Trenton Session report for Hold the Line

Wargamers want fair contests. There's little sense of triumph in willing a foregone conclusion and it's disheartening to feel that no matter how well you play, you may lose.

Yet it's undeniable that a "fair' fight implies a failure of generalship and there's no correlation betwene the fairness of a battle and its significance.

The Battle of Trenton in the Americana Revolution is undoubtedly one of the most significant battles of the whole war. Washington's bold stroke may very well have saved the Patriot cause. And it's widely held that Washington wasn't especially skilled as a tactical commander. He lost more battles than he won. But he won big at Trenton with his ragged rebels despite facing professional troops because he made sure it wasn't a fair fight.

Set Up

This creates some problems for wargame designers, though. Trenton was too significant a fight to not be depicted. But it's hard to make it a fair fight, as a recent session of Hold the Line with my friend Mark Kolenski demonstarted.

Hold the Line is a fun, but very simple game system. In my opinion it manages to succeed quite well as a simulation despite its abstract nature, but there is no arguing that it is a detailed or exhaustive simulation. It tends towards the "game" end of the game vs. simulation continuum.

One might think that simplicity might make a balanced fight more likely. The HOTL Trenton scenario has very little in the way of spacial rules. The situation is rather baldly depicted by the set up. The Americans are in two concentrated bodies, with one group on the flank of the British (actually Hessains) who are widely scattered amidst some buildings.

Mark and I played a match with both games going very similarly. An early volley wiped out the one Hessian artillery piece and then the Americans pressed forward. Mark favored the larger body that started on the ridge led by Washington. I tended to favor actions with the slightly smaller flanking force led by Greene.

But in the end it didn't matter. Both times the Americans won with a VP score of 6-1. It's probable that the historical Hessians didn't even manage 1 VP, but the game outcome was so one-sided that one can doubt that there is much the Hessian player can do except hope for extraordinary dice.

It might be possible to adjust the game victory points so that the British can win with, say, 3 VP, but this doesn't seem very true to the history and runs the danger of making the game just too driven by chance. The Hessian would probably play aggressively hoping to score on lucky shots.

I'm glad Trenton is in the box, but I'm not sure I'll ever play it again.

A little more Benedict Arnold

The gunboat Philadelphia from Arnold's fleet

A year before Benedict Arnold saved his country by winning the Battle of Saratoga he saved his country by losing the Battle of Valcour Island.

Valcour Island was an unusual "b\naval" battle as it was fought on Lake Champlain, which is a large, but not enormous lake. The strategic significance of Lake Champlain is that, while not especially large, it is very long, making it an excellent "highway" for a supply line for an Eighteenth Century army in an otherwise nearly road-less wilderness.

In 1776 the British intended to advance from Canada using the long and narrow Lake Champlain as their main supply route.

The Americans built a fleet and Arnold, who had experience at sea from his pre-war business career, took command. The British were forced to also build a fleet to protect their supply line. On Oct. 11, 1776 those two fleets, about 15 vessels for the Americans and two dozen for the British met in battle at Valcour Island, about halfway down the lake. While Arnold's fleet was destroyed, the mere fact it existed and the British had been forced to deal with it delayed the campaign that year so late into the season that the British invasion had to be suspended.

Almost exactly a year later a second British effort down that path led to the decisive Saratoga campaign.

Benedict Arnold -- most foolish man in American history?

Today marks the 235th anniversary of the Battle of Bemis Heights, the second of the two battles of Saratoga that led directly to the capture of Burgoyne's army and the entry of the French into the war, thereby indirectly leading to overall victory.

The battle was the high point of the already illustrious career of one of the most remarkable military talents America ever produced -- and it also set in motion the chain of events that led to that man's name becoming as much a synonym for betrayal as the name Judas Iscariot achieved.

Yes, Benedict Arnold was the hero of the day for his conduct that day. While Gen. Horatio Gates took the credit, fair-minded opinion of the day and since has given Arnold the lion's share of the honor for the victory. But Arnold was very badly hurt that day, and he never again held an active field command for the American cause. Arnold was personally fearless in action and the Saratoga wound was not his first -- not even his first in that same leg.

While a talented battlefield commander, Arnold had some unfortunate character traits which led him to be jealous of fellow officers and feel slighted when his clear contribution to the cause of Independence were not recognized to the degree he felt was warranted. Some even go so far as to blame his new wife for his base betrayal of the Patriot cause.

Arnold's boot monument

Arnold has a particular interest here, locally, as he is probably the best-known native of Norwich, Conn. His reputation is, of course, irretrievable, but the distance of time has allowed some small remembrance of his vital contribution to the birth of America to occur. A small plaque sits by the side of a street in Norwich, marking the approximate site of the Arnold homestead. Nothing remains of the original structure, of course. Arnold was so despised that in the wake of his betrayal angry residents descended on the cemetery and tore up the headstones of most of his relatives, including that of an infant son's. Only his mother Hannah Arnold's stone was overlooked and remain there to this day.

At the Saratoga battlefield itself there's a monument to Arnold's boot, which doesn't even mention Arnold by name!

Arnold's attack on Groton

When he appears in wargames, Arnold invariably rates highly as a commander, although in a strategic level games such as Washington's War he presents a bit of a design problem. Naturally the benefit of hindsight clues the player that this highly capable general isn't entirely reliable, but if a game doesn't make Arnold a traitor he's likely to rival the "indispensable man" himself, George Washington as the main figure in the game. This isn't something most Americans are going to be able to stomach.

And it is, in truth, hard to gin up much of defense for Arnold. There's no evidence his change of heart was driven by some high principle. And infamously, he turned around and led British forces against his native region and was in field command during one of the war's major atrocities, the Battle of Fort Griswold, where a massacre occurred after the fall of the fort.

Given how many monuments and communities there are in America named after Washington, Lafayette, Greene, Wayne, Kościuszko, v. Steuben, etc. there can't be any doubt that Arnold would have grown old showered with honors had he remained loyal. As honor and public acclamation appear to be what he desired most in life, surely he proved to be one of the biggest fools of American history. It's not unimaginable that  his hometown might have been renamed in his honor and I'd b writing this post from Arnoldton Conn. in the very shadow of some tall obelisk erected in his honor.  Instead he's got plaque.

The Whites of Their Eyes

The redoubtable Mark K. and I had a great game day -- as is so often the case we pretty much traded wins all day long -- split matches of Commands & Colors: Ancients and Hold The Line, he notched a convincing win of Washington's Warm while I eked out an unconvincing win in Richard III. He managed to break the tie with a win in Martian Fluxx though ... .

The Hold the Line game was actually a scenario from Clash for a Continent, the Battle of Bunker Hill. Now, even by the loose standards of HTL this Bunker Hill wasn't very Bunker Hill-like. There's not much resemblance between the order of battle and the layout of the ground between the scenario and the actual event, except in the very broadest sense of some British troops making a frontal assault on a hill held by Americans.

