Slitherine

I don't understand the 1 MU wheel.

If you wheel on your left flank in one shooting phase and then your right flank in the next shooting phase, you can effectively move forward one MU free.

Granted you must have a target in arc each time you fire and you must not move into a closer range band, but after the first couple of moves this is not very difficult.

Don

donm wrote:Page 43, 1st column, 3rd bullet.
' A commander may join a single unit during the movement phase or the recovery phase. The following rules apply:
He can only join a single unit of either infantry or cavalry.'

I questioned this some weeks ago with Terry over on the Beta forum and was told that Corps and divisional commanders cannot join artillery units, not even to rally them.

See also page 18 "... a commander may move to and join any one infantry or cavalry unit of his own command..."
Artillery was purposefully omitted from this rule to prevent generals pushing guns around (which was happening in play testing prior to banning it).

Cheers
Brett

Good and clear. I suppose I'd make a scenario exception for Boney if he wanted to lay the guns himself.

Mike,

I suppose I'd make a scenario exception for Boney if he wanted to lay the guns himself.

I suspect most wargamers could argue their general should be treated as an exception.

Only for the exceptional artillerist. It would use up his CPs though.

donm wrote: One question that remains un-answered about artillery office attachments is, do they replace a model or like artillery atttachments do they add a base.

Well if they add a base then it is hugely worth the points as for 12 points you get an officer and more firepower.

donm wrote:

I don't understand the 1 MU wheel.

If you wheel on your left flank in one shooting phase and then your right flank in the next shooting phase, you can effectively move forward one MU free.

Yep I mis read the reset. The reset should be required for all to solve this but the 2 MU prolong works as well.

According to p88, an attached base is a base that replaces one of the unit's bases.

Since the restore pivot in the narrative SOP on p25 applies only to fortifications, it is clear that other pivots don't have to be reset. This makes practical sense, since reset would require tracking the initial position (unless a notional pivot is measured for the shot, without moving the unit itself).

The other alternative would be to have it pivot on its center, spinning around but no more than 1 MU for any corner, but that would seem more unnatural.

MikeK wrote: Since the restore pivot in the narrative SOP on p25 applies only to fortifications, it is clear that other pivots don't have to be reset. This makes practical sense, since reset would require tracking the initial position (unless a notional pivot is measured for the shot, without moving the unit itself).

The other alternative would be to have it pivot on its center, spinning around but no more than 1 MU for any corner, but that would seem more unnatural.

I agree center would appear un natural I took it as arc and therefore reset. But you are right it is an actual move. Either way its a game mechanic.

BrettPT wrote:I agree with Hazelbark - the 2MU move is needed for artillery to be useful on table.

When using artillery offensively, standard practice for me is to move (double moves hopefully) to just outside 6MU of enemy, unlimber, then in a following turn manhandle the guns from 7MU to 5MU - where they become effective.
Brett

The simple solution to fix all of this is to increase the medium range of Artillery, say to 8MU.
Batteries could then rock on up to a position outside of musket range & deploy.

Re: Prolong Artillery

Postby Warlord » 13 May 2012 08:33
Do Infantry with an artillery attachment move at normal Infantry speed or prolong artillery speed ?

MikeK wrote:Infantry move at their normal speed.

Well after reading all the pros & cons re Prolong moving of artillery I would suggest that Infantry units with artillery attachments have their move reduced.
These artillery attachments contain the same type of guns as Field Artillery Batteries do they not?

Warlord wrote:
The simple solution to fix all of this is to increase the medium range of Artillery, say to 8MU.
Batteries could then rock on up to a position outside of musket range & deploy.

Perhaps. But I think it is a bit too soon for those kind of wholesale changes.

Warlord wrote: Well after reading all the pros & cons re Prolong moving of artillery I would suggest that Infantry units with artillery attachments have their move reduced.
These artillery attachments contain the same type of guns as Field Artillery Batteries do they not?

