British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Birth of America is an American Revolutionary War/French and Indian War grand strategy title based on a simultaneous monthly turn style of play.

Moderator: MOD_BoA/AGEOD

Post Reply
MPHopcroft1
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:07 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by MPHopcroft1 »

Historically, as soon as Howe and the Expeditionary Force showed up in Boston after news of the Rebellion reached London, he decided Boston was an unsustainable position. So he loaded the army back on their ships, sailed up to halifax, and prepared to atrtack the Americans at a place of hos own choosing (which turned out to be New York).

How viable is an alternative strategy where the British decide to hold Boston, attack the Continentals in New England, and then send the next army to come across the Atlantic to take New York or Philadelphia in 1776? Because you have sea transport and the American doesn't, You would think you'd be able to put him in a bind by having two major forces in operation in different locations, and being able to strike the Americans anywhere they have a coastline. Yet obviously Howe did not see things that way, and nor did Clinton. Why is Boston considered such a bad place for the King's forces to stand and fight?
"Any asset that would cost you the war if lost is no longer an asset, but a liability." -- Me

"No plan survives the battlefield" -- old Army saw.

"Without Love, I'd have no Anger. I wouldn't believe in Righteousness" -- Bernie Taupin
Roads
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:20 am
Location: massachusetts

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by Roads »

In the game it's very viable. In real life the British felt that the population of New England was juts too hostile, and that they'd be better off forcing Washington's army to fight somewhere where it would have less militia support. It's not clear whether that was a good assessment or not - had they crushed the revolt in New England it's hard to see how the other colonies could have failed to fall into line.
MPHopcroft1
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:07 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by MPHopcroft1 »

Strategic blunders weren't uncommon among the British during the war -- after all, it was largely some dunderheaded political moves in London that had caused it.

One problem I've foound with that strategy is that Washington and the Contintnal Army are devilishly elusive. To smash the Continetnal Army in one blow is a VERY difficult task; even if you can assemble an overwhelming force, you;ve got to FIND Washington.
"Any asset that would cost you the war if lost is no longer an asset, but a liability." -- Me

"No plan survives the battlefield" -- old Army saw.

"Without Love, I'd have no Anger. I wouldn't believe in Righteousness" -- Bernie Taupin
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: MPHopcrof
...How viable is an alternative strategy where the British decide to hold Boston, attack the Continentals in New England, and then send the next army to come across the Atlantic to take New York or Philadelphia in 1776? ...

I actually won a game vs. the Colonial AI under the latest patch at normal settings. I was able to slowly squeeze the Colonials into the game's Middle States from both the North and South while controling Boston and other objective/strategic cities, which apparently delayed the French from entering the fray and landing at RI. This delay helped and I won on points before the AI was able to recoup all its losses.

But be careful playing the Brits in the beginning of the game; there's an abrupt change of your overall commander as well as a redeployment of Burgoyne to Canada, both of which can unexpectedly leave you with a large army w/o generals w/enough stars to command it properly.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3946
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

In the game, Boston is just as good as any place to start your offensive (you don't have to waste time in transit, you're close enough to capture NYC quickly to increase your replacement rate, can cooperate w/ Burgoyne's reinforcements, capturing NE reduces the production of CA troops, etc.)

Irl, the capture of Dorchester heights and the installation of artillery there, even though Washington had little to no ammunition and gunpowder, closed the harbor of Boston.
Roads
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:20 am
Location: massachusetts

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by Roads »

Washington didn't really capture Dorchester. He simply occupied it. Howe didn't have any troops that weren't on the Shawmut peninsula (modern downtown Boston).
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by decaro »

We all know that historically the Brits skipped town, but in BoA the Brit AI will not only hold Boston, but after its units are "unlocked," it will successfully sally forth into New England.

When playing the Colonials, I never challenge the AI at this stage of the game; I just retreat into cities and try to stall the AI advance.

But has anyone tried to keep the AI Brits in Boston in BoA? And if so, what was the result?
I expect it was "expensive".
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
Roads
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:20 am
Location: massachusetts

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by Roads »

I always hold them in. I did this in the AAR I'm posting. The Brits have to attack your entrenchments. It's true that you lose a lot of troops, but they are usually just militia anyway. And the British army will be severely damged in the fight - it slows them a lot. And the AI isn't so good at chasing, so I can usually have my unit recuperate somewhere.

Once I actually beat Howe and Gage outside Boston. I still had enough strength to maintain the siege and took the city towards the end of 1775. That game ended quite quickly.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by decaro »

You've inspired me to try this, but I think it's going to "hurt."
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: British Strategy: can Boston be held?

Post by decaro »

Well, making a stand at Boston didn't hurt as bad as I thought it would, and what little damage was done was easilly repaired by standing down in the town above.

The fight seemed to help scatter the Brit units, and after they took Hartford and Springfield, I was able to get them back within a few months, including Boston, which is key to this area.

But then again I'm playing at 1.12a, which has strict supply rules that tend to break-up large armies anyway.

Query: Did you click the arrow on your Colonials on the heights to "enter" Boston, or just let them sit just there and dig in? Is there any tactical advantage to actually seiging Boston, 'cause you can't really take it w/2 strong Brit armies inside.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
Post Reply

Return to “Birth of America”