Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Mutually agreed between players here is the NWC version of the Embedded Melee rules adapted for the CCC:

1. First Movement and Fire Impulse. Move and fire all of your units in any order you wish. Thus you could fire with your units, create a hole if you destroy a weak unit and then move your men through the gap. Thus a player cant use a weak unit to stop your forces.
2. Melee Impulse. Melee with all units that are adjacent. Do this in any order. No more meleeing after this Impulse.
3. Second Movement and Fire Impulse. Same as #1.

No meleeing is allowed past the Melee Impulse. This is the key. No more setting up a line with one melee which blows open the line and then in come the French Grenadiers or British Fusiliers or Hessian Musketeers.

This concept was created and refined by folks in the NWC (Ruben Lopez with Bill Peterson as spokesman on the boards). It is recommended for folks that dont like to have panzer attacks in this period. Five minute turns should not allow for moves, meleeing and then more moving and meleeing.

You can create battlefield zones and do the above sequence for each zone in any order you want. Thus in Brandywine you could have one ford as a zone and the rest of the areas on the battlefield broken down into zones. Agree on the zone concept and how you will split them up before you start the game. I usually advocate making the zones separated by two turns of movement. Thus cavalry can move 24 MPs in a turn so if they are present have the zones 48 MPs apart so that they cannot dash over and influence another zone. Again, its up to the players. Just a suggestion here. Note: your zones will change as the units are moved thus the zones are not meant to be static. You could use a screenshot of the Jump Map with color coded lines to show where the zones are if you wish or just use common sense (as opposed to common law!).

This of course is for the one phase system. It doesnt pertain to the multi-phase style of play which already breaks down the turn into phases.

I believe that you will find like I did in the NWC that the game will be more enjoyable. No longer will a player be able to melee one unit, send through a ton of units to encircle your lines and then melee them at his leisure in the following turns.

Note: it doesnt stop players from using firepower to make gaps, shoot through them and then wipe you out. The system wasnt meant to cover up our poor choice of a 5 man unit holding a vital gap!

Try it out. I think that you will find that the one-phase system will work wonderful with this style of play.

If you find holes in the system please let me know. I plan on putting a set of webpages together that will illustrate this system of play.

I usually prefer to play with ADF ON and the multi-phase approach but this new style of play may change my mind.

I highly suggest this system for tournies in this club. Of course it would have to be stipulated at the beginning of the tourny. I think it is much more historical than what the game allows.

I am a great fan of the embedded melee rule in the Nappy games. I never found I had a need for anything like it in the EAW games. The scale, the 5 minutes turn, line disruption and playing without column melees make for a very slow pace and hence reduce the chances for WW II tactics. It's one of the beauties of these games that they require hardly any house rules to convey a convincing 18th century warfare feeling. [:)]

As you know, I think the fewer the house rules the better, so I'm with Dierk on this one. Embedded melee not really needed here due to the reasons he listed, and if a player does feel the need to slow down the action he can create a modified pdt file which can be used with any pre-existing scenario by inserting it into the bte file. [:D]

I have to chime in and say that there is very limited need for house rules.

In the NWC, you can get so bogged down with House Rules that the game is less enjoyable; especially when you have to keep a printed copy of all the rules by you when you play a turn.[V]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the NWC, you can get so bogged down with House Rules that the game is less enjoyable; especially when you have to keep a printed copy of all the rules by you when you play a turn.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Which brought an early end to my career in the service of The Little Corporal.
The rule debates are never ending, skirmishers/cavalry/artillery can and can't do this or that, narratives about how many centimeters are in an Austrian pace versus a French pace....it's enough to drive a poor lad crackers!
Makes for entertaining reading though. Maybe when I get my Harvard law degree I'll dust off the old tricolor sash. [:)]

Phil

<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>
Which brought an early end to my career in the service of The Little Corporal. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Good for you! We would have tried you for treason, my dear Yorktown. [:p]

Heh heh! It was all the do's and don'ts that clouded my mind Sir. [:D] Seriously though, I meant no disrespect to our Napoleonic fiends, er friends....it rather shows how clean the EAW system is IMO.

