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 nice full day of gaming -- Hold the Line, CCA, Midway and more

My Bay State friend Mark K. came down to visit for a nice full day of gaming -- our second in a monTH!

It's a long drive, so we try to make it worth his while by getting in a bunch of games.

We started off with a match of Hold the Line, one of our staples. We've played a couple dozen scenarios now. This time it was the Battle of Harlem Heights from 1776, which is one of the lesser-known battles of the war -- remarkably so, considering that it was one of the rare American victories.

Game Two of HOTL

History repeated itself, as Mark and I each won as the Americans in turn. It looks to be a tough scenario for the British, frankly. While they have an impressive looking force on the map edge it's hard to see how they'll play a significant role in the battle, which sees the whole American army basically fighting the three elite British foot and two light infantry units of the advanced guard.

Mark and  I tired very different approaches as the British, but neither worked. I tired to be aggressive with the high quality light and elite troops to pick off some American militia while trying to bring up some of the supports from the British main body. This didn't work out at all well and the Americans were able to destory most of the British front line and take two fo the 3 VP hexes for the win.

When it was Mark's turn as the British he tried to fade back, but that didn't work either as the Americans were able to advance in strength and overwhelm the British by the fences.

One bright spot was that this broke my losing streak against Mark. Last time we played a few weeks ago I was 0-7 on the games we played that day. 

We then played the Battle of 300 Champions scenario from the Commands & Colors" Ancients expansion The Spartan Army.

One aspect of the Borg game system (Memoir '44, Commands & Colors, Battle Cry, etc) I really like is the evocative color. It's not high simulation, but it really makes the history come alive. In the case of the Battle of the 300 Champions, it's mostly a legendary affair, which little relaibly known from this 6th Centruy BC battle between the Argives and the Spartans. The game starts with a special "Battle of 300 Champions" roll-off between eight Medium Hoplite blocks on each side, with the survivors beefoing up their respective armies and winning the initiative.

End of Game 1

Both armies are essentially just medium hoplite masses. The Spartan army is comprised of five Spartan units with 5-6 blocks each and two allied units with 4 blocks. The Argives have a couple of units of Auxiliary Infantry at 4 blocks each and nine units with 4-5 blocks of Medium Hoplite infantry. Each army ahs three leaders.

Both battles saw me win the early advantage with the Battle of Champions but unable to turn that into a win. As so often happens in Commands & Colors the fickle fortunes of war can turn in an instants and the second game, especially, saw a very promising start for the Argives fall apart at the end.

The nice thing about both Hokld the Line and CC:A is that the play rather quickly and we got in all four battles in a little over two hours. The next two games took somewhat longer.

Near the end

First, we played GMT's rather abstract battle game Maneouver. Mark was willing to label it a "wargame." I have a fairly liberal definition myself (I'll call Memoir '44 a wargame, for example) but Maneouver falls outside my definition. I think it's a war-themed abstract. It's very chess-like, actually, even down to the 64-square battle area.  While I can see being interested in the game, I felt it was a little plodding for my taste and it came off my "to-buy" list based on this playing. The game itself ended up being very close, ending in a Nightfall Victory for Mark's British by one point (11 to 10).

We ended with a real classic -- Avalon Hill's Midway, which was my first ever wargame back in 1969. It holds up well. Mark had played it back in the day, but said he hadn't tried it in a couple of decades. While I haven't played it anywhere near as much as I'd like,. I have played  it within the last few years and my greater experience showed.

The big raid on the US Fleet

I took the Japanese and I basically followed a modified Combined Fleet strategy. I threw out some screening cruisers to try to avoid any early American surprises and I detached the Hiryu with a  small escort in an attempt to ambush mark's Americans if he found my main fleet. As it turned out he wasn't able to spot either Japanese carrier force, although he did pick off a CL. On the second day I was able to find and strike the US fleet (which was all together) without a return strike. I only had three carriers worth of aircraft (Hiryu was out of position) but was still able to sink two US carriers.

The rest of the game was somewhat anticlimactic from that point on, as the surviving US airpower wasn't enough to threaten Japanese fleets and he had to content himself with picking off isolated cruisers.

