Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

<b>1. History</b>

In the French and Indian War and the ARW, the column was simply not in the books as tactical formation, neither in the French nor British (and hence not in the American either), in fact not in any European(-style) army. The column appears in new drill and field manuals between roughly 1790 and 1810, inspired by some older thinking, but above all the actual tactics of the French revolutionary armies.

A point could be made, though, that in the War of 1812 the column was already around. Has it been used? As we know the British army was notoriously reluctant to adopt the column and deployed in line whereever possible to maximize firepower; moreover, active troops that had seen actual fighting in Europe and could hence be considered up to date on tactics were not deployed to Canada in large numbers before late 1814, so most actual battles were fought by provincial troops likely to adhere to the oldfashioned ways. The US Army never really adopted the column as tactical formation either; even a score years after the war and in spite of a dominant glorification of everything Napoleonic, it still used the column as approach formation and deployed into line just outside musket range. The French actually used the column as standard tactical formation, but as we know, they were not around in Canada in 1812-4.


<b>2. Scale</b>

Now of course we're free to assume that the British could have used the column in the War of 1812, or the French could have officially adopted the existing progressive thinking in the 1760s and introduced the column to America in the F&IW or at least the ARW, and the Continentals could have copied it. But even then it would have been the battalion column, column of attack, column on the center, in other words, a battalion sized formation of platoons (French) or companies (British), each single one of which was in fact deployed into line. The company column, i.e. a column formed from half-platoons arrayed in successive waves, didn't make it into the books for another two score years after Waterloo at least, and even then not in all armies.

Now unlike the Nappy games, the EAW games have the company (or, depending on the scenario & OOB design, the peleton/platoon, even if it's called company as generic term) as basic unit. In other words, the column formation, if used, would not apply to a single unit, but to the next higher formation, the battalion of 8-10 or maybe the half-battalion of 4-5 companies. Thus, when forming battalion columns of attack, they would like roughly like these:



(Al Amos can give you the details of how many companies/peletons would actually fit in one hex, next to each other or behind each other, depending on company strength and on if it's a closed or open column, but you get the idea.)

The individual companies, in any case, would have to be in line.


<b>3. Designer's intent</b>

Finally, the game designer clearly wanted the column formation to be a column of march rather than a tactical formation. Two things prove this,

1) it can't fire (and we all know that even the French could, and did, occasionally fire from their attack column, even if it was hellishly ineffective);
2) it can use road movement, and look at a column of attack in a contemporary drawing whichever way you like, it's clearly not a thing that could use road movement on anything but a three-lane autobahn.

(I know JT got it mixed up in the Nappy games where the column <u>is</u> meant to be a column of attack, it can fire, but it still can use road movement, but let's not get confused here by this obvious inconsistency in the other series.)

The designer has also cleary given us his thoughts on formations in the EAW series in the design notes:

<i>"Remember that the standard unit in the game is the company. In games where the regiment is the standard unit, the column formation actually represents the relative location of individual companies, each of which has deployed in line. <font color="yellow">Therefore, remember that your companies will always fight in line formation and that their relative position to each other will determine the formation of their regiment.</font id="yellow"> Likewise, there is no square formation in the game since this is again determined by the relative position of the companies."</i>

(Yellow: my emphasis; note that "regiment" is used as a synonym for battalion here, as both the British and American armies as a rule had single-battalion regiments.)

I'm new to these gaming systems and relatively new to reenacting as well. But just to add perspective to what Dierk says I offer this. The most basic unit usually is the company. In normal battle conditions, movement and firing are done in line formation by company and or regiment.

It is USUALLY only in tight, confined conditions when the company is subdivided into platoons. Most of the time this is when a method known as 'street firing' is employed. The sergeants move forward to a position where the firing is to occur and shortened columns of four to eight men come foreward, fire, immediately peel off, and go to the rear to reload. Their are 4, 5 or 6 ranks of men doing this and advancing the position each time. This tactic is reserved for fighting in towns and cities or along narrow streets. It is similar to what Dierk describes as 'company columns.' The mechanics of the game can't represent this right now.

We subdivided into platoons when fighting at Germantown, but it was just to form a 'bent' line formation as we were firing from yard at the Chew House at a corner where stone walls met. We might have subdivided and employed 'street firing' if we were going to fight up Germantown Road.

