Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

After playtesting F/I Wars solo, as well as experience vs. humans in email games, I have two immediate observations. Indians are far too strong, and provincials are weak nanny boys......
To take Indians first. Their ability to advance in extended line, take few casualties and then change to column and get a melee advantage makes them very handy indeed on the battlefield. In one game I had, my Indians suffered very few casualties in successfully assaulting fortress walls defended by French regulars and cannon. Indeed, in winning the scenario they were my main assault force. This is nonsense.
Yes, I know Indians historically wouldn't do this, but scenarios involving them often leave no other choice to a player if victory is to be even a faint possibility, as they make up a large percentage of the army. I know thought is being given to downgrading them,and I welcome this. At present they fight better (and longer) in many cases in the open than regulars if used properly. It may be that their numbers are too large in particular unit counters, as they appear to perform much more accurately when their counters have lower individual strength. Or it may be that their rating should be lowered overall. I put the point up for discussion......
Provincials. Hmmm....what a bunch of sops they are. They often rout at the first whiff of gunpowder, or often before taking any loss at all. Measures to prevent this are often not practical.Stacking them singly in alternate hexes to prevent mass rout for instance is usually not an option, as they can make up 90% of the army in some scenarios, and would then simply be overrun in melee. Stacking them with regulars in an attempt to stiffen morale seems only to induce those regulars to join them in the rout. In scenarios where you must assualt forts with them (no regulars being available) you can expect to spend the entire game rallying masses of fleeing men. They could be useful as a reserve striking force for when the enemy is on the point of collapse, but too often this is not an option, as regulars are in too short supply in scenarios containing large amounts of provincials to hold the line until that point. In static defence of house/woods terrain they have some value, but in the open (where many scenarios force them to fight)they simply crumble. Imo these need upgrading in some way, or scenarios alterring so that English armies of provincials don't face French regulars alone.
I should mention that I do not melee assault using column, as I think this is unrealsitic. This makes matters worse for me of course, making provincial disruption more likely in the first place as they move up. Nevertheless, I still think they are too weak overall, and thought should perhaps be given to some re-adjustment here.
Overall however I think this game has bags of atmosphere, and for me is the best of the Early American Wars trio so far.
An advantage of this series is that cavalry is (correctly) in short supply, as I don't think this engine handles cavalry properly yet. If we are (hopefully) to see a 7 Years War game come from this, then this aspect will need a major rethink.
A patch is needed - (some victory conditions strongly need reworking for instance) - but what strategy game doesn't? Graphics are, ummm.....well, as usual you should visit the various sites to upgrade terrain fast. [V] The little 3D figures (I play 3D almost exclusively so this is important for me) are of a nice standard though, particularly the cannon which are great. The representation of forts is very nicely done, and the addition of emplaced artillery adds flavour and fun to the game. The unit pictures are sadly again very poor. (I've done a new units bmp and various other upgrades which will be available soon, including canoes.)
Overall I score (on a scale of 1-5):
Graphics: 2 (nice 3D figures, lousy unit pictures, last generation and substandard terrain (go to Stephanne's "Cobexlaw" site to upgrade terrain, SDC to get winter trees )
Gameplay: 4 (Bags of atmosphere and....well....its simply great FUN)
Scenarios: 3 (this because some are unwinnable for one side or another imo and balance is a problem in many, which will limit their value in email play)
Fun: 4
Historical accuracy: 3 (would be 4 but see Indians and provincials above)
Overall value for money: 4
Definately one to buy if you haven't already. And if this game doesn't lead to a 7 Year's War campaign game, there's no justice in the world [;)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Neil Henderson</i>
I should mention that I do not melee assault using column, as I think this is unrealsitic. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes!! [^]

Neil,

Thanks.

The Indian situation is an interesting 'problem.' I'm playing around with some ideas that may reduce some of thier power.

As for provincials, in the early years '54 & '55 they weren't that reliable. Try some scenarios from '58 & '59, and you will find that Brit regulars have replaced, in numbers, the provicials. Why? Because the historical English commanders felt the Provincials were too unreliable. hehehe.... sounds like I may have gotten this item right. [:D][;)] Although, for game play, I do understand you frustration.

The forces being so small, a brigade or less, in the first years of the war means there isn't many layers of command handing down bonuses as you find in 1776, for example. I'm not an advocate of creating super troops, so rating the Provincials higher isn't a likely fix (unless I can't come up with a better solution.)

In the later wars the size of the armies increased and the natural organization expanded so addtional layers of command came into existence. This translates into more command levels handing down morale bonuses in the game and help stiffen the troops.

:: Perks his ears:: Whaaa? A Seven Years War game? I will be top of the list to get that if it comes out. [8D]

In the FIW era, Provincial forces were often not in for long enlistments. Generally, a community leader would form a company of men, at times 10 to 15 strong and off they would go, using their OWN weapons, ammo, food. Sometimes they would spend only weeks on a campaign and leave! That was their contribution to the war effort. As time went on, they reformed and went back into action and they got better. With so many loosely organized units, there was little of the cohesion and esprit that the British were trained for. They were the local farmers that elected some good speaker as their Captain and they were integrated into a larger units with other similar units. Fathers, sons, brothers, cousins were normally all in the same small group.

British officers felt disdain for the Colonial leaders and vice versa. In the book "A Peoples Army" by Reed Anderson (University of NC Press, 1984), a random paragraph:

"The distaste for haughty regulars runs like a litany... Caleb Rea retailed a story after story of provincial officers who had been affronted, slighted, abused by regulars."

Good point Ernie and probably that the Regulars wanted to fight in formations while the farmers wanted to fight behind trees. A little bit of both was the way to win that war.

Indians in Column!! Gag!

