Siege of Boston - British way overpowered?

[Ayeshteni]

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.

I agree. same here. They break the siege rather quickly and swamp Massacheusets.

Ayeshteni

[quikstrike98]

I'm very much looking forward to seeing the effects of your "cohesion" rule as well; Washington would not have been able to launch his Dec. 1776 attack on Trenton if it were not for the British having a requirement to disperse their forces over large areas to secure lines of communication, safeguard supply trains, and maintain control over the countryside. Come January 1777, after Washington's victories at Trenton and Princeton had galvanized the local militias, the British were again forced to retreat back into cantonments along the coast for security from a vicious guerilla war--or petite guerre as they called it. I'd have to dig up my copy of 1776 for exact figures, but the British suffered significant casualties (a thousand or more I believe) to militia/insurgent ambushes in New Jersey from January-March 1777, in their attempts to forage and maintain control of the surrounding areas.

This sustainment of casualties isn't necessarily something that could be modelled by an actual field engagement, but rather would be the function of just *existing* in an area which has extremely high opposition to your presence/high level of "resistance" activity.

[Pocus]

The rule is being tested by the betas, but has it retouched the game in many many places, there is still things to solve about it. Don't expect something before october, or even early november.

[James D Burns]

I think the best solution for Boston would be to make fortifications and entrenchments much stronger (they should be at least twice as strong as they are now). Then only allow siege artillery units to be used to reduce them for assaults instead of allowing everything to be counted towards reducing them as it is now.

Regular artillery would simply be just that regular artillery and incapable of reducing defensive works, but it should act in some way to reduce the effectiveness of any siege artillery attempting to reduce any works they might be defending. Perhaps halve the effectiveness of siege artillery units on a one unit for one unit basis.

So if three siege units are attempting to reduce a works with two artillery units, two of the siege units would be halved. If there were four defending artillery units then all three siege units would be halved and with no further reduction for the extra defending artillery.

Then give everyone their historic units whether they are at full strength or not and I bet Boston plays out a lot better than what we see now. The British would have to attack the Continental entrenchments so the defending continentals would stand up much better to the British with the doubled effectiveness of their defending works. And until the Ticonderoga siege guns show up the continentals really can’t hope to assault the British.

I also think Britain should be required to leave a garrison unit in any city it captures in US territory if it wishes to retain control of it. Currently they can capture the entire map and are treated just like the continentals once they take a city with no chance of rebellions flaring up in their rear areas if they move on and leave no one guarding their rear.

If a city is not garrisoned at the start of a turn, a continental militia regiment with one company should automatically appear in that region to recapture the city. It would be treated like regular units, so could slowly build up strength over a few weeks just as any other unit would if replacements were available, but the initial company would be free and not need to be drawn from the continental replacement pools.

I played as the British and placed a regiment in every city I took, it does reduce the ability of the British to blitz the entire map early on very effectively. When the larger British armies arrive in 1776 and 1777 the continentals will be more of a threat then so even though you now have enough extra regiments for garrison duty, you have to pick and choose which areas of the map you want to control.

Grab too much and your maneuver armies are too weak and get creamed by the continentals. Grab too few and you win every field battle you fight, but the continentals remain strong with levies of new troops in all their 100% loyal regions and eventually attrition you to death.

Jim

[PhilThib]

James, your suggestion on the British garrisons is excellent and is already indirectly in the game: the Brits cannot get control of a city is they do not have regular units in there and/or 51% loyalty in their favor

May be this should be tweaked a bit further, but the principle is already in the game ...

[Pocus]

and there is an update planned on how the population loyalty interact with regional military control and structure ownership. The patch 1.10 will be out before the end of october anyway...

[James D Burns]

the Brits cannot get control of a city is they do not have regular units in there and/or 51% loyalty in their favor

May be this should be tweaked a bit further, but the principle is already in the game ...

I would say 100% loyalty is needed to prevent a city from rebelling. After all this is a rebellion, just because a large percentage of your cities population is pro-British does not mean your not going to answer the call to muster at the town square if the Redcoats have left your region.

The point being that the Continentals were far more motivated to fight than the Tories, so their mustering should be spontaneous if a situation arises where they can take advantage of a British weakness.

Also simply reverting back to Continental control isn't enough to motivate a British player to keep his garrisons well maintained. Have a company pop-up at every vacant city and you'll see a lot more diligence by the British player regarding his garrisons.