We subdivided into platoons <i><b>for the march only</b></i> when we went into columns at Rhode Island as there were narrow roads with stone fences on either side which had to accomodate troops moving in both directions. Once we got into the open the order came '...by companies, by the left wheel, from column into line..' At which point we returned to the line formation for the actual fighting.

Outstanding work gentlemen! I couldn't have said it better. (Although I could've said it longer, i.e. with more words [:p].)

Column at this scale would be for road march/ or passing of defiles, and fighting into towns or through (fortress) gates.

Time to discipline myself to never fall for the melee in column in the open temptation [;)].
----
In previous threads I presented information that shows, imo, that 68 files is about as many that can fit in 125'. This would be approximately 136 rank and file, for a two-rank company. When you add supernumeraries the number would be about 150 men. This would be if all the men were in one company, if more than one company is present the space is 'lost' (used) to separate them. My rule of thumb then, is 100 men in a hex for troops in line. Onto higher (bn/rgt formations.)

Columns in bns/rgts could be open or closed, mostly. An open column would be one where the interval between the front rank of the lead company and the front rank of the next company behind it is equal to the width of the companies. (Hence the reason companies, and platoons were averaged out as best as possible in battle to facilitate bn movements.) So stacking 100 men per hex is a good way to model actual practices. Closed companies would have half the interval, so 200 men would be stacked in one hex.

The game engine allows for any unit in line in the hex to fire, but historically in column usually only the first company would fire. In an open column this isn't too much of a problem, in closed it can be handled by having a company in line and the second company in column. This keeps the ADF from firing the extra company, and gives the defender a column to fire at (which can reflect the denser target), and give a bit of a boost in combat strength to melee ... did I say that![:D]... which may be realistic as well since most authorities tend to agree that column was the prefered formation for melees.

****Although to use the above idea accurately a house rule would be needed, and I don't think adding the extra verbage would be worth the effort so I support the no melee in column, and would support players using more than one company per hex up to 200 men per hex to represent closed columns, and putting up with the ADF firing all the troops in a hex.****

I would recommend moving your bn/rgt in open columns, which for the Brits will be one, maybe two companies per hex, and for the Americans in some scenarios up to 8 companies! (All of which could fire since they are so small they still take up only 125 yds when deployed.)

As an aside, I'm thinking that some of the small American companies are artificially so, caused by having a standard of 8 companies per bn/rgt used throughout instead of having the historical number of companies present. An example is at Bunker Hill. In the stock scenario you will find 8 companies with 14-19 men in a few of the rgts, but in reality the had only 2-4 companies of the rgt present. So when the total strength is divided by the lower number of companies then the company strength is closer to the TO&E of the time. Incidentally, I'm going to go through a few of the more famous battles of 1776 next year and modify them to 'correct' this issue. [:)] Bunker Hill is almost done. [;)]

See I told you I would say it in longer words.

Ideally, in the Napoleonic series there should be a distinction between a march column and an attack column (as there is in fact in SSI's 1996 game <i>Age of Rifles</i>). The EAW series would of course just have the march column, which should have good mobility but be <b>incapable</b> of initiating melee.

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

Dierk,

I thought you were adverse to long acrimonious debates on topics like this.

In any case here goes:

Once again, I will state clearly and for the record: <b><u>I understand that the line is the formation of maneuver for the scale (company) portrayed in the game and that the regimental formation (travel, assault, line, extended line, square, etc) is determined by the relation of the companies to each other.</u></b>

There are 4 types of players in the club defined by two characteristics:

<u>Gamers/Recreators</u>: Gamers play to win the game as they would Risk, Axis&Allies, or Battlefront 1942: aggressively using what ever works to whatever end. Recreators play, less to win, but more for a sense of history and understanding of the era.

<u>Literal/Abstract</u>: Literal players view the game as a simulation where the numbers in the game are fact. Abstractive players view the game as an abstraction of conditions as needed to portray combat in the late 18th century/early 19th.

You my friend are clearly a Literal Recreator, while I view myself as an Abstract Recreator. I think the club members fall between the two. (I have seen only a few Gamers of any stripe in the club, and they never last long.)

