Slitherine

Do artillery in fortifications need to take a test to stand and fire in response to an assault ? It seems so; from the reaction moves section starting on page 29 and in the bulllets on page 30, right hand column that the only responses available to artillery are to either voluntarily abandon the guns OR to test to stand and shoot. So, could a horse artillery battery deployed (unlimbered) in fortifications evade even which seems entirely allowable ? All of which seems very odd to me. Surely guns in fortifications would simply hold their ground and shoot, relying on the fortifications to help repel any assaulters IF their shooting failed to do so.

Also, only infantry can assault a fortification (from front or side) from page 28, right hand column, 4th bullet from bottom. But what happens next, if the artillery don't stand and shoot ? The guns are abandoned as per normal (cf notwithstanding my questions above), but the assualting infantry would need to halt at contact with the fortification (they can't enter it because it is treated as an obstacle and would need to take a CMT once in contact in order to cross). So, now we have infantry in contact with the fortifications but not yet crossed, what happens next ? If a friendly infantry unit entered the fortifications from the rear do they just take up position normally ? Can they even do so without having to assault the enemy infantry in contact with the (front or side of) fortifications ? And the artillery cannot be recovered as long as there is enemy within 2MU of the fortifications (page 47, bottom right hand column).

All this feels like a 'wrong' interaction to me. I can't think of any actual historic circumstances where guns were simply abandoned in fortifications when assaulted without offering up melee/fight.

Could/should this be simly fixed by adding a new bullet into the 'Default action not requiring a cohseion test' section (page 29 right hand column), "Halt - artillery behind an obstacle being assaulted." ??

I have to agree with you that the section on reaction moves needs to include artillery in open, or just add a section at the end stating that artillery in a field fortification do not make a reaction move or test if charged. Of course now you have to consider what to do if the charge is on the rear of the field fortification....

Ah . . . but the rear assault bit is reasonably covered on page 78 . . .

so artillery would abandon then? can't bugger off now can they?

Not unless horse artillery . . . (and then it would also need a CMT to cross the obstacle as well !) . . . otherwise they simply abandon guns.

or stand and fight if no friendly infantry within 2 MU....... egads!!!

Still have to try those things out with my Russian army some day. Perhaps after the boys in green get assembled and painted...

But only standing and fighting if you pass a test !

And, thus, back to my original questions

Got any references where HORSE ARTILLERY were ever deployed in fortifications? I don't even think the Lines of Torres Vedras were manned that way. I would have thought they would have shot the ADC that rode up and suggested that...

If you are stupid enough to stick your horse artillery in a fortification complex then you lose them like foot artillery. After all, you have disabled any advantage you had in buying them in the first place... so you may as well pay the penalty.

Alastair

Tee hee ... that was the point of my questions.

Right now, as written in the rules, artillery in fortifications simply react as if they weren't - thus, if assaulted a horse artillery battery in fortifications could indeed limber and retire. And, hence, my suggested amendment.

Over to Terry or Mike ... was that what was intended ?

Artillery in fortifications do not have to test for being charged (unless wavering)

I've made a note to add to the next errata:
 Page 30: RH column 3rd bullet point: “Unlimbered artillery must test..... ” Insert “in the open” after "artillery".