Wars in America: A 'how-to' AAR

[loki100]

Just to ask for help. I'm taking the french side in a pbem game. But Montcalm was killed right in 1756 by a little group of indian his 7000 troops attacked while going toward Crown Point. How can I win without my only 3 stars leader and the best general of the scenario.

its more difficult ... you do have other good commanders so I'd group them to lead your largest force - keep the bloke with the 'training' trait with your militia and he'll convert them to regulars. What you'll really lose is the ability to form a couple of small independent corps as you'll need to bring your various commanders together - remember that in WiA CPs stack differently to RoP so quantity can be used as a substitute for quality. Unless you are doing lots of sieges (& in which case you're doing well), Montcalm's particular traits are not that essential

but it is a problem - you have to watch those English pretending to be Indians

[General_Hoth]

As i see it, I got 3 two stars generals: Boulamarque, leading the war in Acadie, Rigaud (canadian) leading the colonial force near Fort Niagara and fighting for Oswego and Lévis, training my militias. Levis being the only trainer I got, I can't count on him...The fight is going hard in Acadie but it's far from lost...And I can't disengage because i don't have ship for an evacuation. So Boulamarque can't go back to lead Montcalm army. And Rigaud can't command french regular...

I'm screwed (je suis fait )

[loki100]

yep ... sounds bad, its a problem with the relatively high leader losses - but I think its realistic given the relative exposure of commanders in the North American as opposed to the European wars

[General_Hoth]

but unrealistic as you can be sure Louis XV would have named a new commander the very moment he would have heard the news

[General_Hoth]

end of the debate, the save was corrupted by the host so we're starting back. Cette fois, c'est la guerre!

[2Coats]

Subscribed... gonna catch-up with this over milk and cornflakes tomorrow morning!

[Narwhal]

June 1761 – Montcalm moves out !



June 1761 sees some decisive actions. And a nice explanation.

Quebec is now under siege.



My army is less powerful than the garrison, but Loki100 is not moving, probably because a large part of the “power” of the garrison is actually fixed guns.

But the most decisive action is the French attack on my troops at Joliette. Despite an outstanding commander (Montcalm) and superior numbers, they lost decisively :



The French had a superior number and excellent leadership, so why did they lost ? Well, some of the reasons are explained on the picture (I was in defense, with good commanders). But the most decisive reason is frontage.

Amateur’s corner : Frontage

Introduction – Battles

I won’t get into details on how battles are calculated, but let me remind you quickly how it happens :
- First hour : the troops engaged shoot at the longest range possible (here : 3 for some of Loki’s guns – at this distance my troops could not shoot back). After a “round” of firing, everyone advances and fires again (range 2 : my troops were at range), and again (range one), and then assault (which tends to be much more bloody than the fire phases).
- After the assault phase, the second hour starts, and new troops are engaged, at maximum range again (which granted is NOT so logical, but it works quite well nonetheless). There can up to 6 hours per battle. If after the 6 days the battle is not finished… it will start again next day.
- Between each “hour” (or maybe “phase”), the game calculates which units retreat (which is okeish) or flee in panic (which is worse), and also if the general on the whole orders a general retreat.
- There are a few other things that can happen during a phase, like a cavalry charge with special rules, sharpshooting, etc, but let’s not get into that.
The question is – which units engage ? In a small battle, everyone does. But in a larger battle, there is a “limit” on the number of units that can be engaged in each hour. How is it calculated ?
The reference is on this webpage – it is for AACW but it works exactly the same in WiA. Let me explain it.

CUQ, SUQ and Weight

Each terrain / weather combination has a “Combat Unit Quota” (CUQ) and a “Support Unit Quota” (SUQ – sorry). This is the maximum weight of units (respectively combat units and support units) able to engage in battle each hour. You can have this number by opening the database here !.

For instance, extracted from the file, here is the CUQ and the SUQ for the Forest :


The battle occurred in rainy weather (“mud”), so the CUQ was 130 and the SUQ 40.


Similarly, each element has a given weight for each “terrain / weather” combination. From the same file, here are the weight :



As you can see, the weight of regular infantry elements is 9, while the weight of rangers is 6 and the weight of light infantry is 7.

How many engages ?

For each side and for each hour, the game picks combat units randomly until the total weight of the unit picked is equal to the CUQ, and then adds support units until their total weight is the SUQ. So guns don’t lower the number of infantry you can engage, it comes in “bonus”.
In this case, as Loki100 had mostly regular infantry, he could only commit 130/9 =14 elements – thus Loki100 had absolutely no advantage in number in this battle – at least in the first rounds.
Meanwhile, as the English, I had rangers (weight : 6), Light (weight : 7), and 20 elements of heavy (weight : 9). This means that I committed at worse (for me) the same number of elements, maybe more (but light), and those elements had a good chance of being of better quality (heavy). AND I was in defense.
Similarly, even though he had guns, each element of guns (“wheeled”) weights 10, so he could only field 4 of his 8 elements of guns.
Every hour, new units engage battle and replace the one that fought, so having a superior number, even beyond the CUQ, can be useful as it allows you to bring fresh troops to the front.

