Artillery Bouncethrough « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Artillery Bouncethrough

(24 posts) (7 voices)

Started 1 year ago by Alan Charlesworth
Latest reply from trailape

Tags:

No tags yet.

Alan Charlesworth
Member

Clearly roundshot from artillery can plough on through it's first target and hit something beyond. However I am having difficulty conceptualising 90 degree angle bounce through.

If I understand the rules correctly the following happens:

An artillery unit has two equally eligible roundshot targets - let's say two infantry units in column perpendicular to the front of the artillery both at the same distance. The artillery can nominate either unit as the initial target and then the second one becomes the bouncethrough target.

This means that after ploughing through the first unit the roundshot jinks at a greater than 90 degree angle to then go through the second unit?
Plausible?

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

I think bouncethrough is a misleading name for the rule for the reason you cite - you don't need to go "through" a unit to hit the next one.

I just think of it as saying that artillery firing roundshot fires twice each turn - hitting the first target and, if there is one, the next eligible target. Or you could just think that the guns fire at different targets - some at the first target, others at another target.

It could bounce-through one target to hit another, but it could just be at two different targets spaced apart.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Rupert of Hentzau
Member

I tend to think of it as collateral damage!

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

First a quick correction to my original post. I meant to say parallel not perpendicular.

Cam

The problem I see with your rationalization is as follows:

1 If the artillery unit has the firepower to hit two adjacent units with full dice against each then logically if there was only one unit as a target it should have the firepower to get double dice against the single unit?

2 A lot of the rules relating to Bouncethrough clearly reflect the idea that you are hitting a unit beyond the initial target I.e. You are simulating bounce through as happened in reality.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Rupert

I know you weren't making an entirely serious point, however, the following needs to be borne in mind:

Roundshot is like a single rifle shot in that it does not scatter or spread. So a single roundshot fired at say a 3 deep line is at best likely to cause 3 casualties. A battery of 8 guns firing at said line therefore may cause 24 casualties. Of course a reaction phase may well encompass several shots per gun.

To get "collateral damage" you would have to assume that 50% of shots miss the prime target and all move to the left or right to where the "bounce through" target is.

I like having a bouncethrough rule but surely the target of the bouncethrough has to be beyond the original target to make any sense?

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

What Flames of War did for WW2 miniature gaming, Flags of War.... uhmm, I mean Lasalle, in some small way did for Napoleonic miniature gaming. Like Flames of War, Lasalle isn't perfect and suffers from a few shortcomings do to its simplicity - which can be good. With the Bouncethrough Fire rule, I believe Sam was trying to incorporate several factors of Napoleonic warfare and artillery. "Note, however, that it is possible for a friendly unit to be the target of bouncthrough fire!" (Page 45)

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

Roundshot is like a single rifle shot in that it does not scatter or spread

Oh... I'm not sure I'd agree with that. It's not a single, perfectly straight and airborne shot. It's a few dozen bouncing projectiles, fired over the course of several minutes, by anywhere from 6-12 different tubes that are spread out across a frontage of 100-150 yards, each of which might be adjusted between each shot.

Not to mention that each shot, once it strikes the earth, is bouncing and ricocheting and no longer moving in a perfectly straight path.

My intention was to create a "zone" of effect for roundshot, but to try to limit it to a reasonable amount of damage, and a reasonable amount of time spent on each "shot." That's why the roundshot doesn't keep bouncing out to its theoretical maximum range (which in any case would probably take it off the table-edge in most games.)

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Funnily enough my opponents last week made comment about similarity with FOW. Personaly I don't see that as negative. The speed of play, simplicity and elegance of the core mechanics is what appealed to me about Lasalle in the first place. Although I would judge Lasalle to be more historically true to it's subject than FOW. I think there is a tendency to equate any game that depends on lots of dice and no factor tables to be 40k/FOW like.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Sam

In my comment that you quoted I was referring to a single roundshot fired rather than the effect of a battery. I was trying to convey that roundshot is not canister in respect of spread. In the context of a complete battery firing I concur with your comments entirely.

My concern was more with the 90 degrees jinking and the fact that a battery can inflict double the harm on two adjacent units that it can on a single unit when the same number of shot are being fired. This is definitely counterintuitive.

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

It only seems like "double" because in a wargame we have to use markers and numbers and count things.

The important thing is that any eligible target unit can be disrupted by that fire, if it's standing in the line of that fire. There's not supposed to be a Zero-Sum quantity of cannonballs, that would have to be divided between two units, or concentrated upon one. There's just this concept of "Disruption" when you're under fire.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Point taken Sam. I was just thinking of casualties rather than overall disruption effect. In that context the whole mechanism is much more understandable. When the thinking behind a rule is explained it is so much more easy to understand and agree. Although shouldn't there still be a bouncethrough effect behind those two adjacent units?

Perhaps you should write a companion volume to Lasalle called "Lasalle for Dummies or How I Designed the Game Mechanics" :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

I already clog my rulebooks with too many Designer's Notes, as it is.

"Although shouldn't there still be a bouncethrough effect behind those two adjacent units?"

You can certainly add it if you wish, but I think you'll find that it makes artillery too powerful, and adds more time to gameplay.

On the other hand, if you have a Russian army, I can imagine that would be a very popular rules-change!

Posted 1 year ago #
Rupert of Hentzau
Member

Actually Alan I was serious.
The battery has a primary target which take X number of chances of being hit. As Sam pointed out there is a degree of lead flying all around the front of the battery. Other units may take collateral damage, especially the one right next to it. I find the rule an elegant and easy way to reflect that being in front of an artillery battery is not healthy.

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

I think Rupert meant to say, "...there is a degree of iron flying all around..." unless you throw in some canister, then it might be "iron and lead"

Posted 1 year ago #
trailape
Member

If I may offer some observations from the perspective of an Artilleryman:

1)"Roundshot is like a single rifle shot in that it does not scatter or spread. So a single roundshot fired at say a 3 deep line is at best likely to cause 3 casualties".
Ummm,.. Wrong.
The roundshot might well indeed kill the 3 unfortunates, but there is also the slintered muskets and human or animal bone flying everwhere also; (not to mention rock fragments, and / or wood splinters from trees etc).
Being splattered with your mates lower intestines or brains can have a detrimental effect on your attitude,... having his femur go through your gut will really wreck your day.

2) A single Battery general would engage an "Area", not a unit. That is because once a Battery (or several Battery's) start firing the Number Ones, (Detachment Commanders) would find aiming very difficult, (due to the Smoke produced at each discharge).

The bounce-through rule (I think) well represents the "Area" fire effect. That said, I didn't write the rules, so Sam would be better placed to comment.
Bottom Line: Artillery is an AREA Weapon.
Cheers

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Given that we have concluded that artillery is an area effect weapon. That any target in the width of the fire zone will take some collateral damage. Then the following issue arises. Two units move in parallel towards an artillery unit. As they move through it's roundshot range they take fire. Each unit rolls for potential damage - one as the primary target, the second due to Bouncethrough.

Then they move forward, still parallel into the canister range. No more Bouncethrough. Now, magically one of the units ceases to be in the in the area of effect or collateral damage zone. The second unit is now magically shielded from all stray metal.

Now a gamey tactic comes into play. Make sure that the unit you want to protect is 1mm further back than the cannon fodder and they can't be hit. This came up in last nights game when infantry were the patsies while their cavalry companions rode up impervious to all fire in the canister zone.

Did I miss a rule that prevents this?

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

No, that's legal.

Until the enemy advanced into canister range, the gunners weren't really "aiming" any particular unit.

But now that the enemy had advanced into close range, the gunnery captain declares: "Mon Dieu, Pierre! Do you see that big Austrian battalion that has advanced one millimeter ahead of the other one and is now in our canister range? That presents an existential threat to the Empire and everything we have fought for since the Revolution! I want you to aim every gun at that battalion!"

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Sam your humorous reply made me laugh out loud :-)

Personally I am quite content with the abstractions of the game. I like the system. If I wanted something more detailed there are plenty of other rule sets out there (and I own a copy of most of them).

Most of questions aren't my own. I am trying to convince my local group that these are a great set of rules. However, every time we play I get challenged with these kinds of questions. As enjoying the game is more important to me than winning or losing I am usually happy to agree an on the spot rule amendment to keep my opponents happy. It is always funny that players somehow manage to overlook the absurdities in their own pet set of rules but find every flaw with something new that they haven't bought into yet.

Posted 1 year ago #
trailape
Member

Hi Alan
RE: "The second unit is now magically shielded from all stray metal"
Ahh, .. NO. Nothing Magical about it.
It's like this:
The enemy is off in the "far distance", and I (the Battery Captain) am quite happy as I direct my Number Ones (detachment Commanders)to blaze away at the "area targets" to our front.
Now,however these once distant targets are now closing in on me, (with real intent to inflict some serious harm on us). I would now order that the enemy be engaged with Canister, (now more like a huge SHOTGUN effect, so less in the way of a ricochet effect). No "Iron Bowling ball" smashing flesh bone, wood and rock; just tons of buckshot.
Of course some of the enemy units to the left and right of the main Target MAY cop some "collateral" damage, but nothing in comparison to the main target,..
A simple way to look at it is like this.
Imagine you're standing in front of a forest that is a kilometre from you. Imagine each tree is an enemy Battalion. At a Kilometre away you shoot at the forest with a rifle. You will hit a tree, but you're not sure which specific tree, (and you don't care, because all the trees are BAD).
Now you walk up to within 6 meters of the trees, ('cause it's silly to suggest the Trees advanced on you).
Now you can shoot at a particular Tree, (the big green threatening one with the squirrel in it is my suggestion,... Hmmmmmm Squirrels).
Does that make it easier to understand?
I'm not trying to sound condescending, just trying to explain.
Cheers
Scott R Driscoll
S.R. Driscoll
Warrant Officer Class One
RSM School of Artillery

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Trailape

So we have an artillery unit 4 base widths wide facing two attacking units of the same combined frontage. One unit is 1mm forward of the other. Let's say they are now 1BW apart (it could even be less) from the artillery who then fire canister. Your proposal is that 50% of the battery are now imagined to fire at a very acute angle indeed to make sure that very little shot fall on the target that is 1mm further back?

Earlier you said the following:

"A single Battery general would engage an "Area", not a unit. That is because once a Battery (or several Battery's) start firing the Number Ones, (Detachment Commanders) would find aiming very difficult, (due to the Smoke produced at each discharge)."

Posted 1 year ago #
trailape
Member

Hi Alan
First of all "it's not my proposal"; (Sam wrote the rules).
I'm suggesting that when firing "in defence of the gun position" the Gunners are more likely to concentrate their fire on the greatest threat to them.
This is where the officers on the Gun Position come into there own, making the call on who poses the greatest threat to the position, and directing the fire of the guns.
They also who decide whether or not a withdrawal is a better option than fighting their guns into the ground,...
At "ROUNDSHOT" range the effect is one of "disruption" on the enemy, (area fire).
At CANISTER range were talking about blowing the enemy away, (hence the double dice I suspect).
Aiming isn't such an issue at this close range, after all all you need to do is "blaze away", (your bound to hit something).
When firing with roundshot at Medium to Long range you need to aim so that each round strikes just in front of the target, so that "first strike" is at ankle level, (taking of feet, legs etc). Hopefully as the round carries on it will strike the enemy at hip / waist height, and then start taking off heads. From that point it should continue on and hopefully descend onto formations in reserve and repeat the process in reverse, (heads, hips and legs getting smashed).
This takes careful aiming to get the best result, but is VERY difficult, (as you're trying to track the trajectory of YOUR round amongst the rest of the Battery's). Not to mention the huge clouds of smoke!
Then of course there is the issue of dead ground, (which has a HUGE effect on the fall of shot on the targets)!
It comes down to this:
Roundshot used in Bombardment is AREA fire, (which means it's Disruptive fire over several targets).
Canister is Direct Fire, (which means it's directed at A Target of choice).
Is this "simplified", well yes,... but I'd rather play it this way then get bogged down in minutia.
Just so you know; I've lived and breathed Artillery Theory for the last 28 years of my life. I live for this stuff.
I hope this has helped.
Cheers
Scott

Posted 1 year ago #
Nick the Lemming
Member

Alan, there's an optional rule useful for what you're looking for, I think, on p. 80 - use this for artillery fire as well as musket fire, and it should satisfy you.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Nick.that is a great suggestion. Thanks.

By the way I am pretty much happy with the rules as they are. Unfortunately my opponents are the ones who have a problem. Most are AOE and Principles of War players that I am trying to convert to playing at least some of the time with Lassale.

I have rebased 2000 + 15mm figures to Lassale so far with lots more to do. So I have bought into what Sam has done with these rules in a significant way.

Posted 1 year ago #
trailape
Member

I also was an AoE player, (still am to a degree).
I've not rebased my guys, as two AoE bases side by side will do as a Lasalle base.
Cheers

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.