Artillery

[bayankhan]

ARTILLERY

Noticed that Heavy Artillery can't move, and our group concluded that this included turning in place. Is this correct? This seems to effectively emasculate heavy artillery given the limitations on arc of fire and relatively short range. What was the beta test results for using Heavy artillery? Wouldn't allowing Heavy artillery to move under a CMT with a penalty make more sense?

Also have concluded that light artillery is pretty weak, with Roman cart mounted ballistae having only the same range as longbowmen, which doesn't seem right considering test results for modern reconstructions, but perhaps there's more here than meets the eye.

One strange thing is the negative POA for artillery shooting heavily armored foot but none for shooting vs field defenses. Those must be awfully big shields they carry to stop 1 talent boulders or cannon balls.

Haven't deployed it on table top, but these apparent problems and high expense make it something that is unlikely to show up in any tournament army.

[rbodleyscott]

Noticed that Heavy Artillery can't move, and our group concluded that this included turning in place. Is this correct?

Yes

This seems to effectively emasculate heavy artillery given the limitations on arc of fire and relatively short range. What was the beta test results for using Heavy artillery? Wouldn't allowing Heavy artillery to move under a CMT with a penalty make more sense?

Heavy artillery was brought along for sieges. It was not very effective in field battles in our period, and was far too cumbersome to move on the battlefield. It did not have carriages suitable to allow it to be traversed - these were a later development.

Also have concluded that light artillery is pretty weak, with Roman cart mounted ballistae having only the same range as longbowmen, which doesn't seem right considering test results for modern reconstructions, but perhaps there's more here than meets the eye.

Ballistae came in a range of sizes and different sizes had different ranges. Unlike longbowmen, light artillery count 6" as effective range, whereas longbowmen shoot at reduced dice over 4".

One strange thing is the negative POA for artillery shooting heavily armored foot but none for shooting vs field defenses. Those must be awfully big shields they carry to stop 1 talent boulders or cannon balls.

The -1 applies equally against all foot, even unprotected. It reflects the slow rate of fire, not enemy protection.

Haven't deployed it on table top, but these apparent problems and high expense make it something that is unlikely to show up in any tournament army.

Fair enough. It didn't turn up often in field battles historically either.

[sagji]

Also a BG of 4 longbowmen get 3 dice within 4 MU and 2 dice within 6 MU. A BG of 2 artillery gets 4 dice within 6 MU, and if their target takes 2 shooting hits must make a CT even if that isn't 1HP3B and the CT is at -1.

[terrys]

Although at first sight artillery looks useless, I find that whenever I do use it, my opponent will usually try to avoid aprroaching it within arc/firing range. The -1 on the CT and only 2 hits required makes players extremely wary.

They're never battle winners, but if used correctly they can channel your opponent into the areas that you wish to engage him. They're also good at 30/50 points for protecting your baggage from marauding LH.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

How would you categorise Charles VIII's artillery at Fornovo? I understood that Charles' heavy artillery in his Italian campaign was on trunnions and that this enabled it to be brought into action (and presumably withdrawn thereafter as the Venetian League held the field). However from the perspective of FoG rules this may well have been a first occurence and is right at the end of the period so not something that should be legislated for in the rules designed to cover the whole time span.

I think I would handle the ability of these guns to move via a house rule for scenario purpose or for extending the rules into the early Italian Wars.

Regards

[nikgaukroger]

I think given its a unique (or practically?) case you just deal with it as a scenario specific case - otherwise, as you hint at, you distort the rules for the rest of the 4500 years covered.

BTW refresh my memory - did the heavy guns actually move and fire during what we might call the battle part of Fornova.

Played it under DBR many years ago as I recall, a fun scenario - must be worth a try out with FoG some time

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I think given its a unique (or practically?) case you just deal with it as a scenario specific case - otherwise, as you hint at, you distort the rules for the rest of the 4500 years covered.

BTW refresh my memory - did the heavy guns actually move and fire during what we might call the battle part of Fornova.

Played it under DBR many years ago as I recall, a fun scenario - must be worth a try out with FoG some time

I haven't got any sources to hand but IIRC the artillery was with the advanced guard and deployed (as planned) from the line of march when the Italians attacked. There is no reference to their moving during the action that I know of (and I would be surprised). However they must have been moved at the end of the action to avoid being left on the battlefield and captured (and AFAIK this was not the case). Fornovo is strange because Wikipedia describes it as a French defeat (probably because the baggage was more or less looted of much acquired treasure) while Oman, for example, sees it as a French victory because Chrles VIII broke through to link up with other French forces in the north of Italy. Both sides seem to have claimed victory.

Regards

[shall]

Heavy Artillery will come into their own in the campaign supplement.

In a tabletop game currently they are very useful as part of a static defensive formation, but little use otherwise. And this is correct from a historical perspective on average (barring a few xceptions at the very end of the period which are more pre-rennaisance artillery).

L Art well supported can be rather handy as part of a slow attack.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

L Art well supported can be rather handy as part of a slow attack.

And what on earth would you know about slow attacks?

[bayankhan]

the comment about ART having the dice ADVANTAGE VS LBW doesn't take into account POA. The artillery will fire at -1 POA hitting on 5,6 while the LBW continue to fire normally at 4,5,6. So 4 dice at 5,6=1.3 expected hits while three dice at 4,5,6 = 1.5 expected hits. The artillery will only get enough hits to cause a CT test to the LBW a small percenatge of the time while the LBW will cause a CT test to the artillery almost every turn. With the adjustment- to death rolls for missile fire, only a particularly lucky roll by the artillery can even eliminate a base, so left alone the longbowmen will eventually break the artillery while possibly suffering a CT loss and possibly losing a base. Add in 'superior' LBW and it gets much worse.

If this is the desired result representing some battle where LBW outshot Burgundian light guns or similar, then this is fine, but I can recall no historical outcome like this; but I can make no claim to research depth that would preclude such a result.

[ars_belli]

Are there any recorded historical instances of field battles (rather than seiges), in which units of medieval longbowmen faced off against artillery?

Cheers,
Scott

[nikgaukroger]

Castillon, last battle of the HYW IIRC.

[rbodleyscott]

the comment about ART having the dice ADVANTAGE VS LBW doesn't take into account POA. The artillery will fire at -1 POA hitting on 5,6 while the LBW continue to fire normally at 4,5,6. So 4 dice at 5,6=1.3 expected hits while three dice at 4,5,6 = 1.5 expected hits. The artillery will only get enough hits to cause a CT test to the LBW a small percenatge of the time while the LBW will cause a CT test to the artillery almost every turn. With the adjustment- to death rolls for missile fire, only a particularly lucky roll by the artillery can even eliminate a base, so left alone the longbowmen will eventually break the artillery while possibly suffering a CT loss and possibly losing a base. Add in 'superior' LBW and it gets much worse.

If this is the desired result representing some battle where LBW outshot Burgundian light guns or similar, then this is fine, but I can recall no historical outcome like this; but I can make no claim to research depth that would preclude such a result.

The artillery rules are more driven by their effect (relative to longbowmen) on other troops, rather than the extremely rare situation of a duel between longbowmen and artillery. (And IIRC the artillery at Castillon were behind field defences, which would certainly tip the balance in their favour).

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Castillon was indeed notable for the use of field defences by the French, from behind which their guns played on the English advance, apparently not only from the front but also in enfilade - there were also a lot of guns - Heath quotes 300. However this didn't stop the English reaching the ditch - many apparently being killed in the dtich or on the ramparts.

The only other HYW action notable for use of artillery was Formigny in 1450 where two guns were used by Clermont to annoy the English line until they were disabled by a surprise attack by a group of English archers (implying that the guns either outranged the longbows or were protected from arrows in some way? As the archers apparently then tried to drag the guns away these probably weren't that heavy.

Regards

[Ironhand]

I like the treatment of artillery in FoG. I always felt that artillery was unrealistically mobile and powerful in previous rules sets. I can't wait for the campaign supplement - it sounds very interesting.

