User avatar
Seydlitz
Conscript
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:40 pm

Useless Louisbourg ?

Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:02 pm

Frankly I cannot see the point of having built a huge and expensive fortress at Louisbourg and having to maintain a huge garrison of regulars that would be much more useful to the defence of Nouvelle France lined up with Montcalm's army.

Clearly, it serves no purpose, as the Royal Navy can sail right up the Saint-Laurent and land a British army under the very walls of Quebec, and without a powerful squadron of warships the large garrison of Lousibourg cannot do anything about it.

If Louisbourg was not a mandatory objective, the British player could just as well ignore it, or rather consider it to be a large self-supporting POW camp. And on top of that, it is quite easy to overpower the garrison. The British can afford to get lots of regulars slaughtered, and they take the fortress in one huge assault.

Is there anything more sensible to do than to use de La Motte's fleet to evacuate the regulars to the mainland?

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13705
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:20 pm

Well, not for the time being... :fleb:

We plan to have two changes: a huge loss of VP for France when they lose Louisbourg...and the impossibility for the Royal Navy to sail into the Gulf of the Saint Lawrence till Louisbourg is captured.

User avatar
Levis
Private
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:58 am
Location: Canada

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:04 am

Seydlitz is right--Louisbourg was one of the great boondoggles of all time. The French abandoned Port Royale in 1713, the best harbour in the Maritimes, and then turned around and began building Louisbourg. The harbour was only so-so. The fortress is overlooked by higher ground, which gave the British good gun positions in 1758. But worst of all, there was no hinterland. Louisbourg couldn't feed itself, which is why it fell so easily in 1745 to a bunch of militia--all they had to do was show up in the spring before the supply ships from France arrived.

The one strong point of Louisbourg is that it gave a good base for the French navy (or more usually, privateers) to prey on British shipping lanes.

If you want to change the rules about Louisbourg, any victory points for its capture would be purely "political." After spending so much money building it it, its loss would be a blow to French pride. But it could only stop ships bound for Quebec if there was a fleet present, which wasn't very often.

User avatar
Seydlitz
Conscript
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:40 pm

Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:03 pm

This being said, the British felt compelled to take Louisbourg, and they did so twice. They must have felt that they could not afford to leave such a formidable stronghold in their back. The fact they never did consider bypassing it should not be forced on us gamers using artificial rules, though. I feel that the concept of a considerable VP loss is a good idea, since the fall of Louisbourg is a very dark omen on the future of Nouvelle-France, but I would not want to make the British naval attack on Quebec dependant on taking Louisbourg. After all, a war game is meant to allow players to try alternative strategies.

But that would mean allowing an element of uncertainty, in the shape of the possible appearance of a French naval squadron in American waters at any time as long as they have a safe harbour in Louisbourg. In fact, I know it would work: I tried to sail Wolfe's Louisbourg expedition up the Saint-Laurent. The transport ships were lightly escorted, while the Royal Navy was blockading Louisbourg. They slipped past Louisbourg easily and went as far as just off Quebec, where they encountered La Motte's squadron that I certainly did not expect to find there! Naturally, Wolfe's army was mostly slaughtered on board the troopships, although not a single ship was lost.

Beyond the case of Louisbourg, it is the predictability of the French lack of reinforcements that makes the game not so exciting after a few plays. We should have the choice of more or different force pools to make things even more fun.

User avatar
Levis
Private
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:58 am
Location: Canada

Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:42 am

Seydlitz, your experience shows why Louisbourg was important--as a naval base. The British attacked it twice for two reasons. First, it was a base for French privateers and/or naval ships to prey on New England shipping. Second, until the French fleet was destroyed at Quiberon Bay in 1759, the British did not dare sail to Quebec without first taking Louisbourg or risk having a French fleet appear in their rear. The strategy behind Louisbourg was sound. Unfortunately for the French, Louisbourg was a very poor location for such a base.

The problem with changing the rules about Louisbourg is that its importance depends upon events in Europe. Before Quiberon Bay, the British dare not sail to Quebec without first taking it. After Quiberon Bay, Louisbourg is irrelevant. (Historically, Louisbourg had already been captured by then).

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13705
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:51 am

I have worked out 2 changes in the game for the next patch:

1 - The loss of Louisbourg will cost 100 VPs to the French..it's up to the French player to see whether he wishes to leave the fortress without defense.

2 - Over time, a check is made to see who controls Louisbourg: if the fortress is still French, there is a chance someFrench Naval Squadrons show up (with reinforcements)...a rather strong incentive for the British to take it...

Return to “Birth of America”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests