"What makes your rules feel AmRev?" Topic

What aspects of your rules make them feel appropriate for the American Revolution, as opposed to simply being another set of Horse and Musket or Napoleonic rules?

No cuirassiers, no squares.

Low casualties, modifiers that hold you back from treating the linear unit like they never get disorganized, forced movement (by the dice) that prevents ESP-like understanding from every colonel in your brigade, units that don't always close when ordered to do so, fragile cavalry units that don't ride everyone down, Light troops and rifles that don't kill everyone, fussy Germans worried about keeping their ranks straight.

@Winston: so in other words, you believe that there is no such thing as an "American Revolution feel"? Or are you just feeling snarky?

I like historygamer's ideas.

Not really. As historygamer points out, there was no real fear of heavy cavalry. Thus no need for squares.
It's distinguished from the SYW and Napoleonucs by what wasn't there.
Having lots of dense terrain also contributed.

I am doing mostly "skirmish" gaming now. When some of your most important battles are the size of Cowpens or Kings Mountain, the grand sweep of Napoleonics or the SYW is not there.

The small size of very important battles, combined with the terrain and no decisive cavalry gives it a different feel, even though the weapons were nearly identical.

+1 historygamer and Winston Smith.

As historygamer alluded, I think AWI rules have to emphasize morale, leadership, training, and mettle, and de-emphasize casualties and weapon performance.

I would also add:
* There were few cannons, they were small, but artillery was still a critical arm despite all that.
* Indians! Once in a while.
* Friendly or unfriendly locals influenced the outcomes of battles in significant ways sometimes, mostly via providing/hiding intel.

- Ix

Our set of rules, American War of Independence
Link: link

By using a combination of different Troop Quality levels (Training/Experience) and levels of morale, we try to mimic what Historygamer and Yellow Admiral posted above.

Light Dragoons and Artillery have an effect on the battle but are not uber units. Leader stands can help influence the units under their command. Units that are Veterans or Regulars will do pretty much what you want them to do. Until fatigue, terrain, & casualties start effecting their morale status. Units with lower Troop Quality like Green, Trained or Untrained will not always do what the player wants them to do.

I don't know where people get this idea that the square was not used in the AWI. In fact, there were several instances of squares being formed – and not always against cavalry.

The whole "Oooh, cavalry – form square!" thing is very much a wargamerism; look at drill manuals of the H&M era and they talk about defending against attacks from two or more different directions, without specifying the type of troops making those attacks.

Peebles recalls practising forming square whilst out on route marches – this at a time when what little cavalry the Continental Army had was very poor. Erskine forms a square on one occasion to mask his artillery (small calibre, admittedly, but still guns). IIRC, a square is used to cover the retreat of Mawhood's other two units from Princeton and protect the baggage. And there are others – at least one including some Rebel militia fighting off Loyalist horse.

Historygamer: You mentioned low casualties as a feature of AWI game rules. I think you are correct though I have always wondered why this was so based on the weapons technology of the time. Were the rebels less likely to be organized and disciplined to inflict the casualty rates of the wars in Europe at the same time frame, or more likely to run away once disorganized, or terrain affected the carnage rates, or small amounts of artillery, or all of the above? The casualty percentages always seemed low to me compared to even the FIW or later Battles in the War of 1812.

Good question and one historians have debated for 200 years.

For AWI, other than Lexington/Concord, and Bunker Hill, there was an emphasis to reduce casualties (especially by the Royal troops). This was done by adopting more open formations, often taking flank marches instead of head on assaults. The American troops often stood for a short while then wisely fell back, trading space for time. Much of the casualties of this war occurred in the small war between the lines that took its toll on both sides.

Also, in some of the amazing books to come out over the past few years, one gets the sense that these battle were often fought in fragmented fashion – that entire brigades were not often employed, but instead, units were fed into a battle, the battle quickly reached a tipping point, and one side backs off. That is really apparent in both the new book on Monmouth (Fatal Sunday) and the new book on the Saratoga campaign (both Burgoyne and Arnold fed individual units into the battle at Freeman's Farm). Todd Braisted's new book (The Grand Forge) is interesting as it goes into a large deployment of Crown troops and the fact they often had better intelligence than the rebels – who got ambushed time and again.

F&I is darned near impossible to game in a grand tactical manner. Only two open field battles to speak of. Each was unique and either one side of the other was operating under adverse conditions. The same is true with Braddock's defeat. He employed a special formation while on the march which would have been brilliant if he had been attacked on the flanks like so many warned him about. But of course, that's not what happened. Still, his soldiers fought on for 2.5 hours, largely in the open (no underbrush), which no formations to speak of.

Can't say about 1812. It never interested me that much.

Historygamer: Thanks. I will have to look up the books you mentioned; it has been a while since I have read anything new on the matter.

Did British infantry form square much in the 7YW against cavalry- or any other attack for that matter?(Not my AOI)

Indeed, did they need to form square specifically against cavalry in AWI.

In what campaign did Erskine do so to mask his guns- was it in the NJ winter campaign early 1777?

I'm not sure Dundas( 1788) mentions squares at all. He does talk about solid bodies of infantry arranged to channel cavalry into interlocking fields of fire.

