Development of BoA2 is clearly proceeding and I've always had some small concerns about the BoA map. I thought it might be interesting to look at the city sizes in the game and compare them to the most complete data set from the era - the United States' first census in 1790. The census has it's drawbacks - a lot changed between 1775 and 1790 - the population was growing rapidly, and of course there was a war that found the natives on the losing side and therefore pushed the frontier back significantly. Equally something like 2% of the population of the colonies left as loyalists, and the population was disproportionately urban. Finally governments were run differently in different parts of the country. - In New England each state was divided into towns, and thise towns had to cover the entire area of the state (up to the frontier). In the South the county was the important local government level and only the largest towns were incorporated and these had very small areas. The mid Atlantic states were somewhere in between. This means that town populations can't exactly be compared between New England and the South.
With those provisos I think comparing the game to the census is a useful exercise. The census itself can be found here. To see if this comparison has any validity I found the populations (in the census) of as many cities from the game as I could. A simple fit had an r2 of 0.79 and a slope of 2448 people per town level. The correlation tells me that there is something to my approach, or perhaps that the designers used the census data directly or indirectly.
I also think it's useful to look at the population patterns. I've attached the population density of the USA in 1790 and 1820. For 1790 it's apparent that the densely settled parts of the early US were New England, the lower Hudson valley, and the modern 'megopolis' from New York to Philadelphia. Virgiinia has quite dense settlement in the Tidewater, and even in the eastern piedmont, while further south only the piedmont and the coast have much population. It's easy to forget that most of Cornwallis' campaigns in south took place on what was effectively the wild west of the time.
Does the game match these population distributions? I'd say that it does a decent job. There are lots of big towns in New England, although not so many in the New Jersey/Hudson Valley region. Virginia has a lot of big towns as does Maryland and southern Pennsylvania. But parts of the game map do seem off. For example the settlement gap between Tidewater and upcountry South Carolina is invisible.
So I think some tweaking can make things a little more accurate. What follows is my discussion, state by state of the 1790 census, along with other sources, and what I think should be changed. As you'll see my bias is to leave things as close to what they are now unless I have a pretty good idea that the current situation is wrong.
Does the game match these population distributions? I'd say that it does a decent job. There are lots of big towns in New England, although not so many in the New Jersey/Hudson Valley region. Virginia has a lot of big towns as does Maryland and southern Pennsylvania. But parts of the game map do seem off. For example the settlement gap between Tidewater and upcountry South Carolina is invisible.
So I think some tweaking can make things a little more accurate. What follows is my discussion, state by state of the 1790 census, along with other sources, and what I think should be changed. As you'll see my bias is to leave things as close to what they are now unless I have a pretty good idea that the current situation is wrong.
- Attachments
-
Modern Maine
Maine makes sense in the game right now. With a population that is well over 5000 Falmouth probably should be a level 3 city. Berwick (in Kennebunk province) has a population of 3804, and Kittery (3258) and Wells (3070) are in the same province. I’d like to see Berwick added as a level 2 city.
recommendation
Make Falmouth a level 3 town. Add Berwick as a level 2 town (level 1 port) in Kennebunk. Remove Fort Western from 1755-1763 scenarios.
Modern New Hampshire
No big towns missing in New Hampshire. Sizes are pretty good too. Note that Hanover (1370) and Lebanon (1180) are across the river from Norwich Vermont and add support to it’s size.
recommendation
Call Concord "Rumford" in 1755.
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Fort Western 0 1 Modern Augusta fort built 1771
Falmouth 5234 2 Population includes Portland
Berwick 3804 0
Maine makes sense in the game right now. With a population that is well over 5000 Falmouth probably should be a level 3 city. Berwick (in Kennebunk province) has a population of 3804, and Kittery (3258) and Wells (3070) are in the same province. I’d like to see Berwick added as a level 2 city.
recommendation
Make Falmouth a level 3 town. Add Berwick as a level 2 town (level 1 port) in Kennebunk. Remove Fort Western from 1755-1763 scenarios.
Modern New Hampshire
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Portsmouth 4720 3 Capital City
Concord 1738 1 Rumford until 1765
No big towns missing in New Hampshire. Sizes are pretty good too. Note that Hanover (1370) and Lebanon (1180) are across the river from Norwich Vermont and add support to it’s size.
recommendation
Call Concord "Rumford" in 1755.
Modern Vermont
Nothing missing in Vermont either. I would have made Norwich a level 1 city, but the towns across the river provide some support for a level 2 rating. Bennington has obvious historical significance for the revolution, but is in the same province as Brattleborough and is not as old. The town could be renamed, but I don’t see a need to do so. Norwich should not exist in 1755-1763. It’s beyond the frontier and was only settled after the French and Indians had lost the war.
recommendation
Remove Norwich from 1755-1763 scenarios.
Modern Massachusetts
Mostly Massachusetts makes sense. I would offer the following suggestions
-Despite it’s small size it does make sense to include Cambridge as it was Washington’s headquarters and it is the biggest town in the area. I think it’s too big though – why not make it a level 1 city.
-Springfield really should be level 2 rather than 3. It had several large adjacent towns, or I'd be arguing for level 1.
-Newburyport was not a town until 1764. It is far smaller than Salem which was the sixth biggest city in the 13 colonies in 1775 (and in 1790). I would rename the city Salem, move it’s port to the south, and make it a level 4 or 5 city.
-New Bedford didn’t exist in 1783, it was part of Dartmouth. Either change the name of the town to Dartmouth and leave it as is, or use Bridgewater instead. Bridgewater should not have a port.
-Pittsfield was settled in 1751. It was the biggest city in the region except Adams. I think it’s fine as is, but before 1761 it was called "Pontoosuck Plantation"
recommendation
Make Cambridge level 1. Make Springfield level 2. Rename Newburyport "Salem", move the port to the south coast, and make it a level 4 town with a level 4 port. Rename New Bedford "Dartmouth" and move the port to the south coast. Rename Pittsfield "Pontoosuck Plantation" for 1755-1761
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Brattleboro 1589 1
Norwich 1158 2 Settled 1761
Bennington 2350 0
Nothing missing in Vermont either. I would have made Norwich a level 1 city, but the towns across the river provide some support for a level 2 rating. Bennington has obvious historical significance for the revolution, but is in the same province as Brattleborough and is not as old. The town could be renamed, but I don’t see a need to do so. Norwich should not exist in 1755-1763. It’s beyond the frontier and was only settled after the French and Indians had lost the war.
recommendation
Remove Norwich from 1755-1763 scenarios.
Modern Massachusetts
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Newburyport 4837 2 part of Newbury until 1764
Cambridge 2115 2
Boston 18038 7 Capital City
New Bedford 3313 2 Bedford village, part of Dartmouth until 1787
Worcester 2095 1
Springfield 1574 3
Pittsfield 1992 1 Pontoosuck Plantation until 1762
Salem 7921 0 Sixth biggest city in USA
Bridgewater 4975 0
Mostly Massachusetts makes sense. I would offer the following suggestions
-Despite it’s small size it does make sense to include Cambridge as it was Washington’s headquarters and it is the biggest town in the area. I think it’s too big though – why not make it a level 1 city.
-Springfield really should be level 2 rather than 3. It had several large adjacent towns, or I'd be arguing for level 1.
-Newburyport was not a town until 1764. It is far smaller than Salem which was the sixth biggest city in the 13 colonies in 1775 (and in 1790). I would rename the city Salem, move it’s port to the south, and make it a level 4 or 5 city.
-New Bedford didn’t exist in 1783, it was part of Dartmouth. Either change the name of the town to Dartmouth and leave it as is, or use Bridgewater instead. Bridgewater should not have a port.
-Pittsfield was settled in 1751. It was the biggest city in the region except Adams. I think it’s fine as is, but before 1761 it was called "Pontoosuck Plantation"
recommendation
Make Cambridge level 1. Make Springfield level 2. Rename Newburyport "Salem", move the port to the south coast, and make it a level 4 town with a level 4 port. Rename New Bedford "Dartmouth" and move the port to the south coast. Rename Pittsfield "Pontoosuck Plantation" for 1755-1761
Rhode Island
This is pretty good. I think Providence was big enough to be level 3 or possibly even level 4. Glocester (4025) and Smithfield (3171) were adjacent towns that were part of the city until 1731.
And shouldn’t it have a port? This link says that
It also mentions the distilleries, which could only be supplied with molasses by sea.
This link says:
"In the northern colonies the five largest cities by 1775 were Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Newport and Providence - all thriving ports"
recommendation
Make Providence a level 3 town, with a level 2 port.
Connecticut
The 1790 Connecticut census doesn’t list numbers by town for New London county, so I looked up the Connecticut 1774 census. The numbers from that census are shown above, particularly to compare New London with other cities. The sizes of Hartford, New Haven and New London in BoA all make a lot of sense.
I understand why Ridgefield is in the game – it has some significance to the war. However, it was a pretty small town, and the battle there was fought as the British returned from burning the Continental depot at Danbury, a much bigger town. But to me even Danbury is below the size of the really important towns in the colonies.
However, I do think Norwalk should be included. In 1790 it was listed (with Stamford) as having a population of 8,810, and the southwestern part of the state had multiple large towns. I would make it a level 2 city with a level 2 port.
Another possible addition would be Middletown. According to wikipedia:
"During the 1700s, Middletown became the largest and most prosperous settlement in Connecticut. By the time of the American Revolution, Middletown was a thriving port, comparable to Boston or New York in importance, with one-third of its citizens involved in merchant and maritime activities."
It was bigger than Hartford and New Haven in 1790, but not in 1775. It would be in Middleton area with a port on the river. Ultimately I don't think it's needed.
recommendation
Get rid of Ridgefield. Add Norwalk in Woodbury area as a level 2 town with a level 2 port.
