Slitherine

Just reflecting on the errata stopping CS from charging or intercepting.

So CS presumably can never capture enemy artillery?

And CS cannot cause a 'Threatened Flank' for an enemy infantry BG?

Were these intended or unintended consequences?

Not sure if they are intended consequences but when you think that this is 50-120 men with bang sticks, they probably don't pose much of a threat to a 300-700 strong Dutch Battalion, even on the flank...

Agree it is a shame as the Salvo Cmd Shot BG charge with the Reg Gun was a fun surprise to pull...

timmy1 wrote:
Agree it is a shame as the Salvo Cmd Shot BG charge with the Reg Gun was a fun surprise to pull...

True - but not historical!!!

I'm not sure a decision has been made yet about artillery. As the rules stand, taking artillery needs a charge - the debate is (as I understand it) whether or not uncontrolled artillery needs to be charged or moved into contact with- I believe the later is right but I await the ruling form RBS!

Don

quackstheking wrote:the debate is (as I understand it) whether or not unsupported artillery needs to be charged or moved into contact with- I believe the later is right but I await the ruling form RBS!

Don

Hmm, I think if guns are manned then an enemy unit would want to 'charge' the guns. If unmanned then it would just be a slow walk in the park to man them. Trouble is, you don't want to have too many permutations of the rules for 'just in case' situations. To that degree, I believe that having to charge guns would be the better option. If that means Commanded Shot can't man guns then so be it. Taking a few men to man guns out of a regiment of hundreds is a smaller impact on taking a few men out of a detachment of 20 though (hyperbole deliberate), so it's probably fairly unrealistic for commanded shot to man guns.

To be honest, being artillerists was such a specialist trade that ANYONE manning guns other than artillerists seems a bit weird to me.

It could represent the original artillery crews running off when the guns are captured, which is probably what they would do rather than stand, fight and be killed, then a proportion of them returning with the recapturing regiment they might have taken shelter with. Hence the -POA when firing recaptured guns.
Not sure where the artillerymen come from when the guns are captured initially.

The original artillerymen who didn't run fast enough press-ganged into foreign service?!

Don

Would the basics of loading and firing a cannon be much different from a musket or arquebus? Hitting might be a problem. Btw it's curious that contemporary prints often seem to show one gunner per gun. AFAIK the argument for allowing captured guns to be fired is that on some occasions they were.

Sarmaticus wrote:Would the basics of loading and firing a cannon be much different from a musket or arquebus? Hitting might be a problem. Btw it's curious that contemporary prints often seem to show one gunner per gun. AFAIK the argument for allowing captured guns to be fired is that on some occasions they were.

Yes, I think the basics would be quite different. The amount of powder to use for one; the methods may be similar, but that's like saying the loading of a naval gun is similar to the loading. Of a rifle... just on a bigger scale. I've loaded hundreds of rifles of about 15 different types, but put me at the business end of the Missouri's guns and I would doubt i could operate it.

My problem with the changes to Commanded Shot is that they were not changed to Musket from Salvo. The Salvo is really an impact advanage which they can not use. If they are there to support mounted just make them musket.

Bob

Agreed.

Not sure if they are intended consequences but when you think that this is 50-120 men with bang sticks, they probably don't pose much of a threat to a 300-700 strong Dutch Battalion, even on the flank...

How about you have an enemy CS behind you and one on each flank - still don't feel a tiny bit threatened? And of course the answer at the moment is no. But enemy mounted 3 moves away eg 12 MU - frighten them silly.

Agree it is a shame as the Salvo Cmd Shot BG charge with the Reg Gun was a fun surprise to pull...

I actually like the change - Salvo CS were being used unhistrorically and inappropriately. It's the knock on effects I'm starting to be less keen on - hence my post.

And like Bob, I would have preferred to see the Swedish CS changed from salvo to musket - they are still excellent in a support role but that extra minus 1 for losing to Salvo can really hurt.

ravenflight wrote: Yes, I think the basics would be quite different. The amount of powder to use for one; the methods may be similar, but that's like saying the loading of a naval gun is similar to the loading. Of a rifle... just on a bigger scale. I've loaded hundreds of rifles of about 15 different types, but put me at the business end of the Missouri's guns and I would doubt i could operate it.

Not quite the same: both cannon and musket involve ramming powder, wadding and ball down the open end of the tube, putting priming powder in the hole at the other and applying a match to it. The amount of powder is given IIRC by the size of the ladle. Of course it's not just like loading a musket or arquebus; that's why amateurs shouldn't be as good at it as a professional. Nevertheless, it does seem to have been done. Whether it's worthy of representation of the game, I leave to others. Loading the guns of the Missouri is massively different than loading any sort of personal firearm and we don't have accounts of enemy infantrymen capturing her and opening fire with them.

petedalby wrote:Just reflecting on the errata stopping CS from charging or intercepting.

So CS presumably can never capture enemy artillery?

And CS cannot cause a 'Threatened Flank' for an enemy infantry BG?

Were these intended or unintended consequences?

Clearly, I can't read the authors' minds, but I feel it is a reasonable consequence.

My understanding of CS is that they essentially operated as adjuncts to Horse units. As such, even manoeuvring them as independent bg's feels wrong. Thus the question of them charging artillery should be moot - that's the job of their chums on horseback.

In game terms they already represent incredibly good value as cheap bg's. To have them threatening flanks, etc would place them too far out of their alleged historical role.

Also, in my opinion, dropping the Early Swede CS from salvo to musket would actually make them too powerful as mobile shooting platforms - 9 shots Superior from 3 bg's at close range would just about finish any opposing bg.

Dave

petedalby wrote:Just reflecting on the errata stopping CS from charging or intercepting.

So CS presumably can never capture enemy artillery?

And CS cannot cause a 'Threatened Flank' for an enemy infantry BG?

Were these intended or unintended consequences?

Intended

rbodleyscott wrote:

petedalby wrote:Just reflecting on the errata stopping CS from charging or intercepting.

So CS presumably can never capture enemy artillery?

And CS cannot cause a 'Threatened Flank' for an enemy infantry BG?

Were these intended or unintended consequences?

Intended

Whereas the cavalry that should be the second part of the partnership COULD threaten a flank

Intended

Thanks Richard