Art De La Guerre

[Amra]

Hi All ,

I love these rules and the game but one aspect bugs me .

Why can artillery shoot thru light troops ? Worse , how do we justify shooting thru mounted light troops ?

How is it possible flat trajectory weapons like scorpions or giant iron ball bombards can fire thru their own troops without effect ?

No army has optics or sights on their weapons

Can anyone point to any historical account where this happened ?

[daveallen]

Hi Amra, glad you like the rules.

The artillery shoot over, not through, light troops.

Thanks for reminding me that this applies to light cav as well as light foot.

I'd urge you not to get hung up on what is a relatively trivial aspect of the game - in around 40 competition games I've come across artillery twice [one Roman army and a medieval war wagon] and neither was used in the way described. But if they had been I don't think there'd have been too much of a gain for the shooters as the evade and interpenetration rules would make it a a risky tactic.

I'm not sure you're right to describe Scorpions and Ballistas as flat trajectory weapons at ranges of 240 to 360 metres [4 to 6 UD].

Also bear in mind that the light troops may be dispersed or clumped in ways that make it easy to spot the target. And even without modern sighting/ranging equipment ancient shooters were able to hit their targets from time to time.

Dave

[Amra]

Hi Dave ,

Thanks for that . You make some good points .

I think effective range for Scorpions was more like 100 meters but I take your point

Although they can get caught at closer range , LH supporting heavy (8 MU) fire is useful .My Burgundian Ordnance have 2 heavy guns partnered with 2 LH crossbow, every shot the target is 0 and I'm either 1 or usually 2 ( 1LH and 1 Art supporting Arty)
I have plenty of range to skip away and if they charge , they haven't rallied ..

The rules are great ,but this feels wrong so it doesn't feel trivial to me .

Can you give any example in history where this occurred ? Particularly bombards shooting thru (over?) light horse

[daveallen]

I can't even give you a 15th century example of effective use of heavy artillery on an open battlefield.

The formation you're talking about would be useful if I had to walk up to it and take the shooting.

If not then you've spent 20pts creating a no go zone.

If I have to, then I can use something like Elite HC Impact/Bow backed up by LH Jav and through a combination of ZoCs and slides destroy your LH and then pick off the Art.

I reckon the odds wouldn't be far from evens, but the important thing to remember is that it will be my choice whether to take them or not.

[Commodore]

[JohnTheBoring]

Ancient artillery effective range was around 400 yards/metres. Actual range was often longer.

Typically it was highly accurate and could therefore fire reliably through gaps in lighter troops. (The Greeks built a repeater, but abandoned the idea as it tended to turn one bloke into an impression of a hedgehog. No spread unlike a machine gun.)

As for gunpowder artillery that was flatter trajectory and inaccurate, but still would be over intervening troops at long range. Perhaps the slow rate of fire meant light troops could work out when not to be standing up and right in front?

Another reason for firing over lights only is other troops would hide the target.

[Amra]

Thanks guys , I love that my method has you thinking of tactics !

To which I say "yeah , I've thought of your counters too" Bring on a game and we'll find out

Seriously that kind of fun is partly why we play right ?

My question though , wasn't how you'd counter a tactic but rather does it seem right that the LH help so much ? That their own fire is unaffected by bombards firing through them ?


Sorry John , you'd have to give me your evidence for accuracy . I have always though non-standard size ammunition and the gradual loosening of tension in the onagers ropes meant accurate shooting/range measurement was impossible

Sorry too , but no I don't think ancient light horse yelled "incoming" and jumped out of the way when their mates fired from behind them .Plus that their horses would be OK with it

Can anyone think of a historical example , even using LF and Roman shorter range scorpions ? Or anything for that matter ?

I'll be happy if you can ,I use arty with some of my armies .

[fdunadan]

Last year i was Lucky enough to witness in a reconstitution the firing of a roman scorpio:

at about 150 m they aimed and fired at a shield five times in a row, taking some time to reload carefully. The shots were very accurate:

The shield was perforated each time, with 20 to 30 cm of the missile passing forth.
At the same time, an archer tried to hit the target, missing 4 times and hitting the shield once, but the arrow bounced back...

they told me they tried a long range firing (400m and more),by firing with a larger angle, the missile then took a parabolic curve culminating 3 or 4 meter over the ground.
So accuracy and firing over head of light troops seems justified
_________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat.

[Hazelbark]

On p 235 of the 3rd edition the author writes that he made artillery more playable vis-à-vis 2nd edition. I don't know what changed but artillery is not over powered they now qualify as something almost worth their point cost.

[Amra]

fdunadan that is awesome !

Re-reading Vegetius the Epitome , he says the same thing BUT he only talks of overhead shooting supporting the heavy infantry attack , not operating with skirmishers . Webster suggest the shooting is done from the flanks . Neither talk about troops in front also adding fire

The Burgundians lost at Nancy due partly to having to move troops out of the way of their cannon,Tannenberg it was archers and cannon side by side , nothing in front ( Delbruck)

I just don't see any evidence for a sophisticated combined arms attack especially one that allows shooting thru /over horses

If its as Hazelbark suggests , just a game mechanism, fair enough but it has no basis in history .You may as well give them lasers or wings

FoG R suffers from armies with massed arty , light foot and cav operating as they never did in history . Id hate ADLG to be the same .

[NickW]

I'd really like to see some examples of this in history. I know of no examples where firing with pinpoint accuracy over your light troops was a tactic. Not only that the light troops fire in support and are not even bothered by the huge missiles flying with laser-guided accuracy past their ears.

The same thing happens in FOGR and no one on that forum could provide an historical example. If there are none in early modern or Roman battles it seems unlikely there will be any.

This is meant to be an historical wargame. Inventing tactics to make troops better is simply wrong, if that is the case. If no one uses them and the rules portray them correctly without any artificial fix then the points cost should reduced.

If the absurd case of artillery shooting through light troops who support their fire occurs just 1 game in a 100, that's still too much.
_________________
Melbourne

[Hazelbark]

[Hazelbark]

[NickW]

If artillery can shoot over light troops why can't it shoot over others?

If the artillery is shooting at maximum range and the light troops are 1UD from the enemy, that's clearly not overhead. However, shooting through lights because they are "dispersed" is something I'm not aware of in any period of history.

The tactics of how to use or counter artillery are irrelevant to the discussion, which is about the historical validity of the rule.

Anachronistic battles are not required under the rules. You don't have to play tournaments.
The rules attempt to produce an historical feel. The artillery rules do not.
_________________
Melbourne

[JohnTheBoring]