"rebel deployment at Battle of Bunker Hill" Topic
13 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench ArticleThe modeler himself shows how he paints Guilford Courthouse in 40mm scale.
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Redcoat 55 | 11 Jul 2015 6:34 p.m. PST |
I have consulted a few books including the British Grenadier and Black Powder scenarios. I have settled on five militia regiments to represent the troops in the redoubt, breastworks, fleches, and rail fence. I don't know where they should all go. It seems to work out as one in the redoubt, one in the breastworks, one for the three fleches and one for the rail fence. Using one for the rail fence means really spreading the unit apart for a very thin line. Does anyone have more knowledge on the topic? Any suggestions. I know in reality they all probably acted like one homogenous force, but I am using Black Powder for the rules, so organization by units is important for firing. |
Supercilius Maximus | 12 Jul 2015 7:22 a.m. PST |
The "British Grenadier" orbat uses 6 rebel battalions, plus a unit each of skirmishers and artillery. I would recommend using all six main units and using the extra one (over your list) to "fill out" the rail fence. In terms of commands, I would keep the rebels to two, as per the orbats, to reflect the limited number of commanders that men from any Colony would follow:- - Prescott (Av) the stone barn [right flank], the redoubt and the breastwork, and Gridley's guns - Stark (Ex) the fleches and the rail fence Have a look at this Wiki article:- link The numbers given in the article's side-bar lists the rebels as c.2,400 (vs 3,000 British); however, the map of Rebel dispositions suggest around 3,200 – roughly on a par with the British:- link Whenever I have fought Bunker Hill using BG, I have altered the orbats to give a bigger number (usually 8) of smaller (12-16 figure) units on both sides, which I think better reflects the situation historically. This is particularly important for the British as it gives them more tactical flexibility than just the six units in the book. I also usually widen the main part of the battlefield – "losing" the beach (more on that below) and Charlestown, and including the stone barn and schoolhouse on the Rebel right flank/rear. To compensate for the beach, I start the British light battalion on 16 figures and 2DPs, to reflect their initial repulse. I accommodate the sniper fire from Charlestown by allowing 4 bases of 2nd Rate skirmisher fire (ie 4 dice) on EVERY British unit that comes within musket range of the last 36" of the left side of the table (from the British viewpoint). After the end of Turn 2, I reduce the dice against each British unit by 1 per turn to reflect the Royal Navy setting the town on fire. Any help to you? |
Redcoat 55 | 12 Jul 2015 10:12 a.m. PST |
Thank you Supercilious Maximus, those are helpful suggestions. I was going with the Blackpowder order of Battle as it does not combine any regiments like British Grenadier's scenario. I am adding in the poorly supplied 6 pounders which the BP scenario omits. I think I will add another regiment at the fence, but am wondering if instead of having a full regiment at the fleches, I should use three individual detachments? |
Winston Smith | 12 Jul 2015 10:36 a.m. PST |
A friend ran it in 15mm using Age of Reason and a beautiful home made model of Breed's Hill. It was custom designed to fit into his truck. One of the best parts of his game had to do with the British artillery. When the player had finally manhandled and prolonged and bricoled the guns into position, Darrell handed him a note telling him he had brought the wrong ammunition and had to send back for the proper ammo. |
Redcoat 55 | 12 Jul 2015 10:41 a.m. PST |
|
historygamer | 12 Jul 2015 6:15 p.m. PST |
SM: Not looking at any of the BG books at the moment, but shouldn't the Americans lack anything higher than a regimental commander? No one really functioning as commanding the entire force, IIRC. |
Redcoat 55 | 12 Jul 2015 9:40 p.m. PST |
Black Powder gives them Prescott. British Grenadier gives them Putnam, Prescott and Stark. I am using Prescott, Stark and Joseph Warren for morale purposes only. |
Redcoat 55 | 13 Jul 2015 10:09 a.m. PST |
My son raised an issue I should have thought of myself, the low amount of ammunition the rebels had on hand. I am considering how to play that out, either by rolling a die after each volley after a time or "issuing" them rounds ahead of time. |
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Jul 2015 12:49 p.m. PST |
Not looking at any of the BG books at the moment, but shouldn't the Americans lack anything higher than a regimental commander? No one really functioning as commanding the entire force, IIRC. The trouble with that, is that if you use regimental COs you could end up with 5 or 6 commanders in addition to Putnam (Prescott, Knowlton, Reed, Stark, and the guy in charge of the snipers in Charlestown – Woodbridge? – plus possibly Lt Col Wyman commanding the Rebel right flank in the stone barn/schoolhouse area). This would give the Rebels too much command, IMO, with each unit having a "general" rather than the Rebel player having to move his senior officers around to deal with different threats across a broad front. (Personally I would remove Putnam on random turns – 1-3 on a D6 – to represent his attempts to bring up reinforcements, and give a "minus 1" for any attempts by the Colonels to command units from a different Colony.) My son raised an issue I should have thought of myself, the low amount of ammunition the rebels had on hand. Based on what happened at Lexington, Rebel militia typically carried 20 rounds; however, it's not clear how many rounds they were being issued during the siege. What is beyond doubt is that all the nails and glass they "had to resort to" were brought onto the field by them, and not found lying around in the grass on prime grazing/pasture land, as the myth would have us believe. Whilst this was commonly done in the F&I War, it is possible that the militia did this because they were short of proper ammunition in the first place. British Grenadier covers ammo supply by declaring a unit "low on ammo" if it throws a double 1 when firing; the unit remains low on ammo until re-supplied by a pre-designated ammunition wagon making base-to-base contact. If you wished to increase the likelihood, you could include rolls of 1,2 and/or double 2; alternatively, you could roll for ammo at the start of each turn, with an increasingly higher roll needed to keep firing as the game progresses. |
historygamer | 15 Jul 2015 6:12 p.m. PST |
"…ith each unit having a "general" rather than the Rebel player having to move his senior officers around to deal with different threats across a broad front. " Might this not be a game where there really isn't anything above a battalion commander – which is very close to what Cowpens is like for the Brits in the scenario book. You might also make the same case for Lexington and Concord too – there was no overall commander. |
Supercilius Maximus | 16 Jul 2015 3:39 a.m. PST |
Historically, yes; but the rules then twist that and make the Rebels too "loaded" with commanders, unless you make them all "Poor" (which Prescott and Stark obviously were not – Putnam didn't make a huge difference either way, IMO). However, my point is that being a-historical and giving them two "generals" who must keep on the move to "plug the gaps" creates a paradox in that it gives a more historical effect by limiting the command options. If their "brigades" start breaking up, they have to choose which unit to support personally, whereas with individual unit commanders, you have brigades of one unit with not enough of a knock-on effect if something goes belly up. Did I explain that well enough? You are perfectly correct about Lexington, but then I would play that differently – maybe introduce some "Pony Wars" style rules to generate militia units and introduce them onto the board, whilst giving them high levels of motivation (but low levels of ammo). |
historygamer | 16 Jul 2015 9:29 a.m. PST |
|
Redcoat 55 | 16 Jul 2015 12:42 p.m. PST |
I have decided to give each rebel unit 6 volleys worth of ammunition for game purposes as a volley represents more than one round anyway. Every time a regiment fires I will add a civilian in farm clothes milling around to reflect Someone searching for ammunition. :) I am also allowing British units to rally from routed status with flank companies being able to do it on their own, but Hatmen needing a higher ranked officer. |
|