Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   I was wondering if other players were finding artillery to be too mobile.

   In most of my games so far I have noticed that artillery batteries seem more like armoured cars in their ability to zip all over the battlefield. This is due to their relatively big movement rates compared to infantry and cavalry. These movement rates might be reasonable for roads but seem very high for movement across open ground which by it's very nature tends to be quite uneven even if cultivated.

   I find rules in general seem to make movement far too easy. When visiting battlefields in Europe I often look at the ground and think about how infantry, cavalry and artillery would negotiate it. It can clearly often be seen to be very difficult and disruptive to maintaining formation. Most rules seem to treat ground as if it were a sports field - bulldozed flat and nicely manicured.

   I have several times seen artillery used almost as assault troops, being the first to penetrate the enemy line. This happens particularly when using artillery against columns. The artillery can swiftly move past the flank of the column and deploy on it's flank. As columns are very difficult to move through 90 degrees it is hard for the column to react effectively to this threat.

   Another aspect of the rules that often unintentionally aids the artillery in moving quickly is the limber up result from firing. The artillery effectively get a free limber up that enables them them to move a full move and unlimber again in the next turn. If they wanted to move normally it would usually take 2 moves to do this - one to limber up and a second to unlimber. It would be better to have a battery silenced result that made the artillery miss a turn firing but that didn't give a 'free' limber up.

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. trailape
   Member

   "I have several times seen artillery used almost as assault troops, being the first to penetrate the enemy line".

   Just like they did at Friedland in 1807?

   Posted 1 year ago #

3. trailape
   Member

   Hi
   I've not experianced any issues in regards to Artillery movement.
   I think if you're busy moving your guns around they aren't doing what they should be doing, which is pounding away at the part of the line you wish to rupture, or pouring fire into that assault by the enemy you wish to repel.
   Usually I move my guns to where I want them to soften up the enemy, then advance by pro-long (drag ropes) so as to maintain a constant bombardment and keep the enemy busy trying to rally off disruption and pinned.
   If I limber up, I've given pause to my wieght of fire. If they are moving by limber, they aren't firing.

   Posted 1 year ago #

4. MarkGrindlay
   Member

   The rules are find by me.

   Sam has pointed out that it is usually pretty easy to get out of the limited fire arc, and I think these paired rulings - easy movement and limited arcs - work well.

   of course, I have Russians.

   I suspect a Spaniard facing me in defensive position may have a differing opinion.

   Posted 1 year ago #

5. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   Scott

   You are quoting a typical example of the exception becoming the rule.

   The reason that aggressive artillery tactics are so much written about (Senarmont etc) is that there are only 4 or 5 examples out of thousands of engagements where these things occured. The unusual is what is remembered and written about not the prosaic. Also there is much debate amongst professional historians as to how much these exploits were eggagerated by those who had something to gain from distorting the truth.

   It is a mistake in rule writing to allow the exceptional to become a commonplace. Gamers being competitive creatures will always use any mechanic that gives an advantage. The result is that what occured in a handfiull of cases in reality gets repeated in every tabletop battle.

   Posted 1 year ago #

6. Rupert of Hentzau
   Member

   I think the artillery movement rules are a highlight of LaSalle. They are easy to understand, flexible, and they get artillery involved in what is a short 16 turn game. In other sets of rules they just seem to plod around at the back and never get into action. Push them too far forward though, and you will probably lose them.

   Posted 1 year ago #

7. Prinny
   Member

   I dont think it is that bad, if you want to limber up you have to give up that Reaction phase fire, as you cant fire and limber in the same turn. (pg28)

   Plus you can limber and unlimber on the same phase so being forced to limber is no advantage, apart for the fact you miss out on a fire reaction again.

   As to the flank attack from the artillery why not just walk past it, the only thing that can move fast to get into a flank is horse art which is normally 3 guns so if you are in attack column you should move far enough past it or you can use retrograde movement, and then wheel and move towards it

   Posted 1 year ago #

8. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   Rupert

   I think all the games I have played have been scenario based and so my experience is different. The games therefore are not limited to 16 (plus variable) turns. My most recent game was using the Leipzig scenario in the forum.

   If plodding around bears some relation to reality should it be considered?

   Posted 1 year ago #

9. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   Prinny

   Unless I have misunderstood the rules you cannot limber and unlimber in the same turn. Can you point me to the relevant rule section? If you could that would put the artillery on an even higher dose of steroids.

   With respect to your proposed maneouvres to escape the artillery flanking problem these are not a solution. My comments refer to specific incidents in games I have played where due to the relative dispositions of the troops there was no legal move that would extricate the victim.

   Posted 1 year ago #

10. Prinny
    Member

    Alan,

    Whoops sorry my bad, no you cant do both.

    Well sometimes your lads just need to get blasted, its a fun life being a toy soldier after all

    Posted 1 year ago #

11. trailape
    Member

    Alan
    Re:
    "You are quoting a typical example of the exception becoming the rule".

    Umm, respectfully, I don't think I am. I'm quoting AN example.
    Can it be done (as at Friedland)? Well, yes.
    Would I recommend you attempt it in every game? No.
    I don't see Artillery being the devastating assault force in Lasalle, (not the way I roll dice anyway).
    My experiance with Artillery in Lasalle is that it's great for softening up the enemy line pior to the main assault, which IMHO is how it should be.
    Like iI said in my earlier post, if you've busy moving your limited artillery asset all over the battlefield like some WW2 Panzer "Fire Brigade" it's not firing.
    I'll happily play against the guy (or Gal) who keeps his artillery hitched to a limber for half the game.
    Cheers
    P.S. I just love talking about "The Guns". So underdone in most rules and never really shown their due respect:

    "Too much praise cannot be bestowed on those who managed my artillery"
    - General Andrew Jackson after the Battle of New Orleans, 1815

    "Nothing is more destructive than the charge of artillery on a crowd".
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    "The best generals are those who have served in the artillery".
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    "God fights on the side with the best artillery".
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    "With Artillery, War is made".
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    And my favorite:

    "Leave the Artillerymen alone, they are an obstinate lot. . ."
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    Posted 1 year ago #

12. eljeffe418
    Member

    I agree with trailape. A silent cannon is a useless cannon. Although arty isn't going to single handedly win you a game, it'll slap a few vital disr on the key enemy units and scare the hell out of everyone else.

    Posted 1 year ago #

13. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Clearly the comment 'a silent cannon is a useless cannon' is a truism.

    However, I can tell you from practical experience that there are many occassions in real games where it is a great benefit to zip the motorised artillery around the table to discomfit your opponent and due to the improved sighting do him more damage.

    Also I hadn't mentioned in my Leipzig (Lindenau)game how my opponent deployed a whole battery in a river and sat there blasting away. Despite my protestations I could not find a rule that prevents deployment of artillery in rivers!

    Posted 1 year ago #

14. cam_millar
    Member

    my opponent deployed a whole battery in a river and sat there blasting away. Despite my protestations I could not find a rule that prevents deployment of artillery in rivers!

    Since a river is impassible (table pg 21) you can't move into it. If your opponent is saying he can deploy in impassible terrain, then I suggest he consider another ruleset (or you another opponent).

    I am a rules lawyer at heart, but given the common useage of impassable (incapable of being passed, traveled, crossed, or surmounted), I would blush at that one.

    Cam

    Posted 1 year ago #

15. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Cam

    As I mentioned this was a scenario listed on this website based on the Lindenau part of the Leipzig battle.

    The 'rivers' in question were passable. In reality bodies of water vary in width, depth and speed of flow. Arbitrarily we tend to talk about steams and rivers but there are a huge variety of types in practice.

    Before the game we deemed some rivers/steams as passable but disordering terrain. It didn't occur to me to declare a scenario rule that it was not possible to deploy artillery (or any other unit for that matter) in a body of water. So you may imagine my frustration when my opponent brazenly deployed his artillery in the middle of the river!

    Looking at the table on page 21 this problem would also occur with marshes and swamps.

    Posted 1 year ago #

16. cam_millar
    Member

    Sorry - I thought you were saying there was a problem with the rules.

    The rules (+errata) implicitly say you can not deploy in a river (since it is impassable), but you can deploy in a stream (or other rough terrain). Which seems to me will give a reasonable game outcome - a stream is something artillery can deploy it, a river is something that they can't.

    For a scenario I guess you just have to define which bits are a stream and which are a river.

    Cam

    Posted 1 year ago #

17. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Being able to deploy in a stream, swamp or marsh is going to be ridiculous in most circumstances.

    If you consider steams for example. All streams have banks (otherwise the water would not be contained). Therefore artillery deployed in a stream will be at a lower elevation than the surrounding area. This will have implications for line of sight and field of fire. In many cases the practical range will be reduced to point blank.

    Posted 1 year ago #

18. trailape
    Member

    OK, so this clown deploys Black Powder artillery in a river!
    He's never heard the expression, "Keep your powder dry"?
    Oh, and given most streams / rivers are at lower elevations than the surrounding terrain, crest clearance for his direct fire / line of sight artillery might have some issues hitting anything,...(except the bank).
    And how does one deploy a Gun in a stream, (with great difficulty I suspect)?
    The rules are fine. Your opponent is a tool.

    Posted 1 year ago #

19. cam_millar
    Member

    Just to be clear, p45 says "Artillery may only fire when unlimbered and in open terrain."

    So artillery can deploy and move in woods, rocky ground, marsh, or a stream. But they cannot fire.

    Technically a river is "impassable" not "open" or "rough" so someone could argue you could deploy in a river and fire from it - but surely you would just laugh at them?

    I am kinda missing the point here...

    Cam

    Posted 1 year ago #

20. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Thanks Cam, I had overlooked the line on p45 which answers all issues I think re the river, stream, swamp etc issue.

    Scott my opponent is far from being a 'tool' he was merely doing what all gamers do in my experience sooner or later which is taking advantage of a percieved rule mechanism that benefits their side.

    Given that I was teaching him the rules, my problem was that I couldn't find a rule on the spot that would have prevented him making the deployment that he did.

    Posted 1 year ago #

21. trailape
    Member

    "Scott my opponent is far from being a 'tool' he was merely doing what all gamers do in my experience sooner or later which is taking advantage of a perceived rule mechanism that benefits their side".

    Alan
    One man's opponent is another man's tool.
    If I was playing against someone in a "social" environment, and he pulled that garbage on me, I'd consider him, "a tool", (slag for "a bit of a dill").
    In a "competitive" environment I'd be calling an umpire over who would (presumably) know the rules inside - out and ask him to set him straight; (after I said something along the lines of "Mate, that's a bloody river for crying out loud! Please don't be a tool").

    From you comments:

    "Despite my protestations I could not find a rule that prevents deployment of artillery in rivers"!

    and

    "Being able to deploy in a stream, swamp or marsh is going to be ridiculous in most circumstances.If you consider steams for example. All streams have banks (otherwise the water would not be contained). Therefore artillery deployed in a stream will be at a lower elevation than the surrounding area. This will have implications for line of sight and field of fire. In many cases the practical range will be reduced to point blank".

    I just assumed you also thought he was "a tool". Yes, I know one should not assume anything,..
    WARNING! Sarcasm alert!
    Just so I understand correctly, this fella deploys a Battery IN a River, (he's presumably a Napoleonic "novice"??), you then point out, (unsuccessfully) that's a "no-no", but despite your well reasoned comments he and his soggy gunners with their damp powder continue to blaze away with their "Mole" rounds, (they burrow through the river bank and "launch" themselves with GPS precision upon your lines)??

    It's been my experiance that some gamers will behave in this manner and look for loop holes and not play in the spirit of the game. One of the reasons I like Lasalle is the rules ARE so tight and well written.
    I've never been a fan of "the rules lawyer".
    Each to their own.
    I for one would probably not be entertaining the thought of have a game with this guy any time soon,...
    I'm not trying to sound condecending, just matter of fact.
    Cheers
    Scott

    Posted 1 year ago #

22. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Scott

    Would that we lived in a world where all wargamers were gentleman, played in the spirit of the game and the period, and eschewed trying to do things that logic and common sense tell us are impossible.

    Unfortunately I have not found this to be the case. Having wargamed since 1968, been a member of several clubs and having played a large number of games I can report the following:

    I would estimate that 80% and upwards of all wargamers cheat. Shock, horror - what do I mean by that! Well when it comes to moving their units they will repeatedly add on a bit of extra movement distance, exceed a turning allowance or angle etc.

    Well over half (I am being conservative here) of all wargamers will exploit a rules failure to their advantage if they can. They want to win and it’s just a matter of how blatant they will be.

    Deep knowledge of the period is rarely a bar to exploiting the rules. The justification often seems to be that it’s the rules fault - they are just demonstrating how poor the rules are (unless playing with their own pet rules when of course reasonable behaviour may be justified).

    Most sets of rules could be half the length they are if players were reasonable. It is because rules designers know the psychology of gamers that they have to cater for the more ‘imaginative’ players. Viz a specific rule being required to stop the fantasist deploying artillery in stream (and this individual is extremely knowledgeable about the period)

    And of course one of my wargaming heroes and a highly decorated war hero - Brigadier Peter Young - was well known for tricks such as surreptitiously moving his units when his opponent wasn't looking (all’s fair in love and war old boy).

    I concluded a long time ago that if I excluded all players who displayed the above tendencies from my potential pool of gaming opponents I would virtually be a solo wargamer! So my policy is to accept that the wargaming fraternity contains its share of flawed individuals and to not let it get too much in the way of my enjoyment of the hobby. After all we're only playing with toy soldiers.

    Posted 1 year ago #

23. trailape
    Member

    Alan
    That, (thankfully) hasn't been my experiance. I suspect only about 10% of the people I've played against are "dodgy", and only in a competitive environment. None of the guys I play with / against cheat. They might make a mistake every now and then, but they don't intentionally break the rules.
    I must be just lucky.
    Cheers

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.