And here is the second question from the game - cavalry declares a charge against a line of infantry and there is a light gun directly adjacent to the line of infantry. Can the light gun fire in support of the infantry? If so what is the mechanism?

In short; No. The charge happens before the artillery phase.

Page 15 Play Sequence

Step 5 Charge Declarations and reveal Orders (Chargers test Morale)
Step 6 Units being charged test Morale (If they pass they can stand and fire) D6 determine's Short, Medium or Long range.
Step 9 Artillery fire (If the Artillery are being charged and pass their morale check again a D6 determine's the range they fire at).
Step 10 Musketry (Charging units take Morale checks to charge home "if hit")

Joe, Barry and Dave I found the "If hit" on page 15 although it was missed on page 50 in Morale.

Ray.

Thanks Gents,

I understand the turn sequence mechanism but I disagree with it somewhat. I know that we have to make compromises so we can actually game and get through a turn. But the reality part is what keeps coming back to me. I somehow doubt in a real battle that an artillery section would not fire in support of a unit they are directly next to (and in contact with) because it wasn't their 'turn' to fire.

Sounds like an opportunity for a 'house' rule.

As you have discovered there is no 'opportunity fire' rule mechanism. Thus my short answer. As we all know the rules weren't written to cover every "what if" and are left to the players to come to a gentlemanly agreement.

Lets also try to remember the rules are covering a period where organized linear warfare was in it's infancy. Allowing it takes away from the period feel of the game. Later periods the forces were better trained and in most cases more motivated to support each other. During this period not so much.

The artillerists in your game were probably thinking "Boy I'm glad they didn't charge us, we don't even have the powder loaded yet"

Greg,

I honestly feel that rules users should resist the temptation to twist rules to suit individual 'discussions' they have during games. The,
'that doesn't feel right, let's change it' approach is a rocky path leading to

' I didn't like that result because my favourite unit got creamed, let's change it' approach.

I often think that wargamers view a game in abstract mechanical logic terms not in the reality of what is happening on a battlefield. As justification:

1. Artillerists were semi civilians recruited often before campaigns or battles. They may not even have been the same nationality of those soldiers fighting beside them. Why put yourself at risk if the bad guy is killing someone else. Most soldiers are not Mel Gibson or Kevin Costner.

2. Issues of language. Crew - Dutch? neighbour regiment Danish? - coordination and communication... Shoot your gun at those charging cavalry..What? Shoot your gun at THOSE CHARGING CAVALRY... WHAT?Shoo....... too late - dead!

3. What distance existed between the two units gun and neighbour? Would the gun itself have felt threatened? were they previously targeting something else to keep it away from them? Why would they help someone else if not in danger?

4. Did you jump into every fight in the playground because you knew the guy who was getting hammered? I didn't!!!!!

Too many ifs....

Challenge yourself with this question...

Is what I am suggesting a real possibility OR is it just a way to win a wargame by utilizing all of the assets at my disposal to cause as much damage to my opponent?

Barry,

Thank you for that, it really does help. I have that natural tendency to 'adjust' things to make it fit some type of logical (my logical) outcome.

Greg, glad that has helped!

Greg, glad that has helped!