How do you play heavy artillery ?

[Kabill]

Correct.

In which case, is there much justification for them being included in the game at all? FoG2 does not simulate sieges; and even if you could point towards examples of heavy siege weapons being used in a conventional ancient or medieval battle (and I suspect you probably could), they're surely infrequent enough to warrant their exclusion. Not that it matters a great deal - and they're in the game now anyway so removing them might seem pointless - but this thread does seem to indicate that they're not very useful, and perhaps represent a trap choice for novice players and (more importantly) the AI (which I don't think is blocked from them; I'm pretty sure I've spawned with heavy artillery before with a random army selection but I guess they could have been light instead?).

[TheGrayMouser]

I believe they are well worth their value.
You do need to use them in conjunction with missle troops though to get you monies worth. Also, a single shot verse an already disordered Cavalry can drop it to fragged.

I have never had an opponent refuse to advance simply due to me having artillery nor balked at advancing if you enemy has them (as pointed out it tends to push you into haste)

It hard to get know for sure but I would guess a properly employed unit of heavy artillery can cause/assist in 2-3 cohesion losses per game, can you say the same for an average medium foot? Even a vaunted pike or warband can Fragg on it’s very 1st impact combat;)

[MVP7]

I believe they are well worth their value.
You do need to use them in conjunction with missle troops though to get you monies worth. Also, a single shot verse an already disordered Cavalry can drop it to fragged.

I have never had an opponent refuse to advance simply due to me having artillery nor balked at advancing if you enemy has them (as pointed out it tends to push you into haste)

It hard to get know for sure but I would guess a properly employed unit of heavy artillery can cause/assist in 2-3 cohesion losses per game, can you say the same for an average medium foot? Even a vaunted pike or warband can Fragg on it’s very 1st impact combat;)

That would be ideal performance with a consenting/incompetent target. In practice I have never seen heavy artillery achieve anything beyond taking a few pot shots of little consequence at long range before getting flanked by light infantry/cavalry.

[TheGrayMouser]

I can’t vouch for how you use them. They are unlikely to cause devastation by themselves but if you target a unit that has “held firm” after a few shots of light infantry, it often gets the job done. If players find the range too short , I suggest they are being deployed too far back and thus there is no time for them to do their job

[SnuggleBunnies]

I actually think the heavy artillery are totally worth their 36 points, in select situations. For one thing, depending on the army lists and battlefield, there are situations in which you know from the start that you will be on the defensive. In those situations, the extra negative cohesion, and the ability to disrupt cavalry, is extremely useful, and it's well worth getting a unit. On other maps, you may be advancing with one flank, and holding back with the other. In that case, the heavy artillery can be stationed on the defensive flank to ward off enemy cavalry. Keep in mind that even with low ammo, even if the casualties inflicted are low, the extra cohesion modifier can be deadly, particularly combined with skirmishers. And the mere chance that you could drop, say, 50 cataphracts in one round of fire is enough to make your opponent second guess themselves.

If I'm going to be attacking, then yes, I'm better off spending the points on something else. As for standoffs, I don't think it makes a huge difference. It's certainly one more thing to keep track of, but the proportion of skirmishers and cavalry in each army is usually of greater importance than whether the defensive force has a single unit of artillery. If I'm attacking, a single unit of artillery is annoying. If the "camper" has a vast superiority in medium infantry sitting in rough terrain, that's a bigger deal.

That being said, I would not be opposed to having an option for them to start the battle "limbered," have a movement speed of 1, and need full AP to unpack. Still, that could lead to annoying situations where one player deploys at the back of the map, and the other has to spend 15 turns bringing up their artillery. That being said, players deploying at the back corner is irritating no matter what, so no great difference there.

[oscarius]

They're probably not the most cost effective unit ever (though this as always varies battle to battle) but they have a certain psychological annoyance value and can cause good casualties if you're lucky on expensive super-heavy cavalry as they entirely ignore armour (from memory and common sense). Light artillery is probably the superior unit due to flexibility but I'm fairly happy with heavy. Additionally if deployed out of the way and unprotected at the very least they'll sucker some enemy cavalry from the real battle for a few turns. I usually feel I get my points worth.

[ahuyton]

I used them in a couple of games as Romans versus Huns. I knew that I would be out-manouevred so planned a line with heavy artillery, bowmen and legionaries while using my mounted troops more expansively. I did not sit back on the base line, but near a decent bit of terrain that I could use. It worked well. Artillery forces a bit of caution onto the attacking mounted player.

So, I share the opinion that they can very useful in the right circumstances.