"Victory conditions for American Revolution battlefields" Topic

On another thread Yellow Admiral made some very good thoughts about victory conditions in the American Revolution. How do we recognize victory on the battlefield? Unlike in Europe victory on the battlefield rarely led to positive results. The victory at Brandywine and occupied Philadelphia did not end the Continental Army and Washington soon struck back at Howe. Cornwallis could defeat Greene's army at Guildford Courthouse but again what were the results? The occupation of cities or posts also rarely have positive results. In addition how do you fight a lost battle? If you are Rall at Trenton do you bolt and run or stand and fight?

So how do we evaluate victory?

This is where AWI gaming really calls for a campaign structure, with the "victory" being evaluated by some method of recording the political effect. This is the method used in the classic AH board game, "We the People" (a rather unfitting title, as the Constitution was not a document of the AWI— but I digress). Battles determine which side has the political influence in a given region, and the state of overall political influence determines the winner when the game ends (a semi-randomly timed yet inevitable event).

I've toyed around with a campaign system that involves rating the opposition for "Battle Honors." So, for example, a skilled and trained unit of British Regulars rates higher than a body of Colonial militia; thus, the former gains few (if any) Battle Honors for defeating the latter, but the latter gains significant Battle Honors for defeating the former, or even for surviving the battle in good numbers despite a tactical loss.
Battle Honors are then used to determine the overall campaign effect on the political situation: that is, whether the local population is drawn to the Patriot side or the British side. This is measured across the colonies and additional territories, with each side having distinct victory goals based on this political tracking. The campaign ends when one side has achieved its political goals, signaling the inevitability of its desired outcome.
The idea is still in the "notes on a piece of paper" stage, but I think it's an approach that would work.
As for ranking the opponents, it's probably simply a matter of rating them on a scale of 1 to 10 (or any other integer), with 10 being "superbly elite" and 1 being "untrained rabble." The victor simply earns BH equal to the rating of the vanquished. A surviving unit, though defeated, might gain BH equal to the difference between its rating and that of a superior foe, or even lose the difference if repulsed by a weaker foe! This allows for meaningless victories or "humiliating" losses.
I suppose in the end, it's still just Victory Points, but if the campaign allows for these points to be "spent," as it were, or even merely to set levels of resources, recruitment, etc., it would make the outcome of battles more obvious in their relative advantage to both victor and loser, and even weight the strategic result in favor of the latter despite the tactical outcome.

I look it up in the scenario book.

If you're Rall you don't drink late into the night and make sure your pickets are prepared to alert you to the possible advance of the enemy. You also have a plan for how you respond to an attack and then, once you've mustered your men properly chances are good you could either defeat the Americans outright or effect a fighting withdrawal…if, on the other hand you find yourself in the same position as he did on that fateful morning, having not done the things mentioned above, the choices are not very good either way.

The Royalist deny the Yankees their retreat route (all other results are American victories).