Does Artillery need to be revamped?

[Akalabeth]

Artillery in my recent experience seems very hit or miss. With arrow IVs for example, the standard HE round is laughably inaccurate and it seems like the Homing missile is quite frankly too good.

In our most recent game, one of our players for example fired an HE round at a target 1 mapsheet away. He managed to roll really low and despite firing more than a mapsheet, the round came back and landed BEHIND the artillery unit.

Homing missiles meanwhile are basically the most powerful weapon in the game, 20 standard damage which is good as nearly everything out there except it also applies damage before standard combat, which means a mech or unit could be destroyed or knocked down before it even gets a chance to fire.

To me their effectiveness should lie somewhere in-between and the quality of round should be a lateral option. It should be worthwhile to take HE instead of homing (even if TAG is on the board). Why is WW1 artillery probably more accurate than 31st century? And maybe homing missiles should apply damage in the standard phase while unguided rounds apply damage as they still do now (before combat)

Why can a mech tag another with a TAG laser before the other mech can tag it with an ER Laser? Doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Weirdo]

In our most recent game, one of our players for example fired an HE round at a target 1 mapsheet away. He managed to roll really low and despite firing more than a mapsheet, the round came back and landed BEHIND the artillery unit.

This is physically impossible. Once they errataed the drift rules so that drift distance was equal to the MOF, the worst possible drift(Assuming a 12+ to-hit and a roll of 2) is ten hexes. I know shots can get worse due to damage and truly bad gunners, but did he really get worse than a 19+ on the to-hit?

[Akalabeth]

This is physically impossible. Once they errataed the drift rules so that drift distance was equal to the MOF, the worst possible drift(Assuming a 12+ to-hit and a roll of 2) is ten hexes. I know shots can get worse due to damage and truly bad gunners, but did he really get worse than a 19+ on the to-hit?

Hmmn, well I believe the player in question understood the drift to be equal to Xd6 where X = MoF/2

So, roll of 2 on bth of 11 = 5d6 hex drift

[Weirdo]

Used to be kinda like that. Was fixed a LONG time back.

[CloaknDagger]

Problem with artillery is that it's a stackable weapon. Make it anywhere near accurate, and you can have 10 aiming at your 1 unit, from any distance.

Hence the absurdly slow speed they have.

Homing rounds being too good is true.

As an experiment, get a unit with an AC20, and swap it for an Arrow IV and a TAG. Then run them in pairs.

As long as you keep them 7 hexes apart, they can fire on each other's TAGed targets, effectively making it a super-accurate AC20 with huge range.

[Challenger]

Still got to hit with the tag in the first.

From a fluff perspective the problem with artillery is the speed of the battle. Artillery is best suited to smashing up stationary or slow moving area targets. Its excellent at shooting up infantry and battle armour forces, but is rubbish against small and fast targets like battlemechs.  Honestly that sounds about right IMO

Challenger

[Col Toda]

Put enough TAG on board it become accurate enough . 3 / 4 of your unit with TAG ie 9 out of 12 if 3 TAG hit you have optimal results  .  If you have enough artillary  shooting it is accurate enough .  On most combat boards if you have 6 arrow IV launchers
even if you miss you intended hex you have 10% chance of hitting the enemy anyway .  Elite stealth battle armor with a gunnery of 2 reduces the target number by 1 . Start with a 3 gunner and you have 7 on board and 9 off board target resolution for the desired hex .  Use 12+ laser inhibiting arrow IV saturate whole battlefield then have your TSM axe wielding maniacs take the Clans on making all lasers on the battlefield pointless.

[Akalabeth]

Ok yeah it looks like my group missed that bit of errata. Apparently the errata is split into two sections, newer and older errata? So the artillery was in the older and got over looked. Cool. Well the HE will be more effective now at least.

Another problem with the Homing missiles is that when it hits a Battlesuit squad, it apparently damages all of them? So one 20 Homing Missile vs a fresh Kanazuchi squad = no more Kanazuchi. I've asked the question in the Rules forum but no response. I would have thought it would be 20 vs one, and 5 vs the others.

But yeah, my biggest problem with the Homing is the fact they hit before combat. Makes no sense. If a light mech charges at an assault and drops four homing missiles on it via Tag, it should at least suffer some return fire. With 80 points of damage potentially coming in, that assault might be on the ground or destroyed entirely.

Giving artillery a niche is one thing, having it circumvent reality is another.

[Weirdo]

I would have thought it would be 20 vs one, and 5 vs the others.

This is correct. TacOps, page 354 specifies that the 20-point hit from a Homing Arrow IV is dealt as Direct-Fire Ballistic damage. Only the 5-point blast is Area Effect.

[E. Icaza]

Where is the errata on this?  My .pdf copy and my .dtf copy all use  Xd6 where X = MoF/2.

[Weirdo]

Where is the errata on this?  My .pdf copy and my .dtf copy all use  Xd6 where X = MoF/2.

Gimme a second, this may take me a bit of time to find. They issued this bit of errata a LONG time ago.

