Artillery Bases

[Hertsblue]

Leon,

I was wondering if your marvelous machine can cut an irregular shape like this:



They are actually artillery bases with built-in angles of fire. As you can see, there are two sizes (for six-gun batteries and eight-gun batteries). Both sizes are 30mm deep. I'd want about 30 of each. Any idea if cost?



This is the 15mm version we've been using for some time.

[Bodvoc]

Now that is a top idea!

[Leon]

It can cut them, that's no bother, but we'd need to work out the length of the other sides though, as the software doesn't do angles?  It's been a while since I've done any trigonometry...

[toxicpixie]

Draw it on paper, measure the other sides 

[Leon]

I've found a handy triangle calculator: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm, so:

1st one = 30mm rear edge, 64.6mm front edge, 34.6mm sides.
2nd one = 40mm rear edge, 74.6mm front edge, 34.6mm sides.

Pricewise you'd be looking at 20p each on the smaller ones, 25p each on the larger.

[Orcs]

At last a useful application for Trigonometry.

We were just saying at here about all the stuff youn learn at school and never use in life.

Leon - YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OFF!!!

Go back and play Xbox naked,    or spend some time with Adelle.

[Leon]

Leon - YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OFF!!!

Go back and play Xbox naked,    or spend some time with Adelle.

There's no such thing as actual time off!  I've not been down at the workshop (although Dave and the casting lads have...) but I've been working on some of the new things coming for 2015, some Pendraken-y, some not so much... 

[Leman]

the artillery bases seem like a good idea, but one thing occurred to me, what frontage is used if the guns are attacked?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

That contacted I would think, if only for practical reasons, but it's a good point.

IanS

[Hertsblue]

I think I've boobed on the angles, Leon. I assumed they were 30 degrees left and right of the vertical, i.e. 120 degrees. Having measured them it would seem that they are actually 15 degrees off the vertical, or 105 degrees in all. That would reduce the frontages considerably. I wondered why the front measurement was so much greater than the rear! 

DP, yes, we always use the leading edge frontage. The thinking is that the battery always requires room at each end of its line to allow the guns to be swung. Formed troops overrunning the battery would swarm through and around the guns (we reckon on ten yards frontage per gun). Wargamers always assume guns in battery are closer together than they actually were. 

     

[WeeWars]

Surely the 'frontage' of 30 or 40mm should be at the front of the base? And the taper should reduce the size of the base towards the rear. Like the old triangular artillery bases of old. The arc of fire is calculated from the front of a base, after all (assuming 30 and 40mm are your base frontages). The solution I imagine would be to simply taper the sides of a conventional base to the arc of fire being used. However, a canister range template incorporating arc of fire, seems a more elegant solution, allowing you to keep the artillery base square-cut for space for crew and to line up with your limbers.

[Leon]

I think I've boobed on the angles, Leon. I assumed they were 30 degrees left and right of the vertical, i.e. 120 degrees. Having measured them it would seem that they are actually 15 degrees off the vertical, or 105 degrees in all. That would reduce the frontages considerably. I wondered why the front measurement was so much greater than the rear!     

No worries, changing that would result in:

1st one = 30mm rear edge, 46.1mm front edge, 31.1mm sides.
2nd one = 40mm rear edge, 61.4mm front edge, 41.4mm sides.

So on the pricing, that would be reduced to 15p each on the smaller ones, 20p each on the larger.

[Hertsblue]

Surely the 'frontage' of 30 or 40mm should be at the front of the base? And the taper should reduce the size of the base towards the rear. Like the old triangular artillery bases of old. The arc of fire is calculated from the front of a base, after all (assuming 30 and 40mm are your base frontages). The solution I imagine would be to simply taper the sides of a conventional base to the arc of fire being used. However, a canister range template incorporating arc of fire, seems a more elegant solution, allowing you to keep the artillery base square-cut for space for crew and to line up with your limbers.

Agreed, Michael, and these bases were developed from those old triangular bases. However, since these bases are intended for late nineteenth century armies, where attacking formations are in looser order, I wanted to make sure that flanking friendly infantry were kept at a reasonable distance. As for canister templates, their problem is they have to be laid in front of the battery, fouling any troops already there, and they only reach out to cannister range. With my bases one simply lays a straight edge along the side of the base (I use a metre rule). I see no intrinsic merit in square/oblong bases and the loss of area for crew is minimal.

Leon,
May I order 30 of each, please. How would you wish to play this? Will you invoice me? 

[John Cook]

There's no such thing as actual time off!  I've not been down at the workshop (although Dave and the casting lads have...) but I've been working on some of the new things coming for 2015, some Pendraken-y, some not so much... 

Does that mean the CTV are "some of the new things for 2015" 

PS:  A Happy and Prosperous New Year to you and yours.

[Leon]

Leon,
May I order 30 of each, please. How would you wish to play this? Will you invoice me? 

No worries, I'll get a PayPal sent through.

Does that mean the CTV are "some of the new things for 2015" 

Hopefully, I've left those ones in Dave's hands, so as soon as he's says they're ready I'll get them photo'd and the release sorted out.