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Newport 6716 3 Capital City (alternating)
Providence 6380 2 Capital City (alternating)
This is pretty good. I think Providence was big enough to be level 3 or possibly even level 4. Glocester (4025) and Smithfield (3171) were adjacent towns that were part of the city until 1731.
And shouldn’t it have a port? This link says that
Providence had a flourishing maritime trade, a merchant aristocracy, a few important industries, a body of skilled artisans, a newspaper and printing press, a stagecoach line, and several impressive public buildings.
It also mentions the distilleries, which could only be supplied with molasses by sea.
This link says:
"In the northern colonies the five largest cities by 1775 were Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Newport and Providence - all thriving ports"
recommendation
Make Providence a level 3 town, with a level 2 port.
Connecticut
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Population 1775 Size in Game Comments
Hartford 4090 5031 3 Capital City (alternating)
New Haven 4484 8295 3 Capital City (alternating)
New London - 5888 2 New London county not listed by towns
Ridgefield 1947 1708 1
Middletown 5375 4878 0
Norwalk 8810 4388 0 1790 includes Stamford
Danbury 3030 2526 0
The 1790 Connecticut census doesn’t list numbers by town for New London county, so I looked up the Connecticut 1774 census. The numbers from that census are shown above, particularly to compare New London with other cities. The sizes of Hartford, New Haven and New London in BoA all make a lot of sense.
I understand why Ridgefield is in the game – it has some significance to the war. However, it was a pretty small town, and the battle there was fought as the British returned from burning the Continental depot at Danbury, a much bigger town. But to me even Danbury is below the size of the really important towns in the colonies.
However, I do think Norwalk should be included. In 1790 it was listed (with Stamford) as having a population of 8,810, and the southwestern part of the state had multiple large towns. I would make it a level 2 city with a level 2 port.
Another possible addition would be Middletown. According to wikipedia:
"During the 1700s, Middletown became the largest and most prosperous settlement in Connecticut. By the time of the American Revolution, Middletown was a thriving port, comparable to Boston or New York in importance, with one-third of its citizens involved in merchant and maritime activities."
It was bigger than Hartford and New Haven in 1790, but not in 1775. It would be in Middleton area with a port on the river. Ultimately I don't think it's needed.
recommendation
Get rid of Ridgefield. Add Norwalk in Woodbury area as a level 2 town with a level 2 port.
New York
What bugs me about New York in BoA is that there are two level 1 cities in the Mohawk valley (Dayton and Fort Stanwix), and two in the Upper Hudson/Lower Champlain region (Fort Edward and Skenesborough), yet only three level 1 towns on the Hudson between Albany and New York. In the revolutionary era the Hudson valley was the demographically dominant part of New York.
In detail
-I don't think Ticonderoga should be a strategic town. It was far beyond the frontier, and I just don't see how ownership of Ticonderoga should affect levies in the Middle States in any way. Why should the residents of New York care about a town beyond the frontier. I also don't see why New York state militia wouldn't disband if stationed in Ticonderoga over the winter. They can't possibly be "at home" any more than they would be at home at Fort Niagara - they would be a hundred miles from civilization. I would make it an objective city, like Pittsburgh
-Other than that the forts that had no settlement near them in 1775 (Oswego, Oswegatchie, Stanwix, Niagara) can stay as it seems you need the town to be able to build a fort. I did want to make the distinction with Detroit that had a local population in 1775.
-I would get rid of Skenesborough. It was important in the war - Arnold purloined and built his fleet there, and Burgoyne passed through it. But it was a very small town, and unless there is a need to allow the rebels to build a fleet on Lake Champlain it doesn't serve much of a purpose. Keep Fort Edward to represent the Upper Hudson settlements. (Of course it's easy to choose to keep Skenesborough and remove Fort Edward too).
-The town where Fort Dayton is located should definitely be called German Flatts (like the area). There never was a town called Dayton in New York. The Fort should be called Fort Dayton, rather than German Flatts.
-I think Albany is fine as a level 4 town. The actual population wasn't huge, but nearby towns were very big and Albany county had by far the highest population in the state (and it didn't include the northern (Clinton) and western (Montgomery) parts of the state).
-Ballstown, which is between Schenectady and New York has a high population (7,333). It would be in Saratoga area. However I suspect this was because it covered a large area. I wanted to list it, but think it can be ignored. Saratoga had a population of 3070.
-I believe that Kingston ought to be added to make the Hudson river seem less like a wilderness. It was the capital of New York State from independence until the end of the war, and had a big enough population to justify a level 2 town.
-West Point was not (and is not) a town. Still the name is right as it played a huge role in the war. Cornwall is immediately upstream of West Point and had a big population. I would suggest increasing West Point to a level 2 town (still without a port)
-Peekskill was part of Cordlandt in 1775. Cordlandt had a snallish population of 1932. Although Peekskill was an important base for the continentals until 1777 I think a better town in the area of Peekskill would be Fishkill, which had a population of 5941, and was also a major depot for American operations in the Hudson.
-I've already discussed why I think Ridgefield should be removed, quite apart from the fact that it's in the wrong state. Possible towns for Westchester would be Cordlandt, or Bedford, which was Westchester's county seat from 1776. White Plains was small, but the site of a significant battle. Overall the population of Westchester county was quite small compared to Dutchess or Ulster counties further up the Hudson. My preference would be to leave it empty particularly as I want to add Norwalk next door.
-New York is currently a level 10 city. I see no problem with this, except that Philadelphia was definitely bigger at this time. This site gives the populations as 40,000 Philadelphia and 25,000 New York for 1775 and 44,100 for Phialdelphia and 33,100 for New York in 1790 (this is because the Northern Liberties Township is added to Philadelphia's total). If the goal is to keep proportions right then New York should be level 8 or 9.
-Long Island doesn't need any towns.
recommendation
Make Ticonderoga an objective rather than a strategic town. Get rid of Skenesborough (unless needed for naval operations on Lake Champlain). Rename Dayton to "German Flatts", rename it's fort to Fort Dayton. Add Kingston as a level 2 town in Kingston area with a level 1 port. Make West Point a level 2 town. Rename Peekskill "Fishkill" and make it a level 2 town. Make New York a level 8 town.
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Oswagatchie - 1 Modern Ogdensburg. Mission estab. 1749, fort present in 1749. Europ. Settlement 1802
Oswego - 1 Fort built 1722, settled 1797
Fort Stanwix - 1 Rome. Fort Built 1758
Ticonderoga - 1 Settled 1786
Dayton 1307 1 Fort Dayton. Community called German Flatts.
Fort Niagara - 1 Youngstown. No settlement
Fort Edward - 1 Fort built 1755 dismantled before Revolution. Little settlement
Skenesboro 797 1 Whitehall from ~1785
West Point 4220 1 Highlands-Cornwall in 1790
Albany 3498 4
Peekskill 1932 1 Part of Cortlandt until 1816
New York 32328 10 Capital
Kingston 3929 0
Fishkill 5941 0
Ballstown 7333 0
Bedford 2470 0
What bugs me about New York in BoA is that there are two level 1 cities in the Mohawk valley (Dayton and Fort Stanwix), and two in the Upper Hudson/Lower Champlain region (Fort Edward and Skenesborough), yet only three level 1 towns on the Hudson between Albany and New York. In the revolutionary era the Hudson valley was the demographically dominant part of New York.
In detail
-I don't think Ticonderoga should be a strategic town. It was far beyond the frontier, and I just don't see how ownership of Ticonderoga should affect levies in the Middle States in any way. Why should the residents of New York care about a town beyond the frontier. I also don't see why New York state militia wouldn't disband if stationed in Ticonderoga over the winter. They can't possibly be "at home" any more than they would be at home at Fort Niagara - they would be a hundred miles from civilization. I would make it an objective city, like Pittsburgh
-Other than that the forts that had no settlement near them in 1775 (Oswego, Oswegatchie, Stanwix, Niagara) can stay as it seems you need the town to be able to build a fort. I did want to make the distinction with Detroit that had a local population in 1775.
-I would get rid of Skenesborough. It was important in the war - Arnold purloined and built his fleet there, and Burgoyne passed through it. But it was a very small town, and unless there is a need to allow the rebels to build a fleet on Lake Champlain it doesn't serve much of a purpose. Keep Fort Edward to represent the Upper Hudson settlements. (Of course it's easy to choose to keep Skenesborough and remove Fort Edward too).
-The town where Fort Dayton is located should definitely be called German Flatts (like the area). There never was a town called Dayton in New York. The Fort should be called Fort Dayton, rather than German Flatts.
-I think Albany is fine as a level 4 town. The actual population wasn't huge, but nearby towns were very big and Albany county had by far the highest population in the state (and it didn't include the northern (Clinton) and western (Montgomery) parts of the state).
-Ballstown, which is between Schenectady and New York has a high population (7,333). It would be in Saratoga area. However I suspect this was because it covered a large area. I wanted to list it, but think it can be ignored. Saratoga had a population of 3070.
-I believe that Kingston ought to be added to make the Hudson river seem less like a wilderness. It was the capital of New York State from independence until the end of the war, and had a big enough population to justify a level 2 town.
-West Point was not (and is not) a town. Still the name is right as it played a huge role in the war. Cornwall is immediately upstream of West Point and had a big population. I would suggest increasing West Point to a level 2 town (still without a port)
-Peekskill was part of Cordlandt in 1775. Cordlandt had a snallish population of 1932. Although Peekskill was an important base for the continentals until 1777 I think a better town in the area of Peekskill would be Fishkill, which had a population of 5941, and was also a major depot for American operations in the Hudson.