Phil

Guys - its the same here - I bust through the line with one melee and then run my units in behind the guy's line and thus he has not time to react.

I dont understand how this is missed. It has happened in several games I have played and thus I felt it needed to be addressed. As a matter of fact Phil took advantage of it in our game of New Orleans though he has long forgotten obviously. He was able to push some militia out of the way and thus I found my line flanked severely.

Too much happens in this system in five minutes. The ground scale is one thing - the command scale is another.

Example:
In one turn my commander is out of communications and then in the next turn he is back in communications. Then the next two turns he is out and then back in. Too many command tests.

Routing - too many routs and rallies in five minutes. Some of the units in this series qualify as being larger than the Napoleonic battles. For instance compare Brandywine with a battle like Teugn-Hausen or Linz or some of the other actions. Too many command decisions are being passed in 5 mins.

What you are saying is that because the system doesnt have skirmishers and such that it is cleaner. I say "baloney" to that.

Example:
The colonists have those small units that act just like a skirmisher in the Nappy series. 5 men can block the retreat path of a 70 man British column. Thus if I am playing as the Colonial player I can blow through your line at some point and then just surround your big British companies (did this alot to James Poli in the past) and at my leisure wipe them out one by one. Again, this only applies to the one phase system.

Its up to the players. You are free to voice your opinions of course. However, in any games I play in this club where the opponent demands the one phase system I am going to insist on the Embedded Melee Rule.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I dont understand how this is missed. It has happened in several games I have played and thus I felt it needed to be addressed. As a matter of fact Phil took advantage of it in our game of New Orleans though he has long forgotten obviously. He was able to push some militia out of the way and thus I found my line flanked severely. Too much happens in this system in five minutes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I haven't forgotten Bill, it's one of the cardinal principles of warfare! [:p] What in the world is wrong with a LINE of regulars shoving a loose blob of lights (skirmishers) off some ground, to be occupied in turn by other friendlies?? Why does this concept raise so much controversy all the time? It not only makes sense, but was and is done all the time in any significant historical battle from the plains of ancient Megiddo to the plains of modern Iraq. You blow a hole in the enemy line with a purpose, and you take his ground from him while causing as much damage as possible. Countless historical examples of this are easily found. And there ARE a few counter measures to prevent this too, like a second line in support...if you're willing to do it. If not, then ya gets what ya deserve in my tactics book, just like a lot of other stubborn or ill-informed military leaders in history. (Not meaning you here Bill. [:)])

None of these games will ever be perfect for everyone, ever. Knowing that, I take them for what they offer without doing a bunch of outrageous silly stuff. (I long ago stopped meleeing in column, which I still say is a legit 18th century tactic though. Your own example of "5 men can block the retreat path of a 70 man British column" should make this crystal clear.)

And IMO 5 minutes is a long time on an active battlefield. Sit in a chair with ear plugs and a blindfold on for 5 minutes and tell me it ain't a long time. [|)] How many orders can be issued in 5 minutes? I'd think dozens if need be. And didn't Wellington run his mount ragged dashing about rallying many battalions all over Waterloo in short order? Sorry Bill, I just don't see your complaints here, though I do like the discussion, as much as gamers love talking it to death and always will. [:)]

My "house rules" are simple and pretty much universal in this club.
No column melees (still debatable. [:p])
No running units to the ends of the earth (map) wayyy out of command, to snatch far away objectives and leaders.
No blocking LOS, ZOCs, or entry hexes with leaders and supplies.

That's about it. If I can't manage my army properly within these simple and few constraints then maybe I deserve to lose. OTOH, if someone does it to me, then I haven't properly forseen all possible circumstances. And believe me I've learned a few lessons about how not to let it happen anymore. [xx(][:D]

Your serve Bill, knowing that no minds will be changed by my opinions. [;)]

Phil

<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>
My "house rules" are simple and pretty much universal in this club.
No column melees (still debatable. [:p])
No running units to the ends of the earth (map) wayyy out of command, to snatch far away objectives and leaders.
No blocking LOS, ZOCs, or entry hexes with leaders and supplies.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Mine exactly. If Phil and I can agree on that (remember the fights we had over what constitutes a fair fight [:p]) I think pretty much everyone can. [^]

It's like I said ... these games are way less complex than the Nappy ones and that's their beauty. Playing EAW is simply so nice and relaxing. [:D]

I'm having such fun with the CCC, I was thinking of trying Nappy games next. But after this discussion, I think I'll stick with the simple. It stops being fun when you're constantly looking up rules!

