|
|
Post by bluestone28 on May 29, 2019 23:03:20 GMT
just a fast question about the Artillery combat factors of 4 / 4,
it seem quite high to me (especially in Close Combat)
i mean, comparing Knight or Blades factors or even Elephants...
Someone knows why it is so high?
thanks
Eric.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 30, 2019 0:36:39 GMT
I agree it is high, but I can’t really comment on why it is so high.
It isn’t too bad when in close combat as artillery tends to be quick killed. My issue is with the distant combat factors, especially when two artillery stands are firing.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 30, 2019 4:20:17 GMT
It is true that Art now has a very high combat factor but on balance this helps keep it viable in a post 2.2 reality
* Enemies can now move towards it just outside of the firing arc so are unable to be shot. They need only move into partial front edge contact (ie 1 mm of the two front edges touching) and from there slide into contact
* Art can still not move and shoot
* Art can still not move into contact
* Art can still only shoot on their own move.
* Nothing is quick killed by Art in close combat
* Art is still quick killed by everything
* The gap between shooting range and enemy movement is the same but now expressed in BW not inches.
* Art is now quick killed by shooting so when two Art models face off one dies.
If Art still had a +2 for close combat they would not be useful at all - fast moving elements could move along outside of shooting arc for one move. In the next move they could get just enough of a touch to slide into contact and then fight (with the odds in their favour) for a quick kill.
And yes Keith - the whole of two Art elements shooting together is greater than the sum of the parts. I have no issues with this at all. It gives the much maligned element an edge. There are very few armies that can field two Art. The Southern Sung is one and when I used it at Cancon two years ago the games all hinged on whether I could make the fourth kill when contact was made before the Art and Cb elements were cut down
cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 30, 2019 7:09:29 GMT
My reluctance to comment on the base factors is mostly because I don’t know clearly Phil Barker’s reasons for the grading. I agree that having artillery with a +2 or even a +3 for close combat would not be ideal at all, with the outcomes and interactions as they are. The fact that artillery quick kill other artillery can create some interesting decision making.
I have never played against the Sung, but have often faced an opponent’s French Ordonnance which are one of the very colourful armies of the period. They can field two artillery stands and rightly so. I await the day when my local opponent decides to field two stands of horde - though I suspect I will be waiting a while. In the mean time my English will just have to accept that Castillon was not a happy place.
That said two artillery stands are particularly useful when facing Hussites, which seem to be one of those popular armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 30, 2019 7:40:21 GMT
I have never played against the Sung, but have often faced an opponent’s French Ordonnance which are one of the very colourful armies of the period. They can field two artillery stands and rightly so. One very competent and clever gamer in this neck of the woods brought French Ordonnance + (?) ally inc artillery to a tournament back in December. Three artillery, a truly Grand Battery approach. It blew holes in most opponents and got him to the final. (And rightly so...he’s a top notch player). Didn’t all go his way, as I believe he lost a couple of guns in counter battery fire during the earlier stages. +4 does seem too good in close combat, IMHO. +2 (under v2.2) was also too weak, and artillery were always a prime target. |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 30, 2019 10:21:53 GMT
Pure guess however my thinking is that PB is representing for example a Roman blade unit with integral artillery shooting from a cart.
In the Wars of the Roses it might represent men-at-arms in front with artillery shooting overhead from higher up a hill.
Artillery could be useful to make horse archers and other light cavalry feel unhappy, so the factors give them roughly an even chance of a flee.
Against most others a recoil is OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on May 30, 2019 18:45:50 GMT
I have never played against the Sung, but have often faced an opponent’s French Ordonnance which are one of the very colourful armies of the period. They can field two artillery stands and rightly so. One very competent and clever gamer in this neck of the woods brought French Ordonnance + (?) ally inc artillery to a tournament back in December. Three artillery, a truly Grand Battery approach. It blew holes in most opponents and got him to the final. (And rightly so...he’s a top notch player). Didn’t all go his way, as I believe he lost a couple of guns in counter battery fire during the earlier stages. +4 does seem too good in close combat, IMHO. +2 (under v2.2) was also too weak, and artillery were always a prime target. Wouldn't be the same player who 'maxed' out on El from the main list then brought more along from some Allies, fielding 4 (or was it 5) in total was it? |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 30, 2019 21:54:27 GMT
just a fast question about the Artillery combat factors of 4 / 4, it seem quite high to me (especially in Close Combat) i mean, comparing Knight or Blades factors or even Elephants... Someone knows why it is so high? thanks Eric. I do.
It is Tom's fault! June of 2012 we were examining Arty quite closely. The problem under 2.2 was that a Lh could move quickly into contact to Artillery in a line and score a fast kill. They were simply too brittle.We considered moving Arty to be +3 vs all... Phil however worried that this penalized them too much against Bd and El. We also considered side or rear support.
The end result was to raise the combat factor to +4, but give QK to all elements. This would represent close by troops possibly moving to support the artillery crew without complicated support rules...
Moving the factor to +4 lessens the chance of a Cv or Lh swooping in for a kill. It allows Artillery to exist in a main battle line...but also allows heavy infantry to overrun the artillery after suffering several shots.
This was actually Tom's idea.
So, blame him!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 30, 2019 23:52:15 GMT
I have never played against the Sung, but have often faced an opponent’s French Ordonnance which are one of the very colourful armies of the period. They can field two artillery stands and rightly so. One very competent and clever gamer in this neck of the woods brought French Ordonnance + (?) ally inc artillery to a tournament back in December. Three artillery, a truly Grand Battery approach. It blew holes in most opponents and got him to the final. (And rightly so...he’s a top notch player). Didn’t all go his way, as I believe he lost a couple of guns in counter battery fire during the earlier stages. +4 does seem too good in close combat, IMHO. +2 (under v2.2) was also too weak, and artillery were always a prime target. We had one of our better players here in Oz try the French Ordonnance Grand Battery
he did well but not well enough to win outright.
I seriously considered a Ming Chinese/Yi Korean alliance to get the Grand Battery but was unable to make it work in practice games - basically needing 4PIPs to pivot your battery when all of the enemy moves out of arc can be a problem.
The Grand Battery can be part of a Ming with Yi allies or a Yi with Ming allies
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 31, 2019 1:08:07 GMT
I suspected the PIPs would be an issue. Perhaps it is because I have the feeling my PIPs are lower than I would like.
That said the Ming are appealing even with out the ally. The fit nicely in period with some other armies locally and as I have some figures they have been on my “to be painted list” for some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on May 31, 2019 2:54:34 GMT
It allows Artillery to exist in a main battle line... --Joe Collins Or, in the case of the IV/35 Mongol Conquest army, it is the battle line. (Grins.)  Yeah, I like the CF for Arty in Purple. (Genghis does too.) |
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 31, 2019 6:11:55 GMT
I suspected the PIPs would be an issue. Perhaps it is because I have the feeling my PIPs are lower than I would like. That said the Ming are appealing even with out the ally. The fit nicely in period with some other armies locally and as I have some figures they have been on my “to be painted list” for some time. I used the Ming that Cancon without the Yi Ally and they did not disgrace themselves 
However the Art was blown away by the Wallachians in an Art duel. They lost the shooting dice both bounds 
I do like to have some Art in my armies - it is still a good Elly repellent.
My Konstantinian Byzantines did very well - a solid centre of CP/8Bw/Art/Sp/Sp struck fear into many hearts. Having 2x3Kn to deliver the punch and 4xCv and a LH to look for a flank rounded off the combination.
Highly recommended.
My kryptonite was Nan Chao. I can't make 3Pk armies work but my opponent utterly devastated me with them.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 31, 2019 19:47:21 GMT
I would be very surprised if you find any battle were a length is unsupported artillery, weapons between yes, shooting over friends yes, but artillery holding the line no.
As a pure aside, read up about Manassas/Bull Run in 1861 American Civil War, you will find an interesting section on guns without support, and a general mix up over who was on whose side.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 20, 2019 21:39:32 GMT
What Joe said.
TomT
|
|
)
