"Black Powder Guilford Courthouse" Topic

Guilford Courthouse Battle Report. Well, technically it was a draw, but I think the Americans would have won in the end. The British still had their three key brigades, but they were all reeling from damage. The game began with Webster's Brigade moving up on the left and the Hessian Jaegers with the British Light Infantry mixing it up with the continental light infantry and Washington's 3rd Dragoons. In the center, the North Carolina Militia broke quickly on the left flank but held firm on the right flank – and they did much better than they did in history. In fact, one regiment remained on the field until almost the end, inflicting terrible punishment on O'Hare's Guards in the center. Lee's Legion inflicted terrible punishment on von Bose Hessians and the 71st Highlanders. Neither broke, but they couldn't continue the fight after breaking the North Carolina Regiments in front of them. Instead, they refused their flank and were fixed with Lee's Legion and one regiment of Virginia militia. In effect, they had fixed Leslie's brigade. Eventually, Webster's Brigade defeated the North Carolina militia and defeated Lawson's Virginia militia brigade – some of that was through hand-to-hand combat. Then, they swept forward, which caused the American side to push their two continental brigades forward (Huger and Williams). Disaster then struck the British. O'Hare's brigade could not clear the remnants Stevens brigade in the center, thereby opening up Webster's flank on the fight. The two continental brigades struck Webster's brigade and the 23rd Fusiliers was hit by three regiments. They were destroyed. It was then we called it a draw since it was getting late. Great game!

goo.gl/photos/p47iv6KhQY25WYEg6

Nice looking table.

But.

By playing down the length of the table neither side has any real flank vulnerability and without flanks being vulnerable can it be a real representation of any AWI battle? Off the top of my head, the only battle that comes to mind might have been Monmouth but locally even that battle had flank actions – especially the American artillery on the American right.

And, yes, I know the description above says Webster's flank opened up – but that finished the battle. What rules gave the American's such parity – or even superiority – over the British?

And, no, I have no problems with the American heading towards a victory when the game was called but seems far away from the actual battle – which is of course fine as a game.

I think there are a great many battles of the AWI where terrain and/or the nature of the armies make the flanks of less relevance.

The British units at GCH were already in loose order to match the rebel frontage. Any detachment of a flanking force would have significantly denuded the main line of battle. The woods were quite dense so a planned flanking force would have needed a long march to follow roads and tracks, possibly to descend on the rebel left. Not impossible but a real stretch of resources. In the actual battle the British right did get drawn off into the woods with both commanders losing touch with what was going on. This created a hole in the centre requiring commitment of the reserve (footguards). The only real point of reference was the road running up the centre of the battlefield; so the battle really was anchored to this.

As to troop quality, I don't think that Rebellion is often criticised for undervaluing British infantry :-))) in truth the battle was very close-fought and if Greene had committed the Virginia continentals the British could have been broken. In many ways, Cornwallis's army WAS broken; they just held the field.

As it happened in this battle the flanks were wide open.

Historically, on the British right the Hessians chased Lee's light infantry through the woods away from the main battle lines. In this game the Hessians ignored Lee's light infantry in their attempt to destroy the NC militia who were stubbornly remaining on the fence line (my break test dice were hot and my militia refused to run, despite not doing much more than constantly disordering the regiments under Leslie. Once the light infantry got around the flank they formed and poured enfilade fire into them. The end result was that they hurt the Hessians so bad that they had to fall back in order and rally. Leslie was effectively pinned the entire game because of unlucky initial losses.

On the British left Webster pushed through the NC militia on that side of the road, pushed back the Virginia rifles and the light infantry and ended up facing the Continentals poised on the hill. This is exactly what happened in our game. The only difference is that Washington's cavalry was spent, whereas historically they played a key role at the end.

O'Hara went up the middle and carved through the NC and Virginia militia brigades, getting bloodied in the process. In our game I basically had the most fantastic string of break test die rolls with my NC and VA militia. The first NC regiment would not break until turn 4. The second did not break until around turn 7. The VA militia to the right of the road never broke. This created a huge gap between Webster's advancing brigade and O'Hara's stalled brigade. When Webster pushed too far, the Continentals pounced off of the hill and crushed one regiment. (Historically the Continentals also pounced on the British as they came out of the woods, and initially beat them, so it is not too far off.)

