Early Tercios, Break offs and Artillery.

[list_lurker]

Had a set of events, I’d just like views on whether we did this right.

A early Tercio charged a infantry BG (8 bases in 2 ranks) that was supporting a single BG of artillery (centrally). After the melee the non Tercio unit became disrupted. As the Tercio is not shock then the supporting BG could break off 4”. So, this is 4” from the front of the artillery that is was supporting?. The gap then being 4” – 40mm

The artillery , losing its support, is captured. Does the BG that broke off test immediately in the JAP, of in the following impact (next turn)?

The gap between the rear of the artillery and the BG that broke off was insufficient for the Tercio to fit into. While the artillery is perpendicular to the Tercio is itself can’t count as supporting.

So, would the guns have to formation change and turn around so the Tercio could then charge through (although, that doesn’t fix the gap. Would the Tercio split?

thanks
Simon

[youngr]

Had a set of events, I’d just like views on whether we did this right.

A early Tercio charged a infantry BG (8 bases in 2 ranks) that was supporting a single BG of artillery (centrally). After the melee the non Tercio unit became disrupted. As the Tercio is not shock then the supporting BG could break off 4”. So, this is 4” from the front of the artillery that is was supporting?. The gap then being 4” – 40mm

The artillery , losing its support, is captured. Does the BG that broke off test immediately in the JAP, of in the following impact (next turn)?

The gap between the rear of the artillery and the BG that broke off was insufficient for the Tercio to fit into. While the artillery is perpendicular to the Tercio is itself can’t count as supporting.

So, would the guns have to formation change and turn around so the Tercio could then charge through (although, that doesn’t fix the gap. Would the Tercio split?

thanks
Simon

We had an early Tercio at Usk that captured artillery but then did not have enough space to move through and capture the next artillery group. Bit frustrating. We couldn't go round it either as apart from taking too long there was a steep hill on one flank and the base edge near the other side. So, eventually, we turned the Tercio 180° and buggered off back to our lines!

It would have been far easier in this instance to simply blow up the guns (take them off) and then be free to continue moving forward.

Cheers

Richard

[list_lurker]

in our example the breaking off BG were bowmen. Who at short range 4" could fire at the exposed ranks of the tercio, while the tercio (arquebus) were out of range so ccouldn't fire and were stuck trying to turn the guns (failing the CMT)...

all just seemed a bit wrong

[Three]

It does seem odd (plus it benefits the loser) and leads back to previous discussions on captured artillery - it still strikes me that simply removing captured artillery is the simplest way to resolve it. I understand the counter-argument about the historical (albeit very rare) use of captured artillery, but it frankly doesn't seem worth the effort imo.

[madaxeman]

I know they are little niggles, however they are starting to mount up. We also had an artillery oddity at the weekend in Usk, when a unit already in contact with captured artillery found out that would have had to move away, and then move back into contact in order to recapture it

Are we not getting close to the point at which we just agree that "once captured, artillery can be removed if the capturer wishes and still has bases in base contact with the artillery"

?

[rbodleyscott]

I know they are little niggles, however they are starting to mount up. We also had an artillery oddity at the weekend in Usk, when a unit already in contact with captured artillery found out that would have had to move away, and then move back into contact in order to recapture it

Are we not getting close to the point at which we just agree that "once captured, artillery can be removed if the capturer wishes and still has bases in base contact with the artillery"

?

That does at least have the virtue of not preventing guns been used by the capturers if they want to.

[ravenflight]

I know they are little niggles, however they are starting to mount up. We also had an artillery oddity at the weekend in Usk, when a unit already in contact with captured artillery found out that would have had to move away, and then move back into contact in order to recapture it

Are we not getting close to the point at which we just agree that "once captured, artillery can be removed if the capturer wishes and still has bases in base contact with the artillery"

?

That does at least have the virtue of not preventing guns been used by the capturers if they want to.

Why don't we just allow an artillery sized base to mark the location. The original owner can put the bases down if they recapture and/or the enemy can opt to place them upon a passed CMT by infantry to 'capture and use'.

I think most people will say 'ahh stuff it' but the 'historical precedent' is maintained.

[madaxeman]

Because it's messy, and means guns can never be destroyed? Which happened a lot more often than them being recaptured by their original owners....

[Sarmaticus]

Are we not getting close to the point at which we just agree that "once captured, artillery can be removed if the capturer wishes and still has bases in base contact with the artillery"

?

Volltreffer! If we take the classic case as Luetzen, the Swedes would still be able to use the captured Imperialist battery by this rule.

[Three]

Are we not getting close to the point at which we just agree that "once captured, artillery can be removed if the capturer wishes and still has bases in base contact with the artillery"

?

+1