Now, my main contention in regards to the column is:

<i>'As I maintain that X order in the game represents a spectrum of deployments (open, extended, skirmish), so does the column.

<b>It can be the column of march.</b> (Blitzkrieging columns are better prevented by a pdt in which columns don't get the benefit of a road. Though in a wet weather pdt or other situations you probably would want them to get it. (I suppose you could ask for a "travel mode" a la Pz campaigns, allowing columns to jog along a road but a brutal defensive penalty for defensive fire. Coming out of travel mode could then present you with the deploy to the right or left box.)

<b>It can also be justified/rationalized as a state in which mobility has been gained at the expense of being ready and able to fire.</b> In the assault column mentioned, only the front column can fire as the others are masked by the first. The added benefit of an attack in column is that the following companies are less likely to become disordered. So how would we represent this in the 1776/1812 engine? We could stack companies in line based on calculations of frontages on depth of files. This would however be inaccurate as the rear companies would retain their ability to fire. (OK, discipline yourself to not fire rear companies. But what about ADF? Turn it off. But then the ROF is 1x every 2.5 minutes. Change the pdt to 1 minute turns. And so on…. Why not stack companies with a deployed line on top, then filled with companies in column underneath. The following companies will enjoy stability in not disordering from movement, suffer a penalty from ranged fire and have no ability to return fire themselves (not to mention have a melee bonus from not firing weapons). Increased speed also comes from the fact that they are running, or at least marching at speed, reflected by the fact of higher mobility. The net effect is one that works."</i>

So, I'll answer a few of your salient points here before reproducing a (slightly) edited ramble, from which the above was taken, on the topic from a previous discussion in a separate response.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br /><b>1. History</b>

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

Are you suggesting that Black Watch crossed the abatis in front of Ticonderoga in (regimental) line? To reject it in every instance is in my view, short sighted. In the instance of an assault on a fortification, to me at least, it is clearly logical. Even more so if Line Disruption is in use.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<b>2. Scale</b>
Now unlike the Nappy games, the EAW games have the company (or, depending on the scenario & OOB design, the peleton/platoon, even if it's called company as generic term) as basic unit. In other words, the column formation, if used, would not apply to a single unit, but to the next higher formation, the battalion of 8-10 or maybe the half-battalion of 4-5 companies. Thus, when forming battalion columns of attack, they would like roughly like these:




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

I am well aware of the larger formations, but here is where the Literalist approach falls apart. In your image the six companies they are spread over 6 hexes, too broad a front for a battalion column, and a bit too long as well. So put them all in the same hex, no wait, then the rear companies can fire, ok, put one (or 2 companies in the lead hex and 4 in the rear, no wait, melee depends as much on weight and pressure from the rear as it does actual firepower and steel and now I am assaulting a 70 man unit with 2 x 16 men…agh no way to actually do it.

An Abstractor will stack two units in line with enough units in column to get the total mass to 150 men (per AA). The "front" (because literally there is no front to a stack) two companies can fire while the other four can not fire, and suffer a modifier on incoming fire representing the fact that while they may be deployed in "line" they are bunched together making them easy targets.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The individual companies, in any case, would have to be in line.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Something I have never debated or denied, but interpreted differently.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<b>3. Designer's intent</b>

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

Here is another designer's intent as posted here bu our very own Al Amos:


March 9:

Some ways to rationalize Indian formations in our game.
They can use only two formations... column and extended order...

<i>I recommend thinking of column for Indians when traveling as a single file formation, and for close combat think of a mass formation where the braves have momentarily clumped together for a quick rush to overwhelm the defenders.</i> Extended order would be what it sounds like, scattered along a front for firing and observation.

[My italics]

The point here is that someone intimately involved with the design of the EAW series, a Literalist Recreator himself, can view a column (granted of Indians but I am an equal opportunity Interpratist) in two different lights.