The basic math of Black Powder is pretty simple. You roll a 4+ to hit when shooting. If you are disordered it is a 5+. British morale across the board gave it a saving throw of 3+. Think about that for a minute. The Patriots were shooting at 4+ and 5+ and the British was saving those hits at 3+. The math was on the British side. (By the way the NC militia had a 5+ save at the fence line, the VA militia had a 5+ save, 1/2 of the Continentals had a 4+ save and the other half a 3+ save. The math was very much on the British side. Crappy dice happen.)

So when you make a statement like "what rules gave the American's such parity – or even superiority – over the British" it sounds like you are saying that you don't believe the Patriots should ever win. Guilford Courthouse was a close run thing. Back in the day, people counted victories by who possessed the field of battle at the end of the day. So the British put it on the books that they won a victory. A tactical victory at best. But historically, they were strategically defeated.

That this game produced a tactical draw and a strategic victory for the Patriots is really not very far off the mark. The anomaly was one stubborn NC militia brigade that refused to die quickly. This allowed the VA brigade to move up into position as gaps appeared and apply their firepower.

Black Powder, and this scenario especially, is very much about the British Alpha Strike. If they get it, they blow through to the third line without breaking a sweat. If they get good, but not great results, they get bloodied, but still win tactically. If they muff it, they get this result. Unfortunately, Leslie muffed his Alpha Strike, and O'Hara and Webster got only good results.

In all honesty, when I read the scenario, I offered to play the Patriots solo and let the other three players each play one British command. To me, the math looked like it was going to be a Patriot butt stomp. The thing with Black Powder, though, is all it takes is a few key rolls to miss.

As a new player into AWI, I enjoy seeing all the various games and figures. I have never seen any information on the British artillery you show in light blue jackets with white pants. What unit are they? It's a nice change from the all red.

Thanks,

Matthew

I don't have a reference but the figures are Perry "British Royal Artillery in Southern Dress". I imagine the British artillery wore a different uniform in the muggy, hot south. That said, the Battle was fought in March. Color scheme was the same. I looked through Mollo's and he doesn't mention the uniform scheme for the southern campaigns.

Royal artillery uniforms were blue at this time although the cut of the uniform varied, as did the colour of the turnbacks.

Dale, thanks for the recap and identifying the rules. I've played games of this battle a couple of times and they, too, played the length of the table and, to me, this restricted both sides options (different rules each time and not Black Powder). As I said, I have no problem with the Americans winning but historically that was very rare.

The Saratoga campaign victory resulted from foolish bravado on Burgoyne's part which led to overwhelming numerical superiority on the American side. Less so on the numerical superiority but essentially ditto for Yorktown and Cornwallis – and the timely appearance of allied ships.

Of course, in the Southern Campaign there were a few out and out American victories.

But in the war as a whole, tactically, not so much. Strategically, of course, with the help of the world's leading super power of the age, France, we won the war. And Washington's tenacity.

I think if the day had been less warm, Monmouth might have been an American victory – or an American tragedy.

But either way, I'd like to see Monmouth played across the table and allowing for open flanks. Probably people go the length because of the three lines of Americans. Maybe I have the advantage of using 15 mm figures over 25/28 mm – though I'm "just beginning" to get my figures painted (at very long last!).

And no idea where the blue over white artillery uniform might come from – perhaps what a player or game master had to fill out a game. Maybe painted before knowing better and chose not to repaint. Or maybe has information that makes it accurate. Or maybe just liked the paint scheme and wanted his toys his way (or hers). No harm, no foul, they are just toys after all.

(Had to go double check those artillery figures – yeah, don't look at all like anything AWI related to me. The blue far too light, should be much darker. Also not sure the sculpts are intended for AWI so maybe borrowed from some other era, 1812 maybe? Don't know and doesn't really matter. Still a cool looking game.)

It was a very enjoyable afternoon.

