Wars in America: A 'how-to' AAR

August 1759 - the war hots up

Moving into August 1759, the war becomes even busier. My worry is getting Montcalm back to supply (as in the comments above I ignored the obvious and simple solution of building a depot at Fontesac) and I think Narwhal tried to take advantage of Montcalm being away from Mont Royal.

Anyway:



No surprise. Of course those Indian villages out there are now very exposed but I'm sure that Narwhal won't attack such defenseless places ... ?



and one of his columns attacks Mont Royal, Montcalm is at least 1 turns march away and with diminished supply (despite meeting up with the supply wagon I sent - should have sent 2). Anyway, its easily held and I doubt that it will be in direct danger this year.

Note that for some reason Narwhal had ordered his troops to concentrate on killing my loyal Indians ... why?



A bit of a wierd battle. Obviously a column arrives in St Frederick just as I attack, so I get badly beaten - but if you note Narwhal lost some elements in retreat. So my guess is he must have had relatively cautious orders and broke off despite the victory.

Writing this up now, I think I should have split up Montcalm's force and taken the best bit across to St Frederick, if it had worked the pay off would have been the destruction of that English force at Mont Royal, but of course the risk was the destruction of my only really mobile force.



At Quebec the English arrive (I've shown the relative strengths of the fleets too). To put the discussion above in context, my mobile force has about 350-380 power (the other 400 being fixed militia and the fort guns), that English force is about 600. So I'm not utterly sure I made the wrong choice to defend. They only have 2 supply units, so we'll order up some extra delicious baguettes and settle down to enjoy the city life ... every now and then hurling insults over the walls[1].



and Savannah gets a new visit. Should be able to take it next turn - I'm a bit worried that Narwhal left a reasonably force down there, but hopefully its mostly local militia.



and with the fall of Detroit, I think I've lost, unless by some miracle I can recapture all the main VP cities. My only chance is to destroy one of the main English columns - unlikely but not impossible.

[1] - the Monty Python bit of course - I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries ... Is there someone else up there we can talk to? .... No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

TheExecuter said:

Looking at Narwhal's posts, you WERE outnumbered. Heavily.

The problem Narwhal has is supplying his armies once they advance beyond Albany. You only meet smaller forces because that is all that he can supply. He can, though, just keep replacing the columns with more troops from his vast pool.

Click to expand...

that was my working assumption, I did manage one raid south of Ontario in 1760 and found a very large force. Makes sense as if he brought it all into Canada his supply problems would have been the biggest hindrence regardless of any notional combat power

ANO1453 said:

What does that "Sudden death" mean?

Click to expand...

Its one of the game options, so if your NM dips below a low (& hard to reach) score the game ends. Useful in RoP where NM can fluctuate wildly if you have a bad turn, less useful in WiA given that very few in-game events affect it. It means you could aim for a military victory rather than one based on occupation of the key cities.

ANO1453 said:

So the Victory is calculated on a VP basis?

Click to expand...

Not quite, its on one of three rules. If one side controls a given set of towns, they win outright. Now this is a bit misleading, as it appears from the screenshot above there are 8, in fact Narwhal has a secret ninth to conquer. I'm not sure if that ninth only appears when he has the first 8, or after the game goes beyond a certain date. Equally I'm not sure if I have a secret #9 as well, but I recall an earlier post in the thread where it was made clear that even if I'd captured Albany and Oswego right at the start didn't mean I won. So, I thiink, there are 3 rules to win:

a) hold the 8 Objective Cities at the end of the game; or
b) hold the 8 plus the secret ninth at any stage in the game - the game then ends (which is what happened with us); or
c) if you get to 1764 and no one owns all 8, the game is decided on who has the most VPs.

Even if I pull off a remarkable turn of events, I think I am now so far behind on VPs, and will struggle to recapture Louisbourg (which is one of the 8 objectives) due to the strength of the RN, I don't think I can win due to the VP imbalance.

