Rules interpretation for infantry squares engaging artillery batteries.
This is an article about an issue raised on the forum about an infantry unit in square formation attacking a lone enemy battery.
We have been searching through previous editions and we found that this issue is not explicitly covered by the rules. We have also searched through our correspondence with Bob Coggins and it was not covered by him either. Anyway we think this issue can be solved in quite a straightforward way.
First of all, we would like to state that Bob Coggins remarked many times that the rules should punish bad decisions (or historically uncommon or unusual decisions) and not give them much chance to prevail.
We are not talking about the advancing “Egyptian squares” where there was virtually no enemy artillery or infantry volleys menacing them, nor the huge square at Wagram, far from the size scale of a brigade in Napoleon's Battles.
We are considering an advancing infantry unit (between 2 or 4 battalions) in square formation against an artillery battery, of which very few historical examples can be found (if any).
Although some records exist (for example Guard battalions at Waterloo), this was not the standard or effective use of square formation.
Generally squares manoeuvred slightly or retreated. Neverovski’s retreat towards Smolensk is one of the most notable examples.
On the other hand, solid squares (multi-battalion formations) were even more vulnerable targets, and many were destroyed by artillery fire.
Hence, one point for the "VS OT" option.
Another similar issue discussed with Bob Coggins was a brigade partially protected inside a BUA. His answer was categorical: the whole unit shares the fate of its weakest part.
Applying this logic here, advancing squares would suffer heavy canister fire, causing wavering or routing that would halt the entire brigade.
Hence, a second argument in favour of the "VS OT" modifier.
The bonus system in Napoleon's Battles models probability curves through modifiers. Advancing slowly in square against artillery is clearly harder than attacking in column, so a worse modifier must be used.
In a frontal attack, artillery effectively fires twice: during approach and during combat.
Even with this, infantry still retains around a 75% chance of success, rising to nearly 95% if the “COL” modifier is used.
The difference exists, but is not decisive.
It can be inferred that this was the intent of the original authors.
As a side note, artillery harassment by skirmishers is handled in the firing phase, not the combat phase.
Therefore, we recommend using the "VS OT" modifier when a square attacks artillery.
The square still benefits from numerical advantage, but artillery should retain a meaningful chance of success.
Using “COL” would not drastically change results, but “VS OT” better reflects historical behaviour.
Remember Bob Coggins’ motto: “this must be enjoyable”.
