Line of Sight and Firing

[viperofmilan]

Does line of sight affect ability to shoot? This might seem a stupid question as common sense tells one that a unit must be able to see a target in order to shoot at it. But consider the following:

1. A would-be-charging unit explicitly must be able to see it's target in order to declare a charge (p. 28).

2. There is no corresponding explicit requirement that a would-be-firing unit be able to see it's target in order to shoot at it, only that it be artillery or infantry that has not changed formation or retired as a reaction to a charge earlier in the same turn, and that it's target is within range (p. 48).

3. Line of sight is only mentioned for woods, buildings, and hills as far as I can find (pp. 95-97), but there is little to no discussion of what effect line of sight has on shooting. There are special rules for fire into and out of buildings, and there is a pretty straightforward discussion of how crests affect firing (p. 96). Artillery explicitly are permitted to shoot at buildings at long range (p. 78),and as I read the line of sight rules (p. 96) crests preclude long-range and medium-range artillery fire at enemy units on the reverse slope of a hill within 2 MU of the crest. But if line of sight to the target is not a requirement, a case can be made from the RAW that artillery could shoot over intervening, otherwise-blocking terrain at targets beyond. So while artillery cannot shoot at an enemy unit with 2 MU of the crest on the reverse slope, it could fire at a unit if it were more than 2 MU from the crest? Would this also enable reformed infantry to shoot through an empty (neither occupied nor defended) building at enemy units on the far side. This doesn't seem right to me, but I was not able to find any clear language in the RAW precluding it.

Please help me out here. I have learned over the last months that just because the RAW say one thing doesn't mean that they mean what they say. Am I missing something?

Kevin

[MDH]

Focusing on artillery:


Indirect artillery fire was not possible until much ,much, later in the 19th century and even then not very effective and even by the First World War it still had its limitations . At Borodino the French sited a grand battery of howitzers in a shallow gulley but to be able to fire the individual gun commanders had to be able to see their targets and the gully was shallow enough for their heads to be able to see over the lip of the gulley, so not really indirect fire .

Firing overhead of an intervening obstacle or body of troops at a target on higher or lower ground that you can otherwise see, is slightly different , but technically only really feasible for howitzers and mortars using shell or shrapnel at this time because of the limited elevation of the barrels of other field guns and for later 19th C longer barrelled gun- howitzers ( ACW and Krupps) even where feasible was dependent on the relative angles of elevation and depression of the firers to the target – a technically very difficult thing to measure on a miniatures table as I find when doing WW2 armoured battles in 1/300 scale!

The same issue applies to guns firing down from a high point, like a cliff edge where the gun barrel cannot be depressed sufficiently to bring a closer target within its firing footprint even with no intervening obstacles or troops.

Likewise firing overhead of friendly troops from a higher point to another high point or enemy troops on lower ground was not the practice in the 18th and early 19th centuries as troops were made very uncomfortable with shells and balls coming from behind and over their heads, so the practice was to lay guns to a flanking position and fire across their line of advance which was less worrisome . Ball too at longer ranges depended for its effectiveness on the ricochet effect and adequate momentum which you don't want happening among your own troops . Too high an elevation and they would just bury themselves in the ground.

What these points are intended to illustrate is that is more then simply a question of “ line of sight” . It also needs to be emphasised that if RAW ( any set in any era) do not make specific provision for a thing that does not mean it is allowed. For ordinary games we still need to use our noddles folks.

I would be interested to hear from any current or ex artillerymen on the forum as I think we, as wargamers sometimes treat it over simplistically and forget it took many years for the artillery arm fully to establish its scientific credentials and learn its trade.

[KeefM]

I don't have my rules in front of me, but I recall there being a sentence or two saying there is no overhead fire.

As to line of sight, reformed infantry are assumed to have a cloud of skirmishers out in front and hence their 6MU shooting range across hill crests. There was also discussion some time back about the effect of rivers on the 6MU shooting range of reformed infantry. I think Terry had intimated at some rule clarification for that in due course.

So, there is some sense to reformed infantry being able to shoot past buildings and woods and hill crests without line of sight. But not so for artillery.

[deadtorius]

As to line of sight, reformed infantry are assumed to have a cloud of skirmishers out in front and hence their 6MU shooting range across hill crests. There was also discussion some time back about the effect of rivers on the 6MU shooting range of reformed infantry. I think Terry had intimated at some rule clarification for that in due course.

First thing to remember is that everyone only shoots out to 2 MU. In the case of reformed the parent body shoots 2MU. their inherent skirmish screen (not depicted on table) is operating 4 MU forwards of the parent body and shoots 2MU. Thus you get the 6 MU range for reformed. This also applies to unreformed with skirmish attachment.

