Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

http://www.americanrevolution.org/murphy.html

First read the above link. A good rendition of the killing of Fraser and Clarke at Saratoga.
Two shots routed an army. Interesting case for the Rifles option.
Of course we do use the Rout Limiting option which helps the Americans alot. But perhaps with Rout Limiting OFF and Rifles ON we might have a more accurate battle.
Is anyone interested in giving it a go. Saratoga_a with the above two options as listed? Manual Defense Fire ON and ADF ON.

Bill, the more I play the games, the more I agree with you general position. American rifles had devastating effects on the British army at certain battles. I think the brits in this game are a bit flustered by it when you see rifle effects at say Cowpens where all the militia have rifles and the unit density is small.
What we don't here much is the acceptance of many players of quality fire modifiers, which on a net basis gives the British an advantage in firing. I am mystified by that for that is contrary to the British doctrine of shock by melee and using the bayonet. If anything, I would say that the Americans were better marksman considering their reliance upon as a doctrine, their use of the French musket which was superior to the Brown Bess for musketry and IMHO if a game, like saratoga is played with quality fire modifiers on, quality melee on, rout limiting off and line movement disrupt on, I think the americans should get rifles.
[url="http://royal42nd.homestead.com/index.html"][/url]

Phil - one word says it all pard - RATS! (not to be confused with Bulge which is NUTS!)

Hold on there a second. Consider the audience. He wrote that to Al Amos, not the club. It really says, Al, <b>you </b>don't know how to handle rifles so <b>YOU </b>should not use them in competitive play. You should study(read: practice) your riflery at Cowpens. I don't know why I'm saying all this because I'm a Brit now.[B)]That's my interpretation[:D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ironically, I think most Brits would be perfectly willing to employ the rule if it's effects were <b>drastically</b> toned down.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely.

*digs around in tool chest*
Ah, here is what I was looking for

*throws monkey wrench into the works*


All right, to my understanding, RFE indicates 2 things
1. The American propensity (at least in certain battles) to go officer hunting
2. The effect of this sort of officer loss on a unit.


So, the idea is that a unit that loses a signifigant proportoin of it's officers and NCO's will be less effictive in battle (permanant D status) On the face of it, this is a reasonable assumption.


However, I don't see why this is of necessity connected to rifle fire effects. If anything, COLONIAL troops should be more heavily affected by this problem than British troops, as they tended to have less training, be more brittle and the like (and militia, oi!). Further, the losses in these kinds of leaders could be caused by any weapon.

So, really, if you want to go with this rule, it should play both sides of the fence. Maybe to tone it down, instead of automatic D status, give D status, which could be recovered from in the normal way, AND lower the morale of that unit by 1 level for the remainder of the battle.

Then, change RFE so that it merely increased the chance that a shot on a given unit will give them "dead officer" status.

So, my idea is that all units would be subject to "leader loss" with the effects described above, and that RFE would merely be a modifier making it easier for the colonials in certain situations to get the shots in.

I agree in part with Gary, as he is headed down the road of Army morale. Not only should our units have fatigue, but the army as well. Accumulative casualties, and more importantly major leader and major unit casualties could increase the odds of the whole army being unable to continue the fight. We all tend to keep sending units into the meat grinder despite horrific casualties. I know our campaign games deal with this to some degree. Just more food for thought.

My tuppence: RF is usually overdone in the CD version of many 1776 scenarios simply because too many militia units are armed with rifles. With re-editing of oobs to reflect the historically correct, (I'm an HC'er,) concentration of rifles, many scenarios could have RF on and it would be more enjoyable for both sides. That said, Cowpens on the game CD is very accurately played with RF on. Morgan told his men, most of whom were rifle units to aim for the officers. Saratoga should have RF on if only Morgan's men are armed with rifles, and his unit is broken into small squads rather than companies. Greene was coached by Morgan prior to Guilford how to deploy his army, and how to utilize his riflemen, (including have a line of riflemen behind the militia with orders to shoot any who tried to run.) King's Mountain should have RF on. Many of the Americans had rifles in that battle. None of the Americans should have rifles in most of the northern battles, unless as I say Morgan was present. At Long Island, there were at least two American regiments armed with rifles. They did so poorly however, Washington took them out of the line. By the middle of the war, rifle companies began to be included in some regiments. Usually they were detached to be used as Morgan did at Saratoga, They were used to scout, and harass as single squads or companies hanging on the enemies' flanks. Used in this fashion and in small numbers, RF is good. The British riflemen, usually German jagers were used in the same fashion, however they should not have RF. For the most part, The British officers felt it was close to murder to deliberately aim at an officer. There is a famous story of Maj. Patrick Ferguson the commander of the British riflemen having not fired at two American officers during Brandywine because he felt it was not right to do so.

Okay, my memory may be shot here, but I seem to recall reading once that the British lost by far the highest proportion of officers at Bunker Hill. So, what does that say about the whole issue? No Rifles, yet the "effect" was there.

