Playing my first battle of 1776 - we went with Bunker Hill (the a version which is the historical one). The combat seems particularly (and unrealistically) bloody to me. For context, we're at the mid-way point (turn 12 complete) and it has been conducted essentially along historical lines. The Colonials have stayed on their hills behind their embankments and fences, while the British have advanced both directly against Breeds Hill and along the northern coast road. Little to no melee combat has occurred, this has been very much a line up and shoot at each other affair so far. Through the end of 12 turns the Colonials have suffered slightly less than 1300 casualties and the British have suffered slightly more than 900. To begin with I would think the attacker would suffer higher losses than the defender (in most games that is so). The rate of loss for the British seems to be on a path for being slightly higher than historical (call it 125% for argument), but the Colonials seem to be on a path for 250% of historical.
I think that if Colonial Era combat had 100 men dropping every 5 minutes the battles would have been much more decisive than they were, so my question is: "Is what we're seeing typical"? If other people don't experience these type of fire results then I'll have to conclude that perhaps one or some combination of the optional rules we selected could be contributing. I appreciate any input anyone might have who has some experience with the game.
It may be that you are getting a lot of enfilade shooting which inflicts more casualties. In my game the British got slaughtered - the artillery is next to useless but worth a lot of points....and seems very vulnerable to enemy artillery even at long range yet can hit one man if they are lucky.
(08-17-2021, 12:01 AM)Steel God Wrote: [ -> ]Playing my first battle of 1776 - we went with Bunker Hill (the a version which is the historical one). The combat seems particularly (and unrealistically) bloody to me. For context, we're at the mid-way point (turn 12 complete) and it has been conducted essentially along historical lines. The Colonials have stayed on their hills behind their embankments and fences, while the British have advanced both directly against Breeds Hill and along the northern coast road. Little to no melee combat has occurred, this has been very much a line up and shoot at each other affair so far. Through the end of 12 turns the Colonials have suffered slightly less than 1300 casualties and the British have suffered slightly more than 900. To begin with I would think the attacker would suffer higher losses than the defender (in most games that is so). The rate of loss for the British seems to be on a path for being slightly higher than historical (call it 125% for argument), but the Colonials seem to be on a path for 250% of historical.
I think that if Colonial Era combat had 100 men dropping every 5 minutes the battles would have been much more decisive than they were, so my question is: "Is what we're seeing typical"? If other people don't experience these type of fire results then I'll have to conclude that perhaps one or some combination of the optional rules we selected could be contributing. I appreciate any input anyone might have who has some experience with the game.
I've reached the same conclusion for this (1776) and Seven Years War, along with the Napoleonic Series. It's sometimes difficult if not impossible for an attacker to achieve a historic result. Less so with the ACW series, but it's still there. Melee should be more decisive. All that shooting was really about closing and attacking with the bayonet back then.
It could be due to poor tactics (usually my particular problem!), or maybe the .pdt being wrong. Either way, you're right, something is a bit off I think.
Another consideration might be the way points are figured. Again a pdt thing. The problem is adjusting it, and both sides agreeing the results are what's being looked for.
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.
Also, in regards to
Quote:All that shooting was really about closing and attacking with the bayonet back then.
That's not exactly correct. Infantry almost never got to bayonet point in that era, at least not in open terrain. (In woods or towns, it's a whole different process, and bayonets and clubbed muskets were very much in play.)
Certainly, the doctrine of some nations (for instance, the British) called for prepatory musket fire to disorder their enemy (others like the French would more often just go to close). However, the different sides almost never actually made it to contact. The attackers would advance, the defenders would try to shoot them up, and then one side or the other would have their morale slip, and either the defenders would start falling back, or the attackers would lose momentum and halt (and then fall back.) It was all an enormous game of applied psychology. Whose nerve broke first?
So, even in what we think of as the "melee phase", in open terrain, the losses are really just more musket fire the vast majority of time.
Note: all of the above applies to infantry melee. Cavalry of course is looking to use their sabers in melee.
(08-19-2021, 02:16 AM)Gary McClellan Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Also, in regards to
Quote:All that shooting was really about closing and attacking with the bayonet back then.
That's not exactly correct. Infantry almost never got to bayonet point in that era, at least not in open terrain. (In woods or towns, it's a whole different process, and bayonets and clubbed muskets were very much in play.)
Certainly, the doctrine of some nations (for instance, the British) called for prepatory musket fire to disorder their enemy (others like the French would more often just go to close). However, the different sides almost never actually made it to contact. The attackers would advance, the defenders would try to shoot them up, and then one side or the other would have their morale slip, and either the defenders would start falling back, or the attackers would lose momentum and halt (and then fall back.) It was all an enormous game of applied psychology. Whose nerve broke first?
So, even in what we think of as the "melee phase", in open terrain, the losses are really just more musket fire the vast majority of time.
Note: all of the above applies to infantry melee. Cavalry of course is looking to use their sabers in melee.
Point well taken. I was just thinking about my original post and was considering editing it a little....in a convoluted way what I was trying to say is that to me it sometimes seems as though the defense is overall too strong and the odds are really stacked against the attacker. I'm not saying this isn't the way it should be, but sometimes defenders appear to be made of steel and stand up to a lot of fire without wavering.
The OP makes the point that the casualty count seems low...I understand that KIA/WIA/MIA issues are as old as warfare itself, and that some reports might exaggerate the casualties. I still agree though, that it just doesn't "feel" right. I will also admit that "feel" is not the same as hard statistical data. I think the issue is one of immersion, where you feel more like you're commanding in an 18th or 19th Century battle than watching a statistical analysis.
Still, the JTS system is best I've seen for operational combat in this time period. I might nit-pick, but really that's what editors are for. Too bad the Black Powder games force editing by hand using things like Notepad. I've always wondered why when series like PzC have built in editing for everything but the maps.
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.
We continually try and adjust the system to make the player work a bit harder to gain intelligence & also to impose as many restrictions as we can to model period doctrine, without making it too cumbersome on players. Some recent examples would be reducing max visible range to encourage scouting as well as the no Detached Melee optional rule (Nap & M&P series in latest updates). EAW series also received the No Detached Melee optional rule last round, but I didn't tweak visibility too much...
If you have any interest in having some material created for Musket and Pike as free add on's that you can offer for this period and at least up to King Phillips War -it is doable. In other words, largely I'd like the ok to make and use some custom maps -seeing as the period has terrain that is a bit wilder than Europe ...
Alternately, I'd be interested if you ever decided to licence (etc) the engine if that is ever an option - however, I also realise that would involve a contract and in my case having a lawyer review it. Am entirely serious about that.
I can drop you a line, but wanted to flag it here first, seeing as I know how flooded a high volume inbox can get.
Hi Steve, hope you are well. Drop me a note at the support account and we can chat.
(08-19-2021, 09:34 AM)rahamy Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Steve, hope you are well. Drop me a note at the support account and we can chat.
Will do, sir. :) - will put something together.
(08-18-2021, 11:42 PM)agmoss99 Wrote: [ -> ]It may be that you are getting a lot of enfilade shooting which inflicts more casualties. In my game the British got slaughtered - the artillery is next to useless but worth a lot of points....and seems very vulnerable to enemy artillery even at long range yet can hit one man if they are lucky.
Both of us are pretty good about minding our flanks and minimizing enfilade opportunities. If anything i would say that the nature of the terrain and the onus to attack being on the British, they have likely been exposed to more enfilade fire than the Colonials have, but have taken less casualties overall. As for the artillery, I sort of agree with you on that score. The American guns were taken out early on by long range British cannon fire, and at least 2 of the British guns have succumbed to musket fire from the colonials (the British moved their guns up close after the American guns were neutralized). I do believe that in our game the British Cannons are accounting for some of the spike in Colonial Casualties we are seeing. Being up close they can usually be counted on to kill 3 or 4 with shot, and we've seen results as high as 6 and 8 from single shots.