New 1775-1783 Grand Campaign ARW mod release

[Jagger]

Here is a new mod for the 1775-1783 scenario. With the evolution of the BOA engine and bug fixes, gradually the 1775-1783 grand ARW scenario has become unbalanced. This mod brings the scenario more into balance. It also fixes some regional data errors. In addition, the mod strengthens defense and creates a new balance between the various troop types.

The American AI produces a very good game at normal setting vs an English human player. The British AI is not so good. Bases are not protected adequately. In addition, the AI is using the Brit army in penny packets or turtling with large armies in major supply centers which unfortunately is not really producing a challenge for the American player.

While good for play against the American AI, the mod is primarily intended for PBEM play. I would recommend the individual that enjoys methodical play take the English side. I would recommend the player that enjoys taking a few calculated risks from time to time play as the American. I would definitely suggest playing a bit against the AI prior to a PBEM game. It helps to have a decent feel for the new defensive combat resolution prior to playing a PBEM.

Here is a list of the major scenario changes:

1. MacDonalds Tory uprising in North Carolina in early 1776 added as an event.
2. East Florida Rangers and East Florida Tory Militia appear as English reinforcement events from 1775-77 if the British control St Augustine
3. American state militia raised in the time frame of Dec-March 1776 now appear as reinforcements from Jan through March 1776 as events.
4. Continental Light Infantry Brigade appears by event as two brand new Continental Light Infantry regiments created in August 1777. They will appear with the largest American Army.
5. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina militia units restricted to the Deep South and South Central regions.
6. English regulars replacements reduced from 16 a year to 8 year.
7. German irregular replacements increased from 0 a year to 1 a year.
8. Newly created fort garrisons, except colonists garrisons, are now composed of 2 infantry and 2 artillery elements. Starting garrisons must use artillery replacements to reach full strength.
9. Fort Supply increased from 6 to 8.
10. Both Fort Wyoming and Fort Pitt available on May 1775. No garrison.
11. Fort Mifflin, outside Philadelphia, and Fort Liberty, Newport, appear in the game beginning May 1775. Both have inherent garrisons and naval batteries.
12. Fort Montgomery has a 33 percentage chance of appearing at West Point beginning Jan 1776 if Americans control West Point. Inherent garrison and supply.
13. Fort Washington has a 10 percentage chance of appearing at New York City beginning in Aug 1775 if Americans control New York City. No garrison.
14. Fort Constitution, Peekskill, has a 33 percentage chance of appearance beginning in June 75. Garrison only.
15. Fort MacLean appears at Penobscot Bay in June 1779. (Hopefully will have new event tied to this Fort added in the future.)
16. All leaders with strategic leadership ratings of 6 are reduced to 5 except Washington.
17. Skirmisher ability added to a number of partisan/ranger/indian leaders.
18. Lord Dunmore and his troops now have a random appearance location and date within Virginia.
19. A limited number of new American and Tory leaders are now in the game.
20. Certain irregular troops (Indians, partisans, mountaineers) have reduced assault and Rate of Fire abilities. Hover tooltip over elements of irregular troops to see current values.
21. Movement rates of the following Americans troop types increased from 100% to 105%- Continental Infantry, Continental Infantry (trained), American Militia, Tory Militia. Continental/Tory armies without supply wagons or artillery will move slightly faster than English/German/French/Spanish troops.
22. Certain American and Tory troop types have their food supply useage and stock changed from 2 food supply useage per month with a stock of 4 food supply to 1 supply used per month with a stock of 3. Ammo useage rate and stock remains the same. Troops changed: Continental Infantry, Continental Infantry (trained), Marines, Dragoons, Artillery, American Milita and Tory Militia. Most American troops and Tory militia troops will resupply faster and last longer in the field (3 months vs 2 months) than English/German/French/Spanish troops. (An unintended but unavoidable side effect is that American and Tory troops will survive a month longer in a siege than English troops.)
23. Conflicts in certain regions between terrain graphics depiction and terrain data fixed to agree with terrain graphics.
24. Complete redo of terrain and ground condition modifiers on combat resolution. Defense emphasized and a new balance between the various troop types. See thread on "New Terrain Modifiers Mod".
25. To be added in future--reduced ammo stock for several irregular troop types.

Directions for installation:

1. Use copy/paste to make a new copy of your original BOA. Rename the folder, BOAmod. A new copy is needed because the model changes will affect all scenarios. In addition, certain new units will not work with other Revolutionary War scenarios.
2. Open your new BOAmod folder, and create a new folder titled, 75CampaignMod13July2007
3. Upload the 5 zipped files located at the bottom of this thread into your new 75CampaignMod13July2007 folder. Upload the remaining 3 zipped files from the second post.
4. Unzip the LocalStrings75CampaignMod13July2007 file into your Settings folder. Select yes to have all files overwritten.
5. Unzip the Alias75CampaignMod13July2007 file into your Alias folder. Select yes to have all files overwritten.
6. Unzip the Events75CampaignMod13July2007 file into your Events folder. Select yes to have all files overwritten.
7. Unzip the Regions file into your Regions folder within your GameData Folder. Select yes to have all files overwritten.
8. Unzip the Structures75CampaignMod13July2007 file into your Structures folder within your GameData Folder. Select yes to have all files overwritten.
9. Unzip the Terrains75CampaignMod13July2007 file into your Terrains folder within your GameData Folder. Select yes to have all files overwritten.
10. Unzip the Units75CampaignMod13July2007 file into your Units folder within your GameData Folder. Select yes to have all files overwritten.
11. Unzip the Models75CampaignMod13July2007 file into your Models folder within your GameData Folder. Select yes to have all files overwritten.

