Artillery: What Khan you do with it?

[Paul A. Hannah]

With an upcoming Far East theme next month for one of our NAGS DBA Game Nights, I'm working up a Mongol Conquest army, IV/35. The optional Artillery element is the only foot element.

Sure, I could leave it in Ulan Bator, but if I do take the Art. element, what to do with it? It would be unprotected in the open, and it's too slow and a PIP hog to move away from trouble, so I'm thinking the best use for it would be to park it in the Camp. The Camp would then be reasonably well defended (2+2+D6), but the downside would be the effective loss of three elements if someone does beat it in close combat.

So, any suggestions from Mongol Conquest fans?

[ October 18, 2004, 14:37: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

[Badger]

By putting it in camp, at least then the rest of your army doesn't have to babysit it, and is then free to use it's mobility to win the battle elsewhere. If you place it out of the camp, it's no more protected, unless you sacrifice the mobility advantage you have, which with LH is ALL the advantage you have.

Are you even sure you want to take the Art element at all, Paul? I forget what the alternative is -- yet another LH element?

[Chris Brantley]

I'd say take the Art and be aggressive with it. Deploy it in the center of the board about 500P from your camp. That way anything that attacks the camp risks getting shot at from the rear.

Use it as a tempting target for your opponent, like bait on a lure, and then hit their flanks with your light horse if they bite.

[David Kuijt]

A major part of winning with LH is getting your enemy strung out, disorganized, and into a deep pip-hole. When you phrase it that way, there are a number of ways that an Art can be very useful to a devious LH commander. For one thing, it influences enemy facing in a large part of the map if you place it correctly -0- the enemy will not want to face away from it, even when your LH are swarming to the side, because of the rear shooting rule. This means you need to have your Art and LH working together -- which means, in this case, separated widely but exerting threat angles towards the enemy that are spread by at least 90 degrees. The LH can usually mess up enemy advances towards the Art by having pairs of elements exert ZOC into the enemy path of advance at an angle; if this is done from both sides it will make it very difficult for the enemy to rush the Art, and also very difficult for him to rush either flank of LH.

[Darren Buxbaum]

I would chose the Art and play aggressively with it as Chris and David had mentioned. Aside from terrain, the biggest problem with a predominately mounted army is dealing with Bw and WWg which can restrict your movements. Since Art outranges Bw and WWg is QK'ed by them, this is a quite useful element. In addition, Art has the QK on El with further proves it's usefulness, since El is a superior mounted element. Art could possibly be used to flush out enemy troops in BG that could ZOC and hinder your horse movements. Lastly, the Mongol Conquest list lacks variety and the Art can solve some of these problems that Cv and Lh can't. Granted it is slow and cumbersome, but the rest of of your army has the speed to pounce on slower ones and negate opponent Lh threats to the your Art. I guess it depends on what type of enemy you are facing. If the Art proves to be of no use in certain situations, then throw it to the rear. I will admit I am not the greatest with Art, but that 12th element will get used (I lose a lot of Art in games). Anyway, those are some of my experiences with Art.

[ October 18, 2004, 23:29: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[Badger]

Oh, yeah.... I keep forgetting that silly "die if shot on the back edge" rule....

[Roland Fricke]

If there's a lot of allowed elephant lists in this Far East theme, the Art could be very useful in scaring the Elephants.

[xeswop]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badger:
Oh, yeah.... I keep forgetting that silly "die if shot on the back edge" rule..../QUOTE]

It's easy to forget a rule that is not there. There is a rule that says "die if forced to recoil from a shot on the back edge unless from a BUA."

[Badger]

Originally posted by Bob.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Badger:
Oh, yeah.... I keep forgetting that silly "die if shot on the back edge" rule....It's easy to forget a rule that is not there. There is a rule that says "die if forced to recoil from a shot on the back edge unless from a BUA."</font>[/QUOTE]... and it's easy to fall into a verbal shorthand when dismissing something one doesn't think much of, and easy to miss that a verbal shorthand was being used. Given the risk of confusing neophytes, though, I should have been more careful to more accurately state the rule.

[Paul A. Hannah]

Originally posted by Badger:
Are you even sure you want to take the Art element at all, Paul? I forget what the alternative is -- yet another LH element? Yes, the alternative is another 2LH element. Yep, I am inclined to take the Art, but that choice is no doubt influenced by the uncanny luck I seem to enjoy with Art in close combat.

Thanks for the replies and the several tactical suggestions on how to use Art when it's the only Foot element in an otherwise all-horse army. The consensus from the replies is take the Artillery and use it aggressively.

I still have to finish detailing a few figures (and then there's all that basing and grassing), but they should be ready to debut at our NAGS group's "Far East" theme tomorrow night. --I'm looking forward to trying out these tactics.

[cpagano]

I'm curious, how did this army use its Art historically?

-Chris P.

[Martian]

In Sieges obviously!

Wasn't there a recent Military History article about someone (Timur?) using Artilley to clear enemy bowmen in support of a river crossing?

Marty

[Martian]

It just occurred to me we should have suggestted to Phil that armies consisting of all LH should not require camps during the 2Oh development days.

Oh well! :rolleyes:

Marty

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Martian:

Wasn't there a recent Military History article about someone (Timur?) using Artilley to clear enemy bowmen in support of a river crossing?
That was Subedai (Subotai) at the battle of Mohi; Mongols against Kingdom of Hungary in 1241. Artillery figures at several points in that battle. There is a description online here:
http://historymedren.about.com/library/prm/bl5mongolinvasion.htm

[ November 09, 2004, 12:33: Message edited by: David Kuijt ]

[xeswop]

Originally posted by Martian:
It just occurred to me we should have suggestted to Phil that armies consisting of all LH should not require camps during the 2Oh development days.
Oh well! :rolleyes:
Marty How about mobile camps. Yurts on carts. Move Your camp around with your LH so you do not leave it undefended.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Paul A. Hannah:
The consensus from the replies is take the Artillery and use it aggressively.

I still have to finish detailing a few figures (and then there's all that basing and grassing), but they should be ready to debut at our NAGS group's "Far East" theme tomorrow night. --I'm looking forward to trying out these tactics. Paul,

one of the Fanatici is taking the Mongol Conquest with the Artillery to Landwaster in three weeks (28 November).

I'm sure he'd appreciate a report on how the tactics suggested worked at your Far East Theme.

Cheers

[Paul A. Hannah]

Originally posted by Macbeth:
Paul, one of the Fanatici is taking the Mongol Conquest with the Artillery to Landwaster in three weeks (28 November). I'm sure he'd appreciate a report on how the tactics suggested worked at your Far East Theme.I played four very entertaining games with my new Mongol Conquest army at our recent DBA Game Night. (Fellow Fanaticus, Andy Hooper, dubbed them, my "Mikes Mongols", alluding to their long-defunct manufacturer.) I went 2-for-2 with them, so I don't know how much "street cred" I can lay claim to regarding my handling of this army. :D

Wins were against Sung Chinese and Khitan-Liao. Losses were against the same Sung Chinese and Qara-Khitan.

In all four games, I deployed and moved the Mongol Art forward, once even by road, conveniently provided me by my Sung Chinese opponent. The stone thrower survived all four games, but it didn't play a decisive role in any of them. It destroyed only one element by shooting, and a second by forcing it to recoil into friends it could not pass through. (Oh, yeah, it also destroyed one of my own units for the same reason. --Poor planning on my part there.) The few recoils it forced added to my opponent's PIP woes in dealing with all those wily horse archers.

My opponents tended to steer clear of the Art element. The pile of stones I placed on the stand look rather like the moons of Jupiter, so they may have just been intimidated by it. ;) It's slow speed and high PIP cost, however, made it difficult for me to get it into range of opponents.

What I didn't really try was the "use it as bait" tactic suggested earlier in this thread. I'll have to try that next time. And, I also want to try parking it in the camp for a game or two also.

Well, a long-winded reply... Dunno if anything here helped, so I'll just repeat what I said earlier, that the Mongol Conquest army is very fun to game with in DBA. --And, that's all that really matters in my book.

[ November 13, 2004, 07:06: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

[John Meunier]

Paul,

Sounds like the Art at least helped shape the outcome of the battle - even if it didn't dominate.

I'd be curious to read a bit more about how the battles went beyond the Art issue. I've always found more than 2 LH beyond my skill.

[Paul A. Hannah]

Originally posted by John Meunier:
I'd be curious to read a bit more about how the battles went...--Y'mean, I gotta mention the quick, 5-nil rout I suffered against Andy Hooper's all-horse Qara-Khitan? There, with wide open, steppe terrain, I tried a risky blitz with my LH against his Kn and Cv. The latter were all in a line with an exposed overlap on his right.

I had hoped to roll up his flank and get a couple destroyed-if-beaten results against his Knights. Alas, I rolled too many "single-strokes" and "double strokes" (ones & twos) on my Chinese character dice, and my Mongol horse archers just melted away. --You basic 15-minute game. :D

--In the other games, I used a more conventional tactic with my host of horse archers: I patiently maneuvered about, trying to lure my opponent into PIP and flank troubles. Just as often, however, I got myself into PIP peril, and, against all those 4Cb elements the Sung sport, that is decidely dangerous DBA play.

Obviously, I need more practice.

[John Meunier]

Sounds like my experience with my Dyanstic Bedouins.

Head-on-charge against knights - bad idea. Ever read about the Polish lancers charging the German Panzers in 1939?

But someday I'll figure out how to be a proper LH commander.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by John Meunier:
Ever read about the Polish lancers charging the German Panzers in 1939?
I caught something on the History Channel (in Oz) recently where the commentator suggested that this romantic incident is the Military Historians equivalent of an urban myth. There was footage of Polish Lancers charging, and footage of the Panzers advancing and after some retelling it became fact.

I'll have to check some of my other sources and confirm this as I think I remember seeing it elsewhere.

Cheers

[John Meunier]

Who needs truth when romance has so much utility?

[cpagano]

Originally posted by John Meunier:
Ever read about the Polish lancers charging the German Panzers in 1939?This is mostly myth based upon some truth. The Polish Cav dismounted during the engagement and they had traded in their lances shortly before the war began.

The best account of this engagement that I have found is in Steven Zaloga's Osprey Campaign series book "Poland 1939." The most interesting thing about this engagement is that it also saw a Polish armored train go up against the Panzers. It kept fighting even after being damaged by Stukas. One of these days I will recreate this battle on the tabletop. Panzers, Stukas, Polish tankettes, Polish cav, and a Polish armored train, all on the table together! Overall the Germans took a nasty mauling and retired until the next day.

There is a great discussion of this myth in "Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine" by Patrick Wright. He discusses how the myth was propagated by the Nazis and later embraced by the Polish. The fact that both sides talk about the charge as though it is true makes it very believable. The depiction of the charge in post-war Polish film helped solidify its widespread acceptance. The book includes an interesting interview with some modern Polish tankers concerning how the myth is important to them.

One of these books, probably the second, even identifies the war correspondent who started the myth.

-Chris P.

[Macbeth]

Thanks Chris,

you've saved me a long period of pouring over my sources to find out what I had on the incident.

cheers

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by cpagano:
There is a great discussion of this myth in "Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine" by Patrick Wright.
-Chris P. I heartily recommend this book to everyone. Great book! Its like the Social History of the Machine Gun, only it does the job much better.

Andrew