Should firing in WSS be restricted to straight ahead only, ie, the target must be within flank lines?
Maurice does this.
Honestly I can go either way with this. From a historical standpoint there probably shouldn't be angled fire, or if it is allowed then at reduced effectiveness as not all platoons could bear on the target. But for gaming purposes it prevents the "gamey"-ness of contorted maneuvers to align units in such a way as to prevent the enemy from returning fire.
Quote from: fred. on 02 November 2015, 10:16:31 PM
Maurice does this.
Is there an advanced rule in Maurice that limits fire to straight ahead? Normal Maurice firing rules allow for any stand to angle their fire 45 degrees.
Cheers,
Aksu
I might be mis-remembering, it's years since I've played Maurice. Is it that you must fire straight ahead as the first option?
It's closest frontal, then you can "wiggle out" as it were. Works well to prevent the "gaminess" described and to restrict a bit the unrealistic "my line is actual hundreds of feet long but somehow the chaps half a mile down the end can have a pop..." as well!
What I was thinking was as a period rule for Black Powder. I thought I had put it in, but querying arc of fire on Saturday - because we did do some fighting*, rather than just eat, I found I hadn't.
What I am thinking is as long as part of the enemy is within the 'flank lines' (ie imaginary lines extended forward from the edges of the line) they are a valid target. BUT if a line directly forward from the centre does not cross then it is -1 for an obscured target.
At the moment in BP arc of fire is 45', and it is -1 if half the target lays outside that. Fine for ACW, but I think the more ritualistic and slower WSS drill needs restrictions (though I realise after a couple of shots it all broke down anyway!)
*Although at the end of the game over half of Sunjester's units still had their "first fire" marker.
Sounds like that's what I'd call a real WSS game; plenty of elegant manouvre and time for port and cheese!
*ahem
Anyway, yes - that sounds good to me!
From Brent Nosworthy's "The Anatomy of Victory, Battle Tactics 1689-1763" : "Unlike firing by ranks, platoon fire allowed the fire to be directed obliquely to the left or to the right, and not just perpendicular to the front of the battalion." So anybody using "fire by rank" (French) can only fire straight ahead, while anybody firing by platoon (British) can fire obliquely as well.
And as that was your first post, Coppelius.....A very warm welcome to the forum. :-h
Cheers - Phil
And a warm welcome from me too, Coppelius.
I do like a bit of Nosworthy.
I keep it in a tupperware box in the fridge - FSN
But since firing was delivered at relatively close range, the question is whether firing was ever carried out from an oblique position rather than whether or not they could. I would suggest that the instruction load, present, fire at a mass formation to your front obviates the need for any significant oblique firing.
Chad
Because my proposal allows firing where there is only a small amount of overlap, the guys along the other end of the line must be firing obliquely, just not as angled as in our ACW games.
Quote from: Coppelius on 04 November 2015, 08:24:37 PM
From Brent Nosworthy's "The Anatomy of Victory, Battle Tactics 1689-1763" : "Unlike firing by ranks, platoon fire allowed the fire to be directed obliquely to the left or to the right, and not just perpendicular to the front of the battalion." So anybody using "fire by rank" (French) can only fire straight ahead, while anybody firing by platoon (British) can fire obliquely as well.
Good to know and welcome from me, too, Coppelius. I'm thinking, however, that the angle of oblique fire will be limited, depending on file spacing and number of ranks. In the later SYW era, I vaguely recall that ranks positioned behind the first standing rank took one half(?) step to one side (right?) to allow their muskets to poke through the gaps between the files in the first rank. In practical terms, this means that the ability of those in the second & third ranks to swivel their guns to left or right will be limited by the distance between the heads of the guys in the first standing rank. There was a big debate (probably more than one over the years) on TMP about a year back on this very subject.
Hullo,
The way the rules calculate firepower will also influence this discussion. In Maurice for example a firing unit is made up of four bases. In these "sub-unit" systems each base can be forced to shoot directly ahead, or allowed to angle fire, and the firepower calculated accordingly. For example, your firepower of four dice might shrink to two dice if only two bases can bring fire to bear.
It all depends on how complex the rules are, and how complicated you want it to be, I suppose.
Cheers,
Aksu
Quote from: Westmarcher on 05 November 2015, 10:21:28 AM
Good to know and welcome from me, too, Coppelius. I'm thinking, however, that the angle of oblique fire will be limited, depending on file spacing and number of ranks. In the later SYW era, I vaguely recall that ranks positioned behind the first standing rank took one half(?) step to one side (right?) to allow their muskets to poke through the gaps between the files in the first rank. In practical terms, this means that the ability of those in the second & third ranks to swivel their guns to left or right will be limited by the distance between the heads of the guys in the first standing rank. There was a big debate (probably more than one over the years) on TMP about a year back on this very subject.
Not to be a bore with this Nosworthy thing (you should see people flee from me at parties!), but here's another quote: "Unlike the French, who were deployed in four or five ranks, the British were deployed in three ranks which were brought closely together. The fewer number of ranks and the fact that the men were not directly behind one another, but "interlocked" meant that the soldiers were more readily able to swing their weapons a little to the right or the left to achieve oblique fire. This was impossible for the French infantry, given the number of ranks and the distance between each."
In my games, I prefer to highlight national differences where I can find them, and to err on the side of exaggeration over non-inclusion. But that's just a personal preference. A lot depends on the ruleset, of course, (and, as Aksu says, the level of complexity you're comfortable with) but if you have a situation where a French battalion can only fire at half-strength (due to some obliqueness between it and its target), a Brit could fire at full. Where the French could not fire at all, a Brit could fire at half, etc.
Thanks for the welcome, everybody! This looks like a cool site!
I think that to a large extent this is a wargaming problem and not a real life problem. As Chad mentions real ranges were so short and unit frontages long. Add in the long continuous lines of the period, units facing up to each other, etc, then I think that this was not a real problem.
On the ability of platoon fire/rank firing to fire obliquely. Westmarcher (and presumably the TMPer) is right that there would be a very limited ability to 'swivel' because of the presence of other members of the unit. This 'swivel' distance would not differ much (or at all) between different fire system, but it would be greater in the WSS era as file spacings were bigger. Even so we are not talking a very great angle of fire.
To fire obliquely at any kind of real angle what they did was take a section of the line and move forward out of the line, turn to face the target, fire and then go back into line - understandably this would greatly reduce the rate of fire. LeBlond/Nosworthy are right that you can't do this with rank firing but this misses the point, you did it by firing by file or firing by division if you normally fired by rank. These types of firing effectively moved part of the line out to fire and platoon firing units could use them as well. In addition platoon firing units could move the platoon out instead - there was little practical difference between these.
You could just reduce the fire arc from 45 degrees to 22.5 degrees (just another fold of a sheet of paper)
cheers
Ian
Quote from: Sandinista on 05 November 2015, 11:48:15 PM
You could just reduce the fire arc from 45 degrees to 22.5 degrees (just another fold of a sheet of paper)
cheers
Ian
Beautifully put; I challenge anyone to forget that way of working it out. :)