That is everything. Use the BOA startup icon, within your new BOAmod folder, to start BOA. Within scenarios, select the 1775-1783 scenario and you are ready to go!

Please post any suggestions or feedback on balance issues or if any bugs slipped in at the last moment.

Hope you enjoy!

[Jagger]

At the bottom are the last three files for the 1775 Grand Campaign Mod.

I will post the unit, model and terrain spreadsheets a bit later for those who want to examine the exact changes in those areas of the scenario mod.

[Jagger]

Here are the terrain, model and unit spreadsheets with detailed information on new data used in the mod.

Examining the terrain impact on unit performance is very useful in understanding the battle outcomes.

[ussdefiant]

interesting:

Are there any changes to the autoraise force pools on either side? I always felt that the american were getting shorted on irregular units compared to the Brits, with only 1 ranger in PA compared to the ones that the Brits can get in both NY and the South. Also, i've never noticed any militia being raised in Canada for the Brits, even though looking at the data files for them would seem to indicate that they should be there.

[Jagger]

interesting:

Are there any changes to the autoraise force pools on either side? I always felt that the american were getting shorted on irregular units compared to the Brits, with only 1 ranger in PA compared to the ones that the Brits can get in both NY and the South. Also, i've never noticed any militia being raised in Canada for the Brits, even though looking at the data files for them would seem to indicate that they should be there.

No, I have made no changes to the autoraise force pools.

What information do you have on numbers of American ranger/partisan types vs English/Canadian rangers in the NY/PA area? IIRC, the Brits have two ranger units in the Middle States vs one American but I would have to check. Within game terms, I have found the Indian tribes dominate the West and Middle States in terms of pure irregulars far beyond the influence of the few Rangers for either side. One reason why I will probably reduce the ammo stock of Indians, partisans and mountaineers but not rangers.

In the south, the Rangers are not a huge factor either, IMO. Rangers may be a very strong elite force but a minor factor overall considering the far more numerous partisans and defending militia which were also effective in that rough southern terrain.

Rangers may possibly be the most powerful and useful units in the game, but perhaps for the best, there are very few of them on either side.

If I remember correctly, Canada did not respond enthusiastically to the Brit cause. Considering most of Canada was French and had only recently been ceded to England, the lack of enthusiasm is perhaps understandable. I do know that two Canadian regiments fought for the American side. One from the beginning of the invasion and the second raised at Montreal after the capture.

What are you specifically thinking in terms of adding or changing the scenario?
If it improves the scenario, I will put it in.

[Omnius]

Jagger,
On point 18 that's "Dunmore" not Dunbar that appears in Virginia with the Ethiopians. Ironic that the original game's announcement is incorrect in stating that Courtland Skinner raises Dunmore's units. Skinner raises loyalists in New York when the British capture Manhatten.

There's no fixing the British lack of transporting troops by sea. That's something that AGEOD has to do, hopefully in BoA Gold. There's also some large French contingents that show up in the French East Indies that never make it to the continent because they show up with ships but not loaded on already. It would be rather impossible to have a decent Civil War game if this naval transport aspect isn't working.
Omnius

[Jagger]

Jagger,
On point 18 that's "Dunmore" not Dunbar that appears in Virginia with the Ethiopians. Ironic that the original game's announcement is incorrect in stating that Courtland Skinner raises Dunmore's units. Skinner raises loyalists in New York when the British capture Manhatten.

There's no fixing the British lack of transporting troops by sea. That's something that AGEOD has to do, hopefully in BoA Gold. There's also some large French contingents that show up in the French East Indies that never make it to the continent because they show up with ships but not loaded on already. It would be rather impossible to have a decent Civil War game if this naval transport aspect isn't working.
Omnius

Oops, sometimes my brain slips out of gear and I don't even notice it happening. Yes, Dunmore!

Event descriptions such as Skinners can be changed easily in the strings file of the scripts folder with wordpad.

The problem with the French could be fixed fairly easily. Simply have them show up loaded and in the sea region. Although I don't know what the AI will do with them. The Ai might just turn around and land them again. Of course, those troops might be intended for defense of the East Indies rather than shipment to America.

[Jagger]

I looked further into the Brit vs American ranger/partisan numbers difference. What the Americans are missing are the true riflemen. The Riflemen with the long rifle and an accuracy out to 300 yds with slow rate of fire. Americans have the same light infantry as the Brits. With high rate of fire and the same range as all other musket armed regular units.

So here ar the four new "riflemen" models.

militia riflemen
backcountry riflemen
riflemen
Morgans riflemen

These troops have a range of 4 and ROF of 1. They have high OFF/DEF Fire values. A hit causes higher than normal cohesion loss which assumes a targeting of leaders. As with other light infantry, they will use the Irregular terrain/ground modifiers. Riflemen have very low assault values as these troops lacked bayonets and placed a high value on their own hides. Militia and backcountry riflemen have low cohesion comparable to regular militia while the long term Riflemen including Morgan are closer to normal light infantry.

