Captured Artillery

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by hazelbark » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:38 pm

ravenflight wrote: 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.
EXCELLENT point

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:03 pm

I concur. It should be a straight removal with no complications that might cause issues down the line. Captured artillery has been an irritant too long, lets just clear it once and for all.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by donm2 » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:57 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:I concur. It should be a straight removal with no complications that might cause issues down the line. Captured artillery has been an irritant too long, lets just clear it once and for all.
Whole heartily agree.

Don

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by DavidT » Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:48 pm

I always liked the idea of capturing artillery as it happened historically, even though it is pretty useless.

As the issue appears to be with uncontrolled artillery blocking mounted, why not let mounted interpenetrate uncontrolled artillery. That means you can keep the capturing rules as they stand for those of us who prefer to keep these idiosyncratic historical bits.

There could be an issue with an enemy unit sitting close to but not in contact with the uncontrolled artillery which would prevent interpenetration, however, a simple statement that the uncontrolled is moved by the minimum to allow interpenetration could be included.

For those who want a simpler game, the option could always be allowed to remove captured artillery as an optional rule.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by ravenflight » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:28 am

DavidT wrote:I always liked the idea of capturing artillery as it happened historically, even though it is pretty useless.
I can understand the appeal, but I can also see that there is a complexity involved that really can't be avoided.
DavidT wrote:As the issue appears to be with uncontrolled artillery blocking mounted, why not let mounted interpenetrate uncontrolled artillery.
Because you would still have the situation where troops cower 5 mm behind artillery to make them 'uncontrolled, yet unable to be interpenetrated', all for the benefit of being able to possibly use artillery that will basically do nothing to anyone (for the most part).

Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by Vespasian28 » Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:53 pm

Or keep uncontrolled guns in play, just in case, but they are removed immediately upon contact with enemy mounted, whether in a charge or not, and with no reduction of movement.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by ravenflight » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:40 pm

Is there any record of artillery being captured and used to any appreciable effect on a battle? Any recapture at all?

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by DavidT » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:14 am

At the battle of Lutzen, the Swedish Brigade captured the small Imperialist battery on the left. Initially the guns were spiked, however, when no attempt was made by the Imperialists to retake the guns, the nails were removed and the guns were brought into use by the Swedes. They are reported to have been very effective, clearing many enemy from the left wing.

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by DavidT » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:45 am

Because you would still have the situation where troops cower 5 mm behind artillery to make them 'uncontrolled, yet unable to be interpenetrated', all for the benefit of being able to possibly use artillery that will basically do nothing to anyone (for the most part).
This is covered by the third paragraph in my post which stated:
There could be an issue with an enemy unit sitting close to but not in contact with the uncontrolled artillery which would prevent interpenetration, however, a simple statement that the uncontrolled is moved by the minimum to allow interpenetration could be included.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by madaxeman » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:46 am

DavidT wrote:At the battle of Lutzen, the Swedish Brigade captured the small Imperialist battery on the left. Initially the guns were spiked, however, when no attempt was made by the Imperialists to retake the guns, the nails were removed and the guns were brought into use by the Swedes. They are reported to have been very effective, clearing many enemy from the left wing.
Given the rule currently exists to simulate thus, but has a number of potential issues in "real world" open play I see no reason why it can't be laid out as a "default" of being removed, but an optional rule as well that can be used if event organisers (or scenario designers) want to Use a rule for Capturing artillery
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by ravenflight » Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:30 am

madaxeman wrote:Given the rule currently exists to simulate thus, but has a number of potential issues in "real world" open play I see no reason why it can't be laid out as a "default" of being removed, but an optional rule as well that can be used if event organisers (or scenario designers) want to Use a rule for Capturing artillery
I'm with this.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:41 am

Kevin's original suggestion was:
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.
Which would mean the capturing player decides in the move it is captured whether to keep it or remove it.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by RonanTheLibrarian » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:19 pm

For tournament purposes, I'm all for compulsory removal to make the game simpler. Given the relative "newness" and/or specialisation of artillery for much of the Renaissance period, I would be surprised if many units had the expertise to handle artillery safely; throw in the fact that the guns will usually be facing in an inappropriate direction and need moving (probably quite substantially - up to 180 degrees - if the previous owners are under the cosh) and the relatively short time-frame of a competition game is not going to give many players enough time to get them into action. And since guns were usually placed on forward slopes, the best they are ever going to do historically in the vast majority of cases is fire sideways (ie across the slope) at other units still in line

Finally, if we are to retain the "capture and reuse" element, shouldn't the "new" owners have to give up a base of figures per 1 or (at least) 2 gun bases to represent having to detach crews and "muscle" to actually move them?
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"

urbanbunny1
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:54 am
Location: London

Re: Captured Artillery

Post by urbanbunny1 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:51 am

I like the idea of removing artillery as well.

For me, it makes sense that as troops capture the guns, they would make a bit of mess of them and require some repairs to start working them.

Also, if a unit of horse charged and took the guns, I can't seen the guns being in pristine condition. At the least, they would need a clean to wipe off the last crew.

Eww!

:-)

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”