As Webster, I pushed too far forward which opened up my right flank too much. The rebel scum appeared to be trying to mass their combat power against Leslie and O'Hara to escape my brigade (am I correct here, Dale?) so I was trying to get into position to disrupt those moves. The continentals then simply went after me instead.

After seeing the militia on the left flank melt away once pressured, it was a shock when the continentals stood their ground and gave as much as they got.

Leslie's and O'Hara's brigades were at their stamina, I lost a unit to massed fire, my right flank was open, my light infantry were several moves in the woods to my left rear…..

I think we could have could have continued the battle by withdrawing to the fence line and held the field at the end but it would have been two to three turns of looking at each other from the ends of the woods.

Hero of the battle #1: one of the NC militia regiments which would…..not…..die…

Hero of the battle #2: the resilience of the militia on the right flank holding (Dale's break test rolls).

Yes, the plan was for Huger to shift left away from your command. But with O'Hara stalled in the center and Leslie pinned back on the start line, Webster was just too much of a target not to pounce. Being able to put three regiments on your flank and pop it in two turns was pretty good luck (and bad luck on your part for failing your Break Test so badly – snake eyes was it?).

That game did not go any way like I expected.

Great looking game! Thanks for the inspiration!

From my friend Paul, who spoke with the Perry Brothers about the southern artillery uniforms, "The whole idea of Southern uniforms seems to be a lot of uncorroborated assumptions with some fairly logical reasoning. There seems to be a consensus that British uniforms were cut down. The brimmed hats seems to be an assumption based on documentary evidence of the Guards carrying out a ‘Knocking out ceremony' to their Tricornes to turn them in to flat hats. There is an assumption that this ceremony would have lost the white lacing around the edge. Most people assume that if it is good enough for the Foot Guards other regiments/units will have followed." The Perry Brothers have done a lot of research and have spoken with many historians on the subject of the southern uniforms. Hence, I would defer to their expertise. The blue is meant to be faded – hence the light blue versus the darker blue in other uniforms. Bottom line with AWI – a lot of room for interpretation – especially when it comes to uniforms for the southern campaigns.

Oops, should have said "Guilford Courthouse played across the table"! Monmouth might need an L-shaped table. Brandywine definitely needs an L-shaped table.

EMW – I would play both Brandywine and Monmouth on two separate tables; in the case of the latter, I would wait to see where the morning action "ends up" before laying out the second table.

Leo – Dark blue doesn't fade to light/sky blue (common mistake); it fades to a dull greyish blue. Alan Perry actually went to a British RA re-enactment unit in America to discuss extra options for gun crew uniforms – I know, because I directed Alan to them.

leobarron2000, Really nice table layout. Where did the corn come from…scratchbuilt?

Scott Miller at Nerdherd Wargaming made them. He sells stuff on eBay.

Great looking AWI fight… we use Back Powder too for playing AWI games.

SFC Retired

I have put on Guilford Courthouse games a number of times and found that playing the length of the board provides for a good gaming experience. The Patriot forces have some numbers advantages but the Brits have quality advantages. If the game judge forces the British forces to accomplish their victory conditions in anything close to the real length of the battle, they have to hit hard, fast, and keep things moving. The flanks never were much of an issue. The length of the board was, however.

Looks like a great game. Your table looks really nice.
Guilford courthouse is the turning point of the war in the south as Cornwallis army is bled out.
There should be victory conditions on casualties.
No point in taking a battlefield if you lose 35% of your small troops.
Well you make me want to paint my 28mm AWI !!!

"Royal artillery uniforms were blue at this time although the cut of the uniform varied, as did the colour of the turnbacks."

IIRC correctly, the turnbacks were red throughout the war. When they changed it was either late (1783?) or right after the war.

And, with all due respect, the RA uniforms should be dark blue.

IIRC, the Guards received a new issue of uniforms shortly before this battle. Don Troiani put the Guards in cocked hats in his painting as he couldn't verify whether they left them uncocked or cocked them. Personally, I'd favor uncocked. It also makes you wonder if any other units received new uniforms then as well.

When I run Guilford next it is my goal to have lots of bare trees on the board, maybe a few pines. It was bleak looking during that time of year.