-I've already discussed why I think Ridgefield should be removed, quite apart from the fact that it's in the wrong state. Possible towns for Westchester would be Cordlandt, or Bedford, which was Westchester's county seat from 1776. White Plains was small, but the site of a significant battle. Overall the population of Westchester county was quite small compared to Dutchess or Ulster counties further up the Hudson. My preference would be to leave it empty particularly as I want to add Norwalk next door.
-New York is currently a level 10 city. I see no problem with this, except that Philadelphia was definitely bigger at this time. This site gives the populations as 40,000 Philadelphia and 25,000 New York for 1775 and 44,100 for Phialdelphia and 33,100 for New York in 1790 (this is because the Northern Liberties Township is added to Philadelphia's total). If the goal is to keep proportions right then New York should be level 8 or 9.
-Long Island doesn't need any towns.
recommendation
Make Ticonderoga an objective rather than a strategic town. Get rid of Skenesborough (unless needed for naval operations on Lake Champlain). Rename Dayton to "German Flatts", rename it's fort to Fort Dayton. Add Kingston as a level 2 town in Kingston area with a level 1 port. Make West Point a level 2 town. Rename Peekskill "Fishkill" and make it a level 2 town. Make New York a level 8 town.
New Jersey
The New Jersey census for 1790 was burned by the British when they took Washington in 1814, so there are no results available.
I've looked for alternate references. I dug up a book called "American Population before the Federal Census of 1790"
It cites sources saying that Newark had 141 houses in 1777, Perth Amboy had 200 in 1776-77, Princeton had 60-80 houses, Trenton had 185 in 1785 and Bordentown had 20-25 in 1774. Not much to work from.
By way of comparison it also says that New York had 3340 houses in 1786.
The capital of New Jersey alternated between Burlington and Perth Amboy.
This map of the colonies in 1776 has a finder chart for distance between major cities. The three New Jersey cities are East Amboy, Burlington and Princeton
This isn't all that comprehensive, but I'm going to try to reach conclusions anyway.
-Morristown: It would be bad to prevent Washington from wintering there so I would keep it as level 1.
-Perth Amboy: As one of the capitals it should be in there. The source implies it was the biggest town in New Jersey. Make it level 2 in Newark, with a level 1 port (there was a ferry from New York).
-Burlington: It was the part time capital, but was also in the same area as Trenton, which seems to have been bigger. Bordentown is also in the Burlington area.
-Trenton: can stay as level 2. I would make it a port, at least level 1 - it was at the head of navigation of the Delaware, and that would give the Philadelphia bateau somewhere to go. (from this link)
-Princeton; I'd like to downgrade it to a level 1 town. It seems to have been small.
-Newark: In the same area as Perth Amboy which was the capital and seems to have been bigger. So leave it out.
recommendation
Add Perth Amboy in Newark area as a level 2 town. Make Princeton a level 1 town. Make Trenton a level 2 port
Pennsylvania
Broadly Pennsylvania is OK, although for the French and Indian Scenarios several towns shouldn't be there. Luzerne county (in 1790) shows no returns by town, which is a pain because three of the cities in BoA were in Luzerne county at that time. I haven't been able to work out what Logantown represents (Loganton, PA?). However, I still have some changes I'd like to see.
-Easton should be a level 1 city. "American Population before the Federal Census of 1790" says that it had 60-70 dwellings in 1777.
It just isn't big enough to possibly justify level 2 in 1775, let alone 1755. It was founded in 1752.
-Philadelphia ought to be bigger. It was the biggest city in the colonies by population, and was the cultural and mercantile capital of the colonies. Again, this site gives the populations as 40,000 Philadelphia and 25,000 New York for 1775 and 44,100 for Philadelphia and 33,100 for New York in 1790. Philadelphia should be a level 10 city and a level 10 port.
-Reading is fine, but in 1755 it was only seven years old. I suggest that it should be a level 1 city for the FIW scenarios.
-Sunbury, Wyoming and Wilkes Barre didn't exist in 1755-1760, so they shouldn't be there. In the case of Wilkes-Barre, the crisis of Wilkes' election didn't happen until 1769 (when the town was coincidentally founded) and Barre didn't even enter parliament until 1761, and he didn't come up with the terms "Sons of Liberty" until 1765 and the Stamp Act.
-Sunbury should have a fort - Fort Augusta. This was built in 1758 at the junction of the north and west branches of the Susquehanna after the electoral defeat of the Quakers. It could arrive by event at that date, and should exist for a 1759 start.
-Sunbury was settled in 1772. I just can't believe that it should be a level 2 town 3 years later. Make it level 1.
-Fort Venango was destroyed in 1763 after Pontiac's revolt. It was never rebuilt. It shouldn't exist in games that start after 1763.
-Pittsburgh should have a fort - Fort Pitt in 1775. The population I've listed above for 1790 (1853) includes the borough, and clearly Pittsburgh was growing rapidly from 1775 to 1790. While I can see the point of making it level 2 - it was far and away the biggest town west of the Appalachians and ought to be distinguished from the Sycamore Shoals and Boonesboros. In game it provides an excellent bolt hole for the continentals. But I just can't see how it's big enough to justify being level 2.
recommendation
Make Easton a level one city. Make Philadelphia level 10 city and port. Make Reading level 1 in 1755 (leave level 2 for the revolution). Remove Sunbury, Wyoming and Wilkes Barre in 1755. Add a fort to Sunbury (Fort Augusta). Have an event creating this fort in 1758. Make Sunbury level 1 in 1775. Get rid of Fort Venango for all the 1775-1783 scenarios. Make Pittsburgh level 1 and add a fort (Fort Pitt) there.
Code: Select all
City Size in Game Comments
Morristown 1
Princeton 2
Trenton 1
The New Jersey census for 1790 was burned by the British when they took Washington in 1814, so there are no results available.
I've looked for alternate references. I dug up a book called "American Population before the Federal Census of 1790"
It cites sources saying that Newark had 141 houses in 1777, Perth Amboy had 200 in 1776-77, Princeton had 60-80 houses, Trenton had 185 in 1785 and Bordentown had 20-25 in 1774. Not much to work from.
By way of comparison it also says that New York had 3340 houses in 1786.
The capital of New Jersey alternated between Burlington and Perth Amboy.
This map of the colonies in 1776 has a finder chart for distance between major cities. The three New Jersey cities are East Amboy, Burlington and Princeton
This isn't all that comprehensive, but I'm going to try to reach conclusions anyway.
-Morristown: It would be bad to prevent Washington from wintering there so I would keep it as level 1.
-Perth Amboy: As one of the capitals it should be in there. The source implies it was the biggest town in New Jersey. Make it level 2 in Newark, with a level 1 port (there was a ferry from New York).
-Burlington: It was the part time capital, but was also in the same area as Trenton, which seems to have been bigger. Bordentown is also in the Burlington area.
-Trenton: can stay as level 2. I would make it a port, at least level 1 - it was at the head of navigation of the Delaware, and that would give the Philadelphia bateau somewhere to go. (from this link)
The head of navigation on the Delaware River, Trenton became a port for shipping grain and products traveling between Philadelphia and New York City.
-Princeton; I'd like to downgrade it to a level 1 town. It seems to have been small.
-Newark: In the same area as Perth Amboy which was the capital and seems to have been bigger. So leave it out.
recommendation
Add Perth Amboy in Newark area as a level 2 town. Make Princeton a level 1 town. Make Trenton a level 2 port
Pennsylvania
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Easton 703 2 Settled 1752
Philadelphia 38435 9 Capital, including Northern Liberties
Reading 2225 2 Settled 1748
Lancaster 4070 2 Including Lancaster Borough
York 3457 2
Sunbury - 2 Returns from Luzerne Co. not by town. Founded 1772. Fort Augusta built 1758
Wilkes Barre - 1 Returns from Luzerne Co. not by town. Founded 1769.
Wyoming - 1 Returns from Luzerne Co. not by town.
Fort Venango 0 1 Fort built 1754, destroyed 1763
Presqu'ile 0 1 Settled 1795
Pittsburgh 1853 2 Including Pitt township
Logantown - 1 I can't identify this town
Broadly Pennsylvania is OK, although for the French and Indian Scenarios several towns shouldn't be there. Luzerne county (in 1790) shows no returns by town, which is a pain because three of the cities in BoA were in Luzerne county at that time. I haven't been able to work out what Logantown represents (Loganton, PA?). However, I still have some changes I'd like to see.
-Easton should be a level 1 city. "American Population before the Federal Census of 1790" says that it had 60-70 dwellings in 1777.
It just isn't big enough to possibly justify level 2 in 1775, let alone 1755. It was founded in 1752.
-Philadelphia ought to be bigger. It was the biggest city in the colonies by population, and was the cultural and mercantile capital of the colonies. Again, this site gives the populations as 40,000 Philadelphia and 25,000 New York for 1775 and 44,100 for Philadelphia and 33,100 for New York in 1790. Philadelphia should be a level 10 city and a level 10 port.
-Reading is fine, but in 1755 it was only seven years old. I suggest that it should be a level 1 city for the FIW scenarios.
-Sunbury, Wyoming and Wilkes Barre didn't exist in 1755-1760, so they shouldn't be there. In the case of Wilkes-Barre, the crisis of Wilkes' election didn't happen until 1769 (when the town was coincidentally founded) and Barre didn't even enter parliament until 1761, and he didn't come up with the terms "Sons of Liberty" until 1765 and the Stamp Act.
-Sunbury should have a fort - Fort Augusta. This was built in 1758 at the junction of the north and west branches of the Susquehanna after the electoral defeat of the Quakers. It could arrive by event at that date, and should exist for a 1759 start.
-Sunbury was settled in 1772. I just can't believe that it should be a level 2 town 3 years later. Make it level 1.
-Fort Venango was destroyed in 1763 after Pontiac's revolt. It was never rebuilt. It shouldn't exist in games that start after 1763.
