"AWI Campaign using Maurice" Topic

Hi all,

I've reported on a game we played mid week using Maurice but looking at the feasability of combining the tabletop game into a campaign using "We the People".

jjwargames.blogspot.co.uk

As these are two of my favourite games sets for looking at the American War of Independence I think they might work well together.

Let me know your thoughts.

Jonathan

I would be interested to know who described the AWI (as proclaimed in the link) as "Britain's Vietnam" can't see many obvious parallels myself…

Hi Green Tiger,

Good question.

The reference to the Vietnam War actually comes from an article by the game designer Mark Herman that appeared in the General Magazine Vol 29 No2 where he describes these similarities that helped form his thoughts on the game design.

He refers to "A journal of the Operations of the Queens Rangers from the end of the year 1777 to the conclusion of the Late American War" by Lt. Col. Simcoe, to quote

"I was struck by the intensity of the warfare described in the account and how similar it was to reading about search and destroy operations in Vietnam".

He goes on to say,

"The majority of the American populace wanted to remain neutral and hoped that they wouldn't have to choose sides. Hence the second design focused on controling the intelect of the populace and not their property. To continue my Vietnam simile, the winner would be the player who controlled the hearts and minds of the American colonies."

Thus as I stated the war had been compared to Vietnam by the designer himself. I think it makes an interesting comparison and his article is very thought provoking, check it out.

Oh, by the way, any thoughts about the campaign idea?

Hi Jonathan,

I like the write up. I have been wanting to do a campaign the same way you are doing it. I have been on the look out for a board game to use for the system. I will see if I can fine a copy of We The People.

Matthew

I've often thought the parallels were quite strong. Uncertain populace, rebellious force willing to do anything to achieve victory, including turning on its own population to keep them in line.

There is a great assessment written by someone in the Admiralty at the time that sums up the situation pretty well. It is in the "Yorktown: Captive Fleet" book. In short it says they only control the ground their troops stand on, and the minute they leave it reverts to rebel control.

Hi Matthew,

I'm not sure how readily available WTP is. I think GMT came up with version two of the game. Other than that it might be a case of looking out for one on Ebay or Boardgame Geek.

I'm thinking about running the Cyberboard version so I don't have to leave the game board out between battles.

I would reccomend having a read of the Battlegames article.

Hi Historygamer,

Yes I agree the parallels become more obvious when you look at the challenges faced in both conflicts. The military struggle was only part of a more complicated political one.

Jon, the game you are refering to by GMT is Washingtons War

"Washington's War is the long awaited re-design of the original card driven game, We the People"

Hey Steve

That's the one, I thought I'd deen something about it

cheers mate

Thanks guys. I will go take a look at Washington's War.

Matthew

"I would be interested to know who described the AWI (as proclaimed in the link) as "Britain's Vietnam" can't see many obvious parallels myself…"

Forget about the political differences between the US and Ho Chi Minh and consider the following.

The war is in part a civil war between rebels and loyalists, with the rebels attempting to throw a major foreign power out. The rebels have a lot of local militia that executes raids/ambushes and a more formidable main force.

The foreign power has a lot of domestic opposition to the war (the Whigs). The cost of the war year after year affects the economy.

The rebels often get beat but continue to struggle for years until the foreign nation calls it quits. The Foreign army has the tactical edge over the rebels for much of the war. Unlike Vietnam, the rebels manage to inflict some serious defeats on the Foreign army. The Viet Minh did manage this against the French in round 1.

Enemies of the Foreign power supply covert and not so covert aid to the rebels. Here the similarity breaks down as the enemies directly intervene in the war (and end up getting beaten). But all of this seems to have some similarity. YMMV.

Assuming that the AWI was "Britain's Vietnam" … what was Charlie wearing in the jungle?

And what about a global super power, France, recognizing the rebel state and supplying activ ground forces in direct conflict with te British?

Also, I'm reading accounts of the rise of active Toryism in Pennsylvania after the British capture of Phildelphia. One of the Continental officers was writing about how dangerous it was for him to go riding in the countryside as he was likely to run into hostile Tories.

There's also a book called "Washington's War" (in this case the city, not the man) by the former British general, Sir Michael Rose, which also draws the Vietnam parallel.

link

Presumably the Montagnards equate to the Indians – maybe also the runaway slaves who joined the British forces. Tea is dropped all over the Colonies like Agent Orange. But what, and where, are the punji sticks? And is John Wayne Banastre Tarleton? Questions, questions…..

hmmmmm cant see the Vietnam link either.

The Colonials were Sons of Britons. Unrest in the americas was as much a sense of civil war in Britain as it was in the colonies, and that affected how the colonies were both seen and interacted with, including the much lower body count statistics compared to Vietnam. That also affects the perception and motivation for winning the hearts and minds.

I doubt if USA would have come in to being without French armies being on the ground. You would need to have Chinese hordes in vietnam to boost the fighting for a valid comparison to be made.

Finally I still see Vietnam as something of an idealistic war on the part of the Communists. AWI was much more about greed, money, land grab and stealing Indian lands – Indians also being seen by Britons as subjects of The Crown. The new USA was every bit as hierachical as the old Colonies, just different people in power. USA was organised much more like a structured masonic lodge than a purely peoples state.

I find it interesting that Britain is referred to as a Foreign Power in this discussion. At what point do people consider the British Army changed from being the army of the state to the army of a Foreign Power? Was it just a matter of perspective throughout the war or was there a particular period when the change occurred?

When did Americans think of themselves as Americans? I don't know if we'll ever have a definite answer. I tend to think of the tipping point when large numbers of British troops arrived in 1768 to essentially impose martial law on Boston. This was seen by many as a tyrannical act against their rights as Englishmen – the Ministers in London were the 'rebels' violating law and precedent.

@ Spudeus – Americans had been thinking of themselves as Americans for some time before the AWI; probably at least from the time of King George's War in the 1740s, when they had to go it alone. All that happened in 1776, was that their sense of identity shifted from being "British" Americans (much like being English, Irish, Scottish, or Welsh) to just plain old Americans. The perception you attribute to the Colonists, that it was the Ministers acting illegally, is indeed correct and was illustrated by their early writings after April 19, when they talk very carefully of confronting "the Ministerial amry" rather than "the King's troops" (which would, of course, have been a prima facie treasonous act). Only after the misguided rant of the King in Parliament in March 1776, did the Radicals gain influence and persuade others to lump him in with his ministers as "the enemy" – even then, as surprising number of those who had served in the initial fighting thought it a step too far and either went home or swapped sides. I believe that George Washington was ordered to stop his officers drinking the Loyal Toast after their evening meal some months after the DoI had been published.

@ Green Tiger (et al),

Actually, "Britain's Vietnam" was Malaya in the 1950s. And we won, as FM Sir Gerald Templar explained in some detail to the CIA in the late 60s (and, unfortunately for the US, was largely ignored).

In 2008, the Malayan government invited every surviving British ex-Serviceman who had been there at that time (it was during National Service, so potentially a large number) to come back and join in its celebration of 50 years of independence, as a "thank you" for saving them from Chinese-supported Communist guerillas. To this day, it is still the only defeat such forces have suffered whilst fighting on their own soil.