The Uncontrolled Artillery Conundrum

[daveallen]

Not sure if this should be it's own thread or in the Errata 1.09 thread. I've taken the content from a previous thread where it seemed to have got buried.

The way uncontrolled artillery is treated in the rules is contradictory. It's also inconsistent with the reality the rules seek to describe. At present, the artillery ends up as an almost impassable terrain piece that slows up the game and can sometimes result in a silly mini-game as both sides manoeuvre to recapture and re-recapture it. It doesn't happen in every game, but it happens often enough to be seriously frustrating when a game is disrupted by it.

Artillery can be recaptured when:

Recapture 1

A battle group belonging to the previous owner, and already in contact, routs (all) the capturing enemy battle group(s). P127 bp1

Say a bg of LH captures an artillery bg then, whilst going about its business half a battlefield away, gets caught in a short evade and routed. The artillery now changes hands.

Suppose, between those two events a bg of shot foot belonging to the capturing player had contacted the artillery, thereby bringing it under control of the capturing player. Yet it still change hands when the LH are routed. Even if it has an infantry bg supporting it!

Is this what the authors intended? If so it seems to go against the design philosophy by creating a need to keep a record of which bg(s) captured artillery.

OR

Recapture 2

A battle group belonging to the previous owner moves into contact (in a way that would normally result in close combat) with an artillery base that does not have rear support from the current owner's troops. P127, bp2

This is even more difficult as moving into contact "in a way that would normally result in close combat" is usually interpreted as a charge in the impact phase (or a pursuit), but:

To be allowed to declare a charge, there must be a visible enemy base that can be "legally" contacted... P72, my emphasis

AND

Uncontrollled artillery does not count as enemy to either side. P127, last sentence of penultimate paragraph

Which means it is not possible to charge an uncontrolled artillery bg because it isn't an "enemy."

So, can you recapture it in the Manoeuvre phase by just walking into it? Probably not, because the only movements in the phase that can "normally result in close combat" are into overlap, sideways shifts and turns (see pages 102 and 103). All of which would be difficult to apply in this case.

Surely much easier to say uncontrolled artillery can be captured/recaptured by any movement that makes contact, including pursuits and charges declared on other battle groups. After all, it's no better defended than a camp so why not capture it in a similar way.

Obstacles and Interpenetration

It is extremely frustrating and more than slightly illogical/unrealistic that uncontrolled artillery represents a barrier to movement of both sides, but field fortifications don't. The physical similarities between an undefended wagon lager and uncontrolled artillery are obvious - both are made up of wheeled vehicles and accoutrements, but the wagons tend to be much larger and present a more solid obstacle than the guns. Yet it is the guns that restrict movement. This doesn't seem right to me.

For movement it would be consistent to treat uncontrolled artillery by analogy with undefended field fortifications.

This would mean that troops of the side which currently "owns" the uncontrolled artillery simply move through it as if it wasn't there, being allowed to charge targets beyond it.

Would this be an interpenetration or not?

My view is not, as the interpenetration rule concerns moving

through friendly troops... P 67, para 1, my emphasis

Since artillery become uncontrolled when their crews are killed, captured or chased away, all that is left are bits of wood and metal which do not fit any reasonable definition of "troops." Also, if they aren't enemy to either side, can they ever be "friendly?"

This would also allow the non-"owning" player to charge through the artillery thereby recapturing them because this would be movement "that would normally result in close combat."


Whether this can be addressed in the FAQs or needs an errata, I don't know, but I do know that the rule doesn't work as it is and will only keep causing problems until it's dealt with.

Dave

[Three]

I completely agree, in that it isn't a very common problem, but that when it does occur it produces complicated situations that appear to me to be counter-intuative.

The idea that 16th and 17th century artillery (and much of the 18th century as well for that matter) have enough impediments set out behind them to create a blockage to movement is just wrong imo. There weren't limbers, caissons and field forges etc set out at deployment distances. If mounted can cross enclosed fields it can certainly pick it's way through unsupported artillery.

It was suggested that captured artillery be treated as linear obstacles if not supported, that appears to me to be a very simple and straightforward way of dealing with this problem.

[stecal]

yes, linear obstacle is the best solution.

I'v had a game where uncontrolled artillery became the best flank protection I could ever hope for. It was silly as the enemy horse were stuck on the guns they just captured 3" from my flank.