Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Wider Wargaming => Genre/Period Discussion => Firelocks to Maxims (1680 - 1900) => Topic started by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 06:59:23 AM

Title: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 06:59:23 AM
Good morning chaps!

I'm choosing stuff for my next order, and was wondering about getting limbers for my ACW armies. While counting the guns, i realized that i would need 10 limbers, and that was before i added more  artillery to my order.

Now seeing the pendraken limber (the new one), looks pretty big, and each gun is on a single 40x20 base, the thought hit me that i could use a single based limber  to represent every limber of the battery. (in severed union, batteries are two gun bases maximum)

How did you represent limbers in your armies? One for each gun? Ratio of 2 to 1, 4 to 1...... etc.  All ideas welcome!


Actually my rulebook came with 'limbered' counters to represent them, but i don't think that will look as good  ???
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: fsn on 06 April 2015, 07:08:50 AM
Ooooh! I'm a limbers fan. One per gun.

I use the limber on its own to show the gun limbered and only place the gun when it's ready for action.

This came about because I hated the look of a limber going full tilt with gunners apparently running backwards. 
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 07:11:47 AM
Quote from: fsn on 06 April 2015, 07:08:50 AM
Ooooh! I'm a limbers fan. One per gun.

I use the limber on its own to show the gun limbered and only place the gun when it's ready for action.

This came about because I hated the look of a limber going full tilt with gunners apparently running backwards. 

That would kill my budget  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 07:18:58 AM
I only have limbers in table on horse artillery batteries in 1870.
Since horse artillery wasn't really a great feature of the ACW, I would have a couple on separate bases, to use as markers for limbered and moving artillery.
Or just use the time honoured 'turn the guns backward' to show they are limbered.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 07:34:35 AM
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 April 2015, 07:18:58 AM
I only have limbers in table on horse artillery batteries in 1870.
Since horse artillery wasn't really a great feature of the ACW, I would have a couple on separate bases, to use as markers for limbered and moving artillery.
Or just use the time honoured 'turn the guns backward' to show they are limbered.


Sounds good. I wanted to avoid the gun backwards, as one of our gaming group really has bad eyes (and i mean really bad) and the big limber next to it would be a great visual aid. The joy of providing both armies, makes this a costly bussiness  ;D ;D

I just can't decide if i should order more artillery though, I have 6 guns (So 3 batteries in the rules) for the union, and 4 for the confederates,but don't know if this will be enough  :-\
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Leman on 06 April 2015, 07:38:09 AM
Limbers make good markers, but never had one per gun as guns are mostly deployed. Warbases also produce a penny sized MDF counter featuring a horse's head and the word limbered for those who don't want to spend time painting limbers.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: fsn on 06 April 2015, 07:39:47 AM
How about using the field forge (ACW64, £2.70 for 2) as an indicator? 
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Fenton on 06 April 2015, 07:42:51 AM
I often think artillery takes up too little space on the table compared to what accompanied each battery on a real battlefield
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 07:49:53 AM
Quote from: Leman on 06 April 2015, 07:38:09 AM
Limbers make good markers, but never had one per gun as guns are mostly deployed. Warbases also produce a penny sized MDF counter featuring a horse's head and the word limbered for those who don't want to spend time painting limbers.

They look nice, but i'd use the games counters if i would use any to mark limbered guns, that way they all fit togheter. Mine feature a limber.

Quote from: fsn on 06 April 2015, 07:39:47 AM
How about using the field forge (ACW64, £2.70 for 2) as an indicator? 

In my mind i would never be able to shake the thought of the guns hauling dozens of field forges about  ;D

Quote from: Fenton on 06 April 2015, 07:42:51 AM
I often think artillery takes up too little space on the table compared to what accompanied each battery on a real battlefield

Didn't they keep most stuff a good deal backwards when in battle?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 08:47:06 AM
French Guard artillery deployed at Chalons in 1857...
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/7075/gardeart19.jpg

We tend to deploy one gun and say it's a battery, but look at the width and depth here.
You have to count in six guns, each of which needs space, especially when they fire, and room for crew.
Then behind would be limbers with at least four horses, and then ammunition caissons with usually 6 horses, HQ, ambulances and forges. An artillery battery would take up a huge amount of space!

Where were we...
Oh yeah.
Detachable limbers, and a club agreement.
I know people hate them, but my FPW artillery is labelled on its rear edge to show which way it goes! Especially as I have limbers based  on horse artillery batteries, which can confuse people! ;)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: fsn on 06 April 2015, 08:47:41 AM
To be fair, they don't look like forges to me.

(http://www.pendraken.co.uk/ProductImages/ACW64.JPG)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Fenton on 06 April 2015, 08:55:53 AM
Quote from: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 07:49:53 AM
They look nice, but i'd use the games counters if i would use any to mark limbered guns, that way they all fit togheter. Mine feature a limber.

In my mind i would never be able to shake the thought of the guns hauling dozens of field forges about  ;D


Didn't they keep most stuff a good deal backwards when in battle?

From memory all the limbers,horses and all the rest of the stuff usually stretched for about 200 yards directly behind the battery
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: getagrip on 06 April 2015, 08:57:14 AM
I ordered one pack of limbers,  I'm with Will on this one,  I'm going to use them to represent moving artillery.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 09:04:46 AM
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 April 2015, 08:47:06 AM

Detachable limbers, and a club agreement.
I know people hate them, but my FPW artillery is labelled on its rear edge to show which way it goes! Especially as I have limbers based  on horse artillery batteries, which can confuse people! ;)

That's the fun about providing both sides, the club agreement is entirely up to yourself  :-\

Quote from: getagrip on 06 April 2015, 08:57:14 AM
I ordered one pack of limbers,  I'm with Will on this one,  I'm going to use them to represent moving artillery.

I think i'll get 3 limbers for each side, they look fun and nice to paint, and i don't think i'll ever have more than 6 moving about at the same time anyway.

Quote from: fsn on 06 April 2015, 08:47:41 AM
To be fair, they don't look like forges to me.


They look nice, but so small with only 2 horses, i'm a bit worried they get a little 'lost' on the field between all the infantry!

Quote from: Fenton on 06 April 2015, 08:55:53 AM
From memory all the limbers,horses and all the rest of the stuff usually stretched for about 200 yards directly behind the battery

That would be bloody hard to represent on a table  :-\
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 09:08:17 AM
200yrds on table really is not far! Just depends on your ground scale!
I have my FPW infantry on 3" squares and artillery on 1 1/2" wide by 3" deep blocks, it allows mini diorama building! ;)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Fenton on 06 April 2015, 09:11:56 AM
What I was getting at is that even at 3 inches long they are harder to maneuver etc, used to get sick of some players putting their cannons in almost a square formation as the rules didnt take into account all the rest of the artillery train
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 09:19:08 AM
Good plan! :)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 09:33:02 AM
Quote from: Fenton on 06 April 2015, 09:11:56 AM
What I was getting at is that even at 3 inches long they are harder to maneuver etc, used to get sick of some players putting their cannons in almost a square formation as the rules didnt take into account all the rest of the artillery train

In my rules 2 guns are grouped togheter as a battery, MUST shoot at the same target, so putting them in different directions is a bit daft.
Buti wouldn't want to play against artillery in 'square' myself either so would not do that anyway!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Hertsblue on 06 April 2015, 09:37:19 AM
I've always used limbers on all my horse and musket forces. My batteries are all single guns, with the gun being loose so that it can be removed from the battery base and "limbered up" behind the team (on the same base) or even abandoned.

(http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd448/Hertsblue/San%20Giorgio/009.jpg)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 09:39:16 AM
Now why didn't i think of that earlier :'(

Lovely picture by the way!!!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Hertsblue on 06 April 2015, 09:42:01 AM
Thank you. You need to be slightly careful when transporting the army, however. Otherwise all your guns wind up in a heap at the bottom of the case!  :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 09:46:20 AM
Quote from: Hertsblue on 06 April 2015, 09:42:01 AM
Thank you. You need to be slightly careful when transporting the army, however. Otherwise all your guns wind up in a heap at the bottom of the case!  :'( :'( :'(

I have some pluck foam trays so that would work. I only glued 4 guns to their bases so not that bad actually, can still change them.

As a thought, would you guys find it 'wrong' to have for example, one battery accompanied by a limber, one by a covered wagon, one by a foield forge and so on? gives me some more variation, and allows me to use some of the stuff occasionly to represent supply trains and such  :-\
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Westmarcher on 06 April 2015, 09:53:12 AM
I've sometimes wondered if we should approach artillery batteries the same way we approach ACW cavalry units. Most of us have mounted and dismounted cavalry units with either a separate horse holder marker or tethered horses integrated on a command base (or similar). So why not have two artillery units, limbered and unlimbered? Mad in 28mm of course but surely do-able in 10mm or smaller? Horse artillery could also be signified by including a separate mounted gunner on the limbered base and dismounted gunner on with horse on the unlimbered base (using cavalry figures).

As for battery limbers, supply wagons, etc., stretching out behind the guns, some will know that this is a feature of the Republic to Empire rules (see link with image of a battery so deployed).

http://www.leagueofaugsburg.com/gallery/gallery-339-359.html# (http://www.leagueofaugsburg.com/gallery/gallery-339-359.html#)

[Image 8 in the Borodino 1812 re-fight game photo gallery)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 09:54:01 AM
Not at all
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: petercooman on 06 April 2015, 09:57:01 AM
Good idea Westmarcher, but using my 40x 30 bases, i barely have room for the gun and crew so much more is undo-able:

(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff441/petercooman123/DSC03349_zps24be0hx0.jpg) (http://s1236.photobucket.com/user/petercooman123/media/DSC03349_zps24be0hx0.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Hertsblue on 06 April 2015, 09:59:51 AM
Quote from: Westmarcher on 06 April 2015, 09:53:12 AM
Horse artillery could also be signified by including a separate mounted gunner on the limbered base and dismounted gunner on with horse on the unlimbered base (using cavalry figures).


My horse artillery teams have 6 horses, foot artillery have 4 horses.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: getagrip on 06 April 2015, 10:14:43 AM
Quote from: Hertsblue on 06 April 2015, 09:59:51 AM
My horse artillery teams have 6 horses, foot artillery have 4 horses.

Could you explain the difference between the two please,  new to this so that looks like an oxymoron.  :-\
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Hertsblue on 06 April 2015, 10:20:52 AM
Horse artillery had all their personnel mounted in order that the guns could be extremely mobile. The standard foot batteries made the gunners march on foot, slowing them down appreciably.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: getagrip on 06 April 2015, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: Hertsblue on 06 April 2015, 10:20:52 AM
Horse artillery had all their personnel mounted in order that the guns could be extremely mobile. The standard foot batteries made the gunners march on foot, slowing them down appreciably.

Thanks. :)

Does BP make that distinction?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 10:22:46 AM
You're not wrong!
Horse artillery was supposed to be more mobile and supported the cavalry, often moving quickly to where guns were needed.
Foot artillery less so, but supported the infantry.

By the FPW, it just meant different uniforms!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 10:23:14 AM
Quote from: getagrip on 06 April 2015, 10:21:56 AM
Thanks. :)

Does BP make that distinction?
Not really! ;)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: getagrip on 06 April 2015, 10:24:11 AM
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 April 2015, 10:23:14 AM
Not really! ;)

Okay.  Cheers Will. :)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 10:26:08 AM
The main distinction is light, heavy or howitzers.
It's really an excuse for an artillery unit with different uniform or slightly higher morale!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 06 April 2015, 10:35:20 AM
Basically they are usually light artillery attached to cavalry.
Beardy bit:
1870:
French had foot, which could be heavy or light, horse and guards artillery (the latter being veteran crewed horse artillery in posher uniforms).
Prussians had light and heavy artillery, then light horse. All in same uniform.
As did the Saxons.
Bavaria had artillery and horse artillery in different uniforms.
Wurttenbergers, just to annoy EVERYONE, had half-horse heavy batteries (basically heavy horse artillery).

In the ACW, pick a formation, their orbat will be available, it will tell you what sort of guns were used and whether the battery was artillery or horse artillery (again, mostly with the cavalry).
That's half the fun, the research!
And Mollinary and Cameronian will no doubt be along soon to correct my errors!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on including artillery limbers in an army (acw)
Post by: Westmarcher on 06 April 2015, 12:22:18 PM
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 April 2015, 10:23:14 AM
Not really! ;)
Although limbered horse artillery does move faster than foot under BP rules. Horse artillery can also limber or unlimber at the beginning or end of a move without penalty and can limber at the start and unlimber at the end of a move. Foot artillery take one whole move to limber up or deploy for firing.

BP does stipulate that if artillery pieces are to move other than manhandling, they must be provided with separate horse drawn limbers. I don't have limbers for my 15mm ACW collection (I painted one for each side - that was enough for me - they now draw caissons and just sit on the table as ornaments - except if I need a supply train for a scenario .... anyhoo ....) but as I have usually have 2 pieces per battery, I'm happy to denote 'limbered' status by placing the two bases one behind the other as per the following photo from Brent Oman's (Field of Battle) Wargames and Stuff blog.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Qk7z4idbM8o/TSoUeIY4x9I/AAAAAAAAAgY/8pj0pcyFpCY/s1600/DSCN2361.JPG (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Qk7z4idbM8o/TSoUeIY4x9I/AAAAAAAAAgY/8pj0pcyFpCY/s1600/DSCN2361.JPG)

(Not the best example as both guns should be pointing the same way when limbered - however because there is a 'firepower' label on the back of one of the bases,  and the player wants to hide this from his opponent, he has ignored the rules and placed them back to back).

With my 10mm minis, I replace one of the guns with a limber.