Game looks great. I would suggest that if your rules are allowing militia to stand toe to toe with regular troops you might want to look at that to fix. I can't recall such a battle, with the exception of the 1775 early battles when the British troops (trained but green) were outnumbered and retreating due to orders, or behind earthworks.

I like how British Grenadier has brigade morale which makes any militia brigade very brittle, as they were in real life. When we first started playing the rules we left those out and the militia stood like Guards – which we knew wasn't right.

The RA's turnbacks were red until October 1782, when they changed to white. Since uniform coats were generally not issued until around the King's birthday in June, it is doubtful if the white turnbacks were seen in America, and if they were, it certainly wasn't on the battlefield.

I would suggest that if your rules are allowing militia to stand toe to toe with regular troops you might want to look at that to fix.

I think this has to start with a consideration of the game mechanics and what you define militia to be. Based on the information that the second line at GCH exchanged up to 20 rounds with the British it is reasonable to assume the militia went toe to toe with the British for at least 10 minutes before retiring. If a turn represents less time than this, the rules do need to allow for militia to go toe to toe. At Cowpens up to half the troops in Morgan's third line were made up of militia. At GCH Campbell and Lynch's rifles on the flanks were militia and performed well. If your rules do not allow for militia to go toe to toe with British regulars, there should be a mechanism in them to allow picked militia units to be treated as if they were something better. If you are doing Bennington or a number of small scale actions a possibility would be to carve out an exception where the militia was fighting in a more irregular manner.

I've said before: When Continentals fail we look for the reasons why. When militia fails we too often simply say it was because they were militia.

Some quick thoughts without my reference books:

1. The first line of militia at GCH fired at long range and took off immediately.

2. The second line was composed of mainly state troops (IIRC), not militia. Likely had a good number of veterans in its ranks and did make a better account of itself. It was also in a wooded area (IIRC) which gave it cover and likely broke up the Crown lines and units – making it a very different type of battle than that of the first line. Also likely making it very close too.

3. Bennington is an interesting reference. I know little about the militia that marched there – or their prior experience. But they were led by competent and experienced commanders, especially Stark. The same cannot be usually said for many militia units. They were also not up against British regulars either.

I like the mechanisms in BG, where you can have raw levies, militia, second line troops, first line, and elite. It allows for variances in the quality of the units. Some of the examples you cited would likely be more second line than militia – either due to a high number of veterans, good leadership, or both.

Bennington is also an atypical engagement. The Crown forces were scattered and overextended, and Starke was commanding troops with a fair amount of experience, who knew the terrain and could pick when and where they wanted to attack.

In open field fights, such as Camden and the opening phase of Guilford, militia fared poorly against the regulars. You were really taking a chance using them that way.

As HG notes, the BG rules allow you to vary quality--you can have militia units rated as 2d Line, for example, to show they are a cut above the usual. Or, levies, such as at Chatterton's Hill.

IIRC, a lot of the Bennington "militia" were minutemen and/or rangers, from New Hampshire and western Massachusetts.

I'm not underestimating the use of militia. I think one of its primary uses was in between battles. A thousand little battles slowly bleeding the enemy, hemming them in, restricting their every day foraging, constant attrition to the enemy's ranks.

@Historygamer: A detachment of the Virginia state troops were lost when Charleston fell. The bulk of the remaining Virginia state troops were lead south by Porterfield and many of them were lost at Camden. I've read that some VSF were incorporated into the first and second Virginia Contientals, and there may have been a few Virginia State Cavalry still with the army, but I am not aware of any VSF being incorporated into the second line.

The troops that were serving under Stevens and Lawson in the second line at Guilford Courthouse and the troops in Campbell and Lynch's commands were raised using essentially the same mechanism used to raise Stevens' Virginia militia at Camden. This consisted of short term drafts from the county militia together with some volunteers and hired substitutes, serving in county based units under militia officers. Pension applications refer to these troops as being in the militia.

Interesting. Clearly they were made of sterner stuff than the first line militia. I suspect the terrain and distance from the first line helped too.

Several State Lines overcame shortages of quotas by drafting militia for periods of months – the New Jersey Line in the Monmouth campaign had 90-day men, IIRC.