-Pittsburgh should have a fort - Fort Pitt in 1775. The population I've listed above for 1790 (1853) includes the borough, and clearly Pittsburgh was growing rapidly from 1775 to 1790. While I can see the point of making it level 2 - it was far and away the biggest town west of the Appalachians and ought to be distinguished from the Sycamore Shoals and Boonesboros. In game it provides an excellent bolt hole for the continentals. But I just can't see how it's big enough to justify being level 2.
recommendation
Make Easton a level one city. Make Philadelphia level 10 city and port. Make Reading level 1 in 1755 (leave level 2 for the revolution). Remove Sunbury, Wyoming and Wilkes Barre in 1755. Add a fort to Sunbury (Fort Augusta). Have an event creating this fort in 1758. Make Sunbury level 1 in 1775. Get rid of Fort Venango for all the 1775-1783 scenarios. Make Pittsburgh level 1 and add a fort (Fort Pitt) there.
Delaware
The Delaware census for 1790 was also burned by the British when they took Washington in 1814, so there are no results available.
Going back to "American Population before the Federal Census of 1790"
I find that Dover had 50 families in 1776, Lewistown had 100 houses, New Castle had 5000-6000 houses in 1785 and 100 houses in 1760, while Wilmington had 400 houses in 1785, and 1229 in 1775. Clearly the sources are pretty inconsistent, but I take this to mean that New Castle and Wilmington were easily the biggest towns in the state.
By way of comparison it also says that New York had 3340 houses in 1786.
New Castle was the capital of Delaware, and the Delaware/Pennsylvania boundary is caculated as a radius from the center of that town.
This map of the colonies in 1776 has a finder chart for distance between major cities. The only Delaware city is New Castle.
My take away from all of this is that Wilmington should be replaced with New Castle (which has the additional virtue of reducing confusion with Wilmington NC), and that New Castle or Wilmington (if retained) should be a level 2 city and not level 3.
recommendation
Rename Wilmington "New Castle". Make it a level 2 town and level 2 port.
Maryland
Maryland recorded it's census results of 1790 by county rather than by town. The census does list out separately the population of Baltimore - 13,505. It was the fifth biggest city in the US, and although it was growing very quickly between 1775 and 1790 I'm pretty sure it was the fifth biggest city in 1775 too. As such I think it ought to be level 5 rather than level 4, and possibly level 6. The port should also be as big or bigger.
And I don't understand the choice of strategic cities in the South Central Region. OK I know that it follows Avalon Hill's 1776, but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Strategic cities matter for levies, and because militia won't disband when garrisoning them. So it makes sense that control of strategic cities ought to represent control of area from which you can recruit. In the SC, Norfolk is obviously important. Control of Alexandria is a decent proxy for northern Virginia and the strategically important Potomac valley. While Charlottesville could be a good proxy for control of the upcountry, it is so close to Richmond that that argument doesn't make much sense. Both Richmond and Petersburg (and Alexandria for that matter) are on the fall line, between the tidewater and the piedmont. And the two towns seem redundant.
Baltimore on the other hand was bigger than any city in Virginia, and has a huge hinterland - the upper Chesapeake and the Susquehanna valley. I really think it would make sense for it to be a strategic city rather than Petersburg or Charlottesville. It would force the British to spread out further making the South Central a little harder to hold, and would let Maryland militia survive the disband a little better. With a population of 13,000 I would make it it a level 5 town.
I don't have much information on Cambridge or Head of Elk (Elkton). I think Cambridge was the biggest town on the east shore - if so it makes a lot of sense. Head of Elk was an important entrepot between Baltimore and Philadelphia as goods were transported up Elk Creek then carried to the Christiana in Delaware. And of course Howe landed in Head of Elk in 1777. Still my impression is that it was a very small town. But without any real data to support that I can't say it should be changed.
This site gives Annapolis a population of 1400 in 1775 (and Williamsburg 1880). It was the capital and the second biggest city in the state, and clearly the population in 1790 would be higher than in 1775. While there is a good case to make it level 1, I feel it's OK as level 2.
Frederick makes sense as is, but Fort Cumberland was abandoned in 1765 and the area wasn't settled until 1785. It should be removed. (See here)
recommendation
Make Baltimore a strategic town, and make it a level 5 town and port. Remove Fort Cumberland from all 1775-1783 scenarios. Frederick should not have a fort in 1755 - it should appear by event in 1758.
Code: Select all
City Size in Game Comments
Wilmington 3
New Castle 0 Capital City
The Delaware census for 1790 was also burned by the British when they took Washington in 1814, so there are no results available.
Going back to "American Population before the Federal Census of 1790"
I find that Dover had 50 families in 1776, Lewistown had 100 houses, New Castle had 5000-6000 houses in 1785 and 100 houses in 1760, while Wilmington had 400 houses in 1785, and 1229 in 1775. Clearly the sources are pretty inconsistent, but I take this to mean that New Castle and Wilmington were easily the biggest towns in the state.
By way of comparison it also says that New York had 3340 houses in 1786.
New Castle was the capital of Delaware, and the Delaware/Pennsylvania boundary is caculated as a radius from the center of that town.
This map of the colonies in 1776 has a finder chart for distance between major cities. The only Delaware city is New Castle.
My take away from all of this is that Wilmington should be replaced with New Castle (which has the additional virtue of reducing confusion with Wilmington NC), and that New Castle or Wilmington (if retained) should be a level 2 city and not level 3.
recommendation
Rename Wilmington "New Castle". Make it a level 2 town and level 2 port.
Maryland
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Cambridge - 1
Head of Elk - 1 Modern Elkton
Baltimore 13,505 4 Fifth largest city in the colonies
Annapolis - 2 Capital City
Fort Frederick - 1 Modern Frederick. Settled 1745, Fort built 1756-58
Fort Cumberland - 1 Modern Cumberland, Fort built 1754, abandoned 1765. Cumberland settled 1785
Maryland recorded it's census results of 1790 by county rather than by town. The census does list out separately the population of Baltimore - 13,505. It was the fifth biggest city in the US, and although it was growing very quickly between 1775 and 1790 I'm pretty sure it was the fifth biggest city in 1775 too. As such I think it ought to be level 5 rather than level 4, and possibly level 6. The port should also be as big or bigger.
And I don't understand the choice of strategic cities in the South Central Region. OK I know that it follows Avalon Hill's 1776, but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Strategic cities matter for levies, and because militia won't disband when garrisoning them. So it makes sense that control of strategic cities ought to represent control of area from which you can recruit. In the SC, Norfolk is obviously important. Control of Alexandria is a decent proxy for northern Virginia and the strategically important Potomac valley. While Charlottesville could be a good proxy for control of the upcountry, it is so close to Richmond that that argument doesn't make much sense. Both Richmond and Petersburg (and Alexandria for that matter) are on the fall line, between the tidewater and the piedmont. And the two towns seem redundant.
Baltimore on the other hand was bigger than any city in Virginia, and has a huge hinterland - the upper Chesapeake and the Susquehanna valley. I really think it would make sense for it to be a strategic city rather than Petersburg or Charlottesville. It would force the British to spread out further making the South Central a little harder to hold, and would let Maryland militia survive the disband a little better. With a population of 13,000 I would make it it a level 5 town.
I don't have much information on Cambridge or Head of Elk (Elkton). I think Cambridge was the biggest town on the east shore - if so it makes a lot of sense. Head of Elk was an important entrepot between Baltimore and Philadelphia as goods were transported up Elk Creek then carried to the Christiana in Delaware. And of course Howe landed in Head of Elk in 1777. Still my impression is that it was a very small town. But without any real data to support that I can't say it should be changed.
This site gives Annapolis a population of 1400 in 1775 (and Williamsburg 1880). It was the capital and the second biggest city in the state, and clearly the population in 1790 would be higher than in 1775. While there is a good case to make it level 1, I feel it's OK as level 2.
Frederick makes sense as is, but Fort Cumberland was abandoned in 1765 and the area wasn't settled until 1785. It should be removed. (See here)
recommendation
Make Baltimore a strategic town, and make it a level 5 town and port. Remove Fort Cumberland from all 1775-1783 scenarios. Frederick should not have a fort in 1755 - it should appear by event in 1758.
Modern Virginia
Virginia's census results for 1790 are also given by county, but the population of nine towns is given. Those towns are listed above. This site lists 10 towns with over 100 inhabitants in 1750: Alexandria, Fredericksburg, Port Royal, Tappahannock, Urbanna, Richmond, Williamsburg, Yorktown, Hampton, and Norfolk. Port Royal, Tappahannock and Urbanna are all below Fredericksburg on the Rappahannock. Hampton is at the end of the York peninsula. Yorktown is a better town there.
Overall I think the towns in Virginia are right, but tend to be a bit big. In particular
-Alexandria was only 6 years old in 1755, and even in 1790 it's population is too low to warrant level 3 rating. I would make it level 2 in both dates, mostly because making it level 1 in 1755 means that the British can't absorb replacements there, which doesn't seem right.
-Fredericksburg should be level 1, not level 2. Population of 1485 is pretty small.
-Charlottesville shouldn't exist in 1755. Even in 1775 I can't see that it should be level 2. I would make it level 1 and remove it's strategic city status. Maybe it's an objective city.
-Richmond should definitely not be level 4. I would make it level 2, although at a stretch maybe it's level 3.
-Although the 1790 census gives Williamsburg 1344 inhabitants, this site gives it a population of 1,880. As the capital was moved away from Williamsburg in between the two dates I think a size 2 is warranted.
-Norfolk's population is quite low, but the city was destroyed in early 1776 because of it's loyalist sympathies. I have to believe that that event and the departure of the loyalist led to it's losing a lot of population between 1775 and 1785. This site says: "the Borough of Norfolk, ninety-three years old, was by far the largest community in Virginia".