In the case of a river you can't shoot over it period unless artillery. Your skirmishers are not able/willing to cross the river to extend your range. As much as I am sure some of us would like to have water wings for the light company to do that, it was not the case. If they are on the other side of the river and something goes bad, they really don't want to be there so the unit as a whole stays on the same side of the river where its safer and everyone is in command and under control.

In the case of terrain if it blocks line of sight you can't shoot over it or through it with anything. You are not going to send your skirmishers to the other side of some woods or building where you don't know what is out there and they are out of sight and out of contact with their parent unit. Unfortunately X-ray goggles and laser sighted muskets were not available to yet so no peeking at what is on the other side.

The terrain section pages 95 to 97 set out the restrictions for shooting into and out of or over terrain. Whether infantry or artillery those restrictions tell you when you can and can't shoot. In some cases you have to be close enough to see a target in cover, or close enough to see forward troops over the crest of a hill.
So being reformed or having skirmish attachments does not make your soldiers clairvoyant to see with their minds what they can't see with their eyes. And skirmishers are not stupid enough to wander off away from the rest of their unit to go pop a few rounds at who knows what on the other side of that building or stand of trees we can't see through.

[Unclemeat]

The problem with this aspect of the rules is that we are substituting implied meaning for explicit statement. Page 48 lists three conditions for a unit to be eligible to fire:
1) Type-Infantry, Artillery, and artillery attachments
2) Within range- a measure of distance
3) Condition- It must not have changed formation or retired from a reaction in an assault.

However on page 49 under Firing Mechanism the rules say "the firing unit must be able to draw a line from the centre of its front rank to any part of the target unit."

Drawing the line implies that line of sight is required. We can assume then that when a unit is behind a piece of cover (which blocks line of sight, for example) it may be within range/distance but no line can be drawn thus preventing fire.

What the rules imply should have been made simply and explicitly so we rules lawyers would have less to yak about.

Unlce Meat

[viperofmilan]

As to line of sight, reformed infantry are assumed to have a cloud of skirmishers out in front and hence their 6MU shooting range across hill crests. There was also discussion some time back about the effect of rivers on the 6MU shooting range of reformed infantry. I think Terry had intimated at some rule clarification for that in due course.

First thing to remember is that everyone only shoots out to 2 MU. In the case of reformed the parent body shoots 2MU. their inherent skirmish screen (not depicted on table) is operating 4 MU forwards of the parent body and shoots 2MU. Thus you get the 6 MU range for reformed. This also applies to unreformed with skirmish attachment.

In the case of a river you can't shoot over it period unless artillery. Your skirmishers are not able/willing to cross the river to extend your range. As much as I am sure some of us would like to have water wings for the light company to do that, it was not the case. If they are on the other side of the river and something goes bad, they really don't want to be there so the unit as a whole stays on the same side of the river where its safer and everyone is in command and under control.

In the case of terrain if it blocks line of sight you can't shoot over it or through it with anything. You are not going to send your skirmishers to the other side of some woods or building where you don't know what is out there and they are out of sight and out of contact with their parent unit. Unfortunately X-ray goggles and laser sighted muskets were not available to yet so no peeking at what is on the other side.

The terrain section pages 95 to 97 set out the restrictions for shooting into and out of or over terrain. Whether infantry or artillery those restrictions tell you when you can and can't shoot. In some cases you have to be close enough to see a target in cover, or close enough to see forward troops over the crest of a hill.
So being reformed or having skirmish attachments does not make your soldiers clairvoyant to see with their minds what they can't see with their eyes. And skirmishers are not stupid enough to wander off away from the rest of their unit to go pop a few rounds at who knows what on the other side of that building or stand of trees we can't see through.

All of which makes perfect sense, and with none of which do I disagree, though a case could IMHO be made for being able to skirmish through an empty building. I merely point out that this common sense interpretation does not appear in the RAW. Nowhere does it say that a unit must see it's target to fire at it. And but for the few specific terrain effects discussions on pp. 95-97, nowhere does it say what effect a line of sight has on the ability of a unit to shoot. Hence my original questions. Is this omission deliberate, or just another example of sloppy copy editing? As I have said, I've already found that (to me) very clear statements in the RAW do not always mean what they say (with i.e. wheeling in a charge). I've also just read on the FoGR forum the ruling that villages do not block line of sight.

Kevin

[viperofmilan]

"But for the few specific terrain effects discussions on pp. 95-97, nowhere does it say what effect a line of sight has on the ability of a unit to shoot. Hence my original questions. Is this omission deliberate, or just another example of sloppy copy editing? As I have said, I've already found that (to me) very clear statements in the RAW do not always mean what they say (with i.e. wheeling in a charge). I've also just read on the FoGR forum the ruling that villages do not block line of sight."

