AGEOD Forums

Question: How is the organization of the American and British armies of the conflict portrayed in game? British =Regiments? American Colonials= Brigades, Militia=regiments?


OK, after playing my copy of BoA(just picked it up last week), I've found myself getting more and more interested in the Revolutionary war(sad, I'm an American). My American Wars interests usually have been with ACW, WWI and WWII ,where units have an organic OOB(certain regiments belonging to certain brigades, certain brigades belonging to certain divisions), so I'm behind the eight ball in trying to understand the organization of both the colonial and british armies in this conflict and specificly how BoA is "portaying" them.


I believe I understand, and educate me if I'm wrong, the British Army(in game) to be using the Regimental system, where the regiment is the "main block" of the army. Brigades/divisions are organized on the fly (hence the ability to assign Regiments to any leader to form task/objective oriented brigades/divisions). Meaning there is no static OOB for brigades on up(regiments being organic to a brigade and brigades being organic to divisions. example:506th PIR organic to 2nd Battalion/ 101st AB in WWII).
I also believe I understand, same as above, that the colonial army (after leaving Valley Forge) begins to use the continental system where the brigade is the "main block" of the army for non Militia(regiments organic to the brigade). That is why historicly those brigade units where named after the leader and the regiments numbered with the state name they were raised in.

Hence my queston above.

Thanks in advance for any help and education.

tankerdco wrote:Question: How is the organization of the American and British armies of the conflict portrayed in game? British =Regiments? American Colonials= Brigades, Militia=regiments?


OK, after playing my copy of BoA(just picked it up last week), I've found myself getting more and more interested in the Revolutionary war(sad, I'm an American). My American Wars interests usually have been with ACW, WWI and WWII ,where units have an organic OOB(certain regiments belonging to certain brigades, certain brigades belonging to certain divisions), so I'm behind the eight ball in trying to understand the organization of both the colonial and british armies in this conflict and specificly how BoA is "portaying" them.


I believe I understand, and educate me if I'm wrong, the British Army(in game) to be using the Regimental system, where the regiment is the "main block" of the army. Brigades/divisions are organized on the fly (hence the ability to assign Regiments to any leader to form task/objective oriented brigades/divisions). Meaning there is no static OOB for brigades on up(regiments being organic to a brigade and brigades being organic to divisions. example:506th PIR organic to 2nd Battalion/ 101st AB in WWII).
I also believe I understand, same as above, that the colonial army (after leaving Valley Forge) begins to use the continental system where the brigade is the "main block" of the army for non Militia(regiments organic to the brigade). That is why historicly those brigade units where named after the leader and the regiments numbered with the state name they were raised in.

Hence my queston above.

Thanks in advance for any help and education.

I would say regiments for this game. One star commanders commanding two regiments = brigade, Two star commanders = division.
But it is all malleable.

British Regiments of Foote had an establishment of 474, Irish 477, don't ask me why, but their are plenty of examples of regiments going over this number, Scottish Regiments, etc.

I tend to look at the actual power number/normal power number (Ie., a Militia at 29/30) to give one roughly the size in men, but others can and will say that is not necessarily the case. Units could have battle honors, little * under their NATO image, that give them an increase over the normal power number. Those are the elite of the elite, units which have proven themselves in battle and can stand up to and deliver more punishment. I believe that is what the developer had in mind by not going into a number of men system, but it does take getting used to.
Lightsfantastic

Thanks Lightsfantastic and I have figured all that out but, what I'm trying to wrap my head around has more to do with the Continental(non militia) units of the american forces that have named units...historicly those named units were brigades not regiments. So the question I guess is: are the named american units brigades(as historical) or regiments?

Generally, named units were brigades (Glover's being an exception, although I think his command was eventually expanded to a brigade as well). Given the fluctuating or continually understrength size of Continental regiments irl, it makes sense in game terms to have them as regiments.

anarchyintheuk wrote:Generally, named units were brigades (Glover's being an exception, although I think his command was eventually expanded to a brigade as well). Given the fluctuating or continually understrength size of Continental regiments irl, it makes sense in game terms to have them as regiments.

I would have to agree it's regiments. I've only seen Glover's (which I believe represents the 14th Marblehead Regiment, and Smallwood's as named Continental regiments. After the Valley Forge time frame I have not seen them switch to a brigade based unit counter, just more and more Continental Regiments forming.
Pocus?

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

After I posted I did some more research on my own,searching the net and refering back to the game. In the 1777 or later campaign scenarios, Nothern Campaign etc.. Washingtons army is indeed organized into the named brigades as historic. However ,anarchyintheuk was right about the colonial regiments being so undermanned that 1 colonial brigade would have had comparable combat abililty of the British regiments.

the count was so variable for each formation that yes, we are using a regimental system for both side.

Thanks Pocus. By the way, one heck of a game!

Just as a historical footnote, in the case of Britain it was in fact the battalion, not the regiment, that was the basic element in the order of battle. The regiment in the British system is the organizational unit and main focus of tradition and corps d'esprit. It can have one battalion or several. Since, however, only one battalion of any given regiment usually served in the North American theatre of war at any given time, from the American perspective that battalion apparantely came to be regarded as the "regiment". For instance, the "42nd Foot" that served in North America in both the French and Indian and the Revolutionary War was in fact the 1st Battalion of that Regiment; or the "8th Foot" that served in Canada in the War of 1812 was actually the 2nd Battalion of that Regiment.

Whereas British regiments often had several battalions at least when mobilized for war, the US Army had the one-battalion regiment (copying British North American de facto practice) as standard up to and including the American Civil War. Here, the organizational unit (the regiment) and the tactical element (the battalion) became synonymous. That's why a Civil War regiment (commanded by a full colonel, not a lieutenant-colonel, as compared to its British equivalent) was actually referred to as "battalion" in the field.

Typical Birtish mess ...but I can find the same un-cartesian 'logic' in the French army a few years later.