An interesting point. I would say no for the following unconnected reasons.
1) Practically bans artillery attachments
2) While they are "similar" I think the effect of attachments gives you a good historical feel. I know the authors sort of mean to include 8 gun 8lb batteries as an attachment. But I think it is an elegant solution at this level of game to model the reality that gun sections were often employed. Or the early war examples of batteries of 3 or 4 lb guns. The practical real world use of these were close support. So they are limbered far longer than most.
3) I may be kidding myself on this one but deploying 2-3 6 lb guns for a single volley is different than deploy 12-18 guns for a sustained bombardment.

The artillery units are position batteries. Normally they would deploy and stay put. The rules give you a little freedom of movement but at a cost. The attachment are working closely with their assigned brigade and as I see it may not even be in the unit's footprint but further back providing the support. There are abstractions to make the game work well so you can't take everything literally.

Looking at French divisional deployments of the Napoleonic period, the places to start looking for the attached field batteries in open level country are by battery or half-battery in the intervals between the battalions. at the ends of the front line, or in front. No shortage of grunts nearby to help haul. Terrain must change it.
Battalion guns would for their greatest (psychological) effect be along the front line in the intervals where the men could most easily hear and see them firing.

One question that remains un-answered about artillery office attachments is, do they replace a model or like artillery atttachments do they add a base.

We normally stand an additional officer base behind the unit. Some players have some of their guns with an addition of a mounted officer just for this.

As for prolonging guns - 130 yards in 20mins isn't a long way over open ground. Given that most armies & batteries don't have officers attached to their guns, the pass rate is approx 50%. - so the distance travelled is more normally 130yds in 40mins.
The are 2 main reasons for using a 2MU for measurement rather than 1MU:
> Ease of play - We don't want players to have to be so precise as to measure single inch moves.
> For the flow of the game - If a prolong was just 1MU, it would slow the game down significantly. The most important decision is placing your guns in the correct position to use their fire to best effect. Once unlimbered, we didn't want to force players to limber/move/unlimber in order to advance them - which would take them out of the game for 2 or 3 moves. (limbering, moving 130yds and unlimbering could probably be done in 20mins anyway).

terrys wrote: Once unlimbered, we didn't want to force players to limber/move/unlimber in order to advance them - which would take them out of the game for 2 or 3 moves. (limbering, moving 130yds and unlimbering could probably be done in 20mins anyway).

Indeed, I played that ruleset a long time ago.

I will try to think, but off the top of my head i don't recall a situation where a battery coming up to deploy was mangled by enemy fire. I can think of some in the mid to late 19th century. But ranges were greater.

Famously happened to the French in an attack. A horse battery destroyed by the enemy's artillery. Can't remember the place and time but will look it up

Alastair Donald

Let me quote some key passages from Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield on Manhandling Guns - pages 222-24. (An excellent book if a bit dear at £29.95 but I have seen it it remainder shops recently for much less. )

“For short movements on the battlefield, rather than bringing up the horse team and risking exposure to enemy fire the gun crew could manhandle the gun into position with drag ropes (bricoles), which were first used by Prussia in1722….into Austrian service …in 1753 and to France by Gribeauval in 1756.”

Then:

“In trials… in 1764… Gribeauval championed the use of the bricole…..The gunners proved quite capable of manoeuvring with the body of troops without impeding their movements; there were even times when they out performed the body of infantry.”

and

"The bricole did not give the French an overall advantage as it was used by most of the nations of Europe.”

I think this shows it was well established by 1792.

This is not designed to move batteries long distances when not under enemy fire - limbering is perfectly adequate for that - and the bricoles etc also could be attached to horses not just pulled by gunners without actually using the limbers (and were see the original contemporary print on page 223 of a British 6pdr being pulled this way). It does enable field artillery to keep up with infantry at least to some extent (certainly when in line) and is implicit in the artillery attachments. Also with the French and Spanish in the 1790s continuing to use civilian drivers this may have been the best way to get the guns on the move!

The question is whether the distance of 2 MUs is excessive but the turn represents about 20 minutes so...? I think the challenge would have been if we had not modelled it!

MikeHorah wrote:I think the challenge would have been if we had not modelled it!

You got that right, Mike.