The "riflemen" is a long term enlistment regiment recruited either from Virginia, Maryland, New York or Pennsylvania. These are much closer in morale/cohesion performance to regular light infantry except armed with the long rifle. Pennsylvania/New York troops created five of these long term rifle regiments. Virginia/Maryland created one regiment. And of course, there was also Morgans Rifles. A number of these regiments converted into regular continental regiments. There was also a push to replace the rifle with muskets and bayonets in a number of these regiments. General Wyane commented that there were too many riflemen and they wouldn't stand unless backed by bayonet troops. So he wanted most rifles replaced with the musket and bayonet. Some expert riflemen would be retained for sharpshooting within the regiment. (I need one more model to represent a rifle regiment converted to a continental regiment with sharpshooters.)

In the south, riflemen were militia. They served short time periods and left with the end of the campaign season. From time to time, backcountry riflemen would join and also serve for a season. These "militia" and "backcountry" riflemen are short term militia riflemen with all the drawbacks of militia. You will see these riflemen in the south, west and middle states. The militia riflemen have the same command and movement performance as standard militia. Backcountry riflemen have the similiar morale and cohesion weaknesses as militia but are capable of partisan activity. Thus they move and ambush in the same manner as partisans/rangers/indians, etc.

Finally "Morgans riflemen" are a slightly stronger form of the standard long term regular riflemen based on their fame.

Last, I suspect the Mountaineers are riflemen and have given them similiar stats to the new riflemen.

I am currently testing these troops in PBEM and with the AI. If all looks good, they will be released in a few days. They should help balance the British irregular dominance with Indians and rangers.

[Jagger]

I looked further into the Brit vs American ranger/partisan numbers difference. What the Americans are missing are the true Riflemen. The Riflemen armed with the Kentucky or Pennsylvania long rifle and an accuracy out to 300 yds with very slow rate of fire. Americans have the same light infantry as the Brits. With high rate of fire and the same range as all other musket armed regular units.

So here ar the four new "riflemen" models.

militia riflemen
backcountry riflemen
riflemen
Morgans riflemen

These troops have a range of 4 and ROF of 1. They have high OFF/DEF Fire values. A hit causes higher than normal cohesion loss which assumes a targeting of leaders. As with other light infantry, they will use the Irregular terrain/ground modifiers. Riflemen have very low assault values as these troops lacked bayonets and placed a high value on their own hides. Militia and backcountry riflemen have low cohesion comparable to regular militia while the long term Riflemen including Morgan are closer to normal light infantry.

The "riflemen" is a long term enlistment regiment recruited either from Virginia, Maryland, New York or Pennsylvania. These are much closer in morale/cohesion performance to regular light infantry except armed with the long rifle. Pennsylvania/New York troops created five of these long term rifle regiments. Virginia/Maryland created one regiment. And of course, there was also Morgans Rifles. A number of these regiments converted into regular continental regiments. There was also a push to replace the rifle with muskets and bayonets in a number of these regiments. General Wyane commented that there were too many riflemen and they wouldn't stand unless backed by bayonet troops. So he wanted most rifles replaced with the musket and bayonet. Some expert riflemen would be retained for sharpshooting within the regiment. (I need one more model to represent a rifle regiment converted to a continental regiment with sharpshooters.)

In the south, riflemen were militia. They served short time periods and left with the end of the campaign season. From time to time, backcountry riflemen would join and also serve for a season. These "militia" and "backcountry" riflemen are short term militia riflemen with all the drawbacks of militia. You will see these riflemen in the south, west and middle states. The militia riflemen have the same command and movement performance as standard militia. Backcountry riflemen have the similiar morale and cohesion weaknesses as militia but are capable of partisan activity. Thus they move and ambush in the same manner as partisans/rangers/indians, etc.

Finally "Morgans riflemen" are a slightly stronger form of the standard long term regular riflemen based on their fame.

Last, I suspect the Mountaineers are riflemen and have given them similiar stats to the new riflemen.

I am currently testing these troops in PBEM and with the AI. If all looks good, they will be released in a few days. They should help balance the British irregular dominance with Indians and rangers.

[Jagger]

I looked further into the Brit vs American ranger/partisan numbers difference. What the Americans are missing are the true Riflemen. The Riflemen armed with the Kentucky or Pennsylvania long rifle and an accuracy out to 300 yds with very slow rate of fire. Americans have the same light infantry as the Brits. With high rate of fire and the same range as all other musket armed regular units.

So here ar the four new "riflemen" models.

militia riflemen
backcountry riflemen
riflemen
Morgans riflemen

These troops have a range of 4 and ROF of 1. They have high OFF/DEF Fire values. A hit causes higher than normal cohesion loss which assumes a targeting of leaders. As with other light infantry, they will use the Irregular terrain/ground modifiers. Riflemen have very low assault values as these troops lacked bayonets and placed a high value on their own hides. Militia and backcountry riflemen have low cohesion comparable to regular militia while the long term Riflemen including Morgan are closer to normal light infantry.

The "riflemen" is a long term enlistment regiment recruited either from Virginia, Maryland, New York or Pennsylvania. These are much closer in morale/cohesion performance to regular light infantry except armed with the long rifle. Pennsylvania/New York troops created five of these long term rifle regiments. Virginia/Maryland created one regiment. And of course, there was also Morgans Rifles. A number of these regiments converted into regular continental regiments. There was also a push to replace the rifle with muskets and bayonets in a number of these regiments. General Wyane commented that there were too many riflemen and they wouldn't stand unless backed by bayonet troops. So he wanted most rifles replaced with the musket and bayonet. Some expert riflemen would be retained for sharpshooting within the regiment. (I need one more model to represent a rifle regiment converted to a continental regiment with sharpshooters.)

In the south, riflemen were militia. They served short time periods and typically served no more than a campaign season before going home. From time to time, backcountry riflemen would join and also serve for a season. These "militia" and "backcountry" riflemen are short term militia riflemen with all the drawbacks of militia. You will see these riflemen in the south, west and middle states. The militia riflemen have the same command and movement performance as standard militia. Backcountry riflemen have the similiar morale and cohesion weaknesses as militia but are capable of partisan activity. Thus they move and ambush in the same manner as partisans/rangers/indians, etc.

Finally "Morgans riflemen" are a slightly stronger form of the standard long term regular riflemen based on their fame.

Last, I suspect the Mountaineers are riflemen and have given them similiar stats to the new riflemen.

I am currently testing these troops in PBEM and with the AI. If all looks good, they will be released in a few days. They should help balance the British irregular dominance with Indians and rangers.

[Jagger]

I looked further into the Brit vs American ranger/partisan numbers difference. What the Americans are missing are the true Riflemen. The Riflemen armed with the Kentucky or Pennsylvania long rifle with hitting accuracy out to 300 yds with very slow rate of fire. Currently Americans have the same light infantry as the Brits. With high rate of fire and the same range as all other musket armed regular units. Americans need a new model representing the long rifle "riflemen".

So here are the four new "riflemen" models.

1. Militia Riflemen
2. Backcountry Riflemen
3. Riflemen
4. Morgans Riflemen

These troops have a range of 4 and ROF of 1. They have high OFF/DEF Fire values to represent the precise accuracy of the long rifle. A hit causes higher than normal cohesion loss which assumes a targeting of leaders. As with other light infantry, they will use the Irregular terrain/ground modifiers. Riflemen have very low assault values as these troops lacked bayonets and placed a high value on their own hides. Militia and backcountry riflemen have low cohesion and TQ values comparable to normal militia while the long term Riflemen including Morgan are closer to normal light infantry.

The "riflemen" is a long term enlistment regiment recruited either from Virginia, Maryland, New York or Pennsylvania. These are much closer in morale/cohesion/TQ performance to regular light infantry except armed with the long rifle. Pennsylvania/New York troops created five of these long term rifle regiments. Virginia/Maryland created one regiment. And of course, there was also Morgans Rifles. A number of these regiments converted into regular continental regiments. There was also a push to replace the rifle with muskets and bayonets in a number of these regiments. General Wyane commented that there were too many riflemen and they wouldn't stand unless backed by bayonet troops. So he wanted most rifles replaced with the musket and bayonet. Some expert riflemen would be retained for sharpshooting within the regiment. (I need one more model to represent a rifle regiment converted to a continental musket regiment with sharpshooters.)

In the south, riflemen were militia. They served short time periods and typically served no more than a campaign season before going home. From time to time, backcountry riflemen from the unsettled wilds would join and also serve for a season. These "militia" and "backcountry" riflemen are short term militia riflemen with all the drawbacks of militia. You will see these militia/backcountry riflemen in the south, west and middle states. The militia riflemen have the same command and movement performance as standard militia. Backcountry riflemen have similiar morale and cohesion weaknesses as militia but are capable of partisan activity. Thus they move and ambush in the same manner as partisans/rangers/indians, etc.

Finally "Morgans riflemen" are a slightly stronger form of the standard long term regular riflemen based on their fame.

Last, I would think the Mountaineers are armed with the long rifle and have given them similiar stats to the new riflemen.

As an Irregular troop type, Riflemen will perform best in rough terrain such as wilderness, forests, mountains and swamps. But they are useful as a supplement to regular troops in clear or wooded terrain as they provide a long range fire capability and can inflict substantial cohesion hits on the Brits. By themselves in open or wooded terrain, they are very vulnerable to easy defeat due to their low cohesion and assault values. Riflemen are also useful against Indian tribes. Indians are vulnerable to the high cohesion losses inflicted by rifles as Indian tribes start with inherent low cohesion. However Indians have higher assault and initiative values than riflemen and if Indians close, it won't be pretty.

I am currently testing these troops in PBEM and with the AI. If all looks good, they will be released in a few days. They should help balance the British irregular dominance with Indians and rangers.

[ussdefiant]

My concern is that there seems to be a bug somewhere in that the British do not seem to recieve any militia reinforcements in Canada. They seem to be set in scenario files to recieve a max of 2 regiments of militia in Montreal, 2 in Quebec, 2 in Halifax, and 2 more Tory regiments+a ranger regiment set to be raised in Canada in general. They start the 75 campaign with the 1st Montreal militia on-map, and receive two Tory regiments(Royal Greens and Highland Emigrants) + the Rangers (Butler's boys) but once these units go away through battle or disband, I have never seen them come back, let alone any Quebec or Nova Scotia militia be raised. (Unit IDs 29-31, 33, 41, and 47, for reference)

This has me scratching my head a little, as most accounts i've read suggest that the Canadians were quite willing to stay with the British instead of the Americans, and various wikipedia articles (though not the most realible force) names about 300 brit regulars+ 800 French militia as defending Quebec from Montgomery and Arnold in 75. I do wish i could find a detailed OOB for these forces somewhere, but details on the Canadian campaign are suprisingly hard to come by on the web.


