Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Rich wrote regarding his use of the Disruption Option:

"I have 85 club games completed to date and in the vast majority I have used this rule, and I'm always able to regain good order of my troops."

I don't want to be a pain in the neck, but "not being able to
regain order" is not why I advocate *not* using the Disruption
rule. As I have said in the original thread, virtually ALL the
options can be compensated for by altering strategy and tactics.

But being "able to compensate" is not really my point. The Cornwallis Cannon option can ALSO be used and compensated for (as well as several other options) ... but there are few takers for it.

The best objection I've read so far for *wanting* the Disruption Option "ON" is that without it, units can RACE across the field much faster than people are used to.

Of course, I could say what's the problem with that? Anything that would speed up a 45 move game is okay by me! Or I could even say, "Someone with good tactics can handle faster units."
In Cowpens, American units can travel in extended order, and
hence can RACE around the field without any disruption at all.

Which brings me to the point of Extended Order!

First of all, I am 100% behind having units that can
use Extended Order! The EXTENDABLE unit type is an EXCELLENT feature of the game system, and should be used more often in our OOB's.... and *definitely* in the balanced or mirror scenarios!

Creating a rule system where Line Disruption is VIRTUALLY MANDATORY, and most units can NEVER extend is about as un-realistic a combination as I can imagine.

Every military force I know from that period was able to fight "shoulder to shoulder" OR in "extended order".

Fortunately, competitive scenarios can be built with the extendable units ... and for that I salute the often-times wonderful flexibility of the game engine!

Regards,

George Brooks
Tampa, FL