The scenario features some "regular" Americans, some "Light Infantry" and a few cannons!! backed up by some militia along a line of hills and a rail fence. This is quite kind to the American quality level and yet basically ignores the field fortifications the Americans erected. The famous reboudt is nowhere to be seen, for example. The British force seems reasonable, with some elites, some regulars and some light infantry. It appears to me that the scenario isn't meant to represent the entire battle, but is meant to depict the final British assault alone.

For the first game I took the Americans while Mark commanded the British. He endeavored to make his main effort on his left against the right corner of the American ridge, which he managed to take, albeit at some considerable loss. My survivors fell back towards the left. I had meanwhile redeployed the artillery from the American fence to the ridge -- a move that Mark considered ill-advised. While the cannons definitely beefed up the firepower of the main line, it opened up the possibility for a dash for the victory point hexes by the British left flank Light Infantry. Decent shooting at the last moment by a couple of American militia units (taking advantage of flanking fire) cut down the British lights as they crossed the fence -- but it was a very near-run thing indeed and one bad roll would have given the Mark the win. As it turned out, though, the failure of the Lights left the British facing a tough situation and the Americans were able to get the kill they needed for a 6-6 win. (The Briitsh needed 7 VPs to win, the Americans just 6)

When it was my turn with the British I decided to hit the other corner of the American hill line and was able to break into the American line at relatively less cost. At that point I had a choice between turning toward the Victory Point area behind the fence OR trying to roll up the Americans in the other direction. In retrospect, I made the wrong choice. I tried a push for the lucrative VP areas, but Mark had retained the artillery and the high quality infantry on that flank and my British troops did not have the necessary edge to prevail. Had I gone the other way I would have had a numerical and quality edge and that flank was within supporting distance by the British reserves. Instead I "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" and the game ended with another 6-6 American win.

Overall it seems like a good balanced scenario -- it's just not very authentic, even considering the abstractness of the game.

Battle of Rhode Island -- 1778

Historians have to build readable narratives. It's their craft to tell a story about the past. But actual events and life are seldom so neat that they naturally form a single strand of narrative -- there are usually eddies, backstories and side trips.

For example, most naratives of the the American Revolution follow Washington's army up through the Battle of Monmouth and then turn to the Southern campaigns that eventually led to Yorktown, with just a passing reference to events up north in the meantime.

This often means that the fairly substantial Battle of Rhode Island of late August, 1778, doesn't even get mentioned. It's true that the battle ended up having no decisive impact on events, but that's largely because of an inopportune storm that scattered the British and French fleets just as they were about to fight a potentially decisive naval battle. Had the French won the effects of Yorktown might have been achieved four years early, because a large British army might have been trapped at Newport, R.I. and captured. Instead, with both fleets badly damaged the British army was able to turn the tables on its erstwhile besiegers and launch a counteroffensive that nearly bagged a substantial American army.

On Aug. 28 and Aug. 29 the Americans fought a rearguard action to cover their escape that was notable in part for the participation of the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, which was a rare all-black regiment in American service (most Continental regiments, especially those from northern colonies, were integrated).

The British, recognizing they had escaped a close call, eventually pulled out of Newport and consolidated their troops in New York and the war went on four more years.

So far as I know the land battles which actually occurred have never been depicted in a wargame, but the naval battle which did NOT happen appears in both Close Action and Flying Colors as a "what-if."

A Patriot's Day Pounding

The redoubtable Mark K. and I celebrated Patriot's Day with a couple of appropriately themed American Revolution games, the new Washington's War from GMT and Liberty, the block game from Columbia Games.

Each game covers about the same ground, although Liberty is much more strongly focused on the military campaigning while Washington's War's card-driven allows it to include more political effects.

In both games I took the British, so history was well-served by Mark's eventual double victory.

Each game was marred a bit by inexperienced play and some rule errors, so I won't go into a lot of detail, but both games went the distance, ending in 1783. The British came within 1 victory point of getting a draw in Liberty, but that didn't reflect that the British cause unraveled relatively early and benefited from a late French entry. The Washington's War game, on the other hand, seemed t me to be somewhat close than the final result indicated. There was one critical victory by Benedict Arnold in North Carolina that had far-reaching effect as the was a real chance that Arnold and the entire southern Continental army would be captured which would have resulted in a solid loyalist South with little chance for a Patriot counteroffensive. Instead Arnold stuck around to cause more trouble and by the time the British secured the South they were too short on time and resources to take the North back.

Both games were enjoyable, however, and rematches are eagerly awaited.

Before tackling those two new games, Mark K. and I continued our Hold the Line series, playing the Battle of Ste. Foy from the French and Indian War. Until I got the French & Indian War expansion to HTL I had never even heard of this battle. Accounts of the Quebec campaign always concentrate on the Plains of Abraham battle and give the impression that it ended the campaign. But there was an additional battle the following year that the French even managed to win but the arrival of the British fleet shortly afterwards meant that the city of Quebec would remain in British hands.

While the French won the historical battle, in our match the British won each time. In the first go, Mark K. took the British while I took the French. The French have an advantage in numbers and quality, although the numerical advantage is largely made up by near-worthless militia and a matter of fact, on neither case did the militia take part in the battle. Looming larger was the French having starting values of 4 while the British were all 3s.

On the other hand the British had a major advantage in artillery and the French a disadvantage in time, with just 20 turns. Rounding out the British order of battle was a unit of useful colonial rangers while the French had a couple of allied Indian units.

Mark tried standing and fighting for a bit, with the intention of retreating after the early volleys. This didn't work out as he intended as he found it hard to withdraw under fire and the French jumped out to an early lead in victory points. In the middle game, however, the tide began to turn as the surviving British pulled back and the French began to straggle as they tried to stay within range,. Before too long the British outnumbered the French at the point of contact and they began to rack up points in turn. One French Indian unit made it to one hex of Quebec where it scooped up a VP marker, but it was eventually destroyed. The final score ended up being 7-6 in favor of the British,.

The second fight was more one-sided as I consistently retreated my British units which prevented the French from massing their army. Instead they ended up being strung out and caught outnumbered at the actual point of contact. The final score ended up being 7-4 for the British.

We agreed that this appeared to be a tough scenario for the French to win given the time pressure. Given that both of us have played quite a few games of Hold the Line by now, we felt that the level of play was reasonably good and the outcome was a good reflection of the scenario's balance.

Princeton revisited -- with Rebels & Redcoats

As I've been doing lately, I did a solitaire refight of a historical battle that Young General and I played using the simpler and more abstract Hold the Line with the more detailed and traditional Rebels & Redcoats game.

In this case the R&R game game to a brutally quick decision. Leaving out some secondary maneuvers and movements that didn't affect the final outcome, the key moves were an assault at 2-3 odds with a +2 die roll modifier by Mercer and his brigade of Continentals against the British 55th Regiment which resulted in a NED0 (Attacker No Effect; unmodified Defender morale check). Both halves of the 55th promptly failed their morale checks and retreated (and eventually one half even routed off the field!). This was a low probability outcome that put the British down 8 points in disruption and eliminations.

