Pages

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Battle of Fort Washington, 1776

Battle of Fort Washington Map
Courtesy wargamesinthedungeon

Matt hosted another remote game in our long-running series of battles fighting our way through the AWI in chronological order using Rebels & Patriots (R&P).  We are approaching the end of 1776 with the Battle of Fort Washington.

For a summary of the historical action and Matt's battle report, please visit, Battle for Fort Washington, 1776.  Matt's account focuses on the British/German perspective with lots of close up photos of his beautiful terrain and figures.  My account focuses on the American point of view through the lenses of two webcams.

Over these games, we (well, at least I) have reached the conclusion that attacking is a very difficult sport in R&P.  I think at least 3:2 odds are needed and often times 2:1 is more reasonable for the attacker to make progress.  Given the tendency for the Americans to be on the defensive, the British are often under pressure and under the gun (literally) to press on regardless of casualties.

Fort Washington is no exception to the general rule of finding the Americans fighting behind defensive works while the might of the King descends upon them.  

Let's see how the Americans fare in this one.

Rebel skirmishers watch as the Hessians cross the river.
From the heights of Fort Washington, the defenders wait.
Jagers give fire.
Rebel skirmishers abandon their cover and run for the hill.
Rebel skirmishers give the Hessian musketeers a shot,
 disordering them
but the Rebel break and run at the first fire against them.
OK.  I admit that this is a very bad start to the battle.  Hopefully, the Americans can stiffen their resolve and put up a descent fight.  We do not want to embarrass ourselves.  
The Hessians press on but Rebel skirmishers are slowing
 their progress with fire from the woods and swale.
Hessians are taking fearful casualties as they climb the hill.
Hessians charge into the woods
and are repulsed.
The Hessian attack is running out of steam (and men).
Where are the British?
The British have landed!
Americans pull back from the barricades on the road
 to prevent an outflanking maneuver
 if the Americans fail to hold Laurel Hill.
The Hessian attack has ground to a halt.
The British grenadiers storm the works protecting
 the Rebels on Laurel Hill. The defenders break.
General Magaw takes up position on the heights.
 
The American militia let loose a withering fire
and the grenadiers are cut down where they stand.
The British attack is called off and
the Americans make good their escape.
Another hard-fought victory for the Americans! Hoorah!

One of the key moments in battle was the friendly-fire incident not reported by British High Command.  As the British stormed up Laurel Hill, the British skirmishers mistook the British light infantry as the enemy and gave them a hard volley.  Many of the light infantrymen fell (I recall two or three casualties suffered) and the mishap shook the confidence of this formation for the remainder of the battle.

Another excellent outing and an enjoyable session.  Next time, perhaps, Trenton, where the Americans will find themselves on the attack?

Thanks again, Matt, for presenting and sharing another of your wargaming spectacles.

51 comments:

  1. I agree re: your comments about attacking in R&P. As I commented in Matt's post, maybe the 'off table' naval guns may have helped the Anglo-German attack, even at a 3:2 advantage. However I do think that a 2:1 advantage is better for these sort of games. As for the Blue-on-Blue episode, that really didn't help the attackers one bit?

    As always Matt puts on a lovely game and nice to see these lesser known battles (to me at least) getting their moment in the spotlight:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for reading the report and for your comments. I wonder if we need to keep in mind that we are playing R&P at a much larger point total than recommended in the rules? Force size is listed as 24 points but we often are fielding 60+ points per side.

      I REALLY do not want to be facing naval guns too...

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure if it may be an issue to do with the scaling up of essentially a skirmish set of rules or not. Possibly the only way to tell would be to either replay the scenario several times with the same forces, or contrast and compare using say BPII. I imagine time to do this would be the main issue.

      Delete
    3. I’m with you Steve I should have had naval guns !

      Delete
    4. Totally agree Matt - sweep the beaches and approaches with naval gunfire support - otherwise, what's the point of Britannia ruling the waves?!

      Delete
  2. Another great blog update for the remote-gaming campaign, Jonathan. Here in Western Washington, we just got a break from the continuous rain these past weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Dean! The East Side got rain too but the high winds there were the troublemakers here.

      Delete
  3. Figures and terrain look great, sounds like a fun game, what more can one ask?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looks like another great game. Bought the ruled and will need to give them a go

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was another great game! Hope you enjoy the rules for your skirmish gaming.

      Delete
  5. Matt's tables always look terrific, and I do feel sorry for the British having to slog it uphill against an enemy sitting behind defensive works. It does seem as though if it weren't for the friendly fire incident then it might have been even closer, so perhaps 2:1 odds might be too overwhelming?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a hard slog especially for the Hessians. The Americans were not so solid though but managed to hold on. The British friendly-fire incident was a highlight in the game. I think 3:2 to 2:1 is a good ratio to target.

      Delete
  6. First rate looking game. With an American attack at Trenton, will they need the same sort of attacking advantage as you have come to feel the British need or more because of general troop quality differences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt's tables are always first rate. I hope the Americans get a healthy advantage too. Perhaps there will be surprise rules in place?

      Delete
  7. Haha Jon I had completely wiped the friendly fire episode out of my mind. Clearly my subconscious just blanked it as it was so horrible ! A fair report from the Americans. Certainly the British and Germans had a hard time. I think it is only fair to warn you the ice has frozen on the Delaware so only half of Washington’s force is turning up at Trenton !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely purged from memory, Matt? I bet this incident did not make it into the dispatch either.

