Mounted and captured artillery

[Delbruck]

though I guess this probably could use an FAQ clarification.

That is an understatement.

It is hard to understand why artillery would become an impassable terrain feature to cavalry.

In the musket era cavalry passed through artillery all the time, Waterloo being the most obvious example.

[Scrumpy]

Surely the foot would have to force the mounted to either break-off or rout to get a useable control of the guns ?

But I agree I find it strange that some guns & limbers etc would stop mounted from pursuing even if disordered after the fleeing foot.

[SchuleinP]

Same here. We already had it happen thrice. Seems that 2 bases of artillery are a pretty good flank protection against mounted.

[Three]

But I agree I find it strange that some guns & limbers etc would stop mounted from pursuing even if disordered after the fleeing foot.

There aren't really any limbers, once the guns were deployed they were pretty much stuck there, the drivers and their animals were off, fighting wasn't their job (IMO).

[MatteoPasi]

Yes

So if enemy mounted take the guns. Can friendly mounted move to what would be "support" position if they were foot and then fight the enemy mounted?

Or is this functionally an uncrossable terrain piece for non-infantry?

In the absence of any rules to the contrary, I suppose it is.

Wait.... artillery BG can't be interpenetreted from mounted but capture and uncontrolled artillery are not a BG so mounted can pass throug them..... is this correct ?

[gibby]

Hi Matteo,

As far as I am aware, Mounted cannot pass through Artillery bases regardless of what status they have.

cheers
Jim

[MatteoPasi]

Hi Matteo,

As far as I am aware, Mounted cannot pass through Artillery bases regardless of what status they have.

cheers
Jim

Rules state that mounted cannot interpenatrate Artillery BG, the point is if uncontrolled cannon are still a BG or not.

In the definition of BG there is "troops" and HIMO uncontrolled canon are not troops at all BUT this is only my opinion, an Official point of view can help.

[gibby]

That is an interesting point of view, however the interpenetration part of the rules does not mention battle group and says what you are allowed to interpenetrate.

It says the following interpenetration of friendly troops are permitted. Cavalry through Artillery is not one of them. Regardless of whether its a battlegroup or not, they are not friends and therefore I cannot see how you can be allowed to move through them but as you say, a word from the powers that be would help settle the debate.

cheers
Jim

[nikgaukroger]

I believe that Jim is correct - that is what the rules say.

[SchuleinP]

Same here. We already had it happen thrice. Seems that 2 bases of artillery are a pretty good flank protection against mounted.

4th time this saturday.
I would prefer to count neutral artillery as difficult terrain or something.

[MatteoPasi]

I believe that Jim is correct - that is what the rules say.

Ubi major minor cessat

[gvm]

Field Fortifications, Portable defences, and Linear Obstacles all cause movement issues only if defended. "Undefended field fortifications do not impede movement of troops (i.e. not sufficiently to be repeesented in the rules)." pg 157 Defended field fortifications force to stop one MU away and limit charge move to one MU. Field fortifications include earth works and wagons laagered together, the closest analogy to unmanned artillery. Linear obstacles include ditches, hedges, and walls and are treated like field fortifications. All of these would impede the movement of mounted more than unmanned artillery. I think that unmanned artillery should be treated like regimental guns a marker only that doesn't effect movement until it has been remanned.

[footslogger]

Did an FAQ ever get written and did it clarify any of the above?

A couple of new things came up.

I captured an unsupported battery with some light horse. The Ottomans had some Azabs nearby which moved up and started shooting through the guns at my light horse that were in contact with the captured artillery bases. Is this legal? I know you can shoot at rear supports but what about this situation? It's intuitive that you should be able to do that, but would they shoot at the artillery instead?

So, we allowed it and the light horse went to fragged. So he charged. I think this is incorrect based on the reading of what occurs earlier in the thread, but I didn't have access to this thread easily, and I didn't have a printed FAQ.... Just sayin'.

[batesmotel]

Page 126: "When any base of an unlimbered enemy battle group is contacted in a way that would normally result in close combat the whole artillery battle group is captured unless all contacted bases have rear support."

This clearly allows mounted to "capture" artillery.

Page 127: artillery "... captured or recaptured by any troops other than pike and/or shot, the artillery remains uncontrolled (out of action) until a battle group of pike and/or shot of the same side moves into contact with it, or it is recaptured by a battle group of pike and/or shot of the opposing side. ... Uncontrollled artillery does not count as enemy to either side."

Given this, it seems to me that the mounted have indeed "captured" the artillery and therefore the former owner must satisfy the conditions for recapturing the guns. Just moving into contact with the guns should not be able to capture them since they are not "enemy" guns. Therefore I think the rules as written require that the mounted must either leave the guns or be driven off. In the latter case it would seem that the foot attempting to recapture the guns must either charge the cavalry which captured the guns or otherwise drive them off with fire, etc.

All in all this seems much more reasonable than the musical chairs scenario described below.

Chris

rbodleyscott: " I'm coming to the conclusion then that if artillery has been captured by mounted and they are still in contact with it, the only way the foot can recapture it is by making a move in the impact phase that either contacts the mounted, or is a move into legal rear support with the battery. Just moving to touch the battery is not legal."


Grrrr. This all makes sense but now makes me think there are other possibilities. (I'm sorry to keep this going. I thought I was about done with it on the 1st of May, but apparently not). So turn 1a some mounted charge some guns and capture them, but don't control them. They are stuck in contact with the guns. On turn 1b some nearby foot charge the guns and capture them and control them, but the charge isn't into a rear support position, so no combat is fought with the mounted. At the end of that turn then enemy mounted and friendly foot are both in contact with the guns and the foot control them. In the next phase do they automatically get captured by the enemy mounted again with no combat being fought, or what?

[daveallen]

The whole capturing and recapturing artillery lark throws up some questions with the rules that really need looking at.

1. Capture seems fairly clear:

When any base of an unlimbered enemy battle group is contacted in a way that would normally result in close combat the whole artillery battle group is captured unless all contacted bases have rear support. P126

2. Recapture is not so clear, but occurs when:

A battle group belonging to the previous owner, and already in contact, routs (all) the capturing enemy battle group(s). P127 bp1

[or]

A battle group belonging to the previous owner moves into contact (in a way that would normally result in close combat) with an artillery base that does not have rear support from the current owner's troops. P127, bp2

Para 1 doesn't seem to be a major problem, but consider what happens if the LH that captured the artillery is routed two moves later when it is 18 m.u.s away.

Para 2 is even more difficult. Moving into contact "in a way that would normally result in close combat" is usually interpreted as a charge in the impact phase, but:

To be allowed to declare a charge, there must be an enemy base that can be "legally" contacted. P72, my emphasis

AND

Uncontrollled artillery does not count as enemy to either side. P127, last sentence of penultimate paragraph

Which means it is not possible to charge an uncontrolled artillery bg because it isn't an "enemy."

So, can you recapture it in the Manoeuvre phase by just walking into it? Probably not, because the only movements in the phase that can "normally result in close combat" are into overlap, sideways shifts and turns (see pages 102 and 103). All of which would be difficult to apply in this case.

I think we should view uncontrolled artillery as having a similar status to an unfortified camp for this purpose - it can be captured/recaptured by any movement in the Manoeuvre phase that makes/maintains contact, as well as by pursuits and charges declared on other battle groups.

3. Interpenetration of uncontrolled artillery

It is extremely frustrating and more than slightly illogical/unrealistic that uncontrolled artillery represents a barrier to movement of both sides. As already pointed out in this thread, the artillery is more like a linear obstacle than a solid block:

Artillery base depths vastly over-represent their actual historical depth. Hence a battle group in a position to give rear support is treated for all purposes as if its front edge was the front edge of the artillery... P126, bp1

The front edge of FF is treated as the front edge of a battle group defending them... P157, bp1

Undefended field fortifications do not impede the movement of troops... P 157. final bp

A [linear} obstacle is otherwise treated as if it was a field fortification. P170, final sentence of definition of obstacle.

In my view, uncontrolled artillery should be treated by analogy with linear obstacles for movement, but not for being defended.

This would mean that troops of the side which currently "owns" the artillery simply move through it as if it wasn't there, being allowed to charge targets beyond it if they can.

Would this be an interpenetration or not?

My view is not, as the interpenetration rule concerns moving

through friendly troops... P 67, para 1, my emphasis

Since artillery become uncontrolled when their crews are killed, captured or chased away, all that is left are bits of wood and metal which do not fit any reasonable definition of "troops." Nor can they be "friendly."

Also, this would allow the non-"owning" player to charge through the artillery thereby recapturing them because this would be movement "that would normally result in close combat."


Whether this can be addressed in the FAQs or needs an errata, I don't know.

Dave

[footslogger]

Yeah, it's really a mess. I'm hosting a tournament at the start of June and barring clarifications before then I think I'll just put in a tournament rule that artillery captured by mounted is immediately removed from play.

[beausant]

I agree with the above...just played a game where two cavalry units attacked a battery with a pike and shot unit in rear support. With one charge a flank charge the rear support unit broke and routed, yet the cavalry could not pursue and the uncontrolled battery became impassable terrain to the cavalry.

[hazelbark]

I think it would be simpler to say the artillery is not destroyed until the end of the next JAP phase.

The question is how much do you want to pretend that gun crews ran off and came back?

The other option would be saying that beginning in the next JAP phase after mounted captures artillery it is treated as clear terrain until the guns are contacted by infantry. Then they behave after that as if they were (re)captured by foot of either side.

[daveallen]

What I was trying to achieve was a reasonable interpretation of the existing rules rather than a major rule change.

I like the idea that the guns themselves are only rarely destroyed and they are valuable assets, possession or loss of which will affect the morale of the army. Hence the ability to recapture them is important. However, the way they are currently treated is both illogical within the rules and contrary to a reasonable view of the reality they are supposed to represent.

What I would like to see is:

1) uncontrolled artillery do not become impassable terrain. They should be regarded as having no effect on movement by any troops of either side.

2) capturing/recapturing uncontrolled artillery can be the result of any movement into contact by troops of the active player.

3) Or by routing in close combat a unit that had captured it and was still in contact with it.

All for reasons explained above.

Dave