My rules, Redcoats & Minutemen, is of course for light battles with the familiar 1/32 (more or less) plastic toy soldiers once made by BMC, etc.. So its "feel" is really towards these than any real historicity. However, I did try to include a Revolutionary War "feel" with the following:
1. A fairly simple retreat/rout mechanic that will likely have militia running quickly (but not always).
2. Cavalry's primary function is to boost command possibilities (a hint of reconnaissance abstracted in, in a way).
3. A "volley" rule that allows two and three deep lines of troops to gain a mass fire effect.
4. Melee (bayonet rules) that favor disciplined troops like Brits, Hessians, French and Continentals, but not militia, Indians, artillery, cavalry, or riflemen.
5. Distinctive troop types (Militia, Indians, Riflemen, Continentals, British Regulars, Hessians, French, Field Cannon, Mortars, Cavalry (light, but no distinction is made). They're generic; I don't differentiate among specific historical units, nor attempt to; but they are within the "feel" of the conflict (and the available toy soldiers, of course).
6. Hessian and French troops have unique order dice separate from the overall army's order dice, to give a "feel" of foreign troops under their own command structure.
7. The general as the key element for orders, able to boost his army's actions and rally troops, and the primary determiner of victory (lose the general, lose the battle).

Like I said, it's a generic and simple rule set, not intended for serious simulation of the era, but to me it "feels" like the American Revolutionary War I read about as a kid. And a kid's approach (even a big kid) is the real feel I wanted.

What makes it seem like AWI is the terrain. Smaller battles than in Europe but really the battlefields were what made the tactics different. If you game on some green felt with a couple of trees on a flat tabletop, then you might as well play a board game. Even the field were smaller and had some interesting fences. As always, the table is makes up the setting for the game, so make the table look like what the game is suppose to represent.
Mark

Infantry rules the battlefield. Artillery and Cavalry are still important but infantry is the queen of the battlefield. Militia, lots of militia, they are much more important in the AWI than SYW or Napoleonic Wars.

Uniforms of all kinds mixed with civilian dress. More of the universal soldier. Less specialized infantry. Lights as shock troops. Looser formations. Larger role for rifles.

You can have smaller battles and the rest in any period. But the feel of the period is something different. In other periods the Cavalry and Artillery are much more important and play a larger role. Not nearly that much militia.

In fact other than Spain or Russia, I can't think of a Napoleonic battle we have done that has militia. Roles played by specialist units in the NW and SYW are not so important in the AWI. Units maybe called upon to fill any role.

SuperMax, Only square formation I knew about was at Princeton to protect the baggage. Thanks for posting about other times this formation was used in the AWI.

Historygamer, I was eyeballing Todd Braisted's book The Grand Forage 1778. You saying its a good read is good enough for me, I'm off to Amazon. lol

I really enjoyed Todd's book. It is different than the usual big battle story. It also shows how the Crown seemed to have the upper hand on intelligence.

I have just ordered this and am awaiting it eagerly.

42nd / Ironwolf – I shall try to find more details; I have a feeling the Erskine incident was during a "forage" from NYC. If either of you are members of the Yahoo! RevList Forum, there was a fascinating thread (or two) on this about 7 or 8 years ago, whilst looking up details on British LD regiments.

No rules, it's all about the troops on the table that make the difference for me.

I'm pretty easy going when it comes to rulesets, I have a lot of them.

Todd has a nice style of writing, so it reads very easily. One criticism that someone shared with me, and I agree, is that it would perhaps have been helpful to have some modern maps in addition to the excellent period ones. Small nit, good book.

I seem to have been taken to school about "squares".

It's not so much the rules, as the scenario design. This is why I feel that a points system is inappropriate for gaming the AWI. I have seen points in some rules like 1776 but I feel that to use them is misguided.
Scenarios can be based on actual battles. I see no value in equal battles. "Realistic" battles are rarely equal.

Ok. Here's my "feel". There should be a disparity in quality, which closes as the war progresses. But it never goes away. The British are always splendid. Some Yankee units approach them in quality. But not all.
There should always seem to be some doubt about the majority of the Americans. The players should be mature enough and prepared to deal with this, which might never happen. Cowpens is the best example of this. Morgan knew exactly what his troops were capable of and what they could not do. He planned accordingly.
Leadership is the key. I could cite Arnold at Saratoga, but isn't leadership always the key?

The AWI gamer should always remember that most of the important battles were small. The largest battle I have run is Germantown. Several times, because it's so gosh darned much fun. It's not a small battle, except maybe by SYW or Napoleonic standards. I might just be able to do Brandywine but it's not on my bucket list. Long Island? Heck no.
Trenton is fun. Even for Hessians if you give them 15 minutes they did not have.
Camden does not have to be a disaster.
Guilford Courthouse is good for testing new rules, but not much fun for American players in reserve.
We all have favorite battles.

Getting back to Rules. They should be standard horse and musket. "Infantry move 6", cavalry 12" etc.
Whatever. . I've owned, played and given away many rules. Some complicated, some not. It all boils down to knowing them and good scenarios. It's the scenario that should reflect the AWI.

I think the rules are important, as many rules us high casualties that not only reflect the loss of men, but erosion of morale as well. At least to me, many period rule sets rely on this mechanism too much, and that doesn't feel period (AWI) right to me.

Hello Dale!

I've always thought that "feel" is a bit of a white elephant. For me put nicely painted AWI figures on a nicely landscaped table top and Bobs your uncle, I got the feeling. It's the same for the main body of the rules. Pretty much any generic horse and musket rule set works for the entire period.

As Winston Smith has indicated the juice is in the scenario design. If you have any perks that float your boat for the period then simply insert them into the scenario.

Best regards,

Glenn

When I bought out Brookhurst's Foundry Frei Korps remaining stock, I ended up with a lot of musicians. I painted them in yellow Brunswick coats. But what to do with them?
I made them unarmed baggage guards at Bennington.
Bennington is one of those battles that make even the most sober sided historian crack jokes.
In a TSATF AWI game, they became cannon fodder, with the shooter needing key cards to hit actual combatants. Since they were guarding wagons, they were in cover….
I have no idea if this was a "successful" scenario design or not, but it amused everyone and is still talked about.

Unless I run a Bennington game again, I don't see these figures being trotted out any time soon.