Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:19 pm

a peak at two historical oobs shows...

Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:37 pm

...Washington arrives before Boston in July 1775 and organizes his army into three divisions, Major-Generals Ward, Putnam and Lee commanding. Each division has two brigades containing six regiments each.
...Howe organizes his army into two divisions for the battle of Brandywine in 1777. The left flank division under Major-General Cornwallis has third and fourth British brigades each with four regiments; the British Guards, Light infantry and Grenadiers, each two battalions; Hessian grenadiers, three battalions; and attached cavalry and artillery. Leutnantgeneral Knyphausen commands the right division. (Yes, he is quite seperate from his named regiment and is commanding an allied force.) This division has two British Brigades of four and five regiments, the 71st Highlanders of two battalions, a Hessian brigade of four regiments, plus attached Queens Rangers, arty and cav.

Obviously such command structures cannot be simulated in BoA 1. How about BoA 2?

User avatar
Posts: 13705
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:00 pm

These are exceptions and not the rule at the addition, the concept is entirely different from the XIXth century we plan to have those "groups" represented, but not as 'single units' :cwboy:

Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:19 pm

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:04 am

These are not exceptions, merely two examples I chose. Virtually every battle oob I have seen has brigades, and if the forces are big enough, divisions. These are not just wargame oobs, but how they are described in historical texts. Some of these brigades actually stuck together over more than one campaign.

The difference introduced by Napoleon was the Corps, not the division, which was often referred to as a column, or a flank, or a line (1st line, second line, reserve). At times, these "division" commanders may have had more subordinate commanders than they could effectively control. Hopefully, the army commander was around to pick up the slack. In effect, during the revolution, armies were feeling toward the Corps idea, but didnt quite get there.

The named Brigadier Generals I see in this game were usually in charge of brigades averaging 4-6 regiments historically, yet as it is they can only command two. As it is now, to form a brigade of four regiments for a separate mission, you need a two star (really a division commander) or two brigadier generals to do it.

I dont think asking for two star leaders to be able to command one star leaders who command their brigades is asking too much. Command bonus if the Army leader is around, but units directly assigned to him will not be an UBER army.

Any thoughts from the rest of the BoA/ACW community on this?


Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:19 pm

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:55 am

How do you plan to represent these "groups"?

Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:13 am

I don't think it is historical. The word "division" was used differently in the 1770's than in the 1790's. It is true that de Saxe had discussed multiple arms formations, and the French tried out the divisional structure in the Seven Years War, but the French abandoned the practice after 1760 and didn't use it again until the revolution.

A "division" as used by Napoleon (or de Saxe) incorporated separate arms, and was a formation that remained intact place over multiple campaigns. I've not seen any evidence that any division in the Revolution did so. The word 'division' simply meant that the army had been divided, and a general was selected to command it.

Brigades are of course a different story. There is a good case to be made that it would be historical to be able to brigade different (infantry) battalions together. Personally I don't think the added complexity is worth it for BoA, but then I haven't played the other Ageod games.

"The first general to think of organising an army into smaller combined-arms units was Maurice de Saxe, Marshal General of France, in his book Mes Réveries. Because of his early death in 1750, it remained just an idea for the time being.

It was another French military leader who put the ideas into practice, Victor-François de Broglie. He conducted practical experiments in the Seven Years' War, and even though the war was not a success for the French, the divisional system was.

The first war that the divisional system was employed in was the French revolutionary war. The revolutionary government came to the same conclusion about it as the previous royal government and the army was organised into divisions."

Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:19 pm

Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:50 am

Let's not obsess with the semantics of the word divsion. In the 18th century a "three star general" in charge of 20-30,000 men would form his army into divisions, columns, flanks or lines, under command of the available "two star generals."

These generals would issue orders to the brigade commanders assigned to them.

I have seen some complaints about the "gamey" tactic of using "subordinate" leaders who are active to seperate out from under superior leaders who are not to form groups to move or attack. This is only done because a) there are not enough leaders, or b) as I feel, that there is no way to set up a realistic for the era chain of command.

One cannot even form Nathaniel Greene's army of 4,000 men, with three brigades, and various attached units at the battle of Guilford Courthouse with the existing units and leaders, as is.

User avatar
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:45 pm

I am no expert on this age, but i think the divisions and brigades used on the American Revolution lacked the permanency and staff organization to consider them "brigades" and "divisions" on game terms and use the same system used for them on the AACW.
On AACW game brigades are permanent (elements can't be separated) an divisions, while not that permanent, have big benefits on command points.
I think that advantage try to simulate the staff and logistic organization of the division which is more important than the "ad hoc" SXVIII division formed just for one battle or campaign. Probably, latter could be better simulated by normal stacks.
The probable % penalties of this stacks for lack of command points can also reflect the problems of command and control leaders of this era had, commanding a less structured force that the ones developed on later years (Napoleonic, Civil war...)

I think the new game should have some kind of system to avoid the huge and disorganized "death star" stacks one could make on the first game, but i´m not sure the system used for the ACW and NCP could be used here as it is.
I´m sure the developers are working into something... :coeurs:
Just my 2 cents

Return to “Birth of America”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest