Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm nor really sure if light artillery (or accompanying guns or infantry guns depending on your preferred terminology) is underpowered in FoW. Few people take it and I'd like to go over the reasons and question if they need improving.

Low AT and Firepower, especially in bombardments - These are probably legitimately low, but it is a fact that they are low.

Low platoons size - This is again probably legitimate due to their historical use, however there are rarely three in a platoon and the rules really punish two gun bombardments

No range in buffs - Despite the lighter, potentially quicker loading shell. Also no staff teams which again is legitimate.

Low direct fire range - That they often can't out range HMGs (or even rifles) in direct fire seems a little off to me.

I agree it is pretty sad when mortars are better than lite arty,
But one of the biggest gripes that i find with players is that alot do not agree with firepower ratings.

They are generally quite expensive in terms of points as well.

They would probably need some kind of special rule to be effective, the 'fire bursts' rule that Japanese light guns have would be suitable IMO.

Historically mortars and light AT guns did replace these guns so in some ways they were better. However light infantry guns do seem to be jacks of all trades, masters of none.

@ Col. K.K. What do people think the AT ratings should be?

@ Silent Puffin. I hate the Japanese Burst Fire rule. It fixes the Japanese problem and leaves everyone else in the cold.

 George Spiggott wrote:
I hate the Japanese Burst Fire rule. It fixes the Japanese problem and leaves everyone else in the cold.

Unless of course it was made universal for all artillery with a calibre of <88 mm (anything less than a 25 pounder basically although they should have their firepower increased but that's a different story). Realistically how else can they be fixed?

Their AT rating should match whatever it is in the real world and their FP ratings in general are reasonable for their calibre; I don't think that there is anything especially wrong with their stats (with the possible exception of direct fire range).

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Unless of course it was made universal for all artillery with a calibre of <88 mm (anything less than a 25 pounder basically although they should have their firepower increased but that's a different story). Realistically how else can they be fixed?

That's an option, although I wouldn't lose sleep over a minor penalty and a smaller cut off calibre, say 75mm

Their AT rating should match whatever it is in the real world and their FP ratings in general are reasonable for their calibre; I don't think that there is anything especially wrong with their stats (with the possible exception of direct fire range).

Agreed, though if they were outright better they'd cost more points (assuming they're worth the points they are now). Extra range (24") in exchange for a drop in AT value by one may make for a fair house rule but it's not a permanent solution. Also I think the mortar re-roll to range in may be appropriate.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Historically mortars and light AT guns did replace these guns so in some ways they were better. However light infantry guns do seem to be jacks of all trades, masters of none.

@ Col. K.K. What do people think the AT ratings should be?

@ Silent Puffin. I hate the Japanese Burst Fire rule. It fixes the Japanese problem and leaves everyone else in the cold.

5+ instead of six,come on now a rifle has the same as a Howitzer,especially when i run a 4 or 6 gun battery.

 col. krazy kenny wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
Historically mortars and light AT guns did replace these guns so in some ways they were better. However light infantry guns do seem to be jacks of all trades, masters of none.

@ Col. K.K. What do people think the AT ratings should be?

@ Silent Puffin. I hate the Japanese Burst Fire rule. It fixes the Japanese problem and leaves everyone else in the cold.

5+ instead of six,come on now a rifle has the same as a Howitzer,especially when i run a 4 or 6 gun battery.

Are we talking about howitzers or infantry guns? I thought we were talking about infantry guns. Or are we talking about both?

 Hordini wrote:

 col. krazy kenny wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
Historically mortars and light AT guns did replace these guns so in some ways they were better. However light infantry guns do seem to be jacks of all trades, masters of none.

@ Col. K.K. What do people think the AT ratings should be?

@ Silent Puffin. I hate the Japanese Burst Fire rule. It fixes the Japanese problem and leaves everyone else in the cold.

5+ instead of six,come on now a rifle has the same as a Howitzer,especially when i run a 4 or 6 gun battery.

Are we talking about howitzers or infantry guns? I thought we were talking about infantry guns. Or are we talking about both?

i thought it was lite art, so i guess for me it is both. as because i play American Glider and PAra. But i did once destroy a KT by a freak roll. Just like a real gun that destroyed one with a direct shot.It hit the Hull mg and went thru and hit the ammo.Kaboom!

I do like the JApaneese gun rules kinda neat but i dont think they would work for Anglo american forces.
but of course in are circle as the guy that has been known to use his American God of war.

Must say I like the little IG platoons, depends what you want from them I guess.

Find they are excellent at supporting infantry, specifically picking off HMG teams, from far enough away the typical man packed anti tank weapons can't ht them.

Mobile enough to keep up, and generally with the gun shield the allow them to survive for a while against rifles and MG fire, and distracting anything heavier from firing at the infantry.

I view the bombardment as a case of "oh and they can also do that".

Some of the light anti tank guns are better in a support role (typically as RoF:3) but when firing as they advance that makes no odds and they are generally cheap enough it is a case of "as well as" not "instead of", plus they are open late war when the cheaper ATG tend not to be as available.

In direct fire FP:3+ is plenty for such small guns, as is a 16" direct fire range. RoF:2 keeps the cost down.

The only real drawback is the VP you drop when the somewhat fragile three team platoon is removed, being Veteran helps with this, Soviets in their usual style have a small platoon being four or six guns.

the counter is the mortar, which is murder on light guns trying to support infantry, not every gun needs to be able to kill a KT with one shot to be useful, these little guns are very nice at taking down HMG or PTRD teams they can pick out due to having the FP rating to do it, and they do it without being overkill.


The IJA burst fire rule seems as much about them not having the options for larger light artillery platoons, so they get the effect with a smaller platoon thats as effective but much more fragile - which seems to fit the theme of the army nicely.


The bombardment stat is pants, but thats not what you use them for. If they are your only answer to dug in infantry you're doing something wrong - when the enemy digs in I move them up, direct fire the turn they move (as you may as well) then GtG and dig in before supporting - a dug in enemy is giving you the time to try this, especially if they are not firing.

The only time I use them to bombard is when I'm running veterans and I'm only looking to hit for the pin, and even then would prefer to fire four rounds direct than the bombardment anyway.

What would be nice is smoke rounds.

Wish the 15cm German ones had an option for a third gun.

@ Leopard: I wish I had your results from taking them. What exactly do you take?

The three gun leIG for mid war is ok, specially in small battles where it's all rounder nature is helpful.

Otherwise I think Pak 36s (or 38s) are a better option,

 George Spiggott wrote:
@ Leopard: I wish I had your results from taking them. What exactly do you take?

The three gun leIG for mid war is ok, specially in small battles where it's all rounder nature is helpful.

Otherwise I think Pak 36s (or 38s) are a better option,

What lists let you take three leIG? I thought leIG or sIG usually only came in pairs?

Mid War Heer Panzergrenadiers, both armoured and regular (Page 43 + 50 Eastern Front).

I see that 'Great War' deals with this by making both armies start closer together and by giving these guns the 'Trench Gun' rule allowing them to be treated as man packed guns for some terrain purposes.

Only run them in pairs, just noting that three would be nicer

Results have been mixed, but about as expected for such a small and cheap unit, main advantage is having to 75mm IG supporting a platoon with three or four Pak36 supporting another. Just helps the infantry deal with enemy HMG and is an answer to dug in infantry generally

They are not amazing, but they are both cheap and not competing with anything else in a slot so often feature with my grenadiers when I use them.

In late war a pair of them is ten points more than a pair of PaK38s. Since the bombardment is almost worthless the only thing they have that the PaK38s don't is direct fire smoke but even that's not so great with 16" range..

 George Spiggott wrote:
In late war a pair of them is ten points more than a pair of PaK38s. Since the bombardment is almost worthless the only thing they have that the PaK38s don't is direct fire smoke but even that's not so great with 16" range..

True if you look at them in isolation, but the IG don't generally share a slot with anything else, while Anti Tank Guns generally do, of course if thats less of a concern the Pak38 are a better bet, even better is both though.

DF smoke is ok, especially if the target is GTG so on a 3+ save, if they are on a 5+ prefer to try and actually kill though

All the lists with IG platoons in Grey Wolf that also have access to a Weapons Platoon AT gun platoons which don't prevent other options being taken. That's the case for Panzergrenadiers, Grenadiers and a couple of other lists. I didn't make an exhaustive search though.

DF smoke is great, if you're in range to use it.

I also noticed that 8cm Mortar 'direct fire' is 24". That makes them better against everything except lightly armoured vehicles, armoured cars and such.

Oh agree on taking the 8cm mortar, my grenadiers standard load out, after the three platoons one upgraded to pioneers is four HMG, two IG, four ATG and six mortars, seldom look elsewhere until that lots in place, short ranged force but one that packs a punch at close range

I take Panzergrenadiers so the 4xHMG and 2x8cm Mortar Heavy Platoon option is a similar choice for me.