Siege of Boston - British way overpowered?

[Great One]

Maybe my history is a little rusty, but aren't the British supposed to be on the defensive in 1775? More specifically, it was my understanding that even after Howe's reinforcements, the British did not have enough strength to break out of Boston. In this game however, it seems the Americans must forget about any siege and flee like bats out of hell before Gage becomes unlocked and easily kicks them all over the place. Does anyone else think this is a problem?

[ezjax]

Remember, June 17, 1775 Bunker Hill or (Breed's Hill).

[Great One]

Remember, June 17, 1775 Bunker Hill or (Breed's Hill).

So?

[Korrigan]

BoA designers think that the British set themselves up in a defensive position, as their hierarchy (Gage) took no initiative to kick the ass of the insurgents.

This is being simulated both by a low strategic rate for most of the British leaders, and by Gage being locked few monthes.

IMHO, the Continental army was certainly unable to face the British army before years, and Washington was right to dodge any major battle as long as he could (gaining the time to train and equiped a core of regular regiments, + free veteran French reg.)

I think some members of this forum will be able to bring more infos on this.

[aryaman]

I agree that British are too strong (I have posted already my experience on that in a PBEM playing as British) you can force a battle in may, when Howe force arrives, just by moving your army out of Boston despite the leader not being activated if the American player has not lifted the siege. Historically at Bunker Hill the British had about 3.500 against about 12.000 Americans. Bad command coordination and poor training on the American side allowed the British to take American defenses, but still they were too weak to force the Americans to leave the siege, and they remained into the defensive until early 1776 when they finally abandoned Boston. IMO the Americans should be provided a lot more units to simulate that situation.

[Henry D.]

Historically at Bunker Hill the British had about 3.500 against about 12.000 Americans...

Not quite:

http://www.britishbattles.com/bunker-hill.htm...

This usually not too much off the map site gives the numbers at this battle as about "2,400 British troops against 1,500 Americans." Off course, these numbers are those which were actually engaged, not overall strength of both armies. Bunker Hill was a comaparatively minor engagement and neither side commited its full strength.

However, I would not say that in BOA the British are vastly overpowered in numbers in 1775, but maybe in quality! One of the major grievances prior to the outbreak of the war was the rather low level of discipline maintained by the british garrison due to lack of training and appropriate oversight of conduct by their command. Methinks at least the initial regular british regiments in the 1775 campaign should reflect this by having distinctively lower strength point levels (or perhaps an experience level penalty?) than "normal" regular infantry, but not by adding more/better units to the american OoB...

Just my 0.02$...

[aryaman]

My numbers are from an Osprey title on the Boston campaign edited by David Chandler. The author, Brendan Morrissey, claims that the traditional number of 2.500 is too low because it is based on British returns that excluded officers and sergeants, and that the 2nd Marines and the 63rd Foot are excluded because they arrived too late to be engaged but they were present at the battle, not left behind in Boston
As for the American force present at the battle, is given as 7.644, excluding officers, as the overall force present (12.000 was the total figure, a mistake on my part) and about 4.700 the force actually engaged. In game terms, I think we should consider the overall force, as the whle force in the region is involved in battle calculations, so anyway to have the hiustorical effect of a British force too weak to break the siege I think a significant strengthening of the american force is required. Maybe a more historical OOB would be all that is needed.
OTOH I fully agree with you that British troops had a low level of discipline, still as the American force lack drill and command structure it was very much inferior in a pitched battle, so I would say that in fact the British were vastly overpowered in numbers but not in quality, or at least in proficiency as a fighting force in open battle.

[anarchyintheuk]

I'd say there were less than 4700 americans present at the battle. From memory the lines were only a couple of hundred yards long. The dug in section on top of the hill was less than 100 yards. No appreciable reserve was present, certainly none was used.

[Khovaros]

Bunker Hill was a battle for control of the flank of the besieging army. The colonists had at least 10,000 men in the field conducting the siege. Ward's center division alone had 15 regiments. The British forces besieged numbered less than 6000.

Even though Gage was a rather timid general, Howe planned the attack on "Bunker Hill" (The fighting actually occured on Breed's Hill). Howe wanted to make an amphibious landing and turn the American's flank. The British were badly outnumbered but thought so little of the Americans that they believed they would easily succeed. Overconfidence was usually their greatest weakness.

Ward and Warren got word of the attack from spies and decided to fortify the high ground near Charlestown before the british arrived. Hence the battle of Bunker Hill. The Americans in that engagement were outnumbered about 2-1 (Americans: 1500-2000, Brits: 2300-3500) but they were behind solid breatsworks and the overconfident british made frontal assaults, only winning when the Americans ran out of ammunition.

The British casualties made further offensive operations in Boston unpalatable. They also caused Gage and Howe to write to Britain that much larger armies would be needed to subdue the Colonies. Supply shortages and the arrival of the heavy artillery from Ticonderoga finally compelled the Brits to withdraw by sea.

Could the British have raised the seige? Not likely. All of New England was actively against them (the Torries were in hiding) and they had to rely on supplies shipped from Britain. The militias of the nearby colonies flooded Boston giving the Americans one of their few instances of numerical superiority. British institutional over-confidence dictated that they attack without much maneuver and American fortifiying ability (farmer-soldiers dig good trenches) meant that the Brits would likely attack in the open against fortifications. Artillery might have been able to breakup the forticications, but at Bunker Hill, the entire fleet fired on the American breastworks which had literally appeared overnight, with only 1 casualty and no breaches made.

Result: the British in Boston are FAR overstrength. The Americans should be able to muster about 25 regiments before the British attempt their breakout, and American defensive ability should cause massive casualties to the Brits. Alternatively, if the Brits break out of Boston, the government should be unwilling to commit forces in excess of 8,000 men until the Americans achieve a significant victory or inflict massive, lopsided casualties on the Brits.

[Pocus]

As the person in charge of the OOBs and scripts, Philippe Thibaut will answer to this thread when he returns from vacations (in a week).
We are always willing to improve the historicity of the scenarios, if it is needed.

[I_RA]

The battle of bunker hill can be seen as a British victory but the Americans dominated. It took the British 3 trys to take the hill finally getting on the thrid try because the americans had run out of amunition. Costs of the battle were of the 2,500 Brutusg involved 228 killed and 800 wounded the Americans losses were100 killed and 270 wounded. The americans achevied a lot in 1775 keeping the British trapped in Boston the entire year, capturing ft. Ticonderoga and its cannons, they captured montreal and put qubec under seige. Howe evacuated boston in march 1776.

[Great One]

Also, I just realized that in the game the British start outside of Boston, not even under siege to begin with. That needs to be fixed as well.

[Pocus]

they were not tightely locked in the city, so this is why the British starts in the region, but outside the city. This is also to simulate how easy it was for them to redeploy amphibiously within the region.

Note also that the military control mechanism of BOA will prevents them to move out of the Boston region, until the Continental Army is routed.

[PhilThib]

Result: the British in Boston are FAR overstrength. The Americans should be able to muster about 25 regiments before the British attempt their breakout, and American defensive ability should cause massive casualties to the Brits. Alternatively, if the Brits break out of Boston, the government should be unwilling to commit forces in excess of 8,000 men until the Americans achieve a significant victory or inflict massive, lopsided casualties on the Brits.

I disagree with the statement. Although it is true that some of the figures of the OOB do not accurately reflect the historical reality, they are also a gaming representation of the overall strength balance.
The Americans had indeed more regiments than those represented, but most were not at full strength, not counting their fighting ability or experience.
On the other hand, the British also had quite a few regiments in Boston, they too understrength...

We tried first the exact OOB and it just did not work...

The current OOB has been made after extensive testing to avoid game unbalance in many areas, among which the 2 keys are:
* too many US regiments make them paradoxically weaker, because they are under-commanded...
* too few British regiments tends to "provoke" the US AI into an a-historical attack frenzy...

We are currently solving the matter by trying to find a balanced and progressive buildup around Boston in 1775 that would logically translate into something close to the reality.

Remember however this is a game and must be taken as such. The spirit is to stay as close as possible to historically plausible results, and not a detailed to-the-last-man OOB which would in all case end-up in a playing situation in the game leading to absurd events.

[Turrosh Mak]

I would like to contribute my thoughts on this as well. Historically, the continentals in 1775 could have successfully attacked the British in Boston but it would have crippled them terribly. In game terms, perhaps two thirds of the attacking force would be casualties. The British had a very slim chance of defeating the entrenched continentals, perhaps 1 in 10 and would most definitely ruin their army. For these reasons the British sat and the continentals sat from June 1775 to March 1776, when the guns from Ticondaroga arrived and changed the balance. This is why Howe sailed to Halifax to wait for the 20,000 reinforcements being assembled in England for the 1776 summer campaign.

The current Order of Battle reflects none of historic situation. The continental forces have zero chance against Gage's Boston garrison alone, never mind Howe's reinforcement. The British can easily pull off a "Pusan Perimeter" breakout in July 75, completely ahistoric.

To correct this, continental unit values should be adjusted to simulate powerful defensive but weak offensive ability and maybe have entrenchments improve through several levels (gaining 1 level per month of static defense). Historic example, the entrenchments thrown up at Breeds Hill were done overnight and proved very effective. I can only assume the entrenchments west and south of Boston, built up over months, would be far stronger.

[Sol Invictus]

I agree that it is to easy for the British to break out of Boston. A very simple way to partially correct this problem is to freeze the British for more than two turns. I think that if the British were frozen for about ten months, the Americans would be able to make a command decision about whether to continue the investment of Boston with Washington in command or give up the effort.

[PhilThib]

This would however lead to some "gamey" tactics in 2 players contests: if the US player knows the Brits are "frozen" there for 10 months, he could leave some token forces and go wild elsewhere, knowing he is safe

[Frank E]

I agree that it is to easy for the British to break out of Boston.

I'm not convinced that this is true. Load the british troops onto ships, disembark 5 miles up the coast and you've bypassed all the continental defenses. The problem is what happens after that. They probably would have had thousands of local troops taking pot shots at them from behind trees everywhere they went in New England even if they'd defeated the main continental army.

[Frank E]

I agree that it is to easy for the British to break out of Boston.

I'm not convinced that this is true. Load the british troops onto ships, disembark 5 miles up the coast and you've bypassed all the continental defenses. The problem is what happens after that. They probably would have had thousands of local troops taking pot shots at them from behind trees everywhere they went in New England even if they'd defeated the main continental army.

[Turrosh Mak]

I'm not convinced that this is true. Load the british troops onto ships, disembark 5 miles up the coast and you've bypassed all the continental defenses. The problem is what happens after that. They probably would have had thousands of local troops taking pot shots at them from behind trees everywhere they went in New England even if they'd defeated the main continental army.

Sol Invictus was commenting about how easy it is for the British to break out in the game, not in real life. His point was that the British didn't break out because it was suicidal to attack entrenched troops at 1:2 odds, as Breed's hill had proved (which the British attacked at 2:1 odds, suffering 1/3 casualties among those engaged).

[Frank E]

Sol Invictus was commenting about how easy it is for the British to break out in the game, not in real life. His point was that the British didn't break out because it was suicidal to attack entrenched troops at 1:2 odds, as Breed's hill had proved (which the British attacked at 2:1 odds, suffering 1/3 casualties among those engaged).

Granted. I just find it easier to accept because I think it would have been relatively trivial for the British to bypass those entrenchments if they'd wanted to break out. Not that I disagree with your basic premise, there is an imbalance here compared to the historical forces.

[Turrosh Mak]

Load the british troops onto ships, disembark 5 miles up the coast and you've bypassed all the continental defenses.

I hate to point out the obvious, but embarking 7000 men, moving 5 miles up the coast and then disembarking them on a beach in longboats (since you aren't landing at a secure port like Boston harbor) is a logistics nightmare and a recipe to be defeated in detail.

[Frank E]

I hate to point out the obvious, but embarking 7000 men, moving 5 miles up the coast and then disembarking them on a beach in longboats (since you aren't landing at a secure port like Boston harbor) is a logistics nightmare and a recipe to be defeated in detail.

They didn't seem to have any problems doing it a year later in New York, and there we're talking about a much larger army for both sides.

[Turrosh Mak]

They didn't seem to have any problems doing it a year later in New York, and there we're talking about a much larger army for both sides.

Actually it's not the same thing. The British initial landing was on Staten Island, where no continental troops were, and thanks to the 500 ship strong British fleet, where no continental troops could get. Howe stayed on Staten Island for nearly two months (July 4 - August 22) organizing his 32,000 man army before launching his assault on Long Island. The assault, when it came, was 20,000 British opposed by Putnam's 10,000 man Long Island garrison.

What you propose is a landing "up the coast" from Boston. A landing not on an island protected by the vast fleet Sir Richard had accumulated in 1776 but exposed to a numerically superior enemy. I think it is suicide, your milage may vary.

[Sol Invictus]

How about this Phil, freeze the British at Boston for 8-10 months, as long as the Americans maintain a large covering force in the Boston Region. If the Rebels decide to venture elsewhere, the British would be free to wander as well.

[FM Daun]

Having been on the receiving end of the Germano-British blitzkrieg in PBEM games in both the above scenarios, I must agree that there is a fundamental ahistoricity about them. Granted few wargamers will be as timid as Gage, Howe & Clinton, but the way in which Crown forces parade blithely across New England as though they enjoyed the full support of the population, with no reduction in strength to reflect attrition, detachments to guard supply lines, etc., makes me seethe! It really wasn't that easy to achieve strategic movement in 18th-century warfare...
Yes, despite this the game is a lot of fun, but the grognard in me would like to see more attention paid not just to the OOB, but also to the issue of strategic consumption, that vexing tendency of armies to get weaker as they advance through hostile territory. I think that would solve many of the problems relating to the play balance of the longer scenarios.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
FMDaun

[Pocus]

Well there is a rule that would do 95% of what you describe, the cohesion rule, but its not ready and won't before autumn I would say. This will be added in BoA eventually though.

[Great One]

they were not tightely locked in the city, so this is why the British starts in the region, but outside the city. This is also to simulate how easy it was for them to redeploy amphibiously within the region.

Of course they could redeploy amphibiously, how could they not - Boston is a coastal city. They were still under siege. Also, from a play balance point of view, having the British start within Boston means they could be made weaker than the surrounding Americans without being defeated outright. Bunker Hill could be thought of as a sortie in game terms.

[FM Daun]

Well there is a rule that would do 95% of what you describe, the cohesion rule, but its not ready and won't before autumn I would say. This will be added in BoA eventually though.

This sounds very promising; I'm really looking forward to trying it out!
Yours truly, FM Daun

[Djoker]

My 2 cents...Two starts on the GC as the Americans, both times the british crush my army outside Boston, then scatter all over Massachusetts, before marching on to New York. So, I don't know if the British overpowered or not, but they are certainly strong enough for the AI to decide that attacking out of Boston is a good route to go.