Map discussion

[Korrigan]

Playing the 1755 campaign, I felt that somehow the (gorgeous) map did not always reflect the geographic issues of the war:


- Frontenac:
Frontenac was the key to control the whole Ontario area. It was a direct threat to any force based in Oswego and it controled the St Lauwrence entry.

In the game, the French need a boat trip to reach Oswego, and Lapresentation is the actual Mont Royal early defense. Historicaly, Lapresentation (weakly) played this role once Frontenac had been destroyed by the Brits.

[INDENT][color="blue"]Is it possible to add some kind of bridge or ferry to bring ground Oswego and Frontenac "closer to each other"? Is it possible to use Frontenac as a gatekeeper just like Louisbourg for the St Lawrence estuary?[/color][/INDENT]

- Lac Champlain:
There were 3 invasion roads to Canada:
1) St Lawrence through the sea (blocked by Louisbourg)
2) St Lauwrence through the Mohawk valley and the Ontario lake (blocked by Frontenac)
3) Lake Chamblain (blocked by Fort Carillon).
Actually, it was through Lake Champlain that Amherst successfully took Mont Royal. In the game, the Brits are not likely to take control of the French bateaux. Therefore, the Lake Chamblain road is quite a harsh one.

[color="blue"][INDENT]Thus I suggest to change the banks of Lake Champlain from Wilderness to Forest in order to simulate better this invasion road.[/INDENT][/color]

- Norwich:
Norwich had a strategic importance as it controlled the upper part of the Connecticut valley. I feel this is somehow ill represented in the Map.

[INDENT][color="blue"]Therefore I suggest either:
- Turn the Manadnock province from Wilderness to Montains
- Add some roads/tracks in the Connecticut Valley.[/color][/INDENT]
I will greatly value some native feedbacks on these different propositions.

[Ardie]

Well the fort at Norwich was there for a reason and it was to stop any incursions into New England and to stage excursions into French colonies of St. Laurent and Quebec.

I think its' importance has been recognised as it has an reinforced garrison at beginning of the GC. However it's very difficult to attack because of the terrain. As a French player I would just love to steal the guns from there

[PhilThib]

I am not sure there is a point in changing anything about Frontenac. The Brits took the fort via a naval movement from Oswego. Until we can find a way to build "bateaux", this is difficult to represent (but we can script that the British may receive new bateaux at Oswego in 1758 and 1759 for instance)

Champlain "road" : I would change only the regions north of Fort Carillon (i.e. that of Fort St Fédéric and the one immediately up north of it) into forests. Crown point should remain wilderness, to give the French a better defensive position (and read about the 1758 campaign of the British at Carillon, they had a hell of a time moving up to there).

Norwich: not sure to understand the point here. I tend to agree with Ardie on that one.

[Enisign Jumonville]

I have driven up from Fort William Henry to Ticonderoga, certainly wouldn't fancy dragging cannon along there even with the new road built. Some of the banks rise up sheerly with very little space to march along.
Also heard a tale from the Curator of Fort Ticonderoga when it was used in the Rev War. There were blockhouses built outside the fort some used as makeshift hospitals, there was a flash flood during summer and one of the men who couldn't walk was actually drowned in the blockhouse. It certainly is merciless terrain.

[Ardie]

Just suggestions as we are now talking about FIW:

Maybe put level 1 ports for Fort Rouille and Fort Niagara so that the French may move their little forces more efficiently at the Lake Ontario area. It would give something to do for the French Ontario Flotilla.

[PhilThib]

Yes, that could be done...I'll have a look into that...

[Korrigan]

OK, I am going to try to be clearer:

Here is an (ugly) picture of a map:



You can perhaps now see better what I mean:

- The lake Chamblain valley is much broader than the Mohawk river valley, it's a real highway to Montreal.

- The Connecticut valley is parallel to the Hudson valley and go deeply to the North. Norwich was a stretegic place because it controlled this valley. I feel that in the game, the strategic value of the Connecticut vally is not not important enoug because the valley is too short. That's why I propose to make transport through the Connecticut valley easier (tracks or roads) or to change Manadnock area from Wildnerss to Mountain in order to better represent the valley.

