Any reason to use the Sniper over Arrow IV?

[Crow]

Okay, Sniper Artillery has more range and ammo, but less damage. If you could take both to a fight, would you, or just stick with Arrow IV?

[Kovax]

It probably depends on what you have available for spotting and target acquisition.  If you're throwing a volume of fire at an enemy position (especially if your artillery can be pre-registered on target), then the conventional artillery is a relatively cost and BV-efficient means of delivering damage against everything in that general area.  If you're able to use TAG or other means to designate specific targets, then Arrow IV is generally better.  Spamming Arrow IV for area effect without designating targets gets expensive, and tends to run out of ammo in a hurry.

[Weirdo]

Their damage is identical, at 20/10 for standard rounds. Snipers are almost half the BV of Arrows, and get twice as many rounds per ton. This makes them much easier to use as towed field artillery, especially if your preference is for unguided bombardments.

If you want big guided hammers and a lot of ammo flexibility, Arrows are probably your best bet. But if you want the sheer brute force of massed AE, Snipers are the way to go.

[Colt Ward]

What Weirdo said, you might be looking at the old damage values.

To keep it simple, Sniper fulfills the traditional role of artillery better than A4 IMO b/c of the deeper ammo bins.  About the only ammo types Sniper does not have is Inferno & Thunder, both of which are not as likely to be welcome at the table . . . plus with a mech or tank usually only having 2 or 3 tons of A4 ammo (some designs only have 1!) usually your Sniper have more tons which makes taking support options more viable.  I also like to mass the fires (you need more than 1 tube to really be effective, density!) so the lower BV units that I can find with Sniper makes them more attractive.

If I want the most tubes possible for BV, why not Thumpers instead of Sniper?  Damage threshold . . . Sniper landing in a enemy mech's hex forces a PSR with a single hit, Thumper will require shells hitting the same hex since each only does 15 damage.  Since artillery lands after movement but before firing, you can occasionally knock down a enemy mech which cuts into its ability to fire- it gets hit with the prone modifier and has to forgo weapons in a arm.  The mechwarrior taking damage from the fall and passing out is just icing . . .

One of the changes I did not like was the varied flight times between tube & A4, but I was artillery so making a Time on Target fire plan appealed to me perversely but I can see how it discouraged people from using artillery.

[Tangoforone]

In the game, can varied flight times be mitigated by bringing the equipment on-board?  Also, out of curiosity, where are the flight times rules?  My group has issues with the artillery rules every time we play, so I want to put together a binder that is composed of all of the artillery rules and how to use each of them.

I understand by bringing equipment onto the board you run the risk of units entering the minimum ranges for the artillery, but with pre-planning there is usually always something to fire at.  I prefer to bring my artillery on-board, so when I look at which one to bring it depends on the rest of my force composition.  Am I willing to dedicate a portion of my equipment to defending artillery and, if so, how much (usually something should defend the artillery, but how much BV is the investment is my question)?  Or do I want my artillery to be able to defend itself (by use of secondary weapons) with only minimal units spent defending them?  Depends on the game.

Personally, I have had more experience with the Sniper than the AIV, so I am swayed to the Sniper but that doesn't mean I am correct.

[Colt Ward]

Different flight times between tube & A4 went away with TW I think.

When I have artillery its usually in MM double blind play.  This makes using artillery vehicles much easier b/c they can hide behind a small hill or in a depression . . . makes it very hard for it to be found by HK teams.

I have used it on the table top a few times, its usually ignored b/c I do not generally use homing.  Last year my local group's tournament I used 3 Thumper field gun platoons since they were the only ones we had canon sheets for- I would have preferred Snipers but . . Anyway, I mixed in Cluster, Smoke and regular HE . . . took Homing ONCE I think.  Lol, the Smoke really got to the opponent since it blocked his fire support from contributing that turn.

[Insaniac99]

If I want the most tubes possible for BV, why not Thumpers instead of Sniper?  Damage threshold . . . Sniper landing in a enemy mech's hex forces a PSR with a single hit, Thumper will require shells hitting the same hex since each only does 15 damage.  Since artillery lands after movement but before firing, you can occasionally knock down a enemy mech which cuts into its ability to fire- it gets hit with the prone modifier and has to forgo weapons in a arm.  The mechwarrior taking damage from the fall and passing out is just icing . . .

One comment on this.  If you want just mass covering, I find it's usually more because you want to clear infantry, get motive hits on vehicles, scare away ASF (all artillery can be used as AA rounds), or take advantage of special ammo.  To that end, I tend to like a maintenance refit of the Demolisher that you can do in the Succession Wars before the AIV is version is available.

The refit is very simple, two thumper artillery in the turret instead of the AC/20s.  You get 2 tons of ammo.  That's either 20 turns of continuous rain, or 10 turns of standard ammo, and 10 turns of your favorite special for Smoke, Illumination,   Flechette, or any other of your choice.

[Daryk]

I like the cut of your jib...  ^-^

[Red Pins]

. . . took Homing ONCE I think.

Demolisher, 2xThumper, 20 rounds?  I'd have to check the rules, but - Thumper (or Sniper in this case).  The only other reason for me to take an A4 would be the TAG (if I remember past conversations correctly, the Thumper round follows roughly the same rules, but I never played with them myself) or Anti-Aircraft munitions.

[Hellraiser]

To that end, I tend to like a maintenance refit of the Demolisher that you can do in the Succession Wars before the AIV is version is available.

The refit is very simple, two thumper artillery in the turret instead of the AC/20s.  You get 2 tons of ammo.  That's either 20 turns of continuous rain, or 10 turns of standard ammo, and 10 turns of your favorite special for Smoke, Illumination,   Flechette, or any other of your choice.

I had a fellow campaign player that did something similar.
Got 3 tons of ammo by using FFA since it was post 3050 campaign, but otherwise identical.

I did something similar using Partisan tanks myself.  4 tons of ammo for even less armor.

Simple & cheap & makes life hell on enemy fast movers.

[worktroll]

Take it to the extreme - Yellow Jacket with Thumper & two rounds of ammo. Mobile, evasive, vulnerable, fast. Ish.

[Weirdo]

Yellow Jacket ...fast.

[Frabby]

Barring special ammo, airborne units may only use tube artillery when landed iirc.

[Weirdo]

Aero units are under that restriction. VTOLs such as the Karnov Thumper are not.

[worktroll]

Ish. I did say "Ish."

[Weirdo]

I've seen bureaucracies move faster than the Yellow Jacket. And they weren't motivated by AA!

[Luciora]

Aaaand you just gave me another mod inspiration.  Have get a Karnov now and make a TT ready mini.

Aero units are under that restriction. VTOLs such as the Karnov Thumper are not.

[Daryk]

I've seen bureaucracies move faster than the Yellow Jacket. And they weren't motivated by AA!

That's straight funny!  ;D

[Weirdo]

Only because it has no spare MP for facing changes. :)

[Daryk]

Are you saying bureaucracies don't get "minimum movement"?  ???  ;D

[Weirdo]

Are you saying bureaucracies don't get "minimum movement"?  ???  ;D

I'm a government clerk. Trust me, that's accurate. :)

[Daryk]

I also work for the government, and am currently fully engaged in bureaucratic warfare... I'm honestly not sure if minimum movement isn't possible (and am hoping it is)…  ^-^

[StoneRhino]

I hate how we don't have "haha" reacts.    ;D ;D ;D ;D

[grimlock1]

We keep saying that if you have TAG, bring the Arrow IV, but Snipers can fire Copperheads.  Yeah, it only hits half as hard, but the radius is the same and it's guided.

[Daryk]

And Snipers have twice the ammo per ton...

[Colt Ward]

I thought Sniper Copperheads still used the old 15/5?

[VhenRa]

Sniper Copperheads are 10 damage with no radius...

[Daryk]

Still AOE though, right?

[Weirdo]

None of them(Copperheads or guided Arrows) are AE for their full damage. All of them are AE within the impact hex only, for five.

[Daryk]

Then I'd still lean toward the Sniper, as the ammo has more per ton, and is cheaper...

[Hellraiser]

I thought Sniper Copperheads still used the old 15/5?

Sniper Copperheads are 10 damage with no radius...

Old Damage for Copperheads was always 10
Its that HE got a boost to 20 from 15 but CH stayed the same 10, so now its 10 points less than HE per tube size instead of 5.

[Greatclub]

Anti-missile systems bounce arrows. While mechs that mount AMS aren't common, they're a usual sight on a lot of dropships.

[Weirdo]

Only in space. In ground games, AMS does nothing to Arrows.

[Greatclub]

I've had megamek stop them.

[Weirdo]

Programming error, or house rule. AMS does NOT bring down Arrows.

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, its only a 50/50 chance on T-Bolts.

[Alexander Knight]

For cheap artillery, I favor taking the LRM/SRM Carrier and stripping out the missiles for a pair of Snipers or a single Long Tom.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Hmm.  And then you play the game of figuring out how many pieces fell off your Quickscell machine every time you fire.

[Cannonshop]

Hmm.  And then you play the game of figuring out how many pieces fell off your Quickscell machine every time you fire.

shoot enough times and you know which bits are going to stay.

[grimlock1]

Hmm.  And then you play the game of figuring out how many pieces fell off your Quickscell machine every time you fire.

or is it QuickSell?

[Insaniac99]

For cheap artillery, I favor taking the LRM/SRM Carrier and stripping out the missiles for a pair of Snipers or a single Long Tom.

Removing the SRMs/LRMs and ammo from the carrier frees up 34 tons.  You can fit any One artillery piece, 2 Arrow IV or Thumper; but at 20 tons, you can't fit two Snipers.

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, I rolled up some salvage-quality LRM vehicles using the FM Mercs replacement rules . . . immediately went with destroyed/removed LRMs and spent the time/money sourcing A4 launchers for the MLRS visual.  The A4 capability in the Chaos March in the early 60s places you near the realm that makes either A4 Inferno or FASCAM, I can never remember which.  But having some of those, even if I have to buy them from the black market after they fell off a truck is a wonderful capability to add to my combined arms force.  Especially with Vedette SP Guns (Sniper), which conveniently fit in a light veh bay.  Nice mix of guns and rockets for when I have to deal with a conventionally defended position- Shake 'N' Bake, and I helped!

[Jim1701]

I had a fellow campaign player that did something similar.
Got 3 tons of ammo by using FFA since it was post 3050 campaign, but otherwise identical.

I did something similar using Partisan tanks myself.  4 tons of ammo for even less armor.

Simple & cheap & makes life hell on enemy fast movers.

Yep.  I posted design the to the fan design boards years ago.  The SW3 version is even cheaper.   ;)

I think artillery got banned from that campaign partly due to these guys.  That and SOMEONE kept going nuts with the Arrow IV infernos. 

I usually brought 2 and parked them far enough apart so they could cover each others' dead zones. 

[Cannonshop]

Yep.  I posted design the to the fan design boards years ago.  The SW3 version is even cheaper.   ;)

I think artillery got banned from that campaign partly due to these guys.  That and SOMEONE kept going nuts with the Arrow IV infernos. 

I usually brought 2 and parked them far enough apart so they could cover each others' dead zones.

Back in the day, I parked 4 Thumpers in a spread out configuration so enemy counter battery couldn't take all of them out in one go.  This also worked pretty well for an Arrow battery.  It enabled me to use terrain-denial fire (this was before the somewhat insane expanded scatter rules in TacOps, you could actually use PLANNING with your artillery fire, without shells landing on-or-behind your firing vehicles!!)

People on the other end hated that.  Pre-registering the best cover on the map pays dividends, even with BMR-era 5/2 blast diagrams.

Main reason to use Sniper over AIV is ammo endurance per ton, doing those kind of curtain-barrages with multiple firing tubes.  (I still recommend a full lance of four in bigger games/maps.)

why else? cost per shot.  If you're in campaign, the price of ammo matters, and Sniper ammo is inherently cheaper to buy than Arrow IV missiles.  I'm one of those nutters who will lob shell after shell, round after round, whether or not I see an enemy unit specifically in the zone.  The concept of 'beaten zone' can influence what the other guy does, if he knows shells are landing, like most intelligent people, he'll hesitate to walk into that unless he is really committed-and if he's that committed, the damage done by the arty will soften him up for the 'real' weapons in the game.

also gves you a chance for bluffing.  If he sees your units shying away from an area, he'll assume it's being shelled after a bit.

Think on how you can use that.  I've had Clanners with assault units back off quick from a flank, because they noticed I was pulling back.  It let me shift forces to cover a weak flank he'd identified two turns earlier, and it got him to walk right into a barrage.  (head games are fun!)

In the game, Artillery is a headgame.  This is why solo pieces just aren't that useful, and why having more guns with more ammo per ton is a good idea.  If all you have are guided AIV, that's just another AC/20, but with extended range.  harder to play headgames with and if you're using 'stock' units, you really can't run all of your force with a TAG, so the tagger becomes your weak link.

lots of Min/maxers also min/max their risk analysis, if you know where the tagger is, you can engage or avoid them.  otoh, if you KNOW that hill 'over thar' is having a lot of pretty explosions happening around it-but inconsistently (because BT arty is inconsistent)  It becomes a lot riskier, lots of players won't take that risk. 

this creates opportunities.

and, there's nothing quite like catching someone's assault omni, with point of elementals embarked, when the dice decide that all four shells are landing in or closely around their hex. heheheh.  but that's a treat, it's really hard to plan on, what is easy, is when the odds to him of crossing a particular zone will result in having his precious Clan Ferro eroded by blast damage before he can get into PPC range if he goes down path "a" when he could be 'safe' from that fire by going down path 'b' (where your L-shaped ambush is lying in wait, hidden), that works better.  so is having that really good hill/woods hex that's ideal for sniping your back line registered with every gun in your battery when he courageously tries to use the woods for cover while using the hill for partial cover to snipe your command post with his ERPPC/Gauss/ATM/whatever.

with preregistered hexes, you don't NEED a TAG.

but to play "Headgames with artillery" it helps to have slightly to significantly deeper ammo bays firing ammo that costs less.

[Colt Ward]

Except for the scatter rules not being that any more . . . yeah, cannonshop has the right of it.

I saw a guy use Snipers or Thumpers on a MM server to herd his opponents INTO his preplotted hexes.  The way it worked with MM IIRC was the opposing player, if the firing unit was hidden from DB, would not know where the pre-plotted hexes were . . . so all they saw was the impacts and moved away from them.

One of the other things for Tube is that most of those designs have multiple tons of ammo . . . so while you can pop off HE or Smoke, if the artillery using player does have a TAG'er it can be held as a threat where the opposition will try to stay outside the movement+short/med range of that TAG'er.  Or if they are aggressive, they will strike for the TAG'er to remove it as a threat . . . with HE loaded, taking out the TAG does not matter because you can still fire them up.  A Catapult C3 that loses its TAG'er is now mostly useless.

[Hellraiser]

For cheap artillery, I favor taking the LRM/SRM Carrier and stripping out the missiles for a pair of Snipers Thumpers or a single Long Tom.

There, fixed that for you.

That said, I find that a single Sniper replaces 2 of the LRM20s on an LRM Carrier quite nicely & still gives you 2 tons of ammo for each weapon.

In a campaign a few years ago, I had twin Arrows on a missile carrier chassis and twin Thumpers on a Partisan chassis.

They were a nightmare for my opponents since I don't leave them alone to be nibbled on by faster units but could rain down fire all over the map.

[Colt Ward]

Unfortunately, most artillery units work really well when played with MM- double blind allows you to employ proper artillery doctrine of hiding and shooting so the non-line of battle equipment can do what it is supposed- off indirect fire.

And Hellraiser, I would still take a single Sniper over a Long Tom just b/c of the ammo count.

[Hellraiser]

Yep.  I posted design the to the fan design boards years ago.  The SW3 version is even cheaper.   ;)

I think artillery got banned from that campaign partly due to these guys.  That and SOMEONE kept going nuts with the Arrow IV infernos. 

I usually brought 2 and parked them far enough apart so they could cover each others' dead zones.

JIM! 

How are you, have not seen you in forever?

I claim no responsibility for Arrow Infernos, it was used against me, and that which is used against me is used back in triplicate. (TM)

I think it mostly got banned because of how we layered it.

Artillery isn't broken when you can get to it & remove it.

But when its got Pulse Laser & Precision AC body guards it becomes VERY hard to deal with.

You should check out Joel's new Single Mech campaign rules that he got from another commando.  They seem very interesting to me.  Its like Mecha D&D.

[Hellraiser]

And Hellraiser, I would still take a single Sniper over a Long Tom just b/c of the ammo count.

Oh I could see that.

I was just pointing out its not 2-Sniper for 1-LT by weight.  Its 2-Thumper.

I love using the Sniper in my custom infantry platoons.  28 Man Motorized Platoons towing one for 10 shots of love & cheap BV.

[Retry]

The way I figure it: Long Toms for generous range and splash damage, Thumpers for raw endurance, Arrow IV for the a solid compact, albeit short-ranged with neat alternative ammo types (especially Homing).

The Sniper is the shortest ranged tube artillery option, and if endurance is desired the lighter weight of the Arrow IV can be leveraged to grab extra ammo to offset the Arrow's shots/ton inefficiencies.  The Sniper thus holds a rather odd spot in the lineup where it does everything decently enough but doesn't shine in particular niche, so it isn't usually part of my artillery lineups.

[Colt Ward]

Sniper is cheaper, its ammo is cheaper (for a ton, to get the same amount of rounds its over 3x the cost), has double the range of the A4, and never went extinct like the A4.  Besides having more ammo per ton gives you IMO better options for the alternate ammo, I would rather have a single bin of 10 smoke rounds than have to devote 2 tons of A4 to match that capability.

Additionally as mentioned up thread, canon Sniper using designs carry more ammo than canon A4 designs.  The Cappies A4 carrying Catapult is criminal in this regard- 5 rounds?  Its better than nothing, but not by much . . .

[Shin Ji]

Snipers are pretty scary on turrets, although I suppose an Arrow IV would be equally difficult to deal with.

[Cannonshop]

Sniper is cheaper, its ammo is cheaper (for a ton, to get the same amount of rounds its over 3x the cost), has double the range of the A4, and never went extinct like the A4.  Besides having more ammo per ton gives you IMO better options for the alternate ammo, I would rather have a single bin of 10 smoke rounds than have to devote 2 tons of A4 to match that capability.

Additionally as mentioned up thread, canon Sniper using designs carry more ammo than canon A4 designs.  The Cappies A4 carrying Catapult is criminal in this regard- 5 rounds?  Its better than nothing, but not by much . . .

but...we have the Urbanmech UM-AIV, right??
and it gets TEN rounds!!

(arrow on an urbie? why not!!)

[Arkansas Warrior]

There needs to be a Thumper Urbie.   ;D

[Daryk]

Agreed!  Even if it's OT...  8)

[Retry]

Sniper is cheaper, its ammo is cheaper (for a ton, to get the same amount of rounds its over 3x the cost), has double the range of the A4, and never went extinct like the A4.  Besides having more ammo per ton gives you IMO better options for the alternate ammo, I would rather have a single bin of 10 smoke rounds than have to devote 2 tons of A4 to match that capability.

Additionally as mentioned up thread, canon Sniper using designs carry more ammo than canon A4 designs.  The Cappies A4 carrying Catapult is criminal in this regard- 5 rounds?  Its better than nothing, but not by much . . .

I forgot to mention the C-bill parts, that's definitely an advantage of the Sniper.

Still, if I need tube artillery but don't want/need the gratuitous weight of the Long Tom, there's the Thumper.  Not much sacrificing in R0 damage against fixed installations and R1 damage is still plenty against what you usually need tube arty for (culling PBIs & BA) when used in bulk, but you get absolutely obscene endurance while dedicating minimal weight on ammo.

Sure, there's bad A4 designs with paltry ammo space.  That's a problem with those designs themselves rather than something intrinsic to the Arrow IV itself.  (And it's worth noting that you either can't fit a Sniper on those designs or, if you do, can't match the ammunition endurance.  Example: Pollux II ADA tank).

