Adding in Arty

[OatsAndHall]

My regular group has tinkered around with arty a few times, with mixed responses. Some of our players really want to play with it more often as it discourages heavy/assault "campers" raising hell. On the flip side of the coin, there's folks who like playing with these types of sniper/over watch units. I tend to fall in the latter group as I feel like it speeds up our games a bit, especially as our group has developed a proclivity towards light and medium jumpers. I like having the ability to stop a big boy in elevated cover and make those bouncy mediums and lights a little wary.

I've made the argument that we don't necessarily need straight arty as IDF provides the similar results but that doesn't seem to be a big selling point. I love using it and do so regularly but I'm the only player in the group that ties it into a force on a regular basis.

What are some other ways one can counter "campers" without just dropping arty shells on their heads?

[dgorsman]

The optional no-movement rule - if the target doesn't move/spend MP, it's a modest bonus to the to-hit number similar to immobile target but not as harsh.

[Charistoph]

If they are against anything that will make them move, then there's nothing that they would accept.

IDF works great, but is best with VTOL TAGs that are a pain to hit.

However, there are things like Aerospace Attacks which accomplish the same goal.

If those are too complicated to implement, there are the Battlefield Support options as found in a few books, including The Battlemech Manual.  Be warned, though, these actually are easier to hit with then the normal Artillery and Aerospace and can't be countered by units on the field, just more limited in use (most of the time).

[OatsAndHall]

If they are against anything that will make them move, then there's nothing that they would accept.

IDF works great, but is best with VTOL TAGs that are a pain to hit.

However, there are things like Aerospace Attacks which accomplish the same goal.

If those are too complicated to implement, there are the Battlefield Support options as found in a few books, including The Battlemech Manual.  Be warned, though, these actually are easier to hit with then the normal Artillery and Aerospace and can't be countered by units on the field, just more limited in use (most of the time).

What are the Battlefield Support options? I'm not familiar with them.

Thanks.

[Charistoph]

What are the Battlefield Support options? I'm not familiar with them.

Thanks.

They're in a few places, like the new Tukayyid book, but they are also in The Battlemech Manual.  There is also a deck of Battlefield Support Cards that carries the rules on how to use them.

Basically it's a way to incorporate Artillery, Aerospace, and Mines without all the difficulty of figuring out how far out they are, flying the ASF, and such.  There's even a card to counter Aerospace, if I remember right.

[DevianID]

Yeah I came here to say this.  The BSP rules found in the Battlemech Manual are great in limited quantity to add some support.

The problem with the full artillery rules is how overpowered it is.  The side with artillery has a massive advantage against a side without artillery.  So then both sides want more and more artillery.  To add insult to injury, artillery units are irresponsibly cheap, like many are less then 200 BV.  Resolving artillery adds multiple new phases to the game, the targeting phase and artillery attack phase, so it also slows down the game.  When I play with artillery for campaign stuff, its usually a 'enemy base' boss battle type thing to force the players to move each turn, and I put the targeting hexes down (not hidden) to make the fight more like a MMO raid 'danger circle' so the players can move to play around it.

Instead of full artillery for non-campaign matched play, I really like 5 points of BSP for a 4v4ish game with objectives.  It gives enough for a single sniper or thumper blast, or some light/heavy bombs, as a 1 time use.  It helps deal with battle armor and light units like dashers which otherwise can hold/steal objectives for very little battlevalue--the threat of predesignated artillery on an objective means the enemy cant just put a 400 BV unit on an objective and call it a day, but the fact you only get 1 shot means there is some interaction.

As a side note, playing with objectives and not just 'kill each other' also really helps reign in 'turret tech' better then adding in artillery.  If there is something in the middle of the board that needs to be held, and the snipers are in the back in their heavy woods, well they arnt gonna win the objective from back there.

[Apocal]

Yeah I came here to say this.  The BSP rules found in the Battlemech Manual are great in limited quantity to add some support.

They are godsend for that, yeah. Critical support to whoever came up with the concept and got it into the BMM.

As a side note, playing with objectives and not just 'kill each other' also really helps reign in 'turret tech' better then adding in artillery.  If there is something in the middle of the board that needs to be held, and the snipers are in the back in their heavy woods, well they arnt gonna win the objective from back there.

I've had something of the opposite experience, but that was with clear attacking/defending sides of an objective.

[OatsAndHall]

They're in a few places, like the new Tukayyid book, but they are also in The Battlemech Manual.  There is also a deck of Battlefield Support Cards that carries the rules on how to use them.

Basically it's a way to incorporate Artillery, Aerospace, and Mines without all the difficulty of figuring out how far out they are, flying the ASF, and such.  There's even a card to counter Aerospace, if I remember right.

This is good stuff, thank you. I'll talk to our GM about incorporating it and possibly buy the cards.

[CarcosanDawn]

I like artillery in Alpha Strike at least. It is a good, useful weapon that can do things like FASCAM and smoke.

Would encourage people to play Combined Arms more, personally.

[OatsAndHall]

I like artillery in Alpha Strike at least. It is a good, useful weapon that can do things like FASCAM and smoke.

Would encourage people to play Combined Arms more, personally.

I don't know what the AS arty rules look like. But, they're a little crunchy in Classic and do tend to drag things out. It can be fun to play with in Classic, depending on the situation and the players at the table.

Combined arms can be tough in Classic as long as it's controlled. It's way too easy to swarm with cheap BV vehicles in Classic which is seriously irritating. And, it's also easy to tie in dirt-cheap C3 networks which, if not worked out ahead of time, will seriously piss off a group of players.

[Cannonshop]

Yeah I came here to say this.  The BSP rules found in the Battlemech Manual are great in limited quantity to add some support.

The problem with the full artillery rules is how overpowered it is.  The side with artillery has a massive advantage against a side without artillery.  So then both sides want more and more artillery.  To add insult to injury, artillery units are irresponsibly cheap, like many are less then 200 BV.  Resolving artillery adds multiple new phases to the game, the targeting phase and artillery attack phase, so it also slows down the game.  When I play with artillery for campaign stuff, its usually a 'enemy base' boss battle type thing to force the players to move each turn, and I put the targeting hexes down (not hidden) to make the fight more like a MMO raid 'danger circle' so the players can move to play around it.

Instead of full artillery for non-campaign matched play, I really like 5 points of BSP for a 4v4ish game with objectives.  It gives enough for a single sniper or thumper blast, or some light/heavy bombs, as a 1 time use.  It helps deal with battle armor and light units like dashers which otherwise can hold/steal objectives for very little battlevalue--the threat of predesignated artillery on an objective means the enemy cant just put a 400 BV unit on an objective and call it a day, but the fact you only get 1 shot means there is some interaction.

As a side note, playing with objectives and not just 'kill each other' also really helps reign in 'turret tech' better then adding in artillery.  If there is something in the middle of the board that needs to be held, and the snipers are in the back in their heavy woods, well they arnt gonna win the objective from back there.

Funny, I never found one gun to be of any use.  Artillery has this weird 'curve'.  One tube, you might as well leave it in the dropship with the spare parts, because you're running higher risk of friendly fire, than harming the enemy (Guided rounds cancel this, I'm talkin' dumbfire shots only)

The minimum USEFUL kitting out for artillery on two mapsheet map, is four tubes.  with four tubes you can establish something of a useful pattern for terrain denial or camper harassament.  This scales up to 2x3 maps before you start needing more, or bigger, guns.

the MAJOR problem, is that artillery rules themselves, are very clunky, with flight times and the rampant inaccuracy of dumbfire artillery, coupled with the sandwich-plate blast radii (out to dinner plate on the bigger stuff), though they at least got rid of the open-ended scatter they tried to incorporate in TacOps.

