Bows

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Bows

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:53 pm

Another idea into the mix from Kevin.
kevinj wrote: There's also one other area that's occurred to me, which is Bows. Is 4MU for effective range unbalancing? We've regularly seen bow based armies outshoot Pike and Shot, often benefiting from the twin bonus of not losing shooting frontage due to pikes in the line and being able to move to effective range whilst the opposing muskets are at long range.

I cannot recall the reason Bows have a longer short range than fire-arms; it may well be that it is just what FoG:AM had so it was left as that. FWIW I cannot recall any evidence that bows had a greater effective range (which is what short range may be considered as ) than fire-arms - bows are at their most effective when flat shooting which, I think, is in the order of 80-100m which is more or less the same as effective ranges stated for fire-arms IIRC (not pistols, obviously).

In addition to the point Kevin makes above I'd add that the difference can lead to some annoying fiddly measuring in games when trying to gain an advantage from this difference and getting rid of that may be no bad thing.

It would be a bit of a simplification. Thoughts?
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Akbar
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Bows

Post by Akbar » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:26 pm

3" short, 6" long. Seems like a good thing. But what about crossbows? Should they stay on 4"?
http://krigetkommer.weebly.com/

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Bows

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:31 pm

Akbar wrote:3" short, 6" long. Seems like a good thing. But what about crossbows? Should they stay on 4"?
I'd be all missile weapons - just mentioned Bows as they are the most common. So would include Slings, Bow*, Crossbows as well - mounted and foot where appropriate. Bombs, Pistols and Javelins would be the only exceptions having a 2MU short range.

My bad for not explaining.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Akbar
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Bows

Post by Akbar » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:38 pm

Hmm. Gamieness and fiddly moving is a bad thing surely, and my tournament record is nonexistant, so I bow for other peoples experience in this matter. Although, it does feel a bit weird if horse archers/mounted crossbows (4 MU max when mounted) should have the same range as arquebuses.
http://krigetkommer.weebly.com/

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Bows

Post by ravenflight » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:53 pm

Agreed bows are over-effective.

I hate it (being a Japanese player) that they will reduce their effect, but they need to be cut down somewhat.

RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Bows

Post by RonanTheLibrarian » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:45 am

nikgaukroger wrote:FWIW I cannot recall any evidence that bows had a greater effective range (which is what short range may be considered as ) than fire-arms - bows are at their most effective when flat shooting which, I think, is in the order of 80-100m which is more or less the same as effective ranges stated for fire-arms IIRC (not pistols, obviously).
Actually, effective range for the longbow was up to 200 yards, and volley fire seems to have been relatively common up to 300-350; flat fire would not have been used against certain targets (especially mounted knights on frontally armoured horses) as the intent would be to "drop" arrows onto the unprotected (or less protected) flanks and rump of the horses. Firearm infantry (certainly pre-musket) generally shot at 50-100 yards, although Fred the Great used to allow his infantry to open fire at 200 yards to frighten the enemy. Bear in mind also that we are talking about many different types of bow being "morphed" into a single weapon for rules purposes; the English longbow could engage at 300 yards against unarmoured or lightly armoured troops, and there are accounts of Turkic bows being used in cavalry actions at 200-400 yards - although how much of this was "harassing" fire is arguable. There is a good discussion here:-

http://historum.com/war-military-histor ... -bows.html

On a purely historical level, bows (and especially long/composite types) should way outrange early firearms, being more on a par (range-wise) with light artillery. Even in Napoleonic times, there were moves to reintroduce the longbow due to the absence of armour from the battlefield, because it out-ranged even the Baker rifle; it was the (life-)long training time and the loss of the relevant manufacturing skills that prevented it. Personally, I would have long-bows and composite bows at 8" and 4", but I don't expect anyone to support a rule change on that!!!
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Bows

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:03 am

Probably going to be a case of agreeing to disagree on much of this 8)

The point about the Bow classification covering a range of bows is a fair one, however, for this period I think it gets the right effect.

Not sure where you get the idea that flat shooting would not be used against armoured knights, etc. - the warbow users I know are emphatic that it is the only time you have any chance of getting through the armour as it is only in flat shooting that the maximum power is delivered to the target, any sort of arcing shooting will be ineffective. They also talk of maximun battlefield ranges in the order of 200m (yes you can shoot further but it just isn't worth it) but that due to arcing this is really just harassing - it'd be a bit like the Napoleonic account of French light cavalry being shot at at range by Tatars suffering the odd light wound and some arrows stuck in their clothes; so much for the descendants of Genghis :shock:

Also, in passing, there is bugger all evidence for volley shooting by English bowmen - despite the number of times modern writers mention it :?
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Bows

Post by madaxeman » Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:35 am

Is this one of those where "common sense" and a literal transcription of historical evidence should be sacrificed for game balance though? bow armies are not sweeping all before them, and when I play against the it's their 2-rank full effect 300-dice shooting that is their over potent weapon, not the range?

1.5 ranks shooting at short range, or an adjustment to the number of hits needed for a cohesion modifier / test for bow shooting might be a better way to tweak them?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Bows

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:17 am

Having some (recent) experience against them I'd say that if there is an issue it is that they can get a short range shot in before fire-arms and that is when the imbalance in dice cuts. When shooting at each other both at short range I have found both sides have +ve/-ve from the interaction and it feels OK to me.