Now I would prefer not to waste more time on this long standing debate. A Literalist and and Abstractor will nevr agree, but they can (usually) work out an agreement in practice. Insisting that one style be adopted smacks of mind control<font size="1"><i>....mmmmmmmmm mind control....mmmm...</i></font id="size1">
Col. Cox
American Army

For the insomniacs here is the (near)full ramble, edited down slightly from a much older debate:

"Before we go running off and redesigning the game, please remember that the game is a hex based wargame not an accurate simulation of 18th/19th century warfare. We have the choice to obsess over selected details, blithely ignoring others, or look at the overall net effect of the rules. (This is not to say that the game can not be improved, as it can (how about a density modifier? Morale checks for units in X order in contact with a line, prohibiting melee by units in X order against all but other units in X order (except Indians), etc or that we can't continue to strive at tweaking things here and there for better flavor and feel, as we should through pdts, oobs, maps, and scns.

As I maintain that X order in the game represents a spectrum of deployments (open, extended, skirmish), so does the column.

It can be the column of march. (Blitzkrieging columns are better prevented by a pdt in which columns don't get the benefit of a road. Though in a wet weather pdt or other situations you probably would want them to get it. (I suppose you could ask for a "travel mode" a la Pz campaigns, allowing columns to jog along a road but a brutal defensive penalty for defensive fire. Coming out of travel mode could then present you with the deploy to the right or left box.)

It can also be justified/rationalized as a state in which mobility has been gained at the expense of being ready and able to fire. In the assault column mentioned, only the front column can fire as the others are masked by the first. The added benefit of an attack in column is that the following companies are less likely to become disordered. So how would we represent this in the 1776/1812 engine? We could stack companies in line based on calculations of frontages on depth of files. This would however be inaccurate as the rear companies would retain their ability to fire. (OK, discipline yourself to not fire rear companies. But what about ADF? Turn it off. But then the ROF is 1x every 2.5 minutes. Change the pdt to 1 minute turns. And so on….) Why not stack companies with a deployed line on top, then filled with companies in column underneath. The following companies will enjoy stability in not disordering from movement, suffer a penalty from ranged fire and have no ability to return fire themselves (not to mention have a melee bonus from not firing weapons). Increased speed also comes from the fact that they are marching at speed, reflected by the fact that they move farther. The net effect is one that works.

We could ask for a change, similar to the NapCamp series, that disallows fire for units stacked under another in line, but that would then screw up the frontages for a regiment deployed in line. (One 5 man unit in line occupying an entire hex.) No way to try and maintain minimum densities. It is easy to look at the game and say something is wrong and does not reflect reality well, but some thought should be given to the other changes that the ripple effect would cause.

Now if someone wanted to a new game, something along Combat Mission for the 18th century, with no hexes, variable frontages, multiple formations, dynamic weather, 3D terrain, realistic LOS, stronger FOW, etc, we would have a great simulation on our hands but it would not be this product, or even related to it. For the time being, I believe that we should realize the limitations of what essentially is a (very good) computerized board game, and enjoy it for what it is.

Don't muck with it too much or what's good becomes obscured.




<i>Originally posted by Al Amos in the original thread waaay back when. The Original thread had to do with road movement, columns, and deployment. The debate is between Al on the Literalist side and me on the Abstractionist. If you have made it this far, I think the final paragraph sums it up nicely.</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
"I think the suggestions would have the effect of the individual companies acting as they were trained, which they should because we...the players are not at that level. We are at higher levels and should expect the units to behave as they were trained to do, so that we can know what to expect of them. Armies trained and practiced drill, and still do. To be able to throw ALL the army's training and doctrines out the window when the bell rings is unreallistic in the extreme."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No one is suggestion that contemporary dill, training and practice be thrown from the window

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
"I think sometimes we ... the players... want too much control. We may gripe that we see too much, know too much, etc, but then we expect a company of 18th century soldiers to toss all their company training out the window because we know they can be more combat effective if they fight like WWII GIs, instead of standing out in the open in closed rank formations, as they were trained to do. That is where we have too much control. "
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

At the scale used, 125 ft/hex, companies of 20 - 100 men, a hex based system can not accommodate reality. As mentioned the frontages of battalion lines and column is not really well considered in the system. It is partially addressed, by your older suggestion of minimum as well as maximum densities. So we may focus on getting an adequate representation of a battalion line, while we mess up the interpretation of a battalion column (which we all know is different than a company column). I do not advocate ignoring the period drill. In fact I make efforts to mimic it. However, I may dance about for the majority of the game, deploying into line, shuffling about, exchanging fire while the light infantry and cavalry harass the flanks and try and disrupt your plans, but when push comes to shove and we meet in the middle, melee is joined and all bets are off. Order quickly goes out the window, as units disrupt and break with regularity. Whether it is a Roman legion brawling with the Visgoths, one of the Sun King's regiments fighting the English, Frederick's Prussians waltzing with the Austrians, a doughboy in the hun's trench, or a minuteman going at it with the Black Watch, it is a street fight pure and simple. This does not deny contemporary drill. It in fact rewards it. If you are patient and move so as not to disrupt your troops, or at least give them chance to recover, maintain a full and solid firing line, nip at the enemy fatiguing him and lessening his resolve, then advancing on a broad front with a reserve a few hexes behind, able to fill in for a faltering regiment or exploit a gap caused by the breaking of the enemy (and yes 18th century armies did exploit gaps, just not at great speed and of course they were usually countered by the enemy's own reserve) will reap you benefits in enjoyment, understanding and yes, victories.

Col. Cox
American CiC

"In your image the six companies they are spread over 6 hexes, too broad a front for a battalion column, and a bit too long as well." - Mike Cox

Your Excellency,

(I'm only responding because I wanted to type 'your excellency.') [:D]

The above would not be true if the companies were anywhere over 110+ men. For companies in the range from 70-110, or so, then the exageration would only be one hex, perhaps two. For smaller companies yes it would be too great a spread, but with the small companies you may actually be able to form the battalion in line in one hex so the ability to fire more than one company doesn't apply, and you are back to units in line.

Now, Your Excellency, repeat after me.... line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....need to give al one hundred club points...line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....need to give al one hundred club points...line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....

Have a nice day [:D]!

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

Your Excellency,

(I'm only responding because I wanted to type 'your excellency.') [:D]

Now, Your Excellency, repeat after me.... line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....need to give al one hundred club points...line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....need to give al one hundred club points...line is good, column is bad....line is good, column is bad....

Have a nice day [:D]!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

mmmm......[:D]

Can I get some mind control in edgewise here? [8)] Mike you and I have jousted many times, but I don't recall whether you melee in column or not, as a general rule. I know I've asked how you felt about it before play and you've always left it open I think. So, do you apply your intellegent and logical arguement for column melees in your day-to-day CCC games, or crumble under the pressure of those evil Literal Recreator types? [:)]

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 /> Mike you and I have jousted many times, but I don't recall whether you melee in column or not, as a general rule. I know I've asked how you felt about it before play and you've always left it open I think. So, do you apply your intellegent and logical arguement for column melees in your day-to-day CCC games, [:)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, in general I do (apply the rational abstractionist arguement). However, I usually don't melee in column but reserve the right to make the call on a case by case basis.

Mike

But of course in the final go its up to the players on how they want to play. If the game allows columns to melee then they can melee if desired.

I won my first eight games against opponents that chose to melee in column alot.

Tell you something? Meleeing in column is allowed by the game but is not very worthwhile.

And I didnt even have to check my library to figure that one out guys! Just beat the Hessians in many battles as they impaled themselves on our bullets.

"Why not in column?"

Becuase the couch was closer![:I]

<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 />But of course in the final go its up to the players on how they want to play. If the game allows columns to melee then they can melee if desired.

I won my first eight games against opponents that chose to melee in column alot.

Tell you something? Meleeing in column is allowed by the game but is not very worthwhile.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well at least 2 points making sense were made by Bill last night.

"One if by Line and two if by Column."

Alternate signalling strategy that was never put into use at Bunker Hill.

I can't contribute to the discussion of the tactics, but I thought <s>Dierk's</s> Mike's suggested classifications for Club members - Gamers/Recreators - Literal/Abstract - was most interesting. Reminded me of those personality classifications to explain why people act the way they do.

One thing I recall from those personality classifications is that some categories are permanent behaviors but others will change under certain conditions.

So I am an abstract/recreator who can become a gamer if the opportuntiy is right.

I also recall having a "slide ruler" which told you what worked best when dealing with various personality types. Now if something like that exists for Club Opponents it would present a whole new oppportunity for game strategies.

This is getting a little too deep, I think I'll just count on good dice rolls (which I think means I don't want to use the optional fire and melee rules).