Anyway glad to hear you're thinking along the same lines about the issue I am. If you can find a way to address the Boston situation as well this game would be near perfect. Tactical battles would be the last wish to put it over the top as one of the best wargames ever made.

Jim

[Panama Red]

Now I could be wrong on this, but I've always heard that the population broke down approxamately 1/3 Tory, 1/3 Rebel and 1/3 "did not care". If this is true and it only took 1/3 of the population to win the war, then I would say that it should take the British far more than 51% to control a city to prevent it from uprising.

[Generalisimo]

and there is an update planned on how the population loyalty interact with regional military control and structure ownership. The patch 1.10 will be out before the end of october anyway...

that's great news....
that's really needed to destroy the imperialist british invaders

[Pocus]

Easy on the British! Game balance is also a consideration, even against the AI. True that the loyalty rules will favor more the americans in 1.10, but we will find something, historical, to compensate a bit that

[Generalisimo]

Easy on the British! Game balance is also a consideration, even against the AI. True that the loyalty rules will favor more the americans in 1.10, but we will find something, historical, to compensate a bit that

Sure, we all want to have fun while playing the imperialist british ...

[James D Burns]

Easy on the British! Game balance is also a consideration, even against the AI. True that the loyalty rules will favor more the americans in 1.10, but we will find something, historical, to compensate a bit that

Hmm, game balance is far in favor of the British as things stand now in my opinion. I haven’t lost once as the British. In fact I never even break a sweat when I play them, they are simply far too powerful.

The Colonists need to face a strong British army that they can’t fight toe to toe 9 out of 10 times, but they also should be able to survive against the British for the entire game with a chance to win which they currently can’t do. I totally crush them usually within just two or three years due to the fact there is no pressing need for me to stay in the area once I’ve defeated the standing army there, I can simply move on to the next area right away. (give us a reason to stay in an area and quell the rebel sentiment)

Were I constantly needing to retrace my army’s steps and put out small uprisings in my rear, it would be a lot more challenging as the British. But once I’ve decimated the colonists in an area I can easily hold it with about 5 regular regiments and two leaders. Whatever few militia pop-up for the colonists I simply hunt down and kill as his leaders in that area are long dead so they fight abysmally poor against my troops.

That’s why I’d like to see militia companies spontaneously pop up in any/all non-garrisoned, non—100% controlled city. The sheer time it would take to siege each little town would guarantee my 5 unit army couldn’t control an entire region since those militia would soon be full regiments and able to band together into overwhelming numbers if I didn’t send a real British army to crush them to the area.

It also prevents the British trick of raising militia the same turn the colonists do which in my opinion severely hurts the colonists once they’ve been driven from an area. Rebellions were all about attacking your enemy when he was weakest, not calling your men to arms at the same time the British army is strongest in the region.

I think all British Tory’s should be raised during the winter on a fixed month each year and all colonist militia should spontaneously appear at any time of year as long as there are no British in their area of deployment. I think this system would go a long way towards making the game feel like it’s a rebellion you’re trying to crush and not just a set piece battle “balanced” for game play reasons.

Jim

[BrianW]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi PhilThib,

Ok, I have been playing the 1775 scenario and getting familiar with the game, and I must respectfully disagree with you - to a degree. I agree with the posters above, the British are overpowered at the start....or rather The Americans Are Underpowered At Start.

Something needs to bee done. If the Game cannot handle the historical OOB, then something needs to be re-thought.

By the way - I am really becomming a fan of this game, I plan on buying it - but I am holding off right now to see if you either; (A) Add an EDITOR to allow players to fill in missing units - or - (B) Change the starting scenario to better reflect the historical forces.

[Queeg]

It is always difficult to recreate a historical scenario where the real-life outcome was heavily influenced by luck or incompetence. Do you model the fluke or the potential?

The British probably could have lifted the seige of Boston and throttled the colonials any number times, especially early on. That they didn't owed as much to politics and hesitation on the part of the British command as to the strength of the colonial forces.

If you model the game to impose the historical, albeit aberational, outcome, you rob the game of much of its "what-if" potential.

[BrianW]

It is always difficult to recreate a historical scenario where the real-life outcome was heavily influenced by luck or incompetence. Do you model the fluke or the potential?

