Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Gentlemen,

I was wondering everyone's view on this sujbect. Whether or not it is appropriate to mix different companies in with different regiments. What do you think? If you do not approved, are melee exceptions? (Meaning, Have one regiment one side of the target hex attacking simultaneously with a different regiment on the other side of the target hex)I have noticed that whe playing games. Some simply pack hexes to max of 200 simply smash through the lines or have a tremendous fire. Is it good to do this?

Sean,

It is best not to have too many rules when fighting. All battles reach a point where regiments get mixed, and all order is lost.

Sean,
I have to admit, that with my usual incompetance, that my forces start getting badly mixed, especially after routs and returns have started to fragment my lines.

Ideally, companies of different regiments should not stack together *unless* that hex is a junction point of where the 2 regiments meet. (i.e. One company is the S most company of a regiment to the North, and the other company in the hex is the N most company of a regiment deployed to the South). I make this exception since defining hexlines as being the "break" point from one regiment to the next is a hair arbitrary.

In theory we should have The companies in number order right to left I think [?]. But can't say I bother that NCO work what. personally I try not to mix um up Regiments that is but if the enemy mixes them not much to do but sort um when the bally battle settles down. It don't pay to mix they start brawling amongst them selves if your not carful [B)].

I attempt to keep regiments together, as that is best for your Command and Control. In the heat of battle, units do get dispersed and you should attempt to rally them, with their own commander or a higher commander.

It is difficult to do, especially in a game such as Guilford, where the woods play havoc when routed.

I use the command toggle very often in most games.

In the Long Island MP game (Sean), for instance, it is hard to maintain unit integrity when you have the enemy on the run and you want to pour fresh units into the fray.

Many scenarios are not long enough to reorganize your troops, when dispersed.

Ernie,

I hear you when you talk about Guilford[:D]
My units are totally mixed and commanders are not commanding their own troops![8)]

Of course it's best to attempt to keep companies together as much as possible and the player who does this is less likely to suffer routing & disruption, but perhaps the game engine doesn't penalize this as much as it could do.

The only way to <i>oblige</i> players to keep companies together would be to redo the oob at the battalion level - probably a good idea for the larger battles like Brandywine and Germantown.

Capt Rich White
28th North Glos Rgt
Right Wing British Army 1776

It is fairly well documented that as battles progressed, fragments of regiments and companies were sometimes banded together out of necessity. They would not have the unit cohesiveness of course being with unfamiliar officers. This was part of the fog of war. Our games do a pretty good job of taking this into account with the leadership bonus. It was also common to group detachments from each company and form them into ad hoc fighting units. A good example of this is the British force that fought at the 2nd battle of Saratoga.

I'm hesitant to stick my toe into this water because it can become a subject of passionate debate, and everyone has their own personal opinions which can border of the fanatical, including my own. [:p]

My philosophy regarding the Early American War series is that they are games first, and history a distant second. I can agree not to melee in column, I can agree to refrain from leader head hunting and LOS/ZOC blocking with leaders and supplies. Those are all reasonable playing goals fitting in with the spirit of the games and the era. I keep regiments together as much as possible just out of command control concerns alone. Things like keeping companies in numbered order and/or companies shoulder-to-shoulder at all times really stretch believablity and impose a set of forced and restrictive limits that not only hurt playability but also funnel one's play into a cookie cutter style, robbing players of imaginative and inventive possibilities. I actually get a kick out of being surprised with an opponent's battle plan that I didn't anticipate at all even if it costs me a win, and I value imaginative strategic play over dull and predictable robotic "line 'em up, move 'em up, and shoot 'em down" styles.

I think any of my opponents would agree that I'm pretty flexible with rules. I offer them choices first and play accordingly. I can play loose and wild or within the few "house rules" that float around the CCC. But I'd hate to see the CCC bogged down with tons of player created rules and restrictions as has happened in the NWC. IMO, that hurts clubs rather than helps, as players fragment into the "good" guys who use lots of house rules and the "bad" guys who don't.