Snipers are decent in endurance compared to Long Toms and (most) Arrow IVs, but Thumpers wipe the floor with them at that while keeping enough power to remain useful.  If space is your bottleneck, Snipers are more compact than Long Toms (not hard to do), but Arrows and Thumpers have a head start.  If you're cost conscious, it'll beat the Arrow IV and Long Tom options, but truly cash-strapped garrisons should look at (again) Thumpers.  Snipers beat Arrow IVs in the range game, but so do any other artillery tubes and with better margins to boot.  Thumpers lose out in raw damage to Snipers, which loses out to Long Toms (all ammo types) and Arrow IVs (specialized ammo types like Homing and Cluster).

Arrow IVs, Thumpers, and Long Toms have clear niches.  Snipers are compromise devices, being mediocre in every area but not quite good enough to avoid getting its toes stepped on by the other options, especially the lighter Thumper.

[Colt Ward]

I use Snipers to break up packs of mechs and armor, the 20 point hit forces a PSR which IMO is a significant difference though one I forgot to mention.  My ideal artillery battery would be a split of 2 Snipers, 2 Thumpers and 2 Arrow IV- it gives you a wide variety of tactical options with quite a bit of damage.

[Cannonshop]

I use Snipers to break up packs of mechs and armor, the 20 point hit forces a PSR which IMO is a significant difference though one I forgot to mention.  My ideal artillery battery would be a split of 2 Snipers, 2 Thumpers and 2 Arrow IV- it gives you a wide variety of tactical options with quite a bit of damage.

I'm comparatively lazy, I just run a base of 4 thumpers for every 12 other units.  (meaning that with a battalion, I've got a full battery chugging away merrily, creating patterns I can base the movement of the rest of my force on.)

but then, I have a sort of 'planned fire' proportion here: 1 arty piece and you might as well have left it on the dropship.  2 and they're not much better, even if they're Long Toms, because while the blast pattern is huge-it's TOO huge, esp. with the random landing, you can't actually support a counter-attack with it, and oddly enough, if you can't support the counterattack (because you can't afford to get close enough without losing whole units) then it's worthless to me unless you can deny a LOT of terrain.

so 4 of whatever is kind of my 'minimum best practices' with artillery, and the LT is pretty much out of the running except as a defensive measure to block the approach on an entire mapsheet's worth of terrain. (Which takes about 4 to do with any reliability)

Arrow is pretty much in the same boat, except you have the guided option in 3050 and onward, so you can drop down to two, provided you have enough ammo tonnage to run guided rounds AND standards.

For 3025 and later, all the way up, Thumper has more rounds than Sniper, and you can afford to fire it closer to your own men.  The trade is that you can (and will) take damage, the intent is that the other guy takes MORE damage than you do from the steel rain.

[Colt Ward]

I'm comparatively lazy, I just run a base of 4 thumpers for every 12 other units.  (meaning that with a battalion, I've got a full battery chugging away merrily, creating patterns I can base the movement of the rest of my force on.)

but then, I have a sort of 'planned fire' proportion here: 1 arty piece and you might as well have left it on the dropship.  2 and they're not much better, even if they're Long Toms, because while the blast pattern is huge-it's TOO huge, esp. with the random landing, you can't actually support a counter-attack with it, and oddly enough, if you can't support the counterattack (because you can't afford to get close enough without losing whole units) then it's worthless to me unless you can deny a LOT of terrain.

so 4 of whatever is kind of my 'minimum best practices' with artillery, and the LT is pretty much out of the running except as a defensive measure to block the approach on an entire mapsheet's worth of terrain. (Which takes about 4 to do with any reliability)

Arrow is pretty much in the same boat, except you have the guided option in 3050 and onward, so you can drop down to two, provided you have enough ammo tonnage to run guided rounds AND standards.

For 3025 and later, all the way up, Thumper has more rounds than Sniper, and you can afford to fire it closer to your own men.  The trade is that you can (and will) take damage, the intent is that the other guy takes MORE damage than you do from the steel rain.

While I agree about a minimum number of guns for artillery to be effective (its like BA), depending on the scenario/map for me its 2 (Sniper & up) or 3 (Thumpers).  I said battery though really that would be the ideal artillery lance, with the battery being 2 Firing Lances and 1 Support Lance (guards, FDC & Ammo). 

Again, you still seem to be using some early TW drift rules . . . IIRC, as long as your forces are not withing 7 hexes of the target (excepting LT which needs +1), your forces are not going to take damage from your own artillery barrages under normal conditions.  Unfortunately some of the characteristics between the types has broken down- I preferred the different flight times between tube & A4.

Why mix types?
Sniper-  HE/Cluster, forces PSR & AA duties
Thumper-  HE/Cluster/Smoke/Illum & AA duties
Arrow IV-  HE/Cluster/Homing/FASCAM/Inferno

With the mix of types IMO I can adequately use the suggested artillery lance to meet various taskings provided I have the ammo available- FASCAM & Inferno being the harder types to acquire.  Still wish we could use HQ com gear to FDC it- get a fixed pattern that drifts together.

[Weirdo]

Arty does drift farther than six hexes, but you have to roll pretty badly for it to happen. Still nowhere near as bad as the early TacOps stuff.

My tube counts tend to be low, but mostly because my group's games tend to be lance-ish sized games in TW, or company-adjacent in AS. In both cases, the group mutually agreed to a Max of four tubes per player force, and more was a violation of DBaJ.

I find 1-2 tubes to be fun(I enjoy AE even when I don't hit much), but only effective in a direct-fire assault gun role. 3-4 tubes is where it's at for indirect bombardments.

I haven't actually tried BAtillery yet, so I have no clue if those need adjustments to tube count.

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, my Kindle got broke by the toddler so I do not have TacOps handy . . . its MoF, and I was going with the base IDF being 7 IIRC.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I'm comparatively lazy, I just run a base of 4 thumpers for every 12 other units.  (meaning that with a battalion, I've got a full battery chugging away merrily, creating patterns I can base the movement of the rest of my force on.)

but then, I have a sort of 'planned fire' proportion here: 1 arty piece and you might as well have left it on the dropship.  2 and they're not much better, even if they're Long Toms, because while the blast pattern is huge-it's TOO huge, esp. with the random landing, you can't actually support a counter-attack with it, and oddly enough, if you can't support the counterattack (because you can't afford to get close enough without losing whole units) then it's worthless to me unless you can deny a LOT of terrain.

What if you're shelling a fixed position, like an enemy outpost?

[Daryk]

One tube should do for that, assuming the "target" isn't a Castle Brian.

[Colt Ward]

Suppressing fire is going to need more than 1 tube if you are trying to keep enemy mechs, armor & BA from taking firing positions.  While I generally support pre-spotted hexes, b/c I know what IRL accuracy (and math) is like, I do not support a attacker getting to select a fortified position hex as a pre-spotted location .  Additionally, you might want to lay down smoke to block fire from the side positions while your forces advance on the section of a line you are pounding with HE . . . more than one tube also allows you to follow the shoot & scoot doctrine to avoid counter-battery or airstrikes against your firing units while keeping up the pressure, especially if its Thumper field guns.

Oh yeah, and if it was not mentioned, field guns are absolutely a reason to use Sniper over A4 for the ammo reason, since a field gun only gets a single ton of ammo.

[Daryk]

A4 can be Field Artillery?  ???

[Colt Ward]

Pretty sure b/c it is listed as a artillery system rather than a missile system- but I do not have my books on me.

[Weirdo]

Yes, as evidenced by the published A4 platoon in 3085.

[Daryk]

Well, then... roger that!  Thanks!  :thumbsup:

[Hellraiser]

But its only 1 ton of ammo like all FG/FA, so, 5 shots, so it doesn't have a lot of longevity in a fight.

[Hellraiser]

The Cappies A4 carrying Catapult is criminal in this regard- 5 rounds?  Its better than nothing, but not by much . . .

Well lets be honest, that thing was designed to be a 3050 Field Refit.

Me, I would have taken it from C to D grade & given it DHS/FFA to allow for more ammo & maxed armor while still being Field Grade, but what can you expect in 3050, lol.

Its not bad when you realize it is likely the ONLY Artillery from IS mechs for close to a decade.

I had a company with a pair of them & an Ostscout.  It wasn't perfect but in a pinch those 2 could put out some firepower downrange that the enemy was not expecting in a typical Mech battle in that era.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Its not bad when you realize it is likely the ONLY Artillery from IS mechs for close to a decade.

