Artillery and mounted

[nikgaukroger]

Shortly after FoG:R was released some comments were made about the effect of artillery on mounted troops to the effect that as they hit on 4+ as opposed to the 5+ for (non-deep) infantry that there was an incentive for Art to be aimed at the mounted which was odd and ahistorical.

What are players views now?

[kevinj]

I believe that experience has shown that this is not the problem that was initially feared. Whilst artillery can sometimes get a lucky shot at mounted troops, generally the speed and manouvrability of these enables them to get out of the way so the artillery will be losing shots trying to follow them.

I have found that the most effective way to actually cause damage with artillery is to continuously bombard a target for a number of turns, which is only really feasible if you are targetting infantry.

[Three]

Around here, artillery always goes down last and nearly always goes down to shoot at mounted. You only need 1 lucky shot to get the -1 for 25% casualties (I am continually amazed at how many 1s are thrown for Death Rolls following artillery hits, both by me and by my opponents).

The exception is when we play in games where keils and/or tercios are involved as the plus for the deeper formation sometimes make it a better option, but bearing in mind that 2 bases off a 12 base keil is nothing whereas 2 bases from a 4 base reiter unit effectively ends it's active participation, or breaks it if it's average. In 17th century games it's alway the horse that gets it....unless like my playing partner you manage to hit on a 4+ on 2 out of 24 rolls

I can live with that to be honest, but at the risk of hijacking the thread, I find the inability of mounted to pass through guns whether they are manned or not a hard one to understand.

[stecal]

in the time period artillery was nearly immobile and probably should be deployed first just after fortifications.

The other reason mounted is often targetted is that rolling 5+ to hit infantry isn't very effective. Make all mounted a -1 to hit as well and it balances out. I fail to understand how quickly moving cavalry are an EASIER target than giant infantry blobs walking.

[nikgaukroger]

in the time period artillery was nearly immobile and probably should be deployed first just after fortifications.

Doesn't really work as a FoG:R game mechanism though - play testing showed that (as we had it that Art must deploy in the first quartile initially).

[ravenflight]

Around here, artillery always goes down last and nearly always goes down to shoot at mounted. You only need 1 lucky shot to get the -1 for 25% casualties (I am continually amazed at how many 1s are thrown for Death Rolls following artillery hits, both by me and by my opponents).

The exception is when we play in games where keils and/or tercios are involved as the plus for the deeper formation sometimes make it a better option, but bearing in mind that 2 bases off a 12 base keil is nothing whereas 2 bases from a 4 base reiter unit effectively ends it's active participation, or breaks it if it's average. In 17th century games it's alway the horse that gets it....unless like my playing partner you manage to hit on a 4+ on 2 out of 24 rolls

I can live with that to be honest, but at the risk of hijacking the thread, I find the inability of mounted to pass through guns whether they are manned or not a hard one to understand.

I definitely use my artillery to fire at mounted. That MAY be historical, but so are my opponents, so it bothers me not.

I MUST soften up the cuirassiers etc before impact or my determined horse is cactus. If I was playing other determined horse (historically) then I may change my target.

[madaxeman]

Unless I'm planning on a very defensive/static infantry plan, ie sitting at the back when matched against better opponents such as when using normal P&S units against enemy Swedes, I always try to use my artillery against enemy horse.

I've found myself using it against enemy foot more recently, but that is because I am now more willing to adopt a stance of sitting well back and waiting for enemy foote to attack me. Hitting on 4's, plus the fact that almost all horse are in units of 4 makes pointing artillery at enemy horse a much better bet. I also seem to lose a unit of horse to artillery in most of my games ...

[daveallen]

If I have only one BG of art. I tend to use it to support a flank. If my opponent is foolish enough to leave mounted in its arc that's a bonus, but in my view it's there to scare him and allow my own puny mounted wing the opportunity to operate freely. If I have more than one BG I focus them on an infantry BG, sure in the knowledge that they'll destroy it sooner or later and can then move onto the next target. This usually forces opponents to advance on my prepared position.