With this in mind, I've invented my own personal goals. If you've played RoP, the Prussians get a huge mob of English reinforcements in 1761, well those are the units I'm currently keeping very occupied in Canada. Without them, France would have probably won the Rhineland campaign in the Continental part of the Seven Years War, and that added to Austria stalemating Prussia would have ended the war in favour of the Austro-French alliance. Strategically, the goal for the French in Canada was not to win, but to offer up a defense that forced the English to send troops to a secondary sector. So if I hold out beyond 1761, those English troops will never be committed to the war in Europe. If not, the peace treaties at the end of the war may well have allowed France to retain some of its colonial empire (India or Canada) ... voila, early-modern Europe looks different.

I find the Seven Years War fascinating for a lot of reasons. Its overlooked by concentration on the wars of the French Republic/Empire, its an historic oddity (the near impossible to imagine alliance between Hapsburgs and Bourbons), the way the style of warfare sits between the over-structured style of the early 18th Century and the mobility of the French revolution, but also its global reach - Europe, India and North America. Add to this the way that individuals fought for the 'wrong' side. So being parochial, there were Scottish battalions fighting for both the French & the English. People like James Keith, fought for Prussia, having only recently been employed by Russia, having fled Scotland after the failed Jacobite revolt of 1745-6. He was on the same side as Duke of Cumberland (aka the Butcher of Culoden) who had defeated the Jacobite revolt and who commanded the English-Hannoverian armies on the Rhine. Add on the way the consequences flowed into both the American and French revolutions and you have a conflict that was pivotal to the emergence of modern Europe.

Stuyvesant said:

Quebec's an interesting situation: the combination of your mobile and fixed forces should be too powerful for the British, but your mobile forces by themselves are outclassed by the invaders. Is this a stalemate in the making, or does Narwhal have to withdraw those forces when winter comes? Or can he keep them supplied by the Royal Navy?

Speaking of the Royal Navy, can it make its way onto Lake Erie, or do your cities/fortresses block their passage?

Good to see you back at the gates of Savannah. I'm reminded of Rick's parting words to Elsa (in Casablanca): "We'll always have Paris." No matter how the war ends for you (and it appears it will end badly ), you'll always have the memory of long-suffering Savannah to console yourself. Do you at least get to burn the place?

Click to expand...

This year he ends up wandering off ... which gave me a false sense of security that as long as I kept his other army south of Mont Royal, it was all heading for a stalemate. I think he solved it by raising masses more supply wagons (& stealing some of mine), but I'm not actually that sure.

Fortunately, even if Quebec falls the RN can't enter the Great Lakes, the region around Mont Royal has too shallow a river for ocean going ships (I tried to pull back my combat fleet to Lake Ontario as I could see them being very useful there)

Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to burn down Savannah as its a level 2 city, so we're have to settle for teaching the inhabitants how to conjugate the past subjunctive of irregular verbs (they're fun in Italian so I imagine are a wee challenge as well in French?) ... as an act of revenge instead.

Bornego said:

With the help of Canadian militias you stand a decent chance to have the bigger army against the first invasion attempt the British make against Quebec. If he attempts an amphibious directly into the region he risk complete annihilation if your army is outside the city walls. Only if the odds are very favourably for him (> 5:1) he might succeed. A good opponent will land in a neighbouring province. He will have to consider supply which will limit the seize of his initial landing force.

I share your doubts. But there seems to be no sure strategy when it comes to Louisbourg's defense. If you stay inside the city walls a skilled player like Narwhal will eventually defeat you. With my tactics the outcome is probably the same.
That said, my tactics keep your options open for a longer time. You can always retreat inside the city walls if the English army at Cap Breton gets too big. If you want to hold Louisbourg as long as possible why give up the first line of defense without a fight?
If you reinforce an army outside Louisbourg's walls with some regiments from Quebec you stand a fair chance of beating the English back. Defense posture + hold at all costs + the Louisbourg guns should be enough to defeat a superior English force.

Click to expand...

The final bit was what I didn't have the confidence to try but possibly should. Either in conjunction with a load more supply or by trying the gambit of defending outside. It wasn't till I suffered a bad defeat did I remember the way the rules on terrain and frontages limit a large army. In general, I was too cautious and with the weaker side thats ultimately fatal. You have to be prepared to gamble more and I'd certainly do a much more aggressive strategy on any future replays. I think I can see how the French could win, or at least give the English player a fright on the way. As Narwhal says earlier, he was never exactly on the edge, except at one or two short lived moments.

lodilefty said:

To clarify: WIA has a slightly different rule: NM will NOT trigger victory or defeat. Sudden death wil trigger (if activated by the scenario design) if all Objectives and >50% of the "Strategic Cities" are controlled.

(In FIW, this is striaight forward. In the AWI scenarios, remember that Control has some rules re: Loyalty.)

See http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/WIA_Manual#Automatic_Victory.2F_Defeat for rules. We are attempting to get thte manual up to date at the Wiki!

Click to expand...

thanks, that does explain it. I was just looking at my final screenshot when all of a sudden there were 9 (English occupied) Objective Cities, but looking at it again, the city at the bottom of the list both put Narwhal over 50% of the strategic cities and was the last one he took.

In mitigation, from my perspective, I was never playing to win, so ignored the rules on how to. The idea was to do a PBEM AAR that would explain the game, in particular to others used to the Paradox game system. In that, me bumblng around was as valuable as Narwhal actually explainning what was really going on.

September 1759: A bit of a stand-off

After the drama of July and August, September was mostly quiet. There was a skirmish around the old Fort Niagara and I won a naval battle on Lake Ontario (which was nice).



Around Quebec, stalemate settles in. The French troops bake even more delicious breads, the English eat their boring rations. We trade cannon balls. As you can see I had lots of guns there & a mound of supply wagons. Almost paradise really.



Mont Royal is more a worry. Not the siege, but the state of Montcalm's army. I halt his march one province short so Narwhal can't see that its weakened. If the siege doesn't lift I'll need to try and force him off, but there is a bit of supply at La Presentation if I need it.



now ... that is nice. 3 units and a NM point. So we'll wander up to Augusta and do the same again.



and I order up some more reinforcements. Again with hindsight, I now think I should have ordered either a combat naval unit for Lake Ontario and really sealed my dominance or the extra supply wagons.

Stuyvesant said:

So, how much supply can Montcalm's army take in while it's camped out in the open? Enough to restore the supply situation? Or at least enough to move on to Mont Royal?

And how soon does winter come to Canada? October? November? Either way, it looks like it's almost time for everyone to hunker down again.

Click to expand...

General_Hoth said:

THis is really a hard situation. All depend of Montcalm... Is there enought supplies at La Présentation? you can't lift Montreal's siege without supplies...

Click to expand...

I can pick up just enough that I can do an attack, which with a sortie as well should have dislodged Narwhal (he'd of been risking being trapped by winter too), as it is, next turn, he moves off in any case.

Winter is variable within small limits. Certainly Dec-March forget moving regulars except for short lunges from structure to structure, but Oct-Nov is a gamble and we had one year where May was still winter. So its not a given, and that is important, as the short 'summers' favour the defense and a year with a long summer favours the 'offense'.

Narwhal said:

Back from Italy. I might post a couple updates in the coming week. BTW : I am not a student anymore - it is an "exam" to get into the French administration

I wanted to do a full post, but I lost it at the last moment so a few points :

- Your ambush in Frontenac killed 2865 of my 2870 men (combat, lack of supply, exposure), for 2000 men lost for you. The only survivors were the 5 commanders (they were lucky, very lucky - I lost 2 commanders in minor engagements the following turns). As you know, WiA is not RoP so the important comparaison is elements and not men. I lost 42 elements to 2 for you... Only in that case, I understand that due to lack of supply you could not recover strength in Montréal and thus, those 2000 men were still lacking until the end of the game. In that case, one should again count in men and it is not so bad for me... Except (still seeing long term) that while I "only" lost 2 870 men, the capture of my fleet meant that could have launched a massive landing on the Southern side of the Ontario, where I had to commit significant forces !

- On how much of my forces I committed : of my non-Louisbourg force, I believe I commited between 1/2 and 3/5 of my forces in the attack, the rest being in defense (1/5 Fort Ticonderoga + Albany, 1/5 the Great Lake forts), for three resons :
1. Supply of course. Actually, even with only 3/5 of my force committed, I was short on supply in 1759. I organised myself better in 1760 - 1761.
2. Command - more units meant I would have started to have speed malus, and thus more supply problems. I have more commanders, but those would have outranked my "Logistical Expert" commander (and had worse stats), making the supply problem more acute.
3. Defense - I grossly overestimated the number of irregular / indians you still had available.

- On defending Louisbourg

I do not believe it is a good idea to let troops outside Louisbourg. It is possible for the English player, if he put his transport next to Cap Breton, to land in Cap Breton and in the same turn attack Louisbourg. Since in that case the English MC of Cap Breton will be low, there is a very significant chance that the French force retreat in Cap Breton instead of retreating in Louisbourg. In that case, the English just saved one full year.

- On objective cities

There is no "secret ninth objective". What happened is that, when Spain enters the war, the Nouvelle-Orléans becomes an objective city... It is not before that.
Sudden Death off means that even if you take all the objective and strategical cities of your opponent, the game carries on. Note that the On/off of Sudden Death can change, and can be different for both players. For instance, I BELIEVE the Sudden Death is "Off" at the beginning of the campaign for the French, and is "Off" for the American at the beginning of the War of Independance. It changes latter on.

Click to expand...

Welcome back ... & good luck for the exams.

As to the combat losses - I think that was the frustration in a few times, as I now have this ongoing supply tussle (& lose some supply wagons trying to deal with it), any combat losses are all but permanent for me, which is not really how WiA is meant to work out. In effect over winter, you should be able recover losses within elements (unlike RoP). We'll see in 1760 a few battles where I start to lose a lot of elements for relatively limited real casualties.

As to Louisbourg - I'm not convinced about defending outside. Have done a bit of playing around vs the AI and even then its risky. I think my set up + more aggressive use of the French fleet is the way to hold this as long as possible.

As to my irregulars, yes by 1759 I had managed to use most of them up on attacks on minor objectives. I'd do a better job of concentrating and hording them in any future iterations.

Narwhal said:

This one ain't finished

Click to expand...

Indeed its not, nor have I yet lost ... I think I had an (unlikely) chance in 1760 if I could have manouvered to trap one of Narwhal's main columns and damage that. Then at least I could have raised the siege at Quebec.

Bornego said:

That is why one should leave the naval guns (won't target land units anyway) + one militia unit inside Louisbourg. Moreover, the scenario you describe won't happen if you put your troops on hold at all costs. Either the English eventually retreat (taking additional hits in the process) or (if they are ordered to attack at all cost) one of the two armies gets completly slaughtered.
But I do agree that in the case of Louisbourg due to its geographical particularities it may be a questionable decision to defend it from the outside.

On the other hand, I bet you sat with an evil grin in front of your computer when loki let his main forces at Montreal and Quebec inside the city walls instead of contesting you entering these regions.

In general, theere are many advantages to a defence outside the city walls:

1) full supply production
2) possibility to retreat and fight another day
3) elements can still replenish
4) easier to reinforce
...

Click to expand...

I only put Montcalm in structure in the safe winter turns, so the force in Mont Royal is designed purely as a defensive guard. At Quebec, maybe. But if I'd pulled off what I was trying to do, then my tactics there were fine, in that it withstands a long siege and Narwhal has to keep a lot of troops in position in case I sallied out.

So its a fair view, and I probably was too passive, but I'm still not convinced its black & white, especially against an opponent who knows what they are doing