The blast radii and damages? are very OP, especially with the stats given in Tac Ops, where 200 KG of arrow IV or Long Tom does more damage to a larger area than a full ton of air-dropped bombs. (this is because the air-dropped bombs were balanced against BMR(r) artillery, while Tac Ops went hawg wild porting over Munchtek's or Unbound's enhanced blast radii.)


To the OP:

if your group's having issues, go with the light guns.  Thumpers, the blast radius isn't insane, they're still effective enough, the scatter hazard's not too bad {You' won't be greasing your own units on a bad role quite as hard) and the assault campers can look at the damage rates, and either grit their teeth or go watch Football.

if you do, work them in in pairs.  as I said, single tubes you might as well leave on the dropship if it's not homing rounds with a tagger, because artillery is one thing above all else: dreadfully inaccurate and prone to scatter.

when coupled with the bigger blast radius, this means you might completely annihilate the chicken coop behind the enemy, or bounce a shell right on your own guys, but whatever it is, if it wasn't pre-registered before play began, it's not going to be particularly useful or valuable if you only have one tube.

IOW instead of a force multiplier, a single tube firing non-guided artillery munitions is a force divisor that costs you BV and maybe c-bills, and can actually lose you the engagement on a bad roll at the worst time.

Some things to keep in mind?

1. It gets less useful the closer you are to the other guys.  This has to do with scattering back.  Keep in mind the maximum range of the scatter in the rules you're using, when planning to use it.

2. have a plan of when NOT to fire.  For example, when your BA or INfantry is in close contact with the enemy, or when the other side has closed to AC/20 or Melee range. 

3. When using a useful amount of artillery (3 to 4 guns), plan your drop ahead of time, decide what terrain you're trying to deny or what avenues you're trying to keep open, and place your shot accordingly (at least, in theory-the odds are against your shots actually landing where you want them to!) I call this 'pattern' because It's spaced to deny an AREA-to make it hazardous for the other side to come through that area-and if they do, to give them pre-existing damage before they reach MY guys.

4. if you're using pre-registration? look at the map, and know where the best 'camping spots' are (woods hexes on elevations, lee side of a hill with partial cover, etc.)  THOSE are where you want your artillery pre-registered before play.

5. go over the spotting rules and make sure you understand spotting, and scatter, maybe pre-game it to make sure you're not skipping over something that is going to demand opening books and arguments.

[Charistoph]

Scatter can be bad, but it's no where near as bad as it used to be, thankfully.  Direction is the same as Falling, interestingly enough, which actually helped me memorize Falling direction!

The biggest cause of Scatter is simply the extremely high modifier you have to add on to it (assuming you're not using TAG with homing ammo, of course).  Highly skilled Spotters (2 and 0 Gunnery) help, but that can be expensive enough as it is, unless you're using Infantry (preferably Hidden ones).  If you can pull in Special Pilot Abilities, Oblique Artilleryman is pretty much a requirement.

In Alpha Strike, having a Spotter with PRB helps out a lot.

All this assumes that you're firing Indirect.  Direct fire is a bit easier, just focus on hitting the Hex.  Don't bother shooting the unit.

[Paul]

What are some other ways one can counter "campers" without just dropping arty shells on their heads?

Other items to consider:
Frag/Flechette ammo, which is more effective at clearing woods, thus ruining the camping spots and suddenly exposing the slow assaults on difficult terrain with 0 cover.
"Suddenly" still requires several turns unless you do something like bringing a dedicated LRM boats.

Another idea is using smoke rounds in LRMs or SRMs to block long range shots. Adding smoke to woods can rapidly cause LOS to be broken with even a single hex.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Artillery rules on TO is very complicated and I expect this would be only workable on MegaMek. I wonder that it does helps this situation, though it does have some chance to hit the target does not want to move for several rounds. And against normal targets those are barely hits anything, because you have to premeasure at least two rounds of the unit movement your opponent will made to hit those unless you employ homing round, and with this it's the game about hit the TAG or not, rather than drive the campers out.

Well, I do think that those campers have their own reason. For example many units of clanners are barely had the worthy rate of toll against spheroids unless they are sit down at the tip of no man's land with good cover and keep shooting, for it would be the best way to make use of their better range and they had paid enough BV for this already thus they have the right to enjoy some fun with their better range. Yes they does have many good mobile platforms, but they are all the same with the better range.

So, how much covers your map usually have? If the opposing force can have some covers enough to avoid the bullets while closing the gap with them then they would have the chance. Using smoke round does have similar result too. You don't have to make the map as if it is an underground maze with full of narrow corridor, but if there would be good site to camp then it would be better to make the possible ways to get around their firing arc and able to get their back without get exposed by long ranged fire.

Also, you are not required to eliminate their advantage entirely, although you are not required to use the rules that only benefit for the campers either. They will do that because it's suited for them, after all, and only making the camping entirely impossible just makes them frown but nothing else.

What I have in mind to make the gap other than something above is, to put multiple objectives that have some distant with each other. Then camping would be enough to keep an objective but they do need more units to capture the others.

[DevianID]

Funny, I never found one gun to be of any use. 

Depends on the support you give it.  A single gun at skill 4, 3 turns away, with no spotters is only good for static area denial.

However, I like using skilled spotters (skill 0 vtols calling in grid numbers from 30 hexes away for example) and I also up the gunnery of the arty tube instead of using base 4, for +20% BV per skill increase.  So that turns 11s with 4 gunners into 7s, and less if adjusting fire.  I also like tougher, closer ranged guns to reduce the time in flight to 1 or 0 turns.  Further, something as simply as a Catapult can always direct fire their artillery, for very low numbers, by ignoring target terrain and movement, and only having the +4 long range direct fire.  A vet gunnery 3 catapult plopping 7s to hit with direct fire, on something fast like a Viper in heavy woods, is crazy effective considering you ignore +6 in TMM and terrain.

Finally, you can 'double up' homing rounds with a single tube, buy firing at the mapsheet breakpoints, to land 2 TAG arrows in one time on target attack.  It lets you only have to expose your TAG units for the one turn, and 40 damage is nothing to sneeze at before the weapon phase.

I've had something of the opposite experience, but that was with clear attacking/defending sides of an objective.

  Apocal I also have had issues with assymetric attacker defender objectives.  I tend to dislike those.  Like, if the attacker has to 'destroy 3 building' and the defender has to try and stop the attacker, its often just a miserable mission for the defender.  Instead, if both have to destroy buildings, meaning there is no attacker/defender, its way more fair.
Ironically when I ran my megamek Tukayyid campaign on MRC, it was all attacker/defender missions (despite me not liking them normally) cause I was sticking to the Campaign book as well as I could.  And the Clans had a ROUGH time of it.  The 17 clan players only won a couple of those asymmetric missions, cause they were all forced into the Attacking side, and Comstar had defensive bonuses for mission objectives in the Campaign missions.

[Cannonshop]

Depends on the support you give it.  A single gun at skill 4, 3 turns away, with no spotters is only good for static area denial.

However, I like using skilled spotters (skill 0 vtols calling in grid numbers from 30 hexes away for example) and I also up the gunnery of the arty tube instead of using base 4, for +20% BV per skill increase.  So that turns 11s with 4 gunners into 7s, and less if adjusting fire.  I also like tougher, closer ranged guns to reduce the time in flight to 1 or 0 turns.  Further, something as simply as a Catapult can always direct fire their artillery, for very low numbers, by ignoring target terrain and movement, and only having the +4 long range direct fire.  A vet gunnery 3 catapult plopping 7s to hit with direct fire, on something fast like a Viper in heavy woods, is crazy effective considering you ignore +6 in TMM and terrain.

