Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

This post on the subject of HOUSE RULES is to invite discussion by all members interested in knowing what "House Rules" have periodically surfaced from time to time in documents that somehow get circulated or in old posts in the forum. There is one exception, which follows shortly, which is posted on the main CCC page. There is otherwise no formal body of such rules posted for the club, though some number of members are using a few "house rules" and I have no real understanding of how many members are so using them. There is one "house rule" under the confusing topic of "optional rules" under the greater tab called CLUB RULES on the main CCC page. To get to this section for anyone who may not have found it, just follow the link to About the Club/ CCC Rules/Contents/Optional Rules.

I will not reproduce the information found there as anyone interested can just visit that tab and read it all for themselves. However, in summary, it presents, only one "house rule" entitled "CCC House Rule, Regimental Unit Integrity." This sole house rule embraces, for those who wish to simulate a more historic management of their forces, a number of suggestions related to formations and movement of troops of the period. At one time graphic illustrations accompanied the text, though the links are now broken and thus no images appear. It describes the historic maneuvers, and includes "exceptions" to the rule if Regimental Unit Integrity is agreed upon by both parties. Interestingly the very last (No.4) exception to this house rule concerns cavalry and how it may be used for scouting and raids, and how it may NOT be used. In my opinion it should be a house rule in its own right, and has been used as such by many members including myself and others in both this club and the American Civil War Club. It is included in the "house rules" listed below. It and the others on the list are provided for your information, consideration and discussion. As in all house rules, and as with the HPS game optional rules, they are only used at the discretion and consent of both players in any game, individual or tournament. Even should a list be adopted and posted, it is not likely that any rule outside of Tiller's own sets could be imposed on anyone. However ONE rule, for which some players, regard in the least to be so critically important, that they will refuse to accept a game with any opponent who does not consent to it: IS the "No melee in column" rule which does include a few clear exceptions to the tactic. More about that when you get to the list way below.

The list of house rules which follows is, is known to many members I have played with in the past in both the ACW and the CCC. Use of the rules has always been more a matter of routine than not. I would add, too, that the rules listed are not of my idea or authorship, but have been collected from various emails, forum posts, and/or papers circulated on the topic in both clubs which share a lot of the same membership. You will find some on the main page of the ACW, and in the CCC as mentioned above, and you should find some mention of them upon a scrupulous search for the issue of Melee in Column in the forums of both Clubs.

An appeal: if anyone is reading who knows that he IS the author of any of these rules, OR sees something mis-stated whether the author or not, please feel free to weight in and correct our mutual understanding, or mis-understanding.

THE HOUSE RULES:

House Rule #1: No Melee in Column: is probably the most important and often used house rule devised and used in the club. Its credibility comes straight, literally, from HPS as it has been stated that the COLUMN formation in the game is, and was intended to be, a MOVEMENT formation and not a COMBAT (Melee) formation. [Explanation: The tactics of the CCC and the ACW are not the same as the significantly much larger formations of the Napoleonic period with tactics permitting the use of flying columns for melee. In the NWC, of course, it is a historically valid tactic. FYI the problem, as has been stated to me by HPS, is that there is no way to "turn off" using the column formation for melee, and hence the need for a house rule.]

Related provision: If a unit moves next to a hidden unit while in column, you must change all adjacent regular infantry units to line before meleeing [bridge hex(s) excluded]. Naturally, the implication of this could well be that your movement allowance remaining after so moving adjacent may not be enough to change formation into line immediately likely causing you to take some serious defensive fire that turn.

Also: when moving adjacent to visible enemy unit, units must do so in line (either regular or extended). It does not matter if you are going to attack the unit or not, if you see it before you move, you must be in line as you move adjacent.

Exceptions to this: If all the units in the hex are “routed” you do not need to be in
line when entering an adjacent hex – if you wish to melee that unit the unit(s)
conducting the melee must do so in line. Reason is as follows – a routed unit can’t
be used to slow down an advance by requiring units to go into line to get by. A
unit that would melee another unit, even if routed, will take some time to do it and
hence the requirement to go into line to do so.

