Slitherine

Hi

After playing a game with artillery, it seems that it is pretty useless.
I think that will not see many artillery on table and it's a pity. If FoG rules allow to play artillery, i think that artillery should be a little bit powerful or moveable.

What do you think about that ?

Thanks
Hervé

hcaille wrote:Hi

After playing a game with artillery, it seems that it is pretty useless.
I think that will not see many artillery on table and it's a pity. If FoG rules allow to play artillery, i think that artillery should be a little bit powerful or moveable.

What do you think about that ?

Thanks
Hervé

I think artillery should be as effective on the tabletop as it was in reality: not very.

Artillery didn´t really play a decisive role in more than a handful of battles: Phokians against Philip II of Macedonian and Castillon during the HYW are the one I'm aware of. In the first case, it was more of an ambush (I think) than a battle and in the latter case more akin to a siege.

Why should the artillery be more mobile? I'm not aware of flying batteries of bolt-shooters or anything remotely similar before the Hussites and even then we´re not exactly talking about Napoleonic horse batteries.

Julian

hcaille wrote:Hi

After playing a game with artillery, it seems that it is pretty useless.
I think that will not see many artillery on table and it's a pity. If FoG rules allow to play artillery, i think that artillery should be a little bit powerful or moveable.

What do you think about that ?

Thanks
Hervé

I think artillery should be as effective on the tabletop as it was in reality: not very.

Artillery didn´t really play a decisive role in more than a handful of battles: Phokians against Philip II of Macedonian and Castillon during the HYW are the one I'm aware of. In the first case, it was more of an ambush (I think) than a battle and in the latter case more akin to a siege.

Why should the artillery be more mobile? I'm not aware of flying batteries of bolt-shooters or anything remotely similar before the Hussites and even then we´re not exactly talking about Napoleonic horse batteries.

Julian

I think artillery should be as effective on the tabletop as it was in reality: not very.

Artillery didn´t really play a decisive role in more than a handful of battles: Phokians against Philip II of Macedonian and Castillon during the HYW are the one I'm aware of. In the first case, it was more of an ambush (I think) than a battle and in the latter case more akin to a siege.

Why should the artillery be more mobile? I'm not aware of flying batteries of bolt-shooters or anything remotely similar before the Hussites and even then we´re not exactly talking about Napoleonic horse batteries.

Julian

I'm agree with you but if the artillery is not very useful this cost should be corresponding to this efficiency. So do you think that 2 HArt worth 40 pts ? The same that 8 LF with bow for example ?

Hervé

I'm agree with you but if the artillery is not very useful this cost should be corresponding to this efficiency. So do you think that 2 HArt worth 40 pts ? The same that 8 LF with bow for example ?

You're paying for the extra range, the -1 on enemy CTs, the ability to have other foot move (and intercept) through them without penalty, the 4 dice at 6" range, and they're probably one of the cheapest BG's a drilled army can get.

The downside is: They can't move, and they're not very good in combat.

Are they worth 40pts?.... Only if they fit your battle plan.

Yup, the option to have a BG for 30 points (Light Artillery) as a Baggage Guard / lurkers at the back is not to be sniffed at.