cannon rules discussion

[fidd]

I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that the rules to date may need a slight revision.

So we're singing off the same hymn sheet, my understanding is that with a 2 v 2 game, in total for each side there are:

1 x 12 pdr + 1 x cannister (or)
1 x 8pdr + 1 x cannister (or)
1 x 4pdr

These being irrespective of attacking or defending. Problem is, that an attacker in Napoleonic times would in general mass more cannon as a prequesite for an attack, wheras the defender would have the advantage of picking his ground beforehand.

It seems to me that the defender (in game) has the advantage of positioning his cannon in an ideal spot, whereas frequently the attackers cannon needs to be moved, even after deployment, making it liable to interdiction/shelling while it is being moved. The defender doesn't have this problem because he simply picks the ideal spot and waits for the enemy to come to him.

Accordingly, I would suggest that in the case of a 2 v 2 game:

(Defender - per side)
1 x 12 pdr + 1 x cannister (or)
1 x 8pdr + 1 x cannister (or)
1 x 4pdr

(Attacker - per side)
1 x 12 pdr + 1 x cannister (or)
2 x 8pdr + 1 x cannister (or)
3 x 4pdr

Comments:

I think this would really force defenders to pick ground where they can minimise the effects of cannon-fire, or to keep offensive cavalry in play to harass enemy batteries.

I think currently, defenders have it too easy....

Thoughts?

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Interesting idea!

One note: the artillery isnt ALWAYS that way, but traditionally games are played with one battery per side.

Gents please give this some thought, but remember four points:

A) Defenders usually get fewer florins to spend, thus balancing the chosen ground idea. Would this be expected to change?

B) Remember, more artillery means less room for infantry and cavalry. Therefore the attackers might have more cannon, but will also be outnumbered. No, they wont be outnumbered by TOO much, but they will be outnumbered. How would we counter that?

C) The one major drawback of the cannister rule is that attackers artillery will be sitting far off and thus their cannister wont come into play. However, defenders can position their artillery closer to the point of contact, and can thus usually ensure their cannister will fire.

D) More arty means better ability to kill enemy artillery.

Anyway, my belief is that this is worth testing out. I would be interested to know what the rest of you think.

Nice point to bring up, Fidd!

S!

[GG]Ashram

[fidd]

I would expect the attackers to tend towards 4 pdrs, as they're reasonably fast and mobile, have a high rate of fire albeit middleing-range, and the defenders to take the 12 or 8 pdrs (for range) and a cannister....

In this way the 4 pdrs would be more akin to horse-batteries?

[quote author=[GG]Ashram link=board=Glory&thread=1111686135&start=1#0 date=1111689962]

Gents please give this some thought, but remember four points:
C) The one major drawback of the cannister rule is that attackers artillery will be sitting far off and thus their cannister wont come into play. However, defenders can position their artillery closer to the point of contact, and can thus usually ensure their cannister will fire.
[GG]Ashram[/quote]

[[GG]AndrewKent]

There are probably many ways to get variety into the games and still have them reasonably balanced. That is what I love about campaigns or command games.

It is so much fun to try something different. The other day, Ash and I played against Flippy. We took twice as many units and he had great terrain to defend. We also agreed to send our units in waves. It was a lot of fun, but more a kind of 'cooperative' play, than strictly competitive.

Variety!

AK

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Ha! I agree, that WAS fun! No pressure to win; it was just "make it look nice." At one point one of us drew the analogy that it was like playing with toy soldiers; somewhat innocent when compared to ruthless MP, but a GREAT deal of fun... almost like cooperatively playing a game in a way that we understood was fun to watch and partipate in rather than playing alone in an attempt to win!

Anyway, good stuff... I agree about potential to do things different, ESPECIALLY in Regimental games... why not have fun and try something new without worrying about solely winning?

Okay, back to artillery; I think Fidd brings up a good point. Should arty be slanted in a way that sends more pieces to the attacker? I am curious what some of our more veteran players think.

[GG]Ashram

[[GG]Lord von Döbeln]

I'm not sure I'd WANT more artillery as the attacker. As Ash ponted out earlier it will rob me of infantry (or cavalry) units, and the battles usually are decided by the musket fire and the bayonet. IMO games where the attacker have about 10-15% more florins are rather balanced as is providing the terrain isn't extremely defensive in nature.

But I'm up for any type of game that's fun. ;D

[GG]vD