Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Oddly enough that was the very first trick I was taught in my NWC training many years ago by Reuben Lopez.

Oh dear, has anyone seen the movie of the Battle of Waterloo and the scene where Nosy asks Bony's Guards to surrender. Now there was a nasty trick!

And we can't replay this? I've done it myself, have the firing line simply march back through the battery, then "Bang!" No more British Guards! Great stuff!

_________________
Général Mark Oakford
Duc de Smolensk, Comte d'Autun
Commandant
Réserve de Cavalerie, La Grande Armée

There is nothing 'tricky' about good tactics

However.......how many times was this a form of actual tactical action? Not often from my readings. Artillery were very much a formed unit with their horses, limbers, wagons etc close at hand and in such numbers the movement of a unit through/around them within the batteries deployment area (hex) was a much slower and disordering event than the system currently portrays.

Hence quite often the removal of the guns to a more secure/distant position away from immediate threat, or the abandonment of them of drivers/limbers/wagons and crew to the rear or joining a formed unit for immediate survival.

How would our games change if we restricted a hex stacking even more to reflect this situation? That units moving into the same hex as a deployed battery of 4 guns or more are disordered (yes its only approx 40meteres width but depth as well)? Stacking restriction is still excessive and should be reduced IMHO.

Salute!

Mike Elwood wrote: That units moving into the same hex as a deployed battery of 4 guns or more are disordered...

If this disorder was to happen automatically, I presume this would require an engine change, not likely to happen.

As a house rule it would probably be too complicated to consider a unit disordered that does not appear as such on the screen.

You could use a house rule that limits the size of a bataillon that can be in the same hex as a battery (less than 800 for example), and/or, a house rule that says a unit cannot move to the top of a stack that contains a battery after the cannon have fired.

Just some thoughts.

And I also agree with your comment that: There is nothing 'tricky' about good tactics.

Regards,

I take it this trick is HPS based? One up for BG?

I can see Artillery firing then Infantry moving forward but not moving back to allow artillery to fire again then infantry moving forward again which this suggests.

I never (well almost never) watch enemy replay, time consuming and takes away some of the fun so I could be a victim of this.

However the big flaw in this tactic is that artillery counter battery fire is not an effective tactic is it? ACW it was normal but not Nap?

More questions than answers.

_________________

Salute!

Tony Barrett wrote: However the big flaw in this tactic is that artillery counter battery fire is not an effective tactic is it? ACW it was normal but not Nap?

An excellent question, that was a matter of debate during the Wars of the Empire.

Those that advocate counter-battery fire reason that an enemy who suffers losses among infantry and cavalry can still keep in the field without much loss of effectiveness.
But an army that experiences significant losses of artillery will suffer in its overall effectiveness.

This is portrayed in these games by the higher VP level for inflicting such losses.

Those that oppose counter-battery fire find it is a waste of ammunition (all those fatigue hits) when one could be causing casualties among the enemy infantry and cavalry.

It probably boils down to the context of the situation... and the actual artillery tactics employed.

For example: when engaging in counter-battery fire do you aim your guns at separate targets, or concentrate all your fire on one battery at a time?
The latter would reason to be more effective than the former.

Regards,

Hi Tony,

Its definitely not a trick but it is a game system v reality compromise which all game simulations have.

What it allows is an infantry unit in front of the guns can:
- move back into the gun hex,
- the guns fire and
- the infantry moves back in front of the guns.

This then protects the guns from direct assault (and the infantry can then fire too), unless from cavalry follow on melee after running through the infantry hex. If so then the inf will probably retreat into the gun hex ('under' the guns) and the guns get a point blank shot either when the cav attempts to melee in that next follow on; or in the next turn as a free shot - BIG casualties.

The downside is that you risk disorder with the line moving if you have that rule incorporated.

Its a very effective defence if on an elevated hill hex as the 'masked' guns on the higher elevation still get to fire in defencive fire over the head of the infantry if they have LOS.

I have begun to ask opponents to play with an artillery overhead fire rule which requires a two hex clear zone of friendly troops both in front of the firing battery and in front of the target unit for any voluntary gun fire. The defencive fire I accept as a game system effect.

Artillery DID not fire overhead of friendly troops when own troops where engaged at close range! Overhead fire needed a clear field of fire. Some isolated instances occurred through lack of visibility, ignoring of risk due to threat, or ordered and of course the Russians didn't really care one way or the other who they hit generally

Also in a game situation the fire from the arty bty is considered fire that would be conducted over that turns WHOLE phase - so allowing infantry movement and fire in the same phase gives the battery a disproportionate effect over the time in relation to the infantry movements within its deployed area (hex)!

I understand the game engine limitations with doing a change to disordering other units in a hex with a deployed battery and is not likely to change. I think a house rule to simulate that is completely impractical.

I do like the idea of limiting hex stacking and maybe not allowing such tactics in the same way as we don't allow the blitz moves. Maybe if a battery fires then its immediate front must remain clear that turn? not really given that much thought.

Everyone is striving for more "realism" but are very protective of their own tactical use of the game system, similar to the arguments for weak ZOC allowed, we hate it when we can't make our troops do exactly what we want!!

I think I have a reasonable argument above for a restriction in this regard but not something I'm going to bang on about. There are ways to counter it in most scenarios.