Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

This is for your reenactment buffs and anyone that knows the rate of fire for a period unit. Of course anyone can respond ...

During an player phase in many of my games I have seen units fire over three to four times at units that move within their fire range.

John has halved the fire effect thus you could contend that not all of the unit is firing but ...

How often was 'free fire' used during this period and if it was can it justify the amount of fire that we see in the one phase system?

This is a good thread to hear from guys like Al Amos but other guys that have done reenactment in this period might have some good comments as well as those the know their firearms and battlefield drill.

In other words does the game properly model the reload rate of a unit?

In most of these scenarios, a (daylight)turn represents about 5 minutes. Being that a soldier of the day could load and fire 5 times per minute with a musket and 3 times per minute with a rifle. That would represent 15 to 25 shots per man per turn for a fixed unit. Since the units in this game represent anywhere from 25 to 60 men each we're talking 375 to 600 rounds per turn for each company. It would be significantly less for a moving unit, but thats still a lot of fire. Even if half the men got 'good spark' and no 'flash in the pan' you're still talking 150 to 300 rounds.

Frederick the Great's Prussians might have been trained to fire 5 times a minute, but the average was probably only 3 rounds. But for how long could a soldier actually keep up this rate of fire? Perhaps units should incur fatigue every time they fire.

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

3 or 4 ADF a turn (+ 1 offensive volley) is still less than 1 round per minute. Not all units fire defensively either.

As Rich points out 5 rpm was the Prussian parade ground. I remember reading recently that 2 rpm was <u>expected</u> of a British foot soldier.

Fire by section or division might also be a way to abstract the multiple fires (which are halved as you say).

Of course rifles are another matter all together...

(Looks around for Al, and pulls up a comfy chair, a pillow an motions the bar keep for a fresh bottle of rum.)

(pulling in a chair as well next to Mike) so in other words if 50 Brits or 6 Americans fire 3 times at you during one player phase of movement/fire/melee then that is pretty much in keeping with the times?

I was thinking that if a unit was allowed to move, fire and then melee that perhaps it could be marked that it couldnt do return fire by ADF. In other words the old "hold fire" order we see in alot of games in the past.

Nice discussion. Easy paced and plenty of logs nearby to keep the fire warm! Sir, please bring me one large ale. Ginger ale that is.

I fired 29 rounds (my full cartridge box)in less than an hour at Monmouth; and at least 40 minutes of that was spent moving or waiting to fire. I'm just a poorly trained reenactor, not a well trained soldier who does it all the time. If I'd had a supply wagon bringing up additional ammo I wouldn't have run out.

I look at it this way. ADF is a rolling section or platoon fire, and the offensive volley is fire by both ranks involving the entire company.

This gives the unit the continous fire output that commanders wanted, and allows the unit to have a concentrated heavy 'volley', also what commanders wanted. The best of both worlds.

If you wish to diminish an opponent's ADF then melee his units as early in your turn as you can, since units don't get to perform ADF during a turn after a melee. By using small single units to do this you can employ that old boardgame ploy of 'soaking off.' (A good way of destroying your own army, BTW.) [:D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you wish to diminish an opponent's ADF then melee his units as early in your turn as you can, since units don't get to perform ADF during a turn after a melee. By using small single units to do this you can employ that old boardgame ploy of 'soaking off.'<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Gee Al, almost sounds like you're playing checkers, and we all know you're the second best checkers player in the club. [:p][;)][:p] Now, do you have any historical basis for such sly "tactics"....hmm?? [;)][:p][;)]

"we all know you're the second best checkers player in the club." -Phil

Not quite, but I am the newest member of the 1,000 point club here. [: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 />
If you wish to diminish an opponent's ADF then melee his units as early in your turn as you can, since units don't get to perform ADF during a turn after a melee.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not sure I would advocate the soaking off, but I did not know about the no ADF after a melee. Interesting

One consideration should be unit <i>size</i>- small American units have the same ADF probability as large British ones and it seems that with the standard pdt fire factors the most likely combat result isn't much different (usually the loss of a single man). If "ADF is a rolling section or platoon fire" this might make reasonable sense for a British unit 40 or 50 strong, but hardly for an American one of only 15 men.

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

Didn't someone say that the 15 men companies are nonsense anyway? They would have been consolidated to allow them to function normally.

Dierk that is what I understand.

Figure it was you who said it then. [;)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />One consideration should be unit <i>size</i>- small American units have the same ADF probability as large British ones and it seems that with the standard pdt fire factors the most likely combat result isn't much different (usually the loss of a single man). If "ADF is a rolling section or platoon fire" this might make reasonable sense for a British unit 40 or 50 strong, but hardly for an American one of only 15 men.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Actually I think a <i>no effect </i>result is as, if not more likely, considering the likely state of affairs (low quality, disrupted, fatigued) of these little units.

Those ragged Americans would likely not have had discipline for rolling section fire and could reasonably be expected to be free firing whether their officer/neighbor likes it or not.

But, yes they should be stacked with other units to accurately represent a battalion frontage. (Of course there being exceptions to this rule.) Leaving them out there in battalion extended line is only going to see them rapidly overcome by British regulars operating in a more standard, compact line formation.