Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Gentlemen, the more I play the game, the less I am satisfied with the way victory is determined solely by points gained for taking/holding objectives, but even more for killing men and above all disabling guns. There is a certain logic to it, if the objectives and the victory levels are set properly, but still the whole system is quite arteficial, and leads to unhistorical tactics like going straight for the enemy guns, just because each gun is worth 50 foot soldiers, although it may kill 1 or 2 in a turn where the 50 infantry would kill 3 or 5. With the point system as it is, I could win a battle tactically, but still lose it in game terms because my opponent would have killed a number of guns. Now show me the General in history who after a glorious victory where he has driven the enemy completely from the field would be questioned about some cannon he lost. Also we keep our cavalry out of action since they are worth twice the number of points - again very unhistorical.

Of was thinking about re-writing scenarios in a way that the point value of all troops, but particularly of guns and horse was dramatically lowered - I even thought about stripping the guns of any points at all (which would seem quite appropriate considering the low damage they do, and how easily they are lost). But I think one has to go further to make historical sense.
Historically, battles were fought not for bodycount, and usually also not for victory locations, but for a certain operational, political, or propaganda purpose. Now here comes my idea. Before we start a battle, we could agree on the objective for both sides to achieve. That could of course under certain circumstances also be "destroy the enemy forces", or "destroy them without losing your own army in the process". Then be it. But in many scenarios, the objective would be "take that fort", "hold that crossroad", "open this road and keep it open for n hours", "cut the enemy retreat", "get away without being slaughtered", "take the enemy wagon train", "raise the siege" ... there are hundreds of ideas, use your imagination. If the objective was cleary non-tactical, own casualties would not count if the objective was achieved (of course the objectives for the opposing sides would have to be mutually exclusive). The result would in any case be a major victory. If the objective was of a tactical nature, one could reserve a major victory for achieving it without exceeding a certain number of own casualties; more casualties would mean a minor victory.
One could also think of campaign games played this way, but then one would probably need an umpire. A player who sacrifices his army in order to achieve his objective would of course be punished in the next scenario with a badly mauled army.
In order to make things easier for players who don't know the scenario they are playing (well), we could keep a list with proposed victory conditions for certain scenarios.
Any comments?


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

Dierk,

I agree with some things that you say, but I don't believe the than victory conditions need to be changed. To move objectives and things on those line, would make it unhistorical than it already is. Since everyone would be moving all sorts of general directions. Not closely resembling what happened in the battle. I think you should make scn's the scenario design center. You have choices or the current way or your new scenarios.





Edited by - Sean Coffey on 10/23/2001 07:20:45

Dierk has some good points.

For Campaigns the overall objective needs to be set out clear in the designer's mind before he sets up his decision tree or writes scenarios.

Then scenario victory levels can be based on how they help or prohibit the player from achieving his overall objective.

Concerning tactical victory levels, I think many desingers, especially ME!, have been guilty of keeping the spread between Major/Minor and Draw too close together.

In some situations a force could sustain 90% casualties and still hod a key location (Ft George - 1812 for example) which gives their side a Major (strategic) Victory. While in others situtations the out come just boils down to battlefiled losses. Currently we have games set up where losing 100 men more than you opponent or 5 more guns will give the other guy a Major Win, when the actual percentage loss between the two armies is only 1 or 2%!

In battles where just wiping out the other guy is the objective then the Victory level should be calculated at needing to nearly wipe the other guy out! Now if you took too many losses of your own then you won't be able to achieve a Major Victory, merely a pyrhic one.

Lt. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

[url="http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/amos/CCC/1812regulars.htm"]<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/amos/CCC/chippewa_s.gif " border=0>[/url]


Edited by - Al Amos on 10/23/2001 09:15:34

Dierk I'd like to just comment on your thoughts about cannon and cavalry without getting into victory conditions.

Yes guns are relatively ineffective in both in 1776 and 1812. And yep they're also mighty expensive to lose. To me this correlates well with historical information that I've read. Cannons were hard to come by in the colonies for both sides, and were considered very valuable for the current battle, and in preserving them for future battles. Hence the 20 points per gun loss seems ok to me. IMO then the heart of the matter is not that they're so ineffective in the game, because they were historically; and not that so many points are lost with their capture or in being destroyed, because of their very real historical value to their armies. The answer here I think is in providing proper protection for them then. So in my view their game data is not that far off, so what needs to be done is simply to not expose them to danger and loss if at all possible.

I say nearly the same thing for cavalry. Horses were also expensive and very valuable in both wars, therefore one can't treat them as panzers because they shouldn't (and historically didn't) do that much charging into enemy ranks. Their payoff in such offensive roles is seldom worth their high cost in points. They do serve well in other capacities, ironically one being not to risk them much just because of their high point value!

My three shillings & sixpence worth of opinion. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Phil,

One compaint I have about cavalry is the lack of charging capability. True it was not done much here in North America, especially compared to Europe, but it did happen, and th etroops were trained to do so.

I wish John wuld give us a charge button like in Eckmuhl. This would give the player the option to try a cavalry charge and find out why it wasn't done very much.

As for artillery, you're right they are scarce. The alternate pdt file does boost their effectiveness and allow them to be kept 250-500 yards behind the main battle line. firing through the gaps of the troops ahead.

Lt. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

[url="http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/amos/CCC/1812regulars.htm"]<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/amos/CCC/chippewa_s.gif " border=0>[/url]

Al,

For the actual role cavalry played in both wars, I think the 10% charging bonus does well enough. So they do have <u>some</u> charging capability and benefit in doing so, but to equate them with the Household Cavalry or Greys or anything equal to Napoleonic cavalry in the game would just prove to us what we really already know <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

I do like the alternate pdt file data for artillery where you could get some good practical use out of it from the safety of well behind the lines, but unless Tiller gives his blessing on this one, I just don't think it'll be used much.

Phil,

I would like to see it bumped up to 50% at least, there were some mounted cavalry actions in the War of 1812 ... Raisin River ... or some such where, according to artist reditions at least mounted charges did occur with success, can't do it in our current games.

As for John's blessings, don't need them, not to be disrespectful, all we need to do is use the alt.pdt file per the instructions given in the manual, or have new versions of the scenarios created using it, and distributed from Rich's SDC.

The original 76 scenarios need to be redone anyway to take advantage of the new engine and its new features, for instance scenarios at Ft Tico could use the supply hex feature to allow the defender to completely retreat into the fort and not suffer isolation when surrounded.

Lt. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

[url="http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/amos/CCC/1812regulars.htm"]<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/amos/CCC/chippewa_s.gif " border=0>[/url]


Edited by - Al Amos on 10/23/2001 22:13:36

Dierk,
your points regarding victory conditions are well considered. I think however, that the onus lies with the scenario designer to create a balanced scenario by manipulating both the objective values and victory conditions.

If the strategic decision that leads to a particular battle is to take and hold a fort at all costs, then the objectives within the fort should be quite high and the level of victory determined by the casualty ratio.

If, in turn, the reason for the battle is the destruction of the opposing forces, the objectives, if any, should be of low value. In fact, now that I think of it, aren't objectives mainly a tool for the AI?

A delaying action would have most objectives in the rear, with the highest values near the edge of the map. All balnced by the loss ratio.

I guess what I am getting at is that the tools for what you desire are already in the game and scenarios need to be balanced by manipulating the existing scenarios. A daunting task, but I know there are some guys here that are more than equal to the task.

Lt. Mike Cox
New Jersey Militia
(1st Hunterdon Cty)
AdC American Army

Edited by - Mike Cox on 10/23/2001 22:15:42

If the cavalry are really all dragoons, then it probably makes sense not to give them a proper charge. In that case the 10% charge bonus is quite adequate against FORMED regular troops unless attacking in flank or rear. However, surely they should be more effective against militia or troops deployed in skirmish order - extended line - in open terrain?

Artillery - this usually seems to inflict only a single casualty, which (at least under certain circumstances) is perhaps rather on the low side? Shouldn't artillery fire be calculated not against a single unit but against EACH unit stacked in a hex and possibly also against those in the subsequent hex in the direction of fire? Also shouldn't its effectiveness be greater against cavalry or infantry in column rather than against those in line?

(Reg.Rich White, 28th North Glos. Rgt.)

Re victory levels, I am almost convinced by Mike's argument. I think what I am missing most is a certain flexibility. The game has naturally a very rigid logic, you have +100 pts you win, you have +99 you have a draw. Usually this is ok, but sometimes it just doesn't feel right - the victory level the game announces does not reflect what you see on the field.
Of course, maybe I am making things too complicated. Naturally, this is all an abstraction, and moreover one that has to be clearly definable since the final decision is made by a machine. But what I had in mind was to take the morale, psychological, political factors into account. Depending on the circumstances of each battle, which would have to be defined by the players beforehand (this is maybe the unrealistic element here), the actual outcome would have to be evaluated. Usually it would be very clear, sometimes open to debate - but hey, this did happen in real life! How many battles were claimed as victories from both sides? One side would argue that they were in possession of the field, while the other one would claim that they had inflicted more losses than they had taken, or that they had gained an operational victory since the army got away clean, or that some greater political objective was achieved. If both sides claim victory (with good reasons), we would have a draw.
Oh well, maybe I am trying to make the game as complicated as history. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Re victory point value of cavalry and artillery, I agree that both arms were scarce and not easily replaced, and thus more valuable than grunts <b>on the strategic level</b>. Now I wonder whether many Generals cared for that <b>on the battlefield</b> - while admittedly sure they should have, and we probably should when we are playing a campaign, I think they would have used combined arms to their best effectiveness rather than held back horse and cannon for fear of losing them.
That cavalry, and more specifically artillery, are so much more expensive than infantry, combined with the fact that VP decide to a large degree the outcome of the battle, leads to unhistorical tactics IMO. I myself am guilty of having repeatedly send grunts on suicide missions just to take out a number of guns. If the target is only a single gun, you can send 50 infantry, and if they get the gun, and get it they will, you can lose them all and effectively have lost nothing in VP terms. But 30 men will do, and also you will never lose them <b>all</b>, so the suicide commando is always a bargain. As long as cannon can not effectively defend themselves against such missions (which would require dramatically increasing their fire results at point blank range), they are in my opinion too expensive.
This combines in many scenarios with the problem Al has mentioned: the victory level thresholds are too close to each other. Currently, I hold a very fragile minor victory in a Germantown maneuver game (+102 VP). I have a cavalry brigade of four large regiments yet uncommitted and I know my opponent is wondering why. The answer is easy - if I can't use them in a way that I am <b>sure</b> they get out again, risking only six squadrons of 40 each would already bring me from minor victory to minor defeat - as would the loss of 10 guns btw. Now in battle where the opposing armies have between them about 30,000 combattants it is ridiculous that such small a loss should turn the tide of the battle. It just doesn't happen this way. (I do not more think that 500 grunts out of 15,000 should decide about victory or defeat, but at least I won't lose them without taking at least 300 of the enemy with them, so this is a calculable risk.)
So to sum up, either give me more powerful guns that really do damage especially against infantry at point blank range, then I will happily take the risk of losing them together with a certain amount of VP, or adjust the VP point value of horse and cannon as well as the victory level thresholds in a way that a slight difference in casualty figures won't dramatically affect the outcome of the battle. Maybe best do both.

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

An interesting discussion.

For CLUB purposes, it is up to the 2 participants to determine the ACTUAL level of victory (or defeat) that thay think it should be. If the players feel the actual game play results they see is more reflective of the battle than the impersonal, inflexible game stats, then they should, jointly, agree on the appropriate level. That is perfectly acceptable. You have to know, that the abstract (perhaps) game results that you arrrive at are necessary, as players might not agree on a victory level.

