I know there's quite a few people of the right sort of mindset on this site to have a look at this and see what they think.
In our historical Mage game, two of the PCs have a shared event in their history, a fictional expedition to take Crown Point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._Frederic) in 1747. I've written up a Wikipedia-style battle report on it, and wanted to check it with someone else besides the other player.
This is just a bit of fluff, but it also establishes some of the details around the event and introduces some NPCs who might turn up later. Everyone apart from Bécart and the governors are made up. Major Dowling is the other player's PC (mine was a native scout with Robinson's Rangers, and thus doesn't merit a mention).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Point Expedition
Date: 10th May 1747
Location: Near the southern shore of Lake George, New York
Result: French victory
Belligerents
France & Wabanaki Confederacy
Great Britain & Iroquois Confederacy
Commanders and leaders
(France): Colonel Paul Bécart de Granville et de Fonville, Capitaine Luc Marin de la Malgue, Jacques Soleil
(Great Britain): Colonel James Rafferty, Colonel Martin Wagenbach, Major Courtenay Dowling, Captain David Robinson
Strength
(France) 400 marines and militia, approximately 450 indians
(Great Britain) 1,200 regulars and militia, approximately 100 indians
Casualties and losses
(France) 24 killed, 72 wounded
(Great Britain) 144 killed, 139 wounded
Background
The governor of Massechusetts, William Shirley, had argued for an attack on Fort Saint-Frédéric early on in King George's War, recognising the threat it posed to the northern border of the New England and Middle Colonies. It was used by the French and their Indian allies as a staging ground for raids and heavier assaults, and its commanding position gave the French control of the frontier. After the loss of Saratoga in late 1745, an Iroquois and intercolonial force was assembled in the July 1746 for a retaliatory attack, but the British regulars failed to arrive and the attack was aborted. That same year, a large French and Indian force raided the Hoosac River valley causing great losses to English colonists.
In the winter of 1746, in spite of voices warning of the risk to the trade with Quebec (particularly strongly on the part of Albany's merchants), the New York assembly resolved to end the threat of Fort Saint-Frédéric once and for all. They passed measures providing for the raising and equipping of militia regiments from the province and stores of additional arms and munitions. Assurances were sought from governor Clinton to guarantee British regular support and emissaries sent to the Iroquois seeking aid once again.
Orders were issued to gather an expeditionary force in Albany at the end of the spring. By mid- April a British regular regiment under Colonel James Rafferty arrived to lead the expedition, supported by a regiment of provincial militia under Colonel Martin Wagenbach, a two of companies of David Robinson's provincial rangers, artillery from New York and around a hundred Iroquois. Rafferty make the unpopular decision of ordering the wives and other non-essential camp followers to remain in Albany, in an attempt to reduce the size of the baggage train. Then he split his force, putting the guns and baggage on boats to send up the Hudson river, while his infantry would march ahead along the route of the river.
Meanwhile, Paul Bécart, the commandant of Fort Saint-Frédéric learned of British forces amassing at Albany and mustered a force of his own, comprising of three companies of troupes de la marine from the garrison, a body of Canadian militia under Luc Marin and around 450 natives from the Wabanaki Confederacy led by Jacques Soleil. While he lacked the manpower to directly oppose the British in the field, he formulated a plan with Marin to use their knowledge of the countryside and native warfare to their advantage. There were a limited number of routes the British could take to approach Saint-Frédéric and an ambush could be set south of Lac du Saint-Sacrement.
The British expedition set off from Albany on 1st May and made good time on the first leg of its journey, Rafferty's infantry column reaching Fort Lyman early on the 7th May. The fort was re-occupied and the stockade made whole again, during which time the ranger companies were sent to assess the routes ahead. Rather than wait for the artillery and baggage to catch up, Rafferty chose to press on, leaving two companies of militia behind to secure the portage guarded by the fort.
The ranger companies had scouted the two alternative routes around the southern tip of Lac du Saint-Sacrement, and since the company scouting the westerly route around had returned where the other had not, Rafferty chose to take the main force that way.
Back at Fort Lyman, on the evening of the 9th May a hundred Wabanaki assaulted the fort, taking the garrison by surprise and killing them to a man. They then sat in wait around the portage for the arrival of the river force. Now behind the route of Rafferty's march, Bécart gathered the bulk of his men at a narrow pass close to the south of Lac du Saint-Sacrement. Around ten miles to the north of them, the British infantry began construction of a temporary camp as a staging ground for the final assault on Fort Saint-Frédéric.
The battle
On the morning of 10th May, the guns and baggage arrived at the portage before Hudson's Fall and began to unload. An hour into their activities, they came under fire, the militia with them hard-pressed to give resistance with their backs to the river. Captain Robinson's company were skirting around the marsh at the south of the lake on their way back from the alternative path, and heard the gunfire coming from the ambush at the portage. They made haste towards the sounds of battle, falling on the ambushers and scattering them.
Colonel Bécart learned of the ambush and launched the next stage of his plan. An Acadian militiaman was dressed as an Iroquois and sent up to Rafferty's camp, claiming to be a runner from the fort, bringing news it was under attack and in need of aid. Leaving Colonel Wagenbach in command of the camp, Rafferty immediately dispatched half of his regiment to march to the fort's relief.
As it reached the narrowing of the pass, they found the path was obstructed with fallen trees, at which point fire began to pour in from the flanks. Colonel Rafferty was mortally wounded, and it was rumoured that Marin himself fired the fatal shot. From behind the barricade blocking the path, the French marines stood up and began to fire in volleys into the head of the British column of march. Major Dowling fell from his horse, at first thought killed or wounded, but he proved only winged and in a daze. The British tried to form into lines to repel the three-pronged attack firing ineffectually into the trees and the marines sheltering behind the barricade. Seeing the men around the British colours faltering, a band of Canadian militia charged out of the trees in the hopes of capturing the standard. This roused Major Dowling to charge, single-handed at first, to it's rescue, an action which steadied the remnants who had now fallen back into a rough box around the colours.
Disaster was averted by the timely arrival of Captain Robinson, who had installed the survivors of the river ambush in Fort Lyman, then marched to the sounds of gunfire to the north. Their sniping drove off the marines blocking the path, who hadn't expected any opposition to their rear, then swept up the flanking attackers.
Deciding that he'd done enough damage, and not willing to risk a full-scale engagement, Bécart sounded the retreat and brought his troops away in good order.
Aftermath
Dowling, now in command of the British, received Robinson's report of what had befallen both the garrison at Fort Lyman and the guns and baggage. A heavy toll had been exacted on the gunners in the ambush at the river portage and some of the ammunition lost. Realising the expedition was now lost, Dowling made the fateful decision to call it off rather than press on. Sending a messenger to Colonel Wagenbach with orders to break camp and retreat to Fort Lyman, he marched the remainder of his force south to secure it and what was left of the baggage ahead of their return.
On 19th May the expeditionary force arrived once more in Albany to report the failure of its objective.
For the French it was a critical victory with a relatively low cost, losing around a hundred dead and wounded.
For the British it was a costly defeat, losing 250-300 men, many of the dead from the militia who'd been garrisoning Fort Lyman. Only the actions of Major Dowling and Captain Robinson had prevented a tragedy and the loss of potentially the entire expeditionary force. There had been rumblings about attempting another expedition the following campaigning season, but these never amounted to anything, and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle ending the war was signed in October of 1748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's it.
I happen to have been reading a lot about this period of North American history and it all sounds quite plausible to me. I enjoyed reading it! Thanks for sharing.
-TGA
For such a small engagement, the number of casualties seems high. Did you model this on an actual engagement from which the numbers are drawn?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;622652For such a small engagement, the number of casualties seems high. Did you model this on an actual engagement from which the numbers are drawn?
Very vaguely modelled on the Battle of Lake George (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_George), which happened in pretty much the same area, with a similar-sized British force, and the Braddock Expedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition) for a similar-sized French force and an ambush.
Perhaps I should try to distinguish dead from wounded (which I haven't really done in the summary). The French casualties would be much more heavily skewed towards wounded, rather than dead.
Key thing is that the nighttime raid on Fort Lyman resulted in about 100 dead as the garrison were slaughtered. They're the bulk of the dead, rather than wounded on the British side.
Very cool campaign setting! I've spent a fair amount of time in the region, mainly in the Adirondacks and Green Mountains hiking. I've seen plenty of places where an ambush could be set up pretty much as described - the one that springs most immediately to mind is the Nebraska Notch in Vermont. With the English troops stuck on a narrow trail with a steep hillside into a gorge on the left and uphill to the right, it seems be possible to block passage up the trail, pinch off the retreat, and then harry them from the sides - one side shooting from the trees across the gorge, the other shooting from up the hill.
However, the area around the south end of Lake George toward Hudson Falls and Glens Falls is rather flat from what I can remember - not much in the way of passes, let alone narrow ones. I don't know if that's the kind of info you're looking for. Maybe rather than trapping them in a narrow pass, they trap them on the edge of the marsh.
Quote from: Kiero;622662Perhaps I should try to distinguish dead from wounded (which I haven't really done in the summary). The French casualties would be much more heavily skewed towards wounded, rather than dead.
If you're using casualties as dead, wounded, and captured, then the numbers sound plausible to me.
Quote from: Thalaba;622696Very cool campaign setting!
It most certainly is, we're four sessions in now and having loads of fun with it. It was originally slated for a short 6-12 session run, but the GM has said given the amount of prep he ended up doing we're going to stick with it a while longer than that. To which no one has objected!
Quote from: Thalaba;622696I've spent a fair amount of time in the region, mainly in the Adirondacks and Green Mountains hiking. I've seen plenty of places where an ambush could be set up pretty much as described - the one that springs most immediately to mind is the Nebraska Notch in Vermont. With the English troops stuck on a narrow trail with a steep hillside into a gorge on the left and uphill to the right, it seems be possible to block passage up the trail, pinch off the retreat, and then harry them from the sides - one side shooting from the trees across the gorge, the other shooting from up the hill.
However, the area around the south end of Lake George toward Hudson Falls and Glens Falls is rather flat from what I can remember - not much in the way of passes, let alone narrow ones. I don't know if that's the kind of info you're looking for. Maybe rather than trapping them in a narrow pass, they trap them on the edge of the marsh.
This is a bit further west than that - in the area of what is now Lumberjack Pass (?) on the route of the Adirondack Northway.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;622700If you're using casualties as dead, wounded, and captured, then the numbers sound plausible to me.
Cool, I'll break the numbers down into killed and wounded - no captured in this instance because it wasn't a formal, pitched battle and no one was taking prisoners. I'm going to arbitrarily say:
French: 24 killed, 72 wounded
British: 144 killed, 139 wounded
I've now put an updated report on our campaign wiki (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/18thCenturyMage/Crown_Point_Expedition).
Anyone have any further comments?
Just addressing the style, it is fine when considered a reference article written some 50 years after the fact by people who weren't there. As an actual "battle report", it doesn't fit.
As a game device, whatever floats your boat.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;622700If you're using casualties as dead, wounded, and captured, then the numbers sound plausible to me.
That's what "casualties", in the parlance of the military, means. It can also refer to folks rendered unable to fight due to illness or disease.
It doesn't mean everyone is dead.
Quote from: Blackhand;623159That's what "casualties", in the parlance of the military, means. It can also refer to folks rendered unable to fight due to illness or disease.
It doesn't mean everyone is dead.
No shit, Sherlock. It didn't appear that Kiero was using it that way, which is why I brought it up.
Quote from: BillDowns;623152Just addressing the style, it is fine when considered a reference article written some 50 years after the fact by people who weren't there. As an actual "battle report", it doesn't fit.
As a game device, whatever floats your boat.
As I said in the OP, it's in the style of the same on Wikipedia, not a literal after action report.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;623167No shit, Sherlock. It didn't appear that Kiero was using it that way, which is why I brought it up.
Well I was clear that I was using it in that way, but I can see that it could have been confused.
When I read this, before the OP was edited, I wasn't confused. I didn't need to be told that the number of casualties included all sorts of things that render the soldier unable to fight. Such as getting kicked by a horse or hit friendly fire or actually being run through by French sabers.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;622652For such a small engagement, the number of casualties seems high. Did you model this on an actual engagement from which the numbers are drawn?
Quote from: Kiero;622662Perhaps I should try to distinguish dead from wounded (which I haven't really done in the summary). The French casualties would be much more heavily skewed towards wounded, rather than dead.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;622700If you're using casualties as dead, wounded, and captured, then the numbers sound plausible to me.
You seemed to be the one confused, Vulmea. Like you had to remember, or be told, what the word 'casualties' meant. Kiero clarified his position and added some details to his game because of it. You should be happy.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;623167No shit, Sherlock. It didn't appear that Kiero was using it that way, which is why I brought it up.
Don't get so worked up, pal. Nice save, by the way.
I didn't express myself well and I apologize for that.
What I intended to express, is that calling this a "battle report", it sounds like an in-game device as if the players could change the outcome of the battle. Or, alternatively, it might be an in-game device to brief the players on one side for their view of the battle.
But, from context and later posts, it sounds more like background material, or meta-game material.
I just think calling it a "battle report" is misleading.
Quote from: BillDowns;623502I didn't express myself well and I apologize for that.
What I intended to express, is that calling this a "battle report", it sounds like an in-game device as if the players could change the outcome of the battle. Or, alternatively, it might be an in-game device to brief the players on one side for their view of the battle.
But, from context and later posts, it sounds more like background material, or meta-game material.
I just think calling it a "battle report" is misleading.
Forgive me if I'm not seeing any value in debating the semantics of the thread title.
This is background material establishing some stuff that happened before the game started (since it's set in the spring of 1750).