Bombards--are they realistic in this game?

[hughestd]

For the bombards that are included with the expansion pack Storm of Arrows, it strikes me that these unsupported units are unrealistically tough when they are being assaulted by large infantry units. These slow firing units with 20 or so gunners should melt away at the site of 1000 or 1500 heavy infantry bearing down on them. But it seems like they can usually stand up to at least a couple of rounds of attacks, and so block the advance of the infantry, even though they are outnumbered 50 or 70 to 1.

[Tiavals]

Scale represented in the game is not realistic in the slightest. Do not pay any attention to it.

Now, are bombards meaningful in the game? No way. No one uses them, except for laughs. They serve absolutely no useful game mechanical function, and are one of the things I really hope is going to be changed in 2.0. Would be nice to use cannons that actually did something.

[TheGrayMouser]

Scale represented in the game is not realistic in the slightest. Do not pay any attention to it.

Now, are bombards meaningful in the game? No way. No one uses them, except for laughs. They serve absolutely no useful game mechanical function, and are one of the things I really hope is going to be changed in 2.0. Would be nice to use cannons that actually did something.

They can be usefull in larger points games where certain armies literally have nothing else to buy

If they could deploy further up on the map (with field fortifications and small #'s of other troops they could be pretty cool to use)

[voskarp]

And/or extend the range and damage made. I guess they were mostly used in siege warfare to begin with, but they most have been useful, otherwise they wouldn't have been used.

[TheGrayMouser]

And/or extend the range and damage made. I guess they were mostly used in siege warfare to begin with, but they most have been useful, otherwise they wouldn't have been used.

More range is a good idea , I mean a 15th century bombard could chuck a nice hand chipped rock at least a mile , although I doudt youd be able to hit a platoon of light foot archers at that range ha ha ,

[Tiavals]

Well, even light artillery is pretty poorly represented in the game. They're slightly more useful than heavy artillery, but still pretty useless. Roman had their scorpions and ballistas, but have you ever seen anyone use them in a meaningful way in FOG?

[Morbio]

I do find artillery in classical era to be pretty ineffective and I've never seen anyone chose them in any competition.... except I did once simply because I felt the army I had had no chance against the enemy army and I wanted as much ranged attack as possible with a view of playing extremely defensively. Having bought all the archers and slingers I could I still had points left so I bought heavy artillery. It didn't do much.

I'm not well-read in terms of historical writings, but I did think that Romans did tend to take artillery with them on campaigns, yet I can't see why if the game is realistic. I tend to think that either artillery id under-powered or it is too costly, I favour the latter.

[TheGrayMouser]

I do find artillery in classical era to be pretty ineffective and I've never seen anyone chose them in any competition.... except I did once simply because I felt the army I had had no chance against the enemy army and I wanted as much ranged attack as possible with a view of playing extremely defensively. Having bought all the archers and slingers I could I still had points left so I bought heavy artillery. It didn't do much.

I'm not well-read in terms of historical writings, but I did think that Romans did tend to take artillery with them on campaigns, yet I can't see why if the game is realistic. I tend to think that either artillery id under-powered or it is too costly, I favour the latter.

I think cheaper Is the way to go, I mean 15 aps for a unit that cant move, and because of deployment restrictions might not even get a shot off is not a good deal
The Burgundian army to be realistically portrayed should be able to have a LOT of artillery on the field
Maybe 9 aps for either heavy of light?

[Tiavals]

Supposedly scorpios could be used to shoot very accurate(for the time) shots to snipe important figures in an army, or use as a general bombard against enemies hiding in a hill. Each legion had 60 of them(or so says wikipedia, grain of salt etc), so that amounts to quite a lot of damage if they're all used at the same time against people on a hill. Something that is very common in FOG.

[deeter]

I once played a TT recreation of a Roman civil war battle in which the enemy massed scorpions on one flank. My partner charged them with masses of Sarmatian lancers. Balaclava comes to mind, except none of the artillery was ever taken. The hapless Sarmatians were repeatedly shot to pieces as they tried to close. (Fragged cav can't charge.) We lost that game.

Deeter

[IanB3406]

For most of the period covered by fog you simply don't see any reports of artillery dominating or even being mentioned in many field battles...in particular at the scale being modeled.