      Trenton will be an interesting battle to recreate. We will see Washington's mettle on display in that one. Looking forward to it!

      Delete
  8. Lovely looking game, it would be interesting to see how the Brits would fare under a different ruleset,still sounds like a fun game!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A different ruleset would be an interesting exercise. Perhaps fighting the battle a whole under Fields of Honor would be doable.

      Delete
  9. Another nice, crisp AAR. Beautiful layout as usual with Matt’s table.

    I say these colonials are dashed unsporting, hiding behind defences what! And the bally Germans dragged their heels. Most frustrating. No wonder a chap loses it and shoots his own bally chums.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! Yes, Matt's tables are functioning dioramas.

      Unsporting? Hiding behind defenses are our only chance!

      Delete
  10. Very well done report with a beautiful table and troops as backdrop.
    Ya' know...the pros say 3 to 1 if you want to succeed in attacking is the minimum. Fortifications would only increase the attacker's force to even the odds. Personally I always wince at 'even fights' or even one and a half to one where defenders get to be dug in, or worse, fortified.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Joe. I agree. I shudder at the task of attacking at even odds.

      Delete
  11. can I say the same thing I said on Matt's blog? is that cheating? Am I being lazy? Being hit with this beautiful game twice is really pushing the gamer envy. LOL
    The screen shots look very nice for screen shots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stew, you may say anything you wish! You may copy and paste from Matt’s blog too.

      Delete
  12. Lovely looking game! Great minis and terrain!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed! The presentation is all Matt’s handiwork.

      Delete
  13. I was going to say the same as Joe 3:1 two up one back - that's the standard formula for an attacking force.... and as Joe adds, defensive works might mean it needs to be 4:1.... I think I mentioned it before but do you think there is a fundamental issue with the rules giving defenders an excessive advantage? It would be good (as an experiment) to run two or three games where the Americans attack without a significant numerical or tactical advantage, and see what happens....As to Matts table and the troops, all excellent as we have come to expect, the game looks and sounds first rate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Keith. Calibrating the quality differential between the British and Americans presents a fine balancing act that the rules handle well although the unit build point totals are off, I think. I lot of of cheap militia can destroy a few good troops before they can close.

      The fundamental issue with the rules in my experience and perception after many, many games is that half-strength skirmisher units are MUCH TOO powerful. Skirmishers throw out just as much fire as line troops and are always counted in cover. If graded as good shots, they are even more deadly. Add to this advantage that skirmishers are cheap to field then a swarm of skirmishers have the ability to tear an attack apart. Did I mention that they can also fire and evade from charges too?

      Delete
    2. Too powerful indeed. I've been tempted to only use one die per figure, so as you take losses your die rolls drop proportionately. It might make some problems with the hits system for casualties, but it seems a better fit IMHO. I might try some options out with my 6mm mdf figures tomorrow...

      Delete
    3. One die per figure may be extra counting. What about six dice for skirmishers at full strength (six figures) with skirmishers able to negate one level of cover when converting hits to KIAs?

      Delete
    4. Certainly all options, I think the good shot rule perhaps is a buff too far for skirmishers and making them a little greener would reduce their effectiveness too🤔

      Delete
  14. Wow! That's looking to be a very exciting game. Thank you for the breathtaking photos and the nice report!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was a very exciting game and great fun. Be sure to see Matt’s close-up photos in the link at the beginning of the post.

      Delete
  15. Another splendid set to indeed. Have to agree on skirmishers in R&P their shooting ability is all out of proportion, reining it back would be a big improvement IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Phil! The game would be improved by half-strength skirmishers throwing half dice (6) v full dice (12). Well, in my opinion, anyway...

      Delete
    2. I agree that half-strength skirmishers throwing 6 dice rather than 12 makes more sense to me.

      Delete
    3. Good! See my note to your reply above for more details.

      Delete
    4. Jon when you say half strength I assume you mean 6 shots being their base shots, as they do have 6 at ‘half strength’ ? I think I have said somewhere else the good shot rule might be the tipping point and this should only be reserved for really excellent troops rather than any generic skirmishers.

      Delete
    5. That is what I meant. A six figure skirmisher unit gets six dice as a base and then three at half-strength. My reference to half-strength was in relation to a regular twelve figure unit. Sorry for the confusion.

      Delete
  16. Another splendid looking game Jonathan…
    Matt certainly knows how to put on a good show…

    All the best. Aly

    ReplyDelete
  17. The "attack challenge" is always a bit tricky. It should be hard, esp. in a black powder setting, but it makes for challenging scenario design (short of just giving the attacker a massive numerical advantage). I suspect good campaign mechanics (in any game) would be a counter-balance - it would make moving to concentrate forces a real priority when you need to attack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point about providing continuity and relativity by introducing a campaign setting. For now, Matt and I are simply working our way through the AWI, one battle at a time.

      Delete
  18. Yet another cracking show from Matt and his pretty tables.

    Good report, shame the Germans were rubbish. Might have given the Brit’s more time to get stuck in and shift those skirmishes otherwise perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, it was a cracking presentation!

      Thank you. I thought the Germans performed just fine...

      Delete
    2. O goodness, I thought your skin would be thicker lol

      Delete
    3. Remember, I was playing the Americans. Germans playing poorly is alright with me.

      Delete
  19. Love your AWI games JF! They are on great terrain and the batreps are immersive. Haven't used R&P yet- but i note your comments regarding skirmishers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, John! These R&P games are all Matt’s doing. He sets an impressive table. He is a good host too!

      Delete