I had something similar in confrontation. My troop of orcs annihilated my opponent but the last remaining crossbower of my opponent held of the 6 remaining orcs in melee and killed 3 before he went down.

In a game of Warhammer 40.000 a lone Space Marine sergeant, after watching his squad get butchered, fought off, and routed TWO mobs of Orkz! He was literally 1 against 20 ... and he won! I was playing as the Orkz, but after the battle I insisted that nameless Sargent be given a name and a promotion. He is now Veteran sergeant Rafael of the Blood Angels Chapter!

@@Terrkas0 The blood of Numenor flows strong!

@@Ilikefinalfantasy795 The setting was confrontation. And the crossbower part of the faction "alchemists of dirz". Basically some kind of mad scientist cult with battledrugs and biomutants with augmentations. I think further of from some noble men is barely possible in that setting.

Reminds me one of the first big battles I did in Battletech. I had a mech unit with some stingers and a few medium mecs that was suppose to be the scouts for the main small force against a much larger. Well I position my 4 stingers at the two bridges that enter the city we are defending. The other player brought his two lances to it at the same time and asked what the tonnage of the bridges where. I took note and when the assualt mechs stopped on them I asked again, "What was the tonnage of those bridge." I had both stingers at each bridge fire at the bridges and that caused it to loose support and the two assaults mechs crashed down into the revine and without jump jets they where dead. That turned the fight quickly as it equaled out the tonnage.

It is a sad conundrum that men who went into battle and fell, never knew the outcomes of the battle, other battles, their war and the impact of their ultimate sacrifices. Only those who survived and those who came after get to marvel over the myriad of details in their efforts. Well, at least as far as Earthly observers go since none of us can speak for those now beyond.

It's funny I chose the other option for the same reasons. Hoping to trade space for men's lives. I thought this option would result in sullievan retreating too late and green getting caught up in it too.

@TheKnowerseeker thank you yet I only want history

@TheKnowerseeker I was thinking that might be the case yet I'm not a fan of d&d personally

@@WargamesTonightnever thought of that online search thankyou

Run while you can! You’ll go broke and fill your home with hordes of unpainted miniatures if you continue with this unhealthy curiosity. Run! Run I say!

To start, I recommend you go to Little Wars TV channel on KZfaq, starting with their video, "A Quick History of War-games."

Funnily enough, i actually had the same thoughts choosing retreat. Keep men, lose land. You can reconquer land, but if all my units die, yeah. I guess i overestimated the risk of the entire continental army being encircled.

Same, I feared green would be too save sullievan to save him if sullievan was told to hold and only get encircled themselves, and I thought sullievan would be able to fall back better with Washington's support.

@@Chrischi3TutorialLPs I had the same thought, but a different conclusion. Throwing away Sullivan's forces, I feared, would leave to few men to defend Philly.

cap

Grandpa? How old are you, if you don’t mind me asking?

He did die a hero though, besting British Grenadiers with Colonial Militia.

Alexander the Great is my dad.

2nd commentator claiming to be a relative of Wayne, wtf?

@@jamesrichardvankliff9262 haven’t done any deep genealogy yet, but it IS a family ledge legend.

Do it!

This is the best outcome you could hope for when being out matched. Losing 1 general and 1 division while the rest remain almost perfectly intact means those inexpirenced troops got forged in fire and became steel.

Trying to co-ordinate those sort of movements, especially with militia is a nightmare. Trying to do hit and run when you aren't in 100% friendly territory means your roving bands run the risk of getting massacred by overwhealming numbers. Guerilla warfare only worked in the Peninsular war when the French were under threat by the British Army, allowing the Spanish irregulars to roam without being hunted down by larger groups of troops, rather than cavalry patrols

Plus you have to remember rifles at that time were incredibly unreliable. In perfect weather 4/5 of your rifles would missfire. Less than perfect weather made the numbers worst And rifling wasn’t widely used (not sure if even invented yet) so bullets pretty much never went straight. It’s actually why they lined up. Not to make an easier target but to make a literal wall of bullets flung to your enemy. Also with smoke from the rifles any hiding place was immediately revealed

@@finaladvance5085 That number seems awfully high, to the point where I dont think muskets would have replaced the bow and crossbow if only 20% of your weapons would actually fire. Did you mean 20% would misfire because thats quite the misfire chance already.

