Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Renaissance Wars.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:33 pm

madaxeman wrote: 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,
I think the idea is that mounted would be allowed to interpenetrate to get rid of an existing issue.

Anyway, thanks for posting that scenario, very useful. I'll leave it a bit to allow others to comment before pitching in again.
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

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by madaxeman » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:12 pm

kevinj wrote:
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.


Would it need to be "enemy BG in contact in such a way as they could normally provide rear support if the artillery marker was, well, actual artillery" Otherwise you get a wierd side-edge-in-contact-with-artillery thing which would mean you needed to cross the uncontrolled artillery to get to fight someone touching it ?
kevinj wrote: Again the markers would be replaced at the end of a manouvre phase one the markers were clear.
That would probably have to be part of any rule ... but we may end up with a lot of rules to get to this point!
kevinj wrote: 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.
arrrrggh!
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by timmy1 » Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:49 pm

I am sorry but I fundamentally disagree with the proposed changes. We don't have many examples of mounted moving through enemy artillery. We certainly have secondary reports of Ottoman guns being chained. I think it is appropriate for mounted troops of this period to not be able to go through guns given the sort of formations used.

If it was something like sacking a camp to remove or spending a movement phase stationary in contact with captured enemy guns to remove fine. Other than that I don't think it should change. No historical justification that I have seen.

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by kevinj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:14 am

Tim, if you don't like what's proposed, do you have any other suggestions to resolve the problems with uncontrolled artillery?

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:09 am

kevinj wrote:Tim, if you don't like what's proposed, do you have any other suggestions to resolve the problems with uncontrolled artillery?
To be fair to Tim - an unnatural practice I know - I think he has previously mentioned just going with something like remove artillery if "captured" by troops who cannot control them. This has the merits of being dead simple and, I suspect, will be the fall back position should Richard and I be unconvinced/unhappy with the suggested alternatives.
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

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by kevinj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:15 am

Fair enough, I'm happy with that option too if the replacement base idea becomes too complicated. It doesn't solve the leapfrogging Keils but for me that's a much lesser issue.

gibby
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:50 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by gibby » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:21 am

Just because we do not have many examples of it happening, does not mean it did not happen.

I'm not to sure I have read many accounts of large Tercio formations/Kiels passing through gun lines like we see on the table at the moment but we allow that.

I would like to see a rule for interpenetrating Artillery which allows any formation to pass through back to front/front to back.

Like now it can only be started by being in full base contact with the front or back of the artillery.
When you move through you end your move with the rear bases rear touching the front/back of the artillery depending on what direction you are going. If your formation is too deep to get through you leave the bases that do not get through on the other side of the artillery and only whole bases that get through are allowed through. No wheeling/charging or changing formation allowed whilst going through the artillery.
If you get stuck with say half a Kiels formation on one side of the artillery and the other half on the other side, only count 4 rank bonuses etc if there is 4 ranks on that side of the Artillery.

cheers
Jim

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by kevinj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:32 am

I'm not saying it's not an issue, just that for me it's the lesser problem to that of uncontrolled artillery. I'd be happy woth your suggestion.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:41 am

kevinj wrote:Fair enough, I'm happy with that option too if the replacement base idea becomes too complicated. It doesn't solve the leapfrogging Keils but for me that's a much lesser issue.
I'd like to get a feel for how much of an issue this is (or isn't). How often does it crop up?
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

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by kevinj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:58 am

How often does it crop up?
Less than it would if some of the Fog AM players switched to Fog R :twisted:

Seriously, it is normally restricted to early themes due to the enforced keil/early tercio formations. Personally I've never suffered from it but I guess it generates a couple of queries per early themed tournament.The extreme example would be a Keil 2 bases wide and 8 deep that could move 16cm from the front of artillery, more than twice its move.

gibby
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:50 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by gibby » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:17 am

Actually, I have a problem with it full stop. Whilst the Kiel is the worst exponent of it. All other units gain 4 cm as well because the movement starts from the front of the artillery.

cheers
Jim

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:02 am

So I'm guessing that you'd be looking for something along the lines of - only bases that at least partly clear the far edge of the artillery bases are placed beyond that edge, all others remain on the near side until the BG moves again; if the interpenetrating BG becomes involved in close combat only bases on that side of the artillery count for Impact or Melee PoAs?
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

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by madaxeman » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:10 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
kevinj wrote:Tim, if you don't like what's proposed, do you have any other suggestions to resolve the problems with uncontrolled artillery?
To be fair to Tim - an unnatural practice I know - I think he has previously mentioned just going with something like remove artillery if "captured" by troops who cannot control them. This has the merits of being dead simple and, I suspect, will be the fall back position should Richard and I be unconvinced/unhappy with the suggested alternatives.
I think you are getting your Tims confuised...
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

gibby
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:50 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by gibby » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:25 am

nikgaukroger wrote:So I'm guessing that you'd be looking for something along the lines of - only bases that at least partly clear the far edge of the artillery bases are placed beyond that edge, all others remain on the near side until the BG moves again; if the interpenetrating BG becomes involved in close combat only bases on that side of the artillery count for Impact or Melee PoAs?
Sounds good to me.

cheers
Jim

petedalby
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2999
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by petedalby » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:13 pm

I think you are getting your Tims confused...
As one of them is now George where is the confusion?
Pete

daveallen
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by daveallen » Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:26 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:So I'm guessing that you'd be looking for something along the lines of - only bases that at least partly clear the far edge of the artillery bases are placed beyond that edge, all others remain on the near side until the BG moves again; if the interpenetrating BG becomes involved in close combat only bases on that side of the artillery count for Impact or Melee PoAs?
Hmmm, I see the value of this against the prospect of someone using interpenetration to move ridiculous distances, but I'm not sure the complications make life any easier. For instance, what happens to a split bg attacked in the flank? Where is the combat fought? Does a keil or tercio retain the benefits of its formation when split?

Also, I assume a similar rule will have to apply to fortifications, and why not to other interpenetrations?

Much simpler to limit interpenetration moves to move distance plus up to one base depth. Allowing for the notional position of the bg behind guns or fortifications, of course. And including permitted double/triple moves.

This way a four deep keil could pass through guns, but an eight deep couldn't. Also a Cavalry bg could not teleport along the width of a four wide LF bg.

Dave

Three
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:30 pm

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by Three » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:03 pm

If a BG of Artillery with 3 bases gets shot at, casualties are caused and the death roll is failed, what happens with the "dead" base?

I've never seen artillery in 3s, but they are allowed, and I'd think that the base would just be removed as a normal casualty would?

petedalby
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2999
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by petedalby » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:13 pm

If a BG of Artillery with 3 bases gets shot at, casualties are caused and the death roll is failed, what happens with the "dead" base?

I've never seen artillery in 3s, but they are allowed, and I'd think that the base would just be removed as a normal casualty would?
I believe that is correct - yes.
Pete

Three
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:30 pm

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by Three » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:27 pm

Thanks Pete,

If you shoot the gunners dead the guns don't just disappear, but they are removed from play; if you get enough shooting casualties on a 2 base artillery BG and fail the death roll they similarily vanish and don't effect anybody's movement even though the guns are still there, but if you sabre them (or even just make a rude face), the gunners die or run off and leave the guns in place but now they are enough of an obstruction to prevent movement of mounted.

Unless I'm missing something blindingly obvious, "dead" guns by shooting casualties should be left on the table to be captured and used against their owners and be an obstruction to mounted or "dead" guns by any contact should be removed, if only to be consistent.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Impassibility of captured artillery to mounted

Post by madaxeman » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:02 pm

Good spot. So, arguably it could become better for mounted Arquebusiers to run round the side of guns and try and shoot them to destroy them, in preference to riding down the gunners and rendering the guns captured but recapturable....

So, about my "destroyed unless captured by someone who can crew them" idea to keep things simple then....?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Renaissance Wars : General Discussion”