I would make it level 3 or maybe even level 4. And of course it should have a big port - level 4 at least.
-Halifax was, as far as I can tell very small in 1775. Greene's army did recuperate there in 1781, and I suppose it makes sense to have settlements in the Southwestern part of Virginia.
-Lynchburg should be called Lynch's Ferry. It should not exist in 1755.
-Prince Edward is the name of a county, not a town. The modern town is Worsham, in 1775 it was called Prince Edward Courthouse. I don't see a good reason to include it.
-A town that would make a good addition is Staunton. It was settled in 1747 and was an important waystation on the Great Wagon Road along which emigrants travelled from Pennsylvania to the Carolinas. It would be a level 1 town. Unfortunately the Shenandoah valley doesn't really exist on the BoA map.
-Charlotte Virginia didn't become a county until 1764. I don't think it should be there in 1755.
recommendation
Reduce Alexandria to a level 2 town, level 1 port. Reduce Fredericksburg to level 1. Make Charlottesville level 1 in 1775-83, remove from all earlier scenarios. Remove it's strategic town status. Reduce Richmond to level 3. Make Norfolk a level 4 town. Rename Lynchburg 'Lynch's Ferry". Remove Lynchburg from 1755-1763 starts. Remove Prince Edward. Remove Fort Chiswell from 1755 start, perhaps add by event in 1758.
Modern West Virginia
Point Pleasant could contain Fort Randolph in later scenarios. Othewise everything here is fine.
recommendation
None
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Winchester 1651 1
Alexandria 2748 3 Settled 1749
Fredericksburg 1485 2
Charlottesville - 2 Settled 1762
Richmond 3761 4
Williamsburg 1344 2 Capital City
Yorktown 661 1
Petersburg 2828 2
Portsmouth 1702 1
Norfolk 2959 2
Halifax - 1 County settled 1752.
Prince Edward - 1 County settled 1754. No such town
Lynchburg - 1 Settled 1757. Lynch's Ferry until 1786
Fort Chiswell - 1 Built 1758
Virginia's census results for 1790 are also given by county, but the population of nine towns is given. Those towns are listed above. This site lists 10 towns with over 100 inhabitants in 1750: Alexandria, Fredericksburg, Port Royal, Tappahannock, Urbanna, Richmond, Williamsburg, Yorktown, Hampton, and Norfolk. Port Royal, Tappahannock and Urbanna are all below Fredericksburg on the Rappahannock. Hampton is at the end of the York peninsula. Yorktown is a better town there.
Overall I think the towns in Virginia are right, but tend to be a bit big. In particular
-Alexandria was only 6 years old in 1755, and even in 1790 it's population is too low to warrant level 3 rating. I would make it level 2 in both dates, mostly because making it level 1 in 1755 means that the British can't absorb replacements there, which doesn't seem right.
-Fredericksburg should be level 1, not level 2. Population of 1485 is pretty small.
-Charlottesville shouldn't exist in 1755. Even in 1775 I can't see that it should be level 2. I would make it level 1 and remove it's strategic city status. Maybe it's an objective city.
-Richmond should definitely not be level 4. I would make it level 2, although at a stretch maybe it's level 3.
-Although the 1790 census gives Williamsburg 1344 inhabitants, this site gives it a population of 1,880. As the capital was moved away from Williamsburg in between the two dates I think a size 2 is warranted.
-Norfolk's population is quite low, but the city was destroyed in early 1776 because of it's loyalist sympathies. I have to believe that that event and the departure of the loyalist led to it's losing a lot of population between 1775 and 1785. This site says: "the Borough of Norfolk, ninety-three years old, was by far the largest community in Virginia".
I would make it level 3 or maybe even level 4. And of course it should have a big port - level 4 at least.
-Halifax was, as far as I can tell very small in 1775. Greene's army did recuperate there in 1781, and I suppose it makes sense to have settlements in the Southwestern part of Virginia.
-Lynchburg should be called Lynch's Ferry. It should not exist in 1755.
-Prince Edward is the name of a county, not a town. The modern town is Worsham, in 1775 it was called Prince Edward Courthouse. I don't see a good reason to include it.
-A town that would make a good addition is Staunton. It was settled in 1747 and was an important waystation on the Great Wagon Road along which emigrants travelled from Pennsylvania to the Carolinas. It would be a level 1 town. Unfortunately the Shenandoah valley doesn't really exist on the BoA map.
-Charlotte Virginia didn't become a county until 1764. I don't think it should be there in 1755.
recommendation
Reduce Alexandria to a level 2 town, level 1 port. Reduce Fredericksburg to level 1. Make Charlottesville level 1 in 1775-83, remove from all earlier scenarios. Remove it's strategic town status. Reduce Richmond to level 3. Make Norfolk a level 4 town. Rename Lynchburg 'Lynch's Ferry". Remove Lynchburg from 1755-1763 starts. Remove Prince Edward. Remove Fort Chiswell from 1755 start, perhaps add by event in 1758.
Modern West Virginia
Code: Select all
City Size in Game Comments
Fort Henry 1 Modern Wheeling, settled 1769
Point Pleasant 1 Fort Randolph built 1776 abandoned 1779
Point Pleasant could contain Fort Randolph in later scenarios. Othewise everything here is fine.
recommendation
None
North Carolina
North Carolina is basically a mess in BoA.
The 1790 census is listed by counties, not by towns. However, the census includes the names of six towns, so it stands to reason they are the biggest towns in the state. The named towns are Edenton (population 1575), Halifax, New Bern, Salisbury, Wilmington, and Fayetteville (Cross Creek) (population 1536).
By and large the towns in the North Carolina tidewater make sense, but those in the Piedmont are based on battles rather than where there were any serious population centers. So I went looking for more sources.
This link lists the main towns in the Piedmont as being Bethabara, Bethania and Salem in the Wachovia tract settled by the Moravians, as well as Hillsborough, Charlotte and Salisbury.
This map from wikipedia includes important towns in North Carolina for 1763-1775 as Edenton, Beaufort, Wilmington, New Bern, Hillsboro and Charlotte. Fort Dobbs is also shown - built in 1755 it was the only fort on the North Carolina frontier. It was abandoned in 1766.
This map shows the settlement of the Piedmont and includes the following towns: Edenton, New Bern, Wilmington, Campbellton (Cross Creek), Hillsborough, Bethabara Salisbury and Charlotte.
Finally this map of British North America in 1775 shows the following towns in North Carolina: Edenton, New Bern, Wilmington, Halifax, Brunswick, Hillsborough, Charlotte. Salem and Salisbury.
My conclusions from all of this are:
-Warrenton must go. It wasn't settled until 1779. Maybe it can be there for later scenarios.
-Williamston should be replaced by Edenton, which was the original capital of North Carolina and seems to have been quite important in revolutionary times (although it was never occupied by the British). Edenton could be level 2 but I suggest level 1. It's actually across Albermarle Bay from Williamston, in the Dismal Swamp area.
-Hillsborough (seems to be the more common spelling), was important. The legislature met there when New Bern seemed too exposed. Cornwallis' army recuperated there after chasing Greene. However I can't see it being level 3 - level 2 is more than enough. In 1755 it needs to be level 1 and should be called Corbintown.
-Ramsey's Mill was literally just a mill where Cornwallis quartered some soldiers. Get rid of it.
-Guilford Courthouse was the site of a critical battle, but there wasn't much there either.
-Salisbury definitely stays
-Charlotte can stay although it certainly should be level 1 in 1755 when it was founded.
-New Bern is fine
-Wilmington probably should be level 2 rather than level 3 - it was no bigger than New Bern. This link says that in 1776 both New Bern and Wilmington were towns of 500-600.
-Cross Creek could be level 2 - it was the entrepot for most exports from the Piedmont. It's probably OK as level 1.
-Ramseur's Mill was simply the rendezvous point for the Lincoln county loyalists. Get rid of it.
-Halifax should be added as a level 1 town in Nash - off the main road.
-From what I can tell Salem was the biggest Wachovia town. At any rate it has the advantage of being vaguely familiar to modern Americans - Winston-Salem is a biggish city. Add as a level 1 town in Hycolee or Trading Ford. Trading Ford is perhaps slightly better.
I think this will make North Carolina towns more representative of the real demographics of 1775.
recommendation
Eliminate Warrenton, Guilford, Williamston, Ramsey's Mill, Ramseur's Mill. Add level 1 Edenton in Dismal Swamp. Reduce Hillsborough to level 2 in 1775-83, call it Corbintown and make it level 1 in 1755. Make Charlotte level 1 in 1755. Make Wilmington level 2 with level 2 port. Make new Bern's port level 1. Add level 1 town Halifax in Nash. Add level 1 town Salem in Trading Ford.
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Warrenton - 1 Settled 1779
Williamston - 1
Hillsboro - 3 Modern Hillsborough. Settled 1754. Corbintown until 1759, Childsburgh 1759-1766
Ramsey's Mill - 1 Modern Lockville, near Moncure
Guilford - 1 County not town. Guilford Courthouse near modern Greensboro
Salisbury - 1
Charlotte - 2 Settled 1755
New Bern - 2 Capital City
Wilmington - 3
Cross Creek 1536 1 Modern Fayetteville, settled 1754
Ramseur's Mill - 1 In Lincolnton. Ramsour's Mill in most sources
North Carolina is basically a mess in BoA.
The 1790 census is listed by counties, not by towns. However, the census includes the names of six towns, so it stands to reason they are the biggest towns in the state. The named towns are Edenton (population 1575), Halifax, New Bern, Salisbury, Wilmington, and Fayetteville (Cross Creek) (population 1536).
By and large the towns in the North Carolina tidewater make sense, but those in the Piedmont are based on battles rather than where there were any serious population centers. So I went looking for more sources.
