Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:20 am
That is my gut feeling as well.madaxeman wrote: I'm not sure whether the latter is entirely historical, but I suspect the former isn't...
Page 2 of 2
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:37 am
madaxeman wrote:I suspect this may be one where 'copying history' might produce an unintended a-historical effect in the game.
12" shooting and 2 MU moves would mean they will be dragged up maybe once or twice with the foot Divisions, and then the foot will speed off and leave the light guns fairly far behind the line. The light guns will be used to snipe through the gaps in the infantry line, adding extra dice and cohesion modifiers to the foot shooting, whilst leaving the artillery as safe as possible by hanging back.
A shorter range and a longer move would be more likely to see light guns dragged them closer to the action, possibly even supporting them with the foot units as front line troops.
I'm not sure whether the latter is entirely historical, but I suspect the former isn't...
After more pondering, and trying to find something* to base an opinion on, I'm inclined to go with the longer move and shorter range option for the reasons Tim suggests.
* pretty unsuccessfully really, if anyone has anything concrete it'd be useful.
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:55 am
I agree.
Another reason not to increase the Light Artillery range is that under the tournament rules as played at the moment, they are exempted from the "firing into the flank" restriction. If we increase the range they can virtually cover the flank. 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 and flank zones they act as normal artillery anyway.
Don
Another reason not to increase the Light Artillery range is that under the tournament rules as played at the moment, they are exempted from the "firing into the flank" restriction. If we increase the range they can virtually cover the flank. 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 and flank zones they act as normal artillery anyway.
Don
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:26 pm
quackstheking wrote:I agree.
Another reason not to increase the Light Artillery range is that under the tournament rules as played at the moment, they are exempted from the "firing into the flank" restriction.
I wasn't thinking of exempting them if we went down this route
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:33 pm
Actually Edgehill is one battle where Light artillery may have been stationed in the flank, behind a hedge on the left flank with some dragoons. Although I wouldn't allow deploying I would still keep them exempt from at least setting up to fire into it.
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:34 pm
So I used the light artillery all the time in the I think its the German TYW list that allow them in lieu of Med Art. It saves points and I could use them against enemy mounted that advance or the sniping through gaps that Tim describes. I have always found them more useful for the point value and distinctly don't like the historical feel.
I feel a little like this is a solution seeking a problem, but I am unfamiliar with UK scene. I remember there is one Indian army with a shed load of Light artillery. I never tried it but I think there was an ide of a walking firing line of light artillery that you are possibly creating more viable.
I feel a little like this is a solution seeking a problem, but I am unfamiliar with UK scene. I remember there is one Indian army with a shed load of Light artillery. I never tried it but I think there was an ide of a walking firing line of light artillery that you are possibly creating more viable.
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:32 pm
nikgaukroger wrote:madaxeman wrote:I suspect this may be one where 'copying history' might produce an unintended a-historical effect in the game.
12" shooting and 2 MU moves would mean they will be dragged up maybe once or twice with the foot Divisions, and then the foot will speed off and leave the light guns fairly far behind the line. The light guns will be used to snipe through the gaps in the infantry line, adding extra dice and cohesion modifiers to the foot shooting, whilst leaving the artillery as safe as possible by hanging back.
A shorter range and a longer move would be more likely to see light guns dragged them closer to the action, possibly even supporting them with the foot units as front line troops.
I'm not sure whether the latter is entirely historical, but I suspect the former isn't...
After more pondering, and trying to find something* to base an opinion on, I'm inclined to go with the longer move and shorter range option for the reasons Tim suggests.
being cautious about unintended consequences I'm actually wondering about just allowing divisional moves, leaving the move at 2 MU and the range at 8MU (maybe 9MU). This one just feels a bit risky as Light Artillery have been so little used that there isn't much to work with.
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:39 pm
I personally see 'allow divisional moves at 2MU" and no other change necc.nikgaukroger wrote: being cautious about unintended consequences I'm actually wondering about just allowing divisional moves, leaving the move at 2 MU and the range at 8MU (maybe 9MU). This one just feels a bit risky as Light Artillery have been so little used that there isn't much to work with.
People don't HAVE to take artillery with the division, and it's not unusual at all for troops to alter their movement rate to keep the formation (e.g. when wheeling etc)
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:27 pm
The fact is that light artillery costs almost half as much as heavy artillery, for less than 1/4 the range. I would make them less expensive and capable either of keeping pace with foot BGs, or making divisional moves.
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:39 pm
They are a LOT more useful than Heavy Artillery. I'd prefer 4 Light Artillery to 2 Heavy Artillery. I'd be opposed to changing very much about them. I do think they are fine, but have no problem with a divisional move. Nothing else is required IMHO.RonanTheLibrarian wrote:The fact is that light artillery costs almost half as much as heavy artillery, for less than 1/4 the range. I would make them less expensive and capable either of keeping pace with foot BGs, or making divisional moves.
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:39 pm
I'd back this comment.ravenflight wrote: They are a LOT more useful than Heavy Artillery. I'd prefer 4 Light Artillery to 2 Heavy Artillery. I'd be opposed to changing very much about them. I do think they are fine, but have no problem with a divisional move. Nothing else is required IMHO.
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:21 pm
I would go with this suggestion.hazelbark wrote:I'd back this comment.ravenflight wrote: They are a LOT more useful than Heavy Artillery. I'd prefer 4 Light Artillery to 2 Heavy Artillery. I'd be opposed to changing very much about them. I do think they are fine, but have no problem with a divisional move. Nothing else is required IMHO.
Don
Re: Light Artillery
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:23 am
This proposal has my vote.ravenflight wrote:
They are a LOT more useful than Heavy Artillery. I'd prefer 4 Light Artillery to 2 Heavy Artillery. I'd be opposed to changing very much about them. I do think they are fine, but have no problem with a divisional move. Nothing else is required IMHO.