Slitherine

Hi
From the games I have played if my oppenonts have guns they go down last mostly facing mounted troops if at all possible.

Not sure how people can say this is historically correct from all the research I have done guns were in the middle of the line facing in the majority of cases the main enemy line. Mainly due to the support that they got from their own foot, also the target moved slowly giving them more time to hit them. I am sure there were occasions were they faced Mounted but in the majority of open battles I think they face foot.

This has always to me been a problem with FOGR it would have been easy just to add somewhere that all artillery apart from lights have to go do with the fist group? For a rule set that spends a long time getting the foot deployment historically correct to then miss with the artillery seems strange to say the least.

Dave

david53 wrote: This has always to me been a problem with FOGR it would have been easy just to add somewhere that all artillery apart from lights have to go do with the fist group?

As I mentioned before this was done in the beta and created serious issues - it distorted deployments significantly to the detriment of the game - hence it was dropped.

I quite like the simple solution that says artillery have to be deployed 18" in from the edges.

An alternative would be to only allow artillery to deploy parallel to the rear edge (unless behind fortifications)! I don't think in the C16th/17th the artillerists had worked out the principle of enfilaging and interlocking zones of fire. It doesn't stop Artillery pivoting to cover the flank zones if they want, but I suspect by then the cavalry will be long gone, especially using heavy artillery which will have to pass a CMT to pivot!!

I wouldn't want to mess about with the POA's. Historically I suspect artillery was more disruptive to cavalry but that was not how it was used.

Don

nikgaukroger wrote:

david53 wrote: This has always to me been a problem with FOGR it would have been easy just to add somewhere that all artillery apart from lights have to go do with the fist group?

As I mentioned before this was done in the beta and created serious issues - it distorted deployments significantly to the detriment of the game - hence it was dropped.

Hi

Not being on the Beta Team would you mind putting forward the discussion how it distorted deployments if you could .

David

david53 wrote:
Not being on the Beta Team would you mind putting forward the discussion how it distorted deployments if you could .
David

I suspect its because your opponent then is almost compelled to do a dogs breakfast of a deployment to try and deploy their infantry out of arc of the guns. It just gets messy, leads to almost every setup being nothing like a historical battle, makes artillery even less effective as then can end up without targets, and probably encourages even more the mounted armies .

I think Don's suggestion would be the simplest way to address this. Alternatively, you could place markers before deployment (similar to those for field fortifications but including 1 or more dummies) and then place the artillery later.

Due to play a game later this week and I am trying to work out how to protect my gendarmes from being picked off by the enemy artillery. Oddly enough I am not so worried about the big keils I also intend to deploy.
Now that is a little odd. Or is it just me?

Vespasian28 wrote:Due to play a game later this week and I am trying to work out how to protect my gendarmes from being picked off by the enemy artillery. Oddly enough I am not so worried about the big keils I also intend to deploy.
Now that is a little odd. Or is it just me?

It will always be like this due to the size of mounted BG's, ie on average 4 base's mounted needing 4's and large bodies of foot needing 5's.

I'll say again IMO artillery have been made to powerful at least in the early part of the period.

If they were so good against mounted troops then they would have historical been deployed with them as targets.

I'm sure someone on the forum can work out how long it would take mounted to reach the gun lines and how many shots they would take doing it.

Don't get me wrong I like the rules but would love this part to be sorted at some period.

Dave

kevinj wrote:I think Don's suggestion would be the simplest way to address this. Alternatively, you could place markers before deployment (similar to those for field fortifications but including 1 or more dummies) and then place the artillery later.

"-1 for artillery when shooting at horse who have moved more than once" might also help, and has a sort of logic to it as well.

Tim

While that might help it removes some of the statelessness of the game. The more times you have to remember what something did in a prior phase the more complex the game became. It is also in the interest of the horse to move either out of arc, range or to close the range and charge so I don't see this as necessary.

If the mounted player worries about artillery he can put down more (LOS blocking) terrain and mask the artillery by deploying his BGs behind it.

As I always play with lots of mounted I have to say artillery doen't bother me, usually because it can rareily keep up with the speed that mounted moves and is often playing catch up, that said people often do point at mounted which people are arguing is not historical, would a simple way to make them fire at foot which is the historical precedent switch the factors so you hit foot on a 4 and mounted on a 5, that said I am happy as it is and enjoy all my games with the rules as they are

cheers

Alasdair

timmy1 wrote:Tim

If the mounted player worries about artillery he can put down more (LOS blocking) terrain and mask the artillery by deploying his BGs behind it.

