Artillery Prolonging

[RogerGreenwood]

Our group is experimenting with not using artillery prolong. There seems to be little historical evidence for its use in the way it is being used in the games. One player commented that artillery are being used like WW1 tanks. They creep forward maintaining a steady fire.

[Adrian Steer]

Whilst being largely invulnerable to return fire!

[Hazelbark]

So we saw that same effect. However as the artillery got too close, it was often lost.
How much artillery are you losing?

I think in all rules players over expose their artillery relative to history. Many batteries were lost in retreat or withdrawing from a position, not actually being over run. Although some were over run.

I think I come down for keeping prolong for game reasons not history reasons,

1) You need to allow the prolong to pivot, even though arc is generous. This can be solved without keeping pro-long.

2) Players will back up an infantry line or cavalry to get outside of effective range of say enemy 6 lb. This is relatively easy. 8 UD range, and if you can step back to long range it really lessens the fire. And while units would back away to suffer less, they would not say o I back away 100 yards and the fire is tolerable, but I back away 75 yards and I get no benefit.

3) Because you only have 7 turns every shot in in effective range is precious for artillery. I think you run the risk of having artillery less relevant. Particularly the artillery for plodder nations that can't deploy as easily.

But you are right the frequent use of prolong for range and targets is not in step with history.

I probably would first consider a pro-long like an unlimber is a -1. That might be a balanced fix.

[Hazelbark]

one more thing. Small or poor shooters really suffer and are often in armies that it is precious to prolong for a CP.

Another option is to make a prolong unable to be part of a group. This will limit it.

Also you have to ask yourself how bad does it get for the 3-4 lb guns particularly horse batteries. They unlimber on the square and the then watch the square back up out of cannister?

[RogerGreenwood]

We do not lose many guns. We are very careful with them. With prolong allowed, we just kept another 2UD away from cannister range. Hence, the creeping forward of artillery as infantry backed away.

If it is required to keep prolong in the rules your suggestion of it not being part of a group move is good. Not permitting a prolonging gun to fire would also be good.

Whether squares should move is also an interesting one. Is there much from history on this?

[Adrian Steer]

So we saw that same effect. However as the artillery got too close, it was often lost.
How much artillery are you losing?

I think in all rules players over expose their artillery relative to history. Many batteries were lost in retreat or withdrawing from a position, not actually being over run. Although some were over run.

I think I come down for keeping prolong for game reasons not history reasons,

1) You need to allow the prolong to pivot, even though arc is generous. This can be solved without keeping pro-long.

Dan we are still allowing reorientations which solves this problem

2) Players will back up an infantry line or cavalry to get outside of effective range of say enemy 6 lb. This is relatively easy. 8 UD range, and if you can step back to long range it really lessens the fire. And while units would back away to suffer less, they would not say o I back away 100 yards and the fire is tolerable, but I back away 75 yards and I get no benefit.

Dan the order system makes it hard ( but not impossible) for people to back away from you and confirm the the order requirements

3) Because you only have 7 turns every shot in in effective range is precious for artillery. I think you run the risk of having artillery less relevant. Particularly the artillery for plodder nations that can't deploy as easily.

We feel artillery is the predominant force on the table at present which doesn't feel right and distorts the gameplay.

But you are right the frequent use of prolong for range and targets is not in step with history.

I probably would first consider a pro-long like an unlimber is a -1. That might be a balanced fix.

[Hazelbark]

Dan the order system makes it hard ( but not impossible) for people to back away from you and confirm the the order requirements

We feel artillery is the predominant force on the table at present which doesn't feel right and distorts the gameplay.

I get your point on the order system. I suspect there is a style of play that is different in each of our groups. But yes certainly if you are attacking it is hard and likely pointless to back away.

Artillery as predominant force is an interesting point. I think to a degree napoleon would agree, but perhaps not to the level of your game play. Sitting under artillery was and is painful. Coping with it is hard. I have had more than one break through where the enemy artillery turns and blast my unit to the point I know longer have an assault ability. Not enough troop density at 200-300 points. Which sort of feels-right-ish historically.

I would love to see some photos of your battle and get a sense of how you are employing forces. Not that either of us is right or wrong, just different. Last game the center was swept by 3 Austrian batteries and two French batteries. The decisive actions were on either side of the three Austrian batteries shortly reduced to two. One thing with batteries is the opportunity to take one out and harvest 3 points instead of the usual 1 in melee. I think I detect in Spainish players a lot of targeting of artillery for potential knockout. Again different styles.

I guess I am sort of comfortable with artillery as they don't take positions or really do more than one loss a turn (unless cannister range) and I assume that is attrition my army will suffer. My 06 Prussians suffered horribly from French artillery recently.

Just like I think Cavalry is the arm of rapid decision, that may be really needed in a 7 turn game. But I've hard a lot of cavalry bounce off of squares and get spent achieving little.

I always find I want more infantry.

[Hazelbark]

Whether squares should move is also an interesting one. Is there much from history on this?

Another good question.

So under threat of cavalry charge, I don't think so.
There is the case of a British division in peninsula moving in squares while French Dragoons were nearby.

But in 30 minutes a without a threat a square should be able to shift some.

So either ban or prohibit if enemy within tactical.

[Adrian Steer]

OK Dan will do a report on our next game. I start off with good intensions then get stuck into the game and forget all about it till the end. We find it really absorbing!

[Hazelbark]

I found just do a photo at the end of every turn before you pull of the action markers.