Gaming Great Bridge III: Interaction Factors

 “Principles and rules are intended to provide a thinking man with a frame of reference.”

— Carl von Clausewitz

Painting by Glenn Moore depicting
the British attack on the American
breastworks at the Battle of Great Bridge.

Now I’ve transposed the historical battle to the game board, the real challenge begins: determining how players interact with pieces and the map to simulate the engagement. All while keeping my original parameters in mind. In my past talks about historical strategy games I summarized core game processes as “Move, Attack, Morale.” Relying on my earlier research, I set out to define when and how players would command their forces within the framework of a turn sequence...my first design choice challenge.

Turn Sequence

I needed to decide how players take their turns. Each needs to make decisions and take actions to move units and attack with them, with the “morale” part of the equation translating into “damage” (a concept I explore below in the context of keeping things simple for the intended audience and game duration). Non-gamers typically associate turn sequence with I-Go-You-Go; but one can vary this with phases within a turn. My main conundrum here boiled down to having each player in turn move, attack, and assess damage all at once, or alternating each phase with the other player. That is, Player 1 moves and attacks, then Player 2 moves and attacks; or Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, then Player 1 attacks, then Player 2 attacks...end of turn. (I don’t want to complicate matters, so I’m not suggestion alternating moves and attacks between opposing individual units, i.e., Player 1 moves one unit, Player 2 moves one unit, moving on to alternating attacks only after players have moved all the units they want.)

The “all at once” turn sequence might seem simpler and more approachable to new gamers. (It might also make sense if players chose whether a unit moved or fired, but not both...but I’m not going there.) The “alternating phases” sequence appeals to my personal wargaming instincts; it offers greater challenges forcing players to decide actions more directly in response to their opponents. From my experience it also forces players to pay more attention to what’s going on, rather than possibly zoning out while their opponent ponders decisions for each phase of their turn. So I’m deciding that players each take their move phase, then their attack phase. (Which leads to another question about how and when to apply damage effects...which I explore below.)

Anyone who’s played a board game often asks “Who goes first?” It’s relevant for a simulation battle game like Great Bridge, too. I frequently default to making the aggressor force go first; they reveal their intent in both maneuvering and attacking, allowing the second player to execute better responses. So in this case, each phase the British player moves and attacks first.

Movement & Ranged Attacks

Before diving into the details of movement and attacks, I needed to revisit my map-board mentioned last time. Since I intended to overlay the map with a square grid pattern like a game board, I needed to determine how large to make the squares as players would use them to measure movement and ranges for firing. I’m focusing more on map squares for attack ranges than accurate portrayal of movement, since the former played a greater part in the battle’s outcome than the latter (there’s not much room to maneuver along a narrow bridge and causeway in a swamp). I tried researching how far muskets, rifles, and cannon could accurately fire and translated that to squares on the map. (Movement would have to follow along on those lines.) Unlike the map, however, finding information about Revolutionary War musket and rifled musket ranges proved less fruitful.

Disparate numbers for ranges and accuracies were not terribly helpful, drawing primarily on numbers from the American Civil War (which still used massed musket fire and rifled muskets). I am sure estimates on period weapon ranges exist somewhere, just not in resources available to me at the moment (something I might try to remedy later). Even so, I’d expect different “authoritative” sources on these issues would still present differing information, much as my earlier experience trying to determine the number of combatants on each side.

Several charts on the internet helped, though I synthesized the results to determine massed musket attacks had about a 33% or 2 in 6 chance to hit at 100 yards or less (and 1 in 6 chance up to 200, inaccurate but I felt necessary for the game); rifles, with the Culpeper Minutemen at about 400 yards from the enemy, and unable to displace to another location, had about the same chance to hit at that extreme range; but I also imposed limitations. With a slower load time for rifled muskets, they could only fire every other turn, using the odd turn to reload. The British cannon, not well-used in the battle, had a similar chance of hitting, about 2 in 6 at about 400 yards (the closest they can get to either Patriot position). They, too, may require a spare turn to reload before attacking again. In all cases, anyone, musket or cannon, firing at targets behind defensive works roll with a -1 penalty on their final die results. This gives the Patriots, on the defense, a great advantage. The historical record supports this, as the Patriots record one wounded (the British suffered between 60-100 killed and wounded) and reports indicated artillery fire was mostly ineffective against the breastworks at long range.

Assuming each square represented the 100 yard range (allowing most units to fire at targets one or at best two squares away), I determined, for simplicity’s sake, to limit infantry movement to one square per turn. Probably not entirely accurate for movement but more (relatively) accurate for firing range and accuracy. Only one unit, friend or foe, can occupy a square. Meaning the advancing British would have to clear any Patriot-occupied space with either ranged or close combat....

Close Combat

Assuming a sequence where each player moves in turn and then fires in turn, I had to figure out how to handle close combat; situations where one force attacks an adjacent unit with the intention of driving the enemy off and moving into their space. This probably best occurs in the movement phase as players decide which units to move into adjacent locations.

