(Part 1) Guilford Courthouse-Inspired Engagement - Battle Report


(Part 1) Guilford Courthouse-Inspired Engagement - Battle Report

A demonstration of a work-in-progress Morale-Cohesion Wargame. At the moment they are designed for Horse and Musket engagements.

Although these rules are written with a square grid in mind, I opted to play using inches for movement and range instead. This allowed for a more free-form experience while keeping the core mechanics intact. The game focuses on unit morale and cohesion, with each unit assigned a Resolve rating representing its discipline and fighting spirit. As units take Stress either from disorganization (Disorder) or fear (Panic), their effectiveness degrades. Too much Stress triggers Rout Tests, which can lead to retreat or collapse. Combat is resolved with opposed 2d6 rolls plus Resolve, modified by existing Stress and situational advantages like flanking. Artillery, movement penalties, rallying, and cascading morale failures all contribute to a battlefield that feels both tense and historically grounded. At the moment, there is not a focus on unit formation or infantry unit type beyond Resolve.

This scenario was very loosely based on the Battle of Guilford Courthouse in 1781. The British attacked American forces arranged in three defensive lines, starting with militia and ending with regular troops. The goal of this test was to explore how the rules handle layered defenses, fragile militia, and aggressive regulars under pressure.

About Stress

In this system, units accumulate Stress in two forms:
  • Disorder (white markers): Reflects disorganization, loss of cohesion, or formation issues.
  • Panic (yellow markers): Reflects morale failure, fear, and unwillingness to fight.
For clarity, this report refers to both simply as Stress, except when specifying mechanics that differentiate them, such as Rout or Rally tests. Each unit can hold up to 3 of each type before severe penalties or automatic test triggers apply.

Turn 1: Opening Salvos

Initiative: Americans win.
  • American artillery targets British artillery (2d6, needing 8+ to hit), but no effect.
  • Militia hold position, forming the initial line of resistance.

    • The American line holds while artillery harasses the British formation. Note that the dice signify Resolve (1-Militia, 2-Regulars, 3-Veteran Regulars, 4-Elite)
British response:
  • British artillery returns fire, also ineffective.
  • Infantry advance toward the American front.
    The British regulars advance towards the American militia.

Turn 2: Contact and Friction

Initiative: British win.
  • Artillery remains ineffective.
  • British infantry make contact and engage the American militia.
British Regulars reach the American first line and engage the American militia.

American response and Combat:
  • American artillery falls back to avoid being overrun.
  • On the right flank, militia units take multiple Stress results.
  • The left flank absorbs some Stress but remains intact.
  • One militia unit near the center inflicts Stress on a British unit in combat.

The American artillery withdraws before the British make contact. I have allowed units in contact with an enemy to withdraw during their Movement phase. This is inspired by Pub Battles movement mechanics and makes for some interesting strategies based on who moves first.

Mechanics in play: With Resolve values of 1, militia are highly vulnerable to combat-induced Stress, while British infantry (Resolve 3–4) generally perform more reliably under pressure.

Turn 3: British Press the Advantage

Initiative: British maintain initiative.
  • British artillery targets the second American line without success.
  • Central infantry attempt a flanking maneuver, while others continue direct engagement.
American response and Combat:
  • Left-flank militia voluntarily withdraw to join the second line.
  • Right flank holds, though under growing Stress.
  • Center-right units accumulate Stress, but no routs yet.
The American left withdraws, while the right flank holds and
accumulates more Stress.

Mechanics in play: Units attacked from the flank suffer penalties and may trigger Rout Tests under certain conditions. The cumulative nature of Stress is beginning to show, as both Panic and Disorder reduce combat and maneuver effectiveness and bolster the enemy's attack.

Turn 4: American Counterstrike and Flank Collapse

Initiative: Americans win a key turn.
  • Artillery fires into the flank of a British unit, causing Stress.
  • American first-line units regroup into a stronger second line.
  • The right flank of the original line holds against pressure.

    • American artillery fires round shot into the flank of the British regulars
    in the center.
British response and Combat:
  • Artillery continues to fire with no significant effect.
  • British right flank presses the second line, while the left continues attacking remnants of the first.
The British put increasing pressure on the American right. The
British right wing advances towards the American second line.

  • One American unit near the center, already under significant Stress, fails a Rout Test, falls back, gains additional Stress, then fails a second Rout Test and retreats again.
The American militia on the right begins to falter under increasing
Stress.

Mechanics in play: Units with 3 Panic must immediately take a Rout Test (2d6 + Resolve – Total Stress). If that results in more Panic, further Rout Tests can chain-react.

Turn 5: Cracks in the American Line

Initiative: British win again.
  • British artillery scores a hit on the second line, causing further Stress.
  • Infantry engage both the second line and the remnants of the first.
The British advance on the second American line.

American response and Combat:
  • Artillery hits a British unit, causing Stress.
  • The American right collapses under mounting Stress.
    • One unit with 3 Panic fails a Rout Test and is removed.
    • An adjacent unit is forced to test as well, and also fails, routing from the field.
The American right continues its retreat, and one has taken enough Panic
to trigger a Rout Test.

It routs from the field, and triggers a Rout Test in the adjacent units as well.
One unit also fails and routs, leaving the American right undefended.

Key takeaway: The rules seem to model morale collapse decently. One failure can trigger cascading Rout Tests across units in proximity. 

Turn 6: Last Stand

Initiative: British.
  • General advance across the front continues.
American response and Combat:
  • Artillery fires grapeshot, inflicting Disorder (treated here as Stress).
  • Remaining infantry stand firm, though the line is faltering.
British engage the American second line. Though the British
are taking stress, they show no signs of faltering.

Curiosity test: To explore how fragile the American line had become, a militia unit on the left flank was voluntarily removed, triggering a Rout Test for its neighbor. That unit fell back and took additional Stress, but did not rout. Even without direct engagement, a single Rout can unravel a defensive line depending on proximity and total Stress. This feels true to historical accounts of militia performance.

Conclusion

I decided to end the engagement here as the current mechanics felt adequately tested. I will finish up this battle for the second and third line over the next few days and post a Part 2. I need to lay out some cavalry-specific rules first. I imagine it will follow the historical engagement rather closely if it continues in the same manner. I think this engagement demonstrated how these WIP rules create a dynamic and historically plausible narrative of battlefield degradation:
  • Resolve values directly shaped unit performance. British regulars (Resolve 3–4) advanced through multiple turns of contact. American militia (Resolve 1) could not sustain pressure and broke after just a few engagements.
  • Stress accumulation steadily wore down the American position, especially with limited opportunity to rally due to enemy aggression (must be 2+ squares away to Rally).
  • Artillery played a supporting but influential role, especially when flanking or firing grapeshot at close range.
  • Flanking, fallback, and chain Rout Tests drove much of the battle’s turning points, showing how battlefield cohesion is sensitive to disruption.
  • While the Americans softened up the British for potential counterblows by better units in reserve, their militia lines could not withstand the psychological and physical pressure for long.

Final verdict: The rules performed as intended and were fast, tense, and evocative of period warfare where cohesion and morale, not just casualties, decided the outcome. I need to add in terrain factors and perhaps initiative influence by commanders à la Pub Battles. Maybe a simple solution is that a unit moving into difficult terrain would take Disorder. I look forward to testing this on a gridded tabletop. I am also curious how easy it would be to create a plug-and-play version for integration with The Portable Wargame.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Proving Grounds - Battle Report

Image
Introduction As my first post to this blog, I thought it would be best to hit the ground running with a battle report. This is a fictional engagement between American and British forces sometime in an early 19th century North American setting using a homebrew version of  The Portable Napoleonic Wargame brigade-level rules by Bob Cordery. I've posted my homebrew version of the rules here . My miniatures for this battle are replacement Risk! figures procured from Amazon. I've mostly finished painting up the infantry, but the cavalry, artillery and commanders have yet to receive proper uniforms. The Map This is a 9x9 square grid map using 2" painted wooden tiles. The woods are store-bought miniature trees based on 1" wooden bases with clay. The hills are just additional tiles laid on top of the base layer. The cottage is from the Lilliput Lane line of miniature English cottages. I've collected quite a few of these over the years and though it is a bit large for the ...
Read more

The Battle of Pecan Hollow - Battle Report

Image
Introduction All trees are purely decorative, and serve no function mechanically.  This is a test run of my Portable American War of Independence rules based on David Barnes' The Portable Horse & Musket Wargame  found in the first volume of  The Portable Wargame Compendium. I'm not sure I can share them as they are a variation on the entirety of the PNW rule set and could be used without owning the books. Also, these are different rules than the WIP ones posted in the Guilford Courthouse post from a few days ago. That was more of a one-off test. This is a fictional battle fought during the Southern Campaign of the American Revolution. General Cornwallis has pursued Nathanael Greene's force to an idyllic stretch of land known as Pecan Hollow. It is a warm spring day and both sides are itching for a fight. As dawn breaks, both forces array themselves in a battle line straddling the Pinewood Road.  Armies British Army (10 SP) from left to right General Cornwallis (...
Read more

Paper Armies of the American Revolution's Southern Campaign - Crafting

Image
Introduction I've always had a fleeting interest in the American Revolution, so as part of an effort to be more familiar with local history, I recently read John Buchanan's excellent book on the AWI's Southern Campaign titled The Road to Guilford Courthouse . It has rekindled a strong interest in the American Revolution and I've recently made trips to the battlefields of King's Mountain, Cowpens, and Guilford Courthouse. In tandem with my reading and tourism, I decided to put together some armies representative of the Southern Campaign to play around with on the tabletop. I find the Southern Campaign especially compelling due to the small size of the armies involved, the personalities (Morgan, Tarleton, Greene, Cornwallis, Marion, etc.), and the attrition-based nature of the campaign. Neither of the armies are representative of any singular battle, but are rather an amalgamation of units involved in the campaign.  Basic Conventions I've made these armies compati...
Read more