Slitherine

What is the difference in shooting/combat (if any) between medium and heavy artillery?

Check the firing chart and you will see that heavy art gets more dice at long range with round shot, heavy is 4 small 5 large, med is 3 small 4 large.

They also don't get the -POA against target in cover

terrys wrote:They also don't get the -POA against target in cover

I think that has disappeared from the final version. Pg 53, only Rockets, Howitzers, Mortars and Seige Artillery ignore the -poa.

Does siege artillery not mean heavy artillery as there is no reference to siege artillery in army lists or glossary at the back unlike rockets and howitzers (possibly for the errata). Oh and please nobody point out the difference between siege and heavy artillery of the period as I am not ignorant of the differences.

I think Heavy artillery should have been considered for an extra dice at close range. They were fearsome.

Right now I don't really see the value for heavy artillery and it was considered significantly more serious.

On the other hand i like the rule not trying to pretend too many differences between 6lb and 8lb guns.

perhaps it was a typo? seems only long range makes a difference between the two.

perhaps it was a typo? seems only long range makes a difference between the two.

Don't think so, as was the same in the play test set.

Don

A small unit of heavy artillery gets as many dice at long range as a large unit of medium artillery, but only costs 48 points rather than 60 for the mediums. This seems like good value if you intend to use the unit for long range pounding, rather than close support.

What I can't understand though is increased cost of heavy artillery attachments. They add the same dice at all ranges as medium attachments, yet if attached to an artillery unit actually slow down movement in some cases (p.35)! Furthermore, unlike howitzter and rocket attachments (which have no effect on movement), they don't give a bonus against troops in buildings (see p78).

Andy D

Yes I had wondered the same thing myself, I grabbed a heavy attachment for our first game and only when we were playing did I notice it does not give any extra dice or any kind of bonus that I could see. Seems like Med attachment makes more sense.

Yes I had wondered the same thing myself, I grabbed a heavy attachment for our first game and only when we were playing did I notice it does not give any extra dice or any kind of bonus that I could see. Seems like Med attachment makes more sense.

You are quite right - unless or until we decide to give them an additional bonus, heavy artillery attachments are a waste of 2 points.

At one stage of the testing they ignored the -POA when firing into buildings but had the same number of dice as mediums.
We decided to give them more dice instead, because thier advantage was tiny in comparision to medium guns.
All artillery was fearsome at close range. Heavy artillery was more lethal per shot tham mediums, however, with a 20min game turn we decided that the improved rate of fire that the smaller guns have would compensate for it. At longer ranges the ricochet effect of the heavier ball was a significant advantage.

All artillery was fearsome at close range. Heavy artillery was more lethal per shot tham mediums, however, with a 20min game turn we decided that the improved rate of fire that the smaller guns have would compensate for it. At longer ranges the ricochet effect of the heavier ball was a significant advantage.[/quote]

I just want to reinforce that - the total weight and volume of shot delivered/ deliverable by 6 pdrs exceeded that of bigger guns over such a period of time - quicker rate of fire and more ammo per battery available in the limbers and caissons so the higher rate of fire coud be sustained. For example a French 12 pdr box on the trail could carry 9 rounds but the 4pdr 18. A Russian 6pdr waggon carried 130 ball and 20 canister rounds, the 12 pdr waggon half those numbers and so on. These factors were part of the reasons for the virtual universal adoption of the 6 pdr across Europe by the end of the wars - that and the easier logistical position with the same ammunition serving for all or most guns including captured ammunition.

Its true that shortage of ammo issues in Napoleonic battles were seldom crucial tactically but that was the case in 1813 at Dennewitz the Katsbach and at Leipzig . Napoleon said " Had I possessed 30,000 artillery rounds at Leipzig on the evening of 18 October [1813] , today I would be master of the world". Well maybe. Also at Vauchamp in 1814. And commanders had to take these issues into account whan placing and moving their positional guns.

So from a grand tactical CORPS level perspective we want to keep big guns relatively modest in their impact but I think we should keep this under review partcularly the relative points cost lest we have over ( or under?) done it. But maybe for bigger multi Corps battles where grand batteries were used we need to have look at how we have treated the heavier guns (and howitzers) where they were available in much larger and concentrated numbers. It may be of course that where those numbers are there in a game their aggregate impact is more striking anyway than, in a corps level game, under our present rules.

People's experiences in using grand batteries with more heavies and howitzers in big and historical games will be helpful.

MikeHorah wrote: Its true that shortage of ammo issues in Napoleonic battles were seldom crucial tactically but that was the case in 1813 at Dennewitz the Katsbach and at Leipzig . Napoleon said " Had I possessed 30,000 artillery rounds at Leipzig on the evening of 18 October [1813] , today I would be master of the world". Well maybe. Also at Vauchamp in 1814. And commanders had to take these issues into account whan placing and moving their positional guns.

Inter alia, v Clausewitz reckoned that ammo shortage was critical at Ligny. He attributed it to the Prussian practice of replacing batteries when they'd fired off their supply rather than replenishing it. Battery commanders fired as fast as they could, as soon as they could in order the faster to head rearwards.