Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

[nikgaukroger]

- Batteries would surley take longer than foot or horse to deploy. You have to get the draft animal to move them to the right place etc. so either have an artillery deployment phase before any other troops or require artillery to be first on the order of march.

When the rules were first being beta tested artillery had to be deployed in the first batch. However, what was found in testing was that the opponent then just deployed their troops out of the artillery's arc of fire and so the artillery was rendered rather useless - hence that rule was removed despite it sounding really rather historical in order to get better game play.

[petedalby]

the opponent then just deployed their troops out of the artillery's arc of fire and so the artillery was rendered rather useless

Extend the artillery's arc of fire?

Interestingly in the recent 25mm games at Farnborough none of the things raised thus far were an issue. The games were typically dominated by foot.

[madaxeman]

Or reduce artillery arc of fire when firing against horse...?

[rbodleyscott]

Or reduce artillery arc of fire when firing against horse...?

unless the horse have an "r" in their name?

[daveallen]

the opponent then just deployed their troops out of the artillery's arc of fire and so the artillery was rendered rather useless

Far from useless since it gives you partial control of your opponent's deployment. I have sometimes deployed artillery first to take the pressure off a flank I wouldn't have been able to hold against massed cavalry. The other choice is to decide where the opponent has to deploy and target him there.

I like the idea of markers for uncontrolled artillery. Maybe they could be treated as rough going.

There are two further ideas I'd like to suggest:

a) Uncontrolled artillery can only be recaptured by troops capable of controlling it (ie pike or shot). The idea being that once you've lost the APs for the artillery you don't get them back until you control the artillery. It would also stop the stupidity of opposing mounted bgs taking turns to charge a few lumps of metal and wood whilst ignoring each other. (Artillery controlled by an opponent could, of course, be captured in the usual way, but you couldn't reclaim the APs until you controlled it)

b) Uncontrolled artillery are recaptured in the manoeuvre phase. Firstly because they aren't enemy and thus cannot be charged under the rules. Secondly, by analogy with camps, uncontrolled guns are just property. Yet one player may walk his pike or shot into contact, whilst the other has to charge them. Doesn't seem right to me.

Dave

[nikgaukroger]

I like the idea of markers for uncontrolled artillery. Maybe they could be treated as rough going.

Not sure that is a good thing or needed - other people's thoughts?

I think if you did that you'd also have to count troops providing rear support to artillery as in that terrain as well as in reality the fight will be in the gun line and I'm not sure that would give the right results.

There are two further ideas I'd like to suggest:

a) Uncontrolled artillery can only be recaptured by troops capable of controlling it (ie pike or shot). The idea being that once you've lost the APs for the artillery you don't get them back until you control the artillery. It would also stop the stupidity of opposing mounted bgs taking turns to charge a few lumps of metal and wood whilst ignoring each other. (Artillery controlled by an opponent could, of course, be captured in the usual way, but you couldn't reclaim the APs until you controlled it)

Sounds sensible to me.

b) Uncontrolled artillery are recaptured in the manoeuvre phase. Firstly because they aren't enemy and thus cannot be charged under the rules. Secondly, by analogy with camps, uncontrolled guns are just property. Yet one player may walk his pike or shot into contact, whilst the other has to charge them. Doesn't seem right to me.

Dave

Again seems sensible.

[gibby]

I guess the answer to that question is on whether you think we are playing a regimental game or brigade level game.

If it's brigade level then in the same way that obstacles such as walls don't slow horse formations down unless manned, then I don't see why the gun line would.

cheers
Jim

[kevinj]

in the same way that obstacles such as walls don't slow horse formations down unless manned, then I don't see why the gun line would.

I agree with Jim here.

[Three]

Replace captured artillery with marker bases and allow any troops to pass through them.

[daveallen]

Replace captured artillery with marker bases and allow any troops to pass through them.

It's uncontrolled artillery that are the problem. But I'm okay with the markers not being an obstruction.

Dave

[nikgaukroger]

Unfortunately it's not just captured guns where this issue arises. A keil 2 bases wide and 7 deep can gain a significant movement bonus passing through its own artillery. Although if we replaced the artillery with dummy bases until the interpenetration was complete and just allowed normal move distances this anomaly/cheese would go away. If you didn't allow the keil to charge until the interpenetration was complete it would go away very quickly.

If marker bases are acceptable for uncontrolled Art, would this also be OK? I.e. replace Art bases with markers during interpenetration so there are no bonus moves.