Finally, you can 'double up' homing rounds with a single tube, buy firing at the mapsheet breakpoints, to land 2 TAG arrows in one time on target attack.  It lets you only have to expose your TAG units for the one turn, and 40 damage is nothing to sneeze at before the weapon phase.
  Apocal I also have had issues with assymetric attacker defender objectives.  I tend to dislike those.  Like, if the attacker has to 'destroy 3 building' and the defender has to try and stop the attacker, its often just a miserable mission for the defender.  Instead, if both have to destroy buildings, meaning there is no attacker/defender, its way more fair.
Ironically when I ran my megamek Tukayyid campaign on MRC, it was all attacker/defender missions (despite me not liking them normally) cause I was sticking to the Campaign book as well as I could.  And the Clans had a ROUGH time of it.  The 17 clan players only won a couple of those asymmetric missions, cause they were all forced into the Attacking side, and Comstar had defensive bonuses for mission objectives in the Campaign missions.

I'd argue that one gun is absolutely worthless for area denial, DevianID.    The fall of shot is too random and the area's too large-you'd need to be playing in a phone-booth (with all the penalties for on-map shots)...and it's still too random.  At one point years ago I pointed out that having a single artillery piece doesn't create no-go-zones for anyone but the owner who's using it.

Two or three can do the static defense-if they have spotters.

Four is what you want on two by two maps-that's enough fire volume that, with averaging, you can actually make a zone that's dangerous for the attacker to cross,   (at least, dangerous enough to make someone risk-averse hesitate to cross it for a round or two).

That, in my mind, is 'static area denial'.

Homing rounds, on the other hand, can make a single gun useful, provided there's a tagger to guide the shot in-but that's better on the attack, than as a defense.

But it's all relative, and individual player experience varies significantly.

[Daryk]

It's almost like the RL six-tube battery has a raison d'etre... ;D

[Hellraiser]

 like many are less then 200 BV. 

Unless you define 2 Infantry Platoons as "Many" then this is false.

[Daryk]

Or if those "platoons" have "squads" of only 2 troopers... ;D

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I'd argue that one gun is absolutely worthless for area denial, DevianID.    The fall of shot is too random and the area's too large-you'd need to be playing in a phone-booth (with all the penalties for on-map shots)...and it's still too random.  At one point years ago I pointed out that having a single artillery piece doesn't create no-go-zones for anyone but the owner who's using it.

Two or three can do the static defense-if they have spotters.

Four is what you want on two by two maps-that's enough fire volume that, with averaging, you can actually make a zone that's dangerous for the attacker to cross,   (at least, dangerous enough to make someone risk-averse hesitate to cross it for a round or two).

That, in my mind, is 'static area denial'.

Homing rounds, on the other hand, can make a single gun useful, provided there's a tagger to guide the shot in-but that's better on the attack, than as a defense.

But it's all relative, and individual player experience varies significantly.

You don't get the point - the point is 'without any further investment only a gun is only able to be used for area denial at best', not 'only a gun is fantastic for area denial and it should be enough.'

That said, I do think that it is not so realistic to deal with something by non-homing artillery round, unless it's building, infantry or anything immobile, else the game is very big enough to have several batteries(I said battery, not just the gun) backed on your other stuffs. But only for deal with the infantry as the surprised blast on the objective, it could works even on the small sized game.

[Cannonshop]

You don't get the point - the point is 'without any further investment only a gun is only able to be used for area denial at best', not 'only a gun is fantastic for area denial and it should be enough.'

That said, I do think that it is not so realistic to deal with something by non-homing artillery round, unless it's building, infantry or anything immobile, else the game is very big enough to have several batteries(I said battery, not just the gun) backed on your other stuffs. But only for deal with the infantry as the surprised blast on the objective, it could works even on the small sized game.

The problem is, it's NOT good for area denial, PPLP.    Not 'at best', it's 'at all'.   Area denial is exactly that-you're inflicting damage and a psychological effect on the enemy.  One tube, firing indirectly, with non-homing rounds, is not going to deny ANY area...except to your own forces, because the odds of a miss are so much significantly better than a near-miss, never mind direct hit, as to be betting on random lightning strikes, a conveniently timed earthquake, or the arrival of a random asteroid nobody on either side was tracking that happens to hit the right spot in the enemy's formation.

It's adding a dice roll that does nothing, followed by a scatter roll that also does nothing in the majority of cases, and your opponent has no reason NOT to advance there, because he knows your chances of hitting anything with that random shot are infinitesimal.

Two guns, and you can pull that cluster over, it's still too loose to be truly dangerous, but it's closer than you can pray to get with one.  Three guns? now we're starting to see some actual area denial-that is, the blasts hitting in enough of a pattern that it's actually risky to an advancing enemy, and predictable for your own movement- (Just stay out of the scatter zone and you're good to go.)

Four, and the risk is high enough even with Thumpers that most players will divert around what they think the scatter zone is going to be-because they don't want to take damage before they reach weapons range, and the odds with four guns on a single quarter of a 2x2, or middle third of 2x3 is that one or more of his units WILL take damage.

Thus, 'Denying the terrain' or 'Terrain Denial'-you're 'encouraging' the other side to avoid an area, channeling him (hopefully) into your kill box instead of letting him choose where to advance.

and if he doesn't? then you're getting enemy forces that have pre-existing damage arriving against your fresh defenders.

That's how that works, and that's why one tube isn't going to do it.

It's a mind-game, playing the player.  That's what Area Denial and Terrain Denial is actually for.

But...your mileage may vary.

IOW, I put myself in a theoretical here; you've got one Arrow IV launcher, no homing rounds.  I don't.

Two by Two mapsheets, company sized engagement.

I'm going to roll right through where you don't want me to go, because your one arrow four, while it does dinner plates of significant damage, is unlikely to hit my armored column without you having homing rounds and a tagger.

Why? because the odds are against your single artillery gun landing a shot anywhere I care about, that's why.

Now, you go in with four Thumpers? I'm going to rethink-because the odds are a lot better that you WILL hit something I want intact when my guys hit yours.

Law of averages, right??  The Thumper does less organic damage, but it's got twenty rounds per ton of ammo and can keep up that bombardment through most of the game, the Arrow platform carries FIVE rounds per ton, and you've only got one of them.

Do you see how that works out?  The single tube denies me NOTHING...otoh, you can't afford to have that scatter onto your own troops, so I know about where you're going to stop trying.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

The problem is, it's NOT good for area denial, PPLP.    Not 'at best', it's 'at all'.   Area denial is exactly that-you're inflicting damage and a psychological effect on the enemy.  One tube, firing indirectly, with non-homing rounds, is not going to deny ANY area...except to your own forces, because the odds of a miss are so much significantly better than a near-miss, never mind direct hit, as to be betting on random lightning strikes, a conveniently timed earthquake, or the arrival of a random asteroid nobody on either side was tracking that happens to hit the right spot in the enemy's formation.

It's adding a dice roll that does nothing, followed by a scatter roll that also does nothing in the majority of cases, and your opponent has no reason NOT to advance there, because he knows your chances of hitting anything with that random shot are infinitesimal.

Two guns, and you can pull that cluster over, it's still too loose to be truly dangerous, but it's closer than you can pray to get with one.  Three guns? now we're starting to see some actual area denial-that is, the blasts hitting in enough of a pattern that it's actually risky to an advancing enemy, and predictable for your own movement- (Just stay out of the scatter zone and you're good to go.)

Four, and the risk is high enough even with Thumpers that most players will divert around what they think the scatter zone is going to be-because they don't want to take damage before they reach weapons range, and the odds with four guns on a single quarter of a 2x2, or middle third of 2x3 is that one or more of his units WILL take damage.

Thus, 'Denying the terrain' or 'Terrain Denial'-you're 'encouraging' the other side to avoid an area, channeling him (hopefully) into your kill box instead of letting him choose where to advance.

and if he doesn't? then you're getting enemy forces that have pre-existing damage arriving against your fresh defenders.

That's how that works, and that's why one tube isn't going to do it.

It's a mind-game, playing the player.  That's what Area Denial and Terrain Denial is actually for.

But...your mileage may vary.

IOW, I put myself in a theoretical here; you've got one Arrow IV launcher, no homing rounds.  I don't.

Two by Two mapsheets, company sized engagement.

I'm going to roll right through where you don't want me to go, because your one arrow four, while it does dinner plates of significant damage, is unlikely to hit my armored column without you having homing rounds and a tagger.

Why? because the odds are against your single artillery gun landing a shot anywhere I care about, that's why.

Now, you go in with four Thumpers? I'm going to rethink-because the odds are a lot better that you WILL hit something I want intact when my guys hit yours.

Law of averages, right??  The Thumper does less organic damage, but it's got twenty rounds per ton of ammo and can keep up that bombardment through most of the game, the Arrow platform carries FIVE rounds per ton, and you've only got one of them.

Do you see how that works out?  The single tube denies me NOTHING...otoh, you can't afford to have that scatter onto your own troops, so I know about where you're going to stop trying.

I think that 'at best' is usually a negative term, is not? That is already not a positive expression, else was my common sense somewhat flawed - although personally I do concur that I do, but that's not the topic.

You better think about the meaning of the others, seriously.

[Cannonshop]

I think that 'at best' is usually a negative term, is not? That is already not a positive expression, else was my common sense somewhat flawed - although personally I do concur that I do, but that's not the topic.

You better think about the meaning of the others, seriously.

"at best' still presumes something CAN work in that role.  I'm outright saying that  a single tube, doesn't work for defense, or with defense (unless you're firing 100% homing rounds).

it doesn't even work in theory.

'At Best' presumes it CAN work, that it's not ideal, but it CAN work.  I don't know if we share  a native language here, but there's a nuance there to colloquial terms like "At Best"-that is, it's an indicator of an absolute limitation that can be inferior, but still work.  IN the case of tactical roles, 'At best' is working better than 'not at all'...which is the more likely outcome if you try it against a player like, for example, me or anyone who regularly used to beat me.

Shelling your own guys only works as a tactic, if you planned to do it, intentionally.  When it happens randomly...not so much.

I speak as a player who has won games by doing just that, mostly because the other player misunderstood that I wasn't taking Thumpers due to BV limits, but because they're still the best choice for lobbing too-close-to-comfort shots since they're unlikely to singly do enough damage to sideline most medium weight combat units..by themselves.

I took them because I could:

1. keep the pattern going and  either damage or influence the movements of my opponent, since I knew where the shots were planned to land and he didn't.

2. I could keep firing throughout the match.  20 rounds/ton meant I could make a beaten zone that was high-risk for the other side, and manage that risk for my own.

3. If one or two of mine were caught in the scatter? light damage at most.  Not so with the heavier guns or Arrows, both of which are far better for using homing rounds or focusing on siege fire against a bunker (though I prefer airstrikes for bunker scenarios, even with the gimping of the bomb loads.)

4. on the defense, multiple Thumpers gave me the ability to inflict tactical risk and tactical dilemma on the other side-I had plenty of volume and duration for a pretty low cost in weight and bv.  A single tube  of Arrow can't do that, not even with Homing rounds. It's ONLY useful for specific, aimed shots with TAG-every other application makes it too dangerous to my own side (Wihle not being dangerous to the other guy) to use.

5. Multiple guns also deals better with counter-battery (f you're using those rules) and artillery duels, see you spread them out, and instead of one god-shot arrow or bombing raid taking them all out, they at best get one, but they're still close enough together to share Targeting numbers and flight times, or do the 'map edge trick' one of the other posters pointed out, while keeping a steady bombardment going.

Do you understand my logic here?  I'm not looking at this purely on a gunnery number plus damage, I'm looking at it from a purpose and tactics point of view.  The purpose of field artillery is to create tactical dilemmas and risk in the mind of your opponent.  The damage it does is secondary to that purpose.

This is the basis of terrain denial, you can't do it with only one tube.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

"at best' still presumes something CAN work in that role.  I'm outright saying that  a single tube, doesn't work for defense, or with defense (unless you're firing 100% homing rounds).

it doesn't even work in theory.

'At Best' presumes it CAN work, that it's not ideal, but it CAN work.  I don't know if we share  a native language here, but there's a nuance there to colloquial terms like "At Best"-that is, it's an indicator of an absolute limitation that can be inferior, but still work.  IN the case of tactical roles, 'At best' is working better than 'not at all'...which is the more likely outcome if you try it against a player like, for example, me or anyone who regularly used to beat me.

Shelling your own guys only works as a tactic, if you planned to do it, intentionally.  When it happens randomly...not so much.

I speak as a player who has won games by doing just that, mostly because the other player misunderstood that I wasn't taking Thumpers due to BV limits, but because they're still the best choice for lobbing too-close-to-comfort shots since they're unlikely to singly do enough damage to sideline most medium weight combat units..by themselves.

I took them because I could:

1. keep the pattern going and  either damage or influence the movements of my opponent, since I knew where the shots were planned to land and he didn't.

2. I could keep firing throughout the match.  20 rounds/ton meant I could make a beaten zone that was high-risk for the other side, and manage that risk for my own.

3. If one or two of mine were caught in the scatter? light damage at most.  Not so with the heavier guns or Arrows, both of which are far better for using homing rounds or focusing on siege fire against a bunker (though I prefer airstrikes for bunker scenarios, even with the gimping of the bomb loads.)

4. on the defense, multiple Thumpers gave me the ability to inflict tactical risk and tactical dilemma on the other side-I had plenty of volume and duration for a pretty low cost in weight and bv.  A single tube  of Arrow can't do that, not even with Homing rounds. It's ONLY useful for specific, aimed shots with TAG-every other application makes it too dangerous to my own side (Wihle not being dangerous to the other guy) to use.

5. Multiple guns also deals better with counter-battery (f you're using those rules) and artillery duels, see you spread them out, and instead of one god-shot arrow or bombing raid taking them all out, they at best get one, but they're still close enough together to share Targeting numbers and flight times, or do the 'map edge trick' one of the other posters pointed out, while keeping a steady bombardment going.

Do you understand my logic here?  I'm not looking at this purely on a gunnery number plus damage, I'm looking at it from a purpose and tactics point of view.  The purpose of field artillery is to create tactical dilemmas and risk in the mind of your opponent.  The damage it does is secondary to that purpose.

This is the basis of terrain denial, you can't do it with only one tube.

That's pathetic level, indeed, but can - or at least insist that they do so. Nonetheless most units can laugh off this and it is not a secret, but it would be a meaninful threat for someone. So technically it does but unlikely to be effective, except for some specific type of enemy units.

But what you did not remember is, DevianID does says that it's there for check the enemy infantry and weak enemy to grab an objective. It won't be a perfect ways to do so, and it is not likely to stop a ground armor, but for the intended role it does works at least. Nothing required to be an absolute solution to be effective, unlike what you think. It does needs to be what it paid for, and what it expected.

You should remember that it is a battle. It is not as facing a sandback and punch it to spilt the sand. You cannot bring everything what you want on the exact place what you want them to be, as if you are either a magician or cheater. You cannot bring countless of resource and units from nothing. That's why we are strived for squeeze every possible exploits from what we have, unlike act like we got the ideal imaginary invincible armed force with infine number of troops and resource to spent.

Also DevianID does mentioned for the direct fire as well. I do think that those are far from efficient ways, but nonetheless, it works.

[idea weenie]

2. I could keep firing throughout the match.  20 rounds/ton meant I could make a beaten zone that was high-risk for the other side, and manage that risk for my own.

You can also do a 'stutter fire' where you make sure no shells will land on turn 12, and position your medium movers on turn 11 so they can dart into the target zone on turn 12, then out of the target zone on turn 13.  You have just moved a small force to take the enemy's flank or at least distract them.  On turns 13+ your shells are once again landing behind your medium movers, so your enemy can't use the same path safely.

