Slitherine

Being about to use a late Roman army with artillery, I've been scrutinising the artillery rules (5.01).

I note the following:

1. page 32

Foot can pass through artillery from front to back only

This allows me to move from in front of the artillery to behind it, but not from behind it to in front. Useful if the enemy decides not to attack my legions and they are confident enough to turn their backs to him and retire through the artillery to allow it to shoot. Not so useful if I have bombarded the enemy and now want to attack him. I suppose I could turn the artillery 180 degrees first. Was this the intention?

2. To move my legion forward through the artillery I can, however, exchange positions. Or can I? Exchanges are permitted to:

page 33

Light artillery and any medium or heavy foot

Unfortunately my legionary BG has a rear rank of light foot - so they can't exchange positions. Was this the intention?

3. Exchanging positions is not listed on the movement table as either a simple or complex move. Does it count as a move? Does the artillery need to pass a CMT to do it? Does the foot BG need to pass a CMT too?

4. page 33

A battlegroup wishing to exchange position with another battle group must:
Have all its bases behind it prior to the move.

Does this mean that all bases of the rear BG must have some part of their base directly behind a base of the front BG?
Does it mean that all bases of the rear BG must be behind the line extending the rear edge of the front BG (but could be offset to one side or the other)?

We are currently considering removing the exchanging rules as an unnecessary complication and possible game unbalancing feature. If we retain exchanging then your issues will need to be addressed.

If we allow troops to move through artillery, clearly they need to be able to do so from rear to front.

We may in fact instead make artillery slightly more resistant in close combat - by giving them back their 2 dice in melee, but a - POA in melee instead.

We are currently considering removing the exchanging rules as an unnecessary complication and possible game unbalancing feature. If we retain exchanging then your issues will need to be addressed.

If we allow troops to move through artillery, clearly they need to be able to do so from rear to front.

We may in fact instead make artillery slightly more resistant in close combat - by giving them back their 2 dice in melee, but a - POA in melee instead.

So for play testing purposes I'll play interpenetration in both directions, no exchanging and 2 dice at - POA in melee.

Historically I suspect the reaction of artillery to close combat would be for the artillerists to evade behind some supporting infantry and the infantry possibly to move up to defend the hardware. In that case the appropriate mechanism might be to treat the artillery in the same way as commanders in the front rank (i.e. you fight the foot behind them, but get a die roll to destroy the artillery). Unsupported artillery I don't think should have much survivability (unless in fortifications) nor offensive capacity in close combat (this is based on 17th-19th century warfare, I'm not aware of any accounts of artillery in close combat prior to that).

It might be even easier to have artillery automatically destroyed if contacted without immediate rear support. Otherwise ignore them in the combat. If the troops behind leave the melee, the artillery is lost. If the attackers leave the melee, the artillery continues as it was before. This cuts out the dice rolling and speeds up the game a little. In games so far we have occasionally forgotten to roll for generals. One fewer thing to remember would be good.

We had this with Hungarian supported clipeati, which we allowed to exchange with the light guns.

Would the actual number of artillery pieces in action not have been be rather small (though their morale effect sometimes out of proportion)? I wonder if supporting infantry would go round rather than through them. An 80mm frontage for an Art BG in 15mm uses up frontage just short of the distance of effective bow range. One artillery base per BG would be much nearer the right frontage, surely, allowing a realistic prospect of deployment in the intervals between BG's. If attacked they could be assumed to shelter with any supporting infantry who will be overlapped by enemy facing the artillery base if combat continues past the impact phase. Destroyed if contacted in the open unsupported, I would agree - any simplifications are welcome.

Adrian