Medieval

[philqw78]

[Since I saw the proposed V2 changes I've been thinking about this one. I'm in a conundrum here - MF archers (and xbow) are not great in small numbers but do get a bit better in larger groups. Also it depends on any additional kit they have (eg sword, light spear etc) and lets not forget some of the Dragon 1/2 and 1/2 concoctions - they are going to get nastier (1/2 HW backed by bow can get quite unpleasant (as I know only too well) - I think they are getting a big boost.

The good ones will get even better. Longbow are good already, they will hit troops impacting them with 50% more dice and the extra dice will be at evens or better (except v HA Foot).
And lots of dice make wierd things happen to those receiving the hits. The chances of causing 1 hit per 2 and winning by 2 hits are massively increased.

[grahambriggs]

It would be good to see crossbows being used a little more - they are rarely seen at the moment and were common in many medieval armies. It's a bit of a pity that the arms race between crossbows and armour is not represented in FOG. i.e. the move from simple but fast mechanisms to more powerful but slower pieces.

In terms of missile based armies in v1, the most critical factors seem to be hitting power and manouverability. The former of course decides how many cohesion tests you cause, how many of those tests are at a -1 and whether you remove bases. The latter determines whether you end up facing something you get decent hitting power against, and whether you can get away to shoot again if your shots do little damage.

Superior/elite shooters with good manouverability have better hitting power (always surprises me how much of a difference that makes - re-rolling that 1 as a hit so often makes the test a -1 or makes the third hit that can take a base off). They can also get away much better as they pass many more CMTs. Skirmishers don't have huge hitting power until they can gang up but can very frequently avoid trouble.

On the other hand, average or poor shooters often lack sufficient hitting power to do much and, non-skirmishers at least, are often less mobile particularly as undrilled. I've tried to use the undrilled persian MF in the main line of the EAP and they tend to just be speed bumps for the enemy tough stuff.

It's a difficult issue to resolve as what you really want is to improve the performance of the average/poor shooters so they can form part of the front line as they did in some armies, without making the shooters who are already good better. The small improvements to hitting power in the charge and small reduction in manouverability in v2 might do the job.

[Delbruck]

Practically anyone could be trained to become a reasonably good quality crossbowmen. It took a lifetime to become a good quality archer. Instead of longbows, bows & crossbows perhaps there should be these differences:

High quality bows: English longbows, Mongols & most other Asiatic nomads, Mamlukes, etc.
Average quality bows:the mass of crossbows, and non-Asiatic bows such as Persians, Byzantines & Arabs
Poor quality bows: poorly trained or unenthusiatic crossbows or bows. This category could perhaps be lumped in with most slingers.

There would be a common set of factors, but instead of using the troop quality for re-rolls you uses the "missile quality".

As far as crossbow and armor improvements over time - they tended to cancel each other out, the net result probably ended up the same in the long run.

HAL

[philqw78]

IMO quality re-rolls for shooting should work the opposite way around, based on the targets quality.

R-Roll any 5's or 6's that hit elite
Any 6's that hit Superior
and any 1's that miss poor.

Or at least that's my opinion today

[ShrubMiK]

>Hold on - have I missed something - I thought Foederates only got 0-6 MF archers

Ah - of course you are right!...I should have said 1 BG of bowmen...the 2 probably crept in because I was thinking of them supporting 2 BG of HF. Or maybe it just an outright brain fart.

>I wish I did know how they were used Vegetius mentions them deploying behind the first 2 lines...

I was being a bit sracastic of course, as you might have guessed I have been known to justify using bowmen as rear support in this way by suggesting it functions as as an abstract representation of them providing overhead shooting and helping ou tthe main battle line that way. But it's an unsatisfactory representation, it just looks and feels wrong to me.

I'm more prepared to accept the effect of LF support shooters being a reasonable abstraction of skirmishers sallying out in front and retiring behind as the charge comes in. Or a limited number of overhead shooters well back in the formation, whose effect is therefore lessened. Take your pick. either way, I'll be interested to see how much of a difference it makes to the employment of LF support shooters...I tend to use them quite a lot, but I think I'm in the minority in thinking they are just about cost-effective at the moment.

[philqw78]

I tend to use them quite a lot, but I think I'm in the minority in thinking they are just about cost-effective at the moment.

They are very cost effective in superior BG

[johno]

The truth of the matter is, despite the dropping of the impact shooting POA-, basic unprotected MF archers - as featured in so many of the Softer than Beagles armies - are still pretty poor for the points cost.

Any advantage that they may have from this change is more than offset by the changes to protected and unprotected cavalry, reducing their vulnerability to shooting when in more than one rank, so making it even cheaper to run down the archers.

And this despite the fact that Arrian clearly thinks massed shooting is an important component in stopping charges by lightly armoured mounted opponents!

johno

[marty]

To my mind the changes to armour POA's in melee will help foot archers as much as the change to impact shooting. One of the key reasons MF archers get speed humped at the moment is that as lightly armoured troops without a melee weapon they often fight at a double minus in melee.

Now mf archers (and any other troops without a melee weapon) will only be 1 POA down unless their opponent is 2 levels of armour better than them. Persian sparabara for example will only be one POA down against armoured troops (say hoplites or more importantly from a comp point of view virtually all cav). Even unprotected foot archers will be significantly more resilent against some opponents (ie protected ones).

These changes are going to affect a great many interactions in a whole ranges of expected and unexpected ways. I'm looking forward to playing some games to see how they pan out. Going to start using the summary list among friends to prepare for the Worlds at Cancon 2013. One of the first armies I'm going to try is going to be a MF archer army.

