Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Colonial Campaigns Club

*   CCC Join   New Game Entry   End Game Entry

*   CCC Staff   CCC Rules   FAQ   About the CCC   Awards Center   Training Center

*   The British Armies in America

* Continental American Army

* l'Armée de Terre Royale (French Army)

* Indian Alliance

 

Club Forums:     NWC    ACWGC     Home Pages:     NWC    ACWGC    CCC
It is currently Mon May 05, 2025 7:19 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 6:38 pm
Posts: 1414
Location: Broken Arrow, OK, USA
How so? Please elaborate.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:13 am
Posts: 658
Location:
Somehow I had gotten the impression that Morgan had pulled a rather elaborate trick on Tarleton, that the militia had intentionally bugged out, making the English think they were leaving, then slip around in the woods and take them in the rear, but unless I misread the article, the "key moment" was simply that they turned in place (while it was thought they were running) and let loose a very effective closerange blast, then charged with the bayonet that caused the English to break.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:13 am
Posts: 658
Location:
Yes, I forgot to say that, and in fact I was just editing my post to put that in, you are too fast for me Al [:)]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:13 am
Posts: 658
Location:
Aaah, but here is something Pertinent. Didn't find this anywhere else (though my library is extremely limited).

In Hibbert's "Redcoats and Rebels" he says that the American Militia was deployed hiding behind the trees at the initial stage of the battle, and expressly plunking officers and NCO's. That would tend to sound like more of an extended line manuver to me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 6:38 pm
Posts: 1414
Location: Broken Arrow, OK, USA
Gary,

I read it differently. Here is an extract from the article I gave the link to below. It descripbes part of the American's deployment.

"From Pickens's line of militia small parties of riflemen were sent 150 yards farther to the front to skirmish with the enemy."

From another article, at

http://militaryhistory.about.com
, the description goes,

"First, out front and hiding behind trees were selected sharpshooters."

These two descriptions sound as if there were small groups of skirmishers, perhaps a company or two, or perhaps a picquet (temporary grouping) of selected reiflemen take from an entire regiment.

In the regulations at this time, there is mention of Colonial units having a 'light company'. Now if the states tried to copy the regulars, then this company may be what was "hiding behind trees and plunking officers."

In our game system this would just be one company with LIGHT status, not necessarily the entire regiment.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:13 am
Posts: 658
Location:
Al, that is probably correct, as I said, only Hibbert's book gave that impression, and it's a general history of the entire war, not a focus on the individual battle. My American Revolution library consists of Hibbert and Leslie, and I haven't read Leslie yet (just got it).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:39 am
Posts: 791
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>

In Hibbert's "Redcoats and Rebels" he says that the American Militia was deployed hiding behind the trees at the initial stage of the battle, and expressly plunking officers and NCO's. That would tend to sound like more of an extended line manuver to me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not to mention the rifle effects rule!

From Fotescue's The War of Independence " Meanwhile the British infantry continued their advance against Morgan's regular troops, but in no very good order, fo r the men were out of breath and a great number of their officers had fallen." (Rifle Effects) "The numerical superiority was slightly on Tarleton's side, but the quality inclined to the side of Morgan, whose militia were veterans in partisan warfare as well as practiced marksmen..."

But to go back to the North, can we find a battle in which the militia's deployment is mentioned?

I'll keep looking. One thing to note with militia is that their numbers were so few that military drill would not be practicable on a regimental scale. A few returns for NJ Militia regiments in Mercer's Flying camp, August 20, 1776 (enlisted men only): 158, 138, 74, 207, 207, 145, 265, 278, 145.

With these numbers, regiments would be hard put to try and do any sort of close order drill. They might be able to form a line for fire but one would think movement would be irregular and hurried.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:13 am
Posts: 658
Location:
Well the obvious northern battles would be Lexington and Concord, and even Bunker Hill, as most of those troops were little more than gathered militia, but don't have time at the moment to work on that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 8:49 pm
Posts: 734
Location: USA
Guys,

Just to clarify, for my purposes, my question was not a "historical" one, but rather a game play issue.

Personally, it doesn't really matter to me if the militia could fight in extended line proficently, but it does matter if that formation gives them excessive staying power in a game. Bladensburg is the most noticeable case of this, but it happens at Brandywine too. "D", "E" & "F" quality militia stand around all day and pick the British apart and the British can't inflict real casualties with ranged fire due to this formation.

In the future, (cough), both sides will be effected by this issue, as both have militia. I am aiming towards an adjustment of militia to "D", "E" & "F" quality infantry to help reflect their fragile state under concentrated fire. Line infantry will take more casualties this way, will accumulate more fatigue, and hence will route eariler - which is what militia did in most accounts...

