"Honours of War: AWI Continental's Suggestion" Topic

-------- DRAFT ----------------- DRAFT ---------

Honours of War: American War of Independence 1775-1783 – The Continental American Army
The ‘Continental' American Troops of the American War of Independence (AWI) were born from rebellion and rejection of Great Britain's insistence on taxation and control over a nation with a strong independent steak. As a result it was initially an army mixed with professional and amateur members, with differing levels of ability and discipline although always highly motivated to continue the war in spite of constant tactical pressure from the British forces. The forces can be broken into those before the Von Steuben Valley Forge reforms and the highly disciplined and effective force, retrained and reinforced with French Allies after Valley Forge. The period from Dec 1777 until June 1778 was a vital time for the future US Army. Von Steuben penned his ‘Blue Book' which became the standard US Army Training Manual. These stats should give you a usable army in the Honours of War system; keeping it simple and streamlined don't worry about all those special abilities to leap tall trees and bound through forests, use the rules as written in the book.

Brigade Commanders: Dithering: 1-2,Dependable: 3-6, Dashing: NA
Move initiative: -1 before Valley Forge, No modifier after Valley Forge
Fire initiative No modifier
Formation change: Deduct full move before Valley Forge, Half move after Valley Forge
Movement to flank and rear: Deduct ¾ move before Valley Forge, Half move after Valley Forge
Artillery: Deduct full move before Valley Forge
Half move after Valley Forge

Infantry: Militias should be rated as inferior, mainly because they stank of wee a bit like Baldrick. Regular troops should be rated as standard, treat light units as regular due to their prowess in woods and irregular formations. One light unit can be classed as rifle armed, probably not completely true but this provides a bit of flavour for the army and keeps those Kentuckian fans happy.

Cavalry: Whilst good horseman the Continental Army did not have the training or logistics to properly support a cavalry corps and Von Steuben concentrated on infantry and artillery. Thus cavalry are considered inferior throughout the war.

Artillery: Initially poorly armed and prepared they should be rated inferior prior to Valley Forge and then Standard afterwards.

Generals: Brigade commanders were largely amateur or promoted from lower levels of command, they did get better over time but keep them as per above. George Washington should be rated as Dashing, simply because he was and he often had to grip his less able commanders to get them moving.
-------- DRAFT ----------------- DRAFT ---------

Pass.

I pass too.

4 th down. I'll punt.

Wow, tough crowd! Looks good to me. Thanks for sharing.

I suppose someone has to wade through the minefield. I don't accept some of your assessments, so it probably isn't a surprise that I'd want some changes to your rules.

1. Generals-It wasn't simply the army that matured during the war, it was also the leadership. A system relying on nonplayer commander quality which judges commanders in 1775 and 1776 by the same standards as 1780 and 1781 does not reflect this.

2. Even before Valley Forge you had Continental infantry units that behaved as well as British regulars, and you had Continental units after 1777 that failed to perform to Continental standards. Rules should reflect this variable performance.

3. Militia stank…except when they didn't, which was more often than some today want to admit. Again the rules need to provide for variable performance. Smart commanders such as Morgan at Cowpens took the trouble to find out the quality of their militia before going into battle. Others such as Gates at Camden simply made assumptions and suffered the consequences.

4. I'd rate William Washington's Light Dragoons man for man as equal to the British in 1781. The same might have been true in 1780, but mistakes by commanders at Monk's Corner and Lenud's Ferry make it hard to judge.

can I drink copious amounts of tequila and beer chasers and play this game?

Those that "passed" … well you didn't!! You came by and read the stats … ha ha ha :-)

daler240D thx.

Bill N – the intention was not to rate every unit and every commander but to provide a handrail for a set of stats that will allow for a satisfying game. Happy to see variations and that is up to everyone in this thing called war-gamming, the main thing to remember is that this is a game and hence should be enjoyable.

Making rules complex with many units additions, stats and specials leads to a potentially dull experience. Keeping it simple allows the players to get on with the game.

Caveat emptor.

Thanks royal marine
I really enjoy honors of war. The simplicity of the system makes it easy to adapt to the Rev War. I find there are 4 factors that can be changed for any units : movement, fire, melee and commanders. I think it is great to have some armies with different characteristics such as move like regular but shoot as average but melee as inferior.
Bill, in most civil wars union troops have different ratings. Why. Cannot we do the same for Rev war?

I do not understand your question. I said the rules SHOULD provide for different ratings for different units, and I said those ratings should not be dictated solely by classifications that do not reflect historical realities.