Switch Theme:

Improving bs shooting and deterioration of warmachines  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in es
Death-Dealing Devastator




Poland

Let's start with the bs shooting. I thought of three ways of doing so.

1. Introducing 3 ranges instead of 2 and giving + 1 to hit at close range
- All weapons have maximum range which is divisible by 3. Therefore the first trisect of weapon range can be a short range, the second trisect a medium range and the third trisect a long range. I would round down. So the if the distance would be 24,7 inches then it would be rounded to 24. For the weapons don't fire exactly up to a range that is stated, but theirs a slight scatter, which might be affected by the wind.


2. Increasing the range of unit on an elevated position.
- Concerns a unit on a cliff, on castel wall, a tower or any other elevated position. The range is extended by one third. In case both points 1 and 2 apply, then long range will be the 3rd and 4th quarter of maximum range while on an elevated position. 2nd quarter medium range and 1st short range.
One of the problems is that it might make warmachines more effective, but the question is in what degree. Warmachines already have a range that allows them to shoot at almost anything they want to. Additionaly if they will be weakened then it should not be a problem.


3. Penalty to Leadership for a unit that suffered more than 25% of wounds from shooting.
-1 to leadership for 50% wounds and -2 to leadership for 75% wounds.
However, this has it's problems. You don't often inflict 50% or more wounds. Same problem with warmachines appears as in point 2. Incase both bs unit and warmachine shoot at one target the wounds, would need to be resolved separately.




Detorioration of warmachines.
- They don't need to be weakened a lot, just a bit. For one Warmachine worth 100 points is often able to do more damage then a unit of archers worth 200 points. Warmachines are supposed to be better at eliminating one kind of a unit then bs shooters while worse at others. For exammple better at obliterating a unit of armoured infantry, while worse at killing light cavalry. I would make warmachines reroll a scatter dice while shooting at light cavalry or a model with a fly rule unless it's a scatter or an artilery dice unless it's a misfire. Those actions should be repeated twice when shooting to flying cavalry.

If you have any other ideas then you can post them here. I'm open for criticism, but I appreciate if you would be constructive and if a problem occurs then try to solve it yourself or give me aid in solving it. When it comes to bs shooting, which of options or combinations do you think would be the most viable?

sergeant of the devestators 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

Three ranges is more complicated than it needs to be.
Why not just remove the -1 to hit for long range, and give +1 to hit for short range. Units don't tend to be in short range very long anyway.

I like the idea of elevation giving more range. For ease, I'd say just give another 6" when firing on enemies lower then them. Or, let units in elevated locations fire with 1 more rank than normal. I liked that hills were important in 7th, and didn't think that was something that needed to be removed in 8th. Hell, 6" of bonus range makes a flame cannon almost playable.

As far as warmachines go, they need to stay a hard(ish) counter for monsters. While a cannon may kill a lot more than 13 crossbowmen, a cannon cannot take a charge from fast cav, or chaos hounds. 13 crossbowmen will.

If BS shooting gets the range modifier change and any sort of bonus from hills, they will do just fine compared warmachines.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





1,2,3=range is range. No range penalty for BS shots. I think that's fine.

War Machines, if the target of a cannon or stone thrower is a Large Target and takes the multi-wound attack, the damage is halved, to a min of 1. I'd rather it be D3 for convenience, but a lot of army books have their own values (even if they are 99% the same as a stone thrower) and then someone could argue RAW that a screaming skull catapult is still D6 because it's not a stone thrower.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

DukeRustfield wrote:
1,2,3=range is range. No range penalty for BS shots. I think that's fine.

War Machines, if the target of a cannon or stone thrower is a Large Target and takes the multi-wound attack, the damage is halved, to a min of 1. I'd rather it be D3 for convenience, but a lot of army books have their own values (even if they are 99% the same as a stone thrower) and then someone could argue RAW that a screaming skull catapult is still D6 because it's not a stone thrower.


I'm ok with warmachines hosing monsters. Its that they are too good against too many targets. IMO, characters who get a look out roll should auto pass it against warmachines.
Here's why I hate warmachines.
I'm running a necromancer led vampire army. My general (master necro) is safely tucked in the rear.
Empire wins the toss and goes 1st.

Rather than firing at the terrorgiests, he fires 4 cannons (steam tank +3 great cannons) through my general. I pass 4 look out tests.
I advance.
Turn 2, empire does this again, I fail a look out roll, general dies. Vampire hero takes over, but the immediate army wide crumble takes out huge chunks of my army.
All my fast flanking units vaporize, preventing my turn 2 charges into his backfield.
My turn, I advance.
His turn 3, he now fires all 4 cannons at the vampire, killing him, forcing another round of army wide crumbles.
12 shots, 2 failed look outs.
You can pretty much always get 2 turns worth of shooting. If you can take 4 or more heavy hitting warmachines, try just assassinating wizard lords/generals and BSB's.

My fix for warmachines,
If you can take a look out, you auto pass it. Everything else they do I'm cool with.


-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





They'd still hose monsters. 2 shots = death is pretty hose-worthy. Not many monsters have a ward or high regen and their T and armor is useless. You're counting on a misfire or some such but even still one hit and they are at about half strength which is at the worst an equitable trade in points for the war machine.

Your example of vampires is a non-existent problem. TK and Vampires have their generals. You know that. If you don't want crumble hide behind terrain and sit there forever. Put one of your many possible monstrous_ in front of you. Or don't put 23498 points into a super general who also controls whether your entire army crumbles to dust. You have complete control over that. Even still, you don't cherry pick the worst case scenario to make a case.

Look out Sir is so unbelievably good that no one bothers shooting at characters with war machines unless they are Lord Fartwagon on a Dragon, which is the last time that poor model ever gets used. It is the best save in the game bar none. Most armies are going to be able to lay down anywhere from 0-2 templates at the most that require a LOS. And even then you're getting a ward and have all the other protections.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

DukeRustfield wrote:
They'd still hose monsters. 2 shots = death is pretty hose-worthy. Not many monsters have a ward or high regen and their T and armor is useless. You're counting on a misfire or some such but even still one hit and they are at about half strength which is at the worst an equitable trade in points for the war machine.

Your example of vampires is a non-existent problem. TK and Vampires have their generals. You know that. If you don't want crumble hide behind terrain and sit there forever. Put one of your many possible monstrous_ in front of you. Or don't put 23498 points into a super general who also controls whether your entire army crumbles to dust. You have complete control over that. Even still, you don't cherry pick the worst case scenario to make a case.

Look out Sir is so unbelievably good that no one bothers shooting at characters with war machines unless they are Lord Fartwagon on a Dragon, which is the last time that poor model ever gets used. It is the best save in the game bar none. Most armies are going to be able to lay down anywhere from 0-2 templates at the most that require a LOS. And even then you're getting a ward and have all the other protections.


Look Out is good against 1 cannon. It's not good enough if you can spam the war machines. Back when I ran dwarves, I called it the broadside. 3 cannons, 2 grudge throwers with accuracy (1 has burning too).
Typically, within 2 shooting phases, I've killed a character of my choice, regardless of look out. All 5 machines would focus fire on a single point.
Dwarf armies tend to get the +1 to go first since they have so few deployments.
Passed look outs aren't a total loss either, I'm still tagging another guy in the unit.
Really though, this is pretty much limited to Empire, Dwarves and chaos dwarves. Nobody else can get enough machines to make it work

As far as my example goes, yes, it's extreme. But vampires can't just hide the general in the back behind terrain. You might not have the terrain, and if you do, then your whole army isn't going to be marching, and within a turn or two, will be out of range of your generals magic.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





HawaiiMatt wrote:
Look Out is good against 1 cannon.

Oh, come on. That's like saying a HKB on every attack is only good vs. one skaven slave. LoS is limited by the laws of a D6 dice but it's as good as this game offers. A 4+ ward is awesome and it's nowhere near LoS.

Back when I ran dwarves...

Okay, but here's the deal, you're throwing 500+++ points trying to kill one guy. Empire can buy 10 Witch Hunters and you would be PRAYING to face cannons again. 500points is an awful lot to go for one guy. That's like 14 trolls puking on you. Like 7 buffed-up Mournfangs. If you find a hardish counter like that, it's really hard to beat. It doesn't matter if it's war machines or a KB Bloodthirster.

But you can block cannons as much as the game possible allows. You monster meatshields. It's harder with stone throwers, but those don't seem to be as popular as cannons now that measuring is in (and monsters aren't as common).

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





devestator 7777777 wrote:
Let's start with the bs shooting. I thought of three ways of doing so.

1. Introducing 3 ranges instead of 2 and giving + 1 to hit at close range
- All weapons have maximum range which is divisible by 3. Therefore the first trisect of weapon range can be a short range, the second trisect a medium range and the third trisect a long range. I would round down. So the if the distance would be 24,7 inches then it would be rounded to 24. For the weapons don't fire exactly up to a range that is stated, but theirs a slight scatter, which might be affected by the wind.


As HawaiiMatt said just switching the range mods to +1 at close and no mod at long range should do the job, while keeping things pretty simple. Warhammer in all its forms has always been a short & long range game. To make shooting a little stronger you could also change stand & shoot so that it is always deemed to be at close range (making it both more powerful and getting rid of the silliness of charges from close range actually suffering more hits than charges from long range).

There aren't many issues with figuring out how to make shooting more effective (if nothing else you can just make shooting troops cheaper). The problem is with making sure that no book encourages people to take pure shooting, stand and deliver gunline armies... because those armies are incredibly boring to play with and against. That produces a balancing act, where you want missile troops to be priced well enough that they're worth taking for in reasonable numbers, but not cheap enough that you can take nothing but missile troops and just shoot the enemy off the board.

2. Increasing the range of unit on an elevated position.
- Concerns a unit on a cliff, on castel wall, a tower or any other elevated position. The range is extended by one third. In case both points 1 and 2 apply, then long range will be the 3rd and 4th quarter of maximum range while on an elevated position. 2nd quarter medium range and 1st short range.
One of the problems is that it might make warmachines more effective, but the question is in what degree. Warmachines already have a range that allows them to shoot at almost anything they want to. Additionaly if they will be weakened then it should not be a problem.


I'd like to see a variation on HawaiiMatt's option - if the shooter is higher than the target they get +1 to hit. It's fairly powerful, but then missile troops on hills should be.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in ru
Death-Dealing Devastator




Poland

I'd say 6 extra range when on elevated position is better then + 1 to hit since some units will already hit on +2 at close range like it was in 7th edition.

Can't shooters fire from three ranks when on a cliff in 8th edition? All models can fire if they are on a tower.

sergeant of the devestators 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

DukeRustfield wrote:
HawaiiMatt wrote:
Look Out is good against 1 cannon.

Oh, come on. That's like saying a HKB on every attack is only good vs. one skaven slave. LoS is limited by the laws of a D6 dice but it's as good as this game offers. A 4+ ward is awesome and it's nowhere near LoS.

Back when I ran dwarves...

Okay, but here's the deal, you're throwing 500+++ points trying to kill one guy. Empire can buy 10 Witch Hunters and you would be PRAYING to face cannons again. 500points is an awful lot to go for one guy. That's like 14 trolls puking on you. Like 7 buffed-up Mournfangs. If you find a hardish counter like that, it's really hard to beat. It doesn't matter if it's war machines or a KB Bloodthirster.

But you can block cannons as much as the game possible allows. You monster meatshields. It's harder with stone throwers, but those don't seem to be as popular as cannons now that measuring is in (and monsters aren't as common).


It's under 500 points. And it's not killing 1 model. It's getting 3-5 hits per cannon and 8+ hits per stone thrower. It kills the character and cripples the unit he's in.
The third round of firing puts the machines well over their point value in kills, and that shooting at less than ideal targets.


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in nl
Death-Dealing Devastator




Poland

What do you think of my third option concerning bs missile troops?

sergeant of the devestators 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

Leadership penalties I'm not a fan of. Too many armies and too many units won't panic, and panic is an all or nothing effect. I'd rather see panic come up as often as it does now, but see more models die to missile fire.

As for cliffs and towers, towers allow 5 models per floor to fire, cliffs give no advantage at all (other than enhanced true line of sight, if that was ever an issue).

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in es
Death-Dealing Devastator




Poland

Which option you think is more viable extra range or third rank?
I would go for extra range, since you can place a unit in two ranks anyway. Perhaps both of them may apply.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/30 21:15:40


sergeant of the devestators 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Range effects everyone that can shoot. Elite shooters (like leadbelchers, flamers) won't be running 2 ranks, let alone 3. You want to give as many benefits to as many types as possible.