Who engages ?

So who gets picked ? It is fairly random, but here is an edited copy –paste from the wiki on biaises in the randomness:
- If the unit is already engaged, large increase of the chance to be picked. This only applies after the first hour, of course.
- If not already engaged, the number of hits (i.e., health) an element has (e.g., militia have lower total hits than line infantry so are less likely to be engaged).
- If the element is routed, chance to be picked is reduced. If it is, tough luck.


There is no precedence advantage for different types of elements, and no bonus if you have just one of something (like a sharpshooter), but the element’s special ability will still apply to its unit even if not engaged (first fire for sharpshooter applies even as a special “fire” phase just for them, and then they are not engaged).
If supply wagons are present, the game engine will not assign more than one supply element to combat as long as there are other types of support elements (e.g., artillery) available to fill the Support Units Quota.

How many engages – part II

I lied a little because (still according to the wiki), there are some additional modifiers to how many units engage.
Armies in offensive posture get a -25% to their CUQ in Fort and City (attacking them is tough), and in very difficult terrains (NOT forest, more like swamps, mountains and hills) in rainy or blizzard weather . This did not apply to this battle.
All armies in open terrain (including woods, but NOT forest) get a bonus
- to their CUQ of 25*level of the leader * offensive/defensive (as applicable) rating of the leader,
- to their SUQ of 10*level of the leader * offensive/defensive (as applicable) rating of the leader.
So had Montcalm been in a open terrain, he would have brought his army a whooping CUQ bonus of 25*3(stars)*6(offensive) = 450 in CUQ. Huge. But not applicable here.

Other “terrain” facts that helped me

The terrain / weather combination also gives bonus and malus to attack and defense according to range. Let’s take an example. Loki100’s gun had a range of 4 :



Tough luck, it is hard to see a target from far in a forest, and everyone range had a minus 1 malus, and in any case max range is 3 :



That’s why my infantry with range 3 did only shot at range 2 :



That’s also one firing phase Loki100 did not have with his guns.
Moreover, even at that range, there is a 25% malus to fire :



There is also additional protection in forest for the defender, as you can see, and also a bonus to defense at assault (wrongly called “DefFire”, but it is assault as there is no fire at 0 range). Also note that my highlanders are better shoot than the French regulars, but more so much better in assault combat, so the fact that ranged combat was difficult advantaged them even more.

[Note that there are datas for range 4 and 5 because the developers never bothered to take them out. Those datas are never used – that’s why there are “better” than in range 3.]

So as you can see, good weather and good terrain can be a difference between like and death. On the first glance I should have lost the battle, but when you analyse what happened, it is fairly obvious why I won. Not that I would have forecast it, though.

A little alternative history

Hypothesis : Had the battle occurred in a clear prairie by good weather (CUQ : 180 + Montcalm bonus 450 = 630, weight of infantry : 4), he could have brought 79 elements in battle and all his guns, who would had shot at maximum range, against my 56 elements, most likely forcing me to retreat. But because Loki100 could not engage all his more numerous troops in battle, my “better” troops beat his army.

End of the amateur’s corner – hope it was clear enough

Now, just a few couple more events :

My reinforcements are coming :



Since Montcalm’s army is weakened, I will attack Montréal once the reinforcements are there !

And on the Ontario, much scouting is done :

[General_Hoth]

That's unbelievable! Let's hope Montcalm will give you the same medecine when you attack!

[Stuyvesant]

Ouch! Well, for loki. It looks like you shot down his last best hope at stalling your offensive into Canada. You're putting multiple cities under siege and his main field army has been wrecked (I still don't know the engine well enough, but I can only imagine that 58 hits on the retreat means an awful lot of damage done).

[now]

The Brits have been in control of the game since a little after the start, but that was the killing blow. God Save the King, I suppose.

[loki100]

First up, thanks to Narwhal for such a good explanation of mechanics its easy not to pay too much attention. A lot of work went into that as well as a lot of knowledge about the AGEOD engine.

In RoP, RuS, PoN, you get quite detailed battle reports to look over and can often work out a lot, in WiA you just get the screen and the wee images, a lot harder for someone new to work out why something went wrong.

Now I still think the French were demoralised by the sight not only of men in skirts, but men in skirts in the pouring rain and during the mosquito season - I mean it is pretty tough stuff.

That's unbelievable! Let's hope Montcalm will give you the same medecine when you attack!

I try, I take the chance that his troops were disorganised too and would leave their entrenchments to try and follow up their victory

Ouch! Well, for loki. It looks like you shot down his last best hope at stalling your offensive into Canada. You're putting multiple cities under siege and his main field army has been wrecked (I still don't know the engine well enough, but I can only imagine that 58 hits on the retreat means an awful lot of damage done).

damage ... pah, a mere skin wound, the big decisive offensive is just rumbling into gear. And Quebec has food surpluses that would have shamed the EU in the 1970s.