Follow up strikes by the Japanese sank some more US cruisers and started softening up Midway. With little choice the US Fleet make a suicide run at the Invasion force at Midway which comprised the Atago, two other cruisers and the four Kongo-class battleships. After a valiant effort the last of the US ships went down, taking down two Japanese cruisers and almost the Kongo -- it has one hit box left.

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.

The allure of toy soldiers -- plastic beats paper

While the traditional counter-based wargame hobby chugs along with a number of fascinating new titles appearing each year, not to mention a steady diet of games from Strategy & Tactics and Against All Odds, sales and hobby buzz seem to definitely lie in the realm of toy soldiers and their cousins, wooden blocks.

There's little doubt that figure-based wargames such a s Axis & Allies and Memoir '44 have sales figures many times higher than counter-based games. Wooden block games have also seen in creased interest, whether they simply use blocks to replace figures such as in Commands & Colors or they use the Columbia fog-of-war feature, these also seem to generate more enthusiasm.

Consider, for example, Hold the Line vs. Napoleons War. Now HTL is a popualr and well-done hex-and counter game that's seen better-than average success. Indeed, it's physical quality is among the best seen in hex-and-counter games, with a mounted map, German-style box and thick, full-color counters. In some ways Napoleon's War represents a step back, with a nice, but not quite as sturdy box, thinner informational counters and unmounted cardstock maps. But it has figures -- toy soldiers -- and it sold out upon release! Just sayin' ... .

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.

HTL Quebec session report

As I alluded to in the previous post, Mark K. and I played a couple of games of the Quebec battle scenario from the Clash for a Continent scenario book, although we used the slightly different rules published in Hold the Line along with the components from that game.

And as I mentioned, the outcome was a bit unexpected, as the French managed to win both times. Historically, of course, they were decisively defeated in a very short fight, about a quarter of an hour.

Both our games went far longer than that, nearly running out the 20-turn clock as a matter of fact. As the scenario map shows, both armies begin the action within engagement range, which is not common in the series.
I started with the French. My initial plan was to try to advance on both flanks and then use Bouganville's reinforcements to hit whichever flank was the weaker one. As an aside, the scenario includes Bouganville's detachment, which historically was not on the field. Montcalm chose not to wait for his detached troops before beginning his advance.

The initial shooting from the French artillery and the Indians in the woods was highly effective and prompted the British to refuse both flanks and drop their hole line back out of artillery range. I became concerned that I might run out of time so I decided to try pushing on my left (the British right) flank because I thought there's be a greater chance that Bouganville's troops would be able to get onto the field without being too cramped by terrain and enemy units.

And this was essentially how it played out, as Bouganville came on the board next to the small knoll next to the river. It was, however, a close-run thing as the close-rage fighting was naturally quite bloody. With both armies teetering on the edge with 5 VPs each I closed with several units. This risked a lucky leader hit bringing the battle to an end but the British muskets, while able to cause a lot of damage to the troops, were unable to find an officer. With many muskets to bear the French return fire was able to get the last VP. Final score 6-5.

The flip-side of the match was much grimmer or the British. Mark's Indians were very active, seeming able to run up, take a shot and run back unscathed. His militia was also uncharacteristically deadly, with a couple of British line units actually being destroyed by militia fire. Each attempt to advance into effective range left a bunch of British units shattered. By Turn 12 the French were up to a 5-0 lead.

The surviving British hunkered down in tight formation and several fresh units formed a human shield while Wolfe rallied some of the shaken survivors. The French had a hard time getting that last VP as their muskets fouled, apparently. The British even managed to morale boost by finally killing a French unit. Still, the French edge was overwhelming at that point and it was only a matter of time before the final VP came their way. Final score was 6-1.

Our initial impression had been that the French were likely to face a hard time in this scenario, being outnumbered at the outset and being stuck with militia for a significant portion of their OB. Mark called them "walking Victory Points." Normally that has been out experience, but in this scenario the militia, especially in the second game, performed way above expectations.

Similarly the Indians ended up performing very well for both of us, which is a little surprising because there wasn't an awful lot of woods on this battlefield.

I'm not entirely persuaded that the French are favored in the scenario, despite the outcomes of both fights, but they clearly are competitive with the British. Having twice as many guns and a veryn open battlefield in which to use them seems to go a long way towards evening the score.

Unexpected outcomes

The redoubtable Mark K. came by on Saturday for a day of gaming which ended up being full of unexpected outcomes. We started off the day with a match of Hold the Line playing the Quebec scenario from the Clash for a Continent game. The unexpected part was that the French won both times in a battle where they lost quickly and decisively in history. We ended the day with our first game of Serpents of the Sea, playing a duel scenario between the Shannon and the Chesapeake. The unexpected part of that game was a long, knock-down drag out fight between the two ships -- again a battle that ended historically with a quick and decisive victory for one side.
The bulk of the day's session was playing Twilight Struggle.

More than any game I've played in years I still feel completely at sea while playing it. So much so that I haven't even developed a sense of how to put together a narrative for a session report. Mark and and agreed that there was an awful lot going on and in our second game we were just beginning what promises to be a long learning process.
Overall the Early and Mid war games were pretty much a wash, with neither side able to make much headway one way of the other. Generally my USSR tended to keep the VP marker slightly on the Soviet side of the track, but Mark's US was able to keep things close enough that he had a reasonable expectation of making headway in the Late War. There were a number of scoring card plays that ended up with a relatively marginal haul for either player. Mark was generally ahead in Asia and the Middle East while Europe was very much contested. Both players tended to have a lot of influence spread around in Europe but had trouble controlling many nations.
Mark K.'s USA scored somewhat of a coup by getting the Africa Scoring Card discarded without scoring after the USSR had devoted considerable resources to building a strong position there.

The last turn of the Mid War period saw what turned out to be a critical turn-long battle for control of South America that ended up with the USSR scoring Control for a significant swing of around 10 points that ended up with the VP marker at around 15 for the Reds.

The game came to an unexpected end early in the first turn of the Late War period due to this card:


I used ops to coup a couple of countries, driving the DefCon down to 2 and then played this card. Being ahead by 15 at that moment I could give Mark's USA the 6 VPs while still remaining comfortably ahead on points. It seemed like an anti-climactic end to the game in many ways, although I felt pretty good about my chances going into the Late War anyway.

I'm pretty sure neither one of us will be caught by THAT card again, though, now that we have seen it in action. I think that's how it's going to be with Twilight Struggle -- a long series of harsh lessons on the way to basic competence. What a game!

Units of Hold the Line

Hold the Line, along with its French and Indian War expansion and the very similar predecessor Clash for a Continent uses a relatively small number of disparate unit types to recreate a large number of battles in North America during the 1758 to 1781 period. It will be interesting what adjustments the system will see as it moves into the more complex Napoleonic era later this year.

Warfare in North America in the latter half of the eighteenth century was very much a foot soldier's fight due to the challenges of the wilderness and its distance from European bases of supply. In Hold the Line and its sister games a lot of the interest provided by the battles is in the interaction between the orders of battle and the terrain. This makes the more flexible command system it uses seem more appropriate to its setting than the more formal left-center-right breakdown used in Borg's game system would be. That seems better suited to the more formal nature of European warfare.

Still, it's the units that decide the action, so here they are. In each case the order is, from left, British, American and, when present, French:



Regular Line Infantry -- These are the ubiquitous, core element of the game, appearing on at least one side in every single scenario. Most of the time the infantry has a morale point (MP) strength of 4, but occasionally understrength units appear with an MP of 3. The forte of these units is staying power. Except in rare cases, they cannot be destroyed by a single volley and most of the time will have to be whittled down by repeated attacks. At full strength they will probably succeed in making a Close Combat morale check. Likewise they will probably hold their position when facing a Close Combat attack.

Elite Infantry -- Only the British and Americans have these units. They're pretty common in British armies, appearing 21 times in the 33 scenarios of Hold the Line, HTL French and Indian War expansion and Clash for a Continent. The Americans get elite infantry in just four scenarios. In most cases the "Elite" infantry doesn't represent formal elite units such as Grenadiers (although they can represent them sometimes) but merely regular line units that distinguished themselves in the particular fight. Elite infantry shares all the characteristics of Regular Line Infantry with some additional benefits. One of the more important benefits is that they get a +1 bonus on all morale check rolls, which means that they are very likely to stick around for Close Combat. Their most useful characteristic is that they get a saving roll whenever they might lose their last step and half the time they don't. While certainly not something to build a battle plan around, their refusal to die can be very annoying to your opponent and a source of good cheer to you. The advanced/optional rules give them an additional benefit -- at full strength they roll 4 dice when attacking. The British counter appears to depict fusiliers.

Light Infantry -- Their forte is movement -- moving twice as fast as line troops, while having equal firepower. They have slightly less staying power than most line troops with a maximum strength of 3, but their biggest foible is simply numbers. While they show up fairly often (there are just 12 scenarios where they don't appear on at least one side), it's never in large numbers. The most any side will ever have is two in its order of battle, making them just supporting units.


Militia Infantry -- They have no forte, aside from existence. They show up a lot, there are only 13 scenarios where they don't appear. Unlike the Light Infantry, there's often a lot of Militia Infantry. On the positive side, they fire as effectively as the regulars, but with just 2 MP they are always just one bad roll away from sudden disappearance. It's rarely worth spending action points to rally them so the best thing to do with a damaged militia unit is pull it out of the line, if you can. There are no French militia in the countermix, they use the Tory militia


Indians -- While sharing the vulnerability to fire and bad morale of Militia Infantry, Indians have some special abilities which go a long way towards making them useful units. For one thing, they can move and fire or, perhaps more importantly, fire and then move, making them good at harassing enemy troops while being tough to come to grips with. Combined with the fact that they do NOT have to stop when passing through woods hexes and they become quite dangerous. There are a a half dozen scenarios that involve a large number of Indians such as the Battle on Snowshoes, Bloody Bridge, Fort Dusquesne, Lake George, Oriskany and Bushy Run, but the other four times they show up only one or two appear, making them bit players. There are only two battles, Lake George and Oriskany, where Indians appear on both sides in a scenario. Interestingly, the Indian "flag" on the counter is the flag of the Iroquois Confederation. The different colors are used to tell the units apart on the few occasions where Indians were on both sides.


Rangers -- Definitely the best units in the game, they have the mobility of the Indians and the firepower and benefits of being Elite troops. Their only drawbacks are their MP of 2 and the fact they are exceedingly rare, appearing in just the five scenarios of the French and Indian War expansion. And except for the Battle for Snowshoes, where they represent the entire force, they have just one or two units present, making them another supporting unit. They only fight on the British side, although they are colonials. Oddly, the Ranger counter is double-length, even though they're only a 2 MP unit. They are the only such unit in the system. All other 2MP units are square, while all the other double-length counters have maximum MPs of 3 or 4.

Dragoons -- Unlike European warfare of the era, fighting in North America rarely involved more than a handful of mounted troops. Often the dragoon unit in a HTL scenario represents as few as 20 or so troopers, which would be a negligible number on a European battlefield. Their very rarity could give them an impact far outside of their numbers in North American fighting, as many troops (militia, Indians) had no training at all in anti-cavalry techniques and even the line troops could be caught by surprise. The Dragoon units are speedy, moving up to three hexes, and have the ability to move and attack, although less effectively than infantry. They cannot Close Combat, which seems a little odd, frankly. They also have a maximum strength of 2, which means they won't take much punishment. They don't appear very often, in just 14 scenarios. In just two cases (Brandywine and Cowpens) are there enough dragoon units on both sides that anything like a cavalry battle might occur. In nearly every other case there's just one of two dragoon units present, often only on one side. There are no French dragoons in the counter mix. The British Dragoon shown is from Tarleton's Legion.

Artillery -- If North America wasn't good cavalry country, it was even worse for gunners. If using the optional/advanced rules, artillery units are nearly useless against troops in woods, and in any case they will find the terrain in many scenarios working against their forte -- range. Artillery units have the longest range of units in the game, although it's not much of an edge -- just 3 hexes compared to the 2 hexes of infantry units. The artillery fires a little more effectively than infantry, but doesn't have the option of Close Combat. With a strength of just 2, the guns are subject to quick silencing by good rolls. They do appear often, however. There are just 6 scenarios with no guns at all, and in most of the other scenarios there are 2-3 gun units on at least one side.


Leaders -- Personal leadership plays a big role in the game, so leaders appear in all scenarios, generally two per side. Leaders provide many direct benefits -- the ability to rally units to replace losses, morale benefits for attack and defense, increased movement and, if using the advanced/optional rules, more dice in close combat. Their drawback is that they can be killed while providing these benefits, giving the enemy a VP. The game mechanic for this (potential hits on a die roll of 1, followed up by another die roll of 1) basically give the attacker an extra bite at the apple when it comes to scoring VPs in an attack, so players need to carefully consider the risks and benefits of leading from the front. Hold the Line introduced leaders with additional combat value and hit values. All the leaders in Clash for a Continent were, in effect 1/1 leaders, which means they added 1 die in combat or +1 to morale and dies when taking a single hit. In HTL and the French and Indian War expansion there are 2/1, 1/2 and even 2/2 leaders. A 2/1 leader adds an important combat benefit, a +2 is a big deal in this game system, but at high risk because a single hit will take the leader out of the game for a VP. Examples of 2/1 leaders are guys like Wolfe, Levis, Murray, Rahl, Kyphausen, Arnold, Campbell, Ferguson and Marion -- inspirational who sometimes took a bullet. Slightly less common are 1/2 leaders. These men, who include Dumas, Fraser, Howe, Greene, Williams, Clinton and Shelby, can be risked at the front a little more freely because they'll get a chance to pull out if they get hit once. The 2/2 leaders are, of course, definitely worth putting in charge of your main effort, providing robust and powerful leadership. The leaders getting this honor include some of the most legendary figures of the wars such as Rogers, Wolfe, Pontiac, Washington, Cornwallis, Rawdon and Mawhood. Leaders move 3 hexes and have combat value of their own, but enhance friendly units.

Game Expedition report -- A Bad Day for the British

Well, the inimitable Mark K. and I got in a full day of gaming, and as Mark's suggested Blog Post title hints, it wasn't a good day for the British.

We started out with a match of Hold the Line, playing the Montmorency Falls scenario. This battle was fought on July 31, 1759. It was Wolfe's first attempt to attack the French army near Quebec and the historical result was a bloody repulse for the British.

The set up is shown below:



The French army is ensconced in a strong position atop hills, behind a stream and in some redoubts. The British have to either fight their way across the stream or ashore from boats.

Our first game saw Mark's British elites gamely battle their way through the French right flank despite heavy losses. My French troops concentrated on reducing the Elites down to 1 Mp instead of trying to finish them off, on the theory that it was more important to reduce their chances of passing morale checks for close assaults. This generally succeeded, but it meant that the British firepower was not reduced and it got really close at the end, with the British getting 5 of the 6 VPs needed to win (1 VP marker, 2 militia, 2 regulars) . I was worried that a lucky shot might pick off a leader and give the Brits the win, so I pulled the leaders out of range. Hindering the British effort considerably were casualties among their leaders as both Wolfe and Townshend fell.

The flip side game was much less competitive, as every effort my British made to advance was met with a hail of effective fair. As a matter of fact, my British ended up taking 23 hits from the French before finally inflicting one. Needless to say, I wasn't able to dig my way out of that hole and the British went down to a resounding defeat, scoring no VPs at all while losing 7 units.

Our main event was our mutual first game of Twilight Struggle. I'm not sure how to frame the narrative for that one, as I'm still digesting the game. It's very interesting, however, and I expect to play it again. Mark did win our first game as the Soviets in the Mid-war period (and so the British were on the losing side again).

Dessert was a match of Columbia's War of 1812. I took the first game as the United States, where the war went well in the West while both sides danced around a bit on the New York front. Losses were relatively low and the game ended up being decide by a vary large battle in New York, with the US winning by 11 points. The second game was much bloodier and wild all around, which tended to help Mark's Americans, although 1812 went well for the British, who were able to capture Albany. They were, however, unable to hold it and Mark's Americans were able to battle back from the 1812 deficit. My chances for a coming back to force a draw suffered blow when my big 1814 reinforcement army brought just one 4-factor British regular and no less than 4 militia!. Meanwhile the Americans had taken Detroit and swept through the West. An American army fought its way from Albany to Quebec. The British were able to destroy it, but chasing them down cost valuable time and the game ended up with Mark's American having exactly 10 more victory points and the win.

The final result was three wins for Mark, two for me and a fine afternoon and evening of strategy.

Interesting imminent game release from Worthington Games

Worthington Games has a list of upcoming games available for pre-release sale prices on their Website, among them are this interesting one based on their popular Hold the Line system.

I've enjoyed that game systema lot and it makes an interesting contrast to the Commands & Colors: Napoleonics game due out soon from GMT.

The Worthington Games title will use plastic miniatures, shown above, for the battles in the Waterloo campaign. They are generic (as far as uniforms go) and will differ among the nationalities based on color (Red for Anglo-Allied, grey for Prussian and Blue for French), being similar to the approach used in Battle Cry and Memoir '44. The GMT game will presumably use wooden blocks, just as Commands & Colors: Ancients did, which will probably use stickers with the proper historical uniforms as well as block color to show the armies.

The Worthington series uses Command Action Points to limit how many units can be ordered, but players have wide lattitude on which units to order. In the C&C system cards not only limit how many units can get orders, but which ones. Both are good systems.

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.

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).

Hold the Line session report

Continuing my series of prospective strategy discussions followed by post-game session reporting, is a look at the Hold The Line scenario Louisbourg.

This situation is kind of like an Eighteenth Century Omaha Beach. A British force lands on the beach in the teeth of a fortified defensive line and has to fight its way inland.




As always, any discussion of strategy starts with a look at the Objective, what the victory conditions require. As is usual in the Wars for America system, victory is achieved by accumulating victory points, with the most common source being eliminated enemy units, at one VP each.

For the French, victory is achieved by getting 7 victory points or avoiding the British victory conditions.

For the British the goal is also 7 VPs, but they only have 18 turns to do it, which makes this one of the shorter scenarios in the game system. It also clearly puts the burden of attack on the British. In addition to VPs for eliminating enemy units, the British have four victory points of objective hexes deep behind the French lines.

Terrain.

The left two-hex deep edge of the map is the ocean, from which the British invaders will come.

There's one hex of hill on the beach, but otherwise the French have a clear line of fire at the disembarking British. The main French position is made up of a five-hex long line of entrenchments, which provide protection from fire and morale benefits. Behind the French line the rest of the battlefield is made up of clear terrain with scattered woods hexes providing some cover but far enough apart to provide plenty of movement paths.

Order of battle:

The French are heavily outnumbered. They have a single leader, five regular infantry, an artillery unit and one band of Indians. The VP value of the entire force is 8, so the British victory condition is, essentially, to wipe out the French force. The VP hexes mean the French cannot simply run away, they will have to fight.

The British host comprises 22 pieces. There are two leaders, two Elite infantry, two light infanty, a unit of American rangers and 10 regular infantry. They also have five boats to carry them ashore. The first wave of British comprises the rangers, both elites and both light infantry, along with one leader.

Plans:

My objective as the French is to take advantage of the fortified line to achieve a positive kill ratio against the British. I expect British numbers to tell, eventually, and be forced to fall back either because of British flankers or because the British have penetrated the line.

Three of the French regulars will man the line, along with the cannon and fire at will against British troops within range. A fourth regular will pull back slightly and be used to guard the line against any short flanking moves. The Indians will be used to guard against any infiltrating rangers or light infantry. The last regular and leader Saint Julien will form the general reserve, either assisting the Indians if the British try an infiltration strategy or helping guard the flanks of the entrenched line.

My British plan aims to stretch the French by posing multiple threats and then exploit the weakest point in the line that develops. This could mean infiltrating rangers or light infantry past the flanks, taking the entrenchments in the flank or pushing directly into the French main line of resistance.

The British only have enough boats to carry one third of their force at a time, so the invaders are naturally broken down into three waves. The first wave is set by the scenario setup and comprises the rangers, both elite infantry and the two lights, along with 2/1 leader Wolfe. As this wave comes ashore it will pressure the French left flank by threatening to outflank the line with the light infantry. Wolfe and the elites with him will shelter on the hill while waiting for the second wave to arrive. The other Elite will endeavor to occupy the attention of the cannon in order to spare the rangers, who will lie low in the early going.

The priority for commands will be to empty the boats as soon as possible and bring on the second wave at the earliest opportunity. This wave will comprise leader Amherst and five of the regulars, who will join Wolf for the main assault on the French line. Once the French are fully committed the rangers will make a break for the VP hexes. I don't necessarily expect them to make it, but the threat may be enough to provide a critical edge in the main fight by drawing off French units and commands.

The third wave will be loaded and brought on if extra commands allow, but I don't think they can arrive in time to have a real impact.


The Battles:


I started with the French side in my game with Mark K. Frankly things went precisely according to plan for the first half of the game and I was feeling pretty good about the overall situation. Mark was trying to win pretty much with the initial wave, spending nearly all his action points moving and fighting those troops, with just a few spared to bring on a trickle of second wave forces.


And this plan wasn't working all that well. His elite troops and the few regulars on the beach were making no headway against the main French line, and I was even able to wipe out the rangers on the beach with cannon and musket fire.


About the only worrisome aspect of the situation was on the French left flank, where the British light infantry was able to slide past the French flank and threaten the rear VP hexes, although one of those light infantry was reduced to just 1 morale point. As per the plan I had the Indian band and a leader-led regular unit detailed to deal with that threat.


While this should have been sufficient force, it wasn't. The first sign of trouble appeared when I got a little too feisty with the Indians and let them stray within long-range of the lights, who promptly eliminated them with a single volley! Now it was up to St. Julien and his regulars to hold off the lights, a task they failed at miserably. Because the British lights could just sweep up the VP markers without stopping it seemed necessary to park the regulars on one of the markers to force the lights into range if they wanted to claim the points. They accepted the challenge and moved up on both sides of the regulars to set up a flanking attack.


Here I blundered. There was still a lot going on elsewhere and I was loathe to spend my limited stock of command points on just this one threat, so I spent the one AP to fire at the weaker light infantry (in order to break up the flanking bonus) and promptly missed. In retrospect I think I should have spent the 3AP needed to make a leader-led close combat against that weak light infantry because it was critical that it be taken out.


On the following turn the two British lights fired with flanking bonus and wiped out the French regulars, although St. Julien escaped. The way was clear for them to sweep up the four VP markers and they did, suddenly putting the British way ahead in VPs with several turns left to get the last one they needed. The British had 4 VPs for objective markers, 1 for the Indian and 1 for the French regular, so the two British light infantry were responsible for all of the British success! The French tried falling back but the British were able to pick off the last VP they needed for a 7-1 win.


On the flip side, I tried executing my British plan, spending the majority of my action points to bring on the first two waves of British. The created a scenario that really did resemble Omaha Beach, and not in a good way. Mark insisted the dice were about average and they probably were, but it sure seemed like the French fire was exceptionally effective and British casualties mounted. Even though I tried rotating damaged units out of the line to rally them it did no good as the casualties came too fast to keep up.


I was able to spring the rangers into the French rear by covering their advance with regular troops. The Indians weren't able to stop the rangers from picking up all four VP markers, but as it turned out that was a Pyrrhic victory. On the beach the French were closing in on their 7 VP and bringing in parts of the third wave just seemed to add more targets.


The final score was 7-4 for the French.


Mark's approach was probably better, I think the first British wave needs to be active enough that it creates space for the second wave to come ashore. I ended up just giving the French more folks to shoot at.


Interestingly, in neither game was it possible to stop the British from infiltrating someone through to pick up the 4 VPs in the rear. Mark was better able to absorb this loss because he didn't pull any regulars away from the main fight on the beach. My French lost no units on the beach, but also were not able to inflict any permanent losses on the British. Mark's French concentrated on pummeling the beach landing and let the Indians try to protect the rear area unsupported. This proved to be the better solution.


Despite the fact my French lost, I do think my approach could also have worked, but for some mistakes on my part, so I would consider the French side slightly favored in this scenario.

Comparison of advanced optional rules between Clash for a Continent and Hold the Line

A comparison between the advanced and optional rules in Worthington Games' Hold the Line and Clash for Continent games.

Hold The Line advanced/optional rules 11.1-11.3 are the same in Clash for a Continent. They deal with attacker morale checks, rally and elite units, respectively.

Clash 11.4 refers to Indians and gives them a -2 vs forts and towns. Not mentioned in HTL.

HTL 11.4 & 11.5 are the same as Clash 11.5 & 11.6, dealing with increased artillery range on hills and reduced effect firing into forest, respectively.

Clash option 11.7 giving an attacker a +1 firing on units in waterways is a standard rule in HTL

Clash 11.8 and HTL 11.6 both deal with leaders. Clash simply has leaders add one extra die when attacking. HTL rule makes a few leaders better by adding more dice, taking more hits to eliminate or both. In HTL terms all Clash leaders are 1/1.

Clash 11.9 (flank/rear attacks) is the same as HTL 11.14.

Clash 11.10 (attacker advance) is the same as HTL 11.7

Clash 11.11 (force march) is the same as HTL 11.8 & 11.9 together.

Clash 11.12 (easier hill movement) is the same as HTL 11.10

Clash 11.13 (dragoon retreat before combat) is the same as HTL 11.13.

Clash 11.14 and 11.15 are the same as HTL 11.12 and 11.13 and have to do with changing the Command Action Points for play balance.

Finally, HTL includes two optional rules not mentioned in Clash.

The first is HTL 11.15 which only applies to Long Island and Brandywine scenarios. reducing the range of units.

The second is an optional rule in the French & Indian expansion that makes Indians and Rangers deadlier in close assaults in the woods (4 dice).

Other differences in the rules:

In Clash for a Continent victory is only checked at the end of a turn, in HTL it's checked at the end of each player turn.

In HTL leaders are a little less vulnerable to FIRE COMBAT. No matter how many 1's are rolled, only 1 confirmation die is rolled to see if the leader is actually hit. In Clash one confirmation die roll is made for EVERY 1 rolled in the fire attack. In both games a confirmation roll is made for every original 1 during Close Combat.

In HTL nothing is said about what happens when a leader is caught alone in a hex by an enemy unit. In Clash a leader caught alone is eliminated. I think this is just an oversight in HTL and players should use the same rule as in Clash for a Continent.

Hold the Line session

Mark K. and I continued our full day of gaming with Hold the Line, which uses the same system as Clash for a Continent with some changes in physical components and minor rules changes.

We played the Battle on Snowshoes battle, which is rather interesting because it really pits extreme quality against quantity.

This battle finds a small force of Rogers Rangers led by Rogers himself defending a wooded hill against a larger force of French and Indians in an incident from the French and Indian war.

The Rangers are top-notch troops. They have the movement bonuses of Indians while also counting as Elite troops for morale and other purposes. They are led by Rogers, who is an excellent leader who can add as many as 2 dice to a melee and takes two hits to kill. He's also responsible for giving them a 3 +D3 command action point allowance. A tough buzzard indeed. The only weakness they Rangers have is numbers. There are just five 2-strength units. On the other hand, with 4-6 CAP per turn there's a very good chance that Rodger will be able to act with all or nearly all of his force every single turn.

In contrast the French force, while large, is cumbersome and poorly led. Five of the units are militia, barely worth committing to action. Another five are Indians, mobile through the woods but likely to come out second best in a fight with the Rangers. Finally the French have three 4-strength regulars. These can go toe-to-toe with the Rangers but are slow.

Our first battle can be summed up in one word. Disaster. I had the French and was able to actually coordinate a joint advance with the Indians, the regulars and some militia. It all came to nought, however, as the Rangers were able to deftly dance between the flanks dispersing Indians and then face-off against the French regulars. A musket ball took down the only French leader and before long the French force was completely defeated.

Out switch match was a near-run thing for me, this time as the Rangers. In this case the Indians turned out to be dead shots and the Rangers unable to make their Elite saving rolls and I ended up with two dead Rangers early on. This created a very hairy situation indeed. The Rangers were eventually able to do a lot of damage to the Indians but eventually found themselves pressed against the wall (and the map-edge victory hexes) by the French regulars. The French simply ran out of time and came out a turn short of victory.

Given the fact that almost everything that could go wrong for the Rangers did go wrong and they still manged to win, and the fact that the first battle was a blowout, I have to call this one as having a strong Ranger bias.

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.