Yeah, it needs a lot of getting used to. But, it's also the high art of it. [:D]

I sure don't want to discourage anyone from trying the HPS Napoleonic series. The scope and detail in them is reason alone to warrant merit. For me those games as designed are good enough as is right out of the jewel case. [;)] It's when you have 100 club members and 90 differing opinions about what should and shouldn't be that causes snags, not the games themselves. The few that I have fill my occasional Nappy fix just fine with casual solo play. There are some members of the NWC that use a minimum of house rules I believe, but good luck rooting them out. [:D]

Phil

<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>
<br />
And there ARE a few counter measures to prevent this too, like a second line in support...if you're willing to do it. If not, then ya gets what ya deserve in my tactics book, just like a lot of other stubborn or ill-informed military leaders in history. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hear! Hear!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
None of these games will ever be perfect for everyone, ever. Knowing that, I take them for what they offer without doing a bunch of outrageous silly stuff. (I long ago stopped meleeing in column, which I still say is a legit 18th century tactic though.] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And again, I agree


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
My "house rules" are simple and pretty much universal in this club.
No column melees (still debatable. [:p])
No running units to the ends of the earth (map) wayyy out of command, to snatch far away objectives and leaders.
No blocking LOS, ZOCs, or entry hexes with leaders and supplies.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would debate universal.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the column melee item (discussed ad nauseum in older threads).

I reserve the right to send troops of cavalry far and wide in larger scenarios. That is one of their purposes. (Besides, shouldn't you have piquets?) This one is open to a bit of interpretation. Is it gamey to send the lone survivor of a shredded regiment who happened to rout behind enemy lines to go sieze the far objective? Yes, without question. Is sending Rogers Rangers through the woods out and about in X order gamey just because the British have all regiments of the line and a fighting a stand up battle? No, nit really.

Blocking LOS with leader - yes, gamey. With a supply wagon? Command decision. Sitting on an entry hex - gamey (but aren't they eliminated outright and routed if in the vicinity?). Using to block a retreat hex - gamey to the nth degree and practicioners should be drawn and quartered on the spot.

To belabor point no 2 a bit more: In a recent game of Saratoga it became clear that my opponent was committing fully down the main roads, pushing hard in the south. Eventually I moved Morgan's rifles through the woods where they remained on the edge of the forest. Eventually they were spotted by British reinforcements. My opponent was forced to divert a regiment and a gun or 2 to observe Morgan's men, allowing me to blunt and then whittle away at his northern attack. In the south, 3 or 4 troops of cavalry were sent out through the unwatched clearing to the north of the road, emerging in the rear of the southern troops. Again the rear regiment, rather than moving up to press his (successful) southern prong of advance, made an about face to chase the horses. As luck would have it, they burnt a supply wagon or two, feinted at the victory hex and then hightailed it back to the American lines. Objectionable? I do not think so, and certainly will not apologize for the action. Had my opponent covered the clearing, they never would have made the deep probe. A company detached to watch the supply wagons would have made their loss far from easy. In the effort to maximize muskets on the line, we forget about the rear and flanks. I regularly leave units in the rear covering areas that I am afraid the enemy might emerge from, often to the detriment of my front line. Perhaps I should ask for a house rule that insists that 5% (or 10%) of a force must be used as picquets. No I think not, that would be silly, but in effect it is no different than artificially limiting probes to the back.

So I guess my house rules are even less than Phil's: 1. No blocking retreats with leaders/wagons 2. Use common sense.

Ain't it paradoxical? Who the hell managed to trigger a heated house rule debate in the very club that, according to universal opinion, doesn't have need of this? [:p]

Can we stop it please? I hate it. [}:)]