Light Artillery

jonphilp · Post by **jonphilp** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:30 pm

Are any changes envisaged for Light Artillery. Looking specifically at the Roman use of Scorpions & Carroballista it seems harsh that to move light artillery you need to pass a complex move test .

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:46 pm

I think that heavy artillery should be allowed to wheel, maybe taking a CMT and two turns to complete the turn, but right now, some troops can escape from range by changing into column and avoiding the geometry of shooting. That seems too tricky.

Mehrunes · Post by **Mehrunes** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:58 pm

There should something be done for artillery in general. At the present nobody takes them. Perhaps make them cost less or increase the range?

stecal · Post by **stecal** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:46 pm

Increase the range is what is needed. Lt arty should at least out range bows!

pezhetairoi · Post by **pezhetairoi** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:36 am

You know, I had an idea for light artillery while in the bathtub. Just call me Marat.

They are a bit useless as is. If my assumption is correct, light artillery BGs in a roman army represent the all the army's artillery collected in one place, concentrated for mass fire. Well what if it was left were it belongs, supporting the cohorts?
If I remember correctly, the scorpio/balistae were used on a small-scale local fire-support basis. They would harass enemies at a distance and help break-up enemy charges while generally being covered by the legionaries. The weapon was relatively portable, with some minor set-up time. Each cohort had one or two, or something like that.

So with that in mind, make light artillery a shooting capability. A legionary BG could upgrade to carry it. It would shoot 1 per 3 -- a usual 2 dice per 6 base BG, fire from the front, offer support dice at impact. The range would remain as is. If the legion BG moved, it could not fire (perhaps until mounted on carts). It's not a lot of firepower, but can have an effect on small BGs and may help in impact. It would still count as artillery for POAs and CTs.
For modeling, one stand could be swapped-out with a balistae model/crew. Alternatively a purely decorative base could be tagged on the rear like a commander.
The points cost ... no idea. +2pts per base? (12 pts for a typical BG). +3pts for mobile versions?

Might keep those Sassanid horse archers honest. Players don't have to worry about the artillery "hole/anchor" in the battle line. Combined with bow fire it could be pretty effective. This wouldn't be restricted to Romans. They are just the best example.

Just a thought. Comments solicited.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:05 am

Don't think they have any changes to make for artillery well none that are in the Beta rules at present.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 am

david53 wrote:Don't think they have any changes to make for artillery well non that are in the Beta rules at present.

I have not seen any. As for heavy artillery, I really think turning should be allowed, although costly in terms of CT and time invested. I see that as a point to fix rather than the light artillery, that at least is able to shoot. Right now, it is pretty easy to get away from heavy artillery. I think a decision should be made about taking it away completely from the lists (as the battles in which it counted are not that many) or giving it a use.

RPHUey · Post by **RPHUey** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:01 pm

pezhetairoi wrote: ... make light artillery a shooting capability. A legionary BG could upgrade to carry it. It would shoot 1 per 3 -- a usual 2 dice per 6 base BG, fire from the front, offer support dice at impact. The range would remain as is. If the legion BG moved, it could not fire (perhaps until mounted on carts). It's not a lot of firepower, but can have an effect on small BGs and may help in impact. It would still count as artillery for POAs and CTs.

I like your idea! Precedence has been set with the Regimental Guns rule in of FoG Renaissance.

pezhetairoi · Post by **pezhetairoi** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:41 pm

I like your idea! Precedence has been set with the Regimental Guns rule in of FoG Renaissance.

No kidding? I haven't even read the rules for FoGR.
What I liked (about my own idea) is that it works within the existing system, rather than adding to it.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:31 pm

1) artillery is was pretty weak in this period. Any battles that they had a significant effect in? Not counting Gladiator or other hollywood movies? The answer is few.
2) artillery was primarily a siege or fixed weapon in this period. No artillery, no takee the city.
3) I've used light artillery in a competition. Shockingly they weren't worthless. They have a lot of firepower per frontage. They are unmanuverable so if you have an army designed to move much there value is reduced.
4) giving the romans shooting ability from their legions is not historical.

jonphilp · Post by **jonphilp** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:46 pm

My main issue with the artillery rules relating to LIGHT artillery is that it is difficult to use them correctly in the manner I/We assume that they were used by the Roman Legions and Chinese armies. I just think that to move light artillery for TRAINED troops would not be that difficult. If the reinactors shown on places such as U tube etc are correct Scorpions were easy to move forward or turn to a flank, and quick to fire. I am not asking for change in POA etc or that they should be the same as regimental guns in FOGR but he Romans and Chinese did invest a lot of time and resources into the artillery so it must have had an impact on the battlefield.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:32 pm

Well the only battles that I can think of them being used in both places were when artillery was with fairly stagnant forces.

If you are going to defend a line within about 6 MU of your starting position, then the light artillery works well. And if you put two BGs of Light artillery side by side that is a LOT of firepower on a 4 base frotnage. 8 dice should be 2-3 hits and a little bit of luck and the attack has big issues.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:20 pm

A unique example of the use of artillery was one of the few defeats that the Macedonian pikemen suffered against Greeks. Aetolians hid some artillery and shot at the pikemen blocks, which were an easy target. The result was that the formation was broken and the Macedonians fled before the combat took place. The point might be if for those rare instances artillery is needed at all. But if it is considered to be needed, I really think that some dumb situations should be avoided, like some LH coming to the front of the artillery and reforming to column when close to avoid the artillery range. Artillery can't even be used to protect your camp, so what should it be for?

Jhykronos · Post by **Jhykronos** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:08 am

hazelbark wrote:1) artillery is was pretty weak in this period.

Heh... "this period" covers a -lot- of ground... while artillery might be pretty scarce and gimmicky in Roman times, it's pretty ubiquitous in battles of the Wars of the Roses or the Burgundian Wars... which are covered by these rules, too.

Not that I have enough experience with the artillery to be able to judge whether or not they are a good buy... if they aren't, maybe the points values are the issue.

jonphilp · Post by **jonphilp** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:32 am

Various sources have a Roman legion fielding up to 60 artillery "engines" with the majority (up to 50) being of the light type. That is a lot of artillery , if 2 legions take to the field well I doubt you will see the artillery represented in any Roman army under FOG.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:18 pm

Jhykronos wrote:
hazelbark wrote:1) artillery is was pretty weak in this period.
Heh... "this period" covers a -lot- of ground... while artillery might be pretty scarce and gimmicky in Roman times, it's pretty ubiquitous in battles of the Wars of the Roses or the Burgundian Wars... which are covered by these rules, too.

Not that I have enough experience with the artillery to be able to judge whether or not they are a good buy... if they aren't, maybe the points values are the issue.

I defer to those that have studied those wars more than I. But i do not beleive artillery played a battlefield role of any minor significance in the WOTR. Was it James of Scotland that got killed when one of his bombard blew up during a siege?

True artillery is not particulary a good buy for points. I think for 34 points if you can get the enemy to advance diretly into your light artillery they are a good deal. Chances are...
The problem being if they made them too cheap people would use them as bulking troops.

Alexander the Great I think used artillery to force a river crossing once and presumably in the siege of tyre. Artillery was part of a siege train that people used. But in an open battle? I recall their was talk of a french bombard at Agincourt that had time to fire...once. Don't know if that is true...the part about it being there.

Also in 25mm games I think Light artillery has more of a role.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:25 pm

jonphilp wrote:Various sources have a Roman legion fielding up to 60 artillery "engines" with the majority (up to 50) being of the light type. That is a lot of artillery , if 2 legions take to the field well I doubt you will see the artillery represented in any Roman army under FOG.

This is the Augustus period?

What role did these engines play? At the siege of Jeresulem certainly the Romans had many, employed them, and likley built more. But what was the engines role? Was it to reduce enemy strongholds? Protect the fortified camp? Are there any accounts of them being manuvered around the battlefield?

Earlier Caesar used them in sieges.

I assume that the legion in a prepared position could have them ready to shoot on an advancing foe. But that is not moving it around the battlefield like a galloper gun of the 19th century.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:11 pm

hazelbark wrote:
I assume that the legion in a prepared position could have them ready to shoot on an advancing foe. But that is not moving it around the battlefield like a galloper gun of the 19th century.

I agree that moving artillery feels odd sometimes. In the other hand. heavy artillery can't perform efficiently the task of defending a prepared position because it can't turn.

jonphilp · Post by **jonphilp** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:06 pm

Hi,

Should we mention the Roman Carroballista, a cart mounted bolt shooter which I assume was for anti personel use.

If the Roman legions had so many "bolt Shooters" and if they are not mobile perhaps in the points cost of the compulsory fortified Roman fort you should have the shootong POA of Light artillery included.

As for numbers, Goldsworthy quotes Vegetius as stating that every century was equiped with " a mobile scorpion (or carroballista), whilst every cohort possessed a larger ballista". If they were all taken on a campaign is open to question but it is a lot of resources in time , manpower and money to invest in a weapon not used on the battlefield. As for the Chinese in the past I have read Chinese literature describing artillery (bolt shooters/ large crossbows & later rockets) being moved up into range of the enemy then being used to entice then to charge into the face of massed infantry crosssbow fire. Again under the current rules this is difficult due to the need to take a CRT test to move even if it is a simple move.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:14 am

When I took light artillery drilled to a tourney I had two BGs. I "think" i may have also taken an IC.

In all three games theyfought and had value.

1) failed first CMT of turn one
2) Failed second CMT of turn two
3) Made both CMTs on turn one.

IIRC they ended up most effective in games 1 and 2. In game 3 they died. but far slower than either of us expected. In all cases they never got to the center line. May have gotten to shooting range of center line.

I am not saying they are great. They are a tad more useful than people suspect especialy if deployed in the right area for less mobile armies.