Also: A lone officer or a supply wagon does not force a unit who wants to enter
an adjacent hex to go into line. If meleeing a supply wagon do so in line, a lone
officer may be overrun / meleed by a unit in column. [Bob Breen, the author of
this version of the Melee in Column house rule states: "By the way, if your units are
routed near the enemy, or your officers and supply wagons alone in hexes near
the enemy, the melee in line rule is not likely to be your primary problem.

Exceptions to No Melee in Column:

a. If the hex does not support movement in line, which is to say going over a bridge
which you can only do in column. Important to note: When the terrain in a hex disrupts
units in line then you must either accept the disruption or not move into the hex.

b. Indian units are exempt from this rule. Native American Units can be in extended
line or column when meleeing. It makes a difference. All other things being equal, a
30 man native unit in extended line melees as effectively 12 men; in column those 30
men are effectively 45. This is explained in the HPS Documentation for melee.

c. Cavalry units are exempt from this rule.


House Rule #2: Scouting ahead of the clear "Front" of the battle: A LONE (emphasis added) leader, meaning NOT accompanied by a combat unit, mounted or dismounted, are not to scout ahead of the front (either the relatively established front line or the head of a column, using both their relative immunity to fire combat AND their generous movement allowance to reveal hidden positions. Again, IF accompanied by a combat unit which is to say comprising a bona fide scouting unit, such movement is OK.

House Rule #3: Scouting in the enemy's rear i.e. "raiding": Similarly, a LONE (emphasis added) unit, meaning one company of a Regiment of Cavalry or Mounted Infantry should not be ranging far and wide ahead of the front and deep into the enemy rear via some circuitous route in order to capture an objective hex, supply wagon, leader or sit in surprise waiting for some hapless column to come down a wilderness road behind their own lines. Now, again, sending out a detachment of part of a regiment of cavalry or infantry is different. Then it would be a dedicated recon or raiding mission, not a "gamey tactic" of a single member of a greater unit.

House Rule #4: Lone leaders and Supply Wagons on hilltops: Intentionally positioning LONE (emphasis added) supply wagons or leaders upon conspicuous high points where they will draw AUTOMATIC DEFENSIVE FIRE of artillery contributing to the waste of the enemy's ammunition supply. The operative word here is "intentionally." Of course if a wagon routs to such a position, or a combat unit, the player has no control over where the game engine sends a routed unit. It would be courteous to try to relocate that wagon unit on the next turn out of a LOS or maybe put it with a nearby combat unit. Likewise a leader could end up being so routed. The difference between a leader and a combat unit which might be so routed is that the leader will draw artillery fire, but for all intents and purposes, would be immune to it. Obviously a routed combat unit would be a fair target for the game's Automatic Defensive Fire.

House Rule #5: Regimental Unit Integrity: As was stated at the outset of this post this rule is posted on the CCC main webpage and I see not reason to make this already very long post any longer. If you are interested please visit the CCC main page and find it under Club Rules.

The last point I will make here for response is the suggestion that the current OPTIONAL RULES heading under the CONTENTS of the CCC Club Rules, be changed. The use of optional is too "loaded" and misleading by conjuring up the Official HPS Optional Rules which are the game sets optional rules that any players may embrace or not at their mutual approval. I am sure that what was intended under the CCC Rules was that the Regimental Unit Integrity rule...is "optional"...which it is. Should we get to a point where there "House Rules" are officially adopted (as voluntary as they may be), the Regimental Unit Integrity rule should also be listed as it is on the main page now, in the list above when, and if, it may be accepted and posted.

My profuse apologies for the length of this post. It is a great deal to read. Note that I was requested to start such a string for discussion, and it is not a topic that lends its self to brevity...not anyway unless one were to forgo some of the reasoning behind the proposed provisions.

