IMO A very gentle hill likely means clear ground on the table, as no land is perfectly flat like a table top. So a clear table with a lack of close cover providing full range for the artillery likely is what you describe.

Hi Trailape,

You make a really good point regarding ricochet. Ground which rises abruptly causes great ricochet angles and consequently less effect. That said, the actual angle from gentle slopes would be pretty minor - at Waterloo the main allied position was sheltered by a low ridge, but the slope was barely 2-3-degrees.

Nevertheless, gunners were instructed that the best positions for cannon were "the commanding heights are generally more adapted for positions of artillery than those points which lie lower, because they have a better view of the ground before them, the enemy cannot approach them unseen and unexposed to fire, and the effect of the fire from a height downwards is more favourable than if the case were reversed. The most lofty eminence is by no means unconditionally the most advantageous, but that which falls in a gentle slope towards the enemy, and which has no steep cuts where the enemy cannot be reached. The elevation of the ground thus occupied should not be so considerable as to injure the effect of the fire, and we may assume, in reference to this subject, that a slope which does not exceed 4-degrees is not disadvantageous."

mmm
So on a gentle hill, artillery should receive an advantage from superior observation and extensive range. But on a steep hill, artillery should have less effect because of the loss of ricochet effect?

Hi

With respect to the sitting of French artillery at Salamanca, you can see the link below. It shows a presentation given at the International Symposium on "The War of Independence in the Duero Valley: the sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo and Almeida" hold on October 2010 at Ciudad-Rodrigo.

http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/2010/10/gis-systems-as-tool-in-military.html

It shows that the sitting of French artillery at the Great Arapil was really a very bad decision

Regards

Rafa

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

Hey Scruff - they certainly look nice chaps - I wonder how they compare size wise with the WF Plastics - given the latter are a good match by the looks of things with the Front Rank range?

Via the League of Augsberg site, theres a thread on Ebor Miniature http://www.eborminiatures.com/

I must say there new figures look really nice and the price is low enough for me to serious consider their metals over plastic at 14.00 pounds for a 18 man regiment and 18.50 pounds for a 24 man unit.

cheers

Thanks - yes I've had several replies to the TMP Post.

Here is the (wargaming) story of my life. I read W Churchill's biography of J. Churchill (Marlborough) and got all hot and bothered by the WSS. So, over a period of roughly 15 years (!) I painted and organized a lot of 15mm figures, using some home brew rules. Then, when I actually 'finish' my armies, our friend Sam here releases LaSalle and I get a reaccurance of the Napoleonic bug. I drop everything and paint a lot of 6mm figures and happily play LaSalle. Now it seems with Maurice, the old pendulum will swing back to Lace Wars.

Answers (of a sort):

1) There a bunch of pamphlets authored by Sapherson, King (?) and others, published by Partizan Press available from On Military Matters that cover organization and uniforms. I've got about a dozen or so of them.

2) I'm not too sure on artillery. The guns seem large caliber (6 or 8lb) and are grouped together in what seems to be half batteries.

3) The French and English didn't seem to use converged grenadiers, while the Austrians and various German states did.

4) Can't help, I game with 15mm figures.

Hope this helps a little. You may get more and better at TMP.

Hi All,

I posted this to TMP but thought I’d toss it up here to see if anyone has any thoughts – with ‘Maurice’ announced as mentioned previously I am finally inspired to do my long hoped for WSS armies. John Churchill has always been a bit of a hero to me (and to a lesser extent Eugene of Savoy as well) – although my knowledge of the WSS and the battles is at a fairly general (or higher) level if you will. As such to help with designing and organising my new wargames armies (I have a large number of 28mm WF plastic figs, and plan on probably getting Front Rank personalities, guns, generals, etc, to round them out) I would appreciate any help, advice, pointers, for the following:

1. Orders of Battle
Is there a good source somewhere for fairly detailed OOBs from the main battles? I am planning to build both an Anglo-Austrian Army and a French (possibly with Bavarian allies) Army – I am not going to try and do an exact Historical OOB of a specific battle, but a kind of generic Quasi-Imagi-Nation (aka Old School style) representative force of historical units – so want to try and identify which Regiments and such for each nation were present at the main battles/campaigns so I can pick out which units I want to model. As the standard armies (in Maurice) will only be about 7-9 Foot Units and 3-5 Cavalry I want to be able to try and pick a good variety to get a representative feel of unit types and uniforms & nationalities for each side (I may of course eventually add extra units in future to expand them). So if there is an especially good source or ‘one-stop-shop’ for OOB info I’d be grateful for a heads up (I have ordered C. S. Grant’s 2 books on Wargaming WSS, and I do have the Ospreys on Blenheim & Marlborough’s Army plus 2-3 general works on Marlborough & his campaigns & WSS, and am planning to order specific books on the battles/campaigns of Marlborough, Ramillies, Malplaquet, et al – e.g. Neil Litten on Ramillies) but I assume there may be some other recommended good OOB sources).

2. Artillery
Could someone please give me a quick pointer on artillery – what was the typical common artillery present with British/Austrian and French armies during the WSS (ignoring early Battalion Guns – I’m talking the army level artillery). I want to order some Front Rank or similar Guns to do an artillery battery for each side and not sure what size ordnance would be the most common or usual for each army? I’m assuming probably 3pdr or 6pdr guns? Also were the army batteries all one calibre or a mix (e.g. could you model a battery of 4 model guns as, for example, 3 x 3pdr models and 1 x 6pdr or 12pdr and it’d be a roughly historical representation/ratio)? Also how were Howitzers used at this time – dispersed amongst the other guns or in a separate ‘battery’? As I understand the army level artillery tended to be just be grouped into a few 'ad-hoc' large 'batteries' for each battle usually...

3. Grenadiers
Could someone clarify if all Nations did the converged Grenadiers (into composite battalions) thing at this stage, or was that something that originated later in the WAS/SYW period?

4. Wargames Factory vs. Front Rank
Has anyone compared the WF Plastics with FR for size/compatibility? Are there any other alternative WSS manufacturers that might go well with WF other than FR that can be recommended?

Greatly appreciate any & all feedback,

John
Wargaming.info

I don't have a problem with British being potentially outgunned - mainly because in some battles the British did struggle against the French artillery. The strength of the British army was in its excellent infantry - not its artillery.

P.S. Just FTR the probabilities are (at long range) of 1 DISR:

4-Stand as written = 68.75%
3-Stand as written = 50%
3-Stand with above rule = 68.75%

Same Btys at Close (Cannister):

4-Stand vs. SK0 = 96.50% (36.35% 2 DISR, 60.15% 1 DISR)
3-Stand vs. SK0 = 89.1% (10.95% 2 DISR, 78.15% 1 DISR)

4-Stand vs. SK2 = 89.1% (10.95% 2 DISR, 78.15% 1 DISR)
3-Stand vs. SK2 = 68.75% (68.75% 1 DISR)

As you can see the biggest disadvantages for 3 vs 4 base artillery are at long range and against Infantry with good SK factors. They are roughly about 75% of the 4-gun's result - and this may or may not have been part of a deliberate design effect by Sam. But FWIW I don't subscribe to the firepower effect being linear (i.e. literally 75% because the number of guns is 75%) - I'd think a 6-gun battery would be more like about 85%-90% the effectiveness of an 8-gun battery IRL (due to morale effects and other factors on troops receiving artillery fire of any type)...?

One must also ask why the British persevered with 6-gun Batteries - presumably not solely for manoeuvre purposes because if they were outgunned by 8-gun batteries consistently and by such a significant margin they'd have surely reacted (eventually) and reorganised the RA...?

(Note I've rounded some of the above % off to 2 decimal places for brevity).

Anyway just some further ramblings for discussion... :-)

FWIW in my bleat above I'm not suggesting that British Artillery (or Infantry) should actually be given extra dice or increased range (ala GK & Evan's suggestions) - after all the artillery was only 75% of the firepower of most continental gun batteries. The issue is more that the mechanics unfortunately draw an artificial distinction that inadvertently penalises them disproportionately (IMO) to the real world difference in firepower (i.e. for the number of hits needed for 0, 1, or 2 DISR to be inflicted on the target) - but I don't see any simple fix...

One other possible option as another type of "Shrapnel" or "special" rule like GK's would be not to change ranges or add dice, but just allow British/KGL & Hanoverian Foot Artillery* at long range to Re-Roll one die that missed - since they can never inflict more than 1 DISR regardless it just means they get a better % probability of inflicting _a_ DISR closer to a 4-stand battery's (chance of inflicting 1 DISR)... Perhaps only doing so if they did not also use the Howitzer benefit or simply saying they don't get the Howitzer benefit anymore? Basically it means if they get 1 hit on 3 dice they get to reroll 1 of the 2 miss dice to see if they can get the second hit to inflict a DISR... It won't make them as good as a 4-gun Battery but will give them something extra to make them more equal in value in the AB lists to a 4-gun battery.

You could play the same rule as a 3-gun Battery rolls 4-dice not 3 at long range, BUT (nominally) drops the lowest scoring die of the 4 from the result (so just uses the 3 highest dice to determine if a DISR is inflicted). i.e. it gets the same dice as a 4-stand battery at long range but can not inflict more than 1 DISR regardless as 5 hits are needed to do that anyway.

(* Only Foot Artillery because almost all Nation's Horse Artillery have the same issue - 3-bases strong - so rather than apply it to all 3-gun batteries you just apply it to 3-Gun Foot Batteries).

I agree that British are not a preferred option. The Infantry core is not that great (though Light Division and Guards are better options), ordinary British infantry are identical to others (Rel/Exp SK2), the 3-gun batteries are weak, and the light cavalry is pretty average and not organic.

I had a crack at my own alternative list for Peninsula British - http://sites.google.com/site/honourscenarios/alternative-peninsula-british

For a local tournament this weekend, I'll be fielding the following (assuming my opponents agree):
3 British Line (Valiant/Experienced SK2 Linear Tactics)
1 SK base
2 Portugese Line (Reliable/Experienced SK1 Linear Tactics)
1 Cacadore (Reliable/Experienced SK3 Linear tactics)
1 RA BTY (3 guns)
+ 2 Portugese Line

Cheers

Paul

Two minor changes we've incorporated in our games lately would likely have an impact on the ability of the 100 days British to play a bit better. One is the addition of one extra dice for firing if infantry are in line, and the second is the requirement for infantry to receive a disruption point if they successfully test to withdraw from a combat - if they fail their skill test and remain in the combat the game goes as normal, but retreat and you gain a disruption point for your trouble.

We've played several games where we deliberately did not try to retreat from combat and the only appreciable difference it seemed to make was the reduced time overall it took to play the game - the outcomes were pretty much identical and I'd say the back and forwards of attack/retreat etc is erroneously assumed to give an advantage but in reality just takes longer to get to the same conclusion within the variables of rolling dice.

This shrapnel idea is quite nifty.

Perhaps a "fix" to even up the British being a tube short would be to give them a special rule:

Shrapnel:

In the Peninsula or Hundred Days theatre, British artillery may fire shrapnel which increases their short range as follows:

Heavy: 14
Medium: 12
Light: 10

As you can see, the range increase is equivalent to an extra half of the reduced long range value.

Of course, the main issue is the dice reduction for Canister v Skirmishers. Arguably, firing shrapnel is not the same as firing canister and hence, the new rule might be as simple as saying that at short range British artillery fire shrapnel and hence experience no dice reduction for skirmishers. Given "standard" skirmishers are SK2, this would effectively mean that the British 3-gun batteries fire as non-British canister firing 4-gun batteries, which is probably what is really needed.

The thought of no-one using redcoats in tournament play was appalling enough to make me think that such a special rule has to come into play in my Lasalle games. Just a thought ... :)

-- George Krashos

The biggest issues that I see are the smaller artillery units...

Definitely - In fact in smaller AB List games (i.e. Core + 1 Support) they are a significant disadvantage, as almost no other list (of any other Nation/Sub-Era) has only 3-stand batteries to support Infantry or Core Troop formations and due to the way the game is scaled for combat factor that stand is a big difference, IMO.

As Can says above it depends how competitive you want to be, and also how small your game is (again like the Cavalry vs. Squares issue it's less noticeable, or less of an issue, in larger games).

Essentially 3-stand batteries are pretty useless at cannister range, any target with SK2 renders them little better than long range roundshot; versus a 4-stand Battery which will still get 6 Dice -the difference is whether you have a near guarantee of 1 hit and a reasonable possibility of doing 2, versus only an above-average chance of 1 hit. Basically a 4-stand Battery can sometimes gamble on standing and firing if charged (e.g. if opponent has only 2-DISR left) while a 3-stand never can stand and fire ever. Whether historical or not the fact is the way the rules work a 4-stand battery has the option and a possible chance of success in such cases (e.g. do 2 hits or do more or less guaranteed 1 hit and fight melee & with a touch of luck win), but a 3-stand battery could never ever contemplate such with some radically extreme dose of luck.

The other issue is with long range cannister fire - where the 4-stand battery has a very good chance of doing a hit, but the 3-stand doesn't - and I'm not arguing that historically they were equal far from it, but just that the coarse scale of the rules' combat factors means 4-stand Roundshot will cause 1-hit most of the time, while 3-stand roundshot will not - and in the bounce-through target hits and you have 4-stands about twice as effective as 3-stands. I'm just not sure 6-gun batteries were half as effective as 8-gun ones in real life...

As I mentioned in larger games this is a lot less significant, as artillery tend to remain on the periphery an just support other units or plug the odd hole temporarily, so the firepower difference isn't really noticed. But in those small AB List games where artillery might represent about 1/8 to 1/6 of your total force its significant IMO, since there appears to be no acknowledgement of smaller batteries nor no cost for larger ones (i.e. the British, and any others, get no compensation for having the small batteries - compare a 100-days French & British Core Force - everything is identical except the French get 4-stand artillery and better commanders)...

If you are ultra-competitive and play lots of Tournies or Competition Games you'd just never take British ever, especially not the 1815 list. But if you aren't a "have to win" type person and/or want primarily to play historical games agaisnt historical opponents (e.g. 1815 Brit vs. 1815 French) its probably not a major - and through Historical OOBs and/or Cam's point system you can compensate accordingly (although I now think Cam has been too conservative with the Arty Adjustment factors (I think 3-stand Batteries should get -3 at least, so base factor only 5, but Horse Batteries should get +3 instead of +2 (there mobility is far more beneficial in the game than their actual firepower).

YMMV of course...

:-)

Depends how competitive you want to be.

The British 100-days AB lists has two problems IMO - not very good Organic cavalry and 3-gun batteries. They don't really get much to compensate for these factors.

If both sides avoid using Organic cavalry in your games (or do something else to de-power cavalry), then the British are fine.

Cam

I have yet to actually be able to play a game but I have been following the forums and have read through the rulebook a few times. I am currently painting up a 100 Days British army and I have seen a lot of posts about how the Brits struggle to win a lot of the time. Why is this? Have I already handicapped myself by choosing an army with design flaws?

The biggest issues that I see are the smaller artillery units and the lack of availability of good cavalry.

I raised this because it's occurred a couple of times here (including me doing it once) when on the losing side and sacrificing the Limbered Artillery to contest the objective on your side of the table in your turn to avoid getting reduced to 4D6 for the morale check - In our latest game (http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/the-hundred-days-continues) I limbered up a Foot Battery and rushed it to within 4BW of the objective in my own deployment zone on Turn 18, as Cam had ridden over it with his Carabiniers, and I had been testing morale since Turn 14 - if I had thrown only 4D6 on Turn 18 I'd probably almost certainly have failed (well had about an 84%+ chance of failing at least). As it was I passed (with 5D6), Cam lost a unit in Turn 19 and now had to check his Army Morale for the first time, he passed but had about a 46% chance of failing that throw, and in Turn 20 my Artillery remained next to the Carabiniers (albeit now unlimbered) continuing to allow me 5D6, although I did finally fail (it was my 4th roll for Army Morale).

The point being Cam could have lost the game he had clearly won fairly decisively on Turn 19, because I was able to drive some Artillery 'Wagons' over next to his Carabiniers the previous turn and prevent his advantage in breaking my line by 'contesting the objective'. I think doing so against the objective of the opponent (i.e when you are the attacker) is fair enough, be it Arty Limbers, Cossacks, or Whatever, but using Limbered Artillery to 'hold' the objective in your deployment zone when defending is pretty cheezy, but you have no option but to do it if nothing else is available because of how the Army Morale works...

Yurp.

Where is a discussion like this going to end. The next point could be can Cossacks contest the objective, after all they can do very little apart from move fast and hide behind people stopping them from falling back or changing formation. Even limbered artillery are a threat.....they can suddenly unlimber and cause grief behind enemies as obviously became apparent on Saturday. Therefore I feel that limbered artillery certainly should be able to contest an objective....in AB game turns at least. In a purpose written scenario this can be stopped by saying they cant! :)

Trev

Read the last sentence of Artillery Units changing Formation [p26]

"No other restrictions or complications apply save for those mentioned in this section".

The rules are clear enough, its just whether we want to modify them or not for our games

I agree - it SHOULDN'T (IMO) but it does under the rules as written

I think we're Ad Idem on this [grin]. Another entry for the Gentlemen Players' Houserules methinks

James