I'm not as quick to say we have an Indian problem as others..[;)]
Their firing range of two makes it much more difficult for them to fight in line, which is good and to melee one 70 man Brit they have to combine several regiments to get decent odds. The use of column I think is fairly creative given the game engine. They are more susceptible to fire and even more exposed after they melee and are disrupted. I advise patience and observation over several matches

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by BillPeters</i>
<br />
Indians in Column!! Gag!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think Al explained it well once before, it should be viewed not as indians in a column, but bunched together for a fight. (Which would make them vulnerable to fire.)

I have liked the way things have shook out so far, including the pathetic staying power of the provincials (they had to earn their sad reputation somewhere). Neil's example of Indians being the main force storming a fort does seem a little out of line...

May we please put to rest the myth of "while the farmers wanted to fight behind trees."?

The militias did train to fight in line like the regulars. They just weren't very good at it. hehehe....

----

I assure all, that changes will not (hopefully) be made willy-nilly. I have seen the assault Niel described, I was in the fort he attacked [:(]! Also, in games against the AI and friends here, I have seen Indians take to thier heels and ne'er return. I have an idea or two that may help correct any 'odd' behavior if it does seem to be a predominately re-ocurring event. (we need a spell-check feature here at the tavern....hehehe.)

Concerning Indians storming forts. These "forts" in many cases were not much more than wooden walls. There are examples of Indians storming forts as well. One that comes to mind is Ft Mims, Of course these were no ordinary Indians mind you, they were Creek warriors, Redsticks, Muscogee whoop-ass, fort stormin sons of b...OK you get the picture.[:I].

Concerning provincials, I'm not against them being somewhat brittle per se. The thrust of my point is that too often the British player either has ONLY provincials to face French regulars, or else they make up a major part of his army and MUST form a front line facing French regulars or Indians which they are simply unable to do. This can (and does in some scenarios) unbalance things considerably. This might be alterred without much hassle by reducing VP requirements for the British player?
Regarding Indians, I'm happy for them to attack in column, simulating not European style formation, but the mad concerted rush typical of native forces the world over. However, extended line ability COMBINED with their advantage in melee makes them simply too powerful - not the small 1X units, but the larger ones prevalent in many scenarios. In this formation they approach the enemy, take very few casualties, rarely disorder, then change into column and assault. Against provincials this will usually rout them, particularly as provincials can't counter with extended line of their own for the firefight. Indians will nearly always outshoot them in this manner, disordering them or even routing them before contact. (The fact that Indians can only shoot 2 hexes makes no difference, as Indian extended line tactics mean they should ALWAYS close rapidly anyway.)
In scenarios where mostly provincials hold the front line this can destroy half of the British front at a stroke. At the least the enemy will now be disordered, and the French player easily follows up with fresh French line units and breaks the front, thanks to these "light infantry" Indian tactics. I simply don't believe natives could perform such a service for the army, acting like very well trained light infantry. Much too powerful.
I must say my experience with the larger Indian units is that they reorder well from rout, and as they can form extended line again in this state, they immediately become a powerful tool in the front line once more. They perform ex. line tactics as well as anyone else, and melee like excellently trained regulars. The combination simply tilts scenarios off balance. They should be more of a powerful "one shot" weapon, and once running they should be VERY difficult to reform. Their main advantage should be in covering flanks/sniping from extended line in covered terrain, NOT in performing stunning light tactics in front of the army in the open, or assaulting cannon and forts. I beleive particularly their given advantage in melee, which is equivalent to a type of "golden morale" bonus, is somewhat unrealistic overall and hard to substantiate historically.
This could be said to be a scenario specific problem. Given lots of British regulars and light infantry the Indians can be countered. But many scenarios don't give the British player such troops, and such scenarios are thus inherently unbalanced, with the Brit largely forced to play for a draw from the beginning. I'm perfectly happy as Al will confirm, to play a "no hope" scenario - I can find great fun in being wiped off the map - but imo there are too many of this type of scenario in F/I Wars, particularly when talking about campaign play. I think this needs adjustment.
This may come from slight alterration of scenarios, in particular army composition, or reassessing troops counter density/morale etc etc. I simply make the point that provincials/Indians seem unbalanced in many scenarios in which they are present in large numbers, as well as being unbalananced one vs another.
This is not a major factor in my overall assesment of the game. I thoroughly urge everyone to buy it, as I think it is the best of the EAW games to date. But be prepared for a little frustration against those redskins folks..... [:D]

The Indians of the time were noted for their "light infantry" style of fighting. One British officer during the AWI commented on how they were the only troops he knew that could have a line a quarter mile wide in extended formation wheel without breaking up with each man knowing exactly what to do. So the design seems right.

I would suggest units of smaller numbers, perhaps like Al's platoon formations in Bunker Hill. The other improvement could be the lowering of morale of the Indian "companies" to at least E, and lowering the Indian officer's command rating. War chiefs did not have the same command effect during battle that European officers did. Indians in battle were expected to think more for themselves, and take appropriate actions as they each saw fit.

Hmm, so much for the myth that the Indians were poor fighters. I dont think that lowering the morale is the answer. Perhaps rethinking our European heritage would do us better. In most of the engagements the Indians are listed as running away or that the Europeans did the real work. I wonder if this has to do with European pride?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Neil Henderson</i>
They should be more of a powerful "one shot" weapon, and once running they should be VERY difficult to reform.
I thoroughly urge everyone to buy it, as I think it is the best of the EAW games to date.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Quite agree

Cox
NJM

I don't think we should doubt our European heritage, after all we all descent from Europeans. There is no harm in taking some pride in that.
Fact is that no other people than the Europeans have fought that many wars, so we can claim we are quite good at waging war[:0]