You can then do the same thing in reverse, though making sure the enemy can't use the same path will take a little bit of work.  Perhaps pairing the artillery with a minefield, or a bunch of SRM infantry that are just in range to shoot anyone trying to cross the target zone?

[Daryk]

I think this artillery discussion has reached critical mass...

Have the Lighthorsemen charging Beersheba: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWQRI6VuzQ

"They're under the guns!"... ;)

Which is only matched by: "TALBOT!  STOP THAT GUN!" ;D

[OatsAndHall]

Some of us in my regular gaming group have reservations with including arty for a couple of reasons. Firstly and as I've talked about before, the group has a bad habit of spamming new tech/weapons to the point where games are ruined. And, a few of the players will bring in the new tech/weapons without truly understanding the rules and/or paying the proper BV. Our first couple of C3 games were a chit-show because half of the guys didn't calculate their BV correctly, even when the pages number for the rules was posted on the FB page. And, there were thorough explanations on the page as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm good friends with (almost) everyone I play BT with. But, we'd all like to keep those friendships and have fun playing the game.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Anyway I doubt that artillery does a thing for the situation. Only a long tom does little to dispatch such a target, even if you made a clear shot. And you do need a lots more to actually made a clear shot for non-homing artillery, and even for this the chance is barely more than 50% unless you have the battery with exceptional skill. Not to mention that those artillery does costs your BV as well.

Yes hammered by the artillery for several rounds won't be fun and bearable either. But for this you do need a battery of guns(4~8) at least.

Else, it is also possible to use inferno Arrow IV missile to set ablaze the ground near of it(note that it causes the fire to the hex it hits and all adjacent hexes). You need some luck but it is even possible to harrass them by only a single launcher of Arrow IV with this.

[Cannonshop]

Some of us in my regular gaming group have reservations with including arty for a couple of reasons. Firstly and as I've talked about before, the group has a bad habit of spamming new tech/weapons to the point where games are ruined. And, a few of the players will bring in the new tech/weapons without truly understanding the rules and/or paying the proper BV. Our first couple of C3 games were a chit-show because half of the guys didn't calculate their BV correctly, even when the pages number for the rules was posted on the FB page. And, there were thorough explanations on the page as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm good friends with (almost) everyone I play BT with. But, we'd all like to keep those friendships and have fun playing the game.

Having friends is good.  Keeping them IS better.  and rules arguments are NOT fun on game day, especially with players who've had to wade through poorly organized rulebooks and tend to rules lawyer from near ignorance.

[OatsAndHall]

Having friends is good.  Keeping them IS better.  and rules arguments are NOT fun on game day, especially with players who've had to wade through poorly organized rulebooks and tend to rules lawyer from near ignorance.

We've only had to send one player packing and it was because he argued over rules continually. I've talked about him in another thread and, as a group, we decided it was best if he wasn't playing with us anymore.

But, you're correct, the rule books can be tough to navigate. We do our best to post up specific pages within the books and to lay out stuff in detail, on the FB page and via a group chat.

[Cannonshop]

We've only had to send one player packing and it was because he argued over rules continually. I've talked about him in another thread and, as a group, we decided it was best if he wasn't playing with us anymore.

But, you're correct, the rule books can be tough to navigate. We do our best to post up specific pages within the books and to lay out stuff in detail, on the FB page and via a group chat.

Just be careful, and thorough.  I recommend printing those specific pages out, and putting them in hand-out folders on game day if you're going to bring Artillery in.  It's already sometimes a pain in the ass, but having someone have to bring up the PDF or a website or Facebook page mid-game? isn't going to make the transition smoother.  On the other hand, physical copy is often very good for settling people down, and if it's the same physical copy for everyone? even better. 

[OatsAndHall]

There are three or four of us that bring Total Warfare and Tac Ops every week. And, all of us have PDF copies of the rules. We started posting up rules for people to look at so that they'd be prepared when they came to play.  For example, I posted up the rules for TAG and SG IDF (including the BV calculations) the week before I first played it, in an effort to head off any argument about it. TAG and SG IDF is actually what got our PITA player booted: he lost his mind when he got thrashed with SG ammo . We pointed out the rules to him repeatedly but he was a lost cause.

[Cannonshop]

There are three or four of us that bring Total Warfare and Tac Ops every week. And, all of us have PDF copies of the rules. We started posting up rules for people to look at so that they'd be prepared when they came to play.  For example, I posted up the rules for TAG and SG IDF (including the BV calculations) the week before I first played it, in an effort to head off any argument about it. TAG and SG IDF is actually what got our PITA player booted: he lost his mind when he got thrashed with SG ammo . We pointed out the rules to him repeatedly but he was a lost cause.

Difference being that artillery's got the 'scattered around pell mell in the rulebooks' problem like everything else, but even when it isn't?  It adds time and falls outside the normal order often enough that even groups that are used to it complain about time lag and complexity.

Thus why I mentioned what I did-having the rules your gruop's GOING to use in a separated, condensed, and accessible format that doesn't include the parts you're NOT going to use.

IOW controlling feature creep and options for the introduction, if nothing else. 

[OatsAndHall]

Difference being that artillery's got the 'scattered around pell mell in the rulebooks' problem like everything else, but even when it isn't?  It adds time and falls outside the normal order often enough that even groups that are used to it complain about time lag and complexity.

Thus why I mentioned what I did-having the rules your gruop's GOING to use in a separated, condensed, and accessible format that doesn't include the parts you're NOT going to use.

IOW controlling feature creep and options for the introduction, if nothing else.

You're right and it's one of the reasons why we've avoided wide-spread arty (and some other tech): the rules are scattered. We do our best to make sure that rules are nailed down across the board, to avoid the game lag and crunchiness. And, also to make sure that what is being fielded is equitable. We've had a number of players show up with C3 lances but haven't paid for the BV.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Anyway, what would be the cheapest solution for the problem OP had faced - to got the good position and shoot anything to death while keep stay on it?

I was think about at least an Arrow IV launcher and shoot down the Inferno-IV missiles, and while it looks doable with only a launcher, but as you know non-homing artillery rounds are terribly inaccurate and it needs a lots of extra effort to fix this, thus it won't be so effective per its cost. Not to mention that Arrow IV is the most expensive artillery class in BV - save only to cruise missile, or maybe capital weapon if you add bombardment via (sub)capital weapon on this. And the fire may block your way too, for you cannot make sure that it hits the correct hex.

Smoke could be an option to buy some time to close the gap, but that could be a global answer for any long ranged threats, and the same smoke also protect them from your shots meanwhile as well. Also you do need many tubes to make a good smoke wall.

Shoot some mines on the possible positions for camp by artillery would be doable but the density per the BV cost would be pathetic. It is also doable to throw some mine bombs by ASF too and it will make the more thick minefield but those bombs could be fuel air bombs that destroys the enemy directly so it isn't a good option either.

So what would be cost efficient one, that is also easy to field?

[Cannonshop]

Anyway, what would be the cheapest solution for the problem OP had faced - to got the good position and shoot anything to death while keep stay on it?

I was think about at least an Arrow IV launcher and shoot down the Inferno-IV missiles, and while it looks doable with only a launcher, but as you know non-homing artillery rounds are terribly inaccurate and it needs a lots of extra effort to fix this, thus it won't be so effective per its cost. Not to mention that Arrow IV is the most expensive artillery class in BV - save only to cruise missile, or maybe capital weapon if you add bombardment via (sub)capital weapon on this. And the fire may block your way too, for you cannot make sure that it hits the correct hex.

Smoke could be an option to buy some time to close the gap, but that could be a global answer for any long ranged threats, and the same smoke also protect them from your shots meanwhile as well. Also you do need many tubes to make a good smoke wall.