Edit: Another problem related to the autoraise in base game is name conflicts in some of the American Continental units. Units 86, and 75-81 have the same unit names as milita in their files, and when they are raised, i've frequently noticed their names conflicting with already-present militia units, with the ugly result of the program assigning 17. Infantry esque names to them. This can probably be fixed easily by changing their names to things like 1st MA Line and such.

[Jagger]

My concern is that there seems to be a bug somewhere in that the British do not seem to recieve any militia reinforcements in Canada. They seem to be set in scenario files to recieve a max of 2 regiments of militia in Montreal, 2 in Quebec, 2 in Halifax, and 2 more Tory regiments+a ranger regiment set to be raised in Canada in general. They start the 75 campaign with the 1st Montreal militia on-map, and receive two Tory regiments(Royal Greens and Highland Emigrants) + the Rangers (Butler's boys) but once these units go away through battle or disband, I have never seen them come back, let alone any Quebec or Nova Scotia militia be raised. (Unit IDs 29-31, 33, 41, and 47, for reference)

This has me scratching my head a little, as most accounts i've read suggest that the Canadians were quite willing to stay with the British instead of the Americans, and various wikipedia articles (though not the most realible force) names about 300 brit regulars+ 800 French militia as defending Quebec from Montgomery and Arnold in 75. I do wish i could find a detailed OOB for these forces somewhere, but details on the Canadian campaign are suprisingly hard to come by on the web.


Edit: Another problem related to the autoraise in base game is name conflicts in some of the American Continental units. Units 86, and 75-81 have the same unit names as milita in their files, and when they are raised, i've frequently noticed their names conflicting with already-present militia units, with the ugly result of the program assigning 17. Infantry esque names to them. This can probably be fixed easily by changing their names to things like 1st MA Line and such.

I checked the Canadian militia and you are correct. They are set for autoraise both in the unit database and the 75 scenario database. Yet I can't recall ever seeing canadian militia appear except by events in 1775-not by autoraise. Seems like we do have a bug. You may want to post it in the bug forum as I don't think there is anything we can do about it.

American units 75-81 and 86, I believe are all replacement units for militia which convert to continental regiments at the end of 75. I don't know an easy way to fix the problem of then having those specific militia autoraised later with the same name. One fix is to create a new model for each of the replaced militia regiments and make them inelgible for autoraise. Once converted to continental regiments, those specific militia would be gone forever. Although I am not sure the problem is significant enough to justify the time to create the new models and update the setup file.

Also, IIRC, didn't the states renumber their militia regiments or raise new regiments with the same regimental numbers as those converted to continental line? The state and continental troops were separate organizations.

[Jagger]

I think I just found the problem with the canadians. There is an event which starts autoraise for Rebel militia and for Tory militia. I do not see an event for Canadian militia. Whether intentional or overlooked, I don't know.

[ussdefiant]

I think the autoraise settings are per side, as all the Canadian autoraise things are shoved into the same lines as other Tories and the Royal Americans under ENG, and the events file specifies faction ENG for the autoraise activation. I think the problem problably lies with those $Area_Quebec and $Canada being improperly defined somewhere. Another thing to try might be making one of the cities in CD into a strategic city, as control of those do affect recruitment in other areas, and the CPU might be gagging on there being none during turn processing.

Those American units are actually the models that those militia units convert to in 75. It is even possible for there to be things like 17. Rebel Militia showing up if any of those units A)convert (most of ones that do have a 75%/50 percent chance of disbanding in the previous turn) and b) survive to July 76, as the problem appears to work both ways. It's just that the program appears to check raising for militia units first as they are listed first in the data files, so that the Infantry always runs into this problem. The simplest solution is problem to change the names in those files to something with a Line on the end of it to indicate regular status i.e 1st PA Line, 2nd PA Line.

[orca]

While the American riflemen were very effective when in rough terrain or when entrenched, they were quite vulnerable to regulars in clear terrain because their rate of fire was so abysmal and because they couldn't mount an effective bayonet in their rifles.

If you're modeling them as the elite forces in rough terrain, their deficiencies need to be modeled too.

[Omnius]

While the American riflemen were very effective when in rough terrain or when entrenched, they were quite vulnerable to regulars in clear terrain because their rate of fire was so abysmal and because they couldn't mount an effective bayonet in their rifles.

If you're modeling them as the elite forces in rough terrain, their deficiencies need to be modeled too.

orca,
Good point on the riflemen's one flaw, not having a good bayonet and fleeing whenever the British charge them with the cold steel.
Omnius

[Omnius]

Oops, sometimes my brain slips out of gear and I don't even notice it happening. Yes, Dunmore!

Event descriptions such as Skinners can be changed easily in the strings file of the scripts folder with wordpad.

The problem with the French could be fixed fairly easily. Simply have them show up loaded and in the sea region. Although I don't know what the AI will do with them. The Ai might just turn around and land them again. Of course, those troops might be intended for defense of the East Indies rather than shipment to America.

Jagger,
Yep lots of details to keep track of and I figured it might help to point out that little anomaly. Hopefully in BoA Gold they will fix the announcements so that they match up correctly in the game.