Where the bows can really get an advanatge is if the firearm types allow themselves to get a bit isolated and then the weight of shooting does hurt - and that seems reasonable to me.

Just my take - YMMV
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Bows

Post by benjones1211 » Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:04 pm

Bows do have the advantage of being across the whole frontage which at short range gives them 6 shots to a std P&S of 4 shots which means on average 3 hits to 2.

This means Bows will die slightly faster death roll 2 rather than 1, but the P&S will go disrupt quicker -1 on test due to 3 hits at which point the bows advantage increases dramatically. If the bows where firing 1.5 ranks then they would also on average be giving 2 hits.

The fact they can get these three hits whilst the shot are at long range doing 1 is where the major advantage is. So if you reduce the shooting to 1.5 ranks, you don't need to worry about the range, the advantage becomes 1 shot at which the P&S gets a test before they can close and everything swings slightly in their favor as the bows are losing men quicker. So overall would be pretty even.

Any isolated unit is toast doesn't matter if its against two bow or two P&S. The Bow advantage is they cost so much less so can have lots more of them. But two armies manning up to each other means the bows will have overlaps on the flanks but the rest is pretty even.

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Bows

Post by timmy1 » Thu Nov 24, 2016 2:47 pm

Are we seeing evidence of Bow heavy armies WITHOUT Reg Guns becoming the norm in comps? I know I have not faced any in open comps other than Irish where the Bows are Warriors (which is a whole different story...). Certainly well into the 17th C, armies that regularly fought largely mounted opponents keep an element of Bows but most of them seem to have switched to mostly firearmes by the 1640s.

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Bows

Post by benjones1211 » Thu Nov 24, 2016 2:55 pm

West Sudanese pops up on a regular basis, especially with the Camels to take on the Horse. Other then that the mighty Quin with regimental guns. There are very few armies that are Bow based with something to take on the Horse or at least slow them down.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Bows

Post by ravenflight » Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:50 am

I found that the Ashigaru archers of the Japanese army is pretty damned good. I'd take more than 24 if I could.

In one competition my opponent was muskets behind fortifications and it seemed odd that I was at evens at 3.5" with him.

I don't get the 'warrior bows' comment, because aren't most bow armed trooops warriors? Did you mean Bow*?

I think the 1.5 ranks at close range MAY be a good alternative, to keep giving the 4" range, but make them less effective. I'd be a little concnered about decreasing the range to 3" AND reducing the number of ranks shooting.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Bows

Post by Jhykronos » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:06 am

benjones1211 wrote:Bows do have the advantage of being across the whole frontage which at short range gives them 6 shots to a std P&S of 4 shots which means on average 3 hits to 2.
This would be significantly less of a problem if the 4/2 and 6/3 P&S unit actually got some sort of impact/melee benefit for, you know, actually having greater weight of melee troops :)

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Bows

Post by ravenflight » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:11 am

Jhykronos wrote:
benjones1211 wrote:Bows do have the advantage of being across the whole frontage which at short range gives them 6 shots to a std P&S of 4 shots which means on average 3 hits to 2.
This would be significantly less of a problem if the 4/2 and 6/3 P&S unit actually got some sort of impact/melee benefit for, you know, actually having greater weight of melee troops :)
They do.

If they win they give 'warrior' and 'mf' opponents a -ve to cohesion tests.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Bows

Post by Jhykronos » Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:38 pm

ravenflight wrote:
Jhykronos wrote:
benjones1211 wrote:Bows do have the advantage of being across the whole frontage which at short range gives them 6 shots to a std P&S of 4 shots which means on average 3 hits to 2.
This would be significantly less of a problem if the 4/2 and 6/3 P&S unit actually got some sort of impact/melee benefit for, you know, actually having greater weight of melee troops :)
They do.

If they win they give 'warrior' and 'mf' opponents a -ve to cohesion tests.
True, but I still stand by the essential implication of my original statement. "Win slightly more when you happen to win" is not that impressive an advantage, really.

viking123
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 982
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Bows

Post by viking123 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:06 pm

You should not simply compare P&S units against bow armed units. You are forgetting the Eastern European armies where you have musket/heavy weapon or sword. At Warfare using Hungarian Kuruc I outshot the Mighty Quin. At short range I was shooting 8 against a 7 (6 bow plus 1 Regimental gun). All my hits count but they lost the first two. I know we both had cohesion tests but it death roles that killed his units.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Bows

Post by hazelbark » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:22 pm

I think the bow vs pike and shot interaction that many people have cited components of here include the 6 bases vs often 8 bases.

This whole interaction has sort of bugged me from early on. However I don't have a good solution or even a preferred one.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Bows

Post by ravenflight » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:10 pm

hazelbark wrote:I think the bow vs pike and shot interaction that many people have cited components of here include the 6 bases vs often 8 bases.

This whole interaction has sort of bugged me from early on. However I don't have a good solution or even a preferred one.
That's exactly why I created the BG size thread, but got no comments.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Bows

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:26 pm

ravenflight wrote:
hazelbark wrote:I think the bow vs pike and shot interaction that many people have cited components of here include the 6 bases vs often 8 bases.

This whole interaction has sort of bugged me from early on. However I don't have a good solution or even a preferred one.
That's exactly why I created the BG size thread, but got no comments.

Which tells you something ...

To keep you happy I'll go and comment :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”