Bows

[nikgaukroger]

As we have a useful competition play test available we are proposing to include "Bows, Bow*, Crossbows and Sling have 3MU short range".

[Vespasian28]

Will that competition include warriors? My highlanders would have been delighted at the Flodden refight last weekend that they could charge before the bows got a short range shot off.

[DavidT]

The bow should still get one short range shot. If you move to 4MU, the bow get a long range shot. In your opponents turn, the bow will move to 3 MU and get a short range shot.

[Greetings44]

Having just played at badcon, first and third were Western Sudanese, both of which beat every western army they faced, in no small part due to the power of 6 man warrior bow units out shooting 4 and 2 six packs.

Change of tactics required rather than rule change.

[Greetings44]

The bow should still get one short range shot. If you move to 4MU, the bow get a long range shot. In your opponents turn, the bow will move to 3 MU and get a short range shot.

Unless they are occupying field defences or terrain they don't want to leave. I use field defences with my Ottomans.

If the proposal is to make the ranges the same, then perhaps the -2 should be removed from the death roll, as few shields are being used for protection during this period.

[spedders]

Having just played at badcon, first and third were Western Sudanese, both of which beat every western army they faced, in no small part due to the power of 6 man warrior bow units out shooting 4 and 2 six packs.

Change of tactics required rather than rule change.

What tactic would have worked? If the pike and shot charge in then they are only at evens at impact and in melee.

[Greetings44]

What tactic would have worked? If the pike and shot charge in then they are only at evens at impact and in melee.[/quote]

Don't expect an smaller unit to win, 40 points vs 64 points despite what technology they're employing! So use two units, split the fire, basic stuff really. Else the bow armed troops will have to be incredibly cheap if this is to perceived an even match up.

[DavidT]

A 6 element BG of warrior/bow cost 30 points. A 6 element P&S BG costs 42. So how does the European army split the enemy fire when the enemy has 50% more BGs?

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Change of tactics required rather than rule change.

What tactic would have worked? If the pike and shot charge in then they are only at evens at impact and in melee.

Except, of course, on overlaps when the warriors are ++ which will always happen with (a) 8-packs against 6 packs, (b) the extra battle groups in the cheaper Sudanese armies, and (c) the fact that these two armies were in the hands of experienced players (hat duly tipped to you, Ray, Kevin and Simon). I actually took more foot to Badcon in my New Model Army than I had at Godendag - and a fat lot of good it did me!

The "change of tactics" argument reminded me of people who criticise WW1 generals - "they should have done something different". Errr.....like what? As DavidT says, charging in is no better than staying back and being shot; field defences are not available to some armies and Sudanese are better at crossing most types of awkward terrain, so no hiding there; and your horse are disrupted by camels. Unless the opposing commanders (both) fall asleep at the wheel and allow you to put all your foot on the flanks against their camels, and all your horse in the centre against their warrior/bow foot, and then don't bother to re-deploy in the opening turns.....

[jonphilp]

Hi

I have always commanded Chinese forces covering all periods. One of the joys of FOGR was that I could happy recreate the Imjin War using my Ming against the Japanese. However, the change in the short range of bows/crossbows to 3MU which is the same as for the Japanese teppo (arquebus) has made a major difference in the test games that have taken place. Before the Ming had a better chance to disrupt the Japanese before they got into range (possibly 1 long range shot, 1 short range shot) now an 8 base Ming bow/crossbow armed unit even if it has a regimental gun faces a 8 base Japanese arquebus both at short range , you can guess which side causes the most damage. I have found in the test games the Japanese were arriving in range more often in a steady state against games using the old ranges. I know you can try different tactics but in the Imjin War, it was the Japanese who were behind field fortifications if they were used and the Ming with Korean allies who were attacking. Tippo in FF love bow armed opponents. Ming faced by warriors brings, even more, pain if trying to stop units charging in with potential overlaps as at times you only get 1 long range shot at the approaching warriors.

I suspect this interaction will be the same for the early period with bow/crossbow armed units facing arquebus as in most army lists the units can both be 8 strong. How are people finding this change in the test games that they are having?

[quackstheking]

I'm actually of a view that Arquebus should have a long range of 4" and a short range of 2" (but I don't have a problem with 3" short range!), as this would solve a few problems and arquebus wasn't that much a shorter range weapon than musket. Let's not forget that the term "musket" in our period, evolved from the heavy long weapons which needed a stand to support them to fire (try lugging all that around the battlefield for a few hours) to the later muskets that were shorter and could accommodate plug bayonets!

However, FoGR is not a game about small unit drill and "minor" changes in technology (otherwise we may have 3/4 types of bow ) and it's great joy is the "Army Battle" scale of conflict it represents.

As peeps may have guessed (!!!), I am not a fan of the bow range change and whilst I have not fought any test battles, I have set up some solo tests and I believe it does change/weaken the dynamics of "in period" warfare both in the west and the east which is one of my great objections to it! YMMV

Interestingly although no bows were present, the most successful army at Roll Call this last weekend was a Swiss steam roller that flattened the P&S opponents and as Steve gussed he would be facing P&S units he did without the armour!

Don

[benjones1211]

Although there where not many Bows between the armies at Way of the Warriors, we felt the reduction in short range to 3", really had very little effect to the outcomes. Also the feeling on Horse bow down to 3" means they have to get close enough to Arquebus and Carbine units to be hit back as well as close range for Muskets.

[spedders]

I agree with Ben on this, in period I have not found issues with the bow range being reduced.

[jonphilp]

Hi,

Thanks for the update although it is a pity that bow v warriors was not that prevalent at the comp. My input is based on using the Ming. Using the new rules I have noticed that warrior based historical opponents such as Indonesian & Burmese are now very difficult to win against as their warrior units are getting into contact without getting disrupted. Perhaps we should look at either changing the cost of warrior units, look again at their POA's or at short range take away the +2 on the death role if the rule change is confirmed.

[quackstheking]

I'm with Jon on this one as this really affects the eastern (and some western) historical match ups!

Don

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Sadly, despite being the competitor who had (on paper at least) the most potent bow arm - four 8-packs of warrior bow, plus two 4-packs of LF and one of LH, out of 15 BGs - I find myself unable to make any meaningful contribution to this debate, since, on the day, none of these units appeared able to hit the side of a barn whilst standing inside it, whether at long, short, point blank, or any other range. Despite all seven units being average, unarmoured, and unarmed, they all actually did better in melee than firing (that doesn't mean they lasted very long, just caused more damage before routing - except against other unarmoured warriors such as the Buccaneers). My shooting dice in the first two games were so bad - routinely hitting at close range with just 1/8 or 2/8 dice (despite often being at evens) - that even taking away the +2 on the DR would genuinely not have made any difference, and because the enemy were almost all in 8-packs, I wasn't getting enough hits to even generate a CT most of the time.

Given the lack of extraneous weight, why not let unarmoured, weapon-less bowmen evade if charged (as BGs, not just as light troops), possibly automatically dropping to disrupted once they reform? Would such folk have really stood there whilst heavily armoured, spear-poking samurai, or pelt-bedecked, obsidian axe wielding Aztecs/Incas closed with them? Especially after watching their arrows do absolutely no damage? I swear I saw the loincloths on some of my figures changing colour during the impact phases....

[spedders]

Not sure what the answer is here as we have a split camp on the short range for bow.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

I don't think it makes a difference, either against fellow warriors, or against P&S or all-shot units. You will usually get one, sometimes two, rounds of close-range shooting at troops with a 3" move, whereas it will definitely be only one against troops with a 4" move, regardless of which range you use.

[nikgaukroger]

Not sure what the answer is here as we have a split camp on the short range for bow.

Anyone any ideas/thoughts on this since June?

[quackstheking]

Well I am in the camp that says we're messing with something that wasn't broken and has really changed the interaction of in-period and theme games especially between bows and gendarmes and bows and warriors - especially armoured Samurai ones.

What we must acknowledge is that bows outranged firearms and also outshot shot them in terms of volume of fire. It was only the difficulty in training bow that caused them to be obsolete!

Maybe we should point bows higher for western and eastern armies at a later date to reflect this drop in available resource! It was the move to mass citizen armies that caused the bows demise!

I think if the issue that caused this to be raised was the P&Svs Bow interaction then the solution should have been to give the P&S unit a melee POA against Bow and Bow* foot units!

It is this major change which has caused me to drop FoGR! With no FOGR rules available for sale, fragmenting the existing player pool seems a self defeating action!

Oh well.

Don