Artillery in Wargames

[thistlebarrow]

Until recently we always allowed unlimited artillery firing in our wargames.  I introduced limited ammunition about six games ago, and it has completely changed the way we wargame.

We only fight campaign battles, so each game is limited to 12 moves.   This represents 12 hours in the campaign.   We reduced the number of times a gun could fire to 6.

Instead of firing each move just because you could, we now take care to choose targets for maximum effect.   The attacker can afford to use up his ammunition before the guns are screened by the advancing infantry and cavalry.  The defender has to resist long range fire in order to fire when the attack comes.   If targets are limited the attacker can risk long range counter battery fire, something the defender dare not reply to.

This is a very simple method, but has had a considerable effect in terms of game play.   It does not appear historical, but it rewards careful selection of targets, which is indeed historical.

Does anyone else limit artillery fire?

[zippyfusenet]

I usually play Koenig Krieg with the limited ammunition rule. It doesn't really discourage long-range shooting though. Artillery in KK has a fairly limited range. Experienced players know that artillery are such prime targets for infantry attacks that the guns are unlikely to survive more than a turn or three, once hostile infantry closes to musket range. So you may as well shoot off your ammunition, you won't have time to run out.

In Fire & Fury, 'limited ammunition' is represented by risking running out every time you roll the dice. *That* reduces low-odds shooting, once the players figure out that their chances of running out of ammunition are better than of scoring a hit.

[Stecal]

I think it depends on the time period.  By the Napoleonic era on most batteries had 2-3 caissons per gun and then there are the corps and army level artillery reserves.  Assuming these assets are available artillery are just not going to run out of ammunition in a 1 day battle. 

[Calimero]

That’s an interesting POV thought. We never did it in our ACW games but it would have been interesting to try… Then again the "best", most efficient use of artillery fires I did where done by batteries I had forgotten about that fire on approaching enemy at very close range

[Norm]

There is an interesting mechanic in a boardgame that I am playing. The artillery is not limited in fire, though it can often get a 'no effect' when it fires so perhaps we might think of some of those moments as 'low ammo' situations.

anyway, if the guns are forced to retreat, they go to innefective status (i.e. Can't fire)il they pass a morale check, or have moved far enough away from the front line that they recover automatically.

The total effect here is that guns will not always be something that can be faithfully relied upon during play to deliver carnage.

[sukhe_bator]

Historically, long range artillery fire was unusual since anything beyond 800 yards was pretty much a lottery if it hit or not, and counter battery fire was very rare before the Mid C19.
In the C18 artillery fire cannon size and mobility dictated that it was used primarily as additional oomph to the firing line and defensively against large bodies of infantry or to repel cavalry at approx. 200 yards. They were often put in the corners of squares.
Artillery attacked frontally by infantry could hold their own quite well given adequate time to prepare. Less so with cavalry who were the real threat. However, canister/grape at 200 yards created absolute carnage. Fully 1/3 of the battlefield casualties at Assaye have been attributed to the effects of artillery fire. And that is AFTER Wellesley caught the Marathas off balance by effectively catching the Maratha line in the flank, halving the number of guns he faced. This has been attributed to the adoption of French gunnery methods employing 2 different sizes of canister/grape shot.
By the mid C19, with improvements in gunnery and propellant, canister was even more lethal on close packed infantry formations - more akin to the effects of a fragmentation grenade



Although dubbed a rehash of a Napoleonic fight, artillery tactics in the ACW would actually have been markedly different from those used during the early 1800s. Increased range effectiveness and lethality served to change the battlefield role. In the Sikh Wars, a perceived inferiority in artillery by the EIC led them to adopted counterbattery fire to neutralise the strongest threat to EIC infantry... Sikh guns entrenched in battery. Otherwise they would have simply concentrated on the infantry formations as normal. With nastier ammo available, by the 1850's it became an increasingly important function of artillery to neutralise the enemy guns, but only if they were in a position to do so.
The operation of artillery was limited far less by munitions and far more by smoke obscuration of the target. Before 'smokeless' powder, the 'fog of war' would have had far more impact on gunnery than most people realise. Even so called smokeless powder creates a large pall of smoke. Anyone who has seen King's Troop RHA gun salutes can certainly attest to that. This is the effect on a relatively still day after only 3 out of 6 of the battery have fired a single round each...

Holding fire till closer range increased effectiveness. Once a gun fired, its position was betrayed and it was fair game for retaliation.
If there were gaming mechanisms for wind direction, and exploiting gaps in the smoke, that would add a far greater degree of realism to black powder games that any logistics regarding ammo supply.
  

[rebelyell2006]

By the Civil War, batteries will have enough ammunition to not worry about running out no matter the game level, as small-level games will not involve too much artillery action, and large-level games will have assumed resupply movement.  By the mid-point of the war, the artillery is also deliberately aiming their shots for maximum effect, since the rifles have accuracy and fuses sufficient to hit distant targets.  A well-trained battery will not waste their ammunition in the first hour of fighting, and will attempt one shot every three minutes from what I have heard.

Of course, if there are no division or corps supply assets, ammunition could be limited as the limber chests only contained so many common shell, so many shrapnel shell, so many solid shot, and so many canister shot...

[zippyfusenet]

reb, at the battle of Gettysburg, prior to Pickett's Charge, the massed artillery of the Army of Northern Virginia tried to soften up the Federal line, especially to silence the opposing Federal artillery. The Confederate attack went in, even though there was grave doubt whether the bombardment had succeeded, when Longstreet's artillery chief, Col. E P Alexander, reported to him that Confederate artillery ammunition was nearly exhausted, and that it would take an hour to replenish the batteries from the ammunition train.

[rebelyell2006]

If they are rapidly firing into a densely-packed target area, I can see that happening, especially if their limber chests contain canister along with shot and shell; canister would be useless for a preliminary bombardment.

[Emir of Askaristan]

I think the clue there is "massed". If all the Artillery assets of an army are firing then they'll all run out at the same time, and so will take longer to replenish - divided up into smaller batteries there will always be guns firing.

According to napolun.com a French Artillery caisson carried upwards of around 50 balls plus canister and there were two for each gun, so over a hundred shots. Of course the question is how close is this caisson to the gun. So whilst adding an reload factor to Artillery is good fun, it's probably not accurate. Don't let that stop you though!!!

[sukhe_bator]

The standard limber held up to 30 rounds for immediate use by each gun. Each battery had caissons/artillery supply wagons a safe distance behind with a larger supply which could be accessed by runners.
It is also worth bearing in mind that in hot conditions/climates after prolonged firing bronze guns could begin to soften and had to be doused with water to prevent them bursting or setting off charges prematurely whilst loading.
Again it was target selection and line of sight that dictated rate of fire, not the ammo supply.
Once a mass of infantry was targeted artillery could guesstimate and continue to fire through their own and everyone else's smoke, but with ammunition like case, canister and shrapnel judging distance to target was important for efficacy. This dictated that the gunner could actually see the target to aim and trim fuses correctly...

[rebelyell2006]

The standard limber held up to 30 rounds for immediate use by each gun. Each battery had caissons/artillery supply wagons a safe distance behind with a larger supply which could be accessed by runners.
It is also worth bearing in mind that in hot conditions/climates after prolonged firing bronze guns could begin to soften and had to be doused with water to prevent them bursting or setting off charges prematurely whilst loading.
Again it was target selection and line of sight that dictated rate of fire, not the ammo supply.
Once a mass of infantry was targeted artillery could guesstimate and continue to fire through their own and everyone else's smoke, but with ammunition like case, canister and shrapnel judging distance to target was important for efficacy. This dictated that the gunner could actually see the target to aim and trim fuses correctly...

I've read that the 3-inch rifle and the 10-pound Parrott had 50-round limber chests, one on the limber and two on the caisson; I do not know how those 50 rounds break down.  I'd hate to try to be a runner for limber chests, as those things are heavy and require at least two people to stagger around while carrying them; a 10-pound shell with a 1-pound powder charge would not be pleasant if there were 50 in the box, which itself is heavy.