Slitherine

yes id sign up for that. hunter

Three wrote:Unless I'm missing something blindingly obvious, "dead" guns by shooting casualties should be left on the table to be captured and used against their owners and be an obstruction to mounted or "dead" guns by any contact should be removed, if only to be consistent.

Superb point, well made. Common sense at last. it's interesting that in five pages and twelve days of comment from "experienced" players no one has raised this point before.

Superb point, well made. Common sense at last. it's interesting that in five pages and twelve days of comment from "experienced" players no one has raised this point before.

I suspect it is because the authors were keen to include a mechanism for capturing and re-capturing artillery since there appear to be several recorded instances of this in battles of the period.

Just removing the artillery bases would prevent this and lose a bit of that flavour.

petedalby wrote:I suspect it is because the authors were keen to include a mechanism for capturing and re-capturing artillery since there appear to be several recorded instances of this in battles of the period.

I agree but what better way to capture artillery than shooting at the crews and either killing them or scaring them off? The inconsistency, once pointed out, is striking.

petedalby wrote: I suspect it is because the authors were keen to include a mechanism for capturing and re-capturing artillery since there appear to be several recorded instances of this in battles of the period.

Keen to include mechanisms for things that are recorded as happening that's for sure

nikgaukroger wrote:

petedalby wrote: I suspect it is because the authors were keen to include a mechanism for capturing and re-capturing artillery since there appear to be several recorded instances of this in battles of the period.

Keen to include mechanisms for things that are recorded as happening that's for sure

Right but current game mechanics make it an improbable action in the game for a variety of reasons. So you are being a bit of a Phil Barker here. Eitehr make it easier to use once captured, or stop focusing on that facet. But solve the miraculous wall that appears to cavalry called artillery.

hazelbark wrote:Right but current game mechanics make it an improbable action in the game for a variety of reasons. So you are being a bit of a Phil Barker here. Either make it easier to use once captured, or stop focusing on that facet. But solve the miraculous wall that appears to cavalry called artillery.

Oooh! Harsh!

I'd also like Nik to tackle the inconsistent outcomes for artillery (shooting vs close combat).

hazelbark wrote: But solve the miraculous wall that appears to cavalry called artillery.

Next errata (whenever that is) will include something - Richard and I just have to sort out what; but at present I'm guessing it will be a straight choice between the marker bases for uncontrolled artillery or straight removal if contacted by troops who cannot control them. Currently I'm leaning towards the latter just for sheer simplicity, but Richard may have other thoughts.

nikgaukroger wrote:I'm guessing it will be a straight choice between the marker bases for uncontrolled artillery or straight removal if contacted by troops who cannot control them.

Will this, or any other solution, apply to losses by shooting too?

vexillia wrote: I'd also like Nik to tackle the inconsistent outcomes for artillery (shooting vs close combat).

If you want that modelled give us some examples to justify additional rules.

nikgaukroger wrote:If you want that modelled give us some examples to justify additional rules.

Not sure what you mean here. I don't want anything new modelled just consistent outcomes.

As noted below you can cause artillery bases to be removed by shooting them when they no longer cause any obstruction whilst they remain place and, an obstruction, if broken in close combat. So shooting (of any sort not just counter battery) is capable of destroying artillery guns and all. Most strange.

At Lutzen, the Swedish brigade took and spiked the Imperialist ditch battery in their first attack (which had begun about 11.00am)(Brzezinski, p.52). The battery seems to have fallen back into Imperialist hands when the Swedish Brigade was forced to retreat (Brzezinski, p.62). The guns remained spiked (see below); in FOGR terms, the Cuirassiers of Gotz were unable to recrew them - though the circumstances of how and by whom the Swedes were driven back are obscure, it does seem to have been cavalry doing the driving.
Here's the recapturing of the guns from, "Lutzen 1632", by Richard Brzezinski:

"Soon after 2.00pm the small Imperial battery was retaken, possibly by Henderson's musketeers, who were in possession of it at the end of the battle. According to Oberst Dalbier, the guns 'had at first been spiked in haste, but seeing that no attempt was made to retake them, Monsieur Knyphausen commanded the nails to be removed, sending them cannonballs of the correct calibres, and had them play continuously on the enemy'. ... These seven cannon of the ditch battery now had a commanding view over the Imperial left and centre. Dalbier noted that their fire was so effective that: 'By three o'clock no one remained on the right wing of the enemy.' (p. 75, Brzezinski, Lutzen 1632, Osprey 2001).
All of which gave me a chance to remind myself what a fact-packed and exciting read Brzezinski's book is

vexillia wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:If you want that modelled give us some examples to justify additional rules.

Not sure what you mean here. I don't want anything new modelled just consistent outcomes.

As noted below you can cause artillery bases to be removed by shooting them when they no longer cause any obstruction whilst they remain place and, an obstruction, if broken in close combat. So shooting (of any sort not just counter battery) is capable of destroying artillery guns and all. Most strange.

That's fairly easy to rationalise: units destroyed by shooting aren't gunned down to the last man. Unlike in a melee or close combat, the fugitive gunners might have had time to take their tools with them (in contemporary prints, we see musketeers fleeing the battlefield with shouldered muskets). It's a rationalisation more than a reason but if there are strong gaming reasons for the status quo, it might serve to appease qualms. Are there any examples of guns silenced by distant shooting alone being taken, recrewed and used against their owners?

Sarmaticus wrote:That's fairly easy to rationalise: units destroyed by shooting aren't gunned down to the last man. Unlike in a melee or close combat, the fugitive gunners might have had time to take their tools with them.

I don't imagine tools being much of an obstruction to mounted. Now if they limbered up under fire and ran away with their guns that would be different.

vexillia wrote:

Sarmaticus wrote:That's fairly easy to rationalise: units destroyed by shooting aren't gunned down to the last man. Unlike in a melee or close combat, the fugitive gunners might have had time to take their tools with them.

I don't imagine tools being much of an obstruction to mounted. Now if they limbered up under fire and ran away with their guns that would be different.

My point was that guns abandoned from shooting might not be capable of being recrewed. Limbering up under fire would, I would guess, be beyond the capabilities of C17th teamsters. Abandoned guns don't seem to have impeded the squadrons of Gotz and Piccolomini at Lutzen - and those guns were the ones recrewed. So the question of removing bases from shooting is a separate one from who should be impeded by bases abandoned.

nikgaukroger wrote:

hazelbark wrote: But solve the miraculous wall that appears to cavalry called artillery.

Next errata (whenever that is) will include something - Richard and I just have to sort out what; but at present I'm guessing it will be a straight choice between the marker bases for uncontrolled artillery or straight removal if contacted by troops who cannot control them. Currently I'm leaning towards the latter just for sheer simplicity, but Richard may have other thoughts.

At Lutzen the ditch battery is taken by the Swedish Brigade (infantry), retaken by (probably) cuirassiers, then taken back again by Swedish musketeers before firing on it's original owners. That couldn't happen in a game where the guns were removed after the Imperialist cuurassiers retake them. Replacement bases sound fine: for the aesthetes, guns could be loose on artillery bases, so moveable out of the way when necessary while the uncrewed version of their bases marked their spot. The crewed bases to bevreplaced on recrewing. For the unaesthetic, the substitution would be even simpler.

I guess the point here is that we live with some ambiguity when it comes to the treatment of Artillery.
Whether we can individually rationalise how the rules treat Artillery is neither here or there.
I think its fair to say that currently the rules give a good game but rules around Artillery have always niggled for either not being realistic or for being inconsistent.

So given the scale of the game
The authors need to decide between the elements of period Flavour, Realism, Mechanics/process.

So what do we know.
The authors want for starters
Artillery able to be recrewed by either side.
Maintain the doctrine of Horse rarity in interpenetrating guns.
What do we want
So for me its deep formations or any formation not gaining movement because of the Artillery base footprint.
Realistic amounts of Artillery.
For some its simplicity.

Once the list is as complete as can be its either a complete rewrite of Artillery or what are the minimum changes that are simple to implement and tick the box on most of our wish list. Preferably with some testing so that we don't break something else or ruin the period flavour.
Maybe even a time table of
Taking suggestions now until ????
Reviewing suggestions until ????
Proposal/Feedback/ testing ????
Live from ????

Otherwise this will just become a talking shop with raised expectations of action followed by disillusionment when nothing comes of it.
cheers
Jim

Not sure there is any historical rarity in horse interpenetrating abandoned guns (see Lutzen). Guns out on the wings to hunt enemy horse does seem to have been rarer than in the reported competition games I've seen. Two separate questions. Easy fix for first: markers that impede nobody.

Sarmaticus wrote:My point was that guns abandoned from shooting might not be capable of being recrewed.

Ahh! Another angle.

Sarmaticus wrote:Limbering up under fire would, I would guess, be beyond the capabilities of C17th teamsters.

Agreed with the possible exception of light guns.

Sarmaticus wrote:So the question of removing bases from shooting is a separate one from who should be impeded by bases abandoned.

Not really as shooting removes the bases so they can never be an obstruction. To summarise:

My assumptions

• In both shooting and close combat, the outcome being modelled is the crews die or run away but the guns remain.
• The remains of captured or broken artillery represent a physical barrier to certain troops.
• Captured artillery can be re-crewed by certain troops on contact.
• Losses to counter battery shooting can result in irreparable damage to the guns.

Current rules outcomes

• Shooting at artillery removes bases. Guns are never an obstacle and can never be re-crewed.
• Close combat leaves bases in place. Guns may be an obstacle to some troops and can be re-crewed.
• Counter battery shooting has same effect as musketry in that guns cannot be re-crewed.

Questions raised

• Why are bases removed due to shooting but not close combat?
• On what basis does shooting artillery result in guns no longer being a physical obstruction when close combat does?
• Why is the outcome musketry the same as counter battery shooting? Keeping it simple?

Resultant areas for clarification

• When, and to what troops, are destroyed, or captured, artillery bases a physical obstruction? Consistency required.
• When, and under what circumstances can captured artillery be re-crewed?

On reflection, the solution is a choice between always removing the guns or always using markers with the current obstacle rules.

gibby wrote:Otherwise this will just become a talking shop with raised expectations of action followed by disillusionment when nothing comes of it.