This link lists the main towns in the Piedmont as being Bethabara, Bethania and Salem in the Wachovia tract settled by the Moravians, as well as Hillsborough, Charlotte and Salisbury.
This map from wikipedia includes important towns in North Carolina for 1763-1775 as Edenton, Beaufort, Wilmington, New Bern, Hillsboro and Charlotte. Fort Dobbs is also shown - built in 1755 it was the only fort on the North Carolina frontier. It was abandoned in 1766.
This map shows the settlement of the Piedmont and includes the following towns: Edenton, New Bern, Wilmington, Campbellton (Cross Creek), Hillsborough, Bethabara Salisbury and Charlotte.
Finally this map of British North America in 1775 shows the following towns in North Carolina: Edenton, New Bern, Wilmington, Halifax, Brunswick, Hillsborough, Charlotte. Salem and Salisbury.
My conclusions from all of this are:
-Warrenton must go. It wasn't settled until 1779. Maybe it can be there for later scenarios.
-Williamston should be replaced by Edenton, which was the original capital of North Carolina and seems to have been quite important in revolutionary times (although it was never occupied by the British). Edenton could be level 2 but I suggest level 1. It's actually across Albermarle Bay from Williamston, in the Dismal Swamp area.
-Hillsborough (seems to be the more common spelling), was important. The legislature met there when New Bern seemed too exposed. Cornwallis' army recuperated there after chasing Greene. However I can't see it being level 3 - level 2 is more than enough. In 1755 it needs to be level 1 and should be called Corbintown.
-Ramsey's Mill was literally just a mill where Cornwallis quartered some soldiers. Get rid of it.
-Guilford Courthouse was the site of a critical battle, but there wasn't much there either.
-Salisbury definitely stays
-Charlotte can stay although it certainly should be level 1 in 1755 when it was founded.
-New Bern is fine
-Wilmington probably should be level 2 rather than level 3 - it was no bigger than New Bern. This link says that in 1776 both New Bern and Wilmington were towns of 500-600.
-Cross Creek could be level 2 - it was the entrepot for most exports from the Piedmont. It's probably OK as level 1.
-Ramseur's Mill was simply the rendezvous point for the Lincoln county loyalists. Get rid of it.
-Halifax should be added as a level 1 town in Nash - off the main road.
-From what I can tell Salem was the biggest Wachovia town. At any rate it has the advantage of being vaguely familiar to modern Americans - Winston-Salem is a biggish city. Add as a level 1 town in Hycolee or Trading Ford. Trading Ford is perhaps slightly better.
I think this will make North Carolina towns more representative of the real demographics of 1775.
recommendation
Eliminate Warrenton, Guilford, Williamston, Ramsey's Mill, Ramseur's Mill. Add level 1 Edenton in Dismal Swamp. Reduce Hillsborough to level 2 in 1775-83, call it Corbintown and make it level 1 in 1755. Make Charlotte level 1 in 1755. Make Wilmington level 2 with level 2 port. Make new Bern's port level 1. Add level 1 town Halifax in Nash. Add level 1 town Salem in Trading Ford.
South Carolina
South Carolina also gave it's census results in 1790 by county rather than by town. But I have done some digging, so I do have some ideas. It's not as messed up as North Carolina, but it's still poor.
The original upcountry settlement is shown here. Most of these townships failed.
This map of British North America in 1775 shows the following towns in South Carolina: Charleston, Georgetown, Camden and Ninety Six
The map on wikipedia for 1775 shows only three towns in South Carolina: Georgetown, Charleston and Beaufort
Charleston was the fourth biggest city in the colonies. According to this site
it had 8,000 inhabitants in 1760, 12,000 in 1775 and 16,400 in 1790. That's more than enough to justify level 5, and possibly enough for it to be level 6 in my opinion.
I find a fair amount of evidence that the more common spelling is "Thicketty Fort". At any event it can stay - from what I can tell it was built after the Cherokee war of 1760, so it's correct that it isn't there in 1755.
Wikipedia says that "by 1750 Cheraw had become an established village with a growing river trade and was one of only six places in South Carolina that appeared on English maps." That's enough for me. I can't tell whether it should be level 2, so I won't argue to change it.
Ninety Six was the critical area in the upcountry, so it should certainly stay. The National Parks Service says "On the eve of the American Revolution, Ninety Six Village contained at least a dozen buildings (courthouse, jail, homes, blacksmith shop) and was the new center of activity in the area", which makes it sound pretty small. I question whether it should be a level 2 town. Still I don't have much evidence to the contrary, so I guess it can be left
Camden was settled in 1758, so shouldn't exist in 1755. From what I can see it was indeed the largest town in the upcountry, so I suppose it's OK at level 2. I'd like to have more data here.
Fort Watson was built by the British in December 1780. In any game start before then it should not exist.
Orangeburg is actually closer to Camden and even Savannah than it is to Charleston. It should be moved to Colleton area. I think level 1 is a good size for it.
Winesborough only shows up a couple of times on Google. Winnsborough however is a common spelling. [URL=http://www.fairfieldchamber.org/history.html]This site says that it "had about 20 houses when it was occupied by the British in the revolutionary war". This means it probably had a population of only a few hundred. I would get rid of it, but I have to admit that it is a toss up.
Finally I would suggest adding Beaufort. I believe that it was the third largest town in South Carolina in 1775, and it certainly was the biggest in the southern tidewater of South Carolina. Level 1 town and port in the Beaufort area.
recommendation
Rename Thickety Fort "Thicketty Fort". Remove Camden from the 1755 start. Remove Fort Watson from all scenarios. Move Orangeburg to Colleton. Rename Winesboro "Winnsborough". Add level 1 town, level 1 port Beaufort in the Beaufort area.
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Thickety Fort - 1 Should be Thicketty
Cheraw - 1
Fort Ninety Six - 2 Near modern Cambridge
Camden - 2 Settled 1758
Fort Watson - 1 Built December 1780
Georgetown - 1
Orangeburg - 1
Winesborough - 1 Winnsborough
Charleston - 5 Capital City
South Carolina also gave it's census results in 1790 by county rather than by town. But I have done some digging, so I do have some ideas. It's not as messed up as North Carolina, but it's still poor.
The original upcountry settlement is shown here. Most of these townships failed.
This map of British North America in 1775 shows the following towns in South Carolina: Charleston, Georgetown, Camden and Ninety Six
The map on wikipedia for 1775 shows only three towns in South Carolina: Georgetown, Charleston and Beaufort
Charleston was the fourth biggest city in the colonies. According to this site
it had 8,000 inhabitants in 1760, 12,000 in 1775 and 16,400 in 1790. That's more than enough to justify level 5, and possibly enough for it to be level 6 in my opinion.
I find a fair amount of evidence that the more common spelling is "Thicketty Fort". At any event it can stay - from what I can tell it was built after the Cherokee war of 1760, so it's correct that it isn't there in 1755.
Wikipedia says that "by 1750 Cheraw had become an established village with a growing river trade and was one of only six places in South Carolina that appeared on English maps." That's enough for me. I can't tell whether it should be level 2, so I won't argue to change it.
Ninety Six was the critical area in the upcountry, so it should certainly stay. The National Parks Service says "On the eve of the American Revolution, Ninety Six Village contained at least a dozen buildings (courthouse, jail, homes, blacksmith shop) and was the new center of activity in the area", which makes it sound pretty small. I question whether it should be a level 2 town. Still I don't have much evidence to the contrary, so I guess it can be left
Camden was settled in 1758, so shouldn't exist in 1755. From what I can see it was indeed the largest town in the upcountry, so I suppose it's OK at level 2. I'd like to have more data here.
Fort Watson was built by the British in December 1780. In any game start before then it should not exist.
Orangeburg is actually closer to Camden and even Savannah than it is to Charleston. It should be moved to Colleton area. I think level 1 is a good size for it.
Winesborough only shows up a couple of times on Google. Winnsborough however is a common spelling. [URL=http://www.fairfieldchamber.org/history.html]This site says that it "had about 20 houses when it was occupied by the British in the revolutionary war". This means it probably had a population of only a few hundred. I would get rid of it, but I have to admit that it is a toss up.
Finally I would suggest adding Beaufort. I believe that it was the third largest town in South Carolina in 1775, and it certainly was the biggest in the southern tidewater of South Carolina. Level 1 town and port in the Beaufort area.
recommendation
Rename Thickety Fort "Thicketty Fort". Remove Camden from the 1755 start. Remove Fort Watson from all scenarios. Move Orangeburg to Colleton. Rename Winesboro "Winnsborough". Add level 1 town, level 1 port Beaufort in the Beaufort area.
Georgia
Georgia's 1790 census returns were also destroyed when the British burned Washington. I did dig up one citation. It says "By the start of the Revolution, Georgia had about 35,000 people, with Savannah's population at about 2,500".
It's obvious that the only two towns in Georgia should be Augusta and Savannah. The above citation suggests that in 1775 Savannah was four and a half times smaller than Charleston. As such I can't see it as being level 4 - I would make it 3, or possibly even 2. Augusta makes sense as level 2 because it was one of the bigger towns in the Piedmont of the Deep South.
recommendation
Reduce Savannah to a level 3 town.
Other Regions
Sycamore Flats should be "Sycamore Shoals" (link). Fort Toronto and Kingston-on-the-Lake should not be there in 1775 - they were settled by loyalists after the war.
Code: Select all
City Population 1790 Size in Game Comments
Savannah - 4 Capital
Augusta - 2
Georgia's 1790 census returns were also destroyed when the British burned Washington. I did dig up one citation. It says "By the start of the Revolution, Georgia had about 35,000 people, with Savannah's population at about 2,500".
It's obvious that the only two towns in Georgia should be Augusta and Savannah. The above citation suggests that in 1775 Savannah was four and a half times smaller than Charleston. As such I can't see it as being level 4 - I would make it 3, or possibly even 2. Augusta makes sense as level 2 because it was one of the bigger towns in the Piedmont of the Deep South.
recommendation
Reduce Savannah to a level 3 town.
Other Regions
Sycamore Flats should be "Sycamore Shoals" (link). Fort Toronto and Kingston-on-the-Lake should not be there in 1775 - they were settled by loyalists after the war.
Excellent work! 
I will bring this to Hok's attention for WiA [BoA2].
A couple of comments:
My challenge, if we do this [and I want to!] will be to comb through the scenarios to find any 'non-sequitirs' created by name changes...
At least you're not asking for region name changes! That would be really ugly....
Interestingly, sme of your recommendations have already 'drifted in' to WiA.
Again: great work, and good research!
I will bring this to Hok's attention for WiA [BoA2].
A couple of comments:
- We don't have to have a town to build a fort. If this changes any of your recommendations, have at it!
- Objectives and Strategic towns set Victory Conditions [balance] plus serve to channel the AI and strategy in general. They also are used for 'area control' which affects Militia replacements, AutoRaise, militia dispersal, French Entry etc. etc. We should try to keep the quantity per Area close to what it is. [Area can be seen in the tool tip, or by a filter in map display]
- City size affect supply and replacements. I think [memory is suspect at times!] that we need at least level 2 to allow replacements. Some of the level 2 in the 'boondocks' may be needed to represent replacements from the frontier settlers. Some of the level 1 simply serve as 'rally points' to pick up a bit of supply....
My challenge, if we do this [and I want to!] will be to comb through the scenarios to find any 'non-sequitirs' created by name changes...
At least you're not asking for region name changes! That would be really ugly....
Interestingly, sme of your recommendations have already 'drifted in' to WiA.
Again: great work, and good research!
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
I'm very pleased that you liked this. I hope it proves useful! 
I'll try to make a list of "inhabited" forts and "uninhabited" forts. But I think it's a little more complicated. For instance Fort Niagara had no settlement nearby, but it was (and is) a massive stone structure built into the ground. While it would have been possible to compromise it's defenses, it simply could not have been destroyed to the point where it would be of no use to a defender. On the other hand Fort Duquesne (and most of the forts in the Ohio Country) were wood and readily wiped out. Fort Pitt wasn't even built on the same foundation as Fort Duquesne. So it's not as simple as whether there was a settlement there.
I think these aren't difficult issues. I'm asking for three changes (because I recognize that these are not trivial to change).
1) Changing Ticonderoga from a strategic city to an objective won;t affect VPs, and presumably won't affect the AI very much. It will change American recruitment and militia - but it's absurd that militia won't go home from there. That changes balance a little, making it slightly easier for the British, but I think it's worth it to prevent a fort well beyond the frontier from affecting levies. I'd suggest another town for the Middle States, but the other 5 cover most of the important parts of the region.
2) Moving the strategic town from Charlottesville to Baltimore will definitely make things harder for the British. But I think they get a bit of a free ride here - Baltimore was an important center in the colonies - they should have to occupy it. I suppose the biggest problem comes with the Cornwallis and Yorktown scenarios where it will be harder for the Brits to get the VPs from Baltimore. But I would think these can be rebalanced my making (say) Williamsburg or Richmond objective cities for that scenario.
3) Getting rid of Norwich in 1755 is a problem. I would recommend replacing it with Brattleboro or Rumsford (Concord). Given that Norwich wasn't settled I don't think it's sensible to keep it as a strategic town for balance reasons.
3 1/2) I didn't list this, but I also think that Fort Duquesne shouldn't be a strategic town in 1755 (obviously it should be an objective). The Pennsylvania militia should disband from there - again it's hundreds of miles from civilization. But I don't think that change would affect balance very much.
In BoA you do need level 2 to get replacements. And supply is a huge issue and a level 2 city can support a much bigger army than a level 1 city.
I don't think too many of my suggested changes (from level 2 or more down to level 1) cause too many gameplay problems. The downgrade suggestions I made are:
Cambridge MA - lots of level 2's nearby
Princeton - I'm adding Perth Amboy next door, so supply is better.
Easton - definitely a possible rally point. But historically it was very small
Reading in 1755 - for the 1755-63 scenarios I can't see this mattering.
Sunbury- right next to York, Lancaster and Reading, so plenty of places to absorb replacements.
Pittsburgh-definitely has a huge impact on replacements. I mentioned this in my post. So yes perhaps that one shouldn't be changed.
Fredericksburg - near Alexandria and Richmond
Charlottesville - ditto
Hillsborough and Charlotte in 1755 - shouldn't matter since they are so far from the front.
lodilefty wrote:We don't have to have a town to build a fort. If this changes any of your recommendations, have at it!
I'll try to make a list of "inhabited" forts and "uninhabited" forts. But I think it's a little more complicated. For instance Fort Niagara had no settlement nearby, but it was (and is) a massive stone structure built into the ground. While it would have been possible to compromise it's defenses, it simply could not have been destroyed to the point where it would be of no use to a defender. On the other hand Fort Duquesne (and most of the forts in the Ohio Country) were wood and readily wiped out. Fort Pitt wasn't even built on the same foundation as Fort Duquesne. So it's not as simple as whether there was a settlement there.
Objectives and Strategic towns set Victory Conditions [balance] plus serve to channel the AI and strategy in general. They also are used for 'area control' which affects Militia replacements, AutoRaise, militia dispersal, French Entry etc. etc. We should try to keep the quantity per Area close to what it is. [Area can be seen in the tool tip, or by a filter in map display]
I think these aren't difficult issues. I'm asking for three changes (because I recognize that these are not trivial to change).
1) Changing Ticonderoga from a strategic city to an objective won;t affect VPs, and presumably won't affect the AI very much. It will change American recruitment and militia - but it's absurd that militia won't go home from there. That changes balance a little, making it slightly easier for the British, but I think it's worth it to prevent a fort well beyond the frontier from affecting levies. I'd suggest another town for the Middle States, but the other 5 cover most of the important parts of the region.
2) Moving the strategic town from Charlottesville to Baltimore will definitely make things harder for the British. But I think they get a bit of a free ride here - Baltimore was an important center in the colonies - they should have to occupy it. I suppose the biggest problem comes with the Cornwallis and Yorktown scenarios where it will be harder for the Brits to get the VPs from Baltimore. But I would think these can be rebalanced my making (say) Williamsburg or Richmond objective cities for that scenario.
3) Getting rid of Norwich in 1755 is a problem. I would recommend replacing it with Brattleboro or Rumsford (Concord). Given that Norwich wasn't settled I don't think it's sensible to keep it as a strategic town for balance reasons.
3 1/2) I didn't list this, but I also think that Fort Duquesne shouldn't be a strategic town in 1755 (obviously it should be an objective). The Pennsylvania militia should disband from there - again it's hundreds of miles from civilization. But I don't think that change would affect balance very much.
City size affect supply and replacements. I think [memory is suspect at times!] that we need at least level 2 to allow replacements. Some of the level 2 in the 'boondocks' may be needed to represent replacements from the frontier settlers. Some of the level 1 simply serve as 'rally points' to pick up a bit of supply....
In BoA you do need level 2 to get replacements. And supply is a huge issue and a level 2 city can support a much bigger army than a level 1 city.
I don't think too many of my suggested changes (from level 2 or more down to level 1) cause too many gameplay problems. The downgrade suggestions I made are:
Cambridge MA - lots of level 2's nearby
Princeton - I'm adding Perth Amboy next door, so supply is better.
Easton - definitely a possible rally point. But historically it was very small
Reading in 1755 - for the 1755-63 scenarios I can't see this mattering.
Sunbury- right next to York, Lancaster and Reading, so plenty of places to absorb replacements.
Pittsburgh-definitely has a huge impact on replacements. I mentioned this in my post. So yes perhaps that one shouldn't be changed.
Fredericksburg - near Alexandria and Richmond
Charlottesville - ditto
Hillsborough and Charlotte in 1755 - shouldn't matter since they are so far from the front.
For instance Fort Niagara had no settlement nearby, but it was (and is) a massive stone structure built into the ground. While it would have been possible to compromise it's defenses, it simply could not have been destroyed to the point where it would be of no use to a defender.
We could make it a type 2 fort [see Quebec] which can't be removed by pillage etc. Any type 1 fort can be burned, but towns can't [Indian villages can be burned]
Good points on the others.
Also, the strategic towns and objectives are set for each scenario, not by the map, so we can adjust for specific cases.... [sorry if you already know this, but it never hurts to give reminders
]Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
-
lightsfantastic
- Colonel
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:31 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact: Website
lodilefty wrote:We could make it a type 2 fort [see Quebec] which can't be removed by pillage etc. Any type 1 fort can be burned, but towns can't [Indian villages can be burned]
I suggest we have three levels of fortifications. Level one would simulate wooden fortifications/ Palisades (Fort Duquesne, Ft Cumberland, Ft. Western, etc) and neglected earthen fortifications in need of serious repairs (Ft. St Frederic, which was why Carillion was built, Ft. Latour in St. Jean.) Level two would be the new or well taken care of fortifications we think of when we imagine Ft.'s Carillion, William Henry, Edward, George, etc. Level three would be the Fortresses of Louisbourg, Quebec, & Halifax type.
To build level one you need a supply train. Level two the supply train and artillery currently needed.
Possible?
lightsfantastic wrote:I suggest we have three levels of fortifications. Level one would simulate wooden fortifications/ Palisades (Fort Duquesne, Ft Cumberland, Ft. Western, etc) and neglected earthen fortifications in need of serious repairs (Ft. St Frederic, which was why Carillion was built, Ft. Latour in St. Jean.) Level two would be the new or well taken care of fortifications we think of when we imagine Ft.'s Carillion, William Henry, Edward, George, etc. Level three would be the Fortresses of Louisbourg, Quebec, & Halifax type.
