Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Nothing is specifically mentioned in M of E 4 Embedded Rules of Artillery.
If they are not stacked with any other unit are they to be treated as
1) A regular battalion of Infantry or a squad of cavalry
or
2) Skirmisher, leader or wagon

Bruce,

Is your question in regards to whether or not they can meleed anytime, i.e. outside of the embedded melee phase? If that is you question I would say since they are NOT mentioned as exceptions they can only be meleed during the EMP.

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Edward Blackburn, 1st Duke of Aberdeen K.G.
85th (Buck's Light Volunteers) Regiment of Foot
16th British Brigade
7th Division
III (Peninsular) Corps
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards

FM Blackburn's interpretation is correct -- artillery stand as a third unit type, like infantry and cavalry. They cannot be meleed outside of the embedded melee rules. They can of course be overrun anytime but if overrun is not allowed then the melee must occur within the confines of the embedded rules.

_________________
FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, 1st Squadron, Household Cavalry
1st Duke of Uxbridge & Anglesey K.G.

This is just a thought for your consideration. One of the principle differences between skirmishers, supply wagons, leaders, infantry, and cavalry lies in the projection of a ZOC. To me, this is an indication of a unit's ability to resist or hamper the ability of an enemy unit to manuever or attack. I would propose that any unit the projects a ZOC, which would include unlimber artillery, is subject to the same melee restrictions as any other unit which projects a ZOC, i.e. Infantry and Cavalry. Any unit that does not project a ZOC, which would include limbered artillery, is subject to the same melee restrictions as any other unit which does not project a ZOC, i.e. skirmishers, supply wagons, and leaders.

My thought here is that the artillerists are all rather organized on the ground with ramrods and picks in hand to defend, as best they could, a battery that is deployed. By contrast, when they are engaged in relocating their batteries, their deployment is not as defensively prepared. I think the projection of a ZOC, or lack thereof, may be the determining factor of a unit's Embedded Melee Classification. I would point out that artillery is the only unit type that may, or may not, exert a ZOC depending on its formation. As such, perhaps it should be handled a bit differently.

Just an idea for discussion fellows.

Salute!

I heartily agree with the proposal by Mark Jones about using projection of ZoC as a determining factor for embedded melee rule (though I personally don't play with that rule - opting for the Optional Rule of No Melee Elimination instead).

I would however like to offer a rant on another pet peeve of mine...
That is the use of deployed squadrons from a larger Regt unit of cavalry (say a strength of less than a 100, typically - often well less than that) to block the movement through their ZoC directional facing of much larger forces, often infantry Bns (including stacks there of) that number hundreds if not thousands of more men in strength.

This is in my opinion very gamey... that at times a 25 man squadron - let alone 100 or less - can thwart the movement of much larger forces...

There is a rule in MoE concerning not using 25 man squadrons to block the line of retreat of other units, nor to be used to block roads through obstructed terrain (though this rule is not so necessary now that most of the games allow infantry to melee cavalry in obstructed terrain - though it could be still applied to keeping a squadron of such small size from blocking a larger cavalry force, I suppose...).

I would consider evolving this rule to include any cavalry unit deployed from the original Regt (etc) unit... expanding the restriction from blocking line of retreat to blocking line of movement...

I also understand that this incorporates having to make more judgement calls in game, which I try to limit as much as possible, I just find this tactic to be far above and beyond the realm of realism...

Any thoughts.... ?

Regards,

So, I charge an unlimbered artillery battery from the rear hexes. Should I not be able to overrun them and continue my charge? I have not entered into any zone of control and the artillery doesn't present an obstacle to my continued advance.

Unlimbered artillery attacked from the front (ZOC) needs to be taken during embedded melee phase. Limbered artillery can be overrun at any time outside of embedded melee.

_________________
FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, 1st Squadron, Household Cavalry
1st Duke of Uxbridge & Anglesey K.G.