[Condottiere]

Artillery at Fornovo is a bad example, if one wants to argue that it should be more effective in the game. Both sides had a relatively large quantity of guns--especially for the period. (Yes, the Italians had a significant artillery train). An artillery duel at long range produced no real effects.

In fact, Charles VIII's artillery train saw little action in the entire campaign. The effect was more pshychological than real. And, the primary purpose of artillery during the period was seiges. While it did appear in increasing numbers on the battlefield in the sixteenth century, it is beyond the time frame of the rules.

We used Heavy Artillery for the first time last night. Seemed fine to me.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Artillery at Fornovo is a bad example, if one wants to argue that it should be more effective in the game. Both sides had a relatively large quantity of guns--especially for the period. (Yes, the Italians had a significant artillery train). An artillery duel at long range produced no real effects.

In fact, Charles VIII's artillery train saw little action in the entire campaign. The effect was more pshychological than real. And, the primary purpose of artillery during the period was seiges. While it did appear in increasing numbers on the battlefield in the sixteenth century, it is beyond the time frame of the rules.

We used Heavy Artillery for the first time last night. Seemed fine to me.

My concern - and really just for Fornovo - was the lack of movement in that Charles VIII's artillery needs to deploy from the march - something which the newer design of the French train allowed for (Talylor p84) .

The effectiveness of both sides' artillery does indeed seem to have been limited although reasons for why differ (I have seen weather conditions given but also see Taylor p90). I don't think there's any need to challenge the effectiveness of Heavy Artillery in FoG. I think we would introduce a scenario rule for Fornovo to allow initial movement by the French artillery train (or set up the game with the artillery having just deployed).

NB. I'm using Taylor [The Art of War in Italy 1494-1529] as a secondary source and there may well be newer interpretations re use of artillery in Italy out there - I'd be interested if anyone has any suggestions for further reading.

Regards

[DanielS]

The newest research into Charles VIII artillery is Simon Pepper's "Castles and Cannons in the Naples Campaign of 1494-1495" were he shows that Charles VIII success rested far less on his artillery than has been assumed.

The assumption that the French artillery was of revolutionary design rest essentialy on a single source, the statment of Guicciardini which Taylor uses as well.
Accordign to Smith&DeVries there was nothing revolutionary about the French artillery:

"In fact none of these were new or revolutionary in 1494. The French gunpowder weapons were the same as those which had been in existence for almost half a century; iron cannonballs in significant quantities had been aroudn since the 1460's,; and light and fast , movable carriages may have been in use for as long , and perhaps longer."

The Artillery of the Dukes of Burgundy 1363-1477, page 44

Charles the Bold possesed bronze/copper alloy 'Courtaux' (with trunnions) which could be moved by 8 horses, a superb courtau is preserved in Basel. A 23cm 30-pounder. Fragments of of what is probably a 12cm courtau is preseved in Swiss museums as well.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

The newest research into Charles VIII artillery is Simon Pepper's "Castles and Cannons in the Naples Campaign of 1494-1495" were he shows that Charles VIII success rested far less on his artillery than has been assumed.

The assumption that the French artillery was of revolutionary design rest essentialy on a single source, the statment of Guicciardini which Taylor uses as well.
Accordign to Smith&DeVries there was nothing revolutionary about the French artillery:

"In fact none of these were new or revolutionary in 1494. The French gunpowder weapons were the same as those which had been in existence for almost half a century; iron cannonballs in significant quantities had been aroudn since the 1460's,; and light and fast , movable carriages may have been in use for as long , and perhaps longer."

The Artillery of the Dukes of Burgundy 1363-1477, page 44

Charles the Bold possesed bronze/copper alloy 'Courtaux' (with trunnions) which could be moved by 8 horses, a superb courtau is preserved in Basel. A 23cm 30-pounder. Fragments of of what is probably a 12cm courtau is preseved in Swiss museums as well.

Thanks for this - very interesting. I'll have to look these up.

Regards

[DanielS]

Forgot one detail about Pepper, his work was published as part of a larger work
David Abulafia, ed. The French Descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-95.. ISBN: 0-86078-550-5.