Hi! It is great to read an AAR for a F&I game played with the Simple Seven Years Rules, it looks that they worked well without special adaptations! I enjoyed your AAR, a bloody battle and, as you say, a close run thing, although it didn't look like at first sight. Colorful pictures! Eager to see more games of yours! Cheers!
I strongly support your quote: "Perhaps if the guns get two hits the attacker should check morale. It also occurs to me that Indians should check morale when hit by artillery."
"The 50% breakpoint is easier to reach than we first thought. Retreating or weakened units count as half a unit routed towards your breakpoint, as did Prussian units on some terrain count against the Austrians in this scenarios. So even when few or no units have routed off the table, a side can still be in deep water if a lot of their units on the table are in bad shape.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 02:43:40 PM by vtsaogames » "
This important note of yours, I read in LAF forum just now! Very-very interesting, it may give a very realistic flavor to a big game! It is the main point why we must test Keith's new simple rules!
The British are highly unlikely to win. I could change the victory conditions so they call it a win if they last more than X turns. I often use unbalanced battles to test rules. If the British win this one easily, something is wrong. They badly need light infantry. Light infantry companies, Rodger's Rangers, the 80th Foot and such were developed after this whipping. And training for the line troops incorporated seeking some cover.
For the American Revolution, I use the Battle of Camden as a test for rules. The British should win easily. If they get whipped, the rules are off.
Edit: I am also just fascinated by the Monongahela. Some other unbalanced battles interest me too, like the similar 1791 Battle of the Wabash that saw the the US Army beaten by Indians in a fight much larger than Custer's defeat.
Last Edit: Jan 26, 2019 21:38:05 GMT by vtsaogames
Many of my battles are unbalanced (Parma, Melle, Bitonto), but that's how the historical battles were and sometimes I just learn, that it's enough to make once the experience that the battle is impossible to win with my army.
For Monongahela: I would include victory conditions as I did for my Pfaffenhofen-Scenario, where it's impossible for the French and Palatine troops to defeat the Austrians.
I ask myself how I would deal with Washington. It's to tempting, I would have to include him (the same with Karl Cura, a Bavarian hero, who never fought except the fightings around Burghausen, but he has to be a chance for the Bavarians to get one DASHING leader at least ). Now, how I would rate him? He lost a fort to the French and maybe the soldiers could not trust in him again. But he was an able commander with a good idea of discipline.
Perhaps Dependable would be fine.
By the way, I don't have any Indians, although the figures by Italeri are looking well.
Washington was charismatic and inspiring. His strategy was usually quite good, though his tactics were often questionable. He did learn from Forbes in 1758 that the last army standing wins. Finally, what makes him important to the early US is that he was honorable and forthright. His greatest service to the young country may have been facing down the coup attempt at Newburgh rather than his battlefield exploits.
We always rate generals on their battlefield performance. Washington's would be checkered. In an operational game he should be quite good at the marching.
He was bullet-proof, never getting so much as a minor wound. He passed that on to his friend St. Clair, but none of the other assets went with it. St. Clair was one of the 24 men in his 1,000+ strong force that escaped the battle of the Wabash unhurt, merely having musket ball holes in his clothes.