@@theshadowling1 The militia at the time did have homefield advantage during the american revolution. Which is a big advantage, couple that with hiding among the population or whatnot, it seems like you have a solid shot. It's more the whole style of warfare at the time. I cannot fathom why you would fight like you still were using spears and shields. Speaking of, how did the british have a better lay of the land than the locals?

@@Darklight689 Because the british had far better relations with appalachian tribes. The treaties the British had honoured with the tribes were a source of discontent with the colonists. Add to this that the revolutionaries were not 100% of the colonists, there was a large minority of loyalists in the 13 colonies, fighting a hit-and-run war becomes nearly impossible to pull off. Remember, the British were not an "invading army", a good number of the troops at the start of the war were the standing garrison of the frontier of the 13 colonies.

@@williambodin5359 Ah yes Pyrrhus of Epirus. I wasn't just meaning it like that. I'm also meaning I'm determined and stubborn. Even when the battle is lost and i know it and my opponent can clearly see his victory in sight. I still fight on and never give up. I've won that way too because my opponent got tired of still playing the game against me even though we both know who the outcome of the battle. I remember when my cousin got me into 40k he kick my butt literally 20+ times in a row. Than when I got enough money to get extra models and got to know my army better I took out his HQ in round 2 he automatically gave up event though he still had a majority of his army and he started to complain my army is OP (after he done beat me 20+ times in a row). I even technically won by a friend's sheer stupidity. He had fist turn, we played a few turns, than when we got to round 3 or 4 he did his turn than said "I got to go,l be somewhere. good game". He thinks that he won due to game points and all that but what he doesn't know is that he technically surrendered and he also cheated by him going first and also doing 1 more turn before quitting. That's how he had more points than me.

@@williambodin5359 I know right. I started playing roughly 12-13 years ago in 5th edition. My cousin was into them since the 90s with his cousin around the entire Squats era. I still think it's was complete bull they completely wiped and entire army out like that. It's like saying "hey I know you spent all that money on this product of ours but you can no longer use it". I haven't played since late 7th because of life but also the virus popped about when I was getting ready to get back because I was playing the wait game on my army codex. When it finally came a couple few months after that the virus got blown up by social media and the news and a few months after that 9th edition cane out during the whole virus time.

that's what i thought would have happened as well if Greene supported Sullivan was that the British would simply march to Dilworth first and cut of the line of retreat. I think if Grey didn't die that would have been the outcome but as luck had it the opposite happened.

it shows the smoke from musket or cannon fire

I think it’s to signify that the troops are actively engaged in combat

I'm not familiar with this set of rules, but at a minimum in large scale battles it helps keep track of which units have fired. I have seen rules that as smoke builds the effectiveness of fire can be affected, and others that give advantage to the ability to disengage as well. When developing rules one gives bias to what they feel important in the recreation / reenactment.

that i do agree with, the British would have had another officer who should have been able to continue the fight after grey died. Yes a morale hit would have been taken by the force due to his death but the objective to get to Dilworth would have been quite easy for them to do even on low-medium morale and put the Americans on the back foot again after winning through to Sullivan.

@@michaelsmart1577 The only issue is that while that certain officer could take command, there are several officers who have the capability to command, and others that do not. And with the politics of the British at the time, that new officer would most likely, instead, head straight to Philadelphia in order to gain honor and fame for himself. Also, you have to consider the exhaustion, organization, and safety of couriers. The Grenadiers, after already suffering a major loss and having low morale are, in terms of organization, scattered and broken. They have little support, have lost their commanding officer, and are still under assault by the American militia. There are many more issues to deal with other than just combat readiness.