So for me, I'd rather keep the human element in the games (agreeing on a few basic do's and don'ts) rather than mucking things up with too many don'ts and restrictions. All just my personal opinions of course.

Phil

"So for me, I'd rather keep the human element in the games (agreeing on a few basic do's and don'ts) rather than mucking things up with too many don'ts and restrictions." - Phil

Well said, sir. [:)]

I largely share the opinions presented so far. Personally I try to maintain what I call "regimental integrity", i.e. keeping the companies of a regiment shoulder to shoulder by and large as long as there are no compelling reasons to not do so, not only because I believe that's how it was done in reality, but also because, as has been pointed out before, that increases the performance of my own troops as a result of intact C&C. However, this is not a strict rule as there often occur situations where maintaining integrity becomes impractical, or outright impossible. This is mainly when fighting in towns, villages, forests, swamps; when attacking forts and bridges; or generally when that kind of wild brawl commences that in reality would have meant "take the next 50 men you find and feed them in". I also accept that light troops can be all over the place according to the needs, and of course indians when I have them. Finally, especially when there are only few regiments around, like so often in F&I and 1812, I take the liberty of forming two half-battalions from one regiment and have them act separately (and how I love it when the OOB even provides a deputy commander for that [:)]).

In any case, while I try to maitain regimental integrity myself, and I appreciate it when my opponents do the same, it's not something I'd make a "house rule" of, for, as pointed out above, it's not a strict rule but rather a vague principle to strive for when practicable. I just like the historical look of things.

The only "house rule" I actually use in this club is "no column melees except where there is no choice" (which is again villages, swamps, bridges, fortress gates etc.), and so far I didn't have any problems with opponents having a problem with that. [8)]

Like Phil, I am inimical to too many house rules, and in fact one of the reasons why I like playing 1776/1812/F&I so much is because these games go a long way towards simulating how I think warfare in America between 1750 and 1815 would have looked like <u>without</u> needing many house rules. Now unlike Phil I don't think that this is constituted by a difference between the style or habits of this club on the one hand and the NWC on the other hand. I think it's the games and the style of warfare in the conflicts portrayed that makes the difference. Our games here are simple and these wars were fundamentally simple; the Nappy games are complex as Napoleonic warfare in Europe was complex and hence in the Nappy games there are a lot more imperfections and opportunities for turning them into something quite ahistorical than we have with the EAW games. For instance, all that skirmisher and cavalry charge business that can be abused so easily is simply lacking from these here games and that makes it so much easier.

Hence, to conclude, I think it's unlikely that we'll ever end up with a long list of house rules used in this club because personally I see no need for them, as much as I strive for having my games look "historical" to me. [:)]

<i>"Now unlike Phil I don't think that this is constituted by a difference between the style or habits of this club on the one hand and the NWC on the other hand. I think it's the games and the style of warfare in the conflicts portrayed that makes the difference. Our games here are simple and these wars were fundamentally simple; the Nappy games are complex as Napoleonic warfare in Europe was complex and hence in the Nappy games there are a lot more imperfections and opportunities for turning them into something quite ahistorical than we have with the EAW games. For instance, all that skirmisher and cavalry charge business that can be abused so easily is simply lacking from these here games and that makes it so much easier."</i>

Yes you're absolutely right about all this Dierk, some good points that I didn't consider but will in the future. I'm a slightly bigger fan of the Napoleonic era than anything else, but the little bit of fuzziness of some of the concepts in those particular Tiller games makes me appreciate the American series a lot more, as you stated so well. Thanks for the comments.

Phil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />"So for me, I'd rather keep the human element in the games (agreeing on a few basic do's and don'ts) rather than mucking things up with too many don'ts and restrictions." - Phil

Well said, sir. [:)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<font size="2"><i>A nervous looking American Colonel moves cautiously away from the Generals, one eye on the heavens looking for a thunderhead and lightening, the other scanning the ground expecting it to open and swallow the entire tavern....</i></font id="size2">

<center>[:D]</center>

HA! [:D] I don't think Thor is looking down on us in this instance Mike. [:)]

Dierk,

Very well said, sir. [;)][:D]