Reply To: Is the AWI best served with our current crop of rules?

[oriskany 60771xp 4]

In an effort to be more helpful, let me try to address some of your questions:

I usually play refights of the historical battles using the OOBs and Unit strength of the day. – as God intended.  😀

However if the British troops are on the field they outperform the US troops to a point where we just can not get a US victory when they achieved it on the day.   Yeah, here is a big issue. And again, I’m not familiar with the “Grenadier” rules you mention, it’s just a huge problem with any system or scenario that tries to faithfully recreate and American Revolutionary battle.  The British are just too damned good.  And most American regiments are just terrible, especially their militias.

We’ve been working with some very asymmetrical victory conditions.  When I design a scenario, I try to measure as best I can what the actual results of the day were, carefully measuring time, distance, casualties, etc.  That’s the “draw” line – if the game works out in a roughly equivalent manner, the game is a draw.  The victory conditions demand that the Crown player do that, in that time, while taking that few losses, while inflicting that many losses, taking that many prisoners, etc.  If they want to win, they have to stomp the rebels even HARDER than they did historically.  If the Rebels can hold out just a smidge better than they did historically, they win the game.

Crude example:  The Patriots had ten regiments on the day, lost nine of them.  In the gamne, they lost only eight.  They did better than the historical record.  They win.

This kind of thing I find is a great equalizer.  The Crown player suddenly has a huge burden of victory to carry.

And I’m sure you know this, because you sound pretty knowledgable on the topic … but many battles history records as Patriot victories … many wargames would consider a defeat.  Examples would Breed’s Hill 1775 and First Freeman’s Farm (First Saratoga) 1777.

One thing many games get wrong is this:  Yes, they get the British regiments right.  But miss the fact that were almost always terribly understrength.  They get the number of regiments, which regiments, all that right, and then put them on the table with full parade ground strength.

However towards the end of the war the Continental Infantry were just as happy to make a charge as their European brethren. This is Von Steuben’s training, mostly during the Valley Forge winter of 1777-78.  But during most of the war, the British “cold steel” was always one of the more terrifying weapons on the field.

Likewise the British (and European Troops) weren’t best able to tactically use their light infantry in a skirmish against Americans in rough terrain (they were drilled and expected to fight over an open field), and towards the end they had adapted to meet the challenge.  This is greatly expanded by Loyalist militias (as you mention) especially in the osuth, and Native American (Iroquois) warriors in the north.

The Milita were another aspect that doesn’t seem to be represented well, perhaps this is an aspect of “asymetric” warfare that isn’t covered.  Arggh, now this is another tough one.  “Militia” covers a lot of ground.  Some militia, Patriot and Loyalist alike, were quite good.  Much more if it was terrible.  Then you get militia units that greatly improve as the war progresses and they get new commanders.  A good example is the “Green Mountain Boys.”  Under Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga, May 1775, they were little more than a drunken mob of bandits (sorry friends in Vermont).  Under Seth Warner they were a solid outfit, and bloodied Fraser’s Advance Corps in a nice delaying action at Hubbardton (July 1777).

If you’re looking for something to reflect militia hiding in plain sight … i.e., local boys taking up arms … consider allowing some of them to deploy off of any table edge?  I’ve seen people at conventions use hidden movement (several large tiles represent POSSIBLE locations of a militia force as it maneuvers … only as they appear and open fire are the tiles removed and the real minis put on the table).  Maybe mix in some rifles (with their very hard-hitting abilities), since many of these militia are civilians with civilian hunting weapons.

Speaking of rifles, do the rules you’re using address this?  In Battlefield Rebellion I wrote not only a range and accuracy effect, but also a morale and unit cohesion effect, since riflemen always aimed for officers (not commanders, but the lieutenants and NCOs mixed in with a typical Crown regiment).  Units under rifle fire are almost immediately shaken or routed as the officers go down and there goes unit cohesion.

A lot of AWI games and scenarios put TOO MANY British grenadiers or light infantry on the table.  One company of each was typically included in each regiment of 10 companies (as I’m sure you know).  Over-representation of grenadiers and light infantry is something I’ve run across in some games.

And don’t get me started on Gamers with a British army for this period who don’t have a single Loyalist Milita Regt in their Army … it depends on the battle.  And again, what we mean by “militia.”  (like in the Northern Campaign it’s often Canadian Rangers or Iroquois natives).    But yes, especially in the Southern Theater, Loyalist militia are a huge factor, and they’re just as unreliable as most state or Continental militia.

Great topic for a discussion.