It also left Mawhood and the British 17th Regiment adjacent to Mercer and his brigade. Rather than withdraw and risk leaving half his regiment behind if it failed to disengage, Mawhood called in the Dragoon troop to help the 17th and launched a 1-1 assault with a +1 DRM on Mercer which resulted in a NE (no effect). In retrospect this was an error.

On the 0900 turn Mawhood was swarmed by all of Mercer's and Calawalader's brigades, led by Gen. Washington himself for a 3-1 assault with no modification to the die roll as Mawhood and Washington cancelled out. A die roll of 8 resulted in a DE (defender eliminated) which brought the British army far above it's disintegration level of 16. Indeed, Mawhood and the troops with him alone counted as 15 points!

This illustrates nicely a point that's often misunderstood in wargaming circles -- more dice does not equal more luck.

In the Hold the Line version of Princeton there were a total of 36 rolls of the command die between the two sides, and nearly 100 rolls of a standard die -- providing enough rolls that there's a high likelihood that the luck generally evened out. Indeed, the only real "luck roll" in that fight involved the hit on General Greene that took him out of the fight -- but even there the luck was not extreme. Washington was missed at least twice and Mawhood dodged a bullet as well.

In contrast, the traditional hex-and-counter game Rebels & Redcoats turned in dramatic fashion on just a literal handful of die rolls. In the entire 3-turn game there were just a dozen die rolls and half of those were of minor import (mostly low-factor bombardments and force marches). Seven rolls were important rolls: three assaults and four morale checks/rally attempts. Of those seven rolls fully six went against the interests of the British side and there was simply insufficient time for the rolls to even out in any way.

So despite surface appearances, Rebels & Redcoats's Princeton was much more luck dependent than Hold the Line's version of the battle.

On the other hand, R&R was closer to the actual final result than HTL, although getting there quite differently than the historical course of the action. In the R&R playing the British brigade was destroyed, where in HTL the British actually emerged victorious.

Hold the Line is a more fair scenario than Rebels & Redcoats, but probably makes it a more even fight than the historical reality would justify. Mawhood's command was seriously outnumbered and the Ameircan force was well-led with Washington, Greene and Sullivan all on the field.

Battle of Princeton -- A Hold the Line session report

Young General and Old Warrior continued our occasional series of anniversary games with a refight of the Battle of Princeton, Jan. 3, 1777, on the 233rd anniversary of that key battle from the American Revolution, using Hold the Line.

As usual, the Hold the Line scenario is a rather stylized approximation of the battle, although in this case the battlefield was recognizably Princeton. There's Fox Hollow (the river), the hill (in the center) and Princeton itself, (the town on the left.)

Young General decided to place all his hopes on an aggressive advance by a small portion of his army, led by Washington himself ( a 2/2 leader) using the four regular infantry and the artillery in the top center in an attempt to grab Princeton by Turn 18 while earning 3 victory points. This gave up the American advantage of numbers, but the closeness of the final result implied this was a viable approach. If anything, he handicapped his chances by making a late commitment of Greene and a couple of units against the British force manning the fence. More on that later.


Washington's advance succeeded in fighting across Fox Hollow within the first dozen turns, but the British were able to counter this move with a matching force comprising two regulars, the dragoons and Mawhood. Meanwhile an elite unit and the British guns occupied the hill in the center.

Interestingly, Washington himself withdrew from the flanking attack and attached himself to a single regular in the center, leading them at double-time through the center of the British position, capturing two VP markers (which had pulled away from Princeton due to the threat posed by the flankers) and fighting his way right into the first hex of Princeton! He came very close to winning at that point, with 3 VPs and 1 hex of Princeton on Turn 18. Had he moved one turn faster he might have pulled it off. As it happened, though, the British had been racking up points by knocking out American units.

And in the British half of Turn 18 they caught a lucky break which brought the battle to an end at that point, as General Greene fell alongside the last elements of his regiment against the fence fine, which gained the British the last two VPs they needed. The final score was 6-4.

Another look at Trenton, this time using Rebels & Redcoats

The Trenton Battlefield

After my session of Hold the Line I became curious how authentic a more traditional hex-and-counter wargame like Rebels & Redcoats might be dealing with this unusual battle, so I played a solitaire session of the game.

Of course, unlike the abstract unit treatment of Hold the Line, Rebels & Redcoats is very specific about the exact units involved and the telecsope is bumped up in magnification enough to capture even very small units. For example, the 20 dismounted dragoons of the 16th Lt. Dragoons rates a 1-factor counter in R&R.

The game begins with a fixed setup for the Hessians/British. Basically the Rall Regiment and half the Lossberg Regt. hold the north end of Trenton, the Knyphausen Regiment in deployed by the orchard on the southeast side of town and the Jagers cover the west side. Rall, himself, the dragoon detachment and the rest of the Lossberg regiment in the center. To represent surprise all the Hessian guns start the game disrupted. Each Hessian regiment has a gun section.

The battle opened with Greene leading the Philadelphia Dragoons, the Pennsylvania Rifles, the 1st and 3rd Virginia and Bauman's artillery down Pennington Road and around the northeast side of trenton as part of an effort to start cutting off the Hessian force. Washington led German's regiment, the Delaware company and the 1st Continental with Forrest's 2-section battery and Hamilton's artillery against the Rall element at the north end of town. Washington was bale to drive the Hessians back with an assault.

Meanwhile, from the West side of town came Gen. Sullivan with the balance of the Continental army. Most of the force maneuvered through the woods to set up a wide front attack, but a four-regiment task force drove back the Jaeger pickets at the bridge.

The Hessians used their half of the 0730 turn to consolidate their regiments roughly along Fourth Street. The Jaegers failed in their disengagement attempt and dispersed. The Rall Regiment was able to successfully retreat into a reserve position near the orchard on Second Street. At the end of the turn the disintegration levels were American 0, Hessian 4.

The 0800 turn saw Sullivan's wing push into Trenton on a wide front, successfully driving the Hessians back from King Street and along First Street to cut off the bridge. During the historical battle the Americans were able to set up their guns to sweep the streets, but the R&R rules don't allow that to happen because the town hexes block the line of sight, so this is a case where the more abstract game (Hold the Line) is actually more realistic on a detail than the hex-and-counter game. Instead Washington led the artillery with him to join Bauman's guns to the northeast of the town in hopes of getting a clear shot. Greene led his light troops, dragoons and one regiment to chase the British Dragoons out of the isolated house east of Trenton.

The Hessians spent their half of 0800 slowly falling back along Queen Street. At the end of the turn the disintegration score was American 2.5, Hessian 6.

The Americans were getting concerned at 0830 about the lack of progress and tried some bombardments, which had no effect because of town hexes and bad rolls. Greene continued to lead his lights and dragoons to the South of the town, completing the encirclement. meanwhile Washington created a grand battery in the northeast able to fire on the main Hessian position between Fourth and Third streets. Sullivan marshaled his forces in preparation for a massive push on the 0900 turn. One brigade's worth of Sullivan's troops launched an assault to secure the intersection of Queen and Third streets but was repulsed with some disruptions.

