Gaming Great Bridge II: Battle into Game

 “History is the interpretation of the significance that the past has for us.”

— Johan Huizinga

My whiteboard notes on the battle.

With some key considerations to bear in mind I started thinking how to abstract the battle’s historical elements into familiar game forms to simulate the engagement: a board representing the terrain; pieces for military units; and dice, with relevant rules, to adjudicate attack success. I made some general assumptions to make the experience easier for players to understand and enjoy. To do this, however, requires a large degree of abstraction that, with some framing for participants, can help immerse them in commanding forces in the historical battle.

Sources

I have a basic understanding of the Battle of Great Bridge, having lived in Culpeper some 20 years and seen (and read) material about the Culpeper Minutemen. But in designing a streamlined game about it, I needed to ask some questions to adapt the history into a game framework. Most pertain to nearly any battle one seeks to simulate. What did the terrain and troop deployment look like? (Useful for determining the board arrangement.) What forces were involved and how did they compare proportionately in size, number, and capabilities? (Necessary in figuring how many unit pieces to include and ruling how they move and attack.) What ranges and accuracy did Revolutionary war muskets and rifled muskets have? (At the battle the Culpeper Minutemen sent flanking fire into the British from beyond musket range because, as essentially frontier fighters, they used more accurate rifled muskets.)

I first sought information on the internet, mostly to orient myself and possibly discover additional, more reliable sources. At times I consulted tomes in my personal library, mostly summaries of the battle with relevant notes on participating forces and their movement during the engagement. Online Kyle Willyard’s account of the Battle of GreatBridge, as well as his narrative on the formation of the Culpeper Minutemen, proved very helpful, citing resources listed in his useful bibliography (much of which I verified myself at the local library). I referenced two main print sources from my personal library: David Bonk and George Anderson’s Atlas of the Battles and Campaigns of the American Revolution, 1775-1783 (Helion & Company, 2023) and David Dameron’s A Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution (Savas Beatie LLC, 2013). I regret, as I often do, that Osprey Publishing has not released a book on the battle, though considering its relatively small place in colonial American history I’m not surprised.

One quickly realizes how different accounts often provide disparate information. We like to think of history as a known quantity — much as our society teaches us in school and reinforces in its political rhetoric — when it’s really an amalgamated story consisting of numerous accounts from various perspectives. Certainly those living history experience it differently and piecemeal (a topic I’ve discussed before). Much of my work, after digesting the sources, consisted of finding an acceptable game solution synthesizing varying historical information.

I quickly came to regret that an in-depth book on the Battle of Great Bridge — something akin to the detailed volumes Osprey Publishing produces — does not seem to exist. Such books can not only present well-researched material on all aspects of a battle, but include useful bibliographies of primary and secondary sources for verification and further study.

(As this is a volunteer project, I’m not meticulously researching this as much as say, a scholar or even the author of a definitive book might. This work will ultimately result in a quick-play micro-game of the battle broadly reflecting historical elements, available for free and as a small activity at a larger event. I invite those seeking something more deeply researched, on par with an Osprey Publishing book on the battle, to contact me about a contract and payment terms....)

Map-Board

Rawdon's Map, with North
along the bottom edge.

The board initially proved the easiest component to discern from historical sources. A well-known map of the engagement exists, drafted by Lieutenant Francis Rawdon-Hastings (Lord Rawdon): “A view of the Great Bridge near Norfolk in Virginia where the action happened between a detachment of the 14th Regt: & a body of the rebels” (though how Rawdon gathered information for the map remains unclear to me). The map notes the terrain, including the bridge and causeway, British palisade fort, and positions of rebel entrenchments. Compared to later and modern maps, the distances seem quite accurate; thus it forms a somewhat historically faithful basis for a game board-map.

To keep everything more relatable to my audience I chose to frame the terrain in grid squares — much like spaces in a board game — rather than use the miniature wargame convention of measuring and moving units more freely. To do this to accurately reflect force movement and firepower capabilities I took some liberty adjusting terrain to a uniform square grid, highlighting main avenues of advance (the road on the causeway) and areas of Patriot deployment.

Using descriptions of the battle, I chose to focus the board on key points: the earthen causeway over which the road passed; the militia breastworks where the causeway meets the land; and the position from which Culpeper Minutemen sent flanking fire into the approaching British troops (also protected by earthworks). Right now the actual bridge itself is just off one side; depending on space and my more visually appealing set-up, I might include it. I think folks would be disappointed if a Battle of Great Bridge game did not, in fact, include the bridge, even if it conveyed troops only at the very beginning and end of the battle.

Military Units

Determining the pieces — and how they’d interact on the board and against each other — proved a bit more challenging. I intend to use simple chits to indicate units for the playtest and any print-and-play edition I share, but for the demonstration I’ll likely use figures of some kind to add to the visual attraction. (I’ve discussed the variety of wargaming “pieces” before.) But I still need to determine what each piece represents in terms of military units and numbers of soldiers. Here my sources proved somewhat problematic.

A survey of online and print references produced widely different accounts of the numbers of troops on both sides present at the battle. Rounding the numbers produced anywhere from approximately a 3:2 to 2:1 ratio of Patriots to British. For instance, my two print sources listed Patriot/British numbers as 1,275/672 (about a 2:1 ratio) and 756/478 (about a 3:2 ratio); numbers from online sources provided similar results. Sources weren’t always clear on the difference between how many men had assembled for the battle and how many actually engaged in it (some were still in rear areas when the decisive action sent the British retreating back to their palisade fort).

I settled on using pieces representing known units on the field in general proportion to the numbers I found in sources: five Patriot infantry pieces (including one for the Culpeper rifle men) and three British infantry pieces (including one for the grenadiers from the 14th Regiment of Foot, which led the attack). As the British fielded some cannon — somewhat ineffectually — I allowed for one piece representing the two artillery pieces.

Despite the uncertainties in the numbers, I’m confident in my current roster of forces for each side. The historical map — and its correlation with landmarks remaining today — provides a fairly accurate vision of the battlefield. But my next step presented more challenges interpreting how historical factors of movement and combat translated into game mechanics: how the pieces interact with the map (movement) and each other (combat)

Next: Interaction Factors

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche