*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 19, 2024, 01:27:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1689674
  • Total Topics: 118288
  • Online Today: 681
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 01:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: Monongahela 1755 revisited  (Read 1986 times)

Offline vtsaogames

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1523
    • Corlears Hook Fencibles
Monongahela 1755 revisited
« on: January 25, 2019, 02:34:12 PM »
A glutton for punishment, I took on the role of Braddock in my French & Indian War scenario
https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/



And the glorious general led the advance
With a glorious swish of his sword and his lance
And a glorious clank of his tin-plated pants. - Dr. Seuss


My blog: http://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/

Offline Marine0846

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Galactic Brain
  • *
  • Posts: 6612
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2019, 05:06:44 PM »
Monongahela is a very interesting battle.
I played it out many years ago.
The British held on, but were really shot up.
Washington was killed.
Braddock lead two charges at the end of the game.
He saved what was left of the British.
Semper Fi, Mac

Offline Inkpaduta

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Mastermind
  • *
  • Posts: 1331
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2019, 06:14:13 PM »
Five turns in 2 hours! Way, way to slow for my tastes.
Looked like a get game however.

Offline vtsaogames

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1523
    • Corlears Hook Fencibles
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2019, 07:56:06 PM »
Five turns in 2 hours! Way, way to slow for my tastes.
Looked like a get game however.

Two things slowed it down. Our faster players weren't there. A new release of the rules (a work in progress) led to a substantial delay while I found out where the risk to generals was. We usually do this about 15-20 minutes per turn.

Offline Inkpaduta

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Mastermind
  • *
  • Posts: 1331
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2019, 11:21:23 PM »
That makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying. :)

Offline FifteensAway

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4643
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2019, 05:03:43 AM »
Nice game.  Had similar issues with the Indians being way too powerful - using Rank and File.  I keep tinkering to get it right plus slowly working on my own rules tailored to my own collection.  With my companies at 42 figures each, more or less, commercial rules generally don't work.  For Rank and File, I cut my companies in half which gives double the number of units but not my long term goal.

Will look out for more of your games.

Offline Baron von Wreckedoften

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 871
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2019, 09:36:52 AM »
Monongahela is a very interesting battle.
I played it out many years ago.
The British held on, but were really shot up.
Washington was killed.
Braddock lead two charges at the end of the game.
He saved what was left of the British.

Well done for salvaging the reputation of a competent, if unspectacular Guardsman.
No plan survives first contact with the dice.

Offline vtsaogames

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1523
    • Corlears Hook Fencibles
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2019, 08:48:39 PM »
Had similar issues with the Indians being way too powerful - using Rank and File.

What made them too powerful was my period variant. The rules as written would curb that somewhat. That said, this battle should be very tough for the Brits since they were virtually destroyed in the actual battle.

That said, I've read about the opposite. Many years back the Courier printed a report of a large Monongahela game. Early on the Indians took a hit and failed morale. Other Indians saw this and failed their morale tests and Braddock marched on with nary a scratch on his force. I think in real life Braddock believed (based on what he'd been told) that the Indians only won when they ambushed their enemy and would not stand up in combat. He thought he'd get the result that last game gave. Instead, he discovered that woodland Indians made excellent light infantry - when they were in the mood to fight.

Offline DintheDin

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 6225
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2019, 09:04:33 PM »
Instead, he discovered that woodland Indians made excellent light infantry - when they were in the mood to fight.


Says all!
Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates. – Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

Offline jaytee

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 44
    • The Wargamer
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2019, 05:40:38 PM »
Nice report and a fascinating period.
HISTORICAL WARGAMER BLOG: https://miniaturewar.games

Offline vtsaogames

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1523
    • Corlears Hook Fencibles
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2019, 02:27:06 AM »
Friends of mine designed the old board game "Mohawk", a game of the entire French & Indian War. The Indians were ferocious in the wilderness and pretty bad in open ground and sieges. They lacked staying power. The French/Indian player rolled one die for Indian marches/activation and another for the Indians, so was never sure that a combined stack would move together. Perhaps bad omens/medicine put the warriors off. Or the Indians set off on their own while the French waited for more supplies/whatever.

Whenever Indians took part in a victory, for each British/Colonial unit that was lost, one Indian unit went back home with trophies. The result of Indian victories in the wilderness often saw a single French Courer de Bois unit remaining.

If anything, the Indians were perhaps not capricious enough.

Offline FifteensAway

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4643
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2019, 03:15:12 AM »
That's is the prefect word for native American commitment in the FIW: capricious.  I think I will use that in my own rules somehow.   ;)

Offline vtsaogames

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1523
    • Corlears Hook Fencibles
Re: Monongahela 1755 revisited
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2019, 12:20:57 PM »
I keep tinkering to get it right plus slowly working on my own rules tailored to my own collection.  With my companies at 42 figures each, more or less, commercial rules generally don't work.  For Rank and File, I cut my companies in half which gives double the number of units but not my long term goal.

Post of Honour doesn't count figures. All you need do is adjust movement and ranges so they jive with your unit frontage. More than three hits and your unit is weakened and in trouble, more than six hits it routs and is gone, after inflicting hits om friends nearby or run through.