'non-player' formations work in unhistorical ways.

If the troops were drilled to fight in a tight compact line, to move across the terrain (any except defiles) in lines, stoppiing to dress as necessary, then players SHOULD have their battlaions do that. They should not have them adopt Napoleonic, or ACW, or Franco-Prussian War, or WWII tactics. They should accept the fact that loses will accure because the troops have to fight as they were drilled.

This does not mean you have to always march straight into and enemy match up unit for unit and see who breaks first. Frederick did not, but he still sent his units up in line and kept his battlelines formed even if under enemy artillery fire.

You can advance the whole line, you can advance refusing the left, the right, the center or both wings. You can oblique march so your center hits my right, your left evelops my right and your left refuses to occupy the attention of my center and left. But your units should still maintain their linear formations (battalion on line with sub-units on line.) Stacking depends upon the mission, the attacking portions will want to stack-to-the-max to bring the most available combat power to bear, while pinning missions will necessitate battalions to increase thier frontages.

When you advance, you advance in line formations, unless you are crossing a defile, or moving a great distance ... say over 1,000 yards, and when you do use the column formation for the sub-units, the counters (be they firing platoons or companies) then you have the battalion form a column of advance with sub-units following each other into the same hex. You don't advance a line by forming the sub-units into column and moving, then changing into line. No need to use line disruption option if you play that way.

In summary, you don't play stoopid either way. You have your battalions and companies operate historically as they have drilled to do and are trained to do, and you add your own creative style in at the brigade or army level by the mission you employ your different bragdes with.

It really does matter, this is warfare in 1776. This game should not be played as you would Naps, or WWII, or 'Nam. If you play all the games the same, you won't be able to see how the different eras were different, and may as well play chess.

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

Interesting, well Al thanks for pointing out to me that casualities matter in warfare - I wondered what I must have being doing wrong all this time.. <img src=icon_smile_kisses.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

My actual point was that any commander who exposes his men unnecessarliy (even to 'pin' an opponent) is gambling.. and if you're playing as Colonials that's not one of our strengths (and even Wellington and Fredrick knew when to hide their men away). Again many of the battles in the American theatre were confused affairs and formations couldn't be the neat shiny lines that you had in the European wars for the reason of terrain, oppenents etc.

We certainly can't really complain if certain players use tactics that we feel are unhistorical and we consider it 'gamey/beardy/cheesy' just don't play that person anymore if you feel that strongly!! - I seem to recall a young British CinC hiding his cavalry in a wood near to an objective only to 'pounce' on the last turn - historical? Definiately not - bad play by me? yep - I should have defended it.. I did get my revenge at Saratoga though.. and it was swweeeettt <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

I agree - Yes, you can see too much, yes, the game engine doesn't quite follow all the tenents of the warfare of the time, and yes some British officers 'don't' play nice/historical/friendly (delete as appropriate), but then neither do all the Colonial officers (we just call it guerilla warfare!!)

I am thinking however that this subject may be better on the Colonial Notice board if we wish to discuss certain tactics or opponents play.. suggestions??

CCC Rank = Major(bvt Gen)
CinC Colonial/US Army



Edited by - David O Connor on 05/21/2002 13:34:18

David,

Open warfare wasn't the Colonial strengths early on, but they got better, and I think if players try to fight with historical tactics (not game plans), and desgners attempt to model the armies as they were from year-to-year (instead of a one-size fits all army), then players will see a little better how the war progressed, etc. etc.

Early battles will be more rough and tumble affairs, while saneness and organization stablizes them in later years.

I think players should try, or play checkers.

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

In some ways, this discussion goes back to the "infancy" of my days in wargaming. The old "realism vs playability" What whould you play? Afrika Korps, or Campaign for North Africa? Hitler's War or Third Reich? Waterloo or Wellington's Victory? In the end, the answer is "to each their own". The best we can do is find those opponants that by and large share our own viewpoint and play them.

Still though, Al raises an interesting point. The Military Revolutions in the period of say 1680-1815 are remarkable, especially compared with what had gone before and what has come since.

In the period before 1680 (that's an approximate date) the nature of warfare had been undergoing a number of changes many of which were driven by the changes in technology. The introduction of the successive versions of the musket (wheellock,, matchlock, and the like), the introduction of usuable field artillery, and so forth.

Since Waterloo, it seems that the story of warfare has been a constant adaptation to the latest technology, whether it's the introduction of the minie ball making muzzle loaded rifles much more effective, the introduction of breechloaders, or the later developments that are the result of mechinization (and we could list those for a month). My point is that the changes in doctrine, tactics and even strategy have been driven my changes in available technology.

However, the period from just before the War of the Spanish Succession through Waterloo was different. The changes were by and large not due to technology, but in learning how to better utilize a rather static set of weapons. Marlborough's army at Blenheim was not equipped that differently than Wellingtons at Waterloo. They used a very similiar musket, the cannon were very similiar, and the like. The change was in how they used them.

So, what we are looking at is a progressive change in the doctrines, deployments and usage of units. So, the "developments" are of a different nature. The British Army introduced platoon fire, used a 3 man line, and used small battalion artillery in the War of the Spanish Succession (though the Swedish had introduced the artillery much earlier). The French in this period used a 4 man line (and the book even said a 5 man line, though it wasn't closely followed at that point), had not adopted battalion artillery and fired by files or ranks or some other methods (they had 4 or 5 it seems).
In time, the development continued, so the 4 man line was abandoned, and you come to the next "innovation" so to speak, with Frederick's Oblique Order.

Then of course we can turn to the innovations of the Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars (such as the division into Corps, the uses of light troops, and so on).

This great development from Blenheim to Waterloo was all driven by a desire to better use what they had, instead of figuring out how to use what was new.

I suspect that is what Al is looking for, that seeing Marlborough at Ramillies, Maurice at Fontenoy, Frederick at Rossbach (why do I have the feeling my memory is wrong on that name), and Napoleon at Austerlitz, and see the differences in how each of those commanders used what was essentially the same equipment. The differences were in OOB, Doctrine and the like.

Ensign Gary McClellan
12th Virgina Light Dragoons
CO, Northern Department

Edited by - Gary McClellan on 05/21/2002 18:19:09