I could see that, Muddy. Artillery really was very vulnerable when limbered or attacked from the flank or rear. Of course, attacking it from the front was perhaps the most painful attack that one could undertake on a Napoleonic battlefield.

In Leipzig, the max artillery stack is 14, so each gun is effectively 129 men.

If they are treated like skirmishers, they cannot be meleed outside of the EMP because they are equivalent to more than 100 men (based on stacking value, not melee effectiveness).

And if they are not treated like skirmishers, then they also cannot be meleed outside of the EMP.

So, under both scenarios, they cannot be meleed outside of the EMP.

_________________
Marechal Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione et Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Garde Imperiale

If the engine algorithm allows me to overrun them then the artillery is treated like skirmishers; otherwise they are meleed during EMP. After all, the gun crews are armed with plungers and mops.

_________________
FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, 1st Squadron, Household Cavalry
1st Duke of Uxbridge & Anglesey K.G.

First thought:

My belief of the intent with the rule is that skirmishers, wagons and commanders would cause little distraction to the main target if such was the case. Also to deal with them is of little consequence to the main body of Cavalry i.e. the disruption to formation and/or force cohesion is not great, they can still be effective with a carry on through charge.
However not so against an artillery battery (2 guns are NOT a battery!), even attacked from the flank or rear or limbered. The cavalry would be spending time and effort, so cohesion and impetus would be lost, as they would be forced to deal with a larger and more problematic 'formation' (even unlimbered 4 guns cover a reasonable area and have a reasonable 'force' to be dealt with).

Therefore I believe a battery of 4 or more guns needs to be attacked in the EMP.

Second thought:

Pesky small cavalry troops blocking with ZOC. I too find it unrealistic and gamey even though we all tend to do it on occasion .
We could simply apply the same 100 strength rule as we do with skirmishers! We could however allow a 3:1 ratio. So a troop of 25 cavalry could block a force of up to 75, once the offensive force is over that 3:1 ratio then the cavalry cannot be used to block movement and exert a ZOC in such a way (even in covered terrain!), I'm thinking there for times when there are small elements still in action.
So a cavalry force of 100+ can be used to block even a large force (as any infantry force of the same size) e.g 1000+ troops could be blocked as 100+ cavalry still pose a threat when such a strength.

My 2c worth

Agree with some of the issues about size of "formed" units. One of the reasons I prefer not to use house rules and stick with 10 minute turn variants with NME on.

But, regarding artillery and the MOE 4 rules, I still come down on the side that melee's have to happen during the EMP, as even 1 gun is more than 100 men based on the stacking limits. Since cav charges are also covered by this set of rules, and charges need to occur prior to melees, it does not really matter much to me whether or not the artillery is overrun or not, as it is still covered by the rule as written.

Outside of EMP, small stacks of skirmishers or overrun eliminations (lone leaders, wagons, even uncrewed artillery), I consider to be fair game.

_________________
Marechal Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione et Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Garde Imperiale

I would point out that there is a difference between simply 'occupying space' and actual combat ability to resist attack. The defensive value of a gun in terms of equivalent men would seem to be more in line with the units ability to resist attack. Capturing a limbered artillery piece was substantially easier than overcoming 100 trained infantymen armed and ready to resist.

And routed units defend at 1/2 strength, as do isolated units.

And disordered units lose 1/3 of their effectiveness.

And lancers lose 1/4 of their effectiveness.

Disordered units that lost a melee are even further degraded. Isolated disordered units are even worse.

If you go too far down the path of effective strength, then there are a host of other exceptions that could be reasonably argued as valid and would need to be considered. Not that it is a bad idea to look at, just needs to be looked at in balance.

_________________
Marechal Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione et Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Garde Imperiale

Valid reasoning.

My cavalrymen charge in a regimental front in two lines and slice their way through artillery units -- always charging from the side or rear -- one or two sabre slashes and the crew is done and my troopers are advancing unhindered and in good order. That's the way I see it.

_________________
FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, 1st Squadron, Household Cavalry
1st Duke of Uxbridge & Anglesey K.G.