Tuesday, January 18, 2022

Battle of Princeton, 1777

Washington's Attack
Photo courtesy 
wargamesinthedungeon

Matt and I convened for the next in our, now, long-running AWI campaign.  The battle on the game docket for this day was the Battle of Princeton.  For a complete review of the game, historical overview, and close-up battle photos, please visit Matt's blog at, Battle of Princeton.

In a change from typical engagements, the Rebels are on the attack across open ground against the British deployed within favorable terrain.  As we have seen in numerous games before, attacking is a hazardous proposition in Rebels & Patriots.  Will it prove so today?  Let's see.

The battlefield
Photo courtesy wargamesinthedungeon
The Americans enter from one side of the table and must cross the table and secure both the bridge at the top of the table and the road entry at the barn near the bottom.  The Rebels hold about a 2-to-1 advantage.  Will this be enough to overpower the defenders?  Can the Rebels accomplish their task?

Washinton arrives
Since I could only see part of the battle on the main camera,
I switched to the dual camera view to keep an eye on my left.
British dragoons rush forward to slow the advance.
View from the camera on the left.
Dragoons rush to the fence while Washington advances.
British artillery near the bridge opens up on skirmishers.
Rebel skirmishers give fire to the dragoons
while the British gun at the bridge turns its
attention on Mercer's formed infantry in the field.
American light gun joins the skirmishers
 in bringing the dragoons under increasing fire.
Mercer's infantry is taking a pounding from artillery.
Firefight with the dragoons intensives as
Mercer's infantry on the left is decimated.
Mercer's infantry retreats broken
while the dragoons suffer the same fate.
Firefight develops all across the battlefield
as the Rebels reach the orchard.
Washington's green troops fall back from the orchard.
As the grenadiers lose nerve and fall back,
the 55th Foot arrives.
The dragoons are harassed by artillery as they retreat.
With the battle raging all around,
the dragoons fire into their own 55th Foot.
Stunned, the 55th Foot breaks and runs.
The dragoons follow. 
Bogged down at the orchard,
 Washington tries to outflank the enemy position.
As the Rebels close, they are hit with volley after volley.
The skirmishers absorb most of the fire.
As the Rebel skirmishers withdraw,
Rebel muskets and cannon return the favor.
Rebels in the orchard are assailed from multiple directions
as the grenadiers join into the fray.
British defenders are driven back, broken on the right
 while American reinforcements arrive on the left.
The long lines of American reinforcements marching up
 the road on the left are stopped dead in their tracks.
  Artillery fire is too overpowering,
and the entire column is thrown into disarray.
While progress is being made on the right, Washington sees that the bridge will never be taken.  Mercer's attack on the left never made progress.  Mercer's entire brigade was held up and undone by a lone British section of artillery and a handful of skirmishers.  The green Rebels troops were reluctant to fight, failing many an activation roll.  Without the two American gun sections on the right, Washington, himself, may not have made much progress either.

Despite some moments of fortune smiling upon the Rebels, Washington realizes that attacking is hard under the current rules of engagement.  The attack is called off.  This was a bridge too far.

Another enjoyable, remote game hosted by Matt.
Thanks, Matt!  I will get you next time.

53 comments:

  1. I'm wondering if this is an inherent imbalance in the game (deliberate / historical), or if it's just a steep learning curve. I remember when we were playing a lot of Maurice, attackers had a similar issue, especially at the start, but over time, we learned how to make it work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if you ask me, I say it is an imbalance in the rules.

      Given that line infantry move only 6" per turn, musketry range is 18", casualty rates are high, and that only skirmishers may move and fire, a line regiment will endure at least three rounds of fire before closing with the enemy. And that is provided the attacker activates every turn. Not many units can absorb that punishment on the attack before collapsing especially an attack over open ground.

      Having skirmishers out front in an attack helps mitigate this but having few skirmishers spells disaster.

      We have been playing R&P regularly for over a year now and the results generally remain the same. Attacking is hard even at a 2:1 advantage.

      Good observation and good question!

      Delete
    2. As the rules were designed for smaller skirmish type games with plenty of terrain, both sides often moving a lot, then playing this sort of game does highlight some issues. A stationary unit in formed line and with 'first fire' (I can't remember the exact phrase) then hits on 2+ or 3+ IIRC. In this case it's not going to go well for the Attacker!

      Delete
  2. Matt and the rules certainly gave an eventful game with a strong narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great AWI gaming with Matt again, Jonathan!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great looking game. I am impressed how well your pictures (screen shots?) turned out; very clear ad easy to see the action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt sets a very fine table. always a pleasure to see his presentation.

      Screenshots turned out well. One of the cameras (left one) is a late model iPhone that has a great little camera. The other webcam is a later model iPad. Both provide good quality images.

      Delete
  5. Real life, we always wanted 3 to 1 when attacking. I am always 'not surprised' when attackers fail in an even to near even odds game. Set at the level it is, there are no real counters to a defending force the same strength as the attackers. The vaunted 'roll of the dice' is pretty much neutered in the long run during a game. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but your comment of range, movement and results is a classic.

    The reality of the problem is magnified by rules that downgrade units abilities or commander's effectiveness or options.

    Good AAR on a neat battle. Good looking troops as well. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed the report, Joe! Presentation is all Matt's handiwork.

      As George, points out below, I rarely see 3:1 odds on the table. Coming from a board wargaming background, 3:1 or even 4:1 odds were required in many situations to have a chance at pushing defenders out of position. Interesting that most miniatures' wargames require lesser odds to expect success.

      Most of the American units were graded as 'Green' in this battle and none of the Americans were rated as particularly good shots. Those choice may have made a difference especially considering Washington won this battle.

      Delete
  6. A nice looking battle. I have not seen many wargames where the 3/1 advantage is met for attackers but do find 2/1 usually spells defeat for the defender unless the game is a scenario with specific objectives for each side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt does a great job in preparing a game for battle. Beautiful figures, terrain, and an interesting scenario.

      The Rebels had a very tough time on this day.

      Delete
  7. Enjoyable battle report. Still need to give these rules a run out

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed it! I am surprised you have not tried them yet.

      Delete
  8. Very impressive and beautiful game! Thanks for the link to Matt's blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt does a great job in game presentation. Enjoy Matt's blog.

      Delete
  9. I wondered why attackers were finding it so tough, but the 18" musket range versus 6" movement explains a bit. A 2:1 ratio sounds fair enough for most wargames to me, and I think I'd have a difficult time convincing members of my gaming group that 3:1 or 4:1 was warranted without a lot of moaning from the defenders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lawrence, I think I would have difficulty presenting a game with 3:1 odds against too. Even with 2:1 odds for the Americans in this battle, the Americans had a difficult time making much progress especially in the time allotted. The American left needed to come on earlier but still the British gun shot them to pieces anyway.

      Delete
  10. A fine looking game, not sure about the rules effecting an attackers success as yet. I do however feel that skirmishers have an effectiveness way out of proportion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt’s games are first rate. I agree that skirmishers seem too powerful to me too.

      Delete
  11. A fine looking game that you took part in!

    Christopher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sure was! The game presented a fun challenge too.

      Delete
  12. Thanks Jon a nicely presented report of the battle. I think after the experience we have it is clear the rules give an advantage to the defender given the retreat of the 55th which would have given the British an extra advantage the Americans struggled. The scenario as we mentioned has Mifflin’s brigade arriving a turn or two too late in my view for this ruleset where the units have no ability to make a run move. The interesting thing in my view is whilst 3 to 1 looks and feels overpowering actually that has some historical sense. I haven’t worked out the exact difference in points between the two forces ? Remembering the Americans were green and at least 3 of the British veterans. I might go and work it out ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pleased you enjoyed the report. I certainly enjoyed the game. I am not sure if an early arriving Mifflin would have mattered much. Your artillery picked him apart as soon as they arrived.

      I am interested in seeing the point tallies if you are so inclined.

      It was a great contest. Thank you!

      Delete
  13. Another great Rev War report. Outstanding pictures and narrative. I especially liked the way the pictures are displayed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! Having the side by side table views may have been confusing until one gets the bearings. Glad it worked for you.