At Bunker Hill, the British actually did march in straight lines without firing up to American lines. The number of officers may have been high in relation to other battles because they were so exposed. The American position at the redoubt was high and overlooked the steep hill that the British marched up. The Americans waited until the British were very close before firing, so when they did fire, the casualties were very high. British officers usually commanded from the rear of their units. But with the fire being so effective, the troops that normally would have blocked the officers disappeared. So they became vulnerable. When the British troops routed, the officers were left in the open. Rather than actually aiming at the British, it is my feeling that the American fire was just much more effective. Many early histories of the AWI were written by authors who did not do the type of research that can be done now. I would like to see a modern reinterpretation of the war without any reliance on old histories by writers such as Ward. They had a tendency to romanticize, and relied on anecdotal accounts that were not verified. They also applied what they knew about the 19th century military to the 18th century military. Here's an example I come across alot. The light infantry in the 18th century was a new formation and consisted of compnies from separate regiments. These light companies were usually taken from their regiments, then combined into battalions. In some 18th cent. accounts officers will refer to a light company by it's regimental number. Say the 4th lights. Many 19th century and even 20th cent. writers took that to mean an entire battalion of the 4th lights was involved. Which is how they were organized in the 19th
century, and now. As a result, the numbers of British soldiers has often been exaggerated in some battles. A recent article written by retired U.S. army colonel about the Battle of St. Petersburg inflates the British numbers due to this same kind of mistake. He talks of three battalions of British lights and numbers them at close to 600 men. The British commander in his account of the battle clearly stated he had three companies of lights, which would number between 90 and 150 men. Much of what U.S. students learn about the AWI in school is badly tainted by these kinds of old stories handed down. Sorry, I did not mean to get on my soapbox. (...tell us how you really feel Larry.) This is not a tirade, just an explanation.

My point in any case is that the RFE rule is meant to represent the losses of company grade officers and NCO's, the guys not represented by counters, but are inherent to the units. As it stands, only if RFE is chosen is the importance to their units of these men indicated, and only if that unit happens to come under fire from American Rifles. If you want to model the importance of this (not an all bad idea) then the possibility of losing these officers should happen to either side, any time that losses are taken, for any reason (musket fire, rifle fire, arty or melee). All RFE would do is make it more likely that the effect would "kick in" so to speak (say, a 2% chance per shot normally, but 10% otherwise)

Actually, thinking about it more, it should be something like this.

Say you have a 50 man company, that takes 2 losses. Then there should be a 4% chance of gaining "dead officer" status (as 2 if 4% of 50) However, if then that (now) 48 man company gets really ripped in one shot, and takes 12 losses, then you would have a 25% chance of "lost officer" status. Perhaps, to reflect as Larry mentioned that officers tended to stay to the rear, you could halve this number. Then, as I said, the "lost officer" status would have these effects
1. The unit is automatically disrupted (but can recover in the normal manner in following turns)
2. The unit is forced to take a morale check the next phase (you can argue this one, just a thought)
3. The unit has it's morale reduced 1 level for the remanider of the game.

Of course, all of this would be an optional rule, just like weak ZOC or line movement disruption, but I think it would better reflect what the RFE rule is trying to get at, while both toning it down, and getting rid of the silly idea that only the colonials could hit officers (though, they may have been the only ones to go out of their way to try it)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Phil Natta</i>

Ironically, I think most Brits would be perfectly willing to employ the rule if it's effects were <b>drastically</b> toned down.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And it can be toned down by appropriate oob's. As has been stated many a time, by myself and others, most American units did not have rifles (with or without bayonet). Most units early on did not even have bayonets (until the started winning and capturing stores, manufacturing more and receiving aid from the French).

Careful research will reveal which units have rifles. In the NJ campaign I think there were only one or two regiments (Hand's comes to mind) with them, as well as the<b>occasional</b> wealthy militia unit.

The rule is fine as is. Sorry about the [B)] somebody gave Phil, but them's the breaks. With poor quality rifle units, I have seen turns go by with out a Leader Loss result.

Onward with my crusade (I know, everyone is saying "why is he talking again, he doesn't know what he's talking about as usual, but that's your problem [8)]) So, to repeat myself again (and again)

The Rifle rule represents 2 things that have only a limited relationship.


1) Units lose effectiveness as their intrinsic leaders are killed or wounded.

2) American Rifle units shot at leaders.


My contention is that there is no reason to limit the effects of (1) to when (2) is in place. In fact, it's terribly unfair to the British when you think about it (which is why I refuse to use this option, even as a colonial).

If you want to have (1) as a possibility, I don't see a problem with it, and I've outlined a potential approach. But, I see no reason to say that the only way it's an issue is if you have those nasty lil reb rifles about.

Harumph!


[;)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ld5253</i>
The British riflemen, usually German jagers were used in the same fashion, however they should not have RF. For the most part, The British officers felt it was close to murder to deliberately aim at an officer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The jaegers should more rightly be armed with carbines, a weapon type added (along with the K type - musket, no bayonet) when the 1812 installment came out. The American rifle had more range than either brown bess or the jaeger rifle.

FWIW, the French after 1792 started to target the file closers and officers as well. Orders were issued for clouds of skirmishers to deploy, infiltrate when possible, and specifically take out these men, to weaken the morale of the enemy. In Spain the British resistance to targeting officers had disappeared. There is an instance of a member of the 95th taking out a high level general from a distance. (A remeber a drawing of it, sniper on the ground, steadying the rifle with his foot.)

I'd just like to say that I agree with Gary's comments about leaders & rifles - of course a badly aimed musket ball can still take out a leader, even if it's less likely to than an <i>aimed</i> rifle bullet. (I don't suspect the Frenchman who shot Lord Howe in 1758 was a rifle armed marksman!)

For combat effectiveness - <i>temporary</i> disruption and permanently reduced morale seems preferable to <i>permanent</i> disruption.

I'd suggest perhaps 2% possibility for casualties caused by musketry and 10% for rifles to hit leaders - <b>But</b>, surely it should take at least <b>two</b> hits to take out <b>all</b> the leaders, not just a single hit.

Also Tory & Canadian rifles should count for rifles effects - they're still colonials after all!

Lt.Rich White
28th North Glos Rgt
Right Wing, British Army 1776