Legal formation?

[Akbar]

Would this be ok?

**FFFF
FACCAF
FACCAF
***AA
***AA

**FFFF
FAACCF
FAACCF
*****AA
*****AA

F: Field fortification
A: Arquebus
C: Cannons
What I'm trying to show here is an 8-base BG of Arquebus and 2 artillery bases deployed behind a fortification. Since you are to assume that a BG supporting Artillery is in fact on the same spot (p126), I figures you might deploy them partly alongside, partly behind or even on both sides AND behind as the upper example shows - basically on top of the arty. The arquebus bases would still be in corner-to-corner contact with each other(we run infantry bases 40mm deep, arty 80mm), and while I'm aware that the bases actually behind the artillery cannot shoot, the rest could, and I figured they should be level with the arty - where their fellow Arquebus bases actually are. Would make better use of FF too and look better. So.....am I assuming right? If not, be kind and instructive, I'm very new to this.

[quackstheking]

Looks valid to me!

The supporting arquebus are assumed to be in the same space as the artillery but are deployed behind for the sake of simplicity.

Don

[ravenflight]

Looks valid to me!

The supporting arquebus are assumed to be in the same space as the artillery but are deployed behind for the sake of simplicity.

Don

I'm in agreement. Indeed, I tend to push the troops forward at all times as it reminds everyone of where the troops are. To me it's as it SHOULD be.

[kevinj]

Yes, I do the same on the rare occasions that I bother to support artillery!

[Akbar]

Thanks all. It may be that supporting artillery is a waste of troops; my experience of FoGR is limited as of now. But i figured that this, particularly the first example, would make them pretty much a fortress that could be deployed up front.

[ravenflight]

Thanks all. It may be that supporting artillery is a waste of troops; my experience of FoGR is limited as of now. But i figured that this, particularly the first example, would make them pretty much a fortress that could be deployed up front.

What you'll generally find is that supporting artillery ISN'T worth it. I guess in certain circumstances it can be worthwhile, but generally not. Just keep them safely beind your front line with firing lanes and you should (generally) be ok.

[Akbar]

I guess so.
I just had this idea that it would be a way to deploy light artillery (another point sink, I guess. Medium then.) more or less in the direct path of the enemy center advance, supported by arquebus who might actually be able to shot something from there.

[ravenflight]

give if a go, let us know how it works out.

I had a French Louis XIV army and went with light guns and considered it a 'tax' on running Louis XIV. Ie the more I played them the more I realised that if I don't try to use them, and keep then safely behind my line the more successful I was with the army. I found that whenever I tried to incorporate artillery in some kind of 'combined arms' the more things got complicated & I was less successful.

It was a bit of a unique situation though, as the compulsories in that list account for quite a few points, and I found at 800ap I just didn't have a list I liked if I tried to upgrade to medium artillery.

In your case, I think you will find that people will easily avoid it, and you've sunk a fair number of points in... like around 70 points? That's 1/10th of your points, and the enemy can go 'that looks pretty... we'll go THAT way!'. Now, from a modern military model of the use of barbed wire to funnel the enemy into where you want him, this may be valuable, but as a winning tactic on it's own right I (personally) wouldn't do it. But like I said, try it, and let us know how it works

[Akbar]

Will do. The idea is to use it with Spanish (Trastamara or Habsburg) in an infantry-heavy list, trying to dominate the centre with the support of one or two bastions. Competetiveness is not really the issue here. But the funneling has struck my mind, yes.