Page 7 of 8

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:37 pm
by shadowdragon
nikgaukroger wrote:
shadowdragon wrote: For the Rocroi example,

After defeating the French cavalry opposite him, Isembourg, commanding the Spanish right wing cavalry, captures the French artillery. The Spanish then turn these guns on the French infantry centre, which combined with the Spanish artillery, causes some problems for the French infantry. L'Hopital commanding the French infantry centre, re-captures some guns only to lose them again to some Italian infantry in the Spanish army. The guns are recaptured again when the Duc d'Enghien (Conde) rides around the Spanish army to attack them in the rear. With the guns back in their possession the Duc d'Enghien uses them to bombard the old Spanish tercios.
More detail in there than I recall offhand for the battle (a while since I looked closely at it) - which source does it come from?
A secondary source - an article by Capt Cyril Falls. Alas, the article is 50 years old and I can't find the primary sources.

In game terms I would take the action to be:
1) The Spanish cavalry capture the French guns
2) An Italian (?) tercio is brought up to crew the guns and turn them on the French infantry
3) The French infantry attack the Italian infantry in a struggle for the guns
4) Enghien's cavalry attack the rear of the Italians and defeat them.
5) The French re-capture the guns to use against the Spanish tercois

That could be consistent with the very brief account on this web page, which I include because it does provide a bibliography:

http://www.oocities.org/aow1617/Rocroi.html

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:55 pm
by rbodleyscott
Could this be dealt with satisfactorily by an additional bullet in the Interpenetrations section:
- Any troops can pass through uncontrolled artillery perpendicularly from back to front or front to back only.
?

Note that the restriction on direction is to prevent long distance teleportation (as it is in the normal foot interpenetrating artillery rule).

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:26 pm
by Three
rbodleyscott wrote:Could this be dealt with satisfactorily by an additional bullet in the Interpenetrations section:
- Any troops can pass through uncontrolled artillery perpendicularly from back to front or front to back only.
?

Note that the restriction on direction is to prevent long distance teleportation (as it is in the normal foot interpenetrating artillery rule).
Yes, this point is the only part of the rules that I have any real issue with (despite my prolonged moaning about the price of Winged Hussars :P ), and this would solve my issues with it.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:58 pm
by nikgaukroger
shadowdragon wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
shadowdragon wrote: For the Rocroi example,

After defeating the French cavalry opposite him, Isembourg, commanding the Spanish right wing cavalry, captures the French artillery. The Spanish then turn these guns on the French infantry centre, which combined with the Spanish artillery, causes some problems for the French infantry. L'Hopital commanding the French infantry centre, re-captures some guns only to lose them again to some Italian infantry in the Spanish army. The guns are recaptured again when the Duc d'Enghien (Conde) rides around the Spanish army to attack them in the rear. With the guns back in their possession the Duc d'Enghien uses them to bombard the old Spanish tercios.
More detail in there than I recall offhand for the battle (a while since I looked closely at it) - which source does it come from?
A secondary source - an article by Capt Cyril Falls. Alas, the article is 50 years old and I can't find the primary sources.

In game terms I would take the action to be:
1) The Spanish cavalry capture the French guns
2) An Italian (?) tercio is brought up to crew the guns and turn them on the French infantry
3) The French infantry attack the Italian infantry in a struggle for the guns
4) Enghien's cavalry attack the rear of the Italians and defeat them.
5) The French re-capture the guns to use against the Spanish tercois

That could be consistent with the very brief account on this web page, which I include because it does provide a bibliography:

http://www.oocities.org/aow1617/Rocroi.html
IIRC the chap who did that article you link to did an expanded one for The Arquebusier a couple of years ago - and I'm sure that made no mention of the Spanish turning the over-run French guns on the French infantry. Now that doesn't mean it didn't happen, however, I can't help but feel that its absence in such an article suggests that the author (at least) didn't find it amongst his sources.

I am more and more coming to think that re-use of guns that were over-run by enemy cavalry may not be worth the effort of representing - too infrequent (fewer examples than captured artillery being used against their former owners I think - but feel free to correct me on that).

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:45 pm
by Sarmaticus
rbodleyscott wrote:Could this be dealt with satisfactorily by an additional bullet in the Interpenetrations section:
- Any troops can pass through uncontrolled artillery perpendicularly from back to front or front to back only.
?

Note that the restriction on direction is to prevent long distance teleportation (as it is in the normal foot interpenetrating artillery rule).
Good. Reads simply and looks easy to apply.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:51 pm
by petedalby
Works for me - (and v similar to my post of the 4th October....)

I also liked t'other Richard's suggestion of a minus on the POA if artillery fire on mounted in the flank sector at long range. That might encourage more historic artillery deployment.

If you could also outlaw artillery firing through their own LF that would be job done for me.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:54 pm
by shadowdragon
nikgaukroger wrote:IIRC the chap who did that article you link to did an expanded one for The Arquebusier a couple of years ago - and I'm sure that made no mention of the Spanish turning the over-run French guns on the French infantry. Now that doesn't mean it didn't happen, however, I can't help but feel that its absence in such an article suggests that the author (at least) didn't find it amongst his sources.