Of course, it is always possible to modify the scenario and put into play other variations that level the playing field or make a better balance in a scenario.

<b><font color=red>Ernie Sands
LtC,3rd East Kent,CCC
Maj,1 Konig,VIII,AdR
BG,CO XXIII Corps AoO
President, Colonial Camp Club
Sch,183Inf,VIII,PzC
Pvt B Co, 3/3-MBC </b></font id=red>

Dierk,
A couple of points.
I think you are making a case for a high value for cavalry when you say that you are holding back your brigade lest you lose your victory. It is, in fact, causing you to take a historic, strategic approach. How often are battles infuenced by a commander being unwilling to commit his reserve force? Napoleon at Borodino springs to mind, and I am sure you could list a dozen more examples without breaking stride.
I agree with you that artillery needs to be more effective on offense and more tenacious on defense. How is your trial with the alternate *.pdt? On defense, they were, at one point in the system incredibly tough. In an early match with Bloody Natta, I had 2 cannon and a company of regulars hold out for several turns, isolated as the British rolled over my positions. That seemed a little much, especially if that was the norm rather than the exception. I would suggest that in melee, a loss of 2 (or perhaps 3) should be required to eliminate a gun. Also, does anyone know how losses are applied? It would seem to me that they should apply to infantry stacked with the gun first.
Now the difference of 1 or 2 points between victory or draw is a fact of life. It does show that your victory is debatable. I will admit that there are times when you look at the victory level and have a hard time reconciling that with the view on the map. (My current struggle with Ernie at New Orleans is one. I have been thrown off the breastworks and have lost 3 of 4 victory hexes. I also have a major victory. I would attribute that to the fact that I have bled the red regiments white. Assuming that I can manage not to yield significantly more casualties than Ernie in the remaining turns, I will escape with at least a minor victory, even if I lose that last hex. I think the reasoning for this is that the British will be too weak to take and hold the city and would have likely withdrawn. Who was it that said: "the object of battle is not to sieze and hold territory, but to destroy enemy forces?" (well something like that)?



Lt. Mike Cox
New Jersey Militia
(1st Hunterdon Cty)
AdC American Army

What is victory? No, I'm not trying to wander off into the realms of meaningless sophistry (though, if you want me too, I'm more than willing... <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>)

What I mean is that really, victory at this scale can be a very hard thing to define in any sort of objective manner,and that is exactly what a computer needs.

Our battles are generally fought for "tactical" reasons. That is to say, we have the tactical battlefield in front of us, and we fight solely based on what is there. On the other hand, the real commanders fought on the strategic and operational levels as well. The battles were fought for a purpose. The victory conditions attempt to recreate this in some manner, but it's not easy.

If we want to be highly technical, we could (and maybe should) argue that a simple body-count isn't really sufficient anyway. For example, in 1812, for the British forces, regulars should be worth more VP than milita, for a couple of reasons. Not only were they on average better troops, but they were much harder to replace when push came to shove. Yet, you kill a regular, you kill a militiaman, you have the same "victory" effects.
Likewise, there are times where the troops of one side are "worth" more than the troops of the other. Consider the 1864 campaign of the Army of the Potomic, where to be entirely honest, Grant was in a position to spend the lives of his troops rather faster than Lee. In that circumstance, you really should have Confederate troops worth *more* to reflect the fact that Lee really couldn't afford to take anything resembling heavy losses. This reflects the truth that in a battle, you not only fight for that day, but also for the long haul, the campaign.

Victory hexes create similiar issues to my mind. As a rule, Victory Hexes take 2 different forms in my mind. Some are hexes on the battlefields where there was historically fierce fighting, though the position may not be in and of itself vital to the outcome of the battle. An example of this would be the fleches in NIR... 900 points worth of VP, but it's very possible for the Russians to create a viable line down around the gully S of that position, so losing them does not loose the battle. The other type is "strategic" victory hexes, positions that cut off the enemy from it's Line of Communications (Pittsburg Landing in Shiloh for example). But, is it really the same that one player manages to sneak a single, solitary, shot up unit into the rear on the last turn to grab that hex, or that they have a full strength brigade ready to hold it?

I guess, in the end, part of it comes back to the old "game vs simulation" aspect. I myself tend to fall on the side of the "gamer", though I like for a game to reflect the reasons for things as well.

Okay, I'll stop meandering. Of course, I can't worry too much about victory conditions anyway, as currently my record is not all that impressive.... Lundy's Lane is a minor disaster at the moment <img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle> . Ok, I'll take that back, it's a major disaster <img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle>... and we won't talk about what Ernie's done to me at Sacile (ok, different club <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>)

Gary McClellan
Private
36th Infantry
1812-R

Edited by - Gary McClellan on 10/25/2001 11:04:55

Edited by - Gary McClellan on 10/25/2001 11:05:34

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Of course, maybe I am making things too complicated. Naturally, this is all an abstraction, and moreover one that has to be clearly definable since the final decision is made by a machine. But what I had in mind was to take the morale, psychological, political factors into account. Depending on the circumstances of each battle, which would have to be defined by the players beforehand (this is maybe the unrealistic element here), the actual outcome would have to be evaluated.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is a general problem with games like C1776 or even more the <i>Battlegrounds</i>. You just see the battlefield but have no feedback to the circumstances of this battle.

C1776 has campaign-modus too, which allows to take the game on higher level (strategical if you like). You may create scenarios with a clear comission by placing the victory hexes:

- use a couple of VHs spread over the field when you want to create a scenario in which "holding the ground" is the order.

- reduce these to a single or a handfull VHs to create a scenario with a specific objective (EG, a bridge or a crossroads)

- place exit-hexes to create a delay- or breakthrough action.

- place no VHs at all, when your sceanrio is a showdown of two armies.

With the campaign-mode you can now include the consequences of each type of battle. These must not neccessarily be according to the direct outcome of the sceanrio. EG, in some circumstances it can be enough to prevent defeat in order to gain an advantage in the campaign, in other situations on side has to achive a major victory to do so etc....

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So to sum up, either give me more powerful guns that really do damage especially against infantry at point blank range, then I will happily take the risk of losing them together with a certain amount of VP, or adjust the VP point value of horse and cannon as well as the victory level thresholds in a way that a slight difference in casualty figures won't dramatically affect the outcome of the battle.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In fact the artillery is to weak at close range (canister, Kartätsche or how ever you might call it). But the VPs for cavalry and artillery losses are in many scenarios to high, so these should be recduced.

On the role of cavalry:

There was a significant difference in the role of cavalry in the 18th Century and the Napoleonic Wars. The cavalry charges with thousands of horsemen that were a major element of every Napoleonic battle, were a developement of the 1740s/1750s in Europe.

I would be suprised if it had been part of even the British tactics in America in the 1770s. Even in the 19th Century the British did not "import" army horeses to battlefields overseas, but bought them there. The result was that the cavalry was equiped with horses of any size available, which did not fit into the European heavy-light system, take Africa or the Crimean War for example.

More often than for charges cavalry was used as mounted infantry-men overseas. In this sense the cavalry in C1776 should have the same VPs as infantry.

<center>Ralf Konnertz
2. Ansbachisches Regiment zu Fuß
Hessische Brigade
Kgl. Britische Armee in Nordamerika</center>

I feel that for most scenarios cavalry ought to be worth more than infantry, although not usually as much as double. (Exactly how much more should depend of course on the individual scenario.) There were instances in this war where cavalrymen were obliged to fight dismounted due to shortage of mounts.

Perhaps artillery ought to be captured rather than destroyed? Although a gun can be spiked, it would frequently be of more use if it were turned on its previous owners.

(Reg.Rich White, 28th North Glos. Rgt.)