Bows

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

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 » Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:23 pm

Jhykronos wrote:
ravenflight wrote:The main reason the Japanese went to the arquebus was due to ease of training.
I disagree. Sorry, but I never fully bought the "ease of training" explanation for either the crossbow or the gun. My own impression is that the Japanese adopted the arquebus because is -was- a devastatingly effective weapon.
"Here, point this in the general direction of the enemy and put the glowing red bit in the pan".
Umm... you forgot the 2-3 dozen steps you need to memorize to load the bloody thing. And the long list of what-not-to do's you need to know so your powder doesn't blow up in your face. And the care you need to instill so that it all doesn't turn into a soggy club when it rains. Not to mention you need to drill it well enough so your troops can perform it all at the same time someone is trying to kill them.
It wasn't due to the arquebus being a better weapon (except for that).
Sure it was a better weapon. The clans that were early adopters of the arquebus won overwhelming victories with it... especially in the period when the Teppo was too rare to be issued in mass (so ease of training wouldn't even really be a factor).

Oh, and in the specific example of the Japanese, isn't there an actual reference stating that the Teppo had longer range than the bow? (IIRC)
Hear hear. My thoughts exactly, and to the best of my knowledge, the truth.
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 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:12 am

Jhykronos wrote:
ravenflight wrote:The main reason the Japanese went to the arquebus was due to ease of training.
I disagree. Sorry, but I never fully bought the "ease of training" explanation for either the crossbow or the gun. My own impression is that the Japanese adopted the arquebus because is -was- a devastatingly effective weapon.
"Here, point this in the general direction of the enemy and put the glowing red bit in the pan".
Umm... you forgot the 2-3 dozen steps you need to memorize to load the bloody thing. And the long list of what-not-to do's you need to know so your powder doesn't blow up in your face. And the care you need to instill so that it all doesn't turn into a soggy club when it rains. Not to mention you need to drill it well enough so your troops can perform it all at the same time someone is trying to kill them.
It wasn't due to the arquebus being a better weapon (except for that).
Sure it was a better weapon. The clans that were early adopters of the arquebus won overwhelming victories with it... especially in the period when the Teppo was too rare to be issued in mass (so ease of training wouldn't even really be a factor).

Oh, and in the specific example of the Japanese, isn't there an actual reference stating that the Teppo had longer range than the bow? (IIRC)
What's the quote? "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather."

Sure, this is about longbows, but ANY bow takes a fairly long period of practice just to build up the strength. I'm not a strong guy, I'll admit, but the bow I could draw woul be PATHETIC in war. Farmers and those used to more rough living than I would no doubt be able to draw something with more power, but it's still insignificant compared to how much power a seasoned soldier would need. With a musket or arquebus anyone would be able to load it. ANYONE. And with a few days practice get 'accurate enough'. It's not about training of skill, but training of muscles. Also a slightly wounded archer is combat ineffective, whereas a wounded arquebussier/rifleman can still perform, even if at a lower effectiveness.

There is a lot to WHY each weapon is better, but range and wound potential (which is what we're addressing here) are less important in the big scheme of things than many other factors.

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 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:06 pm

Yay, a longbow debate! The weapon that would have conquered the world had not the army leaders of Europe decided to switch to firearms. Which they did (because it was better). And, pretty much, conquered the world anyway despite the superiority of the bow. How lucky for the conquistadors and other colonial warmongers that all other nations except the english (or the welsh) obviously could not master the bow that well.
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 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:02 pm

Akbar wrote:Yay, a longbow debate! The weapon that would have conquered the world had not the army leaders of Europe decided to switch to firearms. Which they did (because it was better). And, pretty much, conquered the world anyway despite the superiority of the bow. How lucky for the conquistadors and other colonial warmongers that all other nations except the english (or the welsh) obviously could not master the bow that well.
Your sarcasm isn't appreciated Akbar. A discussion about bows in a bow thread. How fucking surprising.

You've got a differing opinion I get that. But I won't discuss it further with you.

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 Jan 09, 2017 8:33 pm

Careful chaps :evil:
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 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:10 pm

Ok, I'll be good. Back to getting a better game balance.
http://krigetkommer.weebly.com/

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

Re: Bows

Post by Jhykronos » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:22 pm

Re-Visiting this thread, as the issue was brought up in the points thread.

