Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)
https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/

Automatic Limbering in the HPS Games
https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6199		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Bill Peters [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Automatic Limbering in the HPS Games
Ok - if I were to bring before John Tiller a suggestion for auto-limbering of artillery how should we word the rule:

Here is my best guess at it:

First test/check: All artillery have a 40 percent chance that they will limber up rather than fight at all in a melee.

If they fail the test to limber then they will fire on a 30 percent chance prior to melee. This percentage is higher than the current percentage for A/I fire.

An optional rule would be included that would say that they fire 50 percent of the time.

The second test is to see if they succeed in limbering.

Foot artillery - harder to get limbered up an away than horse artillery. Thus my rule would be that: if attacked in melee then the artillery have a 20 percent chance of limbering up for the melee. No shot would be fired as the attacking units commit to the assault.

Horse artillery - a bit easier to get limbered up and away than foot artillery. My rule would be: horse artillery, if attacked, have a 40 percent chance of limbering up prior to the melee. No shot would be fired at the attackers if they limber up.

If the second test is failed then the battery is disordered just like infantry trying to square.

Thus in review:

Two battalians of infantry commit to assuault my foot battery of 8 guns.

First test: percentage rolled is 35 - they succeed in the First test and thus will now test to see if they limber.

Second test: percentage rolled is 89 - they fail and will NOT fire at the attackers and are disordered for melee. If defeated the guns are taken.

Spiking guns - this wasnt done much on the battlefield - guns were usually counted as taken if they were still in your hands at the end of a battle. Thus guns would remain on the field of battle and an invisible crew would take refuge in an adjacent formed infantry unit. If none was present then the crew scatters and the battery is not re-crewed during this battle. For campaigns - the battery would be present in future battles at its reduced size if any IF the guns were retaken during the battle. Otherwise the guns are lost.

Comments?

Oberst-Lt Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Austrian Army
Author:  Andy Moss [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well in principle I agree with what you say. I'm frustrated sometimes at the way artillery becomes vulnerable to melee; on the other hand a battery of 2 or 3 remaining guns is pretty useless anyway. As for the mechanics, I don't feel as though I can comment.
Author:  1182 [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:47 am ]
Post subject: 
<font color="orange">First, I have to mention that I don't own any HPS games (yet!) so please, ear my comment for what it is worth.</font id="orange"> [:I]

From my point of view, the first test should not occur. Instead, there should be a comparison between strenghts opposing each other in the upcoming melée.

Lets say that Bill's foot battery is stacked with 400 infantry men and threatened by a few opponents. Logics (and historical realism) would not lead to an attempt to limber; it would fire, right? [^]

[url="mailto:pyguinard@hotmail.com"]Lt Pierre-Yves Guinard[/url],
6e Division, II Corp
Image
AdN
Author:  Richard [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:56 am ]
Post subject: 
The chance to auto-limbering sounds a good idea. It might also be worthwhile having the chance to capture and recrew guns - but only infantry should be able to recrew them, not cavalry. (The ACW series allows guns to become "uncrewed" due to enemy fire) Of course, if friendly infantry reached the guns first then the original crew could recrew the guns. So the concept of "capturing" and "recapturing" guns would make them less vulnerable. <b>Personally, if I had to chose between getting an auto-limber feature and a gun capture/recapture feature, I'd chose the latter because I feel it would be more useful.</b>

Another point I'd like to raise concerns artillery <i>types</i>. At the moment there's no distinction between light & heavy artillery movement allowances, only between foot & horse. But if the ACW type "horse artillery" was incorporated into the engine then a distinction between light & heavy guns would be possible. Of course the light artillery, although more mobile than the heavy, wouldn't be able to move, unlimber & fire in the same turn like horse artillery.

Lt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
Author:  1182 [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:44 am ]
Post subject: 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />The chance to auto-limbering sounds a good idea. It might also be worthwhile having the chance to capture and recrew guns
(...)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Wow, capturing guns would really be a cool feature!![:D]
Knowing that the engine already allows similar functionnality (with supply wagons), would it be really hard to code for a programmer?

Please Bill, let us know asap so I can start budjetting my next computer games purchases [;)]

[url="mailto:pyguinard@hotmail.com"]Lt Pierre-Yves Guinard[/url],
6e Division, II Corp
Image
AdN
Author:  John Corbin [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:29 am ]
Post subject: 
OK... I am confused about something....

Limbering arty wether foot or horse should really be the same process right ?

And moving limberd arty should be the same... Are they not both moved by horses ?

So whay is it more difficult to move foot arty as opposed to horse arty ?


General John Corbin
Commandant of Cadets
L'Ecole de Mars
L'Armee du Rhin
Author:  Gregor Morgan [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:21 am ]
Post subject: 
John

I think it may have something to do with the fact that with horse artillery batteries, the gunners etc would all be mounted whereas in foot artillery batteries, the gunners would be reliant on shanks's pony.

Therefore, taken as an entire entity there has to be a difference between the horse and foot batteries, otherwise why distinguish between them within the game engine. In the case of threatened melee, it may take the same time to limber each type of battery, the difference would be in how quickly they could then remove all their materiel from the danger. The best way of representing this is I suppose through their movement rates.

<font color="gold">General de Brigade Comte Greg Morgan
2eme Brigade
3eme Division de Cavalerie Legere
III Corps
L'Armee du Nord</font id="gold">
Author:  Kosyanenko [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, let me not comment they feature Bill describes. Just write the way I would love it to be organised:

Arty has two strength parameters - the number of guns and the number of men (actually four the number of officers and the number of load boxes should also be counted). So under fire the battary may suffer either in men or in guns (officers, boxes). Every time it has less than a certain number of men at each gun the efficiency is decreased - they fire defensively with smaller probability and when any fire takes place it's less effective as well. When meleed the men have a probability both to limeber and save thier guns and to leave the guns and fall back to save teir lives if defeated. In the latter case the gun become uncrewed (almost the same way as they are now). But.... But when they became uncrewed they are not automatically destroyed by the appearence of the infantry in the stack. Instead infantry (any I suppose or maybe only engeneers, grenadiers and guards) may be ordered to destroy the guns, just like repair the bridges. Now the crew thet falled back becomes an ordinary infantry unit. But it may rejoin with its guns. Also the crew could be extended with the men of ordinary infantry at the expens of the quality of course.

That's it. This includes all the proposals and comments I suppose. My two cents[:)]

Malorossiyskogo Grenaderskogo Polku
Polkovnik Anton Kosyanenko
2ya Grenaderskaya Diviziya,
8oi Pekhotnyi Korpus,
2ya Zapadnaya Armiya
Author:  Andy Moss [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes! Capturing guns would indeed be a good idea. Guns were rarely spiked, they were either carried off or more usually left where they were on the field and either recaptured and used again or falling into enemy hands at the end of the battle.
Author:  mwgjerde [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Hello Bill and everybody,

Just noticed this post and thought I might add my two cents worth. I think your chance of horse artillery automatically limbering is way too low. Remember, the Royal Horse artillery NEVER lost a gun to battle. In fact, they often fired right up to the last minute and then got out of there successfully. So they could fire and limber in the same phase! Everything in these games seems to under play the suicidal nature of attacking full batteries straight on. Canister in the games is just not effective enough as it was in the real world (of couse who would want to lose all those men in our battles). I would think foot artillery should be able to get away at least half the time and the horse artillery at least 80-90% (with a higher rate for the British).[:D]

Cheers,

Michael W. Gjerde
NWC Prussian Army Reserves

ACW Col. M. W. Gjerde 2/1/V AoP, USA.

CCC Sgt. M. W. Gjerde 93rd Sutherland Highlanders, British Army
Author:  Bill Peters [ Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Guys - will try and answer a few things posted here.

I am not for capturing guns and turning them on the other side. Just would get too gamey for me. Recrewing French Guard batteries with Old Guard is fine though. Artillierists were highly trained individuals for the period. Movies tend to show an old officer coming up, grabbing a handful of guys and telling them to turn the guns, etc. etc. with the entire pallisade falling down of a structure and then he wipes his hands and says, "Havent lost my touch I see."

Thus my entire thing is to revert to the Battleground method in part where you could retake the guns.

Mike - cant argue with you on the ability of the horse to limber up and get away. Or shoot for that matter. However, cannister was largely effective against the front ranks and Al and Dierk already have posted some really good material on the effectiveness of cannister (or lack thereof).

10 minute moves tend to give artillery a much better feel - you have time to limber up the guns on your own. Muddy Jones and Gary McClellan can attest to this as can Paco and some of my other testers. It really helps if you have turns that do not allow for alot of movement.

Charlie's NRC game with 10 MPs for infantry was pretty good. I prefer to slow it down a fraction more though as then there are other things that occur (more artillery shots for more effect at medium range) that give the game a better feel.

Good to see you on the boards. Yes, we are still for getting things changed in the engine...

Anton - I would like to see losses from fire to a gun per the CREW and not in GUNS. Thus you and I are thinking on the same lines. I tend to think that if we could have CREWS it would solve alot of problems. The CREW would work the guns just like a unit does in the SQUAD BATTLES system. It would acquire the guns just like infantry does with a weapon in the SB games. Then if it gets reduced only so many guns could fire. The SB series has it where if you have 10 Rifles and 9 men then one of the rifles lies useless and doesnt fire.

As a matter of fact SB:Napoleonics might be kind of fun! Might have to think about a module for the SB:Eagle Strike game.

Oberst-Lt Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Austrian Army
Author:  Richard [ Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Separating guns from crew certainly sounds like a very good idea, with losses normally inflicted on the crew rather than the actual guns.

But in that case, why not make the guns like supply wagons, but without being reduced by 50% when captured - thus capable of being captured & recaptured (and worth victory points to whoever controls them at the end of the battle) but maybe only capable of actually firing if operated by trained artillery crew.

As for capturing guns being "gamey", I reckon that it's actually <b>not being able to capture them </b>that's far more "gamey" - for instance, with the current system, a player knows that if he successfully melees some guns then they'll <i>magically</i> disappear and their value will be automatically - and permanently - added to his victory level. But if guns don't disappear and can be <b>recaptured</b> this would tend to discourage a player from risking heavy losses to melee guns to take them out unless he felt he'd be able to keep hold of them or it was worthwhile temporarily silencing them.

Here's an example - a battery stacked with a regiment of infantry is successfully meleed. Instead of the guns (and their crew) just vapourizing, the guns get left behind and are captured but the crew retreat with the infantry. (Of course if the battery isn't stacked with other troops then the crew will take heavier losses and may well be wiped out) In the following turn, the player is able to counter-attack and recapture his guns before the enemy has time to take them away or recrew them himself. If he can keep hold of them and doesn't lose them again, then the following turn the crew can return and recrew them, although the battery will become disrupted. Surely there are lots of accounts of troops fighting over guns, capturing & recapturing them several times during the course of a battle? So counting guns as inanimate objects that can't be "killed" but are effectively mobile victory points would be the most realistic solution.

A spiking option, with perhaps only a 10% probability (possibly higher) per turn they're controlled, would be nice - but spiked guns would either mean:
1./ That they just wouldn't be able to fire for the rest of the battle but would still be worth victory points.
Or 2./ That <b>neither</b> player would receive any victory points for them, or else they'd be worth less victory points.
So the decision to spike would have its drawbacks.

Lt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
Author:  Andy Moss [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:00 am ]
Post subject: 
I agree with Richard. I've just finished a Borodino where between me and my opponent some 900 guns were destroyed which isn't very realistic is it? In reality only a handful of guns were actually destroyed in the fighting. Uncrewed guns were in fact the focus of fighting in some battles and would certainly add an interesting element to the games.
Author:  1182 [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:06 am ]
Post subject: 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />(...)

I am not for capturing guns and turning them on the other side. Just would get too gamey for me. Recrewing French Guard batteries with Old Guard is fine though.

(...)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Fore sure, capturing guns and recrewing it with any units available in the area (militia! (?)) wouldn't make any sense! Imagine a battery recrewed by a bunch of Polish Lancers... would it then be turned into a horse battery? That would be gamey, indeed!! Therefore, the need of a new type of unit (artillerist) would enevitably go along with the possibility of recrewing ennemy artillery units to turn them around, especially since it is the crew that makes the quality of an artillery battery, not just the cannons.

In the same order of idea, just being able to destroy cannons at distance by musket fire looks kind of unrealistic to me, just like it didn't make sense that (in the BG system) an artillery unit would route and run away in the forest with crew AND guns!!

In my opinion, the "short" solution would be to totally (even if temporary) uncrew artillery that would lose melée (limbered or not) and to gradually uncrew it if it took casualty from musket (or riffle) fire. The "long" solution would be to incorporate to the engine this new "artillerist" type of unit (...or to let engineers)perform the task of recrewing the gun batteries. In both cases, the issue of auto-limbering or not in order to save the guns would at least be partially resolved, wouldn't it?[^]

[url="mailto:pyguinard@hotmail.com"]Lt Pierre-Yves Guinard[/url],
6e Division, II Corp
Image
AdN
Author:  Richard [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:14 am ]
Post subject: 
There's certainly room for some additional troop types, eg:

Z = artillery crew (required to operate guns, maybe these could run low / out of ammo and thus solve the artillery ammo issue?)

D = dragoon cavalry (just like EAW / ACW cavalry, able to fight either mounted or dismounted.)

Y = guerillas (able to appear - perhaps at random - in village, town, wood, etc hexes and cut off French stragglers and destroy supply lines. Then able to disappear again (ie able to exit the map with ???% probability in certain terrain) when enemy reinforcement start to arrive in strength.

X = non combatants (moved by the A/I and sometimes able to provide information - not necessarily reliable - about enemy movements, or else spy for the enemy. If a player accidentally (or deliberately) kills these then they lose victory points and may incite a guerilla reprisal)

W = A/I controlled fog & smoke counters that obscure visibility into and through a hex. (useful to represent a build up of smoke due to black powder weaponry, also isolated pockets of fog in low-lying marshy areas.)

Lt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/