Other Artillery stuff

[madaxeman]

I think Ben's suggestion of making it deploy in the first or second batch may be a reasonable compromise here.

I'd be happy with this.

I'd still like hitting mounted on 5+ (with 3 deep, etc. getting a + PoA) as a disincentive to pointing into the flank sectors as well.

The current tourney rules that prevent artillery firing (easily) into the flanks do have the advantage of pushing horse out where they should be found, as well as curtailing a-historical use of artillery.

If artillery were to hit everything on a 5+ their overall effectiveness is degraded fairly significantly, including their deterrent against mounted operating in the centre which would be greatly reduced too. If they were nerfed against horse therefore their points values (or contribution to the army break point) may also need to be tweaked. It would also make artillery much better value in early period games where there are more troops who are 3+ ranks deep - which would be kinda weird.

Having Kevins current deployment competition rules works IMO, and something like preventing artillery wheeling in their first turn would beef the incentive against shooting at horse up a tad more

[Vespasian28]

and something like preventing artillery wheeling in their first turn would beef the incentive against shooting at horse up a tad more

And if you have deployed your artillery in the first/second batch in the centre and need to wheel to shoot at infantry in the centre?

We now use the tourney rule about not deploying artillery firing into flanks in our club games. I don't think any further amendments are necessary. Artillery at the moment can either be very effective, effective or completely useless which seems reasonable enough.

[madaxeman]

and something like preventing artillery wheeling in their first turn would beef the incentive against shooting at horse up a tad more

And if you have deployed your artillery in the first/second batch in the centre and need to wheel to shoot at infantry in the centre?

We now use the tourney rule about not deploying artillery firing into flanks in our club games. I don't think any further amendments are necessary. Artillery at the moment can either be very effective, effective or completely useless which seems reasonable enough.

I agree - I was just tossing something out there for those who think a little more is needed over and above the current tourney rule.

Tweak it to "can't wheel to shoot into a flank in their first turn" would be even more minor...

[nikgaukroger]

Of course one big thing in favour of the deployment limitation is that it has been used quite a bit and, therefore, play tested so we can be reasonably confident about its actual impact on the game - less chance of unintended consequences.

As people seem pretty positive about it in general it may well be the option to go with

[Sarmaticus]

Horse were always kept away from artillery in period. This change makes foot as easy to hit as mounted. Less incentive to keep away.

Artillery deployed in first batch would mean that the player deploying second can ensure that enemy artilery has no target.

What's the evidence for this. In the C19th unsupported batteries were prime targets for cavalry squadrons. In FOGR period we have Spanish/italian gendarmes enfiladed by French guns for whom they are the only visible target and a French wars of Religion example of a Huguenot cavalry vanguard recoiling from an encounter with a Royalist army when cannon fire announces it's unexpected presence. In C17th battles, horse are normally on the wings, while artillery is normally near the centre, so the avoidance is incidental and, if anything, the artillery avoiding the cavalry.

[ravenflight]

So, I just want to ask. Let's assume we go with the 'can't shoot into the flank sector'. I have a pair of medium guns. I want to use them to protect my flank somewhat, so I have them set up 3' back from the left flank pointing straight down the long edge. Since they have a range of 2' and they are 3' back, so don't actually shoot INTO the flank sector, is this a valid deployment?

[RonanTheLibrarian]

I actually discussed this with an opponent in the recent singles competition at Warfare. I was playing 1695 Bavarians (Later Germans) against a Mongol Horse composed entirely of mounted BGs (LH or Cavalry, virtually all Superior) who simply split his army into two halves and put each into the "forbidden" areas of the flanks, leaving just two units protecting his camp, both outside of 24". After my guns spent the entire game pivoting and not firing a single shot, I suggested that I could have used them to protect my camp from attack from one of my flanks by placing the guns behind my infantry, facing to one side, but just outside 24" from that flank area.

If an opponent has an all cavalry army and deploys solely inside the flank areas, I think all bets should be off re. the placement of guns.

[benjones1211]

Another way around it is to start them limbered and facing where you want, limbered artillery cannot shoot therefore obeying the letter of the law, as soon as you unlimber ....

[quackstheking]

Whilst we're on potential cheese deployments of artillery getting around the firing into the flank rule, how about these.

1) Deploy the artillery facing into the flank but limbered - on the first move the artillery (attempts to!) unlimber thus can fire into the flank from move two!. They fulfil the requirement that they cannot fire into the flank in the first move as they are limbered.

2) Deploy the artillery facing the flank but behind infantry! They are blocked from firing by the infantry but the infantry can move out of the way opening the possibility of shooting from move 2!

FWIW as umpire I would rule against both the above but we need to ensure the RAW cover this! Also I would be happy for artillery to face the flank if they were out of range!

Lastly and this also cuts across the discussion on Light Guns, another reason not to increase the Light Guns range is they under the tournament rules are exempted from the "firing into the flank" restriction. In 25mm I know of a couple of players who pick light Artillery because with the longer ranges (40cm against 1" MU) and smaller relative tables they act as normal artillery anyway!

Don

[hazelbark]

I think this is over baking.

I understand historical desire, but someone will have a new exploit and artillery isn't the bee's knees.

[ravenflight]

just adding for completeness... considering the thought that we allow Light Artillery divisional moves, should we (for simplicity) include ALL guns? This would only mean a pivot (and resultant extension of that pivot by wheeling the rest of the division on that pivot point) for unlimbered arty, but also divisional moves for limbered arty.

[DavidT]

I believe that making it 5+ to hit mounted is a good fix.
Historically, mounted were a difficult target for artillery as they moved more rapidly than foot and it was difficult for gunners to adjust their fire during this period.
This means that mounted are no longer a prime target so there would be no need to prevent artillery firing into flank zones.

I am unsure about changing when they can deploy. If they have to deploy in the first 1/4, the enemy can avoid them. From reading accounts of historical battles, this didn't happen except, sometimes, as a result of fire from the artillery during the battle.

If they have to deploy in the first or second 1/4, the player without the initiative could find that the only target are light troops if the enemy deploys his lights first, again allowing the enemy to avoid the artillery.

Artillery were often at the back of an army on the march due to being slow, so would have been the last to deploy anyway.

With the change to hitting cavalry on 5+, when artillery deploys may no longer be an issue as players will now be looking at the best place to deploy it to suit their battle plan, rather than to fire at easier to hit mounted as currently happens.

[timmy1]

If it is 5+ to hit mounted it needs to remain 4+ at short range else the Charge of the Light brigade becomes a standard tactic...

[nikgaukroger]

If it is 5+ to hit mounted it needs to remain 4+ at short range else the Charge of the Light brigade becomes a standard tactic...

It has good period provenance as it was recommended by Machiavelli.

Of course you could actually protect your guns

I'm in favour of the hitting mounted on the same as foot FWIW.

[ravenflight]

I'm in favour of the hitting mounted on the same as foot FWIW.

For me, I'd prefer to see mounted hit the same as foot, but keep the artillery being able to shoot into the flank sectors. I know that there isn't much precedent for shooting into the flank, but I think if a player wants to do so he should be able to. If they hit mounted on a 5+ as well, then there isn't the huge problem of where artillery is pointed.

[nikgaukroger]

I'm in favour of the hitting mounted on the same as foot FWIW.

For me, I'd prefer to see mounted hit the same as foot, but keep the artillery being able to shoot into the flank sectors. I know that there isn't much precedent for shooting into the flank, but I think if a player wants to do so he should be able to. If they hit mounted on a 5+ as well, then there isn't the huge problem of where artillery is pointed.

I'm thinking much the same. Reducing the ease of hitting mounted (from 50% chance to 33% per die) cuts down the incentive to point into the flank sectors I think - however, my recent playing experience is limited so I'm not that well placed to say whether it would be enough.

[timmy1]

Nik

Combined with the changes to either Average BG size and/or Autobreak %ages I believe 5+ would be enough of an incentive for people to keep them facing away from the flank, especially given the speed the mounted move relative to the arc of fire (if people want me to show the boring maths I can but only if you promise to keep a pillow over the keyboard...).