- Frontenac is the real gatekeeper of the St Lawrence, La presentation is much deeper in the countryside.
Here is a quote from a French historical analysis of the British tactics:
" D'abord une armée faisait route depuis la Pennsylvanie ou New-York à travers les monts Tuscora ou par la rivière Mohawk jusqu'au lac Ontario où elle s'embarquait sur des bateaux pour remonter le fleuve St Laurent vers Montréal. Evidemment, la progression sur cet axe supposait le contrôle de l'embouchure du fleuve devant le Fort Frontenac que les Anglais détruisirent en août 1758. Seul le petit fortin La Galette à la Présentation bloquait ensuite la route."

Yahoo says:
"Initially an army travelled from Pennsylvania or New York through the Tuscora mounts or by the Mohawk river to the Lake Ontario where it embarked on boats to go up the SAINT LAURENT river towards Montreal.
Obviously, the progression on this axis supposed the control of the mouth of the river in front of Fort Frontenac which the English destroyed in August 1758. Only the small fort La Galette near La Presentation blocked then the road."

Concerning the interaction between Frontenac and Oswego, I can be happy with some boats made available to the Brits in 1758 to simulate the Bradstreet attack.

best,

Korri

[Ardie]

Also the map for the FIW scenarios should be updated as to resemble the 75-83 map as far as historical accuracy is concerned.

Case in point: Charlotte in Virginia.

to Korrigan:

Do you think that Frontenac is presented accurately in Revolutionary scenarios (Fort destroyed, a small garrison, La presentation has a level 1 port now)?

Also the case of Fort Rouille (Ft. Toronto): What was its' purpose as it seems to be out-of contact (so to speak) with no tracks and ports?

[Korrigan]

Do you think that Frontenac is presented accurately in Revolutionary scenarios (Fort destroyed, a small garrison, La presentation has a level 1 port now)?

Frontenac was destroyed by Lt-Colonel Bradstreet in August 1758. Bradstreet had arrived stealthly in Oswego with 3000 provincials and indian allieds in order to build again the fort that Montcalm had destroyed two years earlier. His second and main objective was to take Fort Frontenac on the opposing bank. Frontenac was strategic because it controlled the mouth of the St Lawrence, and because it was the supply stock for all garisons of the Ohio and Grand lakes area.
The French were expecting, with reasons, an attack on Fort Carillon. The sneak attack surprised Frontenac garison. Bradstreed seized a whole stock of supply and ammunition, and the whole French lake flotilla. Once Frontenac was fallen, the whole west territory could not resist without supply. The indians went back to neutrality (Easton treaty), and the remaining French troops retreated after having blown up their forts (Fort Duquesne)

I don't know about Frontenac during the Indendence war, but after the French defeat it had lost most of its strategic importance.

Also the case of Fort Rouille (Ft. Toronto): What was its' purpose as it seems to be out-of contact (so to speak) with no tracks and ports?

Fort Rouillé was much more of an outpost than an actual fortified position. It was part of a network made of several positions (Presque Isle, Leboeuf, Venango and Machault) organised around Fort Niagara. Once Fort Niagara fell (July 25 july), the whole network (Fort Rouillé included) was abandoned and evacuated.
Fort Niagara was attacked by a powerfull expeditionnary corps (3000 regulars, 1000 indians) lead by Sir William Johnson. They left Oswego by boat to Fort Niagara. The small garison resisted 18 days, and surrended after the French detachment sent to help them was destroyed.


That's all I know... leure:

[Ardie]

to Korrigan:

Well here in Finland we know very little about these wars. Not much literature is translated. Thanks for the answer as it's very informative and I'm aware of the French outpost strategy as it made the French better with their diplomacy concerning Native Americans.

So Ft. Frontenac was actually much more important as it was a supply head also. A clever move from Bradstreet indeed.

As to your map concerns:

I think Norwich is presented in a good way but you're right that the map looks a bit distorted how it presents the valley. So maybe some tracks would be in order.

The terrain and the short campaign season restricts manouvers in around lake Champlain and it was quite difficult to operate around the area historically.

From what I've seen in my test games with the Brits in FIW there are bateaux units that appear at Forts Carillon and Oswego but when I'm STILL sieging them so the boats may freeze to death if I don't capture the forts. So these events need to be streamlined with the eventual capturing of these forts. My games have been played with 1.06 and 1.06.1. Hope this helps.