Not having a go but it does seem strange that statement.

If once again people like FOGR cause it gives a historical feel to the game, the whole idea of pointing your guns at mounted while the speedy foot trot over the field.

Instead of having to remember how many times the horse moves would it not be better to swap the POA for being hit between foot and mounted. That is 4's to hit foot 5 for horse.

Dave

timmy1 wrote:Tim

If the mounted player worries about artillery he can put down more (LOS blocking) terrain and mask the artillery by deploying his BGs behind it.

Not having a go but it does seem strange that statement.

If once again people like FOGR cause it gives a historical feel to the game, the whole idea of pointing your guns at mounted while the speedy foot trot over the field.

Instead of having to remember how many times the horse moves would it not be better to swap the POA for being hit between foot and mounted. That is 4's to hit foot 5 for horse.

Dave

I always find that mounted just bugger off across the table when I target them with the guns. Consequently I target the enemy foot nearly every game. I usaully take one or two casulties off a unit and that is enough to cripple a pike and shot battle group, creating a weakness your own troops can exploit. It does tend to make me more defensive but that is probably not a bad thing.

historical precedent switch the factors so you hit foot on a 4 and mounted on a 5

Trouble then is do you hit keils and other deep infantry formations on a 3?
I quite like the idea of deploying artillery 18" in but otherwise why not hit mounted and foot on a 5 which means deep formations remain on 4 and you are more likely to deploy against infantry as their slower moves get you more shooting opportunities and retains the artillery at an appropriate level of effectiveness.

This(and the mounted versus the artillery blockade) is only one of a couple of issues with FOGR that I am aware of and sometimes there are anomalies you just have to live with. Particularly annoying to me is if you have a Spanish colunella 6 bases strong it is just as good an artillery target as a chuffing great 16 base keil because you have pike in three ranks.

Vespasian28 wrote: .... why not hit mounted and foot on a 5 which means deep formations remain on 4 and you are more likely to deploy against infantry as their slower moves get you more shooting opportunities and retains the artillery at an appropriate level of effectiveness....

The fact almost all horse are in 4's means they are extremely vulnerable to losing the odd base anyway, far more than with foote so they would still be a very worthwhile artillery target if they were hit on a 5. It would however mean you were looking at a slightly different equation as to whether it was better to position your artillery to shoot at foote or at mounted.

The converse effect would be that horse might then feel it was viable to try and frontally charge down gunnes more often maybe ?

ravenflight wrote:I'm having a game on Sunday, and again I will be holding off my mounted and plugging away with my artillery in the hope I can make a dent before impact.

Ok, so in my game I did ahistorically use my artillery against my ahistorical opponent. It was very effective and broke one BG of superior Cavalry with some lucky shots.

End result of the game was my opponent had a win, probably around 15:5.

After ahistorically shooting up one BG of cavalry he closed with my 3 regiments of determined horse and shot one BG up (took a base and disrupted it) before fleeing for the remainder of the game as I went about charging him.

Had I NOT done the ahistorical artillery shoot up it is likely that the two regiments of cavalry would have shot up/fled before my det horse being pretty much perfectly safe from ever being caught.

Had I used my artillery against his foot I MAY have softened up one or two regiments of foot, but it probably would have made no difference to the result in the centre, BUT my det horse would have been dead men walking against about half the number of points of cavalry.

So, whilst I agree that vs mounted artillery is one problem, I don't think we could/should fix it without fixing the overall disparity in the mounted fight.

madaxeman wrote:

Vespasian28 wrote: The converse effect would be that horse might then feel it was viable to try and frontally charge down gunnes more often maybe ?

IMHO unsupported artillery should be easy meat for cavalry of any type. How many shots could a gunner get off in the time he had? One, maybe two?

Btw IMvHO artillery in this period operated on a different timescale to the other arms: it had come into its own for the French, in field battles, in the later C15th and early C16 as a way of winkling English or Spanish infantry out of prepared position: Hours were available for the process.
In a C17 battle such as Luetzen we do read of batteries being fought over; that could be because the guns are expensive to replace (whereas dead soldiers aren't owed their pay anymore and more can be hired); guns, like colours and standards, are trophies of victory (important to employers and prestige - as late as Lord Raglan and the Light Brigade); batteries are landmarks on the battlefield; they are often in fortifications manned by other troops.

ravenflight wrote: I don't think we could/should fix it without fixing the overall disparity in the mounted fight.

I would suggest starting a topic to discuss this then explaining your reasons - others may well agree with you.