I also hope those duplicate announcements stop happening as it makes one wonder if there's something else to find. Not to mention I hope announcements match up to the proper towns the happen at. Lots of errors like on the second turn where there's an annoucement of American reinforcements in New England with the event centered at Portsmouth while the unit actually appears in New London. The supply announcements tend to be way off for the Americans and it's always a game of hide and seek to find the proper place they appear.

It kind of seems like you're trying to force balance the game's stats to make the American side more powerful than it should be. Don't forget that the Americans lost most battles, but in doing so they bled the British white and kept the British generals interested in hunkering down. Even without any mods it's quite possible to lose battles yet win the campaign as the Americans by wearing down the overly busy British AI, even at the hardest levels.
Omnius

[Jagger]

While the American riflemen were very effective when in rough terrain or when entrenched, they were quite vulnerable to regulars in clear terrain because their rate of fire was so abysmal and because they couldn't mount an effective bayonet in their rifles.

If you're modeling them as the elite forces in rough terrain, their deficiencies need to be modeled too.

I think you may have missed my reference to their drawbacks in TQ and assault values. The backcountry and militia riflemen are definitely militia. Their major advantage is their single unanswered shot at range 4 and that they are irregulars as are all light troops. But the poor morale, poor assault values and low ROF are major drawbacks. The long term riflemen are much better troops but not at the level of a Brit light infantry regiment. These are definitely not super elite troops but they do reflect some of the unique capabilities of the riflemen.

[Jagger]

Jagger,
It kind of seems like you're trying to force balance the game's stats to make the American side more powerful than it should be. Don't forget that the Americans lost most battles, but in doing so they bled the British white and kept the British generals interested in hunkering down. Even without any mods it's quite possible to lose battles yet win the campaign as the Americans by wearing down the overly busy British AI, even at the hardest levels.
Omnius

Actually what I am trying to achieve is results within historical boundaries and a competitive, fun scenario.

Currently, the unmodded scenario is unbalanced in PBEM, IMO. So I would have to disagree that the Americans can win the 75 campaign against a competent human player in PBEM. Regardless of who plays the Brits, the Brits consistently win the war by end of 1777 or early 78 in the 75-83 grand campaign. I also dare anyone to attempt to stop Burgoyne from taking Albany against a competent human player. Although it can easily be taken from New England if the Brit player doesn't want to stress out Burgoyne too much. Stopping Burgoyne or holding Albany can't be done within the unmodded scenario. The Brits have no need to fear any size American army anywhere. American troops are mere speedbumps. The only fear is if a small Brit garrison is caught alone by a substantial American army. Of course, any massing of American troops is promptly pounced upon and destroyed very quickly. Although that is assuming you can supply a massed American army. A competent Brit players occupies all major supply centers ASAP and promptly captures any new American depots.

However when we look at reality, Burgoyne was not only stopped but destroyed. The Brits never controlled large portions of the country and were often confined to small sections of the country-unlike the sea of red which occurs within the 75 scenario.

I am sure the scenario was well balanced at one time but with all the changes to the engine and bug fixes and new features, the scenario is now unbalanced in PBEM.

I am currently playing a PBEM as the Brits in the 75 campaign with the modded scenario. It is now April 78. The score is Brit 865 vs American 708 points. This very month, Apr 78, I am finally putting Albany under siege and it will fall. I will probably take Ticonderoga this summer but it isn't guaranteed as he has some troops up there and a good fort. I have New England but a small rebel army keeps sortieing from the Concord, Portsmith and Falmouth area to attack Norwich and sometimes to threaten Boston. Either I put an army together to try and dig out those troops or I can expect continued problems up there.

I have New York City, Philadelphia and Wyoming but Washington has stopped me until recently from going further south to Alexandria and the middle south strategic areas. Although last month, Washington attacked me at Baltimore and suffered a major defeat. Which means I am heading for Alexandria.

In the south, I have Charleston (luckily), Camden and Wilmington. I have not taken Savanah even once. Ninety-Six and Augusta keep changing hands. Unless I put new troops down there or I completely break out from the Philadelphia/Baltimore area, we have a stalemate in the south. In real life, the Americans controlled the south till the fall of Charleston in 1780. So I am well ahead of the Brits real life performance even with the mod.

The west has been completely dominated by my Brit Indian tribes against the few small American armies which have attempted ops there.... Hopefully the riflemen may help a little to balance out the west.

It has been a tough, competitive fun game. I am winning in points but not in an overwhelming manner. The French and Spanish will show up but I have a good intact Brit army ready. And yet, I am still performing better than the Brits in real life even after the modifications to swing the balance a bit towards the Americans. And I don't believe I have lost a major battle but I have lost a few small and midsized battles. In particular, I am having problems with Norwich and some very competitive battles in the South. I was stalemated with Washington as I approached the south from Philadelphia until the Baltimore battle.

I hope the last modification adding the forts plus the riflemen finalizes a very close, evenly matched scenario. Although it is possible that the Americans may end up with a slight advantage. Although a perfectly balanced scenario is impossible. But then players are not perfectly balanced either. The best is a close game with the more experienced player taking the weaker side. I think for PBEM, the game is very closely balanced now with this mod. And it is fun and challenging.

As to the Brits winning most battles, yes that is true. Same as now with the modded scenario. But the Brits also lost and often a victory was a very pyrhric victory. You will see that more often with the modded terrain/ground values.

