History of the World Provisional Rules

[Blackfish]

This isn't a proposal to increase the power of light artillery. It's purely for realism, the 20 guns will do the same amount of damage, but it will be more realistic when you realize it is 20 guns, not four, doing it.

Explained perfectly.

[GeneralShmuel]

By increasing the amount of artillery surely that means increasing the power too as let's say I have 2 light artillery units, that would mean I have 40 guns on the battlefield against a small army. If all guns fired at the same time, this would mean that there's a much likelier chance of hitting the target. The casualties being dwelt now with light art is, as small as it is, nothing compared to what 20 guns could do. This is far from realistic.
Usually 20 guns in a unit would only be assigned in sieges or battles with tons of artillery to spare. I would agree to lowering the power of the artillery when though it is already pretty low for artillery but I won't agree with having a ridiculous amount of artillery guns on a small field

[Subotai45]

4 guns is nothing. My boy scout troop, given approximately an hour to prepare, would be able to take them out. When a boy scout troop can take out a unit, it's bad.

Shmuel, the reason casualties have been high is because I've been treating the four guns abstractly as an "arty unit" not "four guns". I kept with what GM said. If I intended them to accurately represent 4 guns, they'd cause 2 dozen casualties in a battle. 20 guns is both more accurate with both history and how they've been treated so far.

[GeneralShmuel]

4 guns, In a battle that has tops 10 units in it on both sides can be as devastating and morale shocking as heavy artillery in a much larger battle. Therefore they would deal a lot of damage as they have been doing so far. Historically they wouldnt have 20 guns in an army that only had a couple of thousands of men in it. They would need so many guns and also as soon as they started firing at the enemy the enemy would most likely rout on the second volley.

[Subotai45]

4 guns really isn't much. Most armies had more with less soldiers. They'd have at least 20 in an army with 12,000, let alone the 60 thousand we routinely top.

[Blackfish]

20 of these would be a realistically sized light artillery unit.


As Subs is saying, compared to the massive armies we all field in a conflict, 4 guns is just stupid. Heck, let me grab a few friends and some bystanders for cannon fodder. 40 men could take out 4 guns, even when grapeshot is being used.


Heavy artillery, keeping 4 of these:


is very reasonable, but the advantage of a Light Artillery regiment is the speed it can be deployed at, and the large amount of small rounds that can be sent over a battlefield.

Shmuel, keep in mind this is a cosmetic change. I'm happy with the way that subs is adjudicating artillery strikes, and he has already stated it won't change. The only thing that will change is the number of cannon considered to be in an artillery battery/battalions. (I call them battalions, due to the number of men I assume would be in a unit)

This is (approximately) what the light artillery battery would look like:

That's military, my friend.

[chengduguy]

A good compromise would be ten guns. It is more realistic than either four or twenty guns. In a real battle than often times the British (the country I am most familiar with) would have about thirty to fifty cannons in an average battle. These would be spread out and they would have five to ten guns at different vantage points. For example, if there was a narrow pass that the battle was taking place in and there were cliffs on both sides, and the British had thirty guns they wouldn't put twenty of them at the bottom of the pass and then put a quarter of a unit on each cliff. Instead they'd have ten on each cliff and ten in the pass. This is better represented with ten guns than with four or twenty.

[Subotai45]

I'm judging it all the same, but I like 20.

Most countries don't have more than 1 or 2 arty, spread throughout the military.