Lighting up ambush markers with Light Artillery?

[Claudius]

Can I use mobile [somewhat] Light Arty units to fire upon, and clear out, ambush markers?
Seems like a reasonable action that a player, who already has omniscient knowledge of all friendly and threat unit locations as well as the locations of the ambush markers, can do?
Do normal shooting rules apply?
Thanks/Cheers

[daleivan]

Can I use mobile [somewhat] Light Arty units to fire upon, and clear out, ambush markers?
Seems like a reasonable action that a player, who already has omniscient knowledge of all friendly and threat unit locations as well as the locations of the ambush markers, can do?
Do normal shooting rules apply?
Thanks/Cheers

I would think not. The artillery (or any shooter) could not target the ambush because it isn't an actual target

1. It is a place holder for a possible placement of an enemy BG. The marker is 'revealed' once a BG gets within visibility range, which depends upon the terrain the marker has been placed in.

2. Shooters can only target enemies within visibility, which would be the point at which the marker would be revealed.

3. So, my read is that you would need to wheel (or trundle depending upon the piece in question to within visibility range of the marker, at which point it would automatically be revealed, no shooting necessary.

Dale

[Redpossum]

Can I use mobile [somewhat] Light Arty units to fire upon, and clear out, ambush markers?
Seems like a reasonable action that a player, who already has omniscient knowledge of all friendly and threat unit locations as well as the locations of the ambush markers, can do?
Do normal shooting rules apply?
Thanks/Cheers

I would think not. The artillery (or any shooter) could not target the ambush because it isn't an actual target

1. It is a place holder for a possible placement of an enemy BG. The marker is 'revealed' once a BG gets within visibility range, which depends upon the terrain the marker has been placed in.

2. Shooters can only target enemies within visibility, which would be the point at which the marker would be revealed.

3. So, my read is that you would need to wheel (or trundle depending upon the piece in question to within visibility range of the marker, at which point it would automatically be revealed, no shooting necessary.

Dale

So the ambushing player cannot "pop" an ambush at will? He/she cannot have the ambushing BG say, rush out of the woods and attack?

[daleivan]

So the ambushing player cannot "pop" an ambush at will? He/she cannot have the ambushing BG say, rush out of the woods and attack?

The ambushing player can reveal an ambush at any time in his own turn. So, yes, he could reveal the battlegroup in ambush at the start of his impact phase, or in his maneuver phase, or in his shooting phase etc.

However, the ambushee (so to speak) can only have an ambush marker revealed when one of his BGs is within visibility range of the marker. At that point, the marker must be turned over to reveal whether or not it represents a BG in ambush. If so, the BG is placed at that point (p143)

Cheers,

Dale

[Redpossum]

Thank you, sir, for that prompt and unequivocal reply

So are ambushes not used much in tourney play? In all the AAR's I have read here, and I devour them avidly, I cannot recall ever reading anything about an actual ambush.

I do recall reading in one place a casual mention of ambush markers, but there was nothing more.

[GrumblingGrognard]

If the arty can see the marker...it should be revealed anyway (unless I am missing something).

I have three markers and use them all in every game. Sometimes they are all dummies, but generally I have at least one marking a unit. They come in hand in allowing non-skirmishers to set up a bit farther into the table.

GG

[kal5056]

In my 4th game at Bayou Wars I pulled off my first successful ambush .
There was a wood to my extreme right off the field.
I ambushed 2 units of Light Horse Lancer LH in 2 spots.
After the enemey advanced and engaged my battle line 1 BG of LH came forward and hit the enemy cav in the flank.
When the enemy then brought his LH watching his flank over to peel off my LH I sprung the second ambush and made an end around to take his camp.

I keep looking for opportunities to repeat this type of effectiveness but in 12 or so games have not been able to do so.

I also often use an ambush marker back in one of my flank corners to hide a BG of poor mob or the like.

Gino
SMAC

[Claudius]

Modern term used to be "reconnaissance by fire" - actually a useful function for arty.
Clobber unseen threat units at a distance before they become dangerous.

Seems like I should be able to blast away with my arty at any area of terrain that I feel enemy units may be hiding in.
Suspect areas on the flanks or in front of my units would be subjected to arty fire to clear out any threat units hiding within.
Might be especially useful for villages where the arty fire would knock down the buildings.
What self-respecting LH or LF or other type of units would remain in an area being pounded by arty?

Comments?
Cheers

[MarkSieber]

Flinging the occasional pointy stick or hurling random four-kilogram rocks would hardly qualify as "reconnaissance by fire" It wasn't even used in Napoleonic times. Explosive shells with accurate indirect-fire delivery systems are a prerequisite.

[Andy1972]

Modern term used to be "reconnaissance by fire" - actually a useful function for arty.
Clobber unseen threat units at a distance before they become dangerous.

Seems like I should be able to blast away with my arty at any area of terrain that I feel enemy units may be hiding in.
Suspect areas on the flanks or in front of my units would be subjected to arty fire to clear out any threat units hiding within.
Might be especially useful for villages where the arty fire would knock down the buildings.
What self-respecting LH or LF or other type of units would remain in an area being pounded by arty?

Comments?
Cheers

you have to remember this isn't SP artillery or modern arty.. Ancient and Medieval art.. If ya cant see it.. you cant shoot it.. Lol.. you can't do Soviet style preliminary bombardment. You don't have factories mass producing artillery shells for the cannons.(or catapults)

[Andy1972]

woot! i made Javelin man! lol

[SirGarnet]

Dropping ambush markers is good practice if nothing else, since to put them down you intelligently you have to have some doctrine or battle plan in mind.

They can keep the other side in doubt about possible flank marches. I have used an ambush in conjunction with a flank march. The other player was perhaps surprised but prepared enough so it probably would have been better to have the FM troops on table at the start (though I'd still have done the ambush).

[shall]

Thank you, sir, for that prompt and unequivocal reply

So are ambushes not used much in tourney play? In all the AAR's I have read here, and I devour them avidly, I cannot recall ever reading anything about an actual ambush.

I do recall reading in one place a casual mention of ambush markers, but there was nothing more.

The rules are set up so that ambushes and flank marches will be less common and not dominate games. However they do come into play heavily when you have the right army and terrain:

• My Numidians have before now flank marched on both sides
  Tonight we are using Iberians and are taking all 3 ambush markers, fully intending to use them all

The difference from the recent past is that the rules are hopefully set up so that only armies that did flank march or ambush a lot will find much benefit in doing so. I probably do one or other in 1 game in 10 now. 80%+ of armies didn't bother and didn't need to do so to any material degree. How many ancient battles were decided by such things in reality - not many as a proportion of all the battles.

Si

[Redpossum]

Thank you, sir, for that prompt and unequivocal reply

So are ambushes not used much in tourney play? In all the AAR's I have read here, and I devour them avidly, I cannot recall ever reading anything about an actual ambush.

I do recall reading in one place a casual mention of ambush markers, but there was nothing more.

The rules are set up so that ambushes and flank marches will be less common and not dominate games. However they do come into play heavily when you have the right army and terrain:

• My Numidians have before now flank marched on both sides
  Tonight we are using Iberians and are taking all 3 ambush markers, fully intending to use them all

The difference from the recent past is that the rules are hopefully set up so that only armies that did flank march or ambush a lot will find much benefit in doing so. I probably do one or other in 1 game in 10 now. 80%+ of armies didn't bother and didn't need to do so to any material degree. How many ancient battles were decided by such things in reality - not many as a proportion of all the battles.

Si

OK, but then you have the Carthaginians of the 2nd Punic War under Hannibal Barca who pulled something tricky in almost every battle. How many times did Hannibal conceal his Numidian cavalry somewhere on the field and then charge them out an an opportune moment?

And then there was Lake Trasimene, which involved a plan so tricky it should never have worked, not just involving splitting his army into more separate elements than was anything but rash, but also combining elements of psychological warfare, weather, and detailed local knowledge of terrain. Not to mention playing, as did so many of Hannibal's plans, on the stupidity and arrogance of the opposing commanders. And from Varro to Varus, the Romans did have a way of tossing up aristocratic idiots to positions of high command. Hmm, much like the British Empire in its day, eh?

Then again, in 5000 years, there's only been one Hannibal Barca

[daleivan]

Ambushing seems to me to have potential--if nothing else to keep the enemy on his toes, as Hammy says.

[daleivan]

And then there was Lake Trasimene, which involved a plan so tricky it should never have worked, not just involving splitting his army into more separate elements than was anything but rash, but also combining elements of psychological warfare, weather, and detailed local knowledge of terrain. Not to mention playing, as did so many of Hannibal's plans, on the stupidity and arrogance of the opposing commanders. And from Varro to Varus, the Romans did have a way of tossing up aristocratic idiots to positions of high command. Hmm, much like the British Empire in its day, eh?

Then again, in 5000 years, there's only been one Hannibal Barca

As others have noted, the Roman army sometimes won its battles (and wars) despite its leaders (though certainly Scipio Africanus, Caesar, and Aurelian were no slouches

As you say, Hannibal was a superb battlefield general, one of kind, though despite his tactical brilliance, those pesky Romans won in the end...

[Redpossum]

Aye, the Romans won in the end, because of strategic considerations. As one author pointed out, the population of the Po River valley in the third century BC has been estimated at between 5 and 6 million. This gave the Romans a potential pool of available military manpower of 500-600 thousand, using the standard 1-in-10 rule of thumb, which Carthage could not even come close to matching.

Rome was also a military state, even that early, with coherent doctrine, established tactics and formations, and a military establishment capable of training and equipping soldiers in large numbers. Indeed, they did so anew every year on a regular basis. Furthermore Rome had a social system capable of supplying leaders for those formations in large numbers. Maybe not the greatest leaders, but leaders that the troops would follow.

I'm sure you know all this, I'm just pointing it up in contrast to Carthage, which was a mercantile state that went to war only to gain or protect resources and trade routes, and thus had no such military establishment.

[shall]

And then there was Lake Trasimene, which involved a plan so tricky it should never have worked, not just involving splitting his army into more separate elements than was anything but rash, but also combining elements of psychological warfare, weather, and detailed local knowledge of terrain. Not to mention playing, as did so many of Hannibal's plans, on the stupidity and arrogance of the opposing commanders. And from Varro to Varus, the Romans did have a way of tossing up aristocratic idiots to positions of high command. Hmm, much like the British Empire in its day, eh?

Indeed exactly the type of occasional battle I refer to - but still a very small proportion thereof. Playing on the inadequacy of an opponents plan - what a cad!!

I played Lake Trasimene solo in testing when we were consdirering weather rules - using ambush markers for the whole army. I had a 6MU limit on visibility and started the Romans on the road around the lake with reaction only possible once a combat had started. It worked very nicely as a scenario.

IMHO Hannibal should have marched on Rome straight after Cannae ......

Si

[hazelbark]

Sometimes ambush markers allow you to deploy forward and move quckly so revealing the ambush on your first move is often left out of the AARs.

That said, it is pretty easy by counting deploying BGs to determine if a BG is a fake or not. Fakes tend not to make it into AARs.