Help support TMP


"Field of Glory - Artillery" Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Renaissance Product Reviews Message Board

Back to the Blogs of War Message Board


Action Log

29 Dec 2016 5:14 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from Field of Glory board
  • Crossposted to Renaissance Product Reviews board

Areas of Interest

General
Renaissance

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Flower of Chivalry


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

The QuarterMaster Table Top

Need 16 square feet of gaming space, built to order?


Featured Profile Article


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


1,581 hits since 17 Oct 2013
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

vexillia18 Oct 2013 8:19 a.m. PST

Latest blog article:

In January I wrote an article wondering why wargames rules are so complex. In it I used a table from the Field of Glory Renaissance (FOG R) rules as an example. Well this month I've stumbled across another inconsistency in FOG R that has me stumped.

Read more …

--
Martin Stephenson
The Waving Flag :: Twitter :: Auctions

Yesthatphil18 Oct 2013 8:39 a.m. PST

What makes them think destroyed artillery always present an impassable obstacle to cavalry in the first place?

Phil

vexillia18 Oct 2013 9:26 a.m. PST

I don't know. Even if this was allowed there's still the re-crewing issue to resolve.

Sigh!

--
Martin Stephenson
The Waving Flag :: Twitter :: Auctions

clifblkskull18 Oct 2013 10:40 a.m. PST

Actually destroyed art. Is not the obstacle as it is removed.
Captured or 'routed' gunners leave the art. That is the obstacle as I read what Martin posted.
We tend to blow them up more times then capture them so have not encountered too much trouble here.
Clif

Yesthatphil19 Oct 2013 2:30 a.m. PST

Apologies for the terminological inexactitude. 'Destroyed' may be the wrong term to have used in a game that seems to make a difference between guns where the crews have all been killed and guns where the crews have all run away after some have been killed.

I only really know the ECW sources but can't think of any accounts that would lead anyone to make such a silly distinction.

It would also seem to incorporate a significant misunderstanding concerning the cavalry of the period (to whom abandoned guns would not have been a significant obstacle).

I'm not aware of any re-crewing evidence either in the ECW guns sometimes fire a few times before battle commences and that's about it. Of course the game covers a lot more than the ECW but it would be interesting to see the evidence from other periods.

As Martin says … Sigh!

Phil
PS I'm playing the last few 'commitment' games of FoG-AM after which I am done with it. There are one or two Doubles tournament I enjoy socially (Usk … Badcon …) so I am planning on playing a little FoG-R therefore such quirky nuances are good to know … thanks, Martin

vexillia19 Oct 2013 2:46 a.m. PST

PS I'm playing the last few 'commitment' games of FoG-AM after which I am done with it. There are one or two Doubles tournament I enjoy socially (Usk … Badcon …) so I am planning on playing a little FoG-R therefore such quirky nuances are good to know … thanks, Martin

Ooh! An interesting snippet. So version 2 of FOG AM has finally seen you off. You should enjoy FOG R more despite the "nuances". See you in November.

--
Martin Stephenson
The Waving Flag :: Twitter :: Auctions

Yesthatphil19 Oct 2013 6:11 a.m. PST

Just between ourselves, of course wink

Phil

Puster Sponsoring Member of TMP19 Oct 2013 10:37 a.m. PST

The idea is probably that artillery destroyed by shot takes some damage to guns and especially gunpowder, while that cleared in close combat does not, and is still serviceable.

To be honest I could not find the passage where the rules state that "uncontrolled" artillery counts as obstacle to mounted troops.
I realize that the rules forbid mounted to move through OWN artillery, but where does it actually say you cannot move through uncontrolled artillery?

Nik Gaukroger21 Oct 2013 3:41 a.m. PST

I'm not aware of any re-crewing evidence either in the ECW guns sometimes fire a few times before battle commences and that's about it. Of course the game covers a lot more than the ECW but it would be interesting to see the evidence from other periods.

Lutzen springs to mind – the Swedes capture the "ditch battery" on the Imperialist left and used it to some effect against it's former owners in the closing stages of the battle.

FWIW the artillery issue is a well known "glitch" we need to sort out – should be in the next errata (whenever they are).

Yesthatphil22 Oct 2013 2:02 a.m. PST

Thanks Nik – I'll have a look at what happened there … it certainly doesn't sound 'normal' but as above, it's the ECW material I'm more familiar with …

Phil

Dexter Ward22 Oct 2013 4:21 a.m. PST

Phil wrote:
PS I'm playing the last few 'commitment' games of FoG-AM after which I am done with it. There are one or two Doubles tournament I enjoy socially (Usk … Badcon …)
-------------------
I'm curious as to what has made you give up on the rules?
I find them fine for occasional ancient games; never tried using them in a tournament setting as I have no interest in that.

Nik Gaukroger22 Oct 2013 5:03 a.m. PST

it certainly doesn't sound 'normal' but as above, it's the ECW material I'm more familiar with …

It is certainly an infrequent happening, but we came across enough examples in the period covered by FoG:R to feel that it was justified as a rules mechanism for "period colour". Have to confess, however, that Lutzen is the only one I can recall off hand :/

Pretty sure there were no ECW examples as you say.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.