_________________
[img]http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~theciampas/corporal.jpg[/img]
Ens. Tom Ciampa
Continental Regulars/1sDiv/NY&NJ Brigade/3rd NY Regt

I already have a comment, a question, and a problem with two secondary provisions of the NO MELEE RULE. Please reference the two statements below to comment if someone is so inclined and then see if I make any sense in my reaction at the end (thanks):

Related provision: If a unit moves next to a hidden unit while in column, you must change all adjacent regular infantry units to line before meleeing [bridge hex(s) excluded]. Naturally, the implication of this could well be that your movement allowance remaining after so moving adjacent may not be enough to change formation into line immediately likely causing you to take some serious defensive fire that turn.

Also: when moving adjacent to visible enemy unit, units must do so in line (either regular or extended). It does not matter if you are going to attack the unit or not, if you see it before you move, you must be in line as you move adjacent.

Regarding the first: About moving adjacent to a "hidden" (i.e. INVISIBLE) unit which is so say "unseen prior to moving"...that seems OK to me and logical. If you do move adjacent in column and DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MOVEMENT to change immediately into line...well that is tough noogies because you didn't know, or even maybe suspect, that you would run into an enemy. It is a "surprise" and you will take your licks if that enemy can fire and/or melee you in their turn. This, to me is not controversial.

However, regarding the second provision about moving adjacent to a VISIBLE (already spotted) enemy unit IN THE WOODS (disruptive terrain). It seems to me that as long as you are NOT MELEEING IN COLUMN if you so move (which IS the point of the house rule) why can't one STILL move adjacent IN COLUMN knowing full well that the unit might be fired at and/or meleed? If one can't do that AND they can see for example, that there IS enemy in the woods two hexes away, what is any chance of successfully conducting a successful fire fight or melee. This presents to me a "double whammy of penalty." If they change into line before moving, they are going to end up disrupted immediately and will not be able to assault during the turn. On the other hand if they check the parameter data (if they don't remember what the movement value is for whatever difficult terrain they may be entering) and find that they don't have enough movement to move in column and then change to line...well there is no way they can even hope to shoot effectively at the hex OR melee that hex. It seems to me that MOVING IN COLUMN should be OK even if you CAN SEE the unit because some other friendly has already spotted it and thus it CAN be seen by the newly moving unit. The point here is that it seems fair to me that IF ONE IS WILLING TO GAMBLE and take his licks with the unit in column (which can't change into line because of deficient remaining movement points) that the gamble alone is penalty enough. If the unit gets cut up and disrupted from defensive fire and later, even meleed...then the gamble was a bad bet. But without being able to even enter the adjacent hex seems grossly UNREASONABLE...BUT only in the case of being in DISRUPTING TERRAIN. I have no problem with that visibility rule in NON Disruptive terrain, such as a clear hex or even an elevation change which could prevent you changing back to line....that to me is sensible. You see an enemy from two or more hexes away and you KNOW and can calculate that you can not go any further in column than one intervening hex OR must change into LINE and then move further if movement points remain. BUT in the woods...this NOT moving adjacent to a known enemy while in column would make any woodland attack next to impossible. It should be more difficult fighting in wooded terrain but not an impossibility.

If my reasoning doesn't sound logical to anyone, I will respect that but do think it through for yourself. It comes down to SURPRISE...no problem. You can't be expected to SEE two hexes into the woods. But once you know there IS a unit there because it has been spotted by Friendlies, it seems to me that if you want to risk being adjacent to an armed enemy while in column in the woods, then that is a realistic option...and IF you are willing to take you licks in the interest of maybe surviving to go into line on your next turn when you won't be disrupted, that you should be able to take that risk As I stated earlier, REMEMBER that this is all a part of NO MELEE IN COLUMN...so if you are abiding the ban on attacking in column...then why can't one still move adjacent in column IN THE WOODS...meaning disruptive terrain. It should be clear that "seeing" an enemy in the open and staying in column while adjacent is one thing, but approaching adjacent in column in the woods is quite another.

Were it up to me, I would make a distinction between approaching in column adjacent in the CLEAR (NO) and approaching in column adjacent in DISRUPTIVE TERRAIN (OK).