The Brits were defintely not supermen. They lost at Saratoga, Breeds Hill, Benningham, pyrhic victories at Cowpens, Guilford, etc. Look closely at many of these battles and often they were tough battles. For some reason, we tend to overrate the Brits and underrate the Americans. All we remember are the disasters and forget the victories. We need to remember both.

If the Brits were supermen, America would still by the colonies.

PS: If anyone wants to PBEM the modded scenario as either Brits or Americans, I have time for at least one more game. Drop me a private message and you will have a personal opportunity to find out how it plays out.

[Omnius]

Actually what I am trying to achieve is results within historical boundaries and a competitive, fun scenario.

However when we look at reality, Burgoyne was not only stopped but destroyed. The Brits never controlled large portions of the country and were often confined to small sections of the country-unlike the sea of red which occurs within the 75 scenario.

The Brits were defintely not supermen. They lost at Saratoga, Breeds Hill, Benningham, pyrhic victories at Cowpens, Guilford, etc. Look closely at many of these battles and often they were tough battles. For some reason, we tend to overrate the Brits and underrate the Americans. All we remember are the disasters and forget the victories. We need to remember both.

If the Brits were supermen, America would still by the colonies.

Jagger,
I'm not sure that making the Americans more "competitive" is realistic just because they won the war. Take Burgoyne for instance and his disaster at Saratoga. Remember that "hourglass" letter he received from Gage(?) stating that Sir Howe has taken the fleet and most of the army to Philadephia? The disaster at Saratoga was a failing of the British generals to play nicely together. Burgoyne did his part coming down from Montreal but Howe did not move north from New York to assist. St. Leger's force was too small to help. Not to mention that Burgoyne was too arrogant to retreat after the initial battles before Saratoga when it was obvious his army had taken a pounding and should have headed back to Montreal to heal. The American generals on the other hand saw the opportunity to gang bang Burgoyne and thay accomplished their mission. Had Arnold not disobeyed orders to stay out of the battle the final battle may well have turned out differently, but even still his army was too trashed to keep going forward.

You are mistaken in thinking it was the riflemen who won that campaign for Saratoga, it was really poor British generalship and lack of coordination that lost it for the British. The same with Breeds Hill, the poor British generalship allowed the Americans to kill lots of British soldiers because one arrogant commander wanted to attack frontally to teach those rebels a lesson. He ignored the advice of his subordinates to split the force in two and slip a force behind the American position at Breed's Hill to trap the Americans there and had he gone with the smarter plan Breed's Hill would have been the end of Ward's Army. Breed's Hill was still a British victory because the Amercians fled the scene of battle when they ran out of ammo. The Americans only won the bodycount but fleeing the field of battle is always a defeat.

Had the British had smarter generals who prosecuted the war far more viforously they would have won. We can only thank that they were more intent on hanging out with sassy lasses, like that limmerick about that British general "who was snug in bed, snoring with Mrs. Loring". The British infantry weern't supermen but they were the best trained, best disciplined army in the world at the time. Only when Von Stueben arrived and started training up the Americans did the rebels win battles in real stand up fights.

Also Cowpens was not a pyhrric British victory, they fled the field of battle ergo they lost that battle plain and simple. Washington lost the battle of Brandywine and allowed the British to occupy Philadephia, the rebel capital. Yet he went on to fight another battle against the British just days later and that tenacity was what impressed the French enough to intervene.
Omnius

[Omnius]

Jagger,
I can't find that part of the post where you talked about giving fort garrison units some artillery subunits but I'm thinking that's not such a good idea. I can't imagine what sort of goofy combat results will come about from having a unit with two range factors from two very different subunit types. Plus why on earth would one want to waste artillery replacements going into little fort garrisons? Granted the forts themselves ought to have some sort of "organic" artillery fire factor since they are made from artillery and supply. I'm not sure how that is handled but fixing the fort firepower to reflect having organic artillery seems the best way to ensure that artillery gets it's shots in in defense.

A fort garrison was meant to be a smaller formation solely for fort defense. They weren't meant to go out and about fighting in big battles as if it were a regular battle regiment. I think the small fort/town garrisons with only 2 subunits models fort garrisons well.

One conundrum I'm wondering about is how to model Fort Ticonderoga after Knox lifts the artillery. Is it really a fort after that or should that fort disappear since it has no artillery protection? It certainly shouldn't have an artillery defensive capability that's for sure unless the American reinstalls the artillery.
Omnius

[anarchyintheuk]

IIRC Knox only removed the most useful and transportable pieces, not all of them.

[Omnius]

IIRC Knox only removed the most useful and transportable pieces, not all of them.

Not sure just how much of Ticonderoga's artillery Knox lifted but he did promise Washington "a mighty train of artillery". Since he moved it via sleds drawn by oxen all pieces could have been transported. It sure took him a lot longer than the couple of weeks he initially envisioned. Besides they wanted as many guns as possible to force the British out of Boston. I wonder if there's any historical documentation of just how much of Ticonderoga's artillery Knox took with him. One thing for sure is that Ticonderoga was weakened by the artillery shuffle.
Omnius

[anarchyintheuk]

Random thoughts re Ticonderoga's artillery:

Knox's force wasn't that large. From what I've read it seems that he was at the limit of his transport capacity. Some of the guns he transported didn't even go to Washington.