Shoot some mines on the possible positions for camp by artillery would be doable but the density per the BV cost would be pathetic. It is also doable to throw some mine bombs by ASF too and it will make the more thick minefield but those bombs could be fuel air bombs that destroys the enemy directly so it isn't a good option either.

So what would be cost efficient one, that is also easy to field?

Send 'mechs, or use airstrikes.  Artillery rules are neither simple, nor cheap if you're not very conversant with them in a playing environment with players who know the systems.

and can you cite the rules that let you use artillery to shoot down artillery??  Because I'm pretty sure those options post-date MY time playtesting, and by a lot.

[OatsAndHall]

Anyway, what would be the cheapest solution for the problem OP had faced - to got the good position and shoot anything to death while keep stay on it?

I was think about at least an Arrow IV launcher and shoot down the Inferno-IV missiles, and while it looks doable with only a launcher, but as you know non-homing artillery rounds are terribly inaccurate and it needs a lots of extra effort to fix this, thus it won't be so effective per its cost. Not to mention that Arrow IV is the most expensive artillery class in BV - save only to cruise missile, or maybe capital weapon if you add bombardment via (sub)capital weapon on this. And the fire may block your way too, for you cannot make sure that it hits the correct hex.

Smoke could be an option to buy some time to close the gap, but that could be a global answer for any long ranged threats, and the same smoke also protect them from your shots meanwhile as well. Also you do need many tubes to make a good smoke wall.

Shoot some mines on the possible positions for camp by artillery would be doable but the density per the BV cost would be pathetic. It is also doable to throw some mine bombs by ASF too and it will make the more thick minefield but those bombs could be fuel air bombs that destroys the enemy directly so it isn't a good option either.

So what would be cost efficient one, that is also easy to field?

We field smoke consistently as it's easy and effective. Thunder LRMs are becoming more common as well; dumping some mines in those camping spots makes things fun and interesting.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Send 'mechs, or use airstrikes.  Artillery rules are neither simple, nor cheap if you're not very conversant with them in a playing environment with players who know the systems.

and can you cite the rules that let you use artillery to shoot down artillery??  Because I'm pretty sure those options post-date MY time playtesting, and by a lot.

It seems that you didn't read the OP's situation at all, did you? Did you misunderstood it and confuse it with 'how to deal with artillery battery', right? Since you have mentioned counter battery fire, which is no one's interest on this topic at all and is totally out of topic too but that was come from all of sudden.

We field smoke consistently as it's easy and effective. Thunder LRMs are becoming more common as well; dumping some mines in those camping spots makes things fun and interesting.

Interesting. Does thunder LRM even works? I assumed that those campers are usually have the superior range and capable of having some odds to even hit the target on their long range bracket, but will the opponent even allowed to shoot the LRM before they are reach to the ideal camping spots in the first place? Since they are usually able to grab the ideal camping spot that would be usually not too far with their starting point despite of their slower speed(you said heavy/assault so they won't be so fast) and I think that they will be there before the fire of the first thunder LRM to deny this. Non-command-Detonated minefields never detonates while the unit is nothing but stay still on it. Unless it's changed on new TO, but what I have is the old one so I cannot confirm. But I doubt that it was changed.

Send some fast units to shoot the LRM during they are run to the spot won't be so viable either - even with running they are expected to have long ranged weapons anyways, and are have good accuracy to aim down those units attempt to harrass them. But will smokes protects them and allows to do their job? But as you know weapon delivered minefield needs a LOT of tubes to be effective. even with thunder-augmented round(which is the most efficient way to cover the area, for while the normal thunder covers a hex with 100% of density, augmented one covers seven hexes with 50% of density each) you gonna need lots of shots, which is not so easily got from those fast but lighter units.

So what was happened about this?


--------------------------

Asides, if aerospace units are available, what about use some fighters to initiate strike attack starting on their back? For most of them would be face toward, shoot down their back cause some damage. Else hurl some bombs does something, if they are stick together.

[DaevaHuG0]

Vibromines detonate prematurely when a unit move, a 50 ton mech would set them off from 3 hexes away if they're dialed to a 20 ton trigger weight of I'm remembering right. Only weakness is winning initiative since your opponent can move the unit out of the minefield before something can trigger the vibromines.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Vibromines detonate prematurely when a unit move, a 50 ton mech would set them off from 3 hexes away if they're dialed to a 20 ton trigger weight of I'm remembering right. Only weakness is winning initiative since your opponent can move the unit out of the minefield before something can trigger the vibromines.

That's clever. Although the problem is how to get there and trigger this, but anyway the point is to makes them out of that specific hex they are camping, so whatever the opponent's units are moves first to get out of there or not it won't matter.

[OatsAndHall]

It seems that you didn't read the OP's situation at all, did you? Did you misunderstood it and confuse it with 'how to deal with artillery battery', right? Since you have mentioned counter battery fire, which is no one's interest on this topic at all and is totally out of topic too but that was come from all of sudden.

Interesting. Does thunder LRM even works? I assumed that those campers are usually have the superior range and capable of having some odds to even hit the target on their long range bracket, but will the opponent even allowed to shoot the LRM before they are reach to the ideal camping spots in the first place? Since they are usually able to grab the ideal camping spot that would be usually not too far with their starting point despite of their slower speed(you said heavy/assault so they won't be so fast) and I think that they will be there before the fire of the first thunder LRM to deny this. Non-command-Detonated minefields never detonates while the unit is nothing but stay still on it. Unless it's changed on new TO, but what I have is the old one so I cannot confirm. But I doubt that it was changed.

Send some fast units to shoot the LRM during they are run to the spot won't be so viable either - even with running they are expected to have long ranged weapons anyways, and are have good accuracy to aim down those units attempt to harrass them. But will smokes protects them and allows to do their job? But as you know weapon delivered minefield needs a LOT of tubes to be effective. even with thunder-augmented round(which is the most efficient way to cover the area, for while the normal thunder covers a hex with 100% of density, augmented one covers seven hexes with 50% of density each) you gonna need lots of shots, which is not so easily got from those fast but lighter units.

So what was happened about this?


--------------------------

Asides, if aerospace units are available, what about use some fighters to initiate strike attack starting on their back? For most of them would be face toward, shoot down their back cause some damage. Else hurl some bombs does something, if they are stick together.

Cavalry VTOLs outfitted with Thunder LRMs do the trick. They can get within short range of the good camping spots quickly and then (hopefully) get out without being mauled.

[Cannonshop]

Cavalry VTOLs outfitted with Thunder LRMs do the trick. They can get within short range of the good camping spots quickly and then (hopefully) get out without being mauled.

That may take an LRM or MML variant, iirc the stock Cavalry is an SRM barge.

The H-8 has an LRM 10, and that might give a decent spread of mines, esp. since they do stack if you use multiples.

Indirect firing LRM carriers full of Thunders works too, and the scatter's at least controllable.

Let's see...H-7 LRM variant might work

Striker light tanks can do it with THEIR LRM rack.

(what else? hmmmm)

[Charistoph]

There are a LOT of LRM boats in the Combat Vehicles section besides the LRM Carrier (though, the LRM Carrier is the most commonly known).

Hunter, Hetzer, Bulldog, Scorpion, Brutus, Harasser, Ontos, and Partisan all have LRM variants.  And that's not including those which actually come with LRMs in their profile like the Rhino and Sturmfeur.

Still, nothing has the maneuverability on the battlefield of a VTOL.

Mine Dispensers might work as well, if you can find a VTOL with them.  They're 2 shot systems and drop like bombs for them, but could prove interesting.  They do put the unit dispensing the mines in to an awkward position, though.

[OatsAndHall]

That may take an LRM or MML variant, iirc the stock Cavalry is an SRM barge.

