Slitherine

This situation means the units are "engaged" - so no spiking....

Fair point, so what about:

xxx x
xx

If is "controlled" it stays (if one or both are foot?), if it's not, (ie 2 lots of horse), either side can remove it - as it's an artificial obstacle preventing them charging each other.

Okay, just needed to be clear. No problem with the intention of the rule.

Dave

madaxeman wrote:The only other trial variation we are considering is as follows:

"Captured / uncontrolled artillery may be be permanently removed in the JAP by any (un-engaged) unit currently in contact with them"

Can anyone spot any major issues that might arise if we give this a go ?

So are we not considering a minimum mounted at all, it just feels a lot fairer that's all otherwise we'll have lots of maximum P&S armies with regimental guns and the one average cavalry hiding in the back, hardly historical

cheers

Alasdair

Is there a danger that if we have a foot restriction and a minimum mounted that we end up with a real series of clone armies with little variety between them.
Just to be clear are you suggesting that every army must have a minimum of three mounted units come hell or high water unless they are not allowed that many. If so do players then shy away from more costly mounted in order to maximise foot anyway.
John

No, we're not imposing any minimum level of mounted BGs. Just to be clear the only conditions that we intend to apply are:

1) The 6 base minimum of foot battle troops (not including Commanded Shot or Artillery) per artillery base.

2) The ability to remove captured/uncontrolled artillery as discussed above.

Thanks Kevin, at least we are all clear on the playing field.
John

I'm happy with the option of if you capture artillery, you can choose to destroy them in the turn you capture them. I like the idea of cav trampling thru them and knocking over the guns.

That is a simple fix the to the annoying "artillery obstacle".

Simon

Well that's that sorted then fellahs. Cue reach for the army list books to see what works best under the new imperium ........
HH

urbanbunny1 wrote:I'm happy with the option of if you capture artillery, you can choose to destroy them in the turn you capture them. I like the idea of cav trampling thru them and knocking over the guns.
That is a simple fix the to the annoying "artillery obstacle".
Simon

You may well be happy with this, but that's not the actual fix we are applying

bah!

Point of order. Does a double size unit count as two foot units for the artillery to foot ratio?
John

Since the restriction is on Bases rather than units, it counts as however many it is. So a 14 base GBG and a 16 base one could support 5 guns between them.

A bit slow this morning.
John

This morning...

How different from any other...?

Slow well it did take you nine days to come up with a response!! The case rests.
John

updated R&R

Stephen Stead Reigate
John Munro Perth
Keith Spedding October Wargames Association
Charles Masefield Oxford
Simon Leray-Meyer Central London Wargames Club
Lynnette Maxim Burton And District
David Allen Central London Wargames Club
Nigel Emsen Solent Wargames Club
James Gibson CJSS
Matthew Poole Stockport
Hunter Hope Perth
Stewart Riddick Perth
Paul Kitcher
Don Avis MKWS (Milton Keynes)
Richard Young None
David Parish Reigate
Kevin Johnson None

Nice that Richard will avoid Kevin in the first round...

17 sign ups already - that's great Tim. Only 6 weeks to go lads - time for the witty banter to begin. Spotted Dog Productions can exclusively reveal that in pre basho training the much vaunted John Munro may been seduced by Hunter Hope. 's Later Louis XIV as a competition pick. Not sure if it's the saviour faire, the period clothing, the frilly lace or the intersing troop combos. What do you think?
SD