"FIW Terrain" Topic

I'm just starting a French Indian Wars collection as the new edition of M&T seems to have inspired many at my local club. I'm still trying to decide on a figure range – there are several good looking ranges out there – but can anyone offer some advice on the buildings available in 28mm in the UK please? As this will be a skirmish project I'm looking for buildings that will look the part alongside the larger 28mm models of today.
Thanks.

Perry has the plastic farmhouse,in mdf you have Sarissa and 4ground.

I highly recommend the 4ground cabins. They look really good without doing anything to them. They can also look great with just a little painting and added items, like crates on the porches and such.

So what battles were fought around cabins?

A friend once joked about F&I games always featuring British grenadiers stumbling out of a cabin to fight the French – as in, where and when did this every occur? A vast majority of F&I battles were fought in the wilderness, not around farms. That is Rev War (think Mohawk Valley).

The Braddock expedition passed Faser's abandoned trading post (one log cabin). Grant's attack on Fort Duquesne saw the Brits and colonials burning some out buildings (barns). No buildings around Forts Ti, Louisbourg, Niagara, Ligonier, or William Henry.

So where were all these farm buildings I always see in F&I games?

You know – wargaming ("kriegspielen") has never been confined to reenacting the same historical battles, over the same battlefields……many Generals past and present weren't concerned with reenactment, but were interested in testing their mettle vs. the unknown.

The whole nature of wargaming allows us to explore the realms of hypothetical encounters, what-if scenarios, and certainly new battles generated by campaign systems too.

This is the TMP forum (The Miniatures Page), where gamers aren't restricted to doing what a friend of my calls "the same old tired battles" over and over.

Well said, Dapper Dave.

Moreover, according to numerous works I've read, including "The First Frontier", "Crucible of War" & "The French & Indian War" by Borneman, a central piece of French war strategy, at least in 1755-57, were sustained raids on farm steads, settlements & hamlets at the edge of the Ohio country & western Pennsylvania, which I would assume, included some buildings, fences & fields.

That said, I confess that the FIW isn't my primary historical or wargaming interest & I defer to those with
more expertise in the era. Nonetheless, I note that the overwhelming number on FIW scenarios to be found on the internet are skirmish level & involve several structures,
predominantly log cabins. I concur with this selection, finding it provides a more appealing table setting & a more
varied & interesting game than a steady diet of strictly wilderness games.

To put a finer point on it, I refer to what Dave just said.
In my view, the goal of gathering to play a wargame is enjoyment. If the vast majority of FIW engagements took place totally in the trees, so what? If we know that & choose to try to simulate one of the small raids on a group of cabins, even though such conflicts were numerically inferior & even fewer included the colorful array of grenadiers, regulars, Scottish or provincial infantry, marines, rangers, militia & blood thirsty savages often included in our scenarios, are we misguided?

Almost all FIW scenarios at the skirmish level are fictional, there being little record of the actual engagements. While based on historical events, being works of fiction, in my view, underscores the latitude of game masters to have grenadiers run out cabin doors.

Finally, these observations are offered to encourage game masters to continue to run & post FIW AAR's on this & other forums, with or without cabins. My comments are not intended to be offensive to anyone, including those that may have opposite views. My hope is that this thread won't devolve into another lengthy Coureur de Bois debate.

Thanks Londonplod and rhacelt for your suggestions. I'll follow up on them.

The Perry house, IIRC, looks nothing like an F&I period structure. Seeing how you don't seem to care about reality, it may not matter all that much.

I love the F&I period. Grew up in Western PA, volunteering at Fort Pitt Museum. I just don't understand all the romanticism/fantasy so attached to this period of gaming. It really borders on fantasy. You really don't see this in any other gaming period – at least that I am familiar with.

I agree, the period is really best for skirmish gaming. But there are a million skirmish games you could run based around historical incidents. I'm running one like that in AWI at Cold Wars.

Your army, your game, do what you want, but it ain't history, that's for sure. :-)

Oh, and if you want to read a very good book on the subject of civilians on the frontier, read – "Breaking the Back Country."

A French and Indian War skirmish that features a cabin is fantasy?

It depends. One with British grenadiers and French regulars tripping around the board, yes, unless it is outside of Quebec. But that is never the case. It's always on the colonial frontier somewhere (ala, Last of the Mohicans).

The raids on the settlers in Western PA/VA were all pretty much Indians, with a stray French Marine officer "advising" the Indians on what to do – not that they seemed particularly successful at that. The Indians had their own ideas and did not blindly follow French advisors' advice.

If you can name some real battles around colonial farms that involved French and British regulars, I'd be very interested in learning about them, as would a few other authors of the period.

Here is what I am talking about using historical situations, to come up with a game scenario:

TMP link

Let me add a bit of nostalgia to the discussion – I recall vividly the battle re-enactments at Fort Ligonier in the 70s. They started with a woman and kids around a make shift cabin in a field. Invariably the Indians would come out, grab the family, drag them off, and set fire to the cabin.

I've read a lot of accounts of that battle, never came across that story. I seem to see it all the time in games, usually involving French and British regulars (I don't think there were any redcoats even at Fort Ligonier in October of 1758 when that attack occurred).

Again, your toys, do what you want, but it sure ain't anything related to the actual history of the period.

Historygamer,

I'm confused about the point that you're trying to make.
In your initial post in this thread you stated that the
"vast majority of F&I battles were fought in the wilderness, not around farms", & "so where are all these farm buildings I always see in F&I games". In your 2nd post you state "it really borders on fantasy". Then in your 3rd post you say that it is fantasy to have cabins if "grenadiers & regulars are tripping around the board".

So these are my questions. Is it your position that only raiding parties composed of just Indians may have involved cabins & the inclusion of any militia or regulars is the fantasy? Or are you saying that the placement of any cabin
on the table, regardless of the composition of the force, is fantasy?

If your position is the latter, to me it is preposterous.
Every FIW book I've read recounts the French sponsored Indian raids on British frontier settlements. I wasn't around three centuries ago so I personally don't know for certain (& neither were you). However, I submit that it is reasonable to conclude that those settlers who were raided weren't living in grass huts or igloos, but rather wooden structures hewed out of the wilderness.

If it is the former, that is your opinion is that cabins on the FIW wargame table are appropriate as long as the only troop types used in a scenario are Indians & settlers, I have an equally hard time with that. Surely you're not contending that local British militia, provincials, rangers or regulars were never in a position to attempt to protect a settlement from a raid, or that French regulars or Marines NEVER accompanied raiding parties. It almost certainly did occur, however infrequently.

Perhaps you meant something other than that which I have surmised. If so, you no doubt will enlighten us with your next post.

Here's my point. In my view it is perfectly reasonable for a game designer to conclude, from the historical & geographical setting of the FIW, that wooden structures were involved in many of the countless encounters & skirmishes that happened in that conflict & that, at least a few times, those clashes involved various troop types. In my opinion this is just common sense & is justification for a basis for feeling one has designed a scenario based on history, even if fictional, & not just fantasy.

Moreover, I submit that since many, if not most, of these frontier clashes were skirmishes, of the type depicted in the vast majority of FIW gaming, & thus below the grain of many historical records. Therefore, don't bother to challenge me to cite authority relative to the inclusion of various troop types in a skirmish battle. If you disagree, then I challenge you to cite a single author who states that there definitely were no regulars, marines or rangers engaged in any skirmish.

Lastly, I'll quote you again. "Its your army & table. Do as you like." I'll add: State your opinions on scenario design based on the FIW historical record. But in your doing so, it is my hope you don't dampen enthusiasm for, or discourage design of, scenarios simply because they don't conform with your viewpoint. I'm sure that was not your intent.

Tiger:

Some quick replies. :-)

"Is it your position that only raiding parties composed of just Indians may have involved cabins & the inclusion of any militia or regulars is the fantasy?"

Generally, yes. I don't just think it's my position, so much as fact. Regulars, absolutely not. Militia, ditto. If you have proof otherwise, please provide.

"Or are you saying that the placement of any cabin
on the table, regardless of the composition of the force, is fantasy?"

Not what I said. We know for a fact that the Indians raided the frontier. We also know that once those raids started, many settlers left the areas. I'm thinking PA and VA. While a few might have stayed, the overwhelming force coming against them were Indians. It is very unclear what, if any French or Canadians accompanied the Indians. We know for sure that in at least one instance a French officer (Marine) was captured in VA trying to encourage the Indians to attack targets of his choosing. We know that he was largely unsuccessful in doing that. We know, in this instance, that the VA regiment was opposing these raids, with little success.

The VA militia was near worthless during this time period. Read, "Soldiers When They Want to Be" and you'll see why. In one instance, the militia was called out to chase Indian raiders and try to recapture hostages. When the militia neared the Indians, they held a meeting and went home.

We know that French militia was employed largely in very specific duties that did not include raiding parties. Their primary task was to provide manpower to move supplies during the summer months. In the few instances where we know they fought, they were largely unsuccessful (see their flight at Braddock's defeat, and their defeat at Lake George later in the day).

"Every FIW book I've read recounts the French sponsored Indian raids on British frontier settlements."

Agreed, and likely an all Indian force they were. And please go back and read my post. It was about British and French regulars fighting around cabins on the frontier.

"If it is the former, that is your opinion is that cabins on the FIW wargame table are appropriate as long as the only troop types used in a scenario are Indians & settlers, I have an equally hard time with that."

Please provide proof otherwise then. I am well read on the period and don't see that.

"Surely you're not contending that local British militia,…"

See above. PA had no militia to speak of. There are some very good books on this subject. See the earlier reference to the rather useless VA militia.

"…provincials,"

VA posted their regiment (eventually two) very dispersed on the VA frontier. So yes, they saw action, and included mounted elements and rangers – all part of the regiment(s). But again, not part of my original post, now was it. :-)

"….rangers…"

See above.

"… or regulars…"

Nope. If you disagree, please provide documentation. The regulars were all usually massed somewhere, but you should know that already. The farthest south the French regulars came was to Fort Niagara. Never left the post. Read Pouchout's Memoirs.

"…were never in a position to attempt to protect a settlement from a raid,.."

Can't think of one off the top of my head. Can you?

"… or that French regulars or Marines NEVER accompanied raiding parties."

I have read accounts of Marine units. Have you? They were regular troops posted at a garrison. They had no specialized frontier training. But again, you are asserting this is true. Please provide an example from history.

"It almost certainly did occur, however infrequently."

Please document. I'll buy you a drink at CWs if you can. :-)

"Here's my point. In my view it is perfectly reasonable for a game designer to conclude, from the historical & geographical setting of the FIW, that wooden structures were involved in many of the countless encounters & skirmishes that happened in that conflict & that, at least a few times, those clashes involved various troop types. In my opinion this is just common sense & is justification for a basis for feeling one has designed a scenario based on history, even if fictional, & not just fantasy. "

Okay, please provide some examples then.

"Moreover, I submit that since many, if not most, of these frontier clashes were skirmishes, of the type depicted in the vast majority of FIW gaming, & thus below the grain of many historical records. "

Actually, it is a fairly well documented period, especially for the regular troops.

"Therefore, don't bother to challenge me to cite authority relative to the inclusion of various troop types in a skirmish battle. If you disagree, then I challenge you to cite a single author who states that there definitely were no regulars, marines or rangers engaged in any skirmish."

That's just a dodge as you likely know you can't provide any. No offense, but it makes me wonder just how well read you are on the period.

I can think of a million historically correct scenarios at a skirmish level for this period. It is a shame others can't and often resort to movie-type ones. I see it all the time for this period of gaming. Love the period. Still, it is a game, and people may do what they like, but the misconceptions about the period never cease to amaze me.

By the way, for a scenario based on history, come by and see my Grand Forage 1778 game at Cold Wars. It is based upon actual events in Sept 1778 that took place in NJ. It has the right units present and plays out along the lines of what happened. Not looking to recreate the same old, same old, but sticking to history. I ran it some years back and the players enjoyed themselves.

If you really like, and I find a bit of time, I'd be happy to spin a few historically correct scenarios here for F&I. :-)