Artillery Ammunition...

[Desktop_Grenadier]

Great option. Would love to see artillery included in the supply chain with ammo wagons having to supply the guns. We sort of house rule this and you have to have supply wagons close to artillery to be able to fire. We assume that horse artillery has their ammo in Caison.

[Plain Ian]

Well there is a lot of well reasoned and well thought out views above. I don't think I can match them but here goes.

Lets suppose that 'back in the day' when John brought us the Battleground games the supply system used Supply Wagons BOTH for rifle ammunition AND artillery shells.
So a Supply Wagon could either carry one type of ammo or he might have just decided to allow each Supply Wagon to carry both. So you would see something like S 6/6 on the counters if you remember the old counter types.

Heres a couple of mocked up examples sorry, for the quality it isn't easy getting old supply wagon pictures.

2024-03-13_19h36_20.png (56.07 KiB) Viewed 406 times

2024-03-13_19h39_22.png (48.73 KiB) Viewed 406 times

I bet most of us would have been happy about this decision and agreed that it added to the realism and historicism of the game.....and got on with it as best as possible
And then HPS/WDS would have refined and improved it.

I'm sorry but I vote for a straight yes......although I can understand people that say NO and those that say YES with Option.

[Erzhog Karl]

A question please, Sir, How long is it your intention to allow this poll run ?

Wasn't planning on "closing" it. I've already gathered the info I was after... if people wish to continue to post that's fine.

I hadn't intended to engage in any debate about implementation, etc. however. It's clear that 90%+ of respondents would be interested in something along these lines, and if it was made optional, everyone would be happy.

If the Master is pleased, there is nothing further to be said, Sir. When did such matters not cause 'debate', as you so tactically put it. If it were Optional, everyone one get what they sought, yea or nay, I propose.

[Erzhog Karl]

A question please, Sir, How long is it your intention to allow this poll run ?

Wasn't planning on "closing" it. I've already gathered the info I was after... if people wish to continue to post that's fine.

I hadn't intended to engage in any debate about implementation, etc. however. It's clear that 90%+ of respondents would be interested in something along these lines, and if it was made optional, everyone would be happy.

If the Master is pleased, there is nothing further to be said, Sir. When did such matters not cause 'debate', as you so tactically put it. If it were Optional, everyone one get what they sought, yea or nay, I propose.

Even....tactfully

[Dion]

I tend to agree, though I'm probably forgetting something, as I know I don't have as much experience as some of the players that have posted, but I think I know a way to figure out what's best. All we need to do is answer one simple question, what would happen if a supply wagon was in the same hex as an artillery unit? In my view it should be in supply the whole battle.

Though, in reality I may not be able to appreciate the situation, as the Napoleonic Wars were over 200 years ago, before the industrial revolution, so artillery ammo may have been twice as scarce as I think, even rationed at times, or maybe it was too cumbersome to supply all the guns at will. Out of Supply might have been the norm in those days.

This is really an interesting topic, as you could view it in multiple ways. If I could change my vote, I would vote for an optional rule.

[thespaie@yahoo.com]

For me 100% yes, but since we have the ability to have it as an optional rule thereby pleasing both the yes and no player then go optional.

[Roger_C]

... as the Napoleonic Wars were over 200 years ago, before the industrial revolution, so artillery ammo may have been twice as scarce as I think, even rationed at times, or maybe it was too cumbersome to supply all the guns at will. Out of Supply might have been the norm in those days.
....

I think there are a few bits here. Occasionally you read of an instance where say grapeshot was not available when it would have been the ammunition of choice - that it stands out as a comment is indicative (I think) that it was relatively rare.

then there is the huge bit of player agency, my feeling is I am happy to break my artillery up both without much regard to their command chain and to get a reasonable spread across the battlefield. My understanding is that most heavy and light artillery was actually clustered fairly close together and didn't really move much once this was established. In that situation I've never read any reports of running out of ammunition. Horse artillery was different but also seems not to have fired consistently as it was intended to set up fire and go. Add on, as a player, in most scenarios I'll happily fire all my artillery at available targets on the grounds that minimal attrition will build up (there are a few longer SYW scenarios where the total cap on ammunition is such that its essential to conserve instead)

So, in a battle, a historical army would set up an artillery block, presumably link in ammunition stocks and fire at sensible targets and probably not every turn.

We, may do an artillery block but also use it as a relatively flexible asset, fire at anything and spread out.

Or in other words as with overall loss rates, player agency is an issue outside the control of the game engine.

As an eg, I'm coming to the end of D1 in the two day Dresden scenario MP. In the real battle total losses (both sides) were around 50k over the two days (and that includes an entire allied flank destroyed), we've got through 52,000 foot and 8,000 horse (between us) on D1 alone and so far its effectively a stalemate

[TheGrayMouser]

Some thoughts:

The French only had one caisson stationed with each gun( generally 50 yards behind) The rest were with the division, corp and army level artillery parks. When the caisson was emptied it would leave for the appropriate park, and be replaced with a full one. Caissons held different amounts of rounds per size of gun so a 12lb around 70, a 6lb 130. The limbers carried some ammo too. The smaller calibers more, but generally the smaller guns could fire faster. A 12 lb could manage a shot a minute but not indefinitely so if we say 10 then a battery coul fire none stop with ready ammo for maybe 4-6 turns

Napoleon wanted 350 round per gun on hand with the army ( deemed sufficient for a two day battle) and 200/per gun more in a reserve depot.

As far as I know , the level of organization of the French artillery branch meant no gun battery ever ran out of ammo in battle. Leipzig was the only battle where the lack of ammo for the French to keep fighting became a factor ( the best I can determine is the artillery trains from the reserve were cut of and unable to get to the army). Still, they never ran out.

The Austrians and British appear to have had a similar system , ie they brought the ammo to the deployed guns.

The Prussians and Russians did the opposite , once a battery ran out of ready ammo, it rotated out of the line with another artillery unit. The issue with the system was the men got rid of their ammo as quick as they could to rotate back to a safer position. Both nations appear to have tried to resolve the issues they had, but I’m not sure to what effect.

So I think if artillery ammo is to be historically represented, there will need be different rules for each nation, which might very well have to be different between titles.

We will need new units for the ammo parks ( not sure how the reserves would be handled for multi day scenarios) and some sort of command chain between them and the deployed batteries to keep the flow of ammo caissons moving.

My concern is how easy will it be to break the flow of ammo in game, especially player vs player? I have not of read of raids on corp or even divisional parks being a thing but players will do just that. Do people really want to have units of 6-12 caissons actually represented on a map? One battery of 6 12 lbrs would have 30 caissons so there is 5 units….
The option is to have an abstraction, ie can a battery trace a path back to a corp park, which in turn traces back to army. Would this be “blocked” by an enemy unit?

This would just be for the French, the Prussian/Russuan player would need to pack up every 3-4 turn of firing to reload somewhere behind lines.

I’m interested in seeing where this could go but would not be interested if its a one size fits all thing similar to how infantry ammo is handled .

If the engine can’t handle all the subtleties needed perhaps there are other ways to account for artillery usage.

Since players do things no artillery officer would ever do, like allow artillery batteries to become isolated , or be brought in deep strike missions, you could maybe use leaders as a type of supply chain abstraction. Ie if a battery leader( to be added to all the OOB’s) becomes detached from his artillery superior officer, the battery gets a random allotment of shots, like 4-6 and then it is out . PrussianRussian units would need be treated different, perhaps they simply run out of ammo after 4-6 shots and get random % change to top off after 4 turns elapse . ( we need this to encourage players to move them)

Some nation s could have a higher chance to opp fire at long range despite player settings ( or the theat from enemy batteries. All nations frowned on counter battery fire, but the units did it anyway)

If nothing else, have remaining ammo count towards victory conditions

[PaulSan]

I voted 'Yes -- Optional' today, March 18th, well after rahamy's (Rich's) personal cutoff date of March 13th. The biggest reason for 'Optional' is I didn't want to read multi-page criticisms of Rich's 'HORRIBLE' choice regarding artillery supply. If it is an OR, this eliminates dozens of long paragraphs, diatribes and soliloquys (Yes, I remember 9th grade, or grade 9 in Canada and Europe and elsewhere, English class when Miss Freid (pronounced Freed) had us read "Julius Caesar" and "Hamlet" and in each one of these plays were soliloquys, which Miss Freid said were a fancy way of stating that someone was talking to himself out loud. "To be, or not to be? That is the question." Also, if has to be 'himself' as 'herself' was not possible considering the lack of female actors in The Bard's plays.).

Silliness aside, you can't always make everyone happy and defining this as an OR 'should' allow everyone to be happy.

[Bill-Peters]

I voted yes but the AI will suffer.

Remember that you can set the ranges at which your AI-directed artillery will fire at. Thus setting the guns to fire at Medium and Minimum ranges would be a good idea. I do that already as fire at long range is hardly ever effective.