[edit]Found it! It's two erratas ago, in this thread. On page 10 of the linked PDF, it says:

In the second paragraph replace the sentence "For each 2 MoF beyond the first 2, the player missed by an additional
die." with "For each point of MoF the artillery round scatters by one hex."

(emphasis mine)

[CloaknDagger]

Yes but the point is, on the battlefield when some guy with a laser designator is pointing it at an APC or a building or whatnot, that building or vehicle is firing back at them.

Unless you are firing back super heavy AMS that destroys artillery, you can't beat the artillery. It can shoot you and you can't even shoot back. And because of the range, then enemy can bring as many guns to bear on you as it necessary.

And the king of the battlefield isn't artillery, it's aircraft.

Eh, not really. Even in 3rd world countries, artillery works just as well as aircraft, with guided bombs and artillery being roughly as effective.

But against a strong opponent with competent AAA, air power gets hit HARD. Even the mediocre AAA in the Baltics during the 90s went a LONG way to stop American bombing. The USSR actually planned NOT having air superiority, and they had TONS of AAA to back that up, as well as regular artillery for that role.

Your fancy fighter jet might be invisible and be able to unload with impunity, but if the hangar you stop in for rearmament and refueling is filled with Spetznaz and surrounded by T-72s...

[Akalabeth]

Unless you are firing back super heavy AMS that destroys artillery, you can't beat the artillery. It can shoot you and you can't even shoot back. And because of the range, then enemy can bring as many guns to bear on you as it necessary.

The point is if one mech shoots another with a TAG Laser, the other mech sure as hell should have the opportunity to shoot the other mech with some lasers or autocannons of its own.

[CloaknDagger]

The point is if one mech shoots another with a TAG Laser, the other mech sure as hell should have the opportunity to shoot the other mech with some lasers or autocannons of its own.

It should. Moving artillery into the normal weapons phase makes sense. I don't really know why they made it weird.

[E. Icaza]

Gimme a second, this may take me a bit of time to find. They issued this bit of errata a LONG time ago.

[edit]Found it! It's two erratas ago, in this thread. On page 10 of the linked PDF, it says:(emphasis mine)

Cool and thanks!  I missed this one and was using the wrong rules for artillery then. 

[Weirdo]

Maybe you weren't very active around here at that time. I remember that it was widely and loudly celebrated.

[Akalabeth]

It should. Moving artillery into the normal weapons phase makes sense. I don't really know why they made it weird.

I don't mind hex-plotted fire hitting before combat, or at least, hex plotted that has travelled for at least one round of combat.
But designated fire (ie homing) should be in the normal weapon phase. That would have the added benefit of making HE rounds more desirable.

Maybe all hex-plotted artillery should have a minimum travel time of 1 turn (even if onboard and within 17 hexes). Keeping HE, Cluster and whatever other round hitting after movement/before combat and with homing or TAG-guided missiles hitting in the combat phase. If the enemy is too close, the artillery has the direct-fire option to defend itself in the normal combat round.

[CloaknDagger]

Maybe all hex-plotted artillery should have a minimum travel time of 1 turn (even if onboard and within 17 hexes). Keeping HE, Cluster and whatever other round hitting after movement/before combat and with homing or TAG-guided missiles hitting in the combat phase. If the enemy is too close, the artillery has the direct-fire option to defend itself in the normal combat round.

God no, the artillery speeds are already dumb enough. Don't make them even slower.

[Akalabeth]

God no, the artillery speeds are already dumb enough. Don't make them even slower.

You do realize that if you fire artillery within 17 hexes, it will be faster than a laser? And you're calling it slow? What?

Unless the pre-movement fire is supposed to be an abstraction of previous-turn fire.


I'm not saying increase the travel times across the board, I'm saying increase the minimum travel time from 0 to 1 which would force artillery to fire direct at closer ranges (like the 25pdrs would do in North Africa, ww2). It would justify the pre-combat round damage.

[CloaknDagger]

You do realize that if you fire artillery within 17 hexes, it will be faster than a laser? And you're calling it slow? What?

Unless the pre-movement fire is supposed to be an abstraction of previous-turn fire.

That's the only conclusion that makes any sense at all.

I'm not saying increase the travel times across the board, I'm saying increase the minimum travel time from 0 to 1 which would force artillery to fire direct at closer ranges (like the 25pdrs would do in North Africa, ww2). It would justify the pre-combat round damage.

What's wrong with close range indirect fire?

[Akalabeth]

That's the only conclusion that makes any sense at all.

What's wrong with close range indirect fire?

Because despite the abstraction, it isn't fully previous turn fire.
If the fire before movement is supposed to really represent firing in the previous combat round, then those firing choices should be made based on information in that combat round. But information obviously changes. If a mech falls down or shutdowns from overheating, the artillery player may decide to concentrate on that spot but if he were firing in the previous round he wouldn't have that information and wouldn't be making those choices.

Or perhaps same-turn artillery fire should land in the combat round, not before it. Whereas artillery with a travel time of 1 or more will land before combat but after movement.


Because what is the actual role of artillery? What is it best at? How it operates should reflect that.
If Artillery is best at long range fire against static opponents then the rules should reflect that. If put into a situation where direct fire ballistics or whatever should be superior, the Artillery should be inferior. A direct fire AC/20 in close range should be more effective than a guided missile that fires in an arcing trajectory.