The British strategy relied on putting a grenadier company in the lead of their narrow front of advance, with the belief the sight of these daunting warriors would frighten off the provincial militia rabble. With their piece leading the advance down the narrow causeway road, they’re the only unit in position to enter close combat (along with the defenders they encounter). If they can break through, they have greater freedom of movement to attack Patriot forces behind the defensive works.

I’ve learned in wargaming and real combat (not firsthand, of course) that close combat is brutal in any historical period. Often times one side mauls the other and sends them into a rout, other times not many soldiers remain to claim much of a victory. And given the fearsome reputation of the British grenadiers, I want to emphasize that. So as part of the movement phase, any time a unit wants to move into a square occupied by an enemy unit, it engages in close combat. (Adjacent enemies always have the option of standing their ground and pouring musket fire into nearby opponents later after each player executes their movement phase.)

I’m tempted to determine the winner of a close combat contest by a simple high-die-roll mechanic, with grenadiers getting a bonus, those behind defenses getting a bonus, and non-infantry units like the artillery suffering a penalty (though they’re so far back that’s unlikely). Loser disperses, removing their piece; winner has the option of advancing into the empty space. This might seem severe, but reflects the brutality of close combat. Knowing how the game simulates this, players might think twice before goading their forces into a costly action.

I must also consider whether to allow units having defended in close combat to initiate such combat on their own movement phases (a case here which only applies to defending Patriot units). Do I allow surviving close combat attackers or defenders to engage in ranged combat later, making players choose between close combat and ranged attacks in a given turn? I might. This offers an interesting player choice, one I’ll have to explore in playtesting.

Damage/Morale

What happens when units take damage? A unit’s morale, in many cases, is a byproduct of damage from attacks. I often fold concepts of “morale” into “damage,” as the results of attacks reduces a unit’s strength and ultimately removes it from the battlefield as an effective fighting force. In demonstrations I often explain when a unit seems “destroyed” and removed from the game table it really ceases to exist due to soldiers dying, sustaining wounds, wandering off, retreating, or giving up. All, in a way, affected by how it holds up under fire. So rather than complicating this streamlined simulation experience with further concepts of morale (as grognards might), I’m deciding to focus on damage effects.

I’ve already considered the brutal results of close combat on losing units; but do I apply that same “one hit eliminates a unit” approach to ranged attacks?

Despite the British assumption that advancing fearsome grenadiers would frighten off the militia, much of the battle focused on ranged combat. Now that I have some idea how to determine whether a ranged attack hit, I needed to determine how a hit affects the target unit. Here’s where I’m tempted to try different systems. I have several options in how hits can eliminate units, with each layer of complexity adding rules to learn and time extending the game...neither of which I really want to do. But I also want to engage players in meaningful play. A game that’s too short or abstracted doesn’t make an impression. Nobody likes an opponent eliminating their pieces from the game, especially with something as seemingly arbitrary as a single hit. So I’m exploring some different ways and degrees of inflicting ranged damage on units.

The easiest is to simply eliminate any unit taking a hit from ranged weapons. Given the low number of pieces on each side (four for the British, five for the Patriots) this promises to lead to a very quick and possibly frustratingly disappointing battle. My next option consists of allowing units to sustain two hits before dispersal; a kind of fresh-and-fatigued designation some wargames use by flipping a counter to a reduced side when initially hit. One could note this using miniatures by placing a marker of some kind on units with one hit. This increases the game time slightly and would encourage Patriot units to concentrate converging fire on the lead British unit (something possible after the initial turn, as alarms arouse more militia from their encampment and bring them to the defensive breastworks). I’m slightly tempted to allow each piece three hits, but this might complicate and lengthen the game more than I’d like. Hit effects look like one of the major issues I’ll have to examine in playtesting....

I also must consider when to apply damage effects: at time of attack resolution, or at the end of the ranged combat phase allowing for parting shots (which, in this case, favors the Patriots). I’ve used this kind of simultaneous hits before, notably in my Panzer Kids rules. While it might seem unfair for a hit unit to linger and make one last (possibly consequential) attack, it better demonstrates the simultaneous nature of combat despite the necessary I-go-you-go game turn structure. If playtesting supports this I’ll have to add another phase to the turn sequence: movement/close combat, ranged attacks, and damage resolution.

Implementation

This all seems like a lot of game-design hand-wringing over minutia...but it’s done with the objective of presenting a streamlined strategy game experience for hobby newcomers and kids. Players shouldn’t see many of these complexities of game design. If I do my job right, the final rules presentation and my in-person facilitation of the game should create a historical game experience that educates, engages, and entertains. If I do my job right and provide a positive experience, it might inspire participants to further explore the history behind the Culpeper Minutemen, the Battle of Great Bridge, and the American War of Independence.

“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”

— Franklin D. Roosevelt