Martin

[zocco]

[quote="ShrubMiK] I'm more prepared to accept the effect of LF support shooters being a reasonable abstraction of skirmishers sallying out in front and retiring behind as the charge comes in. Or a limited number of overhead shooters well back in the formation, whose effect is therefore lessened. Take your pick. either way, I'll be interested to see how much of a difference it makes to the employment of LF support shooters...I tend to use them quite a lot, but I think I'm in the minority in thinking they are just about cost-effective at the moment.[/quote]

Agreed. Also though the V2 changes to MF support shooting will skew (even further) the current imbalance between LF and MF supporters. MF supports will be awesome I reckon whereas LF will stay marginal. Personally I would like to see LF supports shoot against foot too. It would make the whole MF and LF thing more logical (note for Arrians formation - which is given in the Principate list as an example - also had a 10th rank of supporting LH shooters which should be rolled into the 9th rank of LF shooters so the numbers are larger than generally assumed). As LF only shoot at 50% of an MF base and cost around same it is not like you are getting something for nothing.

[ShrubMiK]

Good points. I'm happy enough with the LF shooters (even in an average BG Phil!)...but now you mention it, if I was given the choice of taking those bases as MF it would be an easy choice.

Okay so if you keep the general list restriction in place that BGs with MF shooters must be half-and-half, losing a front rank base causes you to suffer in the melee whereas you need to lose 2 for that to happen with the LF. But you could form in 3 ranks (with 2 bow in the second rank) for the same cost per frontage as the LF-supported BG, again be able to lose one base without penalty in melee, have significantly improved impact phase when charged, especially against by foot...and also be able to shoot normally.

[bahdahbum]

The only ones that work are Massed Longbow, Immortals and Jannissaries

And christian nubians ...funny ones

[Eques]

Well it was a very broad parallel of heavily armed troops losing out to massed missile troops.

what, like at Carrhae?

Bah!

Arguably a different effect at Carrhae than that of Agincourt but point taken.

[Eques]

Eques, I fail to follow your reasoning here*. As far as I can tell, you are worried that a change to shooting PoAs at IMPACT will result in bowmen running around the field and destroying everything in sight by SHOOTING? Does not compute. Have I missed something?

Well the original point about impact shooting got clouded a little I think. I said I thought there should be a penalty for it. Then someone said but shooting is already rubbish. So I said well it was a bit of a sideshow in historical terms usually.

[Eques]

I have to again (respectfully) disagree. I feel that V1 was bang on the money in terms of shooting effectiveness generally

Might I quite respectfully suggest that this possibly might be because the only full strength army you have told us that you own, the EAP, are, well, basically THE ONLY* army in ANY of the 17 & 3/4 currently published pre-medieval army list books that have enough decent-quality bow (which co-incidentally are also Superior, and Armoured, and armed with some other sharp edged toys as well) armed foot archers to make them into a viable competent-at-shooting troop type?

I might also point out that the experience of a large number of far more experienced players than I have long since concluded that EAP plus the handful of "English Longbow" armies are the only armies where using any sort of missile-weapon-equipped MF is even remotely viable as a core troop type..

Well that is as it should be IMO. Shooting should generally be a sideshow.

My EAP experiences were certainly not along the lines of an arrow-based apocalypse.

I am talking about small scale encounters where either me or my opponent caused a cohesion test by shooting and sometimes the victim failed this cohesion test. Which led me to conclude that there is some value to shooting but that you can't go round knocking Battle Groups over like nine pins with it. And that IMO is how it should be.

"Softening up" is often a phrase used in relation ancient shooting and I think it is well replicated in V1.

[bahdahbum]

"Softening up" is often a phrase used in relation ancient shooting and I think it is well replicated in V1.

Have you ever been under fire ? I have ...not that funny ! Was archery that hopeless unless for the superhuman englishman and his longbow .., were crossbow hopelessly outclassed surely that's why they continued to use them for centuries ...

I like when you always complain,never give a solution, always comment on historical reality . Never forget : the victor writes history and never , never tell the truth .

Romans did loose many battles but won campaigns . They had no easy time against "barbarians" who, following you won thanks to tricks, treachery ...never thanks to planning ...an ambush is planning you know but I forget ..you know better . Thanks to you, we stand corrected ...am I being cynical ...the answer is ...yes

[philqw78]

"Softening up" is often a phrase used in relation ancient shooting and I think it is well replicated in V1.

I thought softening up was a phrase attrributed to arty in WW1. Since the enemy, well the Germans, were in hardened positions. The Brits being of an offensive mindset* didn't concrete. The Germans, being sensible did.

* Well that was the excuse

[bahdahbum]

there is some value to shooting but that you can't go round knocking Battle Groups over like nine pins with it

LB can do it and some armies such as the christian nubians can . Not perhaps that quickly, but they can .

[Lycanthropic]

Although I like Phils suggestion for reverse quality re-rolls, I dunno if it subscribes to the "Any dodgey french cook can kill a King with a crossbow".
Hopefully in the army list rewrites we see combat armed crossbowmen, or at least armoured Genoese Pavise?
I cannot for the life of me see how a guy in half plate armour with a shield the size of a door slung over his back is considered to have the same level of protection as a Gaul in just his pants. And as for crossbowmen not bringing anything else with them to a battle....
I understand that FoG is all about doctrines and primary interactions and no Lance, Bow, Sword Cavalry....but I digress....again.

[Lycanthropic]

Suggestion for FoG 3.0 - when shooting battlegroups with a general present.....roll a 12 and the generals dies! YEAH.

[rbodleyscott]

I cannot for the life of me see how a guy in half plate armour with a shield the size of a door slung over his back is considered to have the same level of protection as a Gaul in just his pants.

He isn't. Protection levels (and even POAs) are relative within period, to ensure that in-period interactions work as intended. If you choose to play games out of period, that is your choice, but it is not what the rules are designed for.