irregular warfare

[ArtistofWarfare]

I think we should be careful not to underestimate how important guerilla warfare actually was to the middle and latter part of this time period.

I understand that the American Colonies are going to be a playable faction (or if not playable, an emerging faction).

If this is the case, guerilla warfare simply cannot be a side note or you'll have an entire faction that is totally misrepresented.

[Sheogorath]

I think we should be careful not to underestimate how important guerilla warfare actually was to the middle and latter part of this time period.

I understand that the American Colonies are going to be a playable faction (or if not playable, an emerging faction).

If this is the case, guerilla warfare simply cannot be a side note or you'll have an entire faction that is totally misrepresented.

Well, maybe not ENTIRELY. The Americans DID have regulars...they just sucked :P

[ArtistofWarfare]

Well, maybe not ENTIRELY. The Americans DID have regulars...they just sucked :P

They didn't "suck", they were simply not as professional or well equipped as the British. Let's remember, many of the same soldiers who were "regulars" became "irregulars" eventually. It was many of the same men.

The fact was that guerilla warfare was so effective because strategically, it was what was called for in that warfare situation.

The colonists were against a numerically superior enemy, with better weaponry, more experience and training, highly motivated, etc. To engage the Brits using the same tactics the Brits used was simply trying to beat 10 with 2. It's not going to happen. Specifically in that time period's style of conventional warfare.

In all reality, the American irregulars were outstanding soldiers. They adapted and developed an irregular style that began to actually allow that 2 to beat 10. Once this occurred, the British failed to adapt to THIS...and started losing the war...and eventually did.

Where experience, training, weapons, tactics etc were major strengths for the British - knowledge of the land, hit and run tactics, communications, and sheer long term will power were even greater strengths for the Americans.

An irregular army that sucked would never have been able to orchestrate this kind of a guerilla war against the world's super power at that time.

Without getting into a political debate over Vietnam: This is like saying that the NVC and VC irregulars sucked. Now, even though the US DID win virtually every single clash of arms in that conflict - there is not a US veteran who served in that war who would say that the Cong sucked. They were a highly motivated enemy capable of adapting on the fly and experts in the most basic of guerilla warfare - to turn the enemy's strengths into weakness and turn your own weaknesses into strengths.

Guerilla warfare gets a bad rap as "unskilled" or "undisciplined". In reality, for it to work effectively your soldiers need to be quite the opposite. As an individual soldier, they need to be even more effective than the regular's they're facing.

[andrewt]

Well, George Washington's strategy that would eventually win the war was to keep the war going until another major power gets into a war with Great Britain. It's a very good example of guerilla warfare. I'm hoping there's an entertaining way to model that into the game. So far, most of the suggestions seem to be bad for gameplay. And I'm 100% against more bandit/rebel battles. I hope they would actually remove that from the game. It's too annoying.

[Sheogorath]

So, they sucked at being regulars. That was what I said. I believe I was specific to the American REGULARS. Denying that the US had fine irregulars is like denying that the British had a navy.
However, operating in a capacity as regular soldiers, much like the Vietnamese you mentioned, they were rather poor. Perhaps 'sucked' is an over exaggeration, but this is a board about a game, not a semantics class.
So, to be perfectly clear:
American regulars were poor quality.
Once they ceased to be regulars, and began operating in the capacity of IRREGULAR soldiers, their quality improved greatly.

[ArtistofWarfare]

So, they sucked at being regulars. That was what I said. I believe I was specific to the American REGULARS. Denying that the US had fine irregulars is like denying that the British had a navy.
However, operating in a capacity as regular soldiers, much like the Vietnamese you mentioned, they were rather poor. Perhaps 'sucked' is an over exaggeration, but this is a board about a game, not a semantics class.
So, to be perfectly clear:
American regulars were poor quality.
Once they ceased to be regulars, and began operating in the capacity of IRREGULAR soldiers, their quality improved greatly.

They didn't take on an alternate life form when they adapted their fighting style to win the war...

They were the same soldiers. They wound up annihilating the British. They never sucked - they're initial strategy sucked.

Same with the Vietnamese. If you gave them our tanks, our weapons, our bombs, our air fleet - they would have waged conventional warfare quite well. They "sucked" (as you put it) at conventional because they lacked the appropriate tools to wage it effectively in the face of overwhelming firepower.

They never sucked.

[Sheogorath]

They didn't become some alternate life form, but they did change roles. You can be a poor regular and an excellent irregular.