- This topic has 53 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
I think at that scope and scale of game there should be minimal control over the artillery by the player. Too often in games the “corps commander player” will be deciding if a battery shoots this turn or holds its fire until the next turn. At Gettysburg on the 3rd day – not a terribly different artillery scenario from your examples – Longstreet gives Alexander the order to commence the bombardment and then it is up to Alexander as to how it is conducted. The Confederates could not see all of their targets, some certainly but many Union regiments laid down behind a low stone wall. At the distance involved seeing even the stone wall was likely quite difficult in July. We have a reasonable idea of how effective their fire was but the question is equally as much about if any lack of effectiveness was due to their inability to see their targets…
I would guess that for ranged fire most shots were largely area fire. “I know they are roughly there and so I’m going to concentrate on putting rounds nominally at that point.”
The factor I’d be more interested in is the shooter’s ability to know how effective their fire is…
say 1st bounce at 40cm (ranges dependent on rules used) the 2nd bounce would happen at 60cm and the 3rd bounce at 70cm and then have a damage length in the bounce windows (if using a D6 based game 3 bounces and 3 decreasing size of damage areas works well)
but the bounce stick needs to be lengthened by the dead ground on the reverse slope where it is difficult, if not impossible to clear the crest and not go some distance (about 6-10 X the crest height) beyond. As for the chances of a blind hit, divide the area you can’t see but are targetting by the area covered by the troops. If they occupy 1% of the area, the chance of hitting should be 1%.
Um, don’t forget to multiply it by the integral curve of the angle of the reverse slope. And then, divide it by π.Are you guys kidding or do you seriously calculate things so precisely in a game?
I suspect that you are just making fun of this other thread about Beer & Pretzels games…
http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/Lets not conflate the material effect of artillery fire with its morale effect. And I’m don’t just mean morale effect on the enemy.
Good point.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have hard stats on the distance bounce through could reliability be presumed to go?
Nafzinger does provide some data in Imperial Bayonets but it isn’t incredibly directed at that question.
On a slightly different matter – attacking a fortress – Vauban writes that canonballs must pass just above the first wall of the attacked place, so they bounce on the opposite wall and cause death and destruction inside (Vauban, “Traité de l’attaque des places”). That would be quite difficult to quantify in a game too, the canonballs can bounce in any direction inside the fort, that’s like playing billiard blind.
Well, along the walls and spaces of a fort would be filled with troops in a generally small area and predictable manner. In Vaubans forts, there often would be a higher wall behind the first one rather close. Also, Vauban looked for enfilade fire down the length of a wall which would produce a different kind of billiard ball action, and certainly not totally blind.
“To an extent, therefore, what the guns were actually firing at was not really the point, so long as they were seen to be firing in the general direction of the enemy!”
“The idea was to throw as much metal down field in the general direction of the enemy as possible.”
“Lets not conflate the material effect of artillery fire with its morale effect. And I’m don’t just mean morale effect on the enemy.”
“No, for Napoleon, their importance lay in the far greater volume of noise and shock they created! Particularly as the quality of his troops declined, he placed more and more value in having their assaults ‘fired in’ by 12 pounders to put heart into his young conscripts.”
Some very interesting posts gentlemen. And yet, whilst all these sorts of things are were so important in a Napoleonic battle, they are precisely the sort of considerations that are usually completely ignored in a Napoleonic war-game and most rule-sets
.How could we go about including this sort of stuff? Are there any games that allow the players to carry out initial (and continuous) bombardments of the enemy, even if they cannot be seen? Should those enemy units be deployed as dummy blinds, some real and some fake, and shots are wasted against the fake units but the player who is shooting is none the wiser?
How do we model the effects on morale for either side? Perhaps using Blast-markers (cotton-wool is a favourite) that don’t necessarily indicate casualties, but represent changes to a unit morale and/or cohesion instead?
“Perhaps the dice for these shots should be rolled only after their first attacking unit arrives on the ridge and can see what is behind.” This is an interesting idea. I’ve always wondered about whether the Officers leading Regiments (or maybe the skirmishers) that had just gone over the crest could somehow report back with accurate information on the where-a-bouts of the enemy. Even if they didn’t have their hands full dealing with enemy units on the other side, I’m guessing that there was no way they could give useful information anyway.
And yet, whilst all these sorts of things are were so important in a Napoleonic battle, they are precisely the sort of considerations that are usually completely ignored in a Napoleonic war-game and most rule-sets.
…
Are there any games that allow the players to carry out initial (and continuous) bombardments of the enemy, even if they cannot be seen?
I’d say that is because the masses of rules are tactical at their heart if not in their marketing. What I mean is that tactical concepts and concerns dominate their core mechanics. But are there any rules that allow such, yeah, I suspect there are but far fewer in number.
Should those enemy units be deployed as dummy blinds, some real and some fake, and shots are wasted against the fake units but the player who is shooting is none the wiser?
I’m tempted against this because the artillery did typically know there was an enemy there, they just didn’t know if they were hitting em or not. Using a dummy system you could actually have notably portions of the span with no valid targets, whole stretches of ground that were in fact empty and devoid of enemy. That said, it is an implementation problem not a concept problem.
How do we model the effects on morale for either side? Perhaps using Blast-markers (cotton-wool is a favourite) that don’t necessarily indicate casualties, but represent changes to a unit morale and/or cohesion instead?
Or just markers that some effect must be later determined against those targets should they ever become engaged?
I’ve always wondered about whether the Officers leading Regiments (or maybe the skirmishers) that had just gone over the crest could somehow report back with accurate information on the where-a-bouts of the enemy. Even if they didn’t have their hands full dealing with enemy units on the other side, I’m guessing that there was no way they could give useful information anyway.
I do not believe there was any reliable system in place to provide that level of detail.
Try this system for over the horizon artillery fire.
Yes as it says on the die.
xNo is No.
Maybe re-roll next turn.
x
I use this method on all my games if decisions are needed. Very simple but its quick and efficient.
“Perhaps the dice for these shots should be rolled only after their first attacking unit arrives on the ridge and can see what is behind.” This is an interesting idea. I’ve always wondered about whether the Officers leading Regiments (or maybe the skirmishers) that had just gone over the crest could somehow report back with accurate information on the where-a-bouts of the enemy. Even if they didn’t have their hands full dealing with enemy units on the other side, I’m guessing that there was no way they could give useful information anyway.
I agree with you, I was not suggesting that they could send this information to their HQ.
I was just trying to say: We are uneasy with the idea that the attacking player knows if his artillery fire is effective over a ridge; so he should not know its results when he fires (because he would take it into account to decide his next moves); so at least he should wait that some of his troops are on the ridge to know it – because the colonels of these troops (even if they cannot tell it to their big general) will then react to what they see. And we all know that the player will then move these units accordingly.
Um, perhaps I am too much skirmish-minded for this thread…
http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/And yet, whilst all these sorts of things are were so important in a Napoleonic battle, they are precisely the sort of considerations that are usually completely ignored in a Napoleonic war-game and most rule-sets
Not necessarily. It depends on what is meant by ‘losing’ a figure. In Black Powder, you don’t gain casualties, you lose stamina, and or become disordered through artillery fire. Last Sunday in our Borodino game, my French Grand Battery’s long and seemingly ineffective fire on the Raevsky redoubt paid off when it resulted in one of the Batteries being shaken just as my infantry assaulted! http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/borodino-202nd-grand-redoubt-and-fleches.html
And of course Empire V built in completely different phases of ‘Bombardment’ artillery fire into the move sequence to allow for the long term effect on a unit or formation, as distinct from tactical artillery firing. Not that I’m recommending this approach!
.jpg)
http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9Le Feu Sacre does something similar. Bombardment is something that Grand batteries do. The rest is tactical support and is rolled into the firefight/melee.
I have a copy but can’t say I’ve played it. How do they handle long range artillery fire that isn’t by grand batteries?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