_________________
[img]http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~theciampas/corporal.jpg[/img]
Ens. Tom Ciampa
Continental Regulars/1sDiv/NY&NJ Brigade/3rd NY Regt

This is an excellent post. I asked Tom to post all this so we can have a discussion.

Please posts responses and thoughts in the forum for all to read and reply.

This is a Club wide discussion. I'll reply a bit more in detail later to various things.

I also understand what Tom is saying about woods or disruptive terrain. I too think we need clarification and I feel personally that someone would be greatly disadvantaged to move in column rather than line in a woods. At least in line you could be all set to undisrupt the next turn. You risk disrupt, rout and destruction moving in column. Also remember I think one or more of the games requires you to recover from disruption before changing to line or meleeing. I could be thinking of another series though. But chances are moving in column in the woods and discovering an enemy, if you want to take the risk, then you should be allowed to. The Club Staff will have to look this over, but lets get more input and post here please with it!

_________________


Field Marshal The Earl of Lexington, OSM
(Scott Ludwig)

Commander-in-Chief of His Most Britannic Majesty's British Armies in America
The British Armies in America

Training Center Commander

Glory in the King's Service! God Save the King!

Good point.

_________________

Field Marshal The Marquess of Charlotte, KCB,
Commander Left Wing, British Army, CCC
Ernie Sands

President, Colonial Campaigns Club

I concur, this need clarification....

_________________


Field Marshal The Earl of Lexington, OSM
(Scott Ludwig)

Commander-in-Chief of His Most Britannic Majesty's British Armies in America
The British Armies in America

Training Center Commander

Glory in the King's Service! God Save the King!

The idea of attacking in column is somewhat misunderstood. It was done during the American Revolution, and practiced before that. Attacking in column merely meant that the width of the attacking line was not battalion wide. So it could have been a platoon (half a company wide) or company wide or two companies wide and so on. Then units following maintained the same breadth. Howe did this at Bunker Hill along the beach on the right flank-at least he said he did. Keep in mind, the lead elements were in an attack line with bayonets drawn. So in reality there was never such a thing as a column attack or melee as defined in our games. Even in Napolean's time and later, attacking in column was done in what we would call in our games, "line". When a bayonet attack was made, (think melee here), the front rank was at the "charge bayonets". The bayonet was held pointed at neck level. The second rank and all ranks behind had bayonets fixed, but arms held at the recover-pointed straight up. So one might say they were in column. All that said, our game combines front and rear ranks, so when attacking-except at fords or bridges, it is only proper to melee in line. As far as attacking in column the real way, the front rank, how many ever companies wide it is must be in line. rear columns could be in column, but if they are within one hundred yards of the enemy in open terrain (three hexes,) I think they should go to line. Whether a column switches to line when under fire by artillery or rifles before 100 yards is up to the commander/player. But there are negative consequences for receiving fire in column as it considered a flank attack. All this is to say I agree that there should be a definite rule that no column melees be allowed as a general policy. If two players wish to they can of course, but, it should be assumed there is no melee in column otherwise.

_________________
Larry Davis of
His Royal Majesty's
64th Regiment of Foot

My thoughts/opinions:

Rule 1 Agree

2. Washington and Howe were both observed to scout unattended by troops other than officers at Brandywine. Line of sight was the only tool a commanding general had to personally recon. So I don't agree that officers should not scout unattended or in front of their lines. Personally, I love it when I see an enemy officer unprotected. It means my opponent does not consider command and control as important, and I take the opportunity when presented to get any officer I can.

3. I've always felt we fight these battles unrealistically as too many units are up front and few guard their rear. Personally, I feel supply wagons should have much higher value so they would be guarded better and not exposed. That said single companies were not usually allowed to roam. Fraser's marksmen and Indians did, but only as scouts, and were only utilized that way to gather information, and not engage. That would be acceptable to me. To send out smaller combat detachments, "major's commands" were used... at least 3 companies. Perhaps that can be encouraged.

4. See 2 and 3 above. Officers yes, supplies never.

5 Lights and grenadiers were trained to act independently as needed. Line companies were generally kept intact. (except "major's commands" as needed.
Again command control should be stressed which would preclude a lot of detaching-detached troops are are penalized during firing and melee anyway.

_________________
Larry Davis of
His Royal Majesty's
64th Regiment of Foot

To expand a bit more on 4. Officers needed to be on hilltops for reconnaissance, and in our games, rarely can a whole battlefield be seen from any one point anyway. As to drawing cannon fire, there is a simple solution. Since artillery should be protected anyway by line troops, I place a company in front of the artillery when not firing. They cannot be fired upon, nor can they fire during the defensive fire phase. When I am ready to fire the artillery, I move the company aside, then back after firing. Supply wagons should never be used for recon intentionally. Wagoneers were civilian contractors and not of the military, so they should never be used for any military purpose except as supply nor should they be used intentionally as shields.

I also agree with Tom's comments about columns in the woods.

_________________
Larry Davis of
His Royal Majesty's
64th Regiment of Foot

Good explanation Larry! I readily defer to and agree with you on anything pertaining to our era's battle tactics. SO: What he said!

_________________

Garry Cope, FrenchArmy
Maréchal, Le Prince du Copé, l'Armée de Terre Royale - Commanding
Regiment d'Dillon
CCC Secretary of War (Club Records)

These rules are a guideline for players. They are similar to the optional rules within the game. You can use them all, use none or any combination the players agree on.

So, for practical purposes, we want the rules relatively simple and pertinent. We should lay out the rules and have explanations for them, be it better game play or to keep with historical methods.

_________________

Field Marshal The Marquess of Charlotte, KCB,
Commander Left Wing, British Army, CCC
Ernie Sands

President, Colonial Campaigns Club

Understood Ernie. I assumed that they would be "re-laid" out once the discussion has exhausted and we all agree (if that is possible or can be "decreed") meaning which ones will be adopted, numbered, listed, and explained...all as briefly and as clearly as possible. And with the proviso, of course, that they are optional like in "Optional House Rules."

One thing I think is very important, and indeed to a degree one of the motivations for creating them, is to come up with a standard set of HPS optionals (when we get to that discussion) AND house rules, for tournaments. A tournament should be arranged for a "relatively" as possible, playing field for all participants, and not left up to the negotiating skills of the individual pairs, some of whom know the effects of the rules, and likely many others who do not. A tourney is a competitively SCORED sponsored "contest" not just a game battle between two players and there ought to be a universal set of HPS Ops and HRules. The alternative if people can't get their head around the foregoing is to USE ALL the OPTS and all the HRules, and let the cookie crumble as it may. It may be that using all of all the optional rules might be more fair than any negotiated sets with the likely result being some kind of balance where both sides get some rules that are advantageous to their side. That would likely be more balanced than say, if 14 pairs are playing and they all negotiate their own choices of the conditions.

Of course, it could be that the majority might not care a hoot for attempting a balanced playing field. But now that the Badger has been let loose, in a manner of speaking, by bringing this to attention, maybe future tourneys may not draw as much subscription as in the past. With all due respect to the fun of "playing" and the social nature fun and that winning doesn't matter...it sounds good but in the end winning or losing in a fair contest might be a concern to some.

_________________
[img]http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~theciampas/corporal.jpg[/img]
Ens. Tom Ciampa
Continental Regulars/1sDiv/NY&NJ Brigade/3rd NY Regt

The House Rules will all probably be picked up and then people can pick and choose what they want to use. Optional rules will be a different discussion and use of what in a Tourney will be a whole other one. Hopefully we can have that solved by our Fall Tourney. But I don't expect it to be done for the informal summer one....

Good work so far all! I think I'll let the convo go for a few more weeks and then when I have some free time carve up a website and let people look it over.

_________________


Field Marshal The Earl of Lexington, OSM
(Scott Ludwig)

Commander-in-Chief of His Most Britannic Majesty's British Armies in America
The British Armies in America

Training Center Commander

Glory in the King's Service! God Save the King!