Captured Artillery

[hazelbark]

I can see (with your rule Don) that someone will deliberately leave them on the board because they hamper enemy mounted. A BG of disrupted (or fragmented infantry if they pass the CMT) (for example) could capture the enemy guns. Say 'nope, I'm gonna keep them', knowing full well the enemy mounted 1" away from the guns will not be able to charge them.

EXCELLENT point

[nikgaukroger]

I concur. It should be a straight removal with no complications that might cause issues down the line. Captured artillery has been an irritant too long, lets just clear it once and for all.

[donm2]

I concur. It should be a straight removal with no complications that might cause issues down the line. Captured artillery has been an irritant too long, lets just clear it once and for all.

Whole heartily agree.

Don

[DavidT]

I always liked the idea of capturing artillery as it happened historically, even though it is pretty useless.

As the issue appears to be with uncontrolled artillery blocking mounted, why not let mounted interpenetrate uncontrolled artillery. That means you can keep the capturing rules as they stand for those of us who prefer to keep these idiosyncratic historical bits.

There could be an issue with an enemy unit sitting close to but not in contact with the uncontrolled artillery which would prevent interpenetration, however, a simple statement that the uncontrolled is moved by the minimum to allow interpenetration could be included.

For those who want a simpler game, the option could always be allowed to remove captured artillery as an optional rule.

[ravenflight]

I always liked the idea of capturing artillery as it happened historically, even though it is pretty useless.

I can understand the appeal, but I can also see that there is a complexity involved that really can't be avoided.

As the issue appears to be with uncontrolled artillery blocking mounted, why not let mounted interpenetrate uncontrolled artillery.

Because you would still have the situation where troops cower 5 mm behind artillery to make them 'uncontrolled, yet unable to be interpenetrated', all for the benefit of being able to possibly use artillery that will basically do nothing to anyone (for the most part).

[Vespasian28]

Or keep uncontrolled guns in play, just in case, but they are removed immediately upon contact with enemy mounted, whether in a charge or not, and with no reduction of movement.

[ravenflight]

Is there any record of artillery being captured and used to any appreciable effect on a battle? Any recapture at all?

[DavidT]

At the battle of Lutzen, the Swedish Brigade captured the small Imperialist battery on the left. Initially the guns were spiked, however, when no attempt was made by the Imperialists to retake the guns, the nails were removed and the guns were brought into use by the Swedes. They are reported to have been very effective, clearing many enemy from the left wing.

[DavidT]

Because you would still have the situation where troops cower 5 mm behind artillery to make them 'uncontrolled, yet unable to be interpenetrated', all for the benefit of being able to possibly use artillery that will basically do nothing to anyone (for the most part).

This is covered by the third paragraph in my post which stated:
There could be an issue with an enemy unit sitting close to but not in contact with the uncontrolled artillery which would prevent interpenetration, however, a simple statement that the uncontrolled is moved by the minimum to allow interpenetration could be included.

[madaxeman]

At the battle of Lutzen, the Swedish Brigade captured the small Imperialist battery on the left. Initially the guns were spiked, however, when no attempt was made by the Imperialists to retake the guns, the nails were removed and the guns were brought into use by the Swedes. They are reported to have been very effective, clearing many enemy from the left wing.

Given the rule currently exists to simulate thus, but has a number of potential issues in "real world" open play I see no reason why it can't be laid out as a "default" of being removed, but an optional rule as well that can be used if event organisers (or scenario designers) want to Use a rule for Capturing artillery

[ravenflight]

Given the rule currently exists to simulate thus, but has a number of potential issues in "real world" open play I see no reason why it can't be laid out as a "default" of being removed, but an optional rule as well that can be used if event organisers (or scenario designers) want to Use a rule for Capturing artillery

I'm with this.

[nikgaukroger]

Kevin's original suggestion was:

If artillery is captured by a BG that is allowed to re-crew it, or such a BG moves into contact with it in the turn that it is captured, it MAY be re-crewed as per the current rules.

Otherwise it is removed in the JAP of the turn in which it is captured.

If recaptured it still counts as 1 AP lost.

Which would mean the capturing player decides in the move it is captured whether to keep it or remove it.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

For tournament purposes, I'm all for compulsory removal to make the game simpler. Given the relative "newness" and/or specialisation of artillery for much of the Renaissance period, I would be surprised if many units had the expertise to handle artillery safely; throw in the fact that the guns will usually be facing in an inappropriate direction and need moving (probably quite substantially - up to 180 degrees - if the previous owners are under the cosh) and the relatively short time-frame of a competition game is not going to give many players enough time to get them into action. And since guns were usually placed on forward slopes, the best they are ever going to do historically in the vast majority of cases is fire sideways (ie across the slope) at other units still in line

Finally, if we are to retain the "capture and reuse" element, shouldn't the "new" owners have to give up a base of figures per 1 or (at least) 2 gun bases to represent having to detach crews and "muscle" to actually move them?

[urbanbunny1]

I like the idea of removing artillery as well.

For me, it makes sense that as troops capture the guns, they would make a bit of mess of them and require some repairs to start working them.

Also, if a unit of horse charged and took the guns, I can't seen the guns being in pristine condition. At the least, they would need a clean to wipe off the last crew.

Eww!