Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I do that, too, Stefan. Only when I do it, I admit that my opponent is in command of the field and thus has earned a major victory. How can you on the one hand surrender the field, and on the other hand claim a draw? Makes no sense.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Dierk,
fine if you like to hold the battlefield. But what do you like to do there if your army is destroyed? If you like a victory you have to beat your opponent. There are victory points and there are victory levels. If you fail to get enough points for a victory you may have a draw. With or without ownership of the field. Remember Pyrrhus!


Captain, 1. Regiment (Royal Scots)
Royal North American Corps

Dierk,
Ever see a movie called "The Duellists" about two Napoleonic French officers who bump into each other every couple of years and always renew their long standing feud by duelling again and again? That's what we're starting to remind me of <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Sorry you take such high offense to my actions. Can I assume you would have compliantly herded all your units together to make the encirclement easier on your opponent and had a grand old time watching your units get isolated in mass, then routed, then eliminated for maybe 5 or 6 turns in a row? Or would you have surrendered with a still viable but very small force compared to the enemy? I did not cop a draw and decide to get out of Dodge merely to avoid a loss. I fought my heart out for 20 turns against vastly overwhelming odds and a very good opponent. I watched as he moved a ton units in a semi-circle around my position, all the while pushing me to the map edge. I actually feel that I <u>earned</u> that draw because of my previous actions in the game, and in performing a difficult <u>fighting</u> withdrawal. I didn't race all my units off map, I stationed guards to protect my withdrawal, so I was still fighting till the last unit left. I wasn't so crippled that I needed to prematurely hand over an easy win to my opponent on a silver platter, so what exactly would you have done sir? And let's both do try to keep our discussion on a gentlemanly level <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

These games are about historical battles. Some of these battles included the exact same actions and result as my game had. So, where's the beef?

Am I the guy who said no bickering for this topic? <img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle>



Edited by - Phil Natta on 08/24/2001 19:06:39

In most C1776 scenarios the number of points needed for a major victory is equal to the value of all objectives. When the enemy leaves the field and the outcome is still a draw, the opposing party must have made something wrong. In return the other side did all that could be done in this scenario. Some scenarios (for example Trenton) are this unbalanced that palying them only makes sense when the inferior party is allowed to retreat in time. Slow down the enemy advance, inflict as much damage as possible and then get on your feet and run! OK, this isn't fair, but is it fair to ask the opponent to be overrun by a much superior army?

At least in scenarios like these, withdrawing should be allowed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Dierk,
Ever see a movie called "The Duellists" about two Napoleonic French officers who bump into each other every couple of years and always renew their long standing feud by duelling again and again? That's what we're starting to remind me of <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I had that thought, too ... But why is this so? <img src=icon_smile_shy.gif border=0 align=middle>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Sorry you take such high offense to my actions.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I don't! Your game is yours, and my game is mine. But you had asked "a basic question for everyone" - now am I everyone, or not?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
And let's both do try to keep our discussion on a gentlemanly level <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Well, I thought I had! No?

Seriously, I like your story, and I am convinced you have earned your draw. However, I have also often fought desperate battles, and fought them well, and have bitterly complained about losing them still because of something I thought was just not fair or sheer coincidence, or just the way the system worked, while it should have worked different IMO. <br>
However, how can I expect my opponent to grant me the victory level <u>I</u> think appropriate? This is a game, and it has rules, and I prefer them simple. Victory level is determined by points. Casualties and possession of objectives decide the outcome. Either I achieve a victory within these rules, or I don't. If I don't, well, that's life then. <br>
I still think that if I leave the field, I have surrendered it and my opponent has a victory. You can have it your way of course. But let me have it my way, will you? I leave a field either after completion of the last turn, or without my sword.

<font color=red>Sgt. Walter
4th Regiment "King's Own"
Royal North American Corps of 1812</font id=red>

Gentlemen, is really no-one going to support my position? I feel utterly confused. This has always been a question of plain honor and honesty for me - I either fight or surrender, but I don't withdraw. Lately I almost dropped a game with my oldest opponent and best friend in the club because he had removed his last 20 infantry from the field. I was convinced my view was the view of the vast majority in this here club, and now to my utter astonishment I find me as the only officer among 150 who considers removing units not acceptable. I consider leaving the club.

<font color=red>Sgt. Walter
4th Regiment "King's Own"
Royal North American Corps of 1812</font id=red>

No need to leave the club Dierk, no need for that at all sir. As I stated, this was the very first time in almost 70 games that I withdrew, almost just to see if it could be done sucessfully. I have heard of a very few other instances of withdrawals in club games, but I bet the total of them is less than 10. It's unfortunate that you consider the action less than honorable, I consider it prudent in the "live to fight another day" tradition. I do believe that some historical withdrawals were even rewarded by superior officers who acknowledged the severity of the situation.

And with that...I'll leave this discussion for others.

Phil, <br>
There is a serious flaw in applying the "fight another day" concept here. <br>
Yes - historically, armies usually withdrew from a field before they were wiped out. <br>
But historically, there was no map edge and no victory points. Historically, a "victory" was determined by a number of factors, not the least being propaganda. <br>
Exiting over the map edge is taking advantage of the fact that this is a game on a map with edges. Taking the current victory level away is taking advantage of the fact that the game decides victory using points for objectives and bodycount. Thus it's winning the game by capitalizing on the limitations of a game. This is for me not in the spirit of the game, and can certainly not be justified by historical precedences that were <u>not</u> a game. <br>
Would you have got away with your army intact if there had not been a map edge protecting you from pursuit?


<font color=red>Sgt. Walter
4th Regiment "King's Own"
Royal North American Corps of 1812</font id=red>

Gentlemen, I have read this topic with much interest (and some amusement at times!) amongst my most learned companions.
Dierk - you are an officer and a gentleman, and your stand is principled and one in which I agree with many points, but please - if you wish to fall on your sword please make it an important one! There are (and have been) far more flagrant breeches of 'ethical conduct' in the CCC than a 'fighting withdrawal' as described by Mr Natta.

Phil has made his (exceptional) case public to draw out comments - any unfair use of withdrawing would be riduculed - and if anyone uses this tactic in an unhistorical manner (and I leave that interpretation up to the group as a whole) then they will probably get the treatment they deserve, so do not worry about it being abused. Many of us, (I believe) still have some intellegence and integrity I hope!!

It has however been a most stimulating topic though on the concept of 'what constitutes victory' and of the 'historical vs gaming' approach chaps, we should explore these issues rather than deny them... bravo for all your comments.

Commander Northern Dept CCC 'Moriarty'

ok just one more post by me...HAR!

Dierk
"Would you have got away with your army intact if there had not been a map edge protecting you from pursuit?"

Absolutely positively. Every one of my units were undisrupted (or became so) and I had a head start. I think Mark was not sure what I was doing and so it took him a couple of turns to kick his army into high gear. Now let's suppose the main British army (or British held fort, or town) was 30 miles to the east in the direction of my withdrawal. With my jump and Mark having very little cavalry, and me exiting most of my units in column on a road BTW, there would have been nothing he could do to stop me. Let's suppose again that he continues his pursuit. To where? The rest of the big honkin' British army of course...then what happens? <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

That's why I never did give much credence to the map edge "end of the world" theory, or that the whole situation comes to a grinding halt at the map edges. I have a vivid imagination <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>


Edited by - Phil Natta on 08/25/2001 04:01:53

Amen to that, Al! <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<font color=red>Sgt. Walter
4th Regiment "King's Own"
Royal North American Corps of 1812</font id=red>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Yes - historically, armies usually withdrew from a field before they were wiped out.
Historically, a "victory" was determined by a number of factorst. Taking the current victory level away is taking advantage of the fact that the game decides victory using points for objectives and bodycount. This is for me not in the spirit of the game. Would you have got away with your army intact if there had not been a map edge protecting you from pursuit?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Dierk,
I have never withdraw my army from a battle (I hate it) and have never seen that me opponents have doing this. But there are several reasons to do it - like Phils operation. In the history there are some examples.

I have no problem to let you play your game. But I think not that this is a question of honor.

Captain, 1. Regiment (Royal Scots)
Royal North American Corps

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<i>
But historically, there was no map edge and no victory points.Would you have got away with your army intact if there had not been a map edge protecting you from pursuit? </i><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A closer look on battles of the 18th and 19th Century shows that these battlefields had some kind of a map edge. Usually the fields had a size of not more than 10*10 Km (most them were even smaller). In this zone all combat did take place. When the loosing side leaves the field the fighting did stop and no serious pursuit was done by the victor. This was in true in nearly all battles of the 18th Century and the majority of the 19th C's battles.

