Hi, We played a game last night using all the optional rules because next weekend we are entering a tournament in Barcelona. A doubt we came across was when firing with a 6 base Austrian unit, one of the bases at the end of the line was blocked by another friendly unit. Can the other 5 bases fire ? In the book it only mentions obstructing terrain, so we decided that the unit couldn't fire at all. was this correct.
Also under this rule does it matter if one target is full and the other is partial.

Another doubt was when placing additional terrain, if placing a stream may it be placed on top of another terrain e.g field or wood etc.

Thanks Phil

Metallics really work well with the dip.

John

What a fantastic work !

I am really interested in trying out this painting process. Do you have much experience with metallics using this method? I actually want to try it out with some ancients models I am painting with lots of chainmail.

Anyway - awesome work!

Really quite well done, I like these even more then the first lot, which were great.

John

Very nice. You can't top AB MINIATURES.

VERY nice!

Being a Gunner, I might be able to provide so assistance.
With direct fire, solid shot artillery the effect of firing from a higher elevation than the target means a reduced grazing or ricochet. This is a HUGE factor in inflicting casualties, as the round strikes the ground just in front of the target the round then 'skips' up, hitting men in the between the shin and knee and continues on an upward trjactory stiking more men in the upper leg, hip, groin ect. Further back troops are catching the roundshot in the chest / head. Also consider that rock / stone fragments from the initial graze will also cause some casualties. It's also interesting to consider casualties being caused by bone and musket fragments.
Firing from high ground cuases 'plunging' fire, thus far far less chance of a grazing or ricocheting effect, and much fewer casualties.
The condition of the ground therfore was a consideration for deployment of artillery, not just because heavy ground would effect the manouvarability of the guns, but also the effects at the target end.
High ground may (may) deminish the effect that each discharge of the guns might cause in regards to LOS issues, but Black Powder artillery firing 'en-mass' would soon make the acurate sighting of individual guns difficult, so hight is no great advantage.
Oh, and reletivly speaking the velocity of Black Powder artillery in relation to shot weight isn't that great. Soldiers for example could actually observe the round from discharge to impact. Try doing that with modern artillery.

"But when I think of the examples of well-known grand batteries in major battles, I can't think of any that were placed on hilltops. Am I forgetting some glaring examples?"

Well, some examples from the top of my head:
Of course there was the example of Senarmont siting his batteries on the Cerro de Cascal to batter the British centre at Talavera (and on the other side, Wellesley sited artillery on the Pajar de Vergara).

At Salamanca there was the example of Marmont having guns dragged to the top of the Greater Arapile because of its commanding position over the surrounding plain, and the British dragging guns to the top of the Lesser Arapile for the same reason. Maucune and the Army of Portugal's reserve artillery was sited along the summit of the Monte de Azan because it commanded the approaches from Los Arapiles and the "glacis" of the slope. Douglas's and Bull's batteries later deployed on a knoll to subject the French to a raking fire.

What brought this on was I was thinking of refighting Salamanca. And the British and French gunners’ behaviour seems to have been very odd if they were dragging their guns to the tops of the Arapiles only to be disadvantaged by reduced range! Marmont (a gunner) personally oversaw the sighting of the battery on the Greater Arapiles, so either he was a fool or there must have been a significant advantage to dragging the guns to the top of a hill!

From a hill, a gunner would have significantly better observation of the ground and clearance to the target. The disadvantage would be that the angle of initial graze would be greater which could affect ricochet - but (relying here on my reading of a RA manual from the 1860s) only the Prussians deliberately practiced ricochet fire in particular circumstances in the field - otherwise gunners fired directly at targets.

"And of course, it begs the question - why did artillery deploy on the tops of hills?"

Did they? I mean, as a general rule?

If the infantry to which they were attached, happened to be on a hill, then obviously the artillery would also be on that same hill.

But when I think of the examples of well-known grand batteries in major battles, I can't think of any that were placed on hilltops. Am I forgetting some glaring examples?

? With the velocity that cannons fire at, the angle the shot falls at is incredibly minor (a few degrees at most) - unless the hill is very steep!

And of course, it begs the question - why did artillery deploy on the tops of hills?

The greater the difference in elevation between the shooter and the fall of the shot, then the greater angle at which the shot falls, and therefore, the more its range and effect is reduced.

Hi guys,

Artillery is deployed on a hill– there is much better observation, the shot will clear intervening terrain, and it is easier to observe the fall of the shot. But…

Page 45: Fire (Artillery)
“If … the artillery unit is on the same elevation as its target…then the unit uses the full long range bracket. However, … if the shooter is on a different elevation from the point at which the ball first bounced (the beginning of the “long” range), then the unit uses the reduced long range bracket.”

So according to the letyter of the rules, artillery on a hill means that it has reduced range?

I am wondering if this is correct? i.e. that the text should actually read:
“the artillery unit is on the same OR HIGHER elevation as its target, then the unit uses the full long range bracket. However, if the shooter is on A LOWER elevation from the point at which the ball first bounced, then the unit uses the reduced long range bracket.”

Cheers

Paul

Here are some more dipped French Legere, this time the Chasseurs to go with my Carabiniers. There are even some blue French now (albeit a bit of a "Pan-Am" blue, I guess the uniforms faded in the sun!).

and the three batalions together:

This event has been cancelled due to lack of Registrations.

Lovely!

What is the breakdown of units?

The diferences in the standart rules between independent and can be sutile but not unimportant---

If you choose the iregular to be independent it will never benefit from vigor or tactics (or be punished by his incopetence), even if it is within command distance from the subcommander , as they are not part of his command

The subcommander’s vigor modifier is used for discipline
tests of units in his command, as long as they are within
his range.

And then if you you use “i´m with this stupid” optional rule (from the downloadable) the diference is more apparent...
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/OPT-Rules5.pdf
“The Commander’s command range for independent units, and for
all artillery from any force, is still 10BW. However, the Commander
only has a command range of 4BW for all other units that belong
to a force and a subcommander somewhere on the board”

Greetings

For me much the same (French and Allies Western Germany):
- infantry battalions 4 bases each 25mm x 20mm - 6 figures per base
- cavalry regiments 4 bases each 25mm x 25mm - 3 figures per base
- artillery batteries 2 bases each 25mm x as needed - 1 gun per base

Regards

Edward

I'm not sure when I'll be in Wellington, when is the next big weekend event?

Ooops - Avant-Garde is miscounted.
1 Jager @10 = 10
2 Grenz(+) @10-2-1x1.3 = 18
2 Infantry(+) @10-1x1.3 = 24
1 Uhlan @10+1+2x1.3 = 17
1 Cavalry BTY = 8
1 Hussar = 17
1 Inf(+) = 12
106 points.

"Without gaining both good generalship ratings we find the French struggle to win games, especially against Austrians and Russians."

Is it that French are weaker, or that Austrian Avant-Garde, Russian Infantry, and Russian Grenadier are the three most powerful lists in the game?

Cam/John did a points system a while ago. Assuming a base of Rel/Exp is 10 points and a 4-gun BTY is 8 points, modified by:
+2 points Valiant, Shock, Lancer, Guards, Rifles, Heavy BTY, Horse BTY, 5 gun BTY
-2 points if Amateur, Shaky, 3-gun BTY, Light BTY,
+1 point SK3, Pursuit,
-1 point SK1, Unpredictable
x1.3 for Large
then:

Austrian Infantry - 92 points
Austrian Grenadiers - 92 points
Austrian Avant-Garde - 117 points (!!!)
British Peninsula Infantry - 85 points
British Hundred Days Infantry - 86 points
British Light - 96 points
British Guards - 89 points
French Infantry - 88 points
French Liberation Infantry - 89 points
Prussian Liberation infantry - 81 points
Prussian Hundred Days - 87 points
Russian Infantry - 103 points (!)
Russian Grenadier - 112 points (!!)

I think the core AB lists are remarkably well balanced. However, British Peninsula is a little weak (though still playable), Prussian Liberation is weak (though having organic cavalry is a big bonus which the points don't factor in). But on the other hand Russian Infantry has an advantage (a major advantage if using Home Field Advantage), Russian Grenadier has a major advantage, and Austrian Avant-Garde is heavily unbalanced in favour of the Austrian player.

So I'd suggest that any consideration of "national characteristics" should take into account that most AB core divisions seem reasonably balanced already.

Incidentally, when are you down in Wellington next?

Well the way we read page 95 is that assigning core troops to the subcommands if you have have only one is automatic and all troops get to be in a force. These are your games though and play as you wish.

>What is the point of having a commander if all he does is carry the slack if a unit
>falls 'out of command' from it's sub-commander.

That's exactly the point of having the commander. Commanders can control some units if in his local and direct them as required in anadhoc manner. That's because he is in the chain of command. However, they are not directly under his command in the OoB- like an independent unit would be.

"Isn’t the superior manoeuvrability of French armies due to their highly experienced generals – which is taken into account through the higher Vigor and higher Tactics of French generals?"

Yes it is BGBEM! but unfortunately having to dice for those characteristics each game means that sometimes you lose the only positive thing the French have going for them in Lasalle. Without gaining both good generalship ratings we find the French struggle to win games, especially against Austrians and Russians.

Hmmm. Looking back at page 8 it states that'most' units are 'under the command of their sub-commander' and 'a few units are directly controlled by the commander' and 'are called independent units'.

Is it just me or is this a bit fuzzy? Why not put units under the commander? You lose vigor and tactics, but gain some mobility by way of increased command radius and by gaining one more maneuver mass.

Nope, still pretty vague.....

Page 95 (as you noted) requires each sub-commander to get 'at least two units', but it does not say that he must get them all if there is only one sub-commander.

Your comment on AB armies not having independent units is odd too. The Austrian Avant-Garde Division has two Grenz and one Jager unit, all potentially irregulars. But if you are right, then they can't be independent (and irregular) since they are commanded by a sub-commander.

What is the point of having a commander if all he does is carry the slack if a unit falls 'out of command' from it's sub-commander.

Any sort of "deep" rectangle or square will do.

>Sorry still not getting this. Any core army has a Commander and a sub-commander. Some
>of the units are assigned to the sub-commander, the remainder to the commander. Yes?

No ,and I looked it up now. :) Page 95 of the AB states "prior to setup, a player must create forces by assigning core units to the subcommanders. Each subcommander must command at least two units. A support brigade already is one force with its subcommander assigned". So no independent units in the AB - everything must be assigned to subcommanders.

Scenario's can have independent units but not the normal AB forces.

If you are defending and the core division just gets a single subcommander then he has all the core troops, that's easy. If attacking the core division gets the bonus troops but as importantly an extra sub commander to create 2 forces - providing much more flexibility in movement during the game, and the need to assign them.

>So why are irregular units considered 'independent' just because they serve under the
>commander?

basically yes. If you want the created irregular units to be independent you can, by having them under the commander directly. All units directly under the commander are independent. That means they do not have an assigned subcommander/force.

>Do they not have to remain within 10BW to be under command?

Yes, independent units only count as in command if within 10 of the commander - subcommanders do nothing for these units.

>I think you are wrong to believe that all units are assigned to a sub-commander,
>as some core armies have ten units, it would be very difficult for him, with a 6BW
>command radius, to keep all his ducklings together.

I believe I'm right from the above and yes you are correct this is the one place command and control limits creep into Lasalle. Especially if defending.

If you are attacking you get 2 subcommanders to handle the core units. So the 6 BW for the subcommander's mean they can handle different units and do different things on the table. However, if defending, all the core units are in one force - so the force will be limited in movement and doing flash stuff all over the place.

The overall commander does help here though. He is in the chain of command so you can use his command range to cover any troops in any force to keep units in command. If you use the optional 'I'm with stupid rule' (which I recommend), then that's just 4 BW, but for bigger forces defending that is still an extra and important additional command range/ad hoc force on the table. If not using that rule then it's 10 BW.

Lasalle does not have huge/complex command rules structure but the command ranges mean that you have to be very careful about spreading troops out too much, to keep all the troops within control range.

I hope this helps.

Sorry still not getting this. Any core army has a Commander and a sub-commander. Some of the units are assigned to the sub-commander, the remainder to the commander. Yes? So why are irregular units considered 'independent' just because they serve under the commander? Do they not have to remain within 10BW to be under command? I think you are wrong to believe that all units are assigned to a sub-commander, as some core armies have ten units, it would be very difficult for him, with a 6BW command radius, to keep all his ducklings together.

Hi,

Here is what I am doing with my 10mm Seven Years War. I am using a 1"x3/4" base with six figures on each. I use 1" on the bases because I am lazy. Base width becomes one inch. No need for special measuring sticks. Six figures because I am cheap and lazy. You could fit 8 figures on a base if you wanted. I get four 24 figure battalion out of a 100 bag of Old Glory. I have finished five battalions. Presently, suffering from painter burn-out. I hope to get going again. Just need a nudge. Looking at three hussar units which is probably why I am blocked.

Cort Naegelin

Hi

Could someone suggest what a good base size and number of figures on it for 10mm. A bunch of us are keen to get a jump on th epainting so we can be ready to go when the books is published.

Simon

I want to remind everybody that this particular iteration of the HONOUR forum has only about a month left to live. In March we'll be transitioning to a spiffy new model that is superior in every way.

That means that all the old discussions here will vanish into the aether. So if there are any that you particularly cherish, now is the time to say your goodbyes.

An independent unit is under the direct command of the commander not a sub commander. This is mentioned on page 8. An independent unit has to be in command of the commander not a sub commander. It's a rare thing and I believe reflects special assignment units etc. I believe if using the army builder this is the only way of getting independent units, as all units otherwise must be assigned to the sub commanders.

>“Britain (and British trained Portuguese): 2 rank line: Infantry in line receive one extra shooting dice (on top of any skirmisher advantage) but are penalized -1 melee dice.”

It is an Edwardian myth that the redcoats won because of their of their two-deep line. The current historiography is that the British eschewed long-range musketry in favour of tactics of “volley, cheer and bayonet charge”. If you give the British +1 dice for musketry but -1 melee dice, then they will behave contrary to their preferred tactics (for units to fire a volley at point blank range, cheer ‘huzza’, and then make a bayonet charge). Have a look at Paddy Griffith, “Forward into Battle: Fighting Tactics from Waterloo to the Near Future” - the chapter on "The alleged firepower of Wellington's infantry".

A slightly modified version of the “bayonet charge” thesis has been taken by James Arnold in “The French Army in the Peninsula” and by Edward Coss in “All for the King's Shilling: The British Soldier Under Wellington, 1808-1814”, who argue that the reason for battlefield success of British infantry was because British infantry had a significant edge in morale over French infantry. I particularly recommend the books by Rory Muir.

That said, I do agree with you that some of the armies can be a bit bland. Possibly you could make the rule:
"Volley and cheer": British infantry (and Portugese infantry) in line get a +2 Combat advantage modifier.

Or else just make British infantry Valiant and Linear Tactics.

>“France: Flexible tactics: French infantry rated experienced in all periods and theaters may move full after changing formation from attack column or line while French infantry rated amateurs in all periods and theaters may move half in the same circumstances. Enemy proximity reduces this to half for experienced and none for amateurs.”

I’d suggest that 1813 French conscripts or 1813 Prussian reservists and landwehr should struggle to deploy into line at all! But wasn’t the ability to deploy into line was really a matter of unit training rather than nationality?

Isn’t the superior manoeuvrability of French armies due to their highly experienced generals – which is taken into account through the higher Vigor and higher Tactics of French generals?

Page 74: "As the player sets them up, these irregular units may remain part of their forces, or they may become independent units."

What is an independent unit? I thought all units had to be subordinated to a CinC or sub-commander.

I tried searching this forum but came up with naught. Any comments?