The H-8 has an LRM 10, and that might give a decent spread of mines, esp. since they do stack if you use multiples.

Indirect firing LRM carriers full of Thunders works too, and the scatter's at least controllable.

Let's see...H-7 LRM variant might work

Striker light tanks can do it with THEIR LRM rack.

(what else? hmmmm)

I use the 3055 LRM variant or the 3059 TAG/LRM variant (I don't know the formal designations, lol). I like to field a lance of them when I can as they're versatile.

[Paul]

That's clever. Although the problem is how to get there and trigger this, but anyway the point is to makes them out of that specific hex they are camping, so whatever the opponent's units are moves first to get out of there or not it won't matter.

The use would be to mine the choice camping hexes before their (likely not too fast) Mechs get there. Not the best way to prevent/punish camping, but it does add some potential opportunity cost.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Cavalry VTOLs outfitted with Thunder LRMs do the trick. They can get within short range of the good camping spots quickly and then (hopefully) get out without being mauled.

That's a secret of the magic, then. It means I didn't need to put aside thunder LRM as an option.

The use would be to mine the choice camping hexes before their (likely not too fast) Mechs get there. Not the best way to prevent/punish camping, but it does add some potential opportunity cost.

Well for the mine on the start of the game normal mine would be better. Else depend on the set weight it could be already detonated for their arrival. Although vibrabomb will detonates if it got the sound, while the normal mines have chance to not detonates.

[idea weenie]

Vibromines detonate prematurely when a unit move, a 50 ton mech would set them off from 3 hexes away if they're dialed to a 20 ton trigger weight of I'm remembering right. Only weakness is winning initiative since your opponent can move the unit out of the minefield before something can trigger the vibromines.

They're also useful to 'filter' the enemy forces.  If you send your 20- & 30-ton scouts across a field set for 50 tons the mines will not detonate, but when the enemy 55-tonner gets in the hex the mines will detonate.

They are also useful to get intel on enemy units.  Set a 5-pt minefield for 40 tons, and see how close the nearest enemy unit is when the field detonates.  That will tell you how heavy that enemy unit is.  Useful if you need to know if that is a 75-ton Marauder or a 100-ton Marauder-2.

[OatsAndHall]

That's a secret of the magic, then. It means I didn't need to put aside thunder LRM as an option.

Well for the mine on the start of the game normal mine would be better. Else depend on the set weight it could be already detonated for their arrival. Although vibrabomb will detonates if it got the sound, while the normal mines have chance to not detonates.

I field a lance of VTOLs consistently, assuming the game parameters allow me to do so. I've found that they're exceptionally versatile, due to their mobility. Even more so if I put a quality pilot in each one and I don't have to worry about side-slipping when moving at flank speed. That lance of VTOLs has turned the tide for me in quite a few games.

[General308]

My regular group has tinkered around with arty a few times, with mixed responses. Some of our players really want to play with it more often as it discourages heavy/assault "campers" raising hell. On the flip side of the coin, there's folks who like playing with these types of sniper/over watch units. I tend to fall in the latter group as I feel like it speeds up our games a bit, especially as our group has developed a proclivity towards light and medium jumpers. I like having the ability to stop a big boy in elevated cover and make those bouncy mediums and lights a little wary.

I've made the argument that we don't necessarily need straight arty as IDF provides the similar results but that doesn't seem to be a big selling point. I love using it and do so regularly but I'm the only player in the group that ties it into a force on a regular basis.

What are some other ways one can counter "campers" without just dropping arty shells on their heads?

Am I reading right.  You use the "Overwatch rules"  others want to use arty as a counter and you would prefer them not use those rules?

[OatsAndHall]

Am I reading right.  You use the "Overwatch rules"  others want to use arty as a counter and you would prefer them not use those rules?

No, my post wasn't that cut and dry and neither is my intent. If I wanted to keep my "campers" safe, I wouldn't be asking for alternative methods for dealing with the tactic. As has been pointed out and discussed, arty is crunchy and adds time onto the game.  And... My gaming group will spam it (without necessarily understanding the rules), if allowed to, which makes things crunchier and more time consuming. I want other tactics, weapons, rules (etc) for dealing with campers that are more streamlined.

[General308]

No, my post wasn't that cut and dry and neither is my intent. If I wanted to keep my "campers" safe, I wouldn't be asking for alternative methods for dealing with the tactic. As has been pointed out and discussed, arty is crunchy and adds time onto the game.  And... My gaming group will spam it (without necessarily understanding the rules), if allowed to, which makes things crunchier and more time consuming. I want other tactics, weapons, rules (etc) for dealing with campers that are more streamlined.

Well the reason I asked that way Is you mentioned that one of the reason you used the overwatch is because a lot of players you play with use fast and light meduims.   And those fast units that can flank are a major way that you can deal with campers by getting in the rear arc.  But in your case you have the overwatch rule as well.   So I would suggest not using the overwatch rule and let those speed guys do what they do to deal with campers if you don't want artillery in the game.    I know you said the overwatch feels like it speeds your game up.  And you are right because if you take away the ablity to flank campers your enemy has problems.   

[Colt Ward]

I have watched this and was not sure about joining in b/c it ends up going the same way often . . .

FIRST for artillery use I have not seen 2 important factors mentioned . . . pre-plotted hexes and adjusting fires.

I will address these in reverse order . . . adjusting fires is a important factor in the tactical use of artillery as it allows you to gain accuracy firing at a target.  The earlier mention of using artillery to make a "wall" to keep enemy units from passing through the 'beaten zone' (technical term) is a IRL tactic (but it makes infantry & cav pucker . . . just how good was the quality control on shells/propellant?  Are those Fat, Dry, & Comfy arses actually putting in the numbers right?) that has been used in multiple battles in history.  But you need to be 'mostly' accurate to hit that zone and as the person who suggested it said you need to have fast forces to exploit that opening you create.

This is also why I favor artillery units with deeper ammo bins, think Sniper is the best, and use Sniper/Thumper almost exclusively for unguided munitions.  The 5 rounds a ton you get with A4 & Long Tom just IMO does not let take those ranging shots.  A TAV with a ton of smoke is useful for throwing that smoke but also "finding" that hex you want to hit as long as it can be observed to get the -1 TH for each follow on shot.

Pre-plotted hexes are easy . . . the old MM servers had the default of 4 hexes pre-plotted that were auto-hits for your artillery.  This made it very easy to deal with the 'best' camping spot for your opponent.  It can do the same for table top- you can select the woods on a hill, or to be devious the gap between some hills they will have to move through to get to the middle of the map.  But this depends on if your table is using this part of artillery.

Finally some of the things I did not see address for artillery options . . . and usually not done on tables- can you destroy or set on fire buildings/woods?  If so you can of course blast away the buildings/woods and make rubble hexes.  While a hex of woods on fire is not going to deter a Thunderhawk (or a Gargoyle Prime . . . I once had someone hit a Gargoyle with the old inferno rules), it can most other things b/c your long range snipers mix ERPPC/ERLL with Gauss or LRMs.


But to address some generic points for the OP principles of deployment in artillery & AA are much the same.  You want mass, mix, mobility, and integration . . . integration does not really count in BT b/c for the most part we do not factor in the ability to clearly communicate between spotters & guns nor is there a good means of setting up combined arms vs distinct forces.  My favorite example of this is the nova vs a star of Omnis & a star of BA.  In table top- TW or AS- terms both have the same abilities effectiveness but the Nova should outperform the two individual stars that are working together.

Mobility is a wash too though I prefer it b/c I usually have my artillery on the battlefield.  It used to be more handy to make 'adjustments' but can still be done between indirect fire over 17 hexes and then moving forward the next turn to indirect or if the artillery unit is sturdy enough, direct fire the same location.  If I was 'designing' a combat command I would of course prefer self-propelled artillery and one of the things I miss from MWDA's options is the ability to tow guns . . . though now we have trailers (though unfortunately all the old vehicles have no 'hitch' though it is a standard bit of design . . . ) which means you can move artillery strategically with cargo vehicles.

