1776 - Does the game feel right to you?

[Steel God]

A few things here.  This has long been a complaint in all the blackpowder games, but part of it is that "losses" represents a bit of everything.  Not only KIA and WIA, but even those who just become combat ineffective and become a straggler or the like.  That can tend to exaggerate the numbers.

  I do understand that Gary, and that's true in all of the Tiller games...."casualties" means KIA, WIA, MIA captured etc.  No argument there.  I just think that this one limited exposure I have (just this one scenario plus some AI foolery) is giving me a sense that the casualties are higher than they should be (e.g. Historically the Americans suffered roughly 450 casualties of all types at  Bunker Hill in 2 hours, while the British took 1050;  in our battle in roughly 1 hours time the Americans stand at 1300 and the British at 900....while the British numbers are only slightly higher and can be attributed to that over aggressiveness we all know game players can exhibit, the American losses are grossly higher and I'm trying to figure out the why of it).

[Steel God]

I would also submit that our re-playing of historical situations is skewed in that we have far more information than the historical participants. And, we are also far more aggressive with our forces.

 Agree 100% - all players, even conservative ones, push their forces much much harder than real commanders did/would.  But that is the basis of my observation....the Colonial forces in this scenario are not being aggressive at all.  They have largely stood pat on defense and used the advantages of terrain to their fullest, yet are taking the higher number of casualties in the battle.  Me and my opponent have discussed it openly and we do believe some of it can be attributed to tactics (the British are being very careful about positioning, limiting the numbers of units the Americans can fire back with, while maximizing the number of British units that are firing per turn...so the British are shooting more).  That would not seem to account for a 300% improvement over history though.

[rahamy]

To clarify, what scenario are you using? In the latest edition of the game with the 1.11 version update, there are multiple variants of the battle from several different designers. A couple of them with the "historical" moniker. At least one of these variants uses the "Alternative" PDT:

"The primary difference that players will note between the original PDT file and the optional alternate PDT file is that the alternate file will produce significantly higher casualties in certain circumstances."

So, it could very well be a matter of which PDT file is being used and the fire values for the weapons included...

[Steel God]

To clarify, what scenario are you using? In the latest edition of the game with the 1.11 version update, there are multiple variants of the battle from several different designers. A couple of them with the "historical" moniker. At least one of these variants uses the "Alternative" PDT:

"The primary difference that players will note between the original PDT file and the optional alternate PDT file is that the alternate file will produce significantly higher casualties in certain circumstances."

So, it could very well be a matter of which PDT file is being used and the fire values for the weapons included...

Hey Rich, we're playing the Bunker Hill A Scenario, which is listed as Historical.  I only see one Bunker Hill PDT file so I thing it is the "standard".  We are playing with phased play if that could have an impact, and also quality fire modifiers, which surely must contribute in regards to the British Grenadiers and Light Infantry Companies. 

While I have you, can you tell me what the "Cornwallis Cannon" Optional Rule does?  I can't seem to find a reference for it in the Manual. 

Thanks for your time.

[-72-]

[quote pid="445836" dateline="1629542780"]
"Cornwallis Cannon"
[/quote]

The reference was going to be based upon a tactic that Cornwallis did at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse - where he fired cannon into close combat, accepting friendly losses (basically out of desperation at that battle).

It's on page 27 of the RWB.pdf.

• Select Cornwallis Cannon to enable the ability for cannon fire to be added to a melee. This rule is motivated by the occurrence in the Battle of Guilford Court House where Cornwallis ordered his cannon to fire on a melee between his forces and the Americans. When this rule is in effect, the fire from one cannon unit can be added to an existing melee, but the cannon must be able to fire on the defending hex and the melee is automatically resolved when the cannon fire is added. Half of the fire value of the cannon is added to the melee attack strength of both sides in the melee and therefore affects both sides.
  

[Steel God]

[quote pid="445836" dateline="1629542780"]
"Cornwallis Cannon"

The reference was going to be based upon a tactic that Cornwallis did at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse - where he fired cannon into close combat, accepting friendly losses (basically out of desperation at that battle).

It's on page 27 of the RWB.pdf.

• Select Cornwallis Cannon to enable the ability for cannon fire to be added to a melee. This rule is motivated by the occurrence in the Battle of Guilford Court House where Cornwallis ordered his cannon to fire on a melee between his forces and the Americans. When this rule is in effect, the fire from one cannon unit can be added to an existing melee, but the cannon must be able to fire on the defending hex and the melee is automatically resolved when the cannon fire is added. Half of the fire value of the cannon is added to the melee attack strength of both sides in the melee and therefore affects both sides.
  

[/quote]

Ahhh, thank you for that.  I recall the incident and think that rule a nice bit of chrome.  I wonder how many people have actually tried it.  Seems it didn't work too well at Guilford.