But, you are right: this is a game. And players are much less cautious than the historical commanders.

This leads us to another question, which I have heard in another club: "Do you play games like <i>C1776</i> or <i>Battleground</i> to win the game or to simulate a historic situation?" In the debate this club (in which I didn't participate and which has allready disapeared from the net) the "historians" named this or that historic situation or circumstances in which this or that had happend what they want to see in the game as well, and demanded more and more house rules. On the other hand the "gamers" were angry on everything that limited their choices.

I think, in most clubs the "historians" have their way because "simualting" seems to be more educated than "just playing" (what is, of course, pure nonsens).

In the end this question can only be answered by everyone for himself. May be, one should ask his oppenent what he prefers: useing all cheap tricks between here and the drak side of the moon to win, or behaving as headless as the historic commanders to reenact the situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"Do you play games like <i>C1776</i> or <i>Battleground</i> to win the game or to simulate a historic situation?" ... and demanded more and more house rules. On the other hand the "gamers" were angry on everything that limited their choices.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>´

Ralf,
the "historians" (like me) don't like to fight the same battle like in history with the same outcome but to fight this battle with the same tactical choices. Some of the first houserules for the old BG games are now included in the newer titels like "1812" or "Eckmuhl".

I don't need every week new rules. The games are not perfect but I like them as they are. You can agree each rule you want with your opponent if you like. Don't forget to have fun with your games<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Captain, 1. Regiment (Royal Scots)
Royal North American Corps

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Stefan wrote:
<i>the "historians" (like me) don't like to fight the same battle like in history with the same outcome but to fight this battle with the same tactical choices.</i><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Oh no, that's not what I meant. I like to play these games the "historians way" too, so let me give one example what I do (and in fact shouldn't do <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

When I attack the enemy, I start my charge at 4 hexes distance, fire my salvos defensive and offensive, move one hex foreward in the next turn, fire, move to two hexes distance and fire. Here I stay and exchange salvos with the enemy until I feel the time has come to melee. Then I move the last hex foreward and attack (without firing).

This is historical correct because the armies of the 18th Century approached the enemy line very slow (70-75 paces per minute, makes about 3 Km/h; normal walking speed is 5 Km/h), and kept on firing all the time. If the foe wouldn't give way, the real fire-fight took place at distances of about 50-75 paces (ie. two hexes).

In C1776 it makes no sense to advance in this way:
- the first shot of a unit is the strongest, this is wasted at a distance of four hexes.
- not moving before firing gives a bonus, so it would be much better to rush foreward to two hexes distance without interruption.
- the distance of two hexes makes no sense due to use the rifles/without bayonstts by the Americans. Either I am standing, as a British, to far away, or I am, as an Amnerican, to close to the redcoats.


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Al wrote:
<i>They fought in unified masses, no not Greek Phalanxes, but the whole army assembled and properly deplyed before any action commenced.</i><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, this "linear-tactics" turned out to be the major problem of the 18th Century armies. Once the line was deployed it could only advance foreward, any change of direction would have caused a chaos. The Austrian Line at Leuthen, for example, had a length of 10 kilometres. The commanders were on the far right wing, when the Prussians attacked the far left one. Just consider how long it took to get this news from one end of the batttlefield to the other, leave alone getting reinforcements down there.

It is obvious that these armies were not able to make a quick pursuit.

A typical "parallel-battle" in C1776 is Camden... and now Mollwitz too <img src=icon_smile_shy.gif border=0 align=middle>

The normally boisterous tavern crowd fell silent as two of the most esteemed British officers faced off over the central table.

Loyalists and Patriots alike shifted uncomfortably in their seats.

"At dawn then?" asked the scholarly Sgt. Walter of the King's Own.

"Dawn. Bring your second" was Colonel Natta's steely reply.

One of the kitchen boys slips out unnoticed and heads for the local militia leader's home to report on the impending duel......

Looks like the only way to settle this manner of honor is a match between Msrs Natta and Walter. Blandensburg D with Natta as the American and Walter as the British. Wave the restriction on same army contests and award full points for this one.