[kevinj]

Works for me!

[marshalney2000]

Moi Aussi.
John

[daveallen]

Hmm, would it allow foot supporting artillery to charge?

[nikgaukroger]

Hmm, would it allow foot supporting artillery to charge?

I don't believe you are allowed to interpenetrate on a charge - the fact you have replaced the models with markers would not mean it wasn't an interpenetration, therefore, it would not allow foot supporting artillery to charge?

[nikgaukroger]

I need to check with Richard, but I think the dummy bases could well be the favoured solution here for uncontrolled artillery and, probably, artillery being interpenetrated.

Please bend your minds to any possible problems and things an errata entry would need to spell out if we did go with this.

[madaxeman]

OK - I'm assuming that this means "Dummy bases" will replace uncontrolled (ie just captured by people other than gun-armed pedestrians) artillery, (and artillery being interpenetrated?) and that they would not impede movement in any way or any direction (as otherwise why even bother with a new rule, why not just let horse interpenetrate uncontrolled artillery?)

But if the markers don't impede movement, troops could potentially stand right (or worse, partially) on top of them... making it sort of difficult to replace the markers, or even decide when you have technically captured / recaptured them... you could even end up with more than one unit from each side literally on top of the markers at the same time...?

[nikgaukroger]

But if the markers don't impede movement, troops could potentially stand right (or worse, partially) on top of them...

And this is a problem because?

The idea is to avoid deep formations teleporting over artillery - Jim (IIRC) raised this as a potential issue using deep keils as an example.

making it sort of difficult to replace the markers, or even decide when you have technically captured / recaptured them... you could even end up with more than one unit from each side literally on top of the markers at the same time...?

Again, not sure this is an issue. Control would be with the last legitimate controlling unit in contact with the dummy base - rules would need to specify this in some form. Would this be too difficult to work out? Markers would only be replaced by artillery bases again when the artillery was under somebody's control and/or all interpenetrating BGs have moved off the markers. Seems OK to me, but lets here if I'm missing something (wouldn't be unusual ...).

[madaxeman]

Control would be with the last legitimate controlling unit in contact with the dummy base - rules would need to specify this in some form.

Thats exactly the point I'm making. You'd need to define "last legitimate controlling unit"

1) So, I move up to artillery and capture it with some horse, who then move to sit partly on top of it, as it's now "mine" but "uncontrolled"
2) I then move some foot into edge contact with it, so it becomes "controlled" but is still being interpenetrated by my horse - who can't now technically interpenetrate it,
2a) so are they now stuck there?
2b) Can the artillery now shoot?
2c) Could enemy horse charge my horse if to do so they have to charge across the marker which is now technically my artillery?
2c and a bit) Or would an enemy charge stop at the point it contacts the artillery, rendering the artillery uncontrolled but not "mine" - or, if they were foot, possibly even meaning that my horse might find themeleves interpenetrating enemy artillery?

Or, following straight on from 2) Assuming My foot move off but my horse stay on the artillery ...
3) I move up a second unit of horse into contact with what is now "my" "controlled" artillery, but is still a marker due to the first unit of horse. Can the new unit go onto the marker or not?
4) Someone attacks my first unit of horse by contacting bases, or more likley, base edges, which are not overlapping the artillery, and breaks them. What happens to the artillery then - is it uncontrolled, recaptured immediately, or only when the enemy actually contacts the markers (which are actually bases)..?

aaarrgh!

(says the man who still suspects "remove if contacted by folks who cant capture it" is going to be easier)

[kevinj]

Here's how I would envisage it working:

After capture:
1) Replace the Artillery Bases with markers if captured by a BGF that can't recrew them.
2) Replace the markers with Artillery Bases at the end of any manouvre phase if they have been touched by a BG that can recrew them and no friendly base is currently even partially on top of them and no enemy base is currently in any contact with them.

So, in your example the Horse capture the guns and then sit on them. A P+S BG is moved up to recrew them. Once the Horse have moved off the markers are replaced by Artillery bases if no enemy is in contact with them.

In my view recapture would require a suitable BG to move into contact in the manouvre phase if there were no enemy BG in contact or on the marker, in which case the enemy would need to be driven off first. Again the markers would be replaced at the end of a manouvre phase one the markers were clear. I'm inclined to the view that you shouldn't be able to recapture the guns (and recover the lost AP) unless you were capable of recrewing them, but that's a separate point.