Leaves you with mass- as in massing guns- and mix.  Massing the guns is pretty self-explanatory but the key factor for BT table top is that you get a sufficient amount of guns for the BV used and map size.  IF you are good with artillery AND spend some BV (aka gunners) you can get by with less guns.  IMO the minimum is three for most people and four is the safest.  The least I will personally bring is two- and those generally have to be two different units.  Yeah, the Demolisher A4 & Naga are useful with their two pieces on the same unit but it just invites Murphy to play with the 'random' damage you get.  The other thing I would do with just 2 artillery units is use field guns.  The BV on these is LOW but they only have 1 ton of ammo per gun and IIRC the field gun artillery has to use all the same type around- IE, no having a 2 Thumper field gun platoon with 1 ton HE and 1 ton Copperheads.

This leaves mix, which IRL is about a mix of systems so you get the same sort of synergy combined arms gets you in a maneuver unit.  IRL that means ideally you would like tube, mortar, rocket, and perhaps even missile artillery though the later has faded in modern times as rockets became more useful.  For the purposes of BT that applies to the type of rounds.  Look at the Ballista SP Artillery Tank- 3/5, decent armor, Sniper w/3 tons of ammo- it makes it very easy to mix artillery options.  With my 3 'gun' minimum I get 9 options for munitions- say each SP gun gets 1 ton HE, SP gun A gets a ton of cluster, SP gun B gets a ton of Copperheads, SP Gun C gets a ton of Fuel Air Explosion (there you go Daryk), and you still have 1 ton on each SP gun to customize.  IIRC, the HE round also works for AA duty?

Or you have 2 Ballistas and get something with a single A4 launcher that has more than 3 tons of ammo- HE, Inferno, FASCAM.  Now you can blast, smoke, burn, mine, and go for the head hit in one package.

But other ideas for the OP- like I said, can you catch woods on fire?  Burn them out of the camping spots.  Someone mentioned Thunder Mines, and that is a good option, just get the density to 20 for each of those expected camping hexes and they will have to risk a PSR to get to the camping spot . . . and maybe internal damage to the leg.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Well at least it is sure that thunder rounds for artillery is not something worth considering, for it only puts mines on a single hex, with the inaccurate artillery attack. Moreover its density cannot be augmented by the other thunder rounds, which means it is not something even usable unless you have designated the exact hex you want to deliver the mine by the autohit hex already but you don't need all the other hex other than those autohit hexes to be have any mines at all. Thunder-augmented of LRM, and thunder bumbs are should be what you need to consider instead. Thunder bomb would be not that tasty option consider the bomb rack could be filled with the small fuel air bombs instead, though, but is still more realistic solution than the artillery.

Yes thunder rounds of artillery does shoots faster than the latter options(because the range of the artillery is far longer than the others), but that would be meaningful only if you have at least 10+ rounds of free shootings on the battlefield before the game begins - and I wonder that just mere 10+ rounds would be enough consider the artillery are nothing but one of the considering option for dispatch the campers from their camping spots and those shouldn't be expensive.

And although I had said already, but what about inferno IV missiles? It set ablaze the hex it hits and all adjacent hexes for the rest of the game. And since its nature of burn and also generating smokes means you don't required to be quite accurate. Perhaps only just a single or two lauchers could results meaningful output if you just want the opponent to be out of their camping spots.

[OatsAndHall]

Well the reason I asked that way Is you mentioned that one of the reason you used the overwatch is because a lot of players you play with use fast and light meduims.   And those fast units that can flank are a major way that you can deal with campers by getting in the rear arc.  But in your case you have the overwatch rule as well.   So I would suggest not using the overwatch rule and let those speed guys do what they do to deal with campers if you don't want artillery in the game.    I know you said the overwatch feels like it speeds your game up.  And you are right because if you take away the ablity to flank campers your enemy has problems.   

What is the "overwatch rule"? When I said we play with overwatch units, I basically just meant we park mechs with ranged weapons in suitable terrain and use them as snipers (or "overwatch"). And, yes, you're correct, fast mediums and lights make life tough for those units. But, IME, a good counter to fast movers is to park a big boy and pull better firing equations.

[General308]

What is the "overwatch rule"? When I said we play with overwatch units, I basically just meant we park mechs with ranged weapons in suitable terrain and use them as snipers (or "overwatch"). And, yes, you're correct, fast mediums and lights make life tough for those units. But, IME, a good counter to fast movers is to park a big boy and pull better firing equations.

That is why I asked my first question to "overwatch" is a rule in TW now it is pretty clear you are not using that rule....  Quick question what size battlefields do you play one?  IE how many maps do you usually use?

[maxcarrion]

Right, I'm going to have a quick go at answering the original question (what options, other than arty, are effective against a heavy hill camper) rather than wading into the how to use arty discussion that this seems to have become.

The answer, as always, is - it depends on what you want to do, how you want to achieve it, and what else is going on.  I'd say you can split the options into 3 categories of choices.  Assuming you have an enemy with good long range firepower in an elevated and covered position you can.

1 - mitigate it.  Your opponent has invested significantly in this "sniper", if you can stay out of it's way you can achieve local superiority elsewhere.  Break lines of sight, offer only poor shots, add smoke, make the conflict happen where the sniper cannot see it/significantly affect it.  This expensive investment now has less affect on the encounter than it's cost justifies and it's commander must either accept this loss of effectiveness or surrender the high ground to move to a less defensive position where they can affect the encounter.

2 - Assault it.  A long range mech on a hill can be efficiently overpowered by short range mechs on the same hill.  Using good counters is especially effective.  For example an AWS-8Q isolated on a hill on overwatch is in trouble if a fast VTOL squadron drops 8 platoons of jump infantry on the same hill.  Those PPCs suck against PBI and while the armour will hold up a while the AWS will get quickly ripped to shreds by close range infantry fire, especially if it refuses to move. 

3 - out shoot it.  Take advantage of it's limitations to get advantages in a ranged firefight, it has ERLL, you use LRMs at range 21, it has PPCs, you wheel some field guns into range and let them kill tiny numbers of infantry while hammering them with autocannons, this is where Arty comes in, or Ortillery, or bombs or IDF LRMs, or using C3 snipers with a hard to hit spotter, or fast moving VTOLS plinking at long range that make them impossible to hit.  Are they using LRMs?  Offer them terrible target numbers and AMS and watch them empty their ammo bins for almost no damage or refuse to fire while you roll 11+s with energy weapons in return.

If they have fixed on a strategy, turn it to your advantage.  If this gives you the opportunity to divide and conquer, take it.  If you can mitigate enemy assets for minimal cost, do it.  If your opposition becomes static, rearrange your forces to offer efficient counters.  Potentially there is opportunity to play the objective without having to engage some enemies, if so, achieve the objective and withdraw.

[OatsAndHall]

That is why I asked my first question to "overwatch" is a rule in TW now it is pretty clear you are not using that rule....  Quick question what size battlefields do you play one?  IE how many maps do you usually use?

We typically combined two of Catalyst's neoprene battle mats.

[General308]

We typically combined two of Catalyst's neoprene battle mats.

So just a suggestion trying a larger battlefield.  Really on such a small battlefield it is a lot easier to camp at the back were faster units can not flank as well.  Adding say two more of those matts will create a larger field and make it harder for a few units to camp at the back without getting flanked and eating shots in the rear armor.   If you open your play area up to more manuvering it will give other units a chance to deal with the campers.

Now I would use some of those lights your people like to use and pair it with some sort of LRM carrier tank hiding behind  cover and bring in indirect fire on the campers