I recently completed a full playtest session, taking advantage of the rare opportunity to leave the game set up on my table at home for an extended period. This allowed me to run through an entire scenario from start to finish, thoroughly reviewing and testing the setup as well as the mechanics that had been adjusted over the past year. As a result, I’ve added several minor items to my “to-do” list and identified a few unresolved issues that still need attention. However, I’m pleased to say that the project now feels like it’s making clear and tangible progress.
Another playtest is scheduled with a local tester who has experience with other large game projects, and I’m feeling very optimistic about it. With the upcoming updates to the prototype counters and the many changes already made, I believe the game is finally approaching “beta.” At that stage, the focus will shift from simply ensuring all components work together to fine-tuning and balancing the gameplay.
For this test, I chose the main scenario, “Montcalm’s Plan.” While it’s not an actual historical plan, it represents my interpretation of what the battle could have looked like if Montcalm had been able to deploy the full army of New France at Carillon. Of course, what Montcalm would have done in reality is open to speculation, but I’ve designed this scenario to depict how I envision the French-Canadian forces might have positioned themselves in July 1758. Additionally, there will be a scenario offering full freedom for the French, allowing players to explore and test a wide variety of defensive setups.
As the defenders, the French faced the classic challenge of uncertainty about where the enemy would strike. In this scenario, they’ve divided their forces, positioning roughly two-thirds of the army on the western side of Lake George (left side in the image above) and the remaining one-third on the eastern side (right). Redeploying troops from one side to the other is relatively quick, and the initial defenses are designed to be strong enough to repel a hasty British attack.
Players can also use boats to cross the narrow bay, but this maneuver costs infantry half of their movement points. Overall, I’ve deliberately reduced movement allowances to reflect the challenging terrain and the limited communication capabilities of the time—signals were often sent using bonfires! While the movement restrictions can feel tight at times, they are intended to add realism and emphasize the difficulties of coordination in such conditions.
Some of the French artillery is deployed forward, including several heavy 18-pounder naval cannons mounted on travel carriages. However, most of the larger pieces remain in the fort, awaiting the eventual British approach. Moving artillery is a slow and labor-intensive process, requiring significant manpower. In the dense forest, it’s not just a matter of transportation—you’re effectively cutting a new road as you go.
This level of logistical difficulty might be unusual for a board game, but I wanted to reflect the real challenges armies faced in the wilderness. Why not simply use a traditional artillery counter that moves two hexes per turn? Because hauling these massive guns demands men—many of them—who won’t be available to fight the enemy. Players must make strategic choices: commit troops to engaging the enemy, or assign them to the grueling task of moving artillery.
The only “road” represented in the game is really just a muddy trail used to drag heavy equipment, such as boats and sometimes artillery, between the two lakes—a route historically called “Portage.” Early in the summer of 1758, heavy rains raised water levels, making e.g., Bernetz Brook difficult to cross, and the trail was still muddy and treacherous by July.
For the British, tactically speaking, the big questions include where to land the main army, how much of the light and provincial infantry should be committed to bypass any French defensive lines, and, of course, where and when to land & commit the artillery. Although the British army is much larger than the French army, the ranks will get thin when spreading out.
The image below is from a previous setup but shows the French defenses on hex 16.16 spread out to the right: 4 heavy 18-pdr. cannons, 400 men from the 2nd battalion of the Berry Regiment, Louis-Thomas Jacau de Fiedmont (a French artillery commander), and a level 2 redoubt.
I deployed some of the British provincials (Americans) to the eastern side to keep the French forces occupied, while the majority of the army landed near the historical landing area—now fittingly called “Howe’s Landing.” From there, a significant push was made along the Indian path that winds around Bear Mountain, known today as Cook Mountain.
The French were forced to bring in reinforcements (see below) to block the strong British advance between Cook Mountain and Bernetz Brook. The narrow path only benefits light infantry, meaning regular units may struggle to keep up with the vanguard.
One of the biggest challenges so far has been managing the tall counter stacks. My printer produces thick counters, and I had numerous elements, each requiring its own counter, which quickly added up. To address this, I’ve eliminated certain elements like swivel guns and engineering leaders, and I’ve streamlined the artillery counters. Additionally, I’ve made features like “random fords” and “historical leader restrictions” optional rules. While these details are nice-to-have, most players likely won’t miss them.
I’ll return to the counter stacks later, but for now, let’s refocus on Lake George. The British artillery “castles” (gun rafts) could prove useful when attempting to breach enemy fortifications. These floating artillery batteries were documented, though only in vague terms. One such example, the Land Tortoise, still rests at the bottom of Lake George. It was designed as a floating artillery platform to support landings or repel enemy naval movements and featured seven gun ports.
In the game, I’ve generously equipped the British with three of these formidable gun rafts. Each comes with onboard artillery, giving them significant firepower. However, engaging the French 18-pounders at close range could be disastrous, leaving the outcome to chance and die rolls.
Admittedly, my documentation for this aspect of the scenario is incomplete, so I don’t have a detailed narrative for the artillery duels that occurred. What I do know is that the engagements resulted in limited gains, with both sides trading some hits but achieving little overall.
By the end of the first day, it was evident that the British advance would not be swift, prompting them to begin landing artillery. The process is slow, and the small beaches quickly become congested. Rafts (radeaux), boats (bateaux), troops, artillery, and road improvements all contribute to a crowded scene during the initial stages of the game.
The strategy is straightforward: commit the army to break through the defenses using whatever artillery can be brought into range. The French cannons proved to be a nuisance, causing some of the rafts to abort their landing attempts and retreat off-map. Once artillery hits a target on the lake, an Interdict (not Intercept) marker is placed on the hex to indicate that the gun crews have their “sights” trained on that area. Subsequent attempts to enter the hex or any of the surrounding hexes will benefit from a DRM (die roll modifier) on the to-hit roll.
End of Part 1; more to follow.
PS The text is clarified with the help of AI 🙂