Part of the problem with ahistorical use of artillery is that it is easy for a player to deploy and keep his infantry outside Med Art range. Not so easy to do with mounted, hence these end up being the target. Also, if you're advancing with your own infantry it's very difficult to coordinate with artillery. Whereas it's quite easy to fire into the flank edge of a mounted confrontation.

Dave

[nikgaukroger]

I definitely use my artillery to fire at mounted. That MAY be historical, but so are my opponents, so it bothers me not.

I MUST soften up the cuirassiers etc before impact of my determined horse is cactus. If I was playing other determined horse (historically) then I may change my target.

"MAY be historical" - a bit uncertain there Do people think it is historical?

BTW it is certainly historical that Determined Horse face Cuirassiers - it occasioned Gustavus to say “charge me those blacke fellows soundly: for they are the men who will undo us” at Lutzen, and it was these that killed him (well, probably).

[kevinj]

It's interesting to read other people's thoughts on the best way to use artillery, but to return to Nik's original question, does anyone actually think the fact that there is no - POA for shooting at mounted with artillery causes a problem/imbalance in the game?

[nikgaukroger]

It's interesting to read other people's thoughts on the best way to use artillery, but to return to Nik's original question, does anyone actually think the fact that there is no - POA for shooting at mounted with artillery causes a problem/imbalance in the game?

The question was also about the historicality - as we went to a great deal of trouble to get the right "look and feel" for the period I think this is important (within the constraints of giving a good game, of course).

[Three]

It's interesting to read other people's thoughts on the best way to use artillery, but to return to Nik's original question, does anyone actually think the fact that there is no - POA for shooting at mounted with artillery causes a problem/imbalance in the game?

The question was also about the historicality - as we went to a great deal of trouble to get the right "look and feel" for the period I think this is important (within the constraints of giving a good game, of course).

Yes, I do feel that it causes ahistorical use. I am as guilty as anyone regarding this, but if I don't have initiative then I won't deploy any further in than 9", I will deploy my own guns to shoot at my opponent's mounted 9 times out of 10, and they'll do the same. We started off taking the minimum amount of guns as well, but now try and get at least 4 mediums into each list. Maybe we just failed more death rolls than average, but staying out of arc of guns with mounted is a big part of our games.

To save messing about with the POAs I'd simply make medium and heavy guns deploy in at least 18" from the side edge.

[ravenflight]

"MAY be historical" - a bit uncertain there Do people think it is historical?

No, I meant it may be or may not be (as in it doesn't matter).

Considering the fact that 100% of my opponents thus far have not been dated within 100 years of my army I think it's a rather moot point.

I'm pretty certain the incidents of artillery firing at people on horses was greater than the incidents of people fighting each other after travelling through time 100 years to do battle.

BTW it is certainly historical that Determined Horse face Cuirassiers - it occasioned Gustavus...

Is that the same Gustavus who died 60 years before my army took to the field? I don't know the lists, but I'd be pretty certain that Gustavus' Determined Horse were armoured... which changes things substantially - mine are unprotected, and so my tactics are different, which is why I said "I MUST soften up the cuirassiers etc before impact or my determined horse is cactus"

[nikgaukroger]

Is that the same Gustavus who died 60 years before my army took to the field? I don't know the lists, but I'd be pretty certain that Gustavus' Determined Horse were armoured... which changes things substantially - mine are unprotected, and so my tactics are different, which is why I said "I MUST soften up the cuirassiers etc before impact or my determined horse is cactus"

Well assuming we are talking about cuirassiers being Heavily Armoured (i.e true cuirassiers rather than demi-cuirassiers) it makes no difference in game if your Det Hse are Armoured or Unarmoured as either way you suffer from your opponents better armour. Or have I missed something again?

[grahambriggs]

I don't know a great deal about the history, however the maps of battles seem to have the artillery pointing at enemy infantry, in the centre. Are there any sources that speak to why that was done, or why on the flank pointing at mounted wasn't?

I've not used artillery that much but do normally try and site them so that they can cover a likely line of advance of the enemy; ideally pointing at horses but if you have enough you can grind down infantry too and they tend not to be able to get away when battered.

So it does seem that they are used unhistorically. Of course, it might be that they are too powerful against foot as well. Are there many accounts of them blowing away battle groups?

