Artillery

[petedalby]

I’ve seen the rules change on keils to stop them being used unhistorically and in a similar vein wished to question the use and effectiveness of artillery in the game.

From what I’ve seen, many players leave their artillery to the final quarter in deployment, seeking to target them against the juiciest targets. But does that feel right? Surely, in the period, guns would be sited and dragged into position very early on in an army’s deployment rather than producing a ‘gotcha’ moment as is sometimes the case in FoGR?

And of course the juiciest targets appear to be enemy horse. But is that historically accurate? Most of the time artillery seemed to be in the centre for use against enemy foot. Why is the factor vs horse so good?

It would be good to understand the reasoning behind this – thanks.

[quackstheking]

Good question but it doesn't seem to worry Alasdair!!

Don

[stecal]

Have to agree. Artillery vs deep formations like Keils or tercios should be hitting on 2's. It is hard enough already to make them suffer a death roll loss on 1 or 2 as it is. Horse historically just got out of the way when under artillery fire - they should probably be hit by artillery on a -1, so 5 or 6's.

[rbodleyscott]

From what I’ve seen, many players leave their artillery to the final quarter in deployment, seeking to target them against the juiciest targets. But does that feel right? Surely, in the period, guns would be sited and dragged into position very early on in an army’s deployment rather than producing a ‘gotcha’ moment as is sometimes the case in FoGR?

This is a situation where a bottom up approach produces the wrong result. If the artillery were deployed first, then the enemy would simply deploy everything out of their arc of fire. Did this happen historically?? No.

Did the artilery generally get to shoot at the juiciest targest? Well, yes.

Hence the present rules, which may seem illogical from a bottom up point of view, but have the right historical effect from a top-down point of view.

And of course the juiciest targets appear to be enemy horse. But is that historically accurate? Most of the time artillery seemed to be in the centre for use against enemy foot. Why is the factor vs horse so good?

Mainly because when horse did fail to get out of the arc of fire of artillery they suffered badly. (e.g. Ravenna).

Artillery tend not to do too much damage to horse if the horse get a move on. However, if the enemy horse hang around for a hour while the enemy guns move into position and unlimber (on the second attempt), and then mill about allowing them to shoot them to pieces, well.....

[petedalby]

Thanks for the reply Richard.

I buy the deployment argument - and if there wasn't a plus POA vs Mounted with Artillery it wouldn't be an issue at all.

I've had a quick look at the Battle of Ravenna: "The Spanish artillery, meanwhile, ignored the French cavalry and concentrated its fire on the massed Gascons and landsknechts in the French center." Probably unlikely in FoGR?

I'm beginning to understand what is required in the game to counter Artillery with horse. Deploy only 9MU forward to nullify Medium Guns. Put a General with 'at risk' horse so they can turn and march out of arc. But that all seems a bit unhistorical.

Are there any battles where a whole flank of horse clear off to avoid being shot at by artillery? Whereas a minus POA, just like vs foot, would reduce the threat somewhat - without removing it entirely?

[nikgaukroger]

From what I’ve seen, many players leave their artillery to the final quarter in deployment, seeking to target them against the juiciest targets. But does that feel right? Surely, in the period, guns would be sited and dragged into position very early on in an army’s deployment rather than producing a ‘gotcha’ moment as is sometimes the case in FoGR?

This is a situation where a bottom up approach produces the wrong result. If the artillery were deployed first, then the enemy would simply deploy everything out of their arc of fire. Did this happen historically?? No.

this issue was quickly identified in play testing where we did have the artillery being deployed first at one time as it seemed historically logical - actual testing showed it to be a poor rule.

[marshalney2000]

A friend of mine has come up with an interesting tactic using massed heavy guns and lots of skirmish foot. The skirmish foot close to musket range to fire at the target while the guns shoot over the skirmishers from long range to amass a real volume of fire. 4 heavy guns plus say 5 skirmish musket gives him nine dice which has a good chance of taking a figure plus causing a nasty cohesion test on any target. I think the rules should preclude guns from firing over skirmishers if they are within three inches of the target in the same way it cannot do so if the skirmishers are within three inches of the guns.
John

[stecal]

Skirmish foot? Really? LF with Arq or musket cost the same as MF with the same weapons, but only get 1/2 the dice. LF always seems to be a bad deal to me.

