Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Gentlemen,

I have recently completed a study of the battle at the Cowpens for my ROTC unit, and discovered some interesting things. Our primary source for info on the battle was Lawrence Babits' <u>A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle of Cowpens</u>, a really informative, detailed, but often dry, book. But the most interesting thing to me is that Babits, who is very careful to prove every step of the process, shows that there were likely up to double the participants in the American force there than are traditionally depicted. Of the extra 1000 he counts most if not all were militia. Evidence of this comes from Pension records and journals of the time. He attributes this discrepancy to Morgan wanting to downplay the role of the Militia due to Congresses leanings toward relying more on Militia units and less on regulars, an idea that (ironically) he was not fond of.

Now, in game terms this would basically double the total American Force, leading to a much less balanced game. But there are some possibilities to consider to even it a bit. Babit's seems to call the 71st Highlanders "Light Infantry" alot. So perhaps making that unit light and the current "light" units into grenadiers (for game purposes only, of course) could help. What do you fine folks, and Americans as well, think of this information? Do you think Babit's is accurate? What game changes would make a more accurate depiction? Just wondering...

Alexander C. Crooks, British Army
Tarelton's Light Infantry

Alex,
Most regulars by the end of the war were familiar with light tactics as well as the traditional line tactics. I would make all regulars, "lights" on both sides, and make the milita "regulars" with low morale for the most part. Morgan had several rifle regiments, but they were all militia. You could add extra militia, but I believe Babits also makes mention of the fact that many who later said they were in the Cowpens campaign acted in support roles, so perhaps tone that number down as they might not have all been combatants. The low morale is necessary as the battle was a close thing even with the riflemen aiming at officers, and the greater American numbers. Babits also mentions a British provincial unit that is not in the game. Only about another 100 men or so, but they might help the balance. The American cavalry were ordered by Washington to only use sabers, and not fire. So the pdt could be changed to make the American cavalry weaponless if that is possible. One other thought. Perhaps the Americans should not have any supply wagons, and the British have more to add another dynamic.

Larry,
Actually, while I don't recall there being a "sword" option for the .pdt, there is a "lance" option, so you can have melee-only cav. I'd used it in my Marlborough stuff (which I need to get back to.. now that I have Churchill's book among others)

Thanks Gary, I'll check that out.

Sir,

Some great ideas, I do think the morale of American troops should be dropped, or British troops raised, and the light troops would help alot. I don't think the supply wagon should be involved however, as Tarelton was evidently running low on provisions before the battle. In addition, I have a topographical map of the area with vegetation, which differs a bit from the game, how do you make new map files for the game?

Alexander C. crooks
Tarelton's Light Infantry

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by AlexCrooks</i>
<br />how do you make new map files for the game?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<s>You need the *****, the *******, the ***** and the number <b>****</b>. This sounds a bit difficult, but I will post how it works as soon as I have the time.</s>

looks like these informations have the value of sattelite-photos from Area 51 [:0]