Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

What are everyone's feelings about the new interface with 1.03. I am having a problem with only one offensive fire per unit, but multiple defensive fires per unit. The number of offensive fire per units should be allocated based on mp's expended.

Dave Earls
Coldstream Guards

Maybe I'm just an old wargamer not adaptable to change.

Is the amount of ammunition expended taken into account with the increased defensive firing? It would seem that the extra firing would cause units to run out of ammunition quicker.

Larry Davis
Captain of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

Well, With all the firing going on, Makes me wonder if the armies took speed before they went on the battlefield

The trick with the new system is to get the other guy to come at you. Set up your defense and make them come your way. Beat them to the punch. Then during your player phase dont move around unless it is behind cover. That way you dont draw fire. Also - dont move leaders into hexes that have your troops as this draws fire as well. Pounce on sections of your enemies' line that is outnumbered. And so on. Takes some getting used to. Will undoubtably affect this game more than Eckmuhl.

Brig Gen Bill Peters, ANV, CSA
Capt. Bill Peters, Morgan's Rifles, CCC
Archduke Wilhelm, Aust CoA, NWC
Capt. Bill Peters, Gren Gds, Cndn Army, PzC
Lt. Bill Peters, Frontline Club, 4th Engineers

Greetings all,
I will add my two cents worth into the fray. I personally like the single phase over the standard one. From what I gather from my research, it seems more historically accurate than the old system for several reasons. First and foremost, I like the idea of opportunity fire. It does a lot to keep people from just walking right up to a line without worring about taking fire. This was always a problem with the gaming system to me. To answer the question of armies being on speed, well, considering the scale (company level, single casualties) of the battles and the time involved, the idea of one shot for five minutes is resolved by simply looking at what the critism is. Multiple shots in five minutes? A trained soldier was supposed to get off at least two shots in a minute. When you are talking single casualties, then it makes sense to allow for more shots. This is more the case when you look at the method of fire control used by the armies, particularly the British. The normal idea was fire by platoons. That way you maintained fire on the enemy at all times. The British used this to great effect at Crysler's Farm. Indeed, it was won the battle for them. You can't really get the idea of this without multiple fires in a turn. I agree that the offense should be allowed more than one shot based upon movement, but then again, they will get there chance during the next turn. So it all works out in the wash. I also like the idea of being able to move, form a line and fire. This also seems to be more in line historically as well. Standard American doctrine stated that you move in column toward the enemy until the last moment then form a line. Also the possiblity of disordering when moving in a line is accurate as well. Now you have to stop and dress your lines. Even the British had to do that on occasion! I have played both systems and the single phase gets my vote! My opinion is thus offered!
Pvt Hopper
21st US Infantry

The Turns might be historically accurate, From alot of people I've spoken with. It makes the game far less enjoyable. E.g) At Cowpens even with the Phases is still pretty tough. With turns on nothing really to a Brit except walk up the hill and get shot. Another factor is when we fight we dont fight the historic way they did,that makes a difference.

Sean,

Then start fighting historically! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>hehehehe...

Thats a two way street Al

Oh but I do Sean, look at my number of losses!! hehehe...