Artillery behind fortifications

[ravenflight]

Hi All,

One thing that seems strange to me is the limitation on artillery not being able to pivot if behind fortifications. Whilst it's true that they wouldn't be able to move the entire fortification with them and swing around in a line, artillery would indeed pivot within the fortification to bring other targets into their field of fire. Indeed, one could argue that it would be easier for them to do so because of the duck board that are likely to be in place along with the fortification.

I think can think of a couple of rules modifications that would assist with this.

1 - allow guns to pivot as normal and drag the fortification with them. Whilst this would look odd, it's not that big a deal (IMHO) because the fortifications are a bit of an abstract and wouldn't actually be the fortifications moving, but the guns pivoting into an echelon position allowing them to fire. For aesthetics, they would just more the fortification with them. When you consider that troops behind a fortification can't be flank charged, it seems reasonable that there would be a part of the fortification not really seen on the battlefield that would cover the sides of the guns anyway, so it's not like they are going to get a heap of advantage out of this.

2 - allow guns to pivot backwards and to shoot through fortifications that they originally deployed behind. Whilst ever one corner of the artillery is touching the fortification it would be considered 'behind fortifications' for purposes of the rule

3 - allow guns to remove the fortifications that they are behind and pivot as normal... essentially taking the option of dropping the cover.

Thoughts?

[benjones1211]

I would say allow them to pivot to the rear maximum of 45degrees. So it would take two moves to go from shooting to the right to shooting to the left.

[madaxeman]

Maybe an entirely new points cost (different to normal fortification costings) for 'redoubt to hold X artillery", and then just allow the fortification to wheel with the unit ?

[ravenflight]

Maybe an entirely new points cost (different to normal fortification costings) for 'redoubt to hold X artillery", and then just allow the fortification to wheel with the unit ?

Actually, I quite like this idea. It seems to make sense within the 'star fort' mentality too. Then you could (at your choice) buy a fortification as normal and not be able to pivot, or buy a 'star fort' to be able to pivot. Naturally, the star fort would be able to have troops giving rear support too. I would think.

[kevinj]

This is starting to venture into Siege Warfare, which is not something the game attempts to cover.

[benjones1211]

Also one section of the Fortification would slowly waddle away from the rest, making problems with contact etc.

[ravenflight]

This is starting to venture into Siege Warfare, which is not something the game attempts to cover.

Wow, having the ability to have artillery behind fortifications that can pivot suddenly changes the game into siege warfare?

How do you figure that?

The ONLY difference we're doing in the rules is allowing artillery to pivot, which historically they would have been able to do.

If this suddenly will get everyone buying artillery fortifications then the rules are truly fragile.

Personally, I think you'll see the same people buying fortifications that already do (in other words, hardly any) but they will act more historically.

Also one section of the Fortification would slowly waddle away from the rest, making problems with contact etc.

How would it be any different from any other formation that wheels out of a line?

[benjones1211]

Which is why I agreed with the reverse pivot. So Fortifications stay in line

[ravenflight]

Which is why I agreed with the reverse pivot. So Fortifications stay in line

I don't understand your problem with the fortification NOT being in line tho. There are instances of 'combats that can't line up' in practically every game.

[kevinj]

Wow, having the ability to have artillery behind fortifications that can pivot suddenly changes the game into siege warfare?

It was the reference to Star Forts that did that.

[madaxeman]

'Arc of fire for artillery behind and in contact with fortifications is increased to 5 base widths when firing at targets at long range'

[Vespasian28]

With a penchant for Spanish armies this has come up a few times.

Quite happy with either the 45 degree pivot backward in touch with FF or:

Arc of fire for artillery behind and in contact with fortifications is increased to 5 base widths when firing at targets at long range'

The latter is simpler and also saves complications when you have foot defending the guns as well. Interested to hear why 5 base widths or is that just an opening bid?

[madaxeman]

Bit of an opening bid, on a semi random basis

You could also go with all guns in the battery able to fire up to 4 base widths either side of the width of the whole battery (as the single-gun shot at the edge of the arc of fire has always seemed to me a bit of an artifact of the rules, as it often leads to guns in the same battery shooting 2 different targets...)

[ravenflight]

Bit of an opening bid, on a semi random basis

You could also go with all guns in the battery able to fire up to 4 base widths either side of the width of the whole battery (as the single-gun shot at the edge of the arc of fire has always seemed to me a bit of an artifact of the rules, as it often leads to guns in the same battery shooting 2 different targets...)

That would encourage larger batteries, which isn't an altogether bad thing, but needs to de looked into. Would armies with larger numbers of guns be more attractive because of the larger footprint.

[madaxeman]

A 3-gun battery in fortifications is going to be the thick end of 100 points.

For that many points, they should surely be fairly attractive ...?

[nikgaukroger]

I'm going to say what we've said about colunela's on this topic as well.

We've had a ponder about this issue and I'm afraid that for this update it isn't a major enough issue to be included. We'd rather concentrate on the bigger issues that affect more of the game and get those right.

We appreciate the fact that the issue was raised as it is good to air them, but we need to keep the update focused.

Maybe at a future date (but no promises).

[Vespasian28]

Poor old Spanish. First colunelas now fortifications. Good job the rules on ruffs and paellas don't need updating

[Akbar]

Yes, feels a bit...sad. Well, there is nothing stopping house rules over here in Sweden.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Poor old Spanish. First colunelas now fortifications. Good job the rules on ruffs and paellas don't need updating

You beat me, what are you complaining about?

[timmy1]

I agree with Mr Mad

'Arc of fire for artillery behind and in contact with fortifications is increased to 5 base widths when firing at targets at long range'

Also think it is a big enough issue to warrant inclusion. HOWEVER there would need to be a rule no fortifications with artillery within 5MU of the flank zone and that is just getting to be too much like hard work.