To build level one you need a supply train. Level two the supply train and artillery currently needed.
Possible?
I believe it would be a code change in the engine, but likely possible. Let's see if we can get it on the "list"....
It seems to qualify for the 'benefits all games' category that can help priority...
To slightly simplify the change, we might switch the indicating level number for 2 and 3 [then we wouldn't have to edit a gazillion scenarios!!!!!
]Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
NY: Add Kingston as a level 2 town in Kingston area with a level 1 port.
Do you mean the Kinderhook region?
[If you turn on 'error logging', the tooltip should shouw the region ID# when you 'hover'... these numbers will help me a lot!!!!]
VA: -A town that would make a good addition is Staunton. It was settled in 1747 and was an important waystation on the Great Wagon Road along which emigrants travelled from Pennsylvania to the Carolinas. It would be a level 1 town. Unfortunately the Shenandoah valley doesn't really exist on the BoA map.
This area is "in" WIA. I know Staunton [vacation travel, and AACW game] so I'll figure out which region and add it!
...er, um, I'll add it to the proposal for Hok to evaluate!
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
Globally the whole suggestion is a good thing to do...now we would like to have it evaluated asap, because rushing this at a late stage in the game development is a guarantee for bugs and errors 
I suggest that you can use the 'Cities' section of the setup excel file and list there all the changes (cities added, removed, moved, levels modified, etc...) so we can quickly alter the scenarios and offer them for you all to test.
As Lodilefty rightly mentionned, it is not just limited to those urban changes...we have to double-check all setups and events (and even DBs) to make sure we won't see weird stuff (like a city garrison created by event popping up in the middle of nowhere because the city has moved...
)
I suggest that you can use the 'Cities' section of the setup excel file and list there all the changes (cities added, removed, moved, levels modified, etc...) so we can quickly alter the scenarios and offer them for you all to test.
As Lodilefty rightly mentionned, it is not just limited to those urban changes...we have to double-check all setups and events (and even DBs) to make sure we won't see weird stuff (like a city garrison created by event popping up in the middle of nowhere because the city has moved...
)
PhilThib wrote:Globally the whole suggestion is a good thing to do...now we would like to have it evaluated asap, because rushing this at a late stage in the game development is a guarantee for bugs and errors
I suggest that you can use the 'Cities' section of the setup excel file and list there all the changes (cities added, removed, moved, levels modified, etc...) so we can quickly alter the scenarios and offer them for you all to test.
As Lodilefty rightly mentionned, it is not just limited to those urban changes...we have to double-check all setups and events (and even DBs) to make sure we won't see weird stuff (like a city garrison created by event popping up in the middle of nowhere because the city has moved...
I've got these ready to paste in, as soon as I get the go ahead...
Then I'll search for references, etc....
Note: I lied about Shenandoah Valley: looks about the same as BoA.
I suggest we could put Staunton [on today's maps it's ~15-20 miles NW of Charlottesville] in either
- Spotsylvania [closest to Shenandoah River]
- Lost Mountain [a little more south of #1]
- Rapid [two regions west of Charlottesville]
Since we removed so many of the small mountain towns, and we know Staunton existed and was important, we should put it in...
I vote for Lost Mountain region...
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
PhilThib wrote:I vote for it too.... and you've got the go ahead (Hok can't access the Internet where he is right now)
Now I know what I'll be doing this rainy day.....
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
Based on this:
http://www.oldfortwestern.org/afortbeth.html
I'll leave Fort Western "in" the 1755 series as a fort only, no village...
http://www.oldfortwestern.org/afortbeth.html
I'll leave Fort Western "in" the 1755 series as a fort only, no village...
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
-
lightsfantastic
- Colonel
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:31 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact: Website
lodilefty wrote:Based on this:
http://www.oldfortwestern.org/afortbeth.html
I'll leave Fort Western "in" the 1755 series as a fort only, no village...
Exactly. Supply for the new level one fort should either be the same as a level one city (2) or half of new level two fortification (4.)
lightsfantastic wrote:Exactly. Supply for the new level one fort should either be the same as a level one city (2) or half of new level two fortification (4.)
Yes. I hope we can get these new Fort types....
For now, I'm making Fort Niagra and Fort Ticonderoga level 2 [like Quebec].
Testing will tell whether this is 'brilliant' or 'notso....'
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
lightsfantastic wrote:I suggest we have three levels of fortifications. Level one would simulate wooden fortifications/ Palisades (Fort Duquesne, Ft Cumberland, Ft. Western, etc) and neglected earthen fortifications in need of serious repairs (Ft. St Frederic, which was why Carillion was built, Ft. Latour in St. Jean.) Level two would be the new or well taken care of fortifications we think of when we imagine Ft.'s Carillion, William Henry, Edward, George, etc. Level three would be the Fortresses of Louisbourg, Quebec, & Halifax type.
To build level one you need a supply train. Level two the supply train and artillery currently needed.
Possible?
I don't see any need to be able to build a "level 2". Forts like this took a year or more to complete (Fort Frederick took 3 years, Ticonderoga took more than two, and so on). The forts that were built during a campaign (Fort Necessity comes to mind) were more like the pallisades. I have to admit that I'm not sure about West Point - it was built in a few months, and I'm not sure how strong the fortifications (as opposed to the location) were. Perhaps there are people on the forum who've been there.
lodilefty wrote:Do you mean the Kinderhook region?
No. Kingston on my map.
[If you turn on 'error logging', the tooltip should shouw the region ID# when you 'hover'... these numbers will help me a lot!!!!]
I did it, but never again. My machine doesn't have the power to support the error logging. Here are all the suggestions that I have made.
Code: Select all
Berwick, Kenebunck, 213
Norwalk, Woodbury, 238
Kingston, Kingston, 246
Perth Amboy, Newark, 289
Edenton, Dismal Swamp, 400
Halifax, Nash, 412
Salem, Trading Ford, 420
Orangeburg, Colleton, 476
orca wrote:I don't see any need to be able to build a "level 2". Forts like this took a year or more to complete (Fort Frederick took 3 years, Ticonderoga took more than two, and so on). The forts that were built during a campaign (Fort Necessity comes to mind) were more like the pallisades. I have to admit that I'm not sure about West Point - it was built in a few months, and I'm not sure how strong the fortifications (as opposed to the location) were. Perhaps there are people on the forum who've been there.
No. Kingston on my map.
I did it, but never again. My machine doesn't have the power to support the error logging. Here are all the suggestions that I have made.Code: Select all
Berwick, Kenebunck, 213
Norwalk, Woodbury, 238
Kingston, Kingston, 246
Perth Amboy, Newark, 289
Edenton, Dismal Swamp, 400
Halifax, Nash, 412
Salem, Trading Ford, 420
Orangeburg, Colleton, 476
Thanks!
Agree on building high level forts. I'm thinking just for setup at start....
Kingston region got renamed to Kinderhook in WiA.
We're targeting 'Lost Mount' [or "Lost Mountain"] as best choice for Staunton. Does that look OK?
Sorry you're running with an old PC.
leure: Me too! [mine is an electric abacus ]Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
My PC isn't that old. Just underpowered. I'll need a new one for WiA.
I don't have an opinion on where to put Staunton. As you know, the key value of Staunton is that it is west of the Blue Ridge. Not only does this provide a nice bolt hole for the continental army, but it also means that an army in Staunton can move north or south much more quickly than an army east of the Blue Ridge. It's true that in 1775 everything above Winchester is wilderness, but it's also true that there is an important road heading striaght up the Shenandoah from Winchester. This was the Great Wagon Road, and the Carolina upcountry was mostly settled by immigrants coming down that road from Pennsylvania.
Anyway, the BoA map doesn't really allow rapid movement in the Shenandoah, so there isn't much opportunity for an 18th century Stonewall.
On the forts - the way I'm picturing this working is that there is a new type of fort that is identical to level 1 forts in BoA, but which cannot be destroyed (or built). Any other model I can think of needs ridiculous levels of complexity. I'll work on classifying which forts ought to be 'indestructible'.
And I'm sorry about Fort Western. I made a note saying 1772, but didn't note that that was the settlement date, not the date the fort was built. I Hope I haven't made any other mistakes like that.
Finally I forgot Beaufort South Carlolina in the above list. I'm afraid I meant it when I said I wouldn't turn on error logging again, but the area is Beaufort in BoA - two areas north of Savannah.
I don't have an opinion on where to put Staunton. As you know, the key value of Staunton is that it is west of the Blue Ridge. Not only does this provide a nice bolt hole for the continental army, but it also means that an army in Staunton can move north or south much more quickly than an army east of the Blue Ridge. It's true that in 1775 everything above Winchester is wilderness, but it's also true that there is an important road heading striaght up the Shenandoah from Winchester. This was the Great Wagon Road, and the Carolina upcountry was mostly settled by immigrants coming down that road from Pennsylvania.
Anyway, the BoA map doesn't really allow rapid movement in the Shenandoah, so there isn't much opportunity for an 18th century Stonewall.
On the forts - the way I'm picturing this working is that there is a new type of fort that is identical to level 1 forts in BoA, but which cannot be destroyed (or built). Any other model I can think of needs ridiculous levels of complexity. I'll work on classifying which forts ought to be 'indestructible'.
And I'm sorry about Fort Western. I made a note saying 1772, but didn't note that that was the settlement date, not the date the fort was built. I Hope I haven't made any other mistakes like that.
Finally I forgot Beaufort South Carlolina in the above list. I'm afraid I meant it when I said I wouldn't turn on error logging again, but the area is Beaufort in BoA - two areas north of Savannah.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests