Napoleonic Artillery – Using Half Batteries paired as full batteries
- This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Asking because in CoE / AT2 there is the option to deploy artillery half batteries that fire at 2-1-1. Just pondering how / whether to implement this. We could either only allow half batteries where a specific scenario called for them (or maybe in circumstances where you might, for instance, split a horse battery into two halves to have each half operating on opposite sides of the table with two halves of a light cavalry regiment), or allow their use across the board with any artillery battery in an orbat able to be deployed as two halves. In all honesty, the frequency and tactical use of half batteries is not something I’ve ever looked up in books like Imperial Bayonets or the Waterloo Companion as I’ve never had a need to before. It’s on the look up list for the weekend.
If we allow full batteries to be deployed in two halves you will obviously boost the effectiveness of artillery at close and long range because 2 half batteries firing at the same target would be firing at 2-1-1 x 2 (4-2-2). Just wondering if folks have tried that and found it’s too overpowering? If it wasn’t, and we allowed full batteries to be deployed as two halves, it could allow a divisional battery, for game purposes (again not sure if they ever did it or not) to be split between two brigades with a half battery each which could fire ate the same target as 2-1-1 x 2. I’m not sure this was the intention of the Special Rule though.We did think of saying that if two halves are deployed as a pair (full battery) it must use the regular artillery profile of 3-2-1 if firing at the same target. If we ‘allow’ the deployment of full batteries as two halves though the incentive will actually be to split them between two brigades to get the benefit of firing both at 4-2-2 at the same target rather than 3-2-1.
If we allowed two halves to be deployed paired, firing them separately at the same target increases the short and long range firing power of the full battery by 1 dice and one option, to encourage the battery to fire as a full battery, would be to allow the full battery to fire at 4-3-2 if firing at the same target giving the medium range the same +1 increase. I quite like the idea though that if a full battery is deployed as two halves in the same brigade you can chose two targets at a loss of 1 dice at mid range (there being no difference at short or long range) or have both fire at one target at 3 dice at medium range. I do worry about arty being too overpowered though.
Probably giving this too much thought but I’d only opt to use the half battery rule across the board for all artillery if it doesn’t overpower artillery too much. Personally I’d rather either ignore the half battery option altogether or, if using it, only ever allow the guns to be deployed as a lone half battery when a scenario or orbat requires it (or maybe in the horse artillery example above), not ‘paired’ together as full batteries. When you look at the special rule it makes no mention of splitting full batteries into 2 halves but then again, doesn’t mean you can’t.
Anyone tried any of the above at all?NB: Can’t seem to get a space between paragraphs.The blurb /writting about deploying as half batterys is the background /historical reasoning behind being able to take half batteries in your list not game rules.
The half battery option in the list section (ie CofE pg 156-159 for the french army) is for downgrading the unit when you purchase them, ie you are buying a small battery instead of a normal sized one. (which is why in CofE lists they are written as ‘downgrade to half battery -8 points’ and in Albion they are ‘downgrade any gau battery to half batteries…. half points (rounded up)’ ).
They (to me) are not a game deployment option, in fact the only deployment options I’ve seen are the ACW mounted infantry with the option to dismount during a game. And the French Dragoons have the option to deploy dismounted as a small infantry unit instead of a normal sized cavalary unit…… which to be fair is only clearly stated in the Albion Triumphant book 1 (peninsular)… book 2 doesnt mention french dragoons fighting on foot, and clash just gives you the stat line in the units background section with no mention of it in the lists…..
Excellent point! For some reason I TOTALLY missed the downgrade option in the list pages 156-159, it’s the same (following a brief quick glance) in AT2. Makes it easier for me as I wasn’t keen on the idea of allowing the use of half batteries in pairs (or adding yet more fiddly mechanics) as I don’t think that was the intention of the rule at all, that half batteries are specifically listed as a ‘Downgrade’ only option for point games confirms it. We’ll leave it as it is, full batteries at 3-2-1.
Must admit I’ve come across a few proof reading errors that had me scratching my head. On p 124 of AT2, Guard Lancers are listed as being armed with a sabre which is clearly a typo and easy to work out what it should be; at least one more, less easy to fathom, especially when you’re new to the rules. Dragoons and Dragoon Guards on p.37 of AT2 are listed as Heavy Cavalry +1 whereas in the list at the back they are Heavy Cavalry D1. Had me wondering if there was some +1 bonus I’d missed or whether it should in fact be Heavy Cavalry D1. Couldn’t see any other cavalry anywhere listed as anything but D# so again, wrote it off as a misprint.
Yeah I think you’re right. Reading it over several times, the Howitzer rules seem to pertain to a unit description whereas Shrapnel, another artillery rule, is an ammunition type; a special rule that is noted in relevant unit profiles, those units having the option to choose that ammunition type when firing. Also, at no point in the howitzer section does it mention that these rules apply to units containing only howitzers or units containing a mixture of cannons and howitzers (which would pretty much be every battery I guess), further leading me to think their effect is factored in for regular batteries and that the Howitzer rule and fire profile only relates to full batteries of them. Ordinarily I would just assume that the howitzer rules only apply to full units for the reasons above but at times I find BP a bit confusing as to what exactly is intended in the application of a rule because of the way that some other rules are unclear (see below). I know the rules are written to be deliberately loose but it would sure help though if at times they added some clarity as to how the rule was intended to be used, regardless of whether players might want to change it later. In this case a caveat such as ‘The rules for howitzers apply only to units made up entirely of howitzers (single weapons, sections or complete batteries) and are not intended to be an optional weapon choice that players can choose to use when firing any other batteries, even though those batteries may contain howitzers. In this case the fire from howitzers has already been factored in to the unit profile”.
I’d agree too that the 3 Nap books could do with being aligned with each other and updated where necessary for BP2, maybe by way of an FAQ/Errata/Update. It’s not something Warlord seems to do though. The only errata so far is for BP1 and that was 2010! One of the things that I was really stuck on, and this was not long after buying the books so I hadn’t got my head around the publication order, was the ‘A Marshall’s Baton in every Knapsack’ the wording of which renders it unusable with BP2. Took me ages to figure BP2 came last and they just arbitrarily changed it.
Much as I like Black Powder I find reading a Napoleonic specific set like General d’Armee is WAY easier, with everything in one place so you’re not flicking through 6-8 different parts of books to find the rules for X,Y and Z. I actually like the granularity of BP more to be honest and, while they both use an activation system I like BP’s a lot more. The ADC tasks also to me seem really at odds with what you’d be doing as an army commander (like re-supplying arty ammo ) and why can’t a brigadier order more than one battalion to attack unless you’ve bought your way out of the restriction that turn. Popular game for sure but doesn’t appeal to me as much as BP, save for being 20 times easier to read and learn! Kinda digressed a bit there 😉
Another one is Cavalry Mixed formation from Clash. There’s 9 paragraphs that tell you virtually nothing about how the rule is applied other than to tell you it’s similar to the Mixed Order rule in the main book, an infantry rule. Many of the other rules in Clash are explained in detail but not this one. So is it similar in application as they suggest or is it applied exactly the same. If it’s only similar, how is it different, if it’s exactly the same, why not say exactly so people are clear! IIt’s not unreasonable to expect a rule that’s applied to cavalry might vary a bit from the way it’s applied to infantry, perhaps with regard to formation placement / coherency etc so it could do with explaining, but no, nothing. Just 9 paragraphs of how they don’t use it in their games? Bizarre! I’ve heard people excuse things like this by saying “it’s the style the rules are written in” the way the rules are intended to be used, for casual friendly games, is no excuse for lack of clarity IMO, it’s just sloppy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.