Command & Control - Ideas (2)

I found the time to play test the rules a few days ago and found a number of problems. See the Battle of Greenford for details. While playing I made a number of tactical errors, which were based on playing the game assuming normal control. One factor may cause problems in offense.defense games is that it increases the time that the attackers spend under fire, especially artillery.

Firstly as mentioned by Steve it's quite slow. The idea was mainly to provide a mechanism to allow solo play. I also found that by allowing for the casualty effect meant that non-commanded units had it a bit too easy. The solution to both is to drop the casualty effect from the calculation. It's already covered in a sense by the morale and other factors, so it is probably overkill.

As expected sending troops into woods caused command/control problems as they often missed the required dice roll, even if they were just 2 lower. Using the commander was similarly a problem. I hadn't added this as a factor, but given they have to fall back to do so then the command distance is increased and the issue is adequately covered this way.

I will now use the following

+2 if the commander is with the unit (attached)
-1 Per 12" away from the commander
-2 If out of sight of the commander
+1 if a well trained unit
-1 if a poorly trained unit
-1 "group" move (several units belonging to the same commander moving together)
+1 if the CinC is within 6" of the commander (optional)

After all command rolls are completed any individual units that have not tested for command can test independently needing a 3 of lower be be able to move (still with +/-1 for training).

Rules available as Word document

A copy of the rules is now loded on esnips at link

Will

Spencer's Ordinary 26 June 1781 (2)

Some maps from the biography of John Grave Simcoe the commander of the Queens Rangers sahowing the progress of the action. It can be found online at link

There are also details in the Pictorial Field book of the Revolution at link and a copy of Simcoes own journal link

Spencer's Ordinary 26 June 1781 (1)

I'm a regular visitor to Giles Allison's blog Tarleton's Quarter and the latest update covers the action at Spencer's Tavern (or Ordinary) one of the small actions leading up to the seige at Yorktown. It's a very tempting small scale action and I'm tempted to buy the latest British Grenadier rules scenario book just for the scenarios.

The forces involved are quite small, but dominated by cavalry. From Greg Novaks book the AWI in the South:

Loyalists (Simcoe)
Queens Rangers Foot 240
Queens Rangers Horse 120
Hessian Jaegers 60
1 x 3pdr Light Gun
+ Cattle/Baggage being driven off

Patriots (Butler)
Macpherson Light Horse 120 * (mix of 1st Light Dragoons & Armand's Legion)
Virginia Rifles 120 *
Light Infantry 100
2nd Pennsylvannia 180
* 50 Doubled up with cavalry

Using a similar scaling to the BG scenario would give

Loyalists (Simcoe)
Queens Rangers 4 x 12 fig foot units (strength 5)
Queens Rangers Horse 6 x 4 fig cavalry units (5)
Hessian Jaegers 1 x 6 fig open order rifle unit (5)
Artillery 1 x Light gun (3)
+ Cattle/Baggage being driven off

Patriots (Butler)
Macpherson Light Horse 6 x 4 fig cavalry units (5) *
Virginia Rifles 2 x 6 fig open order rifle unit (5) *
Light Infantry 2 x 6 fig open order units (4)
2nd Pennsylvannia 3 x x 12 fig foot units (5)

* One rifle unit is considered to be doubled up with two cavalry units, The pair of cavaltry units must move together and suffer-3" move deduction and -1 on morale and melee while carrying the riflemen. It takes a full move to dimount the rifles and for both units to reform.

Command and Control - ideas (1)

The AWI rules as written were developed before many of the "recent" ideas on command and control were developed and I have been considering how to incorporate them particularly for use in solo games.

In DBx, I've always felt that the pip system was too arbitrary, even with the CinC's ability to switch dice between commanders, it just feels too abstract and doesn't model the individual commanders abilities.

Warmaster (WMA)uses a slower system, but it's more effective at representing different commanders abilities, however, it does allow units to make multiple moves, which can unbalance the game system.

Fire and Fury uses a system that is more unit command/morale driven, but also includes the strength/exhaustion of the unit.

My plan is to use the WMA system with dice rolls (2d6) per unit/group in the order selected by the commander with the following modifiers.

+2 if the commander is with the unit (attached)
-1 Per 12" away from the commander
-2 If out of sight of the commander
-1 If 1 or 2 strength points lost
-2 If 3 or more strength points lost
+1 if a well trained unit
-1 if a poorly trained unit
-1 "group" move (several units belonging to the same commander moving together)
+1 if the CinC is within 6" of the commander (optional)

For example a poor general would have a rating of 7. he attempts to give a command to a militia unit 15" away (-1) that has lost 1 strength point (-1), and as militia it is poorly trained (-1). So a the general needs a 4 or less on 2d6 to succeed. Therefore if the general rolls a 5 with 2d6 he fails to give the unit an order, and can give no more orders to troops under his command.

After all command rolls are completed any individual units that have not tested for command can test independently using a command rating of 6. They cannot use this test unless their commander has failed on another units under his command.

Will

Savannah 9th October 1779 (2) - the game

Refought on Thursday at Deeside Defenders I took the French and Paul (a novice to the period) took the British.