OK, as things stand, we have the following:

For foot:

Arquebus (1 point): 3" Range, no long range, full death rolls, reduced POA vs Mounted
Bow (1 point): 4"/6" Range, reduced death rolls, reduced POA vs Armor
Musket (3 points): 3"/6" Range, full death rolls, reduced POA vs Mounted, reduced POA vs armor at long range

For Mounted (note all close range shooting is at 75% of the dice of foot shooting):

Carbine (1 point): 3" Range, no long range, full death rolls, reduced POA against just about everything
Bow (1 point): 4" Range, no long range, reduced death rolls, reduced POA against armor

-----------

Range analysis: I think the effectiveness of having a longer range comes in two flavors.

1st: Head to head- Troops with a range advantage are probably going to get at least one turn shooting without suffering return fire. Even more critically, this also impacts the feasibility of defending hills, rivers, or fortifications, as if I can shoot you and you can't shoot me, then your defensive position is ultimately futile.
2nd: Range vs. Movement- This determines the number of rounds a BG will be absorbing shooting before being able to close. If the movement rate is less than the range, the shooter will get in one shot (possibly zero, depending on the tactical situation). If they are equal, a defending shooter should be guaranteed two shots. If the range is greater than the movement rate, but less than twice the movement rate, the defender should get 3 shots in, etc. In our case, this is where the difference between the 3" and 4" range has the greatest effect on infantry that move 3".

Death roll analysis:

The advantage of not suffering a -2 to the death roll should be self-explanatory, given the attritional nature of this game; although one thing to note about it is that it disproportionately benefits lines of smaller units over larger. Of course, depending on the attritional resilience of the target, reducing cohesion may be more efficient than causing stand losses anyway.

POA analysis:

Under most circumstances, shooting is at even or (-) POA (the one exception being 2-deep unarmored mounted shot by bows). The margin of advantage of even POA over (-) is 50% more hits per dice, which, again, the effect ought to be pretty self explanatory (there is a reason why nobody is impressed with crossbows in these games).

Weapon analysis:

For mounted weapons, bows are clearly more effective than carbines, enjoying both a range benefit and better POAs against a wider range of troops, with the only downside being the death roll penalty (even that is mitigated by the fact that there will typically be less hits to start with).

For foot weapons, the POA spread for firearms and bows is probably a wash. The death roll penalty clearly favors the firearms, whearas range hugely favors the bows over the arquebus, and slightly favors them over the musket (within that 1" window, the bow is marginally better, and that 1" window is right at the movement rate for foot, allowing for more effective range shots before closing).

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Bows

Post by kevinj » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:29 pm

A good analysis but there are other considerations, e.g. Arquebus and Musket are Shot and hence ignore armour in melee. They also give -1 in CTs to Cavalry and Light Horse.

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

Re: Bows

Post by Jhykronos » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:02 pm

kevinj wrote:A good analysis but there are other considerations, e.g. Arquebus and Musket are Shot and hence ignore armour in melee.
This also gives them a mechanism for becoming "protected" shot in villages and enclosed fields, too. Noted.
They also give -1 in CTs to Cavalry and Light Horse.
This also applies to carbines. Not huge, but worth something.

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

Re: Bows

Post by Jhykronos » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:50 pm

This is not even remotely a suggestion, but if I were in charge doing rules or big updates from scratch, the setup would probably be:

Foot movement bumped up to 4", Mounted to 6" (Determined foot and warriors may still get their extra inch when charging foot)

Missile Class - Short/Long
Bow - 4"/6"
Mtd Bow - 4"/-
Crossbow - 4"/6"
Arquebus/Carbine - 2"/4"
Caliver - 3"/5"
Musket - 4"/6"

spedders
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: Bows

Post by spedders » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:24 pm

I am still of the opinion that (foot) bows should have a short range of 3". I think there are two issues, while the bow death roll penalty might say they should have a longer range the interaction between bow and arquebus, or bow and musket means they have a great advantage. I think also it should be considered that the majority of bow armies will have all bow units. So a 6 pack of bow will almost certainly outshoot a 6 pack of pike and shot as they have 2 more bases shooting and they can get 6 to 2 at 4", counteracting on average dice the death roll penalty, and if warrior bow for 12 less points per unit.

I started this with foot in parentheses as (although I am not wholly convinced) I have been told most mounted bows are the composite recurve bow and therefore may have a longer range. Also in bow cavalry v firearm cavalry I think it is more even s death rolls can be important and bows are unlikely to cause them with less firing.

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

Re: Bows

Post by benjones1211 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:28 pm

I would charge 2 pts for a bow as I agree with spedders they are too potent rather than reduce the range to 3"

Also along with that the armies with lots of Bows are also going to get cheaper cavalry/camalry which means they can afford more of each. Costing more for Bows make those armies less Bow intensive.

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

Re: Bows

Post by Jhykronos » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:58 pm

benjones1211 wrote:I would charge 2 pts for a bow as I agree with spedders they are too potent rather than reduce the range to 3"

Also along with that the armies with lots of Bows are also going to get cheaper cavalry/camalry which means they can afford more of each. Costing more for Bows make those armies less Bow intensive.
Not a fan of this line of thinking. Troop points should reflect the utility of troops themselves... they shouldn't be costed based on what else MIGHT be in their list.

That being said, my own analysis says bows (mounted or foot) are a better buy than arquebuses. Maybe not by a full point, but that's the resolution we are working with.

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 Feb 01, 2017 9:04 am

Jhykronos wrote:
benjones1211 wrote:I would charge 2 pts for a bow as I agree with spedders they are too potent rather than reduce the range to 3"

Also along with that the armies with lots of Bows are also going to get cheaper cavalry/camalry which means they can afford more of each. Costing more for Bows make those armies less Bow intensive.
Not a fan of this line of thinking. Troop points should reflect the utility of troops themselves... they shouldn't be costed based on what else MIGHT be in their list.

That being said, my own analysis says bows (mounted or foot) are a better buy than arquebuses. Maybe not by a full point, but that's the resolution we are working with.

I tend to agree here.

The (possible) issue is that Bow have a short range of 4MU whilst (most)m firearms have 3MU (indeed that is the max for Arquebus) - IMO that should be sorted out by tackling the range and not the points (which may be up for changing anyway, but for other reasons).
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

spedders
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: Bows

Post by spedders » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:02 pm

My preference would still be to reduce short range rather than charge extra points.

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 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:35 pm

Bow short range being the same as Arquebus max range works for me.

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Bows

Post by quackstheking » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:07 pm

I definitely do not agree with bow short range change - it will completely change the dynamics of the in period games with warriors charging 4". Bow will become defunct!

I would rather give arquebus a 4" range with short being 0-3" and long 3-4"! This will also go some way to address Keith's issue with Japanese Arquebus!

Don

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

Re: Bows

Post by Jhykronos » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:12 pm

spedders wrote:My preference would still be to reduce short range rather than charge extra points.
timmy1 wrote:Bow short range being the same as Arquebus max range works for me.
I have no fundamental qualms with the idea, at least in terms of bow vs shot matchups.

One thing to keep in mind is how this effects interactions between warriors and bow-armed foot often found in the same lists. Reducing the short range to 3" means that it is now shorter than the move rate of warriors, determined foot, and light foot. (Ack! Ninjaed by quackstheking)

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 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:19 pm

Will actually I prefer raising the Arquebus range to 4 MU to match Bow Short Range but changed my post as that impacts loads of other interactions and may lead to calls to change other short range shooter max range.

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

Re: Bows

Post by Jhykronos » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:27 pm

quackstheking wrote:I would rather give arquebus a 4" range with short being 0-3" and long 3-4"! This will also go some way to address Keith's issue with Japanese Arquebus!
Actually, Japanese sources have the Teppo actually outranging their bows. For a while, the practice was to mix squads of both weapons, with the bow shooting providing cover to the gunners when they reloaded (see the depictions on the Kawanakajima screens). But that whole list has some fundamental paradigm issues, which I doubt this rule set will ever revisit.

In any event, I could certainly see working things from that direction as well. And maybe one day there will be a rule set with a caliver weapon class.

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”