League Of Augsburg - Fighting Talk

OK... Pandora's box opens once more for the stout hearted.

A topic mulled over by DOB and I for sometime - the robustness of artillery batteries under fire.
Extreme example : a Russian 12pdr battery has 6 guns x 5 crew = 30 models and is stronger than many infantry battalions. The crew are also 50% harder to kill allowing batteries to take a huge amount of punishment whilst dealing out even more.

I have already created mechanisms to reduce crew strength and make them more brittle but as this may be the deep ocean tremor than starts the tsunami I thought I would trail it here for first reactions. There will also be more stringent criteria for firing guns with depleted crews AND a mechanic for guns being the target and knocked out during counterbattery fire.

Just wanted to check the water temperatures before I throw the live frogs into the pan.....

It will appear in FOUR EMPIRES as an official amendment to R2E along with other errata and changes....

Batten down..

barr7430 wrote:...Just wanted to check the water temperatures before I throw the live frogs into the pan.....

That seems to be a teasing against the french

Barry,

I never was satisfied with the battery rules in any but one Ruleset I played so far. Allways it has been the men counted to define the losses and not the guns. So in my opinion guns should be targeted and not the guncrews. Deaths of them are a collaterall damage so to speak.
Without guns a battery cease to exist. On the other hand a battery without crew is only silenced.

So why not count guns and limbers/horses as losses instead of figures? They are much larger targets than the 120 to 240 men of Artillery crews and drivers.

My opinion

Günter

Ray.

Both very interesting posts. I see elements of what I had created in both ideas but am particularly taken by the idea that guns are the primary target and not the men. It makes me think that I may further adapt the ideas and in a sense almost ignore the men.

This will throw up a few obvious clarity challenges which I am jotting down even as I think:

1. Small arms fire from infantry will not destroy guns so the mechanisms I have thought off will require a mod to allow for the impact of small arms on crews if not actually causing 'model' casualties.

2. Ray's recall from WRG of Horse/man/gun damage is good but of course creates another required 'mod' ... ie what of the guns are positioned artillery in fortifications, BUAs or on naval carriages and have no need of transport?

3. And you know it's coming folks ... what about the argument... "but some gunners stood by their guns and fought off infantry and cavalry attacks, surely we are not going to lose that option?"
Of course these problems can all readily be solved but I think these intelligent comments so far are very worthy of serious consideration..

thanks and let's see what else rolls in!

Ray.

barr7430 wrote: A topic mulled over by DOB and I for sometime - the robustness of artillery batteries under fire.
Extreme example : a Russian 12pdr battery has 6 guns x 5 crew = 30 models and is stronger than many infantry battalions. The crew are also 50% harder to kill allowing batteries to take a huge amount of punishment whilst dealing out even more.

The main point I had been making to Barry was the robustness of my Russian artillery batteries in hand to hand combat, especially 12pdr batteries. If they are charged by a normal sized infantry battalion 24 figures then the artillery are almost guaranteed to win as the infantry unit would have sustained shooting casualties on the way in and then fight against a crew of 30 figures. The problem arises because of the figure to man ratio of 1:20, the infantry unit would normal have 480+ men but an artillery battery doesn't have a 600 man crew.
Cheers
Dave

THINK i'VE GOT IT WORKED OUT..........

Ray.

Churchill wrote:Hi Dave,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely because of the base size difference a 24 figure infantry battalion would only contact 4 gun bases and thus only 20 crew could fight back.
Weapon wise the infantry should also have the advantage because its using a bayonet fixed onto a musket while the crew at best would be fighting back with sabres or improvised weapons.
The fact is not all the guns were contacted in the charge so how can all the crew fight back.
Only when it comes to moral should the battery count it's full crew of 30 figures.
Again just my thoughts,
Ray.

Ray, irrespective of how much of a unit you contact the whole unit fights in combat this rule applies to any type of combat. Artillery crews were armed with muskets and bayonets which would be stacked behind the guns but if they didn't have time to reach them I'm sure it wouldn't be much fun getting smacked in the face with the metal end of a rammer or smacked round the head with a swabbing bucket.
Cheers
Dave

Ray.

Don't mess with Russian artillery; we don't take s**t of anybody.

very good Bryce.. let's hope you don't run into such problems in Derbyski

I am actually thinking of limiting the fighting capability of batteries if chargers make it past the defensive fire. Seems only logical. The days of Russian 12pdr Guard batteries besting massive cavalry assaults by lancers are I think, a thing of the past (yes I have seen a single battery wipe out about 800 cavalry in hand to hand combat.. I was astonished at the tome and am STILL astonished)

How about making the battery disordered in the initial round of combat,as having just fired their guns they would still be fumbling around looking for weapons etc. and would certainly not be formed.

Bob

Dear Fellow Artillerymen

My approach to a change in that matter would be as previous mentioned that Artillery Fire against another Battery, the so-called counterbattery fire, should be directed against the "hard" targets as guns are. Throw of a 6 would destroy a gun section and whipe out all the crew with it.
Infantry or Cavalry are fighting against the Crew. A saberstroke or a bayonett cant destroy a gun. Close combat should therefore be done as if fighting against CG's and the number of crew is dertermined by the size of the Battery.

I think that something went wrong here and some took the figures "working" the guns are real fighting figures instead of the "Artistic License" as Barry calls it in RtE. If you think it through no Battery, not even the cumbersome Russian 12pdrs, were manned by 50 men/gun or 5 figures per 2 guns. I advice those who are so fond of OOB's to look closely what a Batteries real crewstrength was.
By the book they had in 6 gun batteries about 90-100 men, 8 gun batteries were served by 120 to 150 men while 12 gun batteries could have 220 to 240 men depending on the size of the guns.
That gives us at a ratio of 1:20 roughly 1 figure per real gun or 1 1/2 to 3 CGs to fight attacking horse or foot troops.

Sorry, I was carried away, so no offence.

Best Wishes and a good night (to sleep it over)

Günter

Friedrich August I. wrote: My approach to a change in that matter would be as previous mentioned that Artillery Fire against another Battery, the so-called counterbattery fire, should be directed against the "hard" targets as guns are. Throw of a 6 would destroy a gun section and whipe out all the crew with it.
Günter

The rules as they stand is that when a battery takes casualties we record them as crew coming off but this also effects the guns and limbers at the same time and players should start taking off guns and limbers when there is not enough crew to man all the guns. I feel that there is a danger of over complicating the rules and slowing down the game if we start recording if a gun, crew or limber is being destroyed, I felt the rules work out OK as they are but it was just in hand to hand that I saw a problem although watching my gunners fight off Guard Cavalry was a good laugh.
Cheers
Dave