So, with all that said...any one have more comments? [:p]

Rich


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 5:51 pm
Posts: 1951
Location: USA
The gaming issue vs the historical is the point. In which way can the game best reflect history and how best to implement it? It appears that the way is to make the militia "e" thru "f" troops and not allow extended line, whether or not this historically correct.

There has to be a balance between those 2 concepts to make the "game" work better. Sounds like a good fit for all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:41 am
Posts: 1917
<i>Ceterum censeo carthaginem &c. </i>... I want a density modifier. [8D]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 8:49 pm
Posts: 734
Location: USA
Ernie, ok, I probably missworded that. I do "care", however I think gameplay is currently suffering for the sake of historical accuracey.

Dierk, I don't think a density modifier would solve the whole problem either. It would against stacks, but not against single company "stacks", which still win the ranged fire battle easily.

Besides, changing unit types is within my/your ability where a density modifier requires an engine change...

Rich


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:41 am
Posts: 1917
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i>
Dierk, I don't think a density modifier would solve the whole problem either. It would against stacks, but not against single company "stacks", which still win the ranged fire battle easily.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, it wouldn't solve the problem. As I said below, I am for stripping militia of their extended line skills. But a density modifier would make this game still better.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Besides, changing unit types is within my/your ability where a density modifier requires an engine change...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I know ... [|)]

Rich
[/quote]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2002 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:39 am
Posts: 791
Location: USA
Leave the Militia their Extended capability, strip them of bayonets and most rifles, lower their quality to E & F, (**any way in the oob file to give them the opposite of golden morale?** Say a +1 to their die rolls on morale checks?).

I believe that the commanders on the British side are smart and talented enough to develop a winning strategy against something as weak and helpless as an untrained mob.[;)] When the regulars crash into the Militia, they invariably run. Hit from the flanks, they melt like butter. Woe the American commander who lets a militia become isolated. In a turn or two, they are in the bag.

Gary - Bunker Hill was a case of hastily thrown together units, nominally line units. They were fighting in the style of regulars. In this case Al is absolutely right - line units, no muskets. No X order. Reading an account of Trenton, the Hessians tried to form up and fight in line in the streets. The American Continentals and State Regiments also formed in line, there were however milita running amok in the houses, firing from windows and doorways, making use of cover as they moved house to house. Undisciplined and unrestrained.

Last item: In the realm of fantasy requests for game engine changes, how about a morale check for formation changes <i>by militia</i>? Whether going from column to line or line to X order or X order to line, whatever. A morale check, with failure yielding a rout. Only for M type units. (Of course with rout limiting off, the failure of one unit to form up could be disasterous.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2002 9:20 am 
Glad to hear this topic got so much feedback.
Ok - we had a similar discussion on the Napoleonic Wagram game - how to model the Austrians. The question becomes do we go for game balancing or do we use historical values?
Here is the case for historical values:
1. Use what the guys had. If armed with bayonets then give the milita bayonets. If armed with their hunting guns then give them the longer range if indeed these weapons had a greater range (the Kentucky Long Rifle). Did they?
2. Modify the Rifle Effects to be less harmful but still lethal in its result. And USE it! (remember this is the case for HISTORICAL USAGE)
3. Vary the morales from D to F within the same units. This will give the effect of troops dropping out of the lines.
4. Keep Extended Lines for the South Militia or any that fought that way in the early part of the war as Al pointed out. Remove it for 1812 and all battles after the Von Steuben manual and drill was incorporated. Certainly militia at Monmouth should not be able to work in Extended Order. Morgan's Rifles and any other light troops should.
5. Turn Rout Limiting OFF.
6. Turn Line Movement Disruption ON.

Here is the case for game balancing:
1. Militia are junk unless they have SOME advantage. The Americans have alot of them around.
2. Reduce the 9 range to 6.
3. Delete the ability to go into Extended Order.
4. Morales at D level for militia in the Middle and North colonies. E level and below for militia in the South (to reflect the fact that Daniel Morgan's militia would normally not stand up to formed troops).
5. Turn on the Rifle rule.
6. Remove the ability to work in Extended Line.
7. Turn Rout Limiting ON.
8. Turn Line Movement Disruption OFF.
Main argument for the Rifle rule - IT IS HISTORICAL! It needs to be used but the engine needs to be modified. Sort of like the new Line Movement Disruption option. We all like to use it more since the units dont ALWAYS disrupt each time they move.

No fanatic morale please! The American army rarely fought in the same sense as the Russians at Borodino or Smolensk.

I would prefer to see the Americans RALLY as they did in the old Squad Leader game. They break easy but rally faster.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr