Exploding caissons

[FM WarB]

Does anyone else miss the exploding caisons of SPI's Wellington's Victory and Terrible Swift Sword, which caused individual battery ammo loss?

[rahamy]

We've had internal discussions on adding in ammo that is handled on a battery by battery case and John feels this is too much micro-management for the bulk of the players to accept, so this isn't something that will be implemented.

[FM WarB]

Rich,
That's too bad. When the micromanagement involved moving around hundreds of little cardboard number counters, THAT was micromanagement. If the computer handles it, how is it micromanagement? Every player, myself included, now will fire 12 lbrs and horse artillery all day long with "global" artillery supply, using lower caliber foot batteries less.
I know John Tiller's time is tight and his priorities arent on Napoleonic games. Since there were internal discussions, it seems to me that micromanagement is not the issue, microprogramming is.
Warren

[Gary McClellan]

From being at TC II when it was brought up, the thing is, that the gamers who wanted the potential of Caisson explosions were really looking to have individual caisson counters that you'd have to drag along with the unit.

Now, if "all" you want is the chance of a battery being taken out in a single catastrophic shot, without the separate counters et al, that would be more interesting to me. I'd not be big on dragging a buncha extra caissons over the map, but the chance that a hit cleans a battery out for the entire battle, that might be worthwhile. To my knowlege, John's never had that "cleaner" variation presented to him (though I could easily be wrong) and he might be more willing. That said, it would need Bill or Rich to champion it most likely, so you'd have to convince them it's worth sticking their necks out for. :laugh:

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

(...)

Now, if "all" you want is the chance of a battery being taken out in a single catastrophic shot, without the separate counters et al, that would be more interesting to me. I'd not be big on dragging a buncha extra caissons over the map, but the chance that a hit cleans a battery out for the entire battle, that might be worthwhile.

Under a historic view: how was it possible to destroy a complete munition train of a battery with a hit of a hostile salvo? Do we have some historic examples on a battlefield between 1796 and 1815? :sneak:

[AlAmos]

I think some of the gun hits put on batteries are the results of exploding cassions, so I think the game already models this event.

I would like to see arty ammo handled as infantry ammo in the game. It would encourage players to keep armies supplied with all the problems that entails.

al

[FM WarB]

Actually, I am looking for artillery supply changes. Ammo allocated per battery, and resuppliable similarly to the way infantry supply is done. Caissons to supply individual batteries a possibility.
Artillery batteries, with the caissons needed nearby took up alot of space on the battlefield, and the road. Splitting batteries into sections in the oob helps a bit, but does nothing about the ammo supply simplification.

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Actually, I am looking for artillery supply changes. Ammo allocated per battery, and resuppliable similarly to the way infantry supply is done. Caissons to supply individual batteries a possibility.
Artillery batteries, with the caissons needed nearby took up alot of space on the battlefield, and the road. Splitting batteries into sections in the oob helps a bit, but does nothing about the ammo supply simplification.

Please help me on the chair: What could be at the end the ideal result of a ammo supply simplification (independently of the heading: Exploding caissons) ?

[Gary McClellan]

Then you really getting back to the question of "micromanagement" vs "non micromanagement", which is what Rich said.

If you go back to "Artillery resupply wagon", and tie it to the specific gun types, you're seriously upping the amount of micromanagement the player is forced to do.

That gets back to the old thing. Not all gamers are the same, and not all want the same level of detail. At this point, you're talking about "Kitchen Sink" levels of detail. Obviously, this form tends towards "more detail the better." However, John needs to look not only to what this board wants, but the larger audience for his game.

In a sense, it's like complaining that The Russian Campaign isn't Drang Nach Osten/Unentschieden(sp?)

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

I would like to see arty ammo handled as infantry ammo in the game. It would encourage players to keep armies supplied with all the problems that entails.

al

This is my opinion too! ....the consideration of "all the problems that entails" was the job of a good headquarter (or a good player :cool:...) in the run-up to a battle.

[rahamy]

Discrete ammo handling, on a battery by battery basis - resupplied by caissons is what I wanted to see implemented and John does not support that...so unless you guys can present me with a petition signed by a few hundred customers asking for it there really is no hope to see it implemented.

[FM WarB]

Rich,
You have my vote, and I did prefer Drang nach Osten to The Russian Campaign. 200 gamers voting for it? I wonder where the "silent majority" stands.
Actually, in this game we are All micromanaging. It was not Napoleon's job to move every skirmish company in his army. Turn based games, by their nature encourage micromangement.
Because artillery ammo allocation differed by caliber and nationality, flexibility for scenario designers in artillery ammo allocation should be part of any hoped for change.
A side benefit of having artillery caisson units would be the lengthening (realistic) of march columns and thus more time needed to move and deploy.
Warren

[FM WarB]

Why not have discreet artillery supply as an optional rule? Scenarios could be designed with or without it, everyone's happy; no existing games are affected by update.

[AlAmos]

"A side benefit of having artillery caisson units would be the lengthening (realistic) of march columns and thus more time needed to move and deploy." - Warren

Couldn't agree more. Amateurs discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics. Make the supply side more apparent, and our battles, and decisions within in those battles become more realistic.

al

[Lord_Valentai]

Well I personally am against it. To me, as a casual play, it's an extraordinary increase in units and mess.
And how far do we go, do we start counting types of shots? So Battery A has only got a few shots left, are they ball or grape?
Even if you don't go that far, could the cassions be used between batteries? The logic would say no - but infantry can freely use supply wagons regardless of their weapons.

To me, in my opinion, it's not worth it at all, and I don't like the idea.

[FM WarB]

[QUOTE=Lord_Valentai;905570]
Even if you don't go that far, could the cassions be used between batteries? The logic would say no - but infantry can freely use supply wagons regardless of their weapons.

QUOTE]

I do not advocate Ishandlwana supply wagon rules. 12 lber caisson can supply 12 lbrs, not 6lbrs, etc. I do advocate changes that make Napoleonic games look more Napoleonic and less Blitzkrieg.

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Well I personally am against it. To me, as a casual play, it's an extraordinary increase in units and mess.


So we have two types of players:

Type A:
He wants to to play a historic szenario with historic problems and >>quote>>....
....the lengthening (realistic) of march columns and thus more time needed to move and deploy.....
.... Discrete ammo handling, on a battery by battery basis - resupplied by caissons ....
....more Napoleonic and less Blitzkrieg....
.... armies supplied with all the problems that entails....

and

Type B:
He do not like an extraordinary increase in units and mess...
He knows not all gamers are the same, and he don't want to occupy and to play with the boring details of the historic reality, he wants to "kick asses" without paper-warfare and a quick fight on the virtual battlefield.



I think, both ways are honourable. But they are incompatible in our discussion.

I am more of Typ A :smoke:

Greetings

[Lord_Valentai]

Personally, and you may think of me as you wish because of it, but I find the Napoleonic system about as complex as I would enjoy now.
I'm a casual gamer, I play one turn every day or so by e-mail, or maybe 5 turns a night against the AI. I find that moving an army of 150,000 is hard enough without adding another supply unit.

To me, lots of the game is abstracted anyway: 15 minute turns but you fire once, simulating the combined fire of that turn. Infantry automatically regains ammo is a cart is near, and so on. To bog a large battle down further with fuss seems to me to turn it into a quagmire.

This is my view. What I would rather is what was suggested and:
A - put ammo so that the number of guns in a battery deducts that much ammo from the global stock, rather than one regardless of whether it is 1 gun or 12.
B - Have guns occasionally get low ammo (like infantry), but it passes in a turn or something.

Feeble suggestions they may be, but better than lugging around hundreds of extra units.

[FastPhil]

I believe I am type C. I would like to see individual ammo per gun but not the caisons. It should be reasonably easy to program another check when a gun strength point is 'conditionally'destroyed which checks for 'caison explosion'. When that happens a random number of ammo points on the gun is destroyed vice a gun loss. I am not sure this is historical but were all an armies artillery rounds kept with the gun(ready ammo) or the caison or did they also use ammo wagons loaded with artillery rounds. If they did then individual loads for each battery(unit) and resupply from wagons. I do not think the extra counters will add to the 'feel'. I would rather have a 'new' formation called maybe a march column where any road/trail/ etc bonus applies to this formation. A formation would change from march to column or line and vice versa. I woulds also like to see fire and melee require separate expediture of MPs. This more than anything will do away with the Blitzkrieg. JMHO

A wise man once said 'The greatest urge is not to create but to edit'. :D

[FM WarB]

Artillery was generally supplied with enough to last one battle (Some, like French beautiful daughters, had more than others). Ammo could belong to the individual arty units, depleted when firing, or suffering gun hits when fired on. If it is a multi day battle, artillery supply units, much like infantry supply units could be provided. The guns move back to the supply units, or vice-versa.
If such was an optional rule, type A, B and C players would all be happy.

[Lord_Valentai]

I would support an optional rule, much like explicit supply with Panzer Campaigns.

I don't want it to be the default though.

[FM WarB]

OK, There's a vote! Plus me, Al, Rich, my playtesting friend and me. 195 to go! :-)

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

OK, There's a vote! Plus me, Al, Rich, my playtesting friend and me. 195 to go! :-)

Ok, Plus me. 194 to go ;)

[rahamy]

OK, There's a vote! Plus me, Al, Rich, my playtesting friend and me. 195 to go! :-)

Alas, I don't count...I'm on the design team. :cool:

[Tom Bridges]

Alas, I don't count...I'm on the design team. :cool:

Don't worry Rich, I'll cover for you. Count me as 194! :laugh:

[Sgt_Rock]

Remembering how the Crit Hits affected the Naval series I am glad that we dont have caisson hits.

I agree with Al in that the series models the hits on caissons through gun losses. Quit advocating we have caisson hits some time back.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I think we've got enough things to keep track of as it is. I'll pass on exploding caissons.

[Lord_Valentai]

I'm with Ranger on this. After all, like Bill said, that's why guns get destroyed when fired on.

[FM WarB]

Making it an optional rule would satisfy everyone, with scenarios designed with both in mind and no scenarios now available invalid.

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Dear players and designers,

I want to write again only about the term: „exploding chaissons“


1.) I have a few square meter of literature about the Napoleonic time, wars, battles, soldiers, theirs letters and reports, uniforms, really old books or copies of really old books and of course some new books.

I can not find a single report about an exploding chaisson or an effect of an exploding chaisson during a battle (or counter-battery-) action of the Napoleonic wars in my sources or in the internet.

If I would find it, I would be very interested on the effect to the guns.

(I know the book and film of the novel “War and Peace”. There is a situation of an exploding Russian chaisson or munition wagon.)


2.) When I read something in the internet about the American Civil War, 1861 – 1865, the letters and reports are full of „exploding chaissons“ --- WHY?

3.) Perhaps we should compare again the capabilities of the artillery of 1815 and the artillery of 1861:

We should consider:

A French battery of 1815 consisted of six “guns / field pieces” and two “howitzers”.
The guns were able to fire only with solid roundshots and canisters.
The howitzers were able to fire with solid roundshots, canisters and shells.


1861 there were two general types of artillery weapons used during the Civil War: smoothbores and rifles. And BOTH were able to fire with roundshots, canisters and shells with a higher accuracy .


4.) And now: the famous caissons of 1815:

Napoleon habitually wanted a double standard load
of ammuntion with each gun.
According to George Nafziger ("Imperial Bayonets" 1996 p 266) the caissons were 18 m (27 paces) from the guns. The two howitzers of 8-piece battery were placed on the flanks of the battery and ready to repulse any flank attack. The howitzers would also form the reserve of battery. In such case only the cannons were in combat while the howitzers were placed in the rear.

Two or three lines of 4-wheel ammunition wagons were posted behind the line of guns, and - if possible - were given every protection (hollow ground, trees etc.) Approx. 50 m (it varied between armies and situations) behind the guns was the first line of ammunition wagons. Approx. 50 m behind it was the second line of wagons. If the guns were of heavier caliber there was also third line of wagons, placed 100 m behind the second.

What do you think would be the effect of a one million dollar direct hit directly in ONE chaisson??

One destroyed gun ??

A destroyed battery??

The explosion of the complete ammo of one gun or the battery??

According to the historic sources about the Napoleonic battles most of the guns were destroyed/ unable to fire after wheel hits, they were unable to fire after loosing men and they were unable to move after loosing their horses.

Please lets read something about the Napoleonic artillery and then have a discussion. I have found this nice link:

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_tactics.htm


Please, the fact that older Napoleonic wargames are using “exploding chaissons” is not a knightly accolade, maybe it is a too simple and wrong reflection of the Civil War circumstances.

That is what I want to say only about the term: „exploding chaissons“

Greetings ;) :blab: ;)

[Lord_Valentai]

You have a good point. The shells used in the Napoleonic Wars were fuse based only, and not as commonly used as in the Civil War (where they were the weapon of choice).

Also remember in the Civil War that they had impact detonated shells. A Napoleonic shell hitting a cassion wouldn't necessarily explode unless the fuse was ready.

[FM WarB]

I should say that while the "exploding caissons" title of this thread has drawn much fire (thanks), the focus of my concern is artillery ammunition supply, not exploding caissons taking out guns.