105mm Artillery Cost

[Zypheria]

I have been looking the diferent army list when I see this:



How can de 155 Artilley being better, cost less than the 105. It's something that repeats along different lists, is it intentional or is an error?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Hello and welcome.
Four gun batteries for 155 vs 6 for 105 would be my guess

[Zypheria]

I'm sorry but I don't get the point about the batteries numbers you are referring.

[Techno]

Welcome, 'Z'......

Cheers - Phil

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

105s came in batteries of 6 (medium artillery), whereas heavier guns were often used as fours?
But I'm only guessing

[Jammybee]

There are so many units in BKCIII, there are bound to be a few puzzlers.

Also the 57mm AT guns are a bargain!

[Matt J]

105s came in batteries of 6 (medium artillery), whereas heavier guns were often used as fours?
But I'm only guessing

It's the cost Will. 155's are 10pts cheaper and are far more potent. Must be a typo.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

105s came in batteries of 6 (medium artillery), whereas heavier guns were often used as fours?
But I'm only guessing

Wrong in this case Will - Field Btn's had 4 tube batteries. Armoured Field Batteries (Priests) had 6 tubes, as did the regimental Cannon company. What you are saying is more correct for the British.

Incidentally - why does the 25pdr have a restricted arc, I know form personal experience you can easily turn it 360 degrees using the issued scaffolding pole.

[Dr Dave]

105s came in batteries of 6 (medium artillery), whereas heavier guns were often used as fours?
But I'm only guessing

The points / capabilities certainly used to be based on an a single systems performance - not "X" number in a troop / platoon. Otherwise 3x T-34s would have their hands full with 5x PzVI.

It's a typo.

[sjb1001]

Dave - 5 T-34s would struggle with 3 Tigers!! 5 Panzer IV on the other hand; 5 T-34s would have a good to even chance depending on year.

[petercooman]

Ok, have a bit of a question regarding field gus etc, but found this thread and thought it better to put here than in a new one.

Looking at the OP's picture:

Why does a 37mm anti tank gun have lumbering and deploy, and a 155mm field gun doesn't? Is it because they have no move value?

Now seeing that deploy/mount/dismount are all considered move actions, this would mean a 37mm anti tank gun would have to pack up,mount and move, dismount in the next turn and deploy in the turn after that.that's 4 turns, while the 155mm field gun could just mount a vehicle, be moved, dismount and start firing in the same turn?? (considering you make the comand checks)

[Zypheria]

Mmm  :- In fact the 37mm AT skip the mount option. Just Pack Up/Move (only once for the lumbering rule)/Deploy/Fire so 4 orderes.
The "not move value" artilley needs the transport to move so Mount/Move/Dismount/Fire again 4 orders. So both needs 4 orders.

[petercooman]

Ye, but I was making the assumption they were both being towed, as to have the same situation for the sample.

The whole problem is: A deploy and a mount action are also considered move actions.

[sediment]

Just how much deploying does a 37mm or a PAK 36 or IG75 or similar need?  I thought these were light enough to push along by hand at walking pace and that they could stop and be ready to fire pretty quickly (certainly well within an activation within our game).  Thinking about it, weren't they designed to keep pace with infantry and to fire from the march in support.  Do they deserve lumbering and deploy?  Not like they are 88's on a cruciform trail or anything.

Similarly, portees, like the 2pdr and 6pdr in the desert, weren't they designed to drive forwards, swing around and open fire within a matter of minutes (i.e. within an activation in the game), should such mobile units really need to deploy like towed guns, if so, why use them in the game, buy towed AT versions, you can buy two guns and tows for very little more than a single portee.

Cheers, Andy   

[petercooman]

Just how much deploying does a 37mm or a PAK 36 or IG75 or similar need?  I thought these were light enough to push along by hand at walking pace and that they could stop and be ready to fire pretty quickly (certainly well within an activation within our game).  Thinking about it, weren't they designed to keep pace with infantry and to fire from the march in support.  Do they deserve lumbering and deploy?  Not like they are 88's on a cruciform trail or anything.

Similarly, portees, like the 2pdr and 6pdr in the desert, weren't they designed to drive forwards, swing around and open fire within a matter of minutes (i.e. within an activation in the game), should such mobile units really need to deploy like towed guns, if so, why use them in the game, buy towed AT versions, you can buy two guns and tows for very little more than a single portee.

Cheers, Andy  

Just look at these go and dare to tell those guys the can't move faster: