1775 Scenario

[Adam the VIth]

Couple of comments to date:

Starting situation and forces seem pretty good -- but then the British receive reinforcements 1-2 months in -- they all land in Boston and the Americans then have zero chance to do anything but run away. Does not make for an interesting game.

At their peak, the Brits had about 6,000 men in Boston in 1775 -- and they were not well supplied due to their ships being interdicted by Continental privateers off Boston. Meanwhile there were at least 14,000 militia outside of Boston, dug in and having favorable high ground (Bunker Hill, Dorchester Heights, etc).

Somehow the scenario needs to be tweaked to balance it better. Maybe have the British unts be at half strength -- sure, we don't want the Americans to overrun Boston, but what really transpired was a stalemate followed by the Brits evacuating Boston (for Halifax) and then coming back strong in 1776 at New York.

Maybe the 1775 scenario is just not a great one to play and I should try 1776

Comments?

[PhilThib]

Before changing the scenario, we should have more specific data.

For instance, did the Americans muster 14,000 militias in Boston from day one (April 1775) or did it grow over the 3-4 months of the 1775 summer...?

The British regiments listed in the 1775 scenario were all present at Boston in 1775 during those days. Now we do not have all statistics about how many men they had each (a common practice was to detach one or two companies for service elsewhere).

More detailed input will be welcome, so that a different balance can be studied.

[Adam the VIth]

Good points -- I'll do some research.

I find the 1776 scenario seems a bit like that too -- I know the Brits pushed the American all over the place -- historically speaking, but in both of these scenarios, the Brits are simply moving about in UBER stacks that are impossible to deal with.

Granted, the campaign in New York in 1776 was that way -- it was the largest force the Brits had ever sent out, over 28,000 men. But it was soon spread out and rarely afterwards did any force of 10,000 make an appearance.

I'll work up some stats and the historical nature of the situation.

However, I do wonder if some tinkering needs to be done to prevent the UBER stack effect.....maybe supply and attrition factors need to be made more drastic.....so it is only rare that you can mass huge forces.

The 1755 scenario plays better.....the forces end up pretty spread out -- maybe it is something about what cities give you points......

[Dayvit781]

(Disclaimer: I don't fully have a complete understanding of the supply situation)

But, IMHO, that sounds like something that could be addressed with the supply structures. For example, a level 3 city can only supply X amount of troops, etc. Therefore, if you have a large stack, you're going to have to spread it to different cities or be undersupplied.

And do level 1 cities provide supply? Sorry, I've read the manual, but it's alot of information to absorb

[jhdeerslayer]

I got around this early British Boston attack by putting AI Aggresion on the lowest setting. Not sure what else to do.

[blackbellamy]

Not sure what else to do.

Well, take your Bunker Hill like a man, regroup at Worcester, and go back to besieging Boston. By August you can have 38 units in that stack. If you lose some battles what will you lose, a couple of militia? Meanwhile the Brits will be taking hits to their regular units. Anyway, that's assuming the Brits can even activate their army with their lazy command crew, and that Washington fails to withdraw in a timely manner.

I've never really had a problem with Boston. My last game I kept them bottled up there until summer of '78. I get a much bigger headache dealing with Cornwallis down south or having the Canadians or the Hessians show up somehere unexpected.

[jhdeerslayer]

OK... If I must.