[timmy1]

I think FoG:R has the balance right. Artillery did not shoot at mounted very often BECAUSE artillery was so effective against mounted when the artillery was supported by line of battle foot. Two examples.

(Oman) Ravenna 1512. The Spanish commander 'Navarro was ... resolved not to come out of (the entrenchments)' ... Bayard states it was the 'crossfire of only two guns which made' the Spanish cavalry commander make up his mind 'that he would have to charge at all costs: his troopers were raging and asking for men instead of cannon-balls to fight'. So the whole Spanish plan has to be rejected because the mounted cannot stand under artillery fire. The same occurs to the cavalry on the other flank 'charging for the French light horse and the destructive guns they were guarding', cutting through a marsh to do it!

(Wood) Dreux 1562. The Royal artillery are all deployed opposite Huguenot mounted. 'some light cavalry and a regiment of reiters from the battle which had ridden forward ... to screen the march suddenly were cannonaded by a 14 gun battery ... and retreated in panic to the shelter of the ... valley'. This is on a battlefield which is perfect cavalry country, by an army with material mounted superiority, and which is attempting a turning manouvre. 'Conde, concluding that to continue the march was now too risky...' The whole plan gone to pot.

These are the first two examples I looked at as they are battles I have studied having refought them this year. Under DBR the mounted would not really get scared of the guns. Under FoGR they do, one of the reasons I feel FoGR is a better historical set of rules.

[ravenflight]

Well assuming we are talking about cuirassiers being Heavily Armoured (i.e true cuirassiers rather than demi-cuirassiers) it makes no difference in game if your Det Hse are Armoured or Unarmoured as either way you suffer from your opponents better armour. Or have I missed something again?

Sorry Nik,
I re-read my post, and noticed a few things. I was typing that reply on ly phone while walking so didn't say quite what I meant to say.

Firstly I meant 'ahistorical' not 'historical'.

Secondly, what I was trying to get across was that my Det Horse (Louis XIV) are SUPPOSED to kick arse and take names. That's what they did historically. I'm not saying that they were gods of the battlefield unable to fail, but their battlefield record is pretty damned good. I find that so far my mounted can't win a trick. Even when I got some armoured cuirassiers on their own once it boiled down to an even fight that one day I PROBABLY would have won but took MANY turns.

To give my Det Horse a fighting chance I (ahistorically or otherwise - I don't use my armies 'by the history book' but 'by the rulebook') use my arty to soften up (hopefully) the enemy mounted. I have to, or my mounted are dead.

So far I'm finding the Louis XIV extremely uncompetative. I'm not THAT bothered by it but if I use ahistorical tactics I'm even less bothered.

If they made a rule where artillery had to face off against foot only, well it would exacerbate the fact that Det Horse are broken even more, as they would be ridden over BIG TIME by horse and cavalry.

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.

[Sarmaticus]

Re Ravenna, the French and Ferraran guns did enough damage to Spanish and Italian horse at Ravenna to force them to sally out but that shooting was partly by enfilade, the mounted were the only targets visible above the fieldworks and the guns had plenty of time to shoot.
Oman's version of the incident at Dreux is that, "The Constable's artillery fired a few long shots, which dispersed the screen of light horse which headed Conde's column of route and compelled the leading squadrons of his main body to seek shelter in a dip of the ground." The point is that this was the first inkling the Huguenots had that the Catholic army was there. Even then, their commanders planned simply to deploy while their baggage and artillery moved on and they'd follow after. The Catholics coming out to fight upset that plan, not the artillery fire. As to being deployed opposite the Huguenot mounted, the mounted were leading the column of march, so were the first shot at and, given the whole Huguenot front line once deployed, consisted of mounted, any Catholic artillery was likely to be opposite it.
My guess fwiw as to why guns were not normally deployed on the wings against would be that their slow rate of fire made them easy to overrrun if not supported by infantry - and the gunners, being nervous fellows, would run away very smartly without support.

[nikgaukroger]

So it does seem that they are used unhistorically. Of course, it might be that they are too powerful against foot as well. Are there many accounts of them blowing away battle groups?

Off the top of my head not really.

[david53]

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

The reason seems quite easy a fast moving enemy ie mounted would quickly over run the gun line.