|
I did some research on this and would recommend a simple house rule: do not position squares in the same hex as artillery.
To summarize, gunners seeking cover in squares would be an emergency response with an extremely negative impact on the battery's ability to operate cohesively as a unit.
Considering the existing engine capabilities, the best way to handle batteries in the same hex as infantry squares would be either:
1. "Uncrewing" the battery if deployed in the same hex as an infantry square.
2. Preventing artillery from firing if deployed in the same hex as an infantry square.
3. Applying a severe (-90%?) negative fire modifier if deployed in the same hex as an infantry square.
In my view, option 1 is a more realistic representation, while option 3 is the most generous to the artillery.
_________________________________________________________________
By gathering numerous sources together, it can be generalized that:
1. Squares could provide cover for individual gunners, but not for batteries as integral units.
2. Gunners seeking refuge in a square would not have been able to continue firing.
3. The process of taking cover in a square would severely disrupt a battery for the rest of the day, leading to a loss of command and control as the battery would be disintegrated into several parts: the artillery train would be sent to the rear, battery horses would be sent to the rear, some men would make it to a nearby square, some gunners would pack up and head home for good, and the unlucky ones would attempt to take cover under the guns with questionable odds of surviving the day. Overall, such a battery would be scattered, unmanned, out of ammo, immobilized, and with damaged, misplaced, or captured gear.
"Quite often, when the gunners were immediately threatened by cavalry, they simply left the pieces and ran from the battlefield. After Waterloo, Wellington wrote that the gunners who ran into squares before the cavalry and then returned to serve the guns once the charges had passed were rather the exception than the rule."
4. For the aforementioned reasons, the common tactical response of artillery commanders threatened by a cavalry charge was to pack up early and reposition, rather than risking the disintegration or loss of the battery.
As of version 4.06 and given a 100-meter by 100-meter hex environment, the game engine handles the above points differently:
• Even a small square of 100 men, with a maximum possible front of less than 7-8 meters, provides guaranteed anti-cavalry cover for any battery, regardless of its size. However, the historical deployment of a typical 8-gun battery would require a significant amount of space: around 100 meters to the front (the space for the guns and intervals in between) and between 30-100 meters in depth (depending on the situation), allowing for the limbers, the battery's draft horses, and the artillery train wagons with their own horses. Thus, a typical 8-gun battery deployed into battle would require nearly a full hex to operate as a unit and could not have been protected as an integral unit and covered by a battalion square of any size.
• As of version 4.06, if a battery is located within the same hex as an infantry square, it will continue to fire as usual without any negative fire modifiers. The "behind the scenes" processes of gunners taking cover in squares and the act of sending an artillery train and battery horses to the rear are not being modelled, and there is no negative impact on the artillery battery's cohesion, rate of fire, ability to manoeuvre, etc.
In summary, in my opinion it is better to use a house rule for a more historically accurate tactical feel and hope that a fix will be implemented in later patches.
_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps
(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)
|
NWC
Login
FAQ