The Hessians, for their part of the turn concentrated their forces at the two ends of their line, leaving just half of the Lossberg Regiment to hold the open field in the center.

At the end of the turn the disintegration levels were American 4.5, Hessian still just 6.

The final turn, 0900 began with intense bombardment of the Lossberg field from both sides. Uncoordinated fire by four gun sections at the intersection of King and Second streets only netted one morale check, which Lossberg passed. A coordinated blast from Washington's grand battery on Fourth Street also only achieved a morale check -- which Lossberg again passed!

So now it was time for a massive, coordinated American assault across the length of Queen Street from hex 1705 to 1608 -- four hexes worth. A couple of regiments also launched a diversionary attack on the Rall Regiment, mostly to exert a zone of control.

General Greene's attack on the field portion of Lossberg was a 2-1 with a +2 for Greene, but the die roll was a measley 3, adjusted to a 5 for a NED0 (No Effect on attacker, Defender morale check) which Lossberg, naturally, passed!

The diversionary attack by the 1st Pennsylvania Rifle and Ward's regiment against Rall and the rest of Lossberg went very badly -- Attacker Eliminated.

The next attack was three stacks of Americans with no leader against Rall and his stack in 1706. This 3-1 attack was shifted to the left by two for the town, but brought back right by one for the American light infantry to a 2-1. Rall subtracted 1 from the die roll, but Washington added 2, for a total +1. The die roll of 6 became a 7 for a DR2. The Knyphausen Regiment lost half its strength in the retreat through zones of control, but most of Rall's force survived. Sullivan took the hex.

The Hessian retreat created an opportunity for the 1st and 3rd Virginia to attack Rall's force but this attack failed, and the two American units retreated, one disrupted. Several American units failed their rally rolls and left the field.

In the Hessian half of the turn Rall launched an assault on the Philadelphia Dragoons to open up an escape route. This attack succeeded in eliminating the horse unit. The other half of the Lossberg regiment joined its portion in the fields to launch an attack on Greene's force at 1-1 which ended up being repulsed with an AR2, although true to form the Lossberg Regiment only took one disruption form the multiple morale checks caused by retreating in a zone of control.

The 16th Dragoons sacrificed themselves making a diversionary attack against several stacks of American units to cover the withdrawal of Knyphausen and the guns.

So the game ended without the Hessian being driven to their disintegration level and even having a clear escape route along Second Street. The final disintegration score was American 15.5 and Hessian 19.

Although considerably more detailed, I can't say I was left feeling like Rebels & Redcoats did a better job of reflecting the actual battle than Hold the Line did.

Trenton, Dec. 26 session of Hold the Line

The Day after Christmas provided an opportunity to play an anniversary game commemorating 233 years since Washington led his bedraggled army across the Delaware in a bold bid to salvage something from his disastrous 1776 campaign.

The Young General decided he wanted the British (in this case Hessian) force, despite the historical outcome. He was impressed with the strong contingent of Elite infantry. And indeed, the Hessian force was remarkably strong, considering the historical record, with three elite Infantry units (marked 4E on the map) and five regular infantry. Rounding out the force was an artillery unit and one 2/1 General (Representing Rall -- spelled Rahl in the game notes). The effects of surprise are shown by giving the Hessians a Command Level of just 1 for the first five turns, rising to 2 after that.

The Americans did not have a huge advantage in numbers, just 9 regular infantry and three artillery units. The biggest American edge was in leadership, with Washington (2/2) and "Greene" (1/2), although by the setup Greene really should be Sullivan. The Americans have a Command Level of 3. The Americans also have a positional advantage, as can be seen from the map, with all their troops in two consolidated forces while the Hessians are spread out. The Hessians do have four hexes of town to bolster their defenses, though.

The victory conditions are interesting, with both players having a goal of 6 VPs. The Americans can get one Victory Point by taking the indicated town hex, while the Hessians can earn 2 victory points for every three units that escape across the bridge. The burden of attack is on the Americans, if the game ends without either side getting to 6, then the British win. The scenario instructions don't indicate a game length, so we assumed it was 30.

The initial turns really went well for the Americans, with multiple Action Die roll s of 3 giving the American 6 action points to work with. Hessian luck wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either, so the first five turns they had 2 or 3 action points per turn available. The Americans advanced on the bridge and generally closed along the whole line. The Hessian unit nearest the bridge was able to escape over it, and the two elite units on the Hessian left pulled back a bit in preparation for their own run for the bridge. The Americans jumped out to a 3-0 lead by eliminating the Hessian guns, the forward elite unit and the regular unit between them. So far the Hessians had inflicted just one hit on the Americans.

The next few turns saw the Americans try to push their advantage with a general advance across the front. Rall was threatened with encirclement as Washington led a regular unit to capture the victory point hex and other American units closed in. Another Hessian regular fell, at the cost of one American unit, so the score was 5-1.

The Hessians then rallied, as the Elites counterattacked the Victory Point hex and recaptured it, while Rall fought his way to them. The Americans lost the victory hex and two infantry units. This closed the gap to 4-3

Still, the press of numbers began to tell. The Americans could afford to pull badly damaged units out of the line and had enough command to rally others. The guns had been brought forward into range and Washington and "Greene" led fresh troops to the front. Both of the remaining Hessian regular units were eventually ground down and eliminated by Turn 16, making the final score 6-3. Presumably Rall and the two elite units would have surrendered at this point. Illustrating how tough the fighting was, only one of the surviving six American infantry units was still at full strength.

It was an interesting fight, although probably not a particularly authentic rendering of the battle, even by Hold the Line standards. Winning the battle with such losses would definitely have taken a bit of the shine off the trophy compared to the actual event, where no American troops died in the fighting (although some did die from the weather).

Solitaire play of King's Mountain in Hold the Line

The American Revolution Battle King's Mountain seems at first consideration to be an excellent topic for a wargame. You have two armies of almost identical size and quality facing off without any chance of outside interference.

Unfortunately there's the uncomfortable fact that the historical outcome was exceedingly one-sided as the losing army was completely annihilated for relatively small cost to the winner. It was, indeed, a stunning result.

By 1780 the fighting in the American Revolution had moved to the southern colonies in the face of the British defeats up north and the stalemate outside New York. As British Gen. Cornwallis campaigned through the Carolinas he dispatched a force of American Loyalists under the well-regarded Major Patrick Ferguson to cover his inland flank. Ferguson's force, while made up entirely of provincials, was well-trained and contained a core of troops trained to the standards of British regular troops. It numbered around 1,000.

Unfortunately Ferguson, while a god leader and trainer of troops, was evidently rather foolish when it came to psychology as he threatened to lay waste to rebel areas and unleash Indian raids. Rather than cowing the frontiersmen who inhabited the mountain interior his threats ended up mobilizing those folks and a force of about 900 of them moved to attack Ferguson's army. While completely irregular and not part of the formal Patriot forces (being neither Continentals nor militia) these frontiersmen was hardy campaigners with extensive experience with their weapons and no strangers to fighting.

Still, the Rebel force would normally be expected to have some problem executing a complex battle plan, having an ill-defined and informal chain of command. In the actual event, however, the Rebel leaders seem to have had no problem cooperating despite the informal nature of their army.

The Rebels caught up with Ferguson just south of the border between North and South Carolina at King's Mountain on Oct. 7, 1780. Ferguson decided to make a stand on the high ground of King's Mountain. This must have seemed like a self-evidently good idea, but as it turns out it was an enormous blunder. Ferguson died in the battle, so we don't know what he was thinking, but it may have been that he expected to tire out the attacking Rebels by having them attack up the steep hill. Further, he may have reasonably expected that his disciplined troops would be able to defeat the Rebel attackers piecemeal, as their unpracticed and irregular force would find it difficult to coordinate its attacks.

As it turns out, Ferguson fatally misjudged his opponents. The Rebel commanders were able to devise a plan to surround the entire British force and then execute a simultaneous encircling attack. The Loyalists launched bayonet charges that drove the Rebel line back, but could not close with it in the heavily wooded terrain of the mountainside. Meanwhile the Rebel marksman picked off the Loyalists, especially the leaders, including Ferguson himself. Unable to return effective fire against the woodsmen in the trees and eventually the entire army surrended.

King's Mountain hasn't been extensively simulated, although it's not fair to say it has been ignored, either. For example, it's a scenario in Rebels & Redcoats Vol. III.

Still, simulating a battle that involved a crushing defeat for one side is never easy for designers, particularly when there's so little excuse for the loss. Ferguson's army was at least as good quality as the Americans and actually a little bit larger. His defeat is completely due to picking very poor ground on which to fight, compounded by a fatal misjudgment about his opponents.

In Hold the Line this design reflects the key facts of the battle fairly well given its simple design and manages to recreate the circumstances of the battle while presenting a chance for a different outcome. The Loyalist force of eight units and a leader sets up in the middle of the map in open ground in a line alternating between militia (2 Morale Points) and British Regulars representing the trained Loyalists (3 MPs). The American force is made up entirely of 10 militia units (2MP) with two leaders, but they have the advantage of being able to setup anywhere in a ring of hill and woods hexes completely surrounding the Tory army.

Besides the advantage of surrounding the Loyalists and having terrain cover, the Americans also have a significant command action point advantage of 3 to 1. This means that the Rebels will have at least 4 CAP per turn while the Loyalists will never have more than 4. While this helps recreate the historical result, I'm not sure it doesn't amount to an "idiot rule" for the Loyalists and is hard to justify on purely historical grounds. Ferguson's force did not, in fact, suffer from any notable command control problems.

For my solitaire run through I decided to concentrate the American effort against the middle of the British line by massing two groups of three militia each directly north and south of the middle part of the Loyalist force. Each group had one American leader. The remaining four militia units completed the encirclement around the ends of the British line. My plan for the British was to try to rush one side or the other of the American line and break through.

As it turned out, however, the first few turns really went the Americans' way and the two militia units and Loyalist regular in the middle of the map were quickly gunned down. Because the Americans didn't need to move much they could maximize their Action points to fire, which meant 5 or 6 shots each turn. Meanwhile the Loyalists were forced to spend two APs per unit as they moved and fired and/or tried assaults, so most turns they had just a couple of attempts at causing casualties and lesser odds of succeeding due to the woods and hills terrain effects. Eventually the Loyalists were able to fight their way into the woods and eliminate a couple of Rebel militia units but they were never able to make up the initial deficit and the game ended with the British scoring 4 VPs for eliminated American units while losing 6 VPs and the game. Actually, the British lost 7 VPs because they also lost their leader in the last assault combat.

As a solitaire scenario it worked reasonably well and resembled the historical result, although perhaps not quite so one-sided. I'm not sure how it would work as a two-player scenario because the Loyalist player really has few options. It might make a good scenario for an experienced player to use to teach a new player, though, giving the new person the American force.

Monsoon Seas review

Although styled "Volume III" in the Close Action series, Monsoon Seas is not a full-fledged expansion of the game series in the same way as Commands & Colors, for example, with new pieces, maps and the like. Essentially, like its predecessor Rebel Seas, it's really a scenario book.
That said, it's really an essential buy for Close Action fans and anyone interested in the age of fighting sail. Like other Mark Campbell efforts, Monsoon Seas is exhaustively researched, often from primary sources such as ship's logs and captain's letters. Indeed, buying Monsoon Seas is more like buying a history book that happens to have some wargame scenarios in it than merely buying a scenario book.

The focus of the book of this volume is the famous Indian Ocean duel between the fleets of British admiral Sir Edward Hughes and French Admiral Pierre-Andre de Suffren de St.-Tropez, perhaps France's greatest admiral ever. With extensive historical background, scenarios are provided covering the years of French defeats before Suffren arrived and then his brilliant career. A total of 17 scenarios cover the entire Franco-British Indian Ocean struggle.

Compared to fleet actions in other theaters, the Indian Ocean campaign's engagements lend themselves well to moderately sized gaming groups. Close Action is best played with individual players controlling 1-3 ships. This means full-sized fleet actions often aren't practical outside of convention settings or online play. But most of the battles between Suffren and Hughes involved about a dozen ships, so a group as small as six or eight can be accommodated.

Unlike most age of sail battles, which can be frustrating for the non-British side to play because their ships are crap, the Indian Ocean battles feature squadrons of equal quality, due to Suffren's inspired leadership and abetted by Hughes' pedestrian style.

In addition to the Franco-British scenarios, Monsoon Seas also includes three scenarios and historical background for a war I know I never heard of, and I rather doubt many have -- the war between Spain and Portugal off the coast of South America in 1776-1777. Huh? Yeah, me too!
Yep, apparently Spain and Portugal fought a short naval war over the boundary between Brazil and the Spanish colonies to the south while the American Revolution was just heating up. The two events were related because it tied up Portugal's main ally, Britain, so Spain could feel free to war against its Iberian neighbor. Apparently it was a limited war, and no fighting occurred in Europe between the adjacent powers. The war provides an excuse for four (numbered 1, 2A, 2B and 3) small scenarios suitable for a 2-6 players.

The war doesn't relate to the Monsoon Seas theme in any way, but it wouldn't have fit any better with Rebel Seas or the upcoming Europeans Seas either.

In addition to the scenarios and historical background, the 84-page book includes some important errata for Close Action and two new rules sections. One replaces the optional "Uncertain Wearing" rule from Rebel Seas with a simpler rule that still reflects the real difficulties of turning a ship under sail with a poor crew or battle damage. (wearing is a turn with the wind, as opposed to tacking, which is turning the bow across the wind) The other rule adds a section on shore batteries, which is a very useful addition to the game system.

Monsoon Seas is an excellent work, well worth having for anybody who has an interest in the age of sail.

Rebels and Redcoats Vol. III review

There's absolutely nothing new in Rebels & Redcoats, Vol. III, from Decision Games. It's a straightforward, old fashioned hex-and-counter wargame depicting battles from the American Revolution.

From a reviewer's standpoint, this might be considered a bad thing. Reviewers like innovation. Reviewers want to see something new, especially if they've seen a lot of games.

But from a players standpoint, there's a lot to be said for the familiarity of tried and true design techniques, especially if they work.

Rebels & Redcoats Vol. III contains 19 battles from the American Revolution. As a matter of fact, it includes just about every significant open field battle of the entire war. All that's left out are the sieges and a handful of fights that might be hard to treat as full-fledged battles anyway like Lexington and Concord, Oriskany and the Paoli "Massacre."

The first two volumes of R&R were published in 1995, depicting four and eight battles, respectively. Vol. III followed about 10 years later with its seven battles, but now all 19 battles are included in the one Vol. III box. There are no significant differences between the three volumes. Indeed, the errata is minimal for a hex-and-counter wargame. The most obvious change between the volumes is the map graphics, which vary in style between Vol. I-II and Vol. III.

Systemically, the game is very standard black powder era stuff. Units are rated for movement, combat and morale values. Leaders have a command rating which modifies morale and a command span which puts units "in command" for movement and combat. Artillery units can bombard over a distance of 2-5 hexes, depending upon the size of the cannons. Units have zones of control that force enemy units to stop and fight. Units that are not adjacent to the enemy at any point can "force march" and extra distance at a chance of being "disrupted," a status they can also achieve from combat result.

The turn sequence is IGO-HUGO. Up to eight strength points of units can stack in a hex, and terrain effects are standard. Light infantry rated units get some movement advantages, and there are some special rules for dragoons, but they appear in such limited numbers that they're really not much of a factor in most battles.

The nub of the entire game system is the morale rating. Both sides are armed similarly and units are usually all about the same size. Regiments in both armies usually operated understrength and were usually about 300 or so strong. In game terms this means a typical combat factor of "4" per regiment.

The big difference between the armies was in morale and training, represented by a morale rating. Many game activities require morale checks and here the Redcoats have a significant advantage. Americans are often rated "5" which means they have a 50% chance of failure on the 10-sided die roll before modifications. British/Hessian units are typically a "7" or "8." Over the course of the game that 20 or 30% advantage in morale checks and rally rolls adds up to a significant edge.

Most of the battles don't require a lot of special rules and for those fights that might be a bit scripted ot less interesting because of historical factors (Trenton, Bunker Hill, White Plains for example) there are what-ifs provided for a more entertaining battle.

R&R is a good, old-fashioned SPI-style wargame that any grognard can sit down and start playing.

Bunker Hill review

If XTR were into naming it's game systems they could have called the one initaited by Hougoumont the "desperate defense" series. Featuring stubborn defenses of fortified locales in the black powder era, Bunker Hill: A Dear Bought Victory was the second game to appear in Command Magazine using the innovative hex-and-counter wargame mechanics of Hougoumont.

The game was the issue game in Command Magazine No. 32 in 1995. A very tactical game, each turn represents just 10 minutes of real time and each hex is 35 yards across. Each stacking point represents 25 soldiers. Unit counters represent companies and half-companies from the Colonial militia and British armies. The 22 turns cover the fighting from 2 to 5:30 p.m.

While the British finally drove the militiamen from their position, it was at a horrfic cost. The militaimen, by standing up to the regulars, showed that the American Revolution was going to see some serious fighting, while making the British, especially their comander, Gen. William Howe, wary of attacking entrenched Americans for the rest of the war.

The 16-page rule book describes a game of moderate complexity by wargame standards. The Beth Queman map is functional, although not especially attractive, with strong colors that tend to overshadow the more subtle unit counters. The map shows most of the Charlestown peninsula where the battle took place. Besides the hill slopes, other key terrain depicted is the densely-settled Charlestown, the Colonial fortifications, the road network and the many stone walls criss-crossing the area.

The 178 5/8-inch counters are illustrated with color icons of the soldiers and militiamen, with an identifying formation ID number, fire modifier, morale rating and a stacking value. The Americans have stacking values ranging from 1 to 3 while the British have a stacking value of “2.“ The reverse side of each unit has half the stacking value. Morale values run from “1” (for step reduced militiamen) to “6” (British Grenadiers and Light Infantry). Both sides have a number of leaders who provide movement and morale benefits. Most units have a movement allowance of 12, although many British units have a speed of 8 until they drop their packs later in the day. The two sides are differentiated by the background colors, blue for Massachusetts troops, gray for New Hampshire troops and green for Connecticut troops on the Colonial side and light red for the British.

Each player turn starts with a reinforcement phase. The player then moves and fires his units (firing is a function of movement and costs 8 movement points). During the movement/fire phase the enemy player can interrupt to conduct a reaction move/fire with his own units within range. (In typical XTR fashion this tactic is given the colorful moniker “Boom and Zoom.) Mastering the “Boom and Zoom” move is a key part of playing the game well. After all movement the phasing player conducts melee. Unlike Hougoumont, not every unit can take advantage of the Boom and Zoom technique, as they have to be under command control to use it. Also limiting American use of the technique is an ammunition limitation rule. Every time the Americans fire there is a good chance they will run out of ammunition and be removed from the map. All they have to do is roll greater than the current morale. As the best American morale is a "3" one can see that most of them are one-shot wonders.

Firing is conducted unit by unit, with the die roll modified according to the number on the counter. The die roll is compared to the number of steps in the target hex. Often this will mean an automatic hit on the large stacks the British player will be using to maximize his melee power. Most hexes have a stacking limit of 12.

The casualty count will run heavily against the British until they can close into melee.

Both sides start with just part of their forces available. Throughout the battle more Americans will brave the British naval interdiction fire across the narrow neck and join the fight, although few, if any, will make it to the front line.

If the initial Britsh assaults fail they can call a special "Reorganization turn" which bring reinforcements and returns eliminated units, but at the cost of a victory point.

The game itself is a tense contest as the British try to fight their way into the Ameircan position at some kind of acceptable cost.

The game is won on victory points. The British get two each for capturing the redoubt on Breed's Hill, capturing the Neck and exiting more steps off the West edge than the Americans. Getting all six would represent a sweeping victory, while the historical result was just two (for the redoubt). The Americans get one victory point for each Reorganization turn the British use, one Victory Point if they still hold the redoubt and one for every 25 steps of British eliminated. The historical result was a "three" for the casualties and the two reorganization turns.

A variation on the game system also later appeared in “Dark Victory” (The Alamo) in a later issue of Command.

The game is playable in one long evening and only takes about 10 minutes to set up.

There are five scenarios.

The first is an unbalanced teaching scenario of the worst part of the British assault. The designer notes: "This scenario is intentionally unbalanced since younger players like to win and will return to play again only if they do win."

The second scenario is the historical scenario.

The third scenario looks at an earlier landing proposed by Gen. Clinton, one of Howe's subordinates. Because of the tides, this earlier landing would have had to be in Charlestown.

The fourth scenario looks at a proposed landing behind the American line suggested by Gen. Clinton. This places a smaller force of British between the Americans on the hill and their base off map. It's the only scenario where the Americans will attack.

The fifth scenario modifies Clinton's proposed attack with a supporting attack by Howe, so it is a combination of the historical scenario and Clinton's idea.

Recommendations

(Yes) For Wargamers: It manages to make a bloody frontal assault into an interesting game.

(No) For Collectors.

(No) For Euro gamers: Game play is intricate and detailed, even by wargame standards, with a lot of movement factor counting and other math.

A battle that almost was -- Dorchester 1776

First published in Command Magazine No. 32, Jan.-Feb. 1995. The wargame and main artile in the issue was Bunker Hill by William M. Marsh, but I had a small sidebar on the battle that wasn't -- the assault on Dorchester Heights.

Another Bunker Hill Affair — or Worse
By Seth Owen

But for a stormy night, Gen. George Washington might have earned a ranking among the greatest military geniuses of history. A gale on the night of 5 March 1776 may have robbed him of everlasting fame as the brilliant tactician and strategist who won his country’s independence in a single dramatic night. Instead, the Virginian is known for his stoic endurance earned through long years of frustrating campaigns and hard winters.

Washington took command of the army of minutemen besieging Boston in July 1775. He spent the balance of that year bringing some semblance of discipline to the rebel army, and on 1 January 1776 he reorganized and reenlisted the entire force.

Even as he cajoled soldiers, cashiered officers and begged Congress for money, Washington chafed for a chance to strike. In September 1775, he considered an assault on Boston before the army’s enlistments expired, and in January he unsuccessfully urged a council of war to support an attack because of “the indispensable necessity of making a bold attempt to conquer the Ministerial Troops before they can be reinforced in the spring.” The council demurred, because of the obvious weakness of the army, still lacking in troops, powder and artillery.

Washington addressed the latter two deficiencies by detaching his chief of artillery, former Boston bookseller Henry Knox, to bring to Boston the artillery and powder captured at Fort Ticonderoga the previous May. As Knox labored to haul the artillery across the snowy Berkshires, Washington formulated his plan for turning the guns to his decisive advantage.

The Battle of Bunker Hill had shown by example and implication the way to break the siege and drive the British from the town. The Patriot use of a surprise earthwork thrown up overnight on a commanding point provided the example. The Patriots had in fact occupied the heights above Charlestown to preempt a planned British move against the real key to the town and the harbor — the peninsula of Dorchester Neck and its heights.

The Patriots moved first, to seize and fortify Bunker and Breed’s Hill and thus forestall the British move. Their plan succeeded beyond expectations. The British abandoned their plan to fortify Dorchester Neck and instead moved against Bunker/Breed’s Hill. After their Pyrrhic victory, the British contented themselves with fortifying what they had captured and left Dorchester Neck ungarrisoned throughout the fall and winter.

Dorchester Neck in 1776 was a rectangular peninsula, about two miles long and three—quarters of a mile wide, with the long axis running east—west. Like Charlestown, the Neck was nearly an island, connected
to the mainland by a narrow isthmus at its southwest corner. Unlike the isthmus at Charlestown, however, wide mud flats surround Dorchester’s neck. Low tide exposed the flats and the water was far too shallow for the British warships to approach even at the deepest high tide.

In the center of the peninsula was a large, double peaked hill, called the Heights, which shared Bunker Hill’s unusual topography. When the Boston area was scooped from the earth during the last Ice Age a type of feature left by the retreating glaciers was the distinctive hill called a “drumlin.” Shaped like upside-down cereal bowls, the hills have steep sides, making them difficult for attacking infantry. But they are capped with gently rounded peaks suitable for artillery emplacements and redoubts. Boston’s Beacon Hill is a drumlin, as are Bunker and Breed’s Hills in Charlestown. Others surround the town in Cambridge, Roxbury and Dorchester Neck.

Washington’s plan for the move on Dorchester Neck was essentially an improved copy of the original patriot plan for Bunker Hill. Like the Bunker Hill plan, the occupation of Dorchester Neck relied on the surprise erection of a redoubt in a single night. The ground on the neck was stiffly frozen, however, making it unlikely digging alone could do the job. At the suggestion of Col. Rufus Putnam, fascines and gabions were made. Fascines are bundles of sticks wrapped together to form parapets; gabions are wickerwork baskets that are filled with earth to build ramparts quickly. More than 300 wagons were to transport the prefabricated materials to the Neck. To cover the sound of the work, Knox would bombard the town, hoping to provoke counterbattery fire that would mask the sounds of the workers.

At Bunker Hill, Col. William Prescott’s men had fought their battle fatigued, hungry and short of powder, after having built their fort and then manning it without relief. Washington’s plan avoided these flaws. At Dorchester Heights the troops building the redoubt would be relieved by fresh units in the morning. The Bunker Hill line had no support; Washington’s plan had additional troops standing by to reinforce the Heights if needed.

Instead of the half-dozen indifferently manned light field pieces of Bunker Hill, the Heights would bristle with cannon. Unlike the earlier battle, the troops on the heights would also have ample powder.

Washington was not content to merely drive the British from Boston, or provoke them into repeating their folly at Bunker Hill. He aimed at striking a knockout blow that would liberate the town while destroying the British army.

Unless the British drove the Americans from the heights they would have to quit the harbor. Washington expected Howe would not abandon the town without making an attempt to dislodge the Americans. To turn that expected reaction to advantage, Washington also prepared a stunning surprise assault across the Back Bay to seize the town while the British main body fought on the heights.

Some 3,600 troops under the command of Maj. Gen. Israel Putnam stood ready to cross the Back Bay in 45 secretly built 80—man bateaux. Two more boats were outfitted as floating batteries to provide fire support. The force, comprising brigades under John Sullivan and Nathaniel Greene, was to row across the Back Bay while the British were tied up in their assaults and hit the beach on Boston Common. Sullivan’s men would wheel left and capture Beacon Hill and the town, while Greene turned right and took the British fort
guarding Boston Neck from the rear, letting the Roxbury-based troops into the town.

Washington set his plan in motion on the evening of 4 March 1776. If there were a battle, it would take place on 5 March, the anniversary of the Boston Massacre. It seemed an auspicious date.

Washington’s plan unfolded flawlessly. In the darkness 2,000 colonials under the command of Maj. Gen. John Thomas silently moved on to the Neck with their wagonloads of gabions and fascines. About 800 men acted as a covering force, while 1,200 more set to work on the twin forts. Early the next morning a 3,000-man relief force took over as garrison.

Knox’s bombardment provoked the hoped-for British response and the nightlong cannonade masked the sounds of work on the heights. One British sentry in fact reported hearing construction noise from the Neck, but his report went no further than Brig. Gen. Francis Smith, who had received a similar report on the night Prescott fortified Breeds Hill. Incredibly, Smith again ignored the report, failing to either act on it himself or pass it up to Howe.

The morning revealed a new rebel fort overlooking the harbor, to the astonishment of the British army. If anything, the surprise this time was more complete because this fort was such an obviously strong position. The forts, according to one British officer, had been raised with “an expedition equal to that of the genii belonging to Aladdin’s wonderful lamp.”

Howe estimated the work must have taken “12,000 or 14,000 men that night.” Howe also realized the fort made the harbor untenable and resolved to strike quickly to take it before it became too strong. At first the British tried to reduce the redoubt with artillery fire, but found they couldn’t elevate their cannon enough to reach the heights, while the heights gave the rebel gunners extra range in turn. An infantry assault would he needed.

That afternoon boats ferried a strike force of five regiments to Castle William, located about a mile off Dorchester Point. Hoping to avoid another Bunker Hill debacle, Howe planned a night bayonet assault. Later in the evening, apparently concerned the assault force was not strong enough, Howe sent over two more regiments along with the battalions of light infantry and grenadiers as reinforcements Howe also planned a simultaneous assault with 1,200 troops against the American lines at Roxbury.

Howe was playing right into Washington’s hands with this move, and there is no indication the British general had the slightest inkling of Putnam’s planned assault. Aside from the British garrison in Charles-town and the forces based at Boston neck, there were only about 600 men under Brig. Gen. Robert Pigot to protect the city.

Washington and his troops were confident they could hold their positions on the Heights. The redoubt was much stronger than Prescott’s little fort had been. Abattis encircled the position and it was proof against musketry. Cannon covered all the approaches; there was plenty of powder and reinforcements were nearby. The garrison of the redoubt was nearly as numerous as the British assault force and included five large companies of riflemen. Washington himself was on the heights, ready to direct its defenses.

Meanwhile, foreboding about the coming assault filled the British troops. Most expected a much bloodier repeat of Bunker Hill. A Boston resident who saw them embark for Castle Island wrote that “they looked in general pale and dejected, and said to one another that it would be another Bunkers (sic) Hill affair or worse.”

Howe apparently also had second thoughts about the assault, but he couldn’t find a face-saving way to call it off. Several British officers, certain the attack was doomed, lobbied to have it cancelled. In fact, it’s hard to see how the attack could have succeeded. Storming works requires fortitude and elan, scarce qualities that afternoon in the British ranks.

But Howe’s luck changed that evening as a violent “hurrycane” blew in. Locals called it the worst storm within memory, and it made any landing impossible that night.

Work to strengthen the redoubt continued all night despite the storm, and morning revealed any opportunity to take the works by assault had truly passed, if it ever existed at all. Also, sometime during the night, an informant finally got word to Howe of Washington’s planned surprise landing on Boston Common. That news proved too much for Howe, who finally decided to abandon Boston.

British troops and their Tory allies spent the next few days evacuating to the ships of the fleet and on 17 March, St. Patrick’s Day, 1776, Washington’s troops marched in to take possession.

ISSUE 32 JAN-FEB 1995

Review: The Complete Brigadier

The Complete Brigadier is, in many ways, a very old-fashioned kind of miniatures wargame covering the black powder era, from 1680 to 1880. It's more reminiscent of Little Wars or Charge! than many newer sets of rules.
It has a ruthless focus on the brigadier's fight, unlike most popular rules of recent vintage which try to cover whole battles.
No, in The Complete Brigadier the objective is immediate. Take that hill, flank that line, defend along this creek, and so on.
The player represents a brigade commander, generally in charge of a four or five battalions of infantry, a battery of guns and an attached regiment of horse. Each figure represents 20 men. The game concerns itself with formations, orders and weapons in direct and explicit ways.
There are no fancy interactive phases or abstract shortcuts.
Brigadiers first write up orders for their units, using specific commands drawn from historically based options, specifying formation, direction and rate of march.
Next, melee battles initiated the turn before are resolved, using a deterministic process that considers morale, numbers, weapons, formation and terrain.
Units then move in accordance with their previously written orders, reacting automatically to unexpected encounters based on historical doctrine. For example, an infantry unit encountering enemy cavalry may form a square.
Then units engage in fire, selecting targets based on a formula that again is based on historical practices. Unlike most games, firing is not generally optional. Unless specifically ordered not to shoot, a unit will fire on targets within range. The results of fire combat are determined by formula without any dice, but taking into account weapons, morale and various other factors.
After resolving all fire units check morale, based on quality, losses and local circumstances, again with no roll of the die involved.
Finally, based on actions taken that turn, units expend some of their limited pool of "stamina." Firing, meleeing and moving at anything faster than a slow walk all cost stamina. As one might expect, it's easier to expend stamina than replenish it, and better troops have more of it than poor troops.
The game includes all sorts of special rules for special cases such as burning buildings, moving on boats, irregular troops, building fieldworks and most anything else one might expect to see affecting a brigade level fight.
Probably the hardest thing for most wargamers to get used to is the lack of any luck element. While the designer lays out his case for the historicity of his approach, the main reason for minimizing the role of luck is to maximize the extent that The Complete Brigadier can be a duel of skill between two brigadiers. The only pure luck element in the entire game is a fate roll for the chances of the brigadier himself getting hit, and if hit, how badly hit. A couple of D6 rolls will determine his fate, although only two consecutive sixes will "seriously wound" the brigadier, resulting in him being "carried from the field by his staff" and replaced by his previously identified second-in-command.
The game includes many clever and entertaining illustrations, a well-organized and well-indexed set of rules, and entire booklet devoted to explaining how to get into miniature gaming with tips for making terrain, painting troops and organizing scenarios. It has references and suggestions for fielding armies throughout the era from 1680 to 1880. It includes five scenarios, all based on battles in North America: Plains of Abraham, 1759; Guilford Courthouse, 1781; Crysler's Farm, 1813; Palo Alto, 1846 and Mill Springs, 1862. Information for troops and weapons from throughout the period are included, however, and there's really no limits on what setting can be used.
While my usual and favorite era for the game is the American Revolution, I've also organized games from the American Civil War, the War of 1812 and the Zulu War of 1879.
The game can be used with any scale figures. Distances are measured in "spaces" which represent 20 yards on the ground. Based on figure scale a space can be anywhere from 3/4-inch (for 9mm figures) to 2 inches (30mm figures). A space is one inch for the most popular scale, 15mm, and also for my preferred scale 20mm.
Unlike many miniatures games, a game master or umpire is not required. The game can be played by just two, although I would highly recommend players play in the the proper spirit of traditional miniatures wargaming, as exemplified by the accounts in Little Wars and Charge! Rules lawyers, Munchkins and people who would rather win than be a proper gentleman or gentle lady are advised to play something else, or at least avail themselves of an umpire.
As a game master I generally only make minor modifications to the rules. I add a small luck element by allowing players to roll for fractional hits instead of rounding up or down as per the rules. This seems a minor concession to player expectations and historical accuracy without changing the game in any significant way. I also generally allow players more leeway with their Follow Me command (when they attach themselves directly to a unit) than a strict interpretation of the rules as written would allow.
Other than that, I play the game by the book and have done so for more than 20 years now. It's been an excellent investment, resulting in many hours of fun for me and my friends.
It's still one of my all-time favorites, despite more than two decades of competition from newer stuff.