The Brits have been in control of the game since a little after the start, but that was the killing blow. God Save the King, I suppose.

to some extent true, but then the idea was to give an insight into the game and its often easier to do that from errors than from highly competent game play.

[loki100]

Ok, so where were we. My fleet was moving to Frontenac to gather the main army and retreated from a small skirmish;



and Montcalm's attack was thrawted:



as an aside the lost elements in falling back wasn't due to particularly high casualties but that a lot of my elements are very weak in manpower, so combat losses convert to lost elements pretty quickly from now on.

Anyway, no time to regard the spilt milk - time to regain the initiative



strike south of Ontario again, burn that annoying fort and that secures one flank - if there aren't too many English reserves I may get away with a lot more too.



On the main front I order Montcalm back again - my hope is that Narwhal will have left his trenches and I might catch him on the march.

At Quebec, about 50-55% of my combat power is either fixed or in guns. But ... I was much too sure that it was simply a case of wait to winter and the English go away. I should have attacked with the mobile force, as you can see Narwhal's forces have poor cohesion.

Laying aside everything else, this was my most enduring mistake of being far too passive in the sieges, I lost the chance to take advantage of the extent that regulars suffer when moving in Canada

Edit - don't forget to vote in the ACA awards, link in my signature

[morningSIDEr]

Now I still think the French were demoralised by the sight not only of men in skirts, but men in skirts in the pouring rain and during the mosquito season - I mean it is pretty tough stuff.

There are few more frightening prospects than witnessing men in skirts. Added to that the probable bagpipes and it is little wonder the poor French were defeated!

That was a nasty defeat for loki at the Battle of Depot! Good that there are still some options available for France, hopefully a few prove successful as things are really looking worrisome now.

[Stuyvesant]

damage ... pah, a mere skin wound, the big decisive offensive is just rumbling into gear. And Quebec has food surpluses that would have shamed the EU in the 1970s.

I like your optimistic (less kind souls might say 'delusional') spirit. And I appreciate your historical EU/EEC/EC joke - which probably says more about my sense of humor than anything else.

Good luck regaining your footing and even moreso good luck burning down that fort. If all else fails, at least you can play to your strengths, right?

[Narwhal]

July 1761 – First time is strategy, second time is comedy !

Montcalm cannot admit defeat. After a defeat in June 1761 – he tries again to attack Joliette. A major blunder.



His troops are exhausted, my reinforcements arrived so it is time for the coup-de-grâce on Montréal :



Meanwhile, Quebec is still under siege :



On the Ontario, I intercept a scouting party by Pontiac – I guess if I could, er, get rid of him, I could avoid a war in a few years :



He escaped, though.

Finally, my scouts in Frontenac report no defense (I did not know that Loki100 had put his army in the bateaux, in which the “power” of the transported army “disappears”), so I order a landing from Depot Niagara.



A luck my own bateaux where in Bateaux. If they had been in Oswego, I would have sent them from there – thus allowing his landing to go relatively unchallenged !

[General_Hoth]

Why on earth did he attack again at the same spot without reinforcement?

[loki100]

Why on earth did he attack again at the same spot without reinforcement?

it was actually a mistake ... honest, I thought that Narwhal would try and follow up his victory and that I could catch him in the wrong posture ... not a very good plan though to be fair

[Stuyvesant]

Narwhal, very snappy title for your update.

It seems Montcalm's magic is fading... He's not exactly living up to the hype anymore. Of course, he's been hit by a freight train two times in a row now; most people would be a little worse for wear.

[General_Hoth]

Off topic. I'm actually reading on the War of Conquest (Québécois's name for the French and Indian Wars) and I really can't get how the french colonial force are represented in the game. What we see as colonial line infantry take the place, and uniform, of the "compagnie franche de la Marine", elite body of nearly 6000 french and canadians marines with canadian officiers fighting indian style (petite guerre). What I don't get is why they are NOT represented like light infantry (like the rangers or Courriers des bois, who should be named coureurs de bois...)

[loki100]

Narwhal, very snappy title for your update.

It seems Montcalm's magic is fading... He's not exactly living up to the hype anymore. Of course, he's been hit by a freight train two times in a row now; most people would be a little worse for wear.

he still wins some battles ... my plan now is the twin bastions of Quebec (defensive) and south of Ontario (offensive) with Montcalm designed to keep what I think is the bulk of the English army occupied around Mont Royal - works not too badly for a while

Off topic. I'm actually reading on the War of Conquest (Québécois's name for the French and Indian Wars) and I really can't get how the french colonial force are represented in the game. What we see as colonial line infantry take the place, and uniform, of the "compagnie franche de la Marine", elite body of nearly 6000 french and canadians marines with canadian officiers fighting indian style (petite guerre). What I don't get is why they are NOT represented like light infantry (like the rangers or Courriers des bois, who should be named coureurs de bois...)

Probably best put into the AGEOD forum, I'd guess someone could explain what design rationale they used. It may be a balance thing as otherwise the French would have very few line/heavy infantry formations?