Still waiting for some official ruling on this one.

Kevin

[hazelbark]

" example of sloppy copy editing

Still waiting for some official ruling on this one.

I have ruled. Say I.

[viperofmilan]

" example of sloppy copy editing

Still waiting for some official ruling on this one.

I have ruled. Say I.

And I don't necessarily disagree. But remember, we are told that buildings represent a small collection of structures or a single large building; not exactly the warren of small alleyways and narrow congested streets encompassed by a Bombay slum (for instance). So, viewed in this context, why is it unreasonable for advance skirmishers to operate in and/or around such structure(s)? I'm not necessarily advocating such an interpretation per say, I'm just suggesting that is not completely wacko to do so, especially given that nothing I have found in the RAW precludes such an interpretation. So an official ruling of author intent would be helpful.

Kevin

[viperofmilan]

The problem with this aspect of the rules is that we are substituting implied meaning for explicit statement. Page 48 lists three conditions for a unit to be eligible to fire:
1) Type-Infantry, Artillery, and artillery attachments
2) Within range- a measure of distance
3) Condition- It must not have changed formation or retired from a reaction in an assault.

However on page 49 under Firing Mechanism the rules say "the firing unit must be able to draw a line from the centre of its front rank to any part of the target unit."

Drawing the line implies that line of sight is required. We can assume then that when a unit is behind a piece of cover (which blocks line of sight, for example) it may be within range/distance but no line can be drawn thus preventing fire.

What the rules imply should have been made simply and explicitly so we rules lawyers would have less to yak about.

Uncle Meat

True Bob. But the rules make provision for those occasions when a firing unit cannot draw lines from it's 2 front corners to the target without crossing blocking terrain/units: it fires as 1 cohesion state lower. So why couldn't a reformed infantry unit shoot through an otherwise empty building as if 1 cohesion level lower than it's actual state: i.e. steady firing as disordered, disordered as wavering, and wavering unable to fire? Just asking where in the RAW it indicates it shouldn't work this way?

And again I must point out that buildings are not solid blocks of impenetrable terrain. They represent at most a very few individual structures. At the scale of the game it certainly is not crazy to argue that they would not affect awareness of the presence of enemy units on the far side of the building, nor necessarily prohibit fire at such enemy units.

Kevin

[MDH]

Let’s clear up a number of things

1. Re what is says in FOG( R) .The rules writers for the different FOG miniatures rules are not a single team and do not and did not collaborate together across the three sets and most are not ( so far as I know ) members of Slitherine . Most ( all ?) of us were commissioned individually to write stuff, many of us having full time jobs and careers of our own now, or at the time . When Terry and I began designing FoG(N) he had worked on FOG(AM ) but I had not even got a copy so had not even read it much less played it. Nether of us had any input to or involvement in FOG ( R). So what RAW may say or not say in (AM) ( R) and (N) is not the product of an across the board writing process. Some shared ideas top down design aspects and concepts perhaps but not text nor editing.

2. When it comes the treatment of buildings or indeed line of sight there is no reason for the treatment to be the same. It is entirely contextual eg the gunpowder era versus other periods. The impact and effects of buildings and indeed otherwise identical terrain on combat in different eras and regions are not the same.

3. Turning to lines of sight. As I have already said it is more than a question of line of sight – it is effect. Just because you can see it does not mean you can hit it and just because you can hit it does not mean you can damage it significantly in game terms . To count as a built up area in Fog(N) buildings are implicitly of a sufficient density and construction, usually stone and brick in this era and usually more than one storey high in Europe, however laid out, as to constitute a significant barrier. So maybe we should say so . I have already argued elsewhere for a similar approach for some confrontations in unmanaged woodlands and forests. But I am loath to turn rules into a series of mini essays on the built in design assumptions.

4. Theoretically some soldiers among a body of troops might, if close enough, in some cases, be able to see some of a body of troops on the far side of a group of buildings but the effects of small arms fire and of field artillery firing through would be negligible- in FOG(N) terms requiting a de facto net 7 on a die . It has to be treated numismatically – of no consequence. If it was potentially of consequence then the buildings are plainly not a sufficient barrier to constitute buildings or a built up area within the ground scale and figure scale that FOG(N) defines . A lower level of operations where each model building is precisely where it is and what it is shown to be is a different matter.

5. For artillery fire with field artillery in this context see my comments elsewhere on this thread. Artillery close enough to see through would not find ball or canister of any use and the number of howitzers that could actually see through to the other side to fire aimed shell would be small. See my comments on angle of elevation for guns firing shell . Too close and the buildings get in the way of the low trajectory- too far away and they won’t see them anyway . From an elevation with no intervening friends different but ball still of little use.

6. For firing into buildings as in troops occupying or passing through then you are talking speculative fire where the troops themselves are not the target but the whole group of buildings. Before field artillery would do so they would need to be convinced there were enemy troops in the built up area using up ammunition especially if they have better targets . So having sent them enter. In our hot air balloons several thousand feet above the battle field we can see them and may wish to do so but in a hidden movement game would you really poop off at any group of buildings on the off chance there might be enemy troops inside them? But again I would argue to treat this numismatically.

7. Siege operations where there are siege guns and mortars are quite different but we have not modelled those . The ballistics are more useful and the impact of shells much greater.

[viperofmilan]

Let’s clear up a number of things

1. Re what is says in FOG( R) .The rules writers for the different FOG miniatures rules are not a single team and do not and did not collaborate together across the three sets and most are not ( so far as I know ) members of Slitherine . Most ( all ?) of us were commissioned individually to write stuff, many of us having full time jobs and careers of our own now, or at the time . When Terry and I began designing FoG(N) he had worked on FOG(AM ) but I had not even got a copy so had not even read it much less played it. Nether of us had any input to or involvement in FOG ( R). So what RAW may say or not say in (AM) ( R) and (N) is not the product of an across the board writing process. Some shared ideas top down design aspects and concepts perhaps but not text nor editing.

2. When it comes the treatment of buildings or indeed line of sight there is no reason for the treatment to be the same. It is entirely contextual eg the gunpowder era versus other periods. The impact and effects of buildings and indeed otherwise identical terrain on combat in different eras and regions are not the same.

3. Turning to lines of sight. As I have already said it is more than a question of line of sight – it is effect. Just because you can see it does not mean you can hit it and just because you can hit it does not mean you can damage it significantly in game terms . To count as a built up area in Fog(N) buildings are implicitly of a sufficient density and construction, usually stone and brick in this era and usually more than one storey high in Europe, however laid out, as to constitute a significant barrier. So maybe we should say so . I have already argued elsewhere for a similar approach for some confrontations in unmanaged woodlands and forests. But I am loath to turn rules into a series of mini essays on the built in design assumptions.

4. Theoretically some soldiers among a body of troops might, if close enough, in some cases, be able to see some of a body of troops on the far side of a group of buildings but the effects of small arms fire and of field artillery firing through would be negligible- in FOG(N) terms requiting a de facto net 7 on a die . It has to be treated numismatically – of no consequence. If it was potentially of consequence then the buildings are plainly not a sufficient barrier to constitute buildings or a built up area within the ground scale and figure scale that FOG(N) defines . A lower level of operations where each model building is precisely where it is and what it is shown to be is a different matter.

5. For artillery fire with field artillery in this context see my comments elsewhere on this thread. Artillery close enough to see through would not find ball or canister of any use and the number of howitzers that could actually see through to the other side to fire aimed shell would be small. See my comments on angle of elevation for guns firing shell . Too close and the buildings get in the way of the low trajectory- too far away and they won’t see them anyway . From an elevation with no intervening friends different but ball still of little use.

6. For firing into buildings as in troops occupying or passing through then you are talking speculative fire where the troops themselves are not the target but the whole group of buildings. Before field artillery would do so they would need to be convinced there were enemy troops in the built up area using up ammunition especially if they have better targets . So having sent them enter. In our hot air balloons several thousand feet above the battle field we can see them and may wish to do so but in a hidden movement game would you really poop off at any group of buildings on the off chance there might be enemy troops inside them? But again I would argue to treat this numismatically.

7. Siege operations where there are siege guns and mortars are quite different but we have not modelled those . The ballistics are more useful and the impact of shells much greater.

Thanks for the lengthy explanation. I wasn't trying to instigate a lengthy explication of design intent or the particulars of Napoleonic warfare. I wasn't advocating that reformed infantry be able to shoot through empty buildings. I merely noted that it was not entirely insane to argue from the RAW that it may be possible to do so, at reduced effectiveness, and so I was requesting a clear statement of author intent. That's all. I gather from what you wrote above that the answer is that the authors did not intend that any unit could shoot through a building. Fine. Thanks for that. Case closed.

Please do not take any of this as critical of Fog-N. I absolutely love these rules, warts and all, and play them almost to the exclusion of any other rules set. You have come the closest to capturing the ebb and flow of the Corps-level Napoleonic battlefield on a 6' by 4' table that I have ever seen or hope to see.

Kevin