Artillery Units Changing Formation

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Artillery Units Changing Formation

(13 posts) (5 voices)

Started 1 year ago by Alan Charlesworth
Latest reply from Another_Grognard

Tags:

Alan Charlesworth
Member

I'm not sure if I can explain this point clearly without a diagram, but I will try my best.

I am looking at the situation where a deployed battery limbers up and moves away from the direction in which it was previously facing.

The rules seem to say that I can place first limbered marker with both of its front two corners registering with the front two corners of one of the deployed bases. I can then pivot around one of those two corners to set my initial facing.

If I want to move to the rear then I would pivot the limber base 180 degrees. So now the base is sticking out forward of the former position of the battery by the depth of the limber base (120mm in my case with 15mm figures). Then I would measure my move from the front of the limber. So effectively my move is measured from the line made by the front of the battery where it was when deployed.

The above is what I have been doing in my games.

Now the rules also say that I cannot form up forward of the chosen base. So presumably if I do what I have described above I have broken that rule because the whole of my limber base is forward of where the unlimbered bases were.

So taking that into account it would seem I cannot pivot on a forward corner of an unlimbered base at all because as soon as I do I will have moved forward of the previous line.

Does that mean that I have to limber facing in exactly the same direction as the unlimbered bases and then use my movement allowance to wheel to the rear and then move, thus losing a good chunk of the move wheeling?

Also with either of the above options, if there is enemy within 120mm of the unlimbered battery, neither methods of moving would be possible as that falls foul of the interpenetration prohibition?

Posted 1 year ago #
Grinner
Member

I don't have my book handy so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that limbered artillery did not have to measure facing changes as it moved, so long as the total linear distance did not exceed the total movement allowed of the unit. If this is the case then isn't initial unit facing something of a moot point, as one can turn the artillery freely at any point along it's move without that counting against it's total movement?

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Grinner

I was primarily looking at page 26 about artillery changing formation.

I think you are referring to page 28 where it says of artillery "they may always move in any direction, make any number of turns or facing changes, and end up facing in any way, whether or not they are near the enemy, as long as no base in the unit exceeds the unit's movement allowance."

So going back to my example above does this mean they can move backwards? And if so do you measure the move from the rear or the front or the side of the base?

For movement distances not to be exceeded due to strange manoeuvres the rule should surely read "no part of the base exceeds the units movement allowance". Otherwise the obvious abuse is to move backwards measuring from the rear of the base and then turn at the end of the move thereby getting an extra 120mm of movement (or more if your bases are deeper).

Posted 1 year ago #
Grinner
Member

The way we've always handled it is measure from the center of the artillery unit, rather than an edge, making it easier to determine distnaces. Also I can't imagine an artillery unit being unable to move backward, and I think in this instance the "may not form up forward" of your current position, in my interpretation, means the intended direction of travel. I.e. to move backwards you cannot change to limbered with any section further towards the rear than the back edge, to move to the left no portion further left than your left most edge, etc.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

The problem with measuring from the middle is that the limbered base has its middle in a different location relative to the table than an unlimbered base. So the move will not really conform to the distance given in the rules.

I like the simple definition in Fire & Fury

"Limbered guns pay no penalties for facing changes."

"Move distance is measured ..... from the front edge of a stand."

"Distance for artillery stands is measured from the front edge of the gun stand when limbering up and moving. When in a limbered movement mode, the distance is measured from the front of the limber."

These three sentences seem to solve all problems and in essence provide a simpler way of describing what I was doing in my first post.

Posted 1 year ago #
paulus
Member

Hi Alan....I play using your approach its alot more straight forward ...I think that the Lasalle rules are suggesting that as well:)...it looks like you have been reading up on Fire and Fury....its a pity you don't live a bit closer as I play the ACW as well....we play Fire and Fury and are just about to start on Regimental Fire and Fury (do you have any ACW armies)?

I'm looking forward to "Stonewall"....if its as good as lasalle then it looks like I will be a convert ....I have been thinking about how a Lasalle/Honour type system could be used to good effect for other type periods for a while now ....

sometimes though its good to have a complete rethink instead of just tagging on a few ideas to an existing ruleset....plenty to think about for the upcoming months ..cheers Paul

ps sorry I have gone abit off topic!

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Hi Paul

Yes I have Confederate and Union ACW armies. I started with F&F last year and moved to the Regimental version as soon as it came out. I prefer the regimental version because the mechanics of the rules always seemed to me, more suited to that scale rather than brigade level.

Like you I have been looking forward to Stonewall in anticipation that I will like it just as much as Lasalle.

If I understand Sam's previous posts correctly Stonewall will be more like Blucher than Lasalle in scale and have a campaign component. Based on the work Sam did in Grande Armee I am sure his Brigade/Division level ACW game will not make the mistake of using battalion level mechanics.

Assuming that Stonewall is at a higher scale than Lasalle I would still be interested in seeing a Lasalle type ACW set. But I agree with your point that just adapting an existing set to another period doesn't always work.

Posted 1 year ago #
paulus
Member

Hi Alan ....will see you at York for a chat and a pint ....if in doubt we'll meet at Trevs demo game .cheers Paul

Posted 1 year ago #
Dave Crowell
Member

Looking at the diagrams on page 26, it seems as though when limbering or unlimbering artillery it is not strictly neccesary to line up any corner or edge of the limber bases with artillery bases. One limber base is placed overlapping the position of at least one artillery base, but no more precisely than that.

All I can guess from this is that Lasalle is a game intended to be played by gentlemen who will not play in such a way as to creat gross distortions of historical practice.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

There is a fault with the illustration as it clearly contradicts the text.

Posted 1 year ago #
Dave Crowell
Member

So noted. However the text for artillery movement in general seems poorly edited. This leaves me uncertain as to whether the text or the diagram is correct.

Similarly the movement text seems to freely mix rules for limbered and unlimbered artillery. And both contradict the general movement rules. For instance unlimbered artillery cannot execute a retrograde move of greater than 1/2 base width (retrograde doubles movement cost) however that same artillery may prolong one base width to the rear.

Consider too that limbers are essentially exempt from formation as long as each base is toching at least one other base in some way. I can see this allowing a starfish shaped limbered battery to move across the battlefield unlimbering guns at any angle to any point desired.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Dave

I agree the artillery sections (pages 14, 26 and 28) do not read very clearly. Hence my original post.

However, there isn't a problem with unlimbered movement as it is stated on page 28 that artillery do not perform manoeuvres. So the retrograde rules do not apply. Artillery prolong if they move at all while unlimbered.

The limbered formations section is certainly very odd. As you say if you take it literally you can create very bizarre formations. Perhaps not quite a starfish as there should only be two bases, but certainly you can make a T or L formation. Then when you unlimber, you can do so in a way that effectively extends your move distance.

In casual games you can usually sort these things out with a bit of common sense, but as these rules are meant to be Tournament friendly these issues are unwelcome.

With regard to limbered units I generally only use one marker not two as I can see no practical benefit rules wise in in using two. There is no ground scale footprint problem with one base either.

As a general aside relating to rules in general:

Prior to publication, to avoid these issues, rules need to be looked at by experienced players who have never played the game before. People who have been involved in playtesting quickly become blind to what rules actually say. It is a normal phenomenon that anyone who writes letters, reports or books will be familiar with. After composing and reframing something several times you can read a page that has obvious errors on it and you don't even notice anymore as you become blind to the words and their meaning, and are conscious only of what you thought you had written.

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

Last time I pointed out a possible error or mistake in the rule book one individual jumped all over me saying I was off my rocker. No, it wasn't Sam, but I will not mention any names. I'm surprised that this thread has gotten this far without the intervention of the writings of a certain someone saying that the rules are correct and that you are not reading it correctly.

Anyway, I agree with you all. The artillery rules do not read very clearly. We also find it useful to use one limber base and some common sense to resolve this.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.