Captured Artillery

[nikgaukroger]

This may be a quick one

Remains messy and I would suggest that artillery is just removed when lost as clean and simple. This seems to be the usual suggestion to the issue these days.

[kevinj]

Simple removal is the cleanest option, but I'd prefer to retain the option for capture and re-use as it did happen. So my suggestion is:

If artillery is captured by a BG that is allowed to re-crew it, or such a BG moves into contact with it in the turn that it is captured, it MAY be re-crewed as per the current rules.

Otherwise it is removed in the JAP of the turn in which it is captured.

If recaptured it still counts as 1 AP lost.

I believe that most of the issues are caused by uncontrolled artillery which hangs around as a significant obstacle and for which the rules for recapture are unclear. In this option it will be an obstacle for the turn in which it is captured (assume the bits are being cleard away) but then only remains if it is a functioning BG for which normal rules apply.

[Akbar]

+1 on removed.

[ravenflight]

Sorry Kevin, I just think your rule is an attempt at recreating realism (noble) at the extreme expense of playability, and also it seems a bit strange.

Just get rid of them. Protect your guns, or lose them.

I've playtested it over 4 cons (maybe 6) and it works.

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry Kevin, I just think your rule is an attempt at recreating realism (noble) at the extreme expense of playability, and also it seems a bit strange.

Out of interest what are the playability issues you see with Kevin's idea? Any why strange?

[ravenflight]

Sorry Kevin, I just think your rule is an attempt at recreating realism (noble) at the extreme expense of playability, and also it seems a bit strange.

Out of interest what are the playability issues you see with Kevin's idea? Any why strange?

Sorry, I was typing on my phone and I'm never quite as 'articulate' on the phone as on a keyboard.

Ok, so any rule has to benefit the playability of the game. Being deliberately over-the-top, we don't have rules for a general slipping on his stirrups whilst trying to mount his horse... but it MUST have happened historically. So, some things are left out of the rules that historically happened so that the game is more playable.

So, yes, Artillery were captured and recaptured, but (as I've said elsewhere) the way the rule is written currently, they go from being Average to Poor, and only hit foot on 6's, rerolling the 6's (yes, that becomes 5,'s & 6's if hitting enfilade). The artillery would PROBABLY have to move to be able to hit a target, so are out of action for several turns BEFORE they are able to shoot at this reduced effect. Else-where, you mentioned changing the effect of artillery somewhat, so if you lessened their effect this would exacerbate this point even more.

So, what you have is a rule there to cover the 'because it happened' clause, but doesn't (IMHO) really give any benefit that is worthy of the complexity.

The reason I said it was strange, is that as Kevin's rule is stated, French Louis XIV mounted can't capture Artillery, and nor can Japanese Foot Samurai, so the artillery is taken off the table, but Light Infantry Arquebussiers can capture Late period Artillery and know how to use it (at a disadvantage). Furthermore, the foot who capture guns are probably going to be far more better equipped to spike guns etc than a mounted unit.

It just seems (to me) a lot of effort and complexity for not real advantage.

Yes, I've heard reports of people who have had game changers because of captured artillery, but I wonder whether they played the rules correctly. Did they count them as poor? Did they reduce their POA? Did they treat them as poor? I find it very hard to believe that a non-enfilade shooting of artillery did much double rolling of 6's to massively affect a game's outcome.

[benjones1211]

I have only captured and used artillery effectively once, and it wasn't the hits, just the -1 on the test added to my own shooting.

[nikgaukroger]

I have only captured and used artillery effectively once, and it wasn't the hits, just the -1 on the test added to my own shooting.

But do you think it is worth having rules such as Kevin suggested about capture or would it be better to go with the simple remove enemy Art when contacted?

Which is better for an enjoyable game?

[benjones1211]

I would have them removed for ease of play, during the JAP phase in which they where captured.

[kevinj]

To be honest I'm happy with simple removal in the JAP as a clean solution and it's an option we've allowed in a number of UK tournaments. But I thought it was worth canvassing opinion to see how people felt about retaining a capture option.

[nikgaukroger]

But I thought it was worth canvassing opinion to see how people felt about retaining a capture option.

Well worth it IMO.

[donm2]

Surely if the reason for the tidy up of the rules is to encourage more people to play 'simple is best'.

Just remove them.

Don

[Three]

Remove if captured, or allow them to be moved through normally. We aren't talking about properly organised limbers, caissons and assorted support wagons here. Movement pre battle was either by contractors and/or impressed locals, who would leg it with their valuable animals as soon as battle lines were drawn up. The powder wagons moved as part of the baggage train and only a ready supply was with each gun. Mounted can cross a lateral obstacle without penalty but can't pass through a few artillery pieces, which makes no sense to me in game terms.

As I've mentioned before, if you shoot them down by shooting the crews then the models are removed, so even for internal consistency it makes sense that if the crews either run off or are cut down then the gun models go as well.

[timmy1]

Kevin's proposal in the second post is all that is needed, IMO.

[hazelbark]

I am in favor of plain removal.

But I would like to add a related point, should they count as 2 for being lost? I get that historically this was a bad thing, but I have found a lot casual players just minimize artillery as a liability. I know there may be a different view in the UK tournament scene. But something isn't quite smooth here.

[ravenflight]

I have found a lot casual players just minimize artillery as a liability.

I think it depends a lot on the amy. The Loius XIV I considered the compulsory artillery a tax, and paid the 24 points and kept the light guns back where they wiuldn't get lost. Sometimes I even deployed them with my baggage.

With the Danes I have 2 batteries of mediums and put them 'right in their face'

[nikgaukroger]

I am in favor of plain removal.

But I would like to add a related point, should they count as 2 for being lost? I get that historically this was a bad thing, but I have found a lot casual players just minimize artillery as a liability.

Not a thing I'm aware of. However, if people think that now would be a good time to say so ...

[nikgaukroger]

I am of the view that removal of captured artillery is basically agreed and we can say that it will be in the update.

Last call for arguments against ...

Any related issues still welcome to be raised and discussed of course, but I feel that the one for this topic is pretty much a done deal and we can sort the wording in a bit (should be easy enough IMO).

[quackstheking]

I am of the view that removal of captured artillery is basically agreed and we can say that it will be in the update.

Last call for arguments against ...

Any related issues still welcome to be raised and discussed of course, but I feel that the one for this topic is pretty much a done deal and we can sort the wording in a bit (should be easy enough IMO).

Agreed Nick - take 'em off but only if the capturing BG wants to - I suspect the only time this option would be chosen is if you were well on top!!

Clean and simple!

Don

[ravenflight]

Agreed Nick - take 'em off but only if the capturing BG wants to - I suspect the only time this option would be chosen is if you were well on top!!

Clean and simple!

Don

Nah, I disagree with this. Take them off, with no options IMHO.

I can see (with your rule Don) that someone will deliberately leave them on the board because they hamper enemy mounted. A BG of disrupted (or fragmented infantry if they pass the CMT) (for example) could capture the enemy guns. Say 'nope, I'm gonna keep them', knowing full well the enemy mounted 1" away from the guns will not be able to charge them.