Similarily if forced into a close-combat sort of role, Artillery should be at a disadvantage or at least should lose their relative advantages.

[CloaknDagger]

If Artillery is best at long range fire against static opponents then the rules should reflect that. If put into a situation where direct fire ballistics or whatever should be superior, the Artillery should be inferior. A direct fire AC/20 in close range should be more effective than a guided missile that fires in an arcing trajectory.

Similarily if forced into a close-combat sort of role, Artillery should be at a disadvantage or at least should lose their relative advantages.

They are. Long range artillery is horribly inaccurate. Only the multi-hex explosions make them useful.

[Akalabeth]

They are. Long range artillery is horribly inaccurate. Only the multi-hex explosions make them useful.

And this is a good thing?
Maybe Artillery should have have a lower base to hit, which is modified by range (in mapsheets, or maybe in travel time).
Why does a shell being fired at less than 1 mapsheet have the same chance to hit as a shell being fired 10 maps away? And also the same potential to deviate? (unless this is in the errata)

Maybe Artillery for example just has a flat +2 to gunnery, then modify this by +1 for each turn of travel time. So travel time of 1 turn equals base to hit of 7. The player already needs to guess where the enemy is going, and even if they guess right then they have the problem of hitting on an 11. Where is the skill or strategy with this weapon when most of the hits are by pure luck than anything else? With direct fire weapons for example a person can choose different movement rates and ranges to help the dice favour them.

With artillery you guess where they're going to be, then pray that your shot randomnly lands on SOMETHING useful.

[five_corparty]

Anything that makes artillery MORE useful is bad for BTech, IMHO.  I've played in games with 10, 15+ Arrow IV launchers on the field (BN+ games, I was fielding over a regiment of just infantry, for example) and it's just BRUTAL.  companies wiped out, lances failing multiple PSRs- when you gots a dozen LTs/A4s, you can fill the probably movements of mechs/vees pretty easy and simply luck o the irish will make SOMETHIN' hit.  against slow vees and infnatry- brother man, don't even bring them.

bottom line- in ones and twos, yah, maybe they seem lousy.  sink some BV into them, and it swings a game, and makes it unplayable, which is no fun for anyone.  :-\

just my thoughts, o' course.

[five_corparty]

And the king of the battlefield isn't artillery, it's aircraft.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!  sorry, that amused me...  ;D ;D  (the corparty in my nam is for corp, not a cor-party...  ;))

[Akalabeth]

Anything that makes artillery MORE useful is bad for BTech, IMHO.  I've played in games with 10, 15+ Arrow IV launchers on the field (BN+ games, I was fielding over a regiment of just infantry, for example) and it's just BRUTAL.  companies wiped out, lances failing multiple PSRs- when you gots a dozen LTs/A4s, you can fill the probably movements of mechs/vees pretty easy and simply luck o the irish will make SOMETHIN' hit.  against slow vees and infnatry- brother man, don't even bring them.

bottom line- in ones and twos, yah, maybe they seem lousy.  sink some BV into them, and it swings a game, and makes it unplayable, which is no fun for anyone.  :-\

just my thoughts, o' course.

Hmmn, yeah but if you have slow vehicles and infantry against artillery shouldn't the former lose? Isn't that the desired outcome? It's like taking a star of dragonflies or Firestarters against a cluster of infantry. The infantry should lose because the strength of the opposing force is perfect against them.

I don't want Artillery unbalanced either, what I would like is to have them useful at small-scale games in proportion to their number and at high level games with more artillery, have them still balanced.

What I would want mainly is balanced choices for each player, depending on their objectives. I like the dynamic of flames of war for example, where each arm of a given force whether it be infantry, recon, AFVs, air support, artillery, etcetera has their place. They have strengths and weaknesses and their role is distinct to some level.

If artillery is too powerful, maybe one way to help would be to have it require a spotter. Make it more analagous to LRM indirect fire in terms of how the rules are handled. Then the enemy force could retaliate against the spotter and remove the threat.

[Porkins]

And the king of the battlefield isn't artillery, it's aircraft.

Actually the military moniker for artillery is the "king of the battlefield".  ;)

[SteveRestless]

a single tube of BT Artillery is pretty inaccurate. This is okay, it works for game purposes.

seven tubes of BT Artillery do a pretty darn good job. time the arrival,  fire at your target hex, and a ring of the hexes around it, and you pummel whatever it is pretty effectively.

if you're using a single tube, pair it with a TAG unit and use the semi-guided rounds, it'll save a lot of headaches.

[Charlie Tango]

It should. Moving artillery into the normal weapons phase makes sense. I don't really know why they made it weird.

Um... I hate to be the one to point this out, but...

Direct fire artillery weapon attacks occur in the weapons fire phase.  TacOps, current printing, p. 185

[CloaknDagger]

Um... I hate to be the one to point this out, but...

Direct fire artillery weapon attacks occur in the weapons fire phase.  TacOps, current printing, p. 185

Yes, but you can fire indirect still even at close ranges. And that covers Homing, I believe.