The following site (not great I know) shows that 87 cannon/howitzers were at Ticonderoga when it fell. An inventory of the guns was taken at the time, in case the war should end and they would have to be returned; however, I've never been able to locate it.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1270.html

The number of guns taken by Knox is usually listed as 59 or thereabouts.

http://www.fort-ticonderoga.org/history/bibliographies/henry_knox.htm

Whether Washington had enough powder or any ammo for their use is another question. What I've read doesn't make clear that Knox brought any ammo, although it seems likely that he would.

I think the presence of the guns was more important than their number. Why it took Gage, Howe, Washington, et al so long to see the heights importance is a mystery.

As you say, Ticonderoga was weakened by the shuffle.

[Omnius]

Whether Washington had enough powder or any ammo for their use is another question. What I've read doesn't make clear that Knox brought any ammo, although it seems likely that he would.

I think the presence of the guns was more important than their number. Why it took Gage, Howe, Washington, et al so long to see the heights importance is a mystery.

As you say, Ticonderoga was weakened by the shuffle.

anarchyintheuk,
Thanks for the links to that info. Actually that cannon action was all a big bluff because indeed Knox brought the cannons but not much ammo. Washington posted those cannons on the big hill overlooking the harbor and didn't even have to shoot. The British commander was so shocked to see all those cannons on the hill he lamented to his own men that "the Americans did more in one night than what would taken the British army months to do". Then he parlayed a peaceful exit from Boston.

The mere sight of all those cannons in a very advantageous position was more of a psyschological blow than an actual military one. Washington actually didn't have enough cannon ammo and powder to bombard Boston and the harbor for long had the British general called his bluff. Yet another case of very poor British generalship.

It does look that Knox lifted atleast 2/3 of the cannons and probably the best ones at that. I wonder how forts are modeled in the game for combat as far as having some kind of artillery defensive fire factor? I've also seen where the British player especially could make forts with wimpy artillery units that have only 1 or 2 subunits and I wonder if that would reduce it's artillery defense? The power of the artillery unit making a fort ought to be factored into the fort's eventual defensive strength so that wimpy artillery doesn't make a fort as strong as one that's full of cannons.

One problem in the game is that we can't model that "bluff" on the bluffs by say moving Knox's artillery into position at Boston. Heck the British Army can bounce off any American army brought to bear.

One problem with the balance of the game, especially with a human British player, is that we humans are far more busy moving and fighting than the actual British generals were. We humans can overcome an inactive army leader by pulling him out of the army with a few units and then let an active lesser general do the dirty deed of leading the attack with the larger remainder. A pity that the programmers couldn't make it so that we can't split up an army led by an inactive leader so that we have a small inactive army with a bigger active one cheating the system. I'd think that the highest ranking leader ought to always be the leader every army in the same region has to operate under despite being split up.
Omnius

[anarchyintheuk]

All good points. Was wishing there was a way to have the AACW corps level movement in minature. In the same province only those leaders in command of a separate stack roll for initiative. All others are considered to have failed. Once a leader is separated out (w/ whatever units you want to attach) it can roll for initiative normally next month. No switching of units between commands or initiative fails. Represents the time to take to form/organize and supply a separate command. If a province w/ separate commands is attacked the largest command has a weighted chance against the smaller commands to defend and a AACW "sound of the guns" kind of chance for the other commands to start w/ or reinforce the original defender. Represents the fact that the largest command would cover the greatest area defensively and would most likely be the maneuvered to contact the advancing enemy but still allow for an attack to fall on portion of the defender. Unfortunately, the system would be relatively clumsy in action and would lead to probable suicidal action by Athena if it didn't ignore it in the first place. I should probably try a game 'using' those rules that I can simulate first before I mouth off. Oh well, have a great weekend.

[Omnius]

Was wishing there was a way to have the AACW corps level movement in minature. In the same province only those leaders in command of a separate stack roll for initiative. All others are considered to have failed. Once a leader is separated out (w/ whatever units you want to attach) it can roll for initiative normally next month. No switching of units between commands or initiative fails. Represents the time to take to form/organize and supply a separate command. If a province w/ separate commands is attacked the largest command has a weighted chance against the smaller commands to defend and a AACW "sound of the guns" kind of chance for the other commands to start w/ or reinforce the original defender.

anarchyintheuk,
I like the sound of AACW's command and control that doesn't allow for "cheating" the command and control strictures by separating off smaller commands that can actively lead new stacks. I hope that makes it into BoA Gold. I find it way too easy to gimmick command and control strictures by creating new armies with leaders who are active. I like the one turn delay. By the way what is the turn length in AACW? I also like the way AACW does multiple commands being attacked in the same province, something that could be improved more in BoA.

I found a new way to fake out the AI. I've been playing as the British in the 1775 alt. scenario at the hardest level and discovered that if I don't combine my locked armies on turn 2 the American AI will abuse Ward to attack. It seems that the AI only sees the one small army on top and doesn't count up the total strength in the Boston region. It then attacks and gets whacked big time. When I combined both armies the AI always skedaddled away without a fight.
Omnius

[ussdefiant]

Is an update for this planned anytime soon?

[lodilefty]

"Use the BOA startup icon, within your new BOAmod folder, to start BOA."

What icon? Where?
Sorry, I'm new at this, and I'm probably missing something obvious!