Too various cries of "don't trust the computer", etc it began to come true! The lead regiment of the French assault (Cambresis) proceed to take heavy losses from gunfire and yet shrug them off and proceed to assault the fortifications to the east of the Spring Hill redoubt. The loyalists manning that part of the line fired and failed to have any effect before the regiment charged home, pushed them back and subsequently routed them. The Grenadiers/ Marines arriving to plug the gap charged home but were also pushed back. They reformed, then blasted the heroic remnants of Cambresis away before it repeated it's heroic feat. (On subsequently checking the factors involved, the regiment had managed to pass a 50/50 shaken test twice, but to fail on the firing the loyalists would have had to have rolled anything but a double 1 to have checked them, but of course no one believes it until you roll the dice in front of them!)

The rest of the action became the supporting act. The French by weight of numbers and the valiant distraction of Cambresis gradually overcame the Spring Hill redoubt. However by this time the British reserves had got into position and formed a solid firing line behind the reserve redoubt. Various French units had broken from the rout and it felt that whichever regiment D'Estaing tried to rally would always fail.

The flanking action by the Dillon regiment (not the column) faced the same fate as the original of being driven back by fire from the Sailors redoubt and flanking fire from the "Germain".

We had fought for 3 hours by this point, but my opinion was that the British would manage to hold the line, but it would take to long to reach a definite conclusion. Certainly if D'Estaing had launched his attack simultaneously as he originally planned he could have won.

Will

Savannah 9th October 1779

I decided on this scenario when I realised that I had never thoroughly tested the rules relating to a full scale assault on fortifications. For the background/numbers, etc. I used Boatner’s Biographical Dictionary of the AWI and Novak’s AWI in the South.

French/American Forces

The attack was made by five columns, three French and two American, plus two flanking attacks/demonstrations. The strength involved is given as 3,500 French and 1,500 Americans, including the flanking attacks by Dillon(350?) and Huger (500 Militia). There are no details on the composition of the three French columns so I assume they were all about 1,000 strong, which would equate to 4 x strength 5 units. One American column commanded by Lauren had 2nd SC Continentals and the 1st Charleston Militia. The other had the 1st, 5th SC Continentals and some Georgia regulars. Deducting the 500 militia and 200 men of Pulaski’s Legion would leave 800 men for the two columns making each 2 x strength 4 units. Another reference gives the strength of the “army” as it marched to the assault as 4,500, while covered by the cavalry (Pulaski) so it’s not unreasonable for the Americans columns to be 1,000 strong so I would use 4 x strength 5 units. Pulaski’s Legion was a mixed infantry/cavalry force so I have represented it as one cavalry and one light infantry unit both strength 5. Artillery is not mentioned, but I have added some siege artillery that would be firing at the redoubts at long range.

D’Estaing (C in C) – Column 1
Regiments Cambresis(5), Hainault(5), Le Cap(5), Agenois/Gatinais(5)

Noailes – Column 2
Regiments Auxerrois(5), Foix(5), Guadaloupe(5),Matinique(5)

Dillon – Column 3
Armagnac(5), Naval Infantry(5), ?(5), ?(5)

Unattached
Dillon (7)

Lauren – Column 4
2nd SC(5), Charleston Militia(5)

McIntosh– Column 5
1st SC(5), 5th SC(5)

Pukaski
Legion LI (5), Legion Cavalry(5)

Huger (not represented)
2 x Militia (5)

Artillery
4 x heavy gun batteries (5)

British forces

There is a lot of information on the British, but very little on their dispositions except that The regular regiments and the better Tory units were kept to the rear. The Spring Hill redoubt was manned by dismounted dragoons and the sailors redoubt by sailors, but there is little else except that the counter attack was led by the Grenadiers of the 60th (75) and a small company of marines (50). Other (unspecified) British troops advanced in support.
There were circa 100 guns in position, I have assumed about a third covering the area attacked as 6 x strength 5 batteries. I then added another battery to the redoubt east of Spring hill to allow for flanking fire. Adding up all the loyalists there are about 1250 or 6 strength 4 units, I’ve put half of these occupying the fortifications in the area attacked. The grenadiers and marines who immediately counter attacked would be a strength 3 unit. The other British would be the 16th (50) and two battalions of the 71st (700) plus the Light Infantry (100), so I have used 3 x strength 5 infantry and 1x strength 4 light infantry. There is no mention of any personalities encouraging/rallying the defenders so I have only given the British one general.

In the fortifications no commander
Georgia Loyalist Militia (5); New Jersey Volunteers (5); South Carolina Loyalists (5)
7 x medium gun batteries (5)

Flanking fire from the “Germain” 2 x heavy gun batteries (5)

For counter-attack under Prevost (CinC)
Grenadiers/Marines (3); 1/71st (5); 2/71st (5), 16th (5), Light Infantry (4).

Game mechanics, etc.
Unlike the plan the attack went in late an piecemeal. The game starts with the French/American turn 1 with D’Estaings column moving onto the table as a single column. Move 2 has Noailles arriving to the left in the same formation, unless they roll a 1 on a d6 when they arrive on move 3. The move after Noailles arrival check for column 3, etc. The independent Dillon battalion arrives on turn 6, or turn 7 if they roll a 1 on a d6.
The British counter attack only commences when either a unit in the fortifications routs or the enemy enters the fortification line. Each turn, one British unit arrives, starting with the Grenadiers, dicing for arrival as above.
Note that the artillery supporting the attack cannot fire beyond the fortifications.

Battlefield Map


Will