House Rule - OIbusiers and Howitzers

I've been thinking on how to handle these indirect-fire weapons... David, other experts, I'd appreciate your feedback (esp. since I borrowed from DM's Carronades HR).

Shooting at LONG range = draw "B" damage chits equal to 1/4 gunnery rounded up in addition to normal damage; this added damage only applies to masts/sails/rigging and crew.
Shooting at MEDIUM range = draw "A" damage chits equal to 1/4 gunnery rounded up in addition to normal damage; this added damage only applies to masts/sails/rigging and crew.
Shooting at SHORT range = no effect.

Any thoughts? Refinement ideas in particular appreciated...

Sounds OK in principle; The scale to which howitzers were carried was rather lower than carronades and Obusiers were pretty ineffective weapons at the best of times and they were low velocity weapons so I would probably think more on whether they should have any benefit at long range. I'm thinking probably not.

EDIT - Another thought - the rule reflects their designed use firing explosive shells. What happened in practice though was the shells proved to be extremely dangerous to handle (maybe add a rule causing own crew damage in some circumstances?) and as a result many captains chose not to use shells but to fire round shot instead. Also should note that obusiers were fired on a low trajectory rather than a high, as true howitzers are

Final edit - obusiers phased out from 1803 and replaced with a copy of the carronade. Usual French outfit for obusiers was four weapons, two on the focsle, two on the quarterdeck, although there was obviously some variation. Carronade outfit for french ships probably similar, but may have been more. British and American carronades typically numbered 8-12, but could be as high as 20 above the standard armament

So maybe drop the Long draw, and when firing explosives draw one or two chits for the risk of premature-detonation damage?

More like...
Shooting at LONG range = no effect.
Shooting at MEDIUM range = draw "A" damage chits equal to 1/4 gunnery rounded up in addition to normal damage; this added damage only applies to masts/sails/rigging and crew. If using explosive shells, draw one additional chit and apply results to your own ship.
Shooting at SHORT range = no effect.

I thought the problem with IF was its inaccuracy, not its damage potential. (It's a bit outside SoG's normal period, but I'm reminded of Farragut's demonstration to Porter at Ft.s St. Philip and Jackson of the ineffectiveness of mortars -- Farragut sent a signalman into the rigging with a red flag to be waved when hits were scored, and a white flag for misses; the white flag received a workout, while the red was only briefly used.)

To that end, a "scatter" rule would be more useful than anything else: Draw a number of counters equal to gunnery, and toss them onto the playing surface; the number on the counter shows how many counts on the ruler it moves, and the top of the number shows the direction it moves. Wherever the target point ends up, apply damage there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

I thought the problem with IF was its inaccuracy, not its damage potential. (It's a bit outside SoG's normal period, but I'm reminded of Farragut's demonstration to Porter at Ft.s St. Philip and Jackson of the ineffectiveness of mortars -- Farragut sent a signalman into the rigging with a red flag to be waved when hits were scored, and a white flag for misses; the white flag received a workout, while the red was only briefly used.)

To that end, a "scatter" rule would be more useful than anything else: Draw a number of counters equal to gunnery, and toss them onto the playing surface; the number on the counter shows how many counts on the ruler it moves, and the top of the number shows the direction it moves. Wherever the target point ends up, apply damage there.

---

See my mortar and bomb vessel house rules for an Ares style approach to this

Then maybe we could just adjust those with reduced range and damage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

See my mortar and bomb vessel house rules for an Ares style approach to this

---

I did (before the files section got trashed). Mine's simpler, and illustrates why the only well-known reference to mortar and/or bomb vessels in history is in the US national anthem.

There were several bomb vessels and mortars at Copenhagen 1801 if I recall, I think the Danes had numerous set up on rafts and the British fleet had them behind the battle line (on the right in the sketch below)
http://www.historyofwar.org/Maps/copenhagendetail.gif

Oh they were also used on several attacks on Napoleon's invasion fleet off Boulogne 1804-5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

I did (before the files section got trashed). Mine's simpler, and illustrates why the only well-known reference to mortar and/or bomb vessels in history is in the US national anthem.

---

...and Copenhagen, and Basque Roads, Le Havre, Granville, Dieppe and other French channel ports, Cadiz, Algiers, Walcheren and the Scheldt ....... :happy:

Of course the issue with bomb vessels and their (lack of) notoriety is that their operations were generally not regarded as what today's observers would call "sexy". But, whilst they were never numerous (the number of bomb vessels in the RN i don't think ever exceeded 20) they were extremely useful - and effective - when called upon to fulfil their niche roles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

Mine's simpler

---

It is, and for something like a demo or parti game at a show, or for a "fun" game it has a lot of merit. I've seen similar systems used for indirect fire in similar types of land wargames at shows. But it doesn't take into account the actual manner in which the weapons were used and corrected, which is what was trying to convey in my system. Its easier and simpler to reflect that with a dice based approach but i went with something card based to maintain that Ares "no dice shall besmirch the table" approach :happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

Farragut sent a signalman into the rigging with a red flag to be waved when hits were scored, and a white flag for misses; the white flag received a workout, while the red was only briefly used.)

---

IIRC the USN actually did rather better than that. The number of rounds fired at Fort Jackson was in the region of 8000, of which about 5000 were hits. The problem was more in fusing about a thousand detonated in the air over the fort, useful against personnel and light structures but not against the hardened areas of the fort) and others failed to detonate when their fuses were cut too long, the round impacted the ground and the fuse was "plugged". This was actually a phenomenon that was apparent in the use of explosive shells against wooden ships; there was a tendency for the fuses to "plug" here as well, leading to a very high dud rate. Porter was obviously rather over optimistic in his belief in the ability of his mortars to silence the forts (he claimed it could be done in 48 hours, which of course didn't happen), but they did cause extensive damage to the "softer" areas of the forts and their surroundings - which is entirely consistent with what they were actually designed to do.

Chaps, I consulted with my good friend Mark Campbell, author of the "Close Action" age of sal naval wargame rules. Mark has forgotten more than the vast majority of AoS wargamers have ever known, and is well regarded as a "bit of a boffin" in this field. This is his take on Obusiers:

Quote:

---

The Obusiers that the French used from ~1790 through ~1805 were indeed VERY poor substitutes for real carronades. They were so short that their accuracy was hideously bad. In addition, their range was only half the effective range of a carronade of similar caliber, or perhaps even less. The fact that they were so short meant that they also had a bad habit of blowing back some of the blast at the firing crew, because the muzzles were too short to project beyond the ship's side. In short, the obusiers were not very effective weapons at all. The only advantage they had was that they were better than nothing, and yes, they *were* more effective than the 6- or 8-pounders that might have been mounted in the same space.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

Porter was obviously rather over optimistic in his belief in the ability of his mortars to silence the forts (he claimed it could be done in 48 hours, which of course didn't happen), but they did cause extensive damage to the "softer" areas of the forts and their surroundings - which is entirely consistent with what they were actually designed to do.

---

Which was my point: Mortars and bombs weren't effective, due to the myriad problems in getting them to detonate where *and when* they were supposed to. All those battles cited where they appeared -- what did they actually accomplish? Copenhagen -- the bomb vessels took no part. Basque Roads -- nothing accomplished. Cadiz -- multiple instances of nothing accomplished (there's maybe ten different battles associated with Cadiz, none of which prominently mention mortar or bomb ships). Walcheren -- no ships present, much less mortar or bomb ships. (Granville -- the only account I can find doesn't even involve ships, much less mortar or bomb ships; the only Dieppe or Scheldt references I can find are from WW2; the only references to a "battle of Algiers" refer to the French getting kicked out in the 1950s). Le Havre is the only reference I can find to a successful operation featuring mortar or bomb vessels -- and that only because they had *an entire city* to target

As to Porter's fiasco in the ACW: Yeah, they chewed up a lot of ground -- they utterly failed to so much as silence a gun, and the casualty rates were infinitesimal; hence Farragut's decision to run the gauntlet -- he knew there was zero chance of defeating the forts through gunfire, and the Rebels had demonstrated a noted inability to hit moving ships. In practice, the worst damage of the fight was inflicted by CSS _Governor Moore_, which managed to sink USS _Varuna_ via direct-fire (in some artistic depictions, _Moore_'s gunners fired through the ship's own bow structure to hit _Varuna_). The forts' best work (so to speak) involved chewing up USS _Richmond_; they failed to sink it, tho'. Meanwhile, elsewhere, a fellow named Quincy Adams Gillmore was doing this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ortPulaski.jpg

with direct-fire rifled cannon.

Being able to adjust fire is a nice idea -- but as demonstrated, there's so many other factors involved (screwed-up fuses, etc.), even if they are scoring hits, the damage inflicted is marginal at best. Thus, the only real use for mortar or bomb vessels in the game is as "escorted" units to be gotten to a given point in a given time, much like bombers in _WoG_.

(Oh, and one final point: I use the same system with dice -- if the die uses numbers, it's that much easier to use the system; dice with dots have to be marked somehow. The principle remains the same: Number shows distance; top of number shows direction. If one wished to illustrate "adjusting fire", one can allow the ship to disregard some number of results for each turn of fire -- 1 for inexperienced or normal crew, 2 for the experienced. Most games I've used this with have some sort of "gunnery skill" system, so that can be used to adjust fire over time.)

Bombs did nothing to Copenhagen in 1801 as the Danes surrendered before they were needed. In 1807 they fired several thousand rounds and were highly effective. Yes, there, Dieppe, Le Havre and the channel ports they were shooting at "an entire city" and/or (in the case of the ports) at massed invasion barges ** - because thats what they were designed to do. Shoot at area targets. And the fact that they were not particularly effective against hardened targets was known and accepted - criticising them for not being effective is like criticizing a rifle because it doesn't kill tanks. Not designed to, never would. as far as the other actions mentioned are concerned I agree its hard to find details in "popluar" histories since as I recall saying earlier shore bombardment was not a high profile activity and hence didn't and doesn't attract the same glamour as a spirited frigate action or a fleet engagement. One has to go a bit deeper, or head for primary sources.

re the ACW forts - you probably want to read up on the thoughts of the defenders of Forts St Philip and jackson; their views on the effects, in particular the morale effects, are quite interesting. You'lll also find that the number of guns knocked out was rather more than zero :)

On adjusting fire - again, read some accounts by people who actually used them rather than some popular histories. It wasn't for nothing that the use of bomb vessels in the RN and others (the USN for example, which used them in North Africa) was regarded as the most scientific arm of the gunnery branch

Quote:

---

Thus, the only real use for mortar or bomb vessels in the game is as "escorted" units

---

In a pick-up game thats EXACTLY what they are useful for. You didn't think anyone was suggesting otherwise?

But in campaign games they are also extremely handy, again in just the same way that WGF/S aircraft other than fighters are.

. ** similar situations existed in WW2 and similarly make interesting coastal scenarios, with monitors and other craft bombarding French ports containing German invasion barges in the autumn of 1940. ran something like this with MTBs, S Boats and an Erebus class monitor - looked great, quite different from a normal CF game!

Quote:

---

(Oh, and one final point: I use the same system with dice -- if the die uses numbers, it's that much easier to use the system; dice with dots have to be marked somehow. The principle remains the same: Number shows distance; top of number shows direction. If one wished to illustrate "adjusting fire", one can allow the ship to disregard some number of results for each turn of fire -- 1 for inexperienced or normal crew, 2 for the experienced. Most games I've used this with have some sort of "gunnery skill" system, so that can be used to adjust fire over time.)

---

Yup, I do the same thing. I have a number of deviation dice with arrows marked on them as well as numbers for just this sort of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

Bombs did nothing to Copenhagen in 1801 as the Danes surrendered before they were needed. In 1807 they fired several thousand rounds and were highly effective. Yes, there, Dieppe, Le Havre and the channel ports they were shooting at "an entire city" and/or (in the case of the ports) at massed invasion barges ** - because thats what they were designed to do. Shoot at area targets. And the fact that they were not particularly effective against hardened targets was known and accepted - criticising them for not being effective is like criticizing a rifle because it doesn't kill tanks. Not designed to, never would. as far as the other actions mentioned are concerned I agree its hard to find details in "popluar" histories since as I recall saying earlier shore bombardment was not a high profile activity and hence didn't and doesn't attract the same glamour as a spirited frigate action or a fleet engagement. One has to go a bit deeper, or head for primary sources.

---

I once ran a Copenhagen 1801 scenario using "Fire as She Bears" rules in 1/2400 scale. I was just reading (just Wiki mind you) about the 1807 battle, or rather bombardment, since that's what caused the Danes to capitulate. Certainly looks like the bomb vessels were very effective in their intended role in that battle. Seems that, as you noted, it was more of a morale effect than actual destruction of hard targets.

I can certainly see bomb vessels use in campaigns or even in a scenario, ie; your objective is to get the bomb vessel in range of the target, etc.

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

Bombs did nothing to Copenhagen in 1801 as the Danes surrendered before they were needed. In 1807 they fired several thousand rounds and were highly effective.

---

Copenhagen 1807 wasn't a battle -- the Danes barely resisted at all. (Then there's this: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/copenhagen ....)

Moreover: They were plastering non-military targets -- homes, businesses, and the like; the forts, as best I can find, were only minimally damaged. Not a ringing endorsement of their military value, save perhaps as "terror weapons".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

re the ACW forts - you probably want to read up on the thoughts of the defenders of Forts St Philip and jackson; their views on the effects, in particular the morale effects, are quite interesting. You'lll also find that the number of guns knocked out was rather more than zero :)

---

I did -- all the effects were the result of either direct-fire from the ships during the run past the forts, or the aftermath of the US Navy being between the forts and the cities upriver. (That most of the troops were "poor white" Irish and Germans who the Southern "aristos" looked down their noses upon didn't help matters.)

"In all, 8,100 shells were fired at the Forts, especially Fort Jackson, and yet they did not fall or surrender. Fort Jackson, after a tremendous fight, was still defensible." [ http://www.civilwaralbum.com/louisia...son_battle.htm ]

(Could have been worse, I suppose -- two words: "Battery Wagner"....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

On adjusting fire - again, read some accounts by people who actually used them rather than some popular histories. It wasn't for nothing that the use of bomb vessels in the RN and others (the USN for example, which used them in North Africa) was regarded as the most scientific arm of the gunnery branch

---

I did -- given what folks of the period thought of "science" and "theory", I doubt anyone outside the organization used those terms in any form other than Sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

In a pick-up game thats EXACTLY what they are useful for. You didn't think anyone was suggesting otherwise?

But in campaign games they are also extremely handy, again in just the same way that WGF/S aircraft other than fighters are.

---

Perhaps -- in the end, I suspect if Ares does make them, they will sell about as well as bombers do in _WoG_.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

(Oh, and one final point: I use the same system with dice -- if the die uses numbers, it's that much easier to use the system; dice with dots have to be marked somehow. The principle remains the same: Number shows distance; top of number shows direction. If one wished to illustrate "adjusting fire", one can allow the ship to disregard some number of results for each turn of fire -- 1 for inexperienced or normal crew, 2 for the experienced. Most games I've used this with have some sort of "gunnery skill" system, so that can be used to adjust fire over time.)

---

FInally a use for the millions of little Pirates CCG die I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

Perhaps -- in the end, I suspect if Ares does make them, they will sell about as well as bombers do in _WoG_.

---

I think Nexus tried to keep to a theme more often than not. Ares appears to focus more on what will sell, and not within a dedicated following but within the market as a whole. so I doubt we will see very much outside the more appealing ships. Perhaps that's a better approach. You won't be getting all the oddities that make the game interesting, but the company will make more money allowing them to keep the line going.

Bumped for move to House Rules...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

the forts, as best I can find, were only minimally damaged.

---

See my previous comments re effectiveness against hardened targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

Perhaps -- in the end, I suspect if Ares does make them, they will sell about as well as bombers do in _WoG_.

---

What, sold out quickly, rare as hens teeth and demanding stupidly high prices on Ebay now? :happy: Not many Gothas to be had these days thats for sure (always thought the Caproni was an interesting choice)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

I did -- given what folks of the period thought of "science" and "theory", I doubt anyone outside the organization used those terms in any form other than Sarcasm.

---

Dismiss it if you want but even a cursory bit of background reading on the period would show that to be a rather inaccurate statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

all the effects were the result of either direct-fire from the ships during the run past the forts

---

Oh, you must have missed this then, a description by the commander of the forts of the effects of the first day of the bombardment...

Quote:

---

The quarters in the bastions were fired and burned down early in the day, as well as the quarters immediately without the fort. The citadel was set on fire and extinguished several times during the first part of the day, but later it became impossible to put out the flames, so that when the enemy ceased firing it was one burning mass, greatly endangering the magazines, which at one time were reported to be on fire. Many of the men and most of the officers lost their bedding and clothing by these fires, which greatly added to the discomforts of the overflow. The mortar fire was accurate and terrible, many of the shells falling everywhere within the fort and disabling some of our best guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coog

I think Nexus tried to keep to a theme more often than not. Ares appears to focus more on what will sell, and not within a dedicated following but within the market as a whole. so I doubt we will see very much outside the more appealing ships. Perhaps that's a better approach. You won't be getting all the oddities that make the game interesting, but the company will make more money allowing them to keep the line going.

---

I agree. I think the merchies (if we ever see those) and "pirates" will be an exception in what will be a line of products covering mainline warships only. I doubt very much that we will see "odds", hence the need for house ruling and sourcing models from elsewhere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

I agree. I think the merchies (if we ever see those) and "pirates" will be an exception in what will be a line of products covering mainline warships only. I doubt very much that we will see "odds", hence the need for house ruling and sourcing models from elsewhere

---

Based on what sells at the box office, pirates and their merchant victims should be Ares' best sellers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coog

Based on what sells at the box office, pirates and their merchant victims should be Ares' best sellers.

---

Scope for a 1/1000 Jack Sparrow perhaps? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

Scope for a 1/1000 Jack Sparrow perhaps? :)

---

I think Ares will eventually do pirates...that is if the popularity of pirates remains high. The question is...will Ares go historical or Hollywood?