I think that may be too literal an analysis (and set of outcomes) for the level of abstraction within the ruleset.vexillia wrote:Not sure what you mean here. I don't want anything new modelled just consistent outcomes.nikgaukroger wrote:If you want that modelled give us some examples to justify additional rules.
As noted below you can cause artillery bases to be removed by shooting them when they no longer cause any obstruction whilst they remain place and, an obstruction, if broken in close combat. So shooting (of any sort not just counter battery) is capable of destroying artillery guns and all. Most strange.
The top level facts are that in this period artillery engaged by the enemy were sometimes captured, recrewed and used against their original owners, and sometimes spiked and destroyed instead.
The rules currently allow these two outcomes, but on the tabletop the way that the sometimes bit in the above statement plays out is arguably not that closely related to historical precedent. Instead sometimes is achieved through some fairly arbitrary game mechanics (being dependent on what types of troops capture it is a bit of a half-way-house in terms of patching some logic onto the "sometimes"). The mechanic also has some holes in it (being shot at), and doesn't allow a clear histoprical option of "player can choose to destroy it" at all. To add insult to injury, it also creates some messy problems in other areas of the rules as a by-product.
None of these are especially good, however I doubt that adding more granularity, and more "literal" outcomes to the process of capturing gunnes would really be going in the right direction either, as AFAICS there was no hard and fast "literal" historical precedent that you can consistently point to.
Or, put another way, capturingif troops contacting gunnes tossed a coin and on "heads" the guns were captured and usable, and on "tails" they were removed, it would be just as legitimate in terms of being a way to similate historical outcomes as the current (therefore probably overengineered) mechanics are.
If you accept the argument that the current mechanics are overengineered, and the outcomes of "capture vs spike" should be kinda random at a game level, you then go down a path that concludes that as long as we have an outcome in which sometimes guns are captured, and sometimes they are destroyed, but either way this in turn creates as few problems with other parts of the rules as possible, we probably have a solution....