      Delete
  14. I feel like I am double dipping bc I already saw Matt’s blog. Very nice looking game as usual. Makes me remember that I have my own 28mm AWI around here somewhere…😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you constrained yourself to reading the narratives only, would you be able to identify these two accounts as originating from the same battle?

      What do you have in 28mm AWI?

      Delete
    2. Just a small force of each for Muskets and Tomahawks 2. 😀

      Delete
  15. Nice to get your view of the action Jon. As mentioned above, there are issues that need addressing when playing larger battles with much more open terrain and one side rather static as defenders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, happy to see you enjoyed the battle from my perspective. Literally! Crossing open ground on the attack is a very hazardous proposition.

      Delete
  16. An interesting outcome. The guys at Little Wars TV recently replayed thus same battle (I think) and Wuthians a similar outcome. It just goes to show how lucky Washington was in the real event, given if he had lost, he would likely have been removed from command of the Continental Army...and what ramifications might that have had on the history if the last two hundred and fifty years? I think the rules sound fair....a trained line of professionals should be able to get off three volleys (at least) in the time it takes infantry in line to close from maximum to close musket range. Often, attacking troops seem to be able to close the gap far too quickly/easily, and go in without even suffering any defensive fire!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keith, thanks for the update on the LWTV replay. As we have seen repeatedly, with the casualty rates in the game, few units can absorb three volleys before becoming wrecked. I agree that some rules make attacking prepared positions much too easy.

      Delete
    2. I was mistaken...the recent game on LWTV was, in fact, Trenton...although they do have a version of Princeton in their archives!

      Delete
    3. Matt, took his inspiration from LWTV's Princeton game.

      Delete
  17. Lovely looking game and finally the right result! Seriously it does seem a bit too hard to attack in this ruleset compared to most others, still sounds like a ton of fun!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Finally the right result? Your bias is showing. Yes, the game is still tons of fun. Gaming with Matt is a blast.

      Delete
  18. Another splendid looking game Jonathan…
    Matt puts on a fine show…
    I intend to use Rebels and Patriots for my War of 1812 project so it’s been interesting and informative seeing what happens in your games.

    All the best. Aly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt puts on a fine show, indeed. Good to see these battles may be helpful for your own games, Aly!

      Delete
  19. Another thoroughly enjoyable report and gorgeous game!

    Three rounds of fire - Having just had a lovely afternoon this last weekend shooting a flintlock rifle, I can say that any troop able to fire so many in a minute is damned impressive! I was barely able to get off a single shot in a minute and that was then there wasn't a misfire, etc. Very fiddly stuff compared to Civil War era percussion rifles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! The game was very enjoyable even though my luckless Patriots witnessed a loss.

      It has been nearly 20 years since I last fired a black powder rifle. Darn, those weapons can really kick! When my oldest son first fired one, the kick knocked him back several steps. We laughed. He thought it not so funny.

      Delete
    2. Truly? Interesting. Were they more modern styles or based on historical designs? The ones I shot had no kickback whatsoever thankfully. (Unlike my 1960's Bolt action shotgun... that thing will try to dislocate your shoulder!)

      Delete
  20. Excellent game well presented; those split shots are very helpful, once one gets used to them. The analysis of the rules and how they affected the outcome is interesting too. Thanks! Another triumph for remote gaming... :-)

    Cheers,

    David.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, David! Very good to see you classify this as a remote gaming triumph.

      SYW French are in my painting desk.

      Delete
    2. :-) I'm really very much looking forward to trying remote gaming myself this year, once I manage to put together the troops and terrain I need. Your experience as documented on your blog has been inspiring.

      And I'm very much looking forward to seeing some of your French troops with my flags too! Good luck with the work...

      Cheers,

      David.

      Delete
    3. David, I am happy to host a remote game to help you in learning the ropes until you have resources in place to host your own games.

      Delete
    4. Great; thanks very much, Jon. No doubt by now working out how to play despite big differences in time zones is second nature! No doubt we can discuss all this by email.

      Cheers,

      David.

      Delete
  21. Your photos are really inspiring. Princeton is one of those smaller battles which maybe are perfect for wargamers if they don't have a whole day to built up and play. Thank you for sharing your experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Princeton is a conveniently sized battle for the wargames' table. For the battle presentation, Matt gets all credit. His displays are works of art.

      Delete