The British probably could have lifted the seige of Boston and throttled the colonials any number times, especially early on. That they didn't owed as much to politics and hesitation on the part of the British command as to the strength of the colonial forces.

If you model the game to impose the historical, albeit aberational, outcome, you rob the game of much of its "what-if" potential.

Well, not to get into a big "Oh ya?" squabble -
But ITRW The British Never-Ever defeated the Continental Army when the Continentals had them seriously outnumbered (umm, Harlem Heights anyone?). In EVERY engagement of the war which resulted in a British victory over the Continental Army (the main army under Washington) the British ALWAYS held numerical superiority on those occasions. And in virtually ALL of those major battles resulting in a British victoy (Long Island, White Plains, Brandywine, & Germantown [though to be fair - Germantown was a battle that the Americans Lost - much more than the British won]), not only did the British enjoy numerical superiority- they won only by outmaneuvering the Continental Army BECAUSE they held that numerical superiority, and in virtually ALL of those battles, the losses endured by BOTH sides were pretty close to the same. Furthermore, it should be well noted that the British/German forces NEVER were able to inflict a serious defeat on the Continental Army (such as Austerlitz) - though the Americans were able to do just that to the British/German Army at Saratoga.

Now it just so happens that I think the British had - just maybe - the BEST army in the world at that time. They knew their business. If the British COULD have easily defeated the Americans... they most certainly Would Have.

So saying that giving the Americans their real OOB is bad game modeling because the British could have (and should be able to) defeat the Americans at Boston anytime they wanted ....cannot be backed up by any relavant historical example. It was not mere timidity nor incompetence which gave the British pause to attempt to lift the siege.

I am not suggesting that the Continental Army was every bit as professional as the British Army before 1777 (for whatever difference that would have made) - but the game should be able to handle historically accurate OOBs.

Is wishful thinking at best - to suggest that the British could have actually defeated a numerically superior... AND entrenched American Army at Boston, let alone blitz their way across New England and the Middle States winning the war in under a year. It was actually tried you know - it was known as Bunker Hill, and that was just a small portion of the Army at Boston.


THAT is why SOMETHING needs addressing.

[Pocus]

Hi,

PhilThib is in charge of the OOBs (amongst many things) so I will let him answer the various points.

About the editor and about modding: We started some months ago the documentation about how to create scenarios, but given our time constraints on the 2nd game we never finished writing the proper doc. Thats said, we still expect to release it any time soon... But take a look at this image, this is how we put up scenarios... basically if you can type in Excel (or any XLS compliant software), it should not be too difficult for you to at least alter a scenario and I can help people wanting to do that by discussing the points of problem in the forum.


At the very least, if some of you come to an agreement about an initial English OOB but don't want to meddle with scenario making, then I will do that for you. Put up a new OOB and I will produce a new alternative unofficial campaign (which will be made available as a separate file in the forum).

And feel free to propose what if scenarios too

[PhilThib]

May be the very first step to take would be to provide us, in an Excel-type format, with the list and detailed OOB's you would feel as "fairly" close to reality.

Fron that source, I could quickly provide you with modified scenarios to test... and see the result

[BrianW]

Hi,

PhilThib is in charge of the OOBs (amongst many things) so I will let him answer the various points.

About the editor and about modding: We started some months ago the documentation about how to create scenarios, but given our time constraints on the 2nd game we never finished writing the proper doc. Thats said, we still expect to release it any time soon... But take a look at this image, this is how we put up scenarios... basically if you can type in Excel (or any XLS compliant software), it should not be too difficult for you to at least alter a scenario and I can help people wanting to do that by discussing the points of problem in the forum.
At the very least, if some of you come to an agreement about an initial English OOB but don't want to meddle with scenario making, then I will do that for you. Put up a new OOB and I will produce a new alternative unofficial campaign (which will be made available as a separate file in the forum).

And feel free to propose what if scenarios too

May be the very first step to take would be to provide us, in an Excel-type format, with the list and detailed OOB's you would feel as "fairly" close to reality.

Fron that source, I could quickly provide you with modified scenarios to test... and see the result

This is indeed Excellent news!
Now that I know there will be an editor coming out - I am buying the full version of this game TODAY!

As far as suggesting a starting OOB, I will look into that right away (And anyone else out there with good reference material please don't hesitate to jump in! )

THANK YOU GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU!!!

[Pocus]

to be more precise, we can give you the guidelines and the utility tool to make scenarios, but this is not an 'editor' per se... You won't get anytime soon a full drag&drop editor which allow you to do anything you want in-game, like (example among others) the one of Civ4.

You will have to type text in Excel, then convert the file with the utility and make some file manipulation (nothing complicated rest assured) to get a new scenario.

[BrianW]

to be more precise, we can give you the guidelines and the utility tool to make scenarios, but this is not an 'editor' per se... You won't get anytime soon a full drag&drop editor which allow you to do anything you want in-game, like (example among others) the one of Civ4.

You will have to type text in Excel, then convert the file with the utility and make some file manipulation (nothing complicated rest assured) to get a new scenario.

That is absolutely no problem with me. The capability to do editing in any form is great!

I have done quite a bit of 'modding' (art, scenario, and data files) for 2x3's monster game 'War in the Pacific' (sometimes using Excel spreadsheets), so I am already familiar with what's generally required for such an endevor. But I am also not too shy to ask for a little help when I need to.

You guys are great! Thank you again!

[BrianW]

By the way, I don't mean to give the impression that the British are "overpowered" in Boston and therefore need to reduce the numbers of British troops... not at all. In fact it seems tome that the British in Boston, Apr 1775, are actuall short a couple units.
More to the point - it's just that the Americans seem very short of units...American strength was no less than 29 Regiments (or Battalions) at Boston by June (a couple of turns), but in the game the most I can get there is a total of 16 by June-July.

[BrianW]

May be the very first step to take would be to provide us, in an Excel-type format, with the list and detailed OOB's you would feel as "fairly" close to reality.

Fron that source, I could quickly provide you with modified scenarios to test... and see the result

Hi,

Ok, here is what I have found for British and American units at Boston:
British OOB Boston, APR, 1775: and British and American OOB at Boston in JUL 1775(note: in Both OOB's, Battalion and Regiment are synonymous)
[ATTACH]151[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]152[/ATTACH]

[aryaman]

The Osprey book on Boston has an American OOB for June 17 1775 including 24 numbered Mass Bns.
There is also a British OOB for January 1776 and an American one for July 1776 if you are interested.

[PhilThib]

I already had this data... and tried the scenario with that same OOB on both sides...

With such a setup implemeted, the result is even worse than present, and totally a-historicall: the US gets soundly beaten and the whole of New England is subdued in a matter of months

What we could do is provide you with an alternative scenario including such a setup, for you to try it on your own.

Some complementary information in that case would be to knwo which regiments are understrength, and some missing leaders names (mostly on the US side, because they will be strongly undercommanded right now if we have the current leaders and that many troops leure: )

[Pocus]

I was going to post the same thing, we need the actual # of men in the regiments, as you know it varied between 250 and 1000 ...

[BrianW]

I already had this data... and tried the scenario with that same OOB on both sides...

With such a setup implemeted, the result is even worse than present, and totally a-historicall: the US gets soundly beaten and the whole of New England is subdued in a matter of months

What we could do is provide you with an alternative scenario including such a setup, for you to try it on your own.

Some complementary information in that case would be to knwo which regiments are understrength, and some missing leaders names (mostly on the US side, because they will be strongly undercommanded right now if we have the current leaders and that many troops leure: )

I was going to post the same thing, we need the actual # of men in the regiments, as you know it varied between 250 and 1000 ...

Ok, I can certainly understand needing the actual number of men in each regiment/battalion. That will take some real digging, but I will try.

By the way, currently it appears that a typical full strength regiment in the game has four companies? (unit boxes) How many men does that represent?

[Pocus]

quick answer: it depends. We went with a good dose of abstraction, giving 4 companies to full strength regiments, but with their value and number of hits reflecting the number of men somehow. So a company is between 100 and 250 men, and a hit represents between 15 and 40 men.

[aryaman]

Here is a doc with strengths for the 17 June 1775

[Pocus]

We had this one too, the problem is finding data for april 75, they are a lot scarcer.

Anyway... Philippe is AFK for some days but gave me an updated OOB, I will put it as an alternate scenario in 1.10, or before if you want to test it.

[Korrigan]

The handbook to campaign creation or edition is now available here.
Let's try to fix this Boston issue...