[Blathergut]

LF are handy for covering a Swedish Brigade from musket shooting until it is close in. They've been known to be a pain in the derriere to a tercio here and there that didn't want to move.

[Scrumpy]

I swear by putting Les Enfants infront of my artillery park when I use the Early 17th C French, it really does work. Personally I don't have a problem with the arty hitting foot units on 5s, it always helps when your opponent throws 1s on his death rolls like my opponents Superior Yellow brigade Swedes did the other night. 6 bounds of shooting saw them take a hit a turn from 2 guns, and fail 4 death rolls.

[petedalby]

[quotethis issue was quickly identified in play testing where we did have the artillery being deployed first at one time as it seemed historically logical - actual testing showed it to be a poor rule.][/quote]

I can see the sense in that Nik. But if mounted had the same POA as infantry vs Artillery, I suspect Artillery would be more often deployed and used in a historical manner. Better to line up against something that isn't going to manouevre out of the way. But as it stands, there is a strong temptation to target enemy mounted.

Having just read up on Breitenfeld, Lutzen, Nordlingen and Rocroi, I could find no mention of artillery being used with great effect against mounted. The target of choice appeared to be enemy artillery and infantry - not cavalry.

The other thing my reading highlighted was that the Swedish cavalry at Breitenfeld are credited with capturing the Imperial guns - and then using them against the Imperial Tercios to great effect. Any reason why cavalry can't capture and then use artillery in the game?

[hazelbark]

I actually prefer it when the enemy aims their guns and deploys them to cope with my mounted wing. You start at 9 MU as you said. So Med Art don't get a free shot. Then I can surge forward. If the enemy doesn't have mounted to match me then it is easy to split the artillery fire. I may lose a base. But if I am pressing the attack the enemy is in danger of losing their artillery. If they send mouted out to deal with my mouted they screen off their guns.

I am thinking that 1 battery of 2 med guns is no big deal. But 3 Med guns starts to scare a Pike and shot unit as you are plinking away for awhile.

[hazelbark]

I do think a revision of Mounted being unable to move through captured artillery is in order.

Maybe a Formation Change CMT or an entire move and the mounted gets placed beyond of something.

[marshalney2000]

Light foot may only get half the dice but can be fired over and are very manoeuvrable particularly in rough terrain etc. Believe me skirmishers with heavy guns firing over them can be deadly. You could also have a battle musket unit to the side adding to the fire as well.
John

[stecal]

I never figured out that artillery could shoot over friendly LF. Gives my Ottoman artillery park a whole new outlook on the hordes of LF musket the Turks can get. Good times coming.

[deadtorius]

then you can see of skirmishers really do work in FOG R

[stecal]

then you can see of skirmishers really do work in FOG R

I still think they should cost less...

[timmy1]

I can assure you that if the Swedes were allowed LH or LF they would take them like a shot. The Croats give the Imperialists a real edge. I don't think that the points are wrong for skirmishers - if you think so I would be interested to hear why.

[quackstheking]

LH and LF are not there to fight! Their role is to harass, delay and screen the main battle line - just like their historical counterparts! If anything they are too powerful as a single 4 base LH BG can hold up a whole mounted wing with little chance of the mounted troops getting to grips.

I think the points for light foot and horse are spot on - strong evidence of this is that in all the lists where they are available, most players take them even at the points cost. The points pay for their extra manoeuvrability not their offensive capability.

Don

[hazelbark]

I can assure you that if the Swedes were allowed LH or LF they would take them like a shot. The Croats give the Imperialists a real edge. I don't think that the points are wrong for skirmishers - if you think so I would be interested to hear why.

"A real edge"

I view it as a valuable tool, but not that big an edge. Swedes could use them or bulking too. But what especially do you think the croats offer the imperialists? I get it slow down the swedes but....