I don't like terrain bonuses. I think they are kind of goofy and people tend to forget them. Big huge WHFB fights took place on really flat terrain because everyone was walking. Unless you're running someone down or are the worst general ever, you don't try and run into a valley flanked by a zillion archers. And you don't maneuver around an army without scouts that know this stuff.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

DukeRustfield wrote:
Range effects everyone that can shoot. Elite shooters (like leadbelchers, flamers) won't be running 2 ranks, let alone 3. You want to give as many benefits to as many types as possible.

I don't like terrain bonuses. I think they are kind of goofy and people tend to forget them. Big huge WHFB fights took place on really flat terrain because everyone was walking. Unless you're running someone down or are the worst general ever, you don't try and run into a valley flanked by a zillion archers. And you don't maneuver around an army without scouts that know this stuff.


Warhammer games aren't big huge fights. A big "army" has ~300 guys in it.
Skirmishers took place over rolling hills all the time.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The fact they have generals and princes and war machines tends to tell me those are placeholders. 10 spearmen aren't holding a line. Or carrying a banner. Or doing anything. They are a handful of chaps. If you look at terrain, only a few guys can even get on a hill. Either everyone in WHFB is a giant, terrain is really small, or we have to use our imaginations.

No one is making 50,000 men battles, much to GW's chagrin. If it was really true #'s of units fighting, you would never see anything except infantry or a few horses. No one is wheeling two cannons around the countryside by themselves.

   
Made in es
Death-Dealing Devastator




Poland

DukeRustfield wrote:
Range effects everyone that can shoot. Elite shooters (like leadbelchers, flamers) won't be running 2 ranks, let alone 3. You want to give as many benefits to as many types as possible.

I don't like terrain bonuses. I think they are kind of goofy and people tend to forget them. Big huge WHFB fights took place on really flat terrain because everyone was walking. Unless you're running someone down or are the worst general ever, you don't try and run into a valley flanked by a zillion archers. And you don't maneuver around an army without scouts that know this stuff.


Bonuses that come from terrain still did apply. Archers that stood on hills had longer range. While the main fighting was mostly done on flat terrain, missile troops preferably occupied elevated positions. When general wanted to subjugate new lands his scouts helped him to choose battelfield, but he could not remove hills, from the mountainous areas.

Remebering about the extra 6 range on a unit located on a cliff should not be a problem.

sergeant of the devestators 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





devestator 7777777 wrote:
missile troops preferably occupied elevated positions.

No, they didn't. First off, no armies were going to clash where such a discrepancy took place. Second, volley fire is volley fire for a reason. If you're firing at 45 degrees it doesn't incredibly matter if you're in a ditch or a hill. Being on a hill just helped you not shoot your own men and get a better view. Not let you shoot more arrerz.

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





DukeRustfield wrote:
No, they didn't. First off, no armies were going to clash where such a discrepancy took place. Second, volley fire is volley fire for a reason. If you're firing at 45 degrees it doesn't incredibly matter if you're in a ditch or a hill. Being on a hill just helped you not shoot your own men and get a better view. Not let you shoot more arrerz.


Armies clashed where such a discrepancy took place all the time. History is full of examples of one army taking the high ground, and the other army (either because of numerical superiority or logistical inferiority) making the attack. I mean come on man... Hastings. Agincourt. These are not obscure battles.

And second up, the range of missile weapons benefitted greatly from a higher ground. Your assumption that volley fire was the only method of missile fire is miles off base, and whether volley fire or direct fire that extra distance mattered a lot. It's why hills and higher ground where constantly fought over in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
devestator 7777777 wrote:
I'd say 6 extra range when on elevated position is better then + 1 to hit since some units will already hit on +2 at close range like it was in 7th edition.


Some troops, but not many. Given the rarity of BS 5 or positive modifiers to shooting tests, I'd go so far as to say it's incredibly rare.

And when you think about what adding range does it becomes clear it's something of a mess. Basically if a target was out of range by 6" or less, it means you get a full round of attacks. In this instance, which is rare after the first turn, it pays massively. Or if a target is outside of half range by 3" or less you get +1 to hit, a nice bonus in a very specific circumstance. In all other situations it does nothing.

So, given your argument against +1 to hit as being due to many troops hitting on 2+ anyway, we can discard the +1 to hit because a shot is brought into half range... leaving us with hills meaning 'some units that can't reach the enemy of the first turn will be able to'.

I think compared to that +1 to hit looks like a far more generally useful stat.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/02 04:44:33


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 sebster wrote:
Armies clashed where such a discrepancy took place all the time.

Yes, and I'm sure they were statistically insignificant. Even up to our own Civil War, where I got dragged to a bazillion battlefields they weren't even 5 degree slopes. And I'm fairly certain they didn't mass bulldoze/grade the terrain after the fact. I just saw a documentary on a few really important battles that ended in massacres because one side retreated to like...a hill, and the other side thought that was a good place to charge up. For simple logistic reasons, you didn't have mass terrain because they were communicating with their army visually. Further, it's a damn hard place to fight.

   
Made in nl
Death-Dealing Devastator




Poland

Duke Rustfield. It's damn hard to charge a unit of spearmen up a hill. Do you know why castels were mostly build on a mountains? So archers that stood on the walls had bigger range, enemy could not carry siege towers to the walls.Have you heard of holes that were dug and covered, so heavy cavalry would fall and crash in to them. This happened in a battle of Tannenburg. Terrain always played a key part in historical battels.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sebster. + 1 to hit is better assuming that there is not already a + 1 to hit at close range. Otherwise +6 range is better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/02 10:06:52


sergeant of the devestators 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Really though, this is pretty much limited to Empire, Dwarves and chaos dwarves. Nobody else can get enough machines to make it work


Skaven and their ability to bring 2 cannons and 2 Stone Throwers(plus the Mortars) say HI.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/02 16:58:42


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





devestator 7777777 wrote:
Duke Rustfield. It's damn hard to charge a unit of spearmen up a hill. Do you know why castels were mostly build on a mountains? So archers that stood on the walls had bigger range, enemy could not carry siege towers to the walls.

Castles weren't built on MOUNTAINS. Because building on a mountain is about a billion times harder than sieging a mountain. They were built on small hills. And by small I mean not even the geographic definition of hill. The cool thing about a castle is...it's a building. It's naturally tall compared to those not on it. Archers didn't get greater range by being on a castle wall that was on a hill. They got greater range being on a castle wall. An arrow has a limited range. No one was launching a volley of arrows down a mountain (or hill), they wouldn't hurt anyone. They got better visibility being on a hill and better siege protection. But it did nothing for archers. BTW a "hill" is termed as being >1000 ft tall geographically. A mountain is >2K feet. Or about a 166 story building tall.

Google image search the word castle. You can see the ones, and ruins of ones, that were put on hills. Which are in the very small minority. That's not to say there weren't any. But it's more proper to say they were on some kind of mounds. 1000 feet is really damn tall.

   
Made in ru
Death-Dealing Devastator




Poland

DukeRustfield wrote:
devestator 7777777 wrote:
Duke Rustfield. It's damn hard to charge a unit of spearmen up a hill. Do you know why castels were mostly build on a mountains? So archers that stood on the walls had bigger range, enemy could not carry siege towers to the walls.

Castles weren't built on MOUNTAINS. Because building on a mountain is about a billion times harder than sieging a mountain. They were built on small hills. And by small I mean not even the geographic definition of hill. The cool thing about a castle is...it's a building. It's naturally tall compared to those not on it. Archers didn't get greater range by being on a castle wall that was on a hill. They got greater range being on a castle wall. An arrow has a limited range. No one was launching a volley of arrows down a mountain (or hill), they wouldn't hurt anyone. They got better visibility being on a hill and better siege protection. But it did nothing for archers. BTW a "hill" is termed as being >1000 ft tall geographically. A mountain is >2K feet. Or about a 166 story building tall.

Google image search the word castle. You can see the ones, and ruins of ones, that were put on hills. Which are in the very small minority. That's not to say there weren't any. But it's more proper to say they were on some kind of mounds. 1000 feet is really damn tall.


I must disagree with you saying that range did't increase. Of course it did't increase 2 times or even 1,5 time. But it did indeed increase a bit since arrows could fall longer. They still had force. They lost kinetic energy in order to gain potential and then kinetic again when arrows accelerated falling down.

sergeant of the devestators 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





If they have lost the kinetic energy of the bow, they are travelling with momentum and gravity and drag is going to start playing a much larger part. If you shot an arrow off mt. everest it might go further than if you shot it at sea level, but it wouldn't hurt anyone, it would just tumble like a leaf.

Here is a good page of mostly modern weapons. I think a standard recurve bow was around 300fps.

http://www.excaliburcrossbow.com/content/arrow_ballistics

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





DukeRustfield wrote:
Yes, and I'm sure they were statistically insignificant. Even up to our own Civil War, where I got dragged to a bazillion battlefields they weren't even 5 degree slopes. And I'm fairly certain they didn't mass bulldoze/grade the terrain after the fact. I just saw a documentary on a few really important battles that ended in massacres because one side retreated to like...a hill, and the other side thought that was a good place to charge up. For simple logistic reasons, you didn't have mass terrain because they were communicating with their army visually. Further, it's a damn hard place to fight.


You can be as sure as you want, but you're just wrong. Completely, 100% wrong. And there's actually a lot of battlefields that don't exist in the form they did when the war took place - the ridge at Waterloo has eroded over time so that going there today you can't get a sense for how Wellington used it to obscure the strength of his position. And oh look, Waterloo... that's another famous battle where varying terrain heights played a crucial role.

And while I have no how you managed to get dragged to so many civil wars without ever going to Gettysburg. Unless you went there and it somehow completely escaped your notice that Little Round Top was in fact a hill? It was essential to the fighting because it would have enabled the South to move cannons on to a hill with firing lines across the Union position. Also, you can add Gettysburg to that ever-growing list of really famous battles in which height played a key role. But please, keep insisting those battles are all exceptions.

And when you want to communicate with your army visually, hills are great - they extend your LOS considerably. I mean come on dude...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
devestator 7777777 wrote:
Sebster. + 1 to hit is better assuming that there is not already a + 1 to hit at close range. Otherwise +6 range is better.


Sure, for BS4 shooters (ie the 3 elf armies).

So we're basically saying the situation in which the bonus wouldn't do anything is when you are playing one of the Elf armies, firing at close range, from a hill, when no other negative factors are in place (so it isn't a stand & shoot, the firing unit didn't move, there's no cover etc). All the rest of the time the bonus is giving you a bonus to hit.

Compare that to the limited events in which extra range makes a difference - when you are out of range where you'd otherwise be within range (so first turn, if you go first), or when you'd be outside half range except for the extra 3" given by the hill. The latter would only give the same bonus as the +1 would, so it's a wash. The former... well elves have long bows so they're in range on the first turn anyway, so it doesn't help them much. So that leaves us with Dark Elves as the only army that could, in some circumstances, benefit more from an extra 6" of range.

Unless you want to start talking about throwing axes and pistols and the like, but they're marginal cases and a pretty good example of why a range boost doesn't actually make a lot of sense for all missile weapons.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/03 03:22:22


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gettysburg was actually the documentary I saw on that. And the battle was resolved via what constitutes close combat. Via wiki:
On the final charge, knowing that his men were out of ammunition, that his numbers were being depleted, and further knowing that another charge could not be repulsed, Chamberlain ordered a maneuver that was considered unusual for the day: He ordered his left flank, which had been pulled back, to advance with bayonets in a "right-wheel forward" maneuver. As soon as they were in line with the rest of the regiment, the remainder of the regiment charged, akin to a door swinging shut. This simultaneous frontal assault and flanking maneuver halted and captured a good portion of the 15th Alabama.[16]


Those are strategic hills. Actual fortified positions. You didn't get more shots, or better shots, shooting down them. And that was with guns. It was just harder to run up them then sit put behind a tree or fence or ditch at the top of a hill. And that fact is already represented in charging rules. Shooting a gun up a hill or down a hill is no damn difference because if you're in range to shoot, the elevation difference is insignificant--it's literally crossed in milliseconds.

Throw a football (baseball, whatever) up a hill that you can reasonably walk up. Throw it down. You can get more range throwing down, but it's not a hell of a lot. And that's not a bow. But you can't throw more times or are more accurate.

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





DukeRustfield wrote:
Gettysburg was actually the documentary I saw on that. And the battle was resolved via what constitutes close combat. Via wiki:
On the final charge, knowing that his men were out of ammunition, that his numbers were being depleted, and further knowing that another charge could not be repulsed, Chamberlain ordered a maneuver that was considered unusual for the day: He ordered his left flank, which had been pulled back, to advance with bayonets in a "right-wheel forward" maneuver. As soon as they were in line with the rest of the regiment, the remainder of the regiment charged, akin to a door swinging shut. This simultaneous frontal assault and flanking maneuver halted and captured a good portion of the 15th Alabama.[16]


Those are strategic hills. Actual fortified positions. You didn't get more shots, or better shots, shooting down them. And that was with guns. It was just harder to run up them then sit put behind a tree or fence or ditch at the top of a hill. And that fact is already represented in charging rules. Shooting a gun up a hill or down a hill is no damn difference because if you're in range to shoot, the elevation difference is insignificant--it's literally crossed in milliseconds.

Throw a football (baseball, whatever) up a hill that you can reasonably walk up. Throw it down. You can get more range throwing down, but it's not a hell of a lot. And that's not a bow. But you can't throw more times or are more accurate.


First up, whether that charge actually took place is highly debated. It was popularised by the film Gettysburg and so amateurs around the world have assumed it was true, but the actual evidence for that action, or any similar action is scant at best.

Second up, Little Round Top wasn't a fortified position. As part of the general chaos that was Gettysburg, the Union more or less stumbled on to the hill, and a junior officer realised its importance. It was covered in granite rocks and so suited defense nicely, but it wasn't fortified at all.

Third, yeah infantry held the hill, and it was denied to the Confederates. But none of that changes the basic fething reason that the Confederates wanted the hill in the first place - to put cannons on it because it had a commanding position over the Union line. Which it wouldn't have had if it wasn't a hill.

Fourth, the range difference for a weapon launched 100 or more yards is very different to a weapon thrown a third of that or maybe less. And in warfare, it isn't the total distance that matters, but having more distance than the other guy - when you outrange you force him to move to your deployment.

And lastly, you're moving your goalposts all over the place. First it was that uneven ground wasn't used for battle - they all preferred open terrain. When I pointed out that was nonsense you just stopped mentioning it, and now are trying to make some sort of argument that hills were nice, but only to help melee, it doesn't meaningfully aid ranged troops.

I can't wait to see what you make up to try and argue that the basic tactical doctrine of putting ranged units on the top of the hill didn't exist.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/03 06:43:03


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in nl
Death-Dealing Devastator




Poland

If +1 to hit would benefit unit on a hill at a long range as well then it is better then +6 extra range.

sergeant of the devestators 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





First, I didn't see Gettysburg, so I can't comment.

Second, k.

Third, doesn't have anything to do with discussion as this is about bows, not cannons. You already have TLOS issues with cannons. That is already taken care of and it's a reason for high ground. But even in the age of gunpowder, no one is shooting over their own troops to target enemy troops just beyond them, because they tend to shoot their own men in the backs. At least not with muskets.

Fourth, the range of a bow of the WHFB universe would drool at being able to hit anything at 100 yards. It would never remotely happen. Indoor pistol ranges, glocks and all, generally top out at 50 yards and that's a hard shot to make. Just a wiki says their effective range is about that, which means pushing further and they won't even penetrate (though paper targets are pretty wussy). Most rifle ranges are 50-100 to start and if you're shooting more you're doing it at a bench/prone with a scope and with a non-wussy caliber. I can speak from many years experience as a bad rifleman in that regards. So yes, if you are in range of any WHFB ranged weapon, even if you're shooting straight up, the elevation doesn't make much difference.

I stopped mentioning hills because i don't want to go over the maps of every battlefield that ever existed. I actually started looked at some and I was like, you know, this isn't that interesting. I'm sure I could come up with a thousand really flat battlefields and you could come up with a thousand or maybe three thousand, I don't know--but it would take us a year or so of research. From my understanding mass, multi-thousand assaults in the pre-pre-modern era were not primarily fought among hills and dales. The hills and mountains being a good place to retreat to when you DIDN'T want to fight. I think it was maybe even you who argued this when I said chariots weren't used too much because terrain was too rough and you said no way, terrain is flat the world over. If it makes you feel better, I will say that every battle that was every fought was on nothing but hills.

There is no viable reason to have a guy with a gun or a bow on a hill except to make people run up at him in angry defiance of gravity. It's a pretty big reason, however. And it's covered under charges. That and visibility. But that applies to everyone, melee or not, you want to see where your enemy is and a hill gives you the most movement options, because it's easier for you to run down in any direction than them to run up.

   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: