Other Artillery stuff

[nikgaukroger]

Couple of things I'll post here as they were mentioned to me last weekend by a few people (which makes me a tad surprised they haven't appeared here yet).

1. Artillery to hit mounted on 5+

2. Medium and Heavy Artillery to be deployed as part of the first 1/4 of an army.


Discuss.

[timmy1]

Disagree with both.

[donm2]

Nik.

Agree with second one.

Don

[nikgaukroger]

Disagree with both.

A little explanation perhaps?

[Akbar]

1: Unsure.
2: Agree.

[timmy1]

Horse were always kept away from artillery in period. This change makes foot as easy to hit as mounted. Less incentive to keep away.

Artillery deployed in first batch would mean that the player deploying second can ensure that enemy artilery has no target.

[ravenflight]

Just being pedantic, I personally would word is that Artillery must be the first BG's deployed. There are a few armies which may have so much artillery that they take more than one batch to deploy.

I've played against one.

May not be an issue if you play around with 'must have 4 or 6 bases of foot for every arty'

[ravenflight]

I'm not big on the not big on the 'can't deploy shooting into the flank sector' thb, so would prefer the hit on a 5+

[nikgaukroger]

Artillery deployed in first batch would mean that the player deploying second can ensure that enemy artilery has no target.

This was found to be the case during the play testing before FoG:R was released when Art did have to deploy first, hence it was dropped. However, chatting about it with a few people at warfare they felt that the current system which allows the placement of Art to be left to the end gives it too many advantages at pointing at the best target. The feeling seemed to be that this is a more egregious issue.

Mind you, I suspect that the best target means pointing at mounted in the flank sectors so if mounted were hit of 5+ this may mitigate against this by removing the incentive?

[timmy1]

Nik

Agreed.

One suggestion then. Retain the +1 for artillery shooting at mounted AT CLOSE RANGE ONLY. How about that idea? Removes the shoot into flank zone incentive but reduces the risk of any Charge of the Light Brigade stuff (other than by the Madaxeman who would do it even if artillery hit mounted on a 3+...)

[benjones1211]

If you where to make it 5 to hit mtd except close range, you would have to make that the 8" so they at least get a chance of a couple of shots before being charged.

Also on the deployment, how about all artillery must be in the first two groups put down, that way they can always go down after the other person has put down one set of troops.

Although I still personally think they should go down in the first round, but the above would be a compromise and stop them going down last with laser guided sights on the juiciest target.

[kevinj]

The big gripe about artillery does appear to be around players targeting their opponents mounted from the start of the game. I personally favour preventing its deployment to shoot into the flanks and I think that has worked well in a number of tournaments where we've applied it.

We also have the benefit of some experience of forcing artillery to deploy first as it's been played that way at Badcon for the last couple of years. Whilst it may appear to deny the artillery a target, the converse is that it's a good way to deny your opponent an area to deploy in. I think Ben's suggestion of making it deploy in the first or second batch may be a reasonable compromise here.

[kevinj]

Something that's been raised to me that falls into the "Other Artillery Stuff" category is artillery shooting through LF, who are also able to shoot the same target. How do you feel about LF who are being shot through being prevented from shooting themselves?

[timmy1]

Ben 1st/2nd batch idea works for me.

Kevin, your LF idea introduces the concept of 'state'. Unless artillery has to fire first what happens if I forget and do the LF fire first?

[kevinj]

Since they're likely to be shooting the same target that's not often going to be an issue. The worst that's likely is equivalent to when somebody shoots without remembering the BG is Disordered and should be losing dice, you have to reassess it.

[ravenflight]

I'd be much more in favour of forcing Arty to deploy first and NOT stopping them from firing into the flanks. I don't think you can do both realistically, and if you are only going to do one, then deploying them first seems to mitigate a few sins, whilst stopping shooting into the flanks only mitigates one.

Re: LI, I'm actually clueless as to why you can shoot through friendly light infantry. I can see why you should be able to opt to ignore your enemy's lights, but not your own. Stopping being able to shoot through friendly troops AT ALL would be a big plus in my opinion. Is there any historical example of light infantry being shot through by artillery?

[nikgaukroger]

I think Ben's suggestion of making it deploy in the first or second batch may be a reasonable compromise here.

I'd be happy with this.

I'd still like hitting mounted on 5+ (with 3 deep, etc. getting a + PoA) as a disincentive to pointing into the flank sectors as well.

[nikgaukroger]

Re: LI, I'm actually clueless as to why you can shoot through friendly light infantry.

Afraid I can't recall why it is there - but do seem to remember that Charles was quite keen on it so I assume he had his reasons.

[timmy1]

Nik

'
I'd still like hitting mounted on 5+ (with 3 deep, etc. getting a + PoA)
'

If we do that then Caracoling troops would become a target for artillery. I would recommend the +POA be limited to a target with 2 or more files each 4 or more bases deep.

[nikgaukroger]

If we do that then Caracoling troops would become a target for artillery.

Which would be a much much smaller amount of mounted being targeted than is currently the case - an improvement IMO.

I am not inclined to any change in the + PoA for depth, and certainly not making it 4 deep.