And the O-Bakemono and Thunder Hawk were not nearly as widely available.  It wasn't a great artillery mech, but it was a lot better than no artillery mech.

[Col Toda]

It is very clear Arrow IV  as the ammo types are very flexible and useful  . Just Fielding  Anti Air Arrow IV rounds makes the knee jerk reflex of sending conventional or aerospace  fighter to take out the artillery  units very expensive  .

[Colt Ward]

Just Fielding  Anti Air Arrow IV rounds makes the knee jerk reflex of sending conventional or aerospace  fighter to take out the artillery  units very expensive  .

So . . . IIRC, standard rounds from tube can be fired in a AA mode- which makes tube superior in addition to its range.

[Daryk]

The only thing in the Arrow's favor is the 20 points in one location for thresholding in that case.  Artillery flak does damage in 5-point groups if I remember right.

[BATTLEMASTER]

I love deploying multiple Sniper tubes with field gun infantry.  It's a fun way to get artillery into the game without breaking the BV bank!  I house rule different ammo types into a ton of ammo though.

[Colt Ward]

What, break it up like Proto ammo?

You know, we need a 3150 Raven Proto with BA Artillery . . .

[Kargush]

Someone remind me. I know AIV can do nukes, can tube arty?

[Colt Ward]

Well . . . Atomic Annie was 'heavy' artillery back when they had h/m/l distinctions between the systems, and was a higher caliber than the 'Long Tom' of which is was a late contemporary.  If they can, its going to be the smallest warhead probably.

[Kargush]

If they can, its going to be the smallest warhead probably.

That'll be more than enough. ;)

Not that I'd ever use nukes in BT of course. I mean, I'm no Regulan.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Someone remind me. I know AIV can do nukes, can tube arty?

There aren't any current rules for nuclear shells for tube artillery.  Though it's mentioned that the Grand Titan Vengeance from XTRO Phantoms that the mech allegedly fired nuclear rounds.

[dgorsman]

IO has the type 1b as both Arrow IV and Long Tom.  The custom nuclear weapon options can probably be used for smaller tube sizes.

[Arkansas Warrior]

If they can, its going to be the smallest warhead probably.

Nah, the create-your-own-nuke rules (from one of the Jihad books, IIRC) could (again IIRC) be used to make nuclear warheads for things as small as LRMs or even hand grenades, IIRC.  Even a Thumper round should be child’s play, comparatively.

[Dave Talley]

So a mech with a Long Time  cannon could make a ton be a nuke?
This deserves study

[truetanker]

LT rounds for artillery, yes...

LT Cannon, no... to short. You'll get hit in the blast zone as well as the enemy.

TT

[Colt Ward]

LT rounds for artillery, yes...

LT Cannon, no... to short. You'll get hit in the blast zone as well as the enemy.

TT

Well . . . you could do it . . . it would just be Kurita's Chain Gang worthy.  Give the pilot some other weapons and tell him to only fire it when he has 4 mechs in the 'blast zone' (as he is told) . . .

[Taber_Evans]

Hhmm--interesting?!    I can see no listing for US nuclear mortars on wiki except the  1950's test unit.  But Ive met folks supposedly  quall'ed on heavy morrtars.   Range limitations placed the firing unit inside the blast zone.   Looks like some of the Soviet systems would also place the arty inside the blast zone? 

[AlphaMirage]

There is a Soviet super heavy mortar (2S4) that can lob tactical nuclear shells but yeah seems a little danger close

[truetanker]

There is a Soviet super heavy mortar (2S4) that can lob tactical nuclear shells but yeah seems a little danger close

And...

A few more cat girls just died, again...

TT

[ANS Kamas P81]

And...

A few more cat girls just died, again...

TT

Don't worry, radiation will mutate a few more to replace them.

Imagine nuclear artillery under the old scatter rules if you want to wake up in a cold sweat.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Where you had a high chance of missing the map?

[VhenRa]

No no. You had a decent shot of artillery landing behind the firing unit..

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Which would be the wrong map.  Meaning you missed the map you were aiming at.

[Luciora]

Been there, done that.  Clantech Cyclops with Arrow instead of the LRM, and tried to shoot at a target in front of it.  Hilarious.

No no. You had a decent shot of artillery landing behind the firing unit..