I am more and more coming to think that re-use of guns that were over-run by enemy cavalry may not be worth the effort of representing - too infrequent (fewer examples than captured artillery being used against their former owners I think - but feel free to correct me on that).
More than likely it's the inability of the French to hit back at the Spanish once their guns are taken that has the biggest impact. More germane to our discussion than whether or not the Spanish turned the French guns on the French infantry for any significant effect was that eventually the French re-captured them and used them against the Spanish tercios in the final states of the battle. They can't do that if the guns are removed after the Spanish cavalry capture them.

I found another secondary source - an article by Simon Goodenough which mentions the same events as Cyril Falls with respect to the French artillery. [For what it's worth, the wiki article mentions d'Enghien also capturing and using the Spanish guns against the Spanish tercios....but it is wiki, there's no reference and I haven't seen the Spanish guns being used on the Spanish quoted elsewhere but some of the accounts have the Spanish guns with the tercios and still operational.]

The relevant section from Jean-Baptiste Lepine's 1860 historical account.

"Mélos, profitant avec ardeur de son avantage de ce côté, se porta sur une partie de l’infanterie, à la tête de laquelle combattait Laferté, la tailla en pièces, et prit même cet officier général percé de deux coups de pistolet et de trois coups d’épée, tua le sieur de la Barre, lieutenant d’artillerie, et prit aussi quelques pièces de canon.

"Cependant, le maréchal, qui avait rallié une partie de sa cavalerie, se soutenait vaillamment contre les ennemis, qui faisaient des efforts inouïs pour le prendre prisonnier.

"Les Espagnols, profitant du fâcheux désordre où était cette aile gauche, se servirent même de nos propres canons pour achever de la rompre."

It is possible that the re-use of guns didn't have much of an effect - perhaps more morale than material, but it is mentioned often enough. So, I prefer Richard's solution. Uncontrolled guns can be interpenetrated by any unit - front to back or back to front.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:13 pm
by shadowdragon
I'm happy enough with the POA for artillery vs mounted "as is", but I was wondering if the "artillery vs mounted" problem is all artillery or just medium artillery. It seems to me that medium artillery are good value vs light or heavy artillery. They have a reasonably good long range at 24 MU (vs 8 for light artillery and 36 for heavy) and can pivot without a CMT (same as light artillery).

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:32 pm
by kevinj
Any troops can pass through uncontrolled artillery perpendicularly from back to front or front to back only.
There also needs to be a mechanism to allow them to be recaptured. We tend to fudge it by a charge, but that's not really right as they are not an enemy BG.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:53 pm
by TamsinP
Another example - Breitenfeld 1631. The Swedish cavalry captured Tilly's guns and they were then crewed and used against the tercios.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:43 am
by nigelemsen
My preference is keep it simple for playability... What works for me as possible solutions:

Any troops allowed to pass through front/back, back/front including charging.
For large units like Kiel's/tercios. Pass completely through on a complex test (counter to distance gain) charging is a simple move. Otherwise remain in base contact counting front edge as per artillery edge.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:51 am
by petedalby
Are there any historic examples of charging through one's own guns? I am concerned that could be exploited in as yet un-imagined ways.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:46 am
by nikgaukroger
I don't think allowing chargers to interpenetrate is a change on either mine or Richard's agenda - opens up a whole Can o'Worms (tm).

For those concerned on the artillery/mounted issue it currently seems that Richard's suggestion is the most likely one to be adopted IMO. So if that will throw up an undesirable consequences speak now ...

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:09 pm
by kevinj
I don't think allowing chargers to interpenetrate is a change on either mine or Richard's agenda - opens up a whole Can o'Worms (tm).
Agreed.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:50 pm
by vexillia
nikgaukroger wrote:For those concerned on the artillery/mounted issue it currently seems that Richard's suggestion is the most likely one to be adopted IMO. So if that will throw up an undesirable consequences speak now ...
Which Richard and is there a link to it?

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:24 pm
by pyruse
rbodleyscott wrote:Could this be dealt with satisfactorily by an additional bullet in the Interpenetrations section:
- Any troops can pass through uncontrolled artillery perpendicularly from back to front or front to back only.
?

Note that the restriction on direction is to prevent long distance teleportation (as it is in the normal foot interpenetrating artillery rule).

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:04 pm
by MatteoPasi
I'd like this one (even simpler):
uncontrolled artillery is considered like uneven terrain and no as a BG anymore, troops can pass over and even stand it (defending it fron enemy)

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:43 am
by kevinj
Are we anywhere nearer to a solution for this yet? Issues occurred with it in at least 2 games at Warfare last weekend. Those were just the ones I had to rule on, there may have been other games where it arose and the players resolved it themselves.

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:50 am
by nikgaukroger
kevinj wrote:Are we anywhere nearer to a solution for this yet? Issues occurred with it in at least 2 games at Warfare last weekend. Those were just the ones I had to rule on, there may have been other games where it arose and the players resolved it themselves.
All down to getting Richard to do a new set of errata as I think there is a solution he is happy with - its just rather difficult to prise him away from his computer game at present ... :evil:

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:58 pm
by Sarmaticus
nikgaukroger wrote:
petedalby wrote: And Artillery firing over LF is another problem IMO. Personally I'd prefer to see no overhead firing at all unless from a hill. It didn't really come in until the Napoleonic period or beyond.
I'm trying to recall why we had this in the rules and am currently failing ...
Resurrecting this but could it have been Luetzen where the Imperialist's shot line the ditches of a road running along their front?