Bows and slings

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Post Reply
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Bows and slings

Post by MVP7 »

The capabilities of both bows and slings in FoG2 system is something that has always seemed a bit weird to me.

This is how the weapons work in the FoG games:
- Slings are always in 240 man light infantry units and always have a range of 2.
- Infantry bows come in 240 man light and 480 man massed units, both of which always have normal range of 2 and long range of 4.
- Mounted bows come in 240 man cavalry and 120 man light horse unit, both with range of 2.
So in short: at short/normal range, bows and slings are considered equal, but any foot archer is capable of shooting twice as far with reduced effect. The last bit is what I find most questionable.


-Historical bow and sling-

Here's a nice compilation of quotes from various sources that someone made on Total War forums back in 2013 regarding slings: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/ ... f-slingers

Here a particularly interesting bit from Anabasis, describing the retreat of the 10 000 Greek mercenaries from Persian Asia Minor in 401 BC:
[3.3.15] For at present the enemy can shoot arrows and sling stones so far that neither our Cretan bowmen nor our javelin-men can reach them in reply; and when we pursue them, a long chase, away from our main body, is out of the question, and in a short chase no foot-soldier, even if he is swift, can overtake another foot-soldier who has a bow-shot the start of him. [3.3.16] Hence, if we should propose to put an end to the possibility of their harming us on our march, we need slingers ourselves at once, and horsemen also. Now I am told that there are Rhodians in our army, that most of them understand the use of the sling, and that their missile carries no less than twice as far as those from the Persian slings. [3.3.17] For the latter have only a short range because the stones that are used in them are as large as the hand can hold; the Rhodians, however, are versed also in the art of slinging leaden bullets. [3.3.18] If, therefore, we should ascertain who among them possess slings, and should not only pay these people for their slings, but likewise pay anyone who is willing to plait new ones, and if, furthermore, we should devise some sort of exemption for the man who will volunteer to serve as a slinger at his appointed post, it may be that men will come forward who will be capable of helping us.

[3.4.15] But when the Rhodian slingers and the bowmen, posted at intervals here and there, sent back an answering volley, and not a man among them missed his mark (for even if he had been very eager to do so, it would not have been easy), then Tissaphernes withdrew out of range with all speed, and the other battalions followed his example.

[3.4.16] For the rest of the day the one army continued its march and the other its pursuit. And the barbarians were no longer able to do any harm by their skirmishing at long range; for the Rhodian slingers carried farther with their missiles than the Persians, farther even than the Persian bowmen. [3.4.17] The Persian bows are also large, and consequently the Cretans could make good use of all the arrows that fell into their hands; in fact, they were continually using the enemy's arrows, and practiced themselves in long-range work by shooting them into the air. In the villages, furthermore, the Greeks found gut in abundance and lead for the use of their slingers.”
Here are the same bits from slightly different translation: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1170/11 ... k2H_4_0024

TL;DR: The Cretan Archers were out-ranged by Persian slingers (with large stone projectiles) and archer (with larger composite bows), which were in turn out-ranged by Rhodian slingers with lead projectiles. It's also particularly interesting that the Cretan archers initially couldn't match the range of Persians and "practiced themselves in long-range work", even though they were regarded as some of the best archers of Mediterranean world and allegedly out-ranged other archers in the region.

The translation on gutenberg is a bit different on the details, saying the slinger outranged some of the archers and it's a lot more ambiguous whether the Cretan archers were training just to get the feel for shooting at long range with the Persian arrows specifically or long range shooting in general.

I think the most interesting takeaway here is that the range of sling and bow varies a lot depending on not only the weapons* and the skill of the shooter, but also the specific training and/or experience of the shooter. Physically sling with a lead projectile could have better maximum range than bow: the bullet has inherently lower air resistance, flatter trajectory and is effected less by the wind (or archer's paradox). Ultimately both weapon types are limited by the skill of their user more than the mechanical details of the weapon. These skills are not something you can just learn in couple weekends and pretty much all of the groups famous for their skills with bow or sling came from cultures that had an institution for training those skills extensively. Cretan Archers, Rhodian Slingers, Balearic Slingers, English/Welsh Longbowmen and Mongol horse archers trained their skills extensively from young age even in peace time, which is the main reason they were so deadly with their weapons. Javelin, crossbows and early firearms also likely owe their popularity to requiring less training to be effectively usable in combat compared to the sling and bow that could likely still outperform them in various ways thanks to their higher skill ceiling.
(* Bow could be anything from short self bow to advanced composite design with arrows of varying characteristics, and slingers could throw anything from large stones to cast lead bullets with slings of varying length and construction.)


In Anabasis the Cretan archers, despite presumably being highly skilled light infantry, didn't seem to be that familiar with long range shooting. If you trained archery primarily as a weapon for hunting (or skirmishing against javelinmen) that would make a lot of sense though, you don't shoot indirect arching fire at a rabbit at an extreme range like you might at the enemy formation. On the other hand some less skilled military archers might have been drilled to do just that kind of longer range shooting with less emphasis on precisely hitting a specific target. Slings, being very simple and cheap weapons to make and use, have been used by all kinds of people from medieval camp followers and poorly trained mobs (which in practice would be shooting in the enemy's general direction with very limited practical range), to professional warriors like Aztecs who were a real threat even against late medieval armor (unlike their javelins and arrows), or the Balearic slingers with several different slings and projectiles for different ranges and situations.

In general my impression is that both bows and slings have pretty similar range of possible effective ranges (with the ballistic advantages of sling most likely being negated by it arguably being a harder weapon to aim). Good slingers would generally out-range poor archers and vice versa. In a match-up between similarly skilled archers and/or slingers the mechanical minutiae of their weapons and the exact nature of their training/experience might play a more deciding role. By various accounts the damage and "anti-armor" performance of the two weapon types also seems to have been varying but comparable (i.e. insignificant in FoG2's top down design).

-Current FoG2 situation-

So getting back of FoG2. This raises the questions, why do all infantry bows have the 3-4 square "long range" when slingers and mounted archers don't? Why do light archers always have that long range even though they would often be hunters or even levies by background and armed with relatively weak bows, when the similarly sized horse archer units who in many cases are professional warriors armed with notoriously strong composite war bows don't get that extra range? Why do slingers inherently lack the long range even though there's little reason for the difference considering the least skilled slingers (and archers) are likely considered to be part of the peasant/rabble units or non-combatants, so any dedicated slinger units should be at least experienced with their weapon. The current gameplay differences of bow and sling units just seem really arbitrary for a wargame that is otherwise very consistent and actively avoids creating meaningless or arbitrary differences where possible.

-Simple suggestions-

To me it seems like there would be two simple ways to make the missile troops more consistent: First one would be to give both the light slingers and (non-light) horse archers (since the light ones don't really have enough firepower to reduce from) the same 3-4 long range as foot bows. This would make the horse archer armies a bit more flexible when it comes to shooting. It would practically make the bows and slings identical but that is arguably more realistic than the seemingly arbitrary difference that they currently have.

The second way, and the one I'd prefer out of these two, would be removing the 3-4 range from light foot bow which would leave just the massed archers with the extra range. This would generally make a lot of sense but it would be a bit of a slap to the face for some units like the aforementioned Rhodian slingers and various expert bowmen with historically good range, and it would still leave a lot of massed archer units which probably don't really deserve the extra range (often being essentially nerfed light foot for the sake of game balance rather than being a formation from historical doctrine).

-Bigger suggestion-

Outside of those two options there would be a more complicated option of making the "long range" shooting capability experience dependent. Bow and sling armed units with experience level higher than average (or maybe higher than above average) would get the ability to shoot at long range (possibly excluding the light horse archers), the average or worse units would be limited to the "short" range of 2. The big benefit of this would be that the extra ability would be targeted at units that most likely deserve it like elite slingers/archers and professional mounted warriors. It would also make the increased cost of high skill missile units bit more appealing, as currently the minimal difference in raw damage doesn't really feel worth it.

The iffiest effect would be that massed bow units would generally lose the ability to shoot at long range while the superior elements of horse archer armies would gain that range. This would likely mean a slight buff for the horse archer armies overall as it would reduce the reach of their biggest threat and allow them to more consistently (and realistically) shoot back at a unit that they have just evaded. If I'm not missing something the horse archers' firepower at long range would be similar to that of light foot (plus whatever the often superior skill level would add) so there shouldn't be excessive amount of pointless shooting with low ammo. (It might actually even make sense to turn off any unit's ability to shoot at long range if they are on low ammo since it doesn't do much, slows down the game and they presumably should be saving ammo by that point.)

In FoG2 medieval I'd leave crossbow and longbow as they are with any unit armed with those being able to shoot at long range regardless of skill level. It would give crossbows (and longbows) a range advantage against regular bows (excluding professional warriors and such) and keep them a threat to all horse archers, which all seems to fit well with what I have read and heard on the subject.
Athos1660
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by Athos1660 »

As I see it, FoG2 provides a general formula linking ranges with effectiveness (or call it : deadliness, shooting accuracy or numbers of casualties) : being an in-game unit without long range ability doesn't mean some individuals of this type couldn't actually shoot at long range. Imho it means that, according to the devs from a consideration of History and gameplay, these units couldn't be much lethal at long range (in average) because of a lack of accuracy, a lack of speed of the projectile...

This passage of the Anabasis seems to only talk about ranges, not effectiveness (1). The objective seems to be to keep the enemy skirmishers at a distance by showing them one can shoot farther than they can, not to actually kill them. Both opponents seem not to want to take the slightest risk.

As for mounted archers having short range only, it seems to me quite logical. Not to mention their equipment that I don't know, aiming on horseback, sometimes at a trot or a gallop, under pressure of enemy horsemen... is no easy task. Harder than being on his 2 feet with time to aim (and maybe a different equipment).

In FoG2, the question is not 'Could Slingers shoot at a range of 3 or 4 ?'. It is 'How many casualties could they make at a range of 3-4 (in average) ?'.

Just some thoughts.
____________________________
(1) And in Anabasis 3.4.15, effectiveness is mentioned but not range. In my translation, "not a man among them missed his mark for even if he had been very eager to do so, it would not have been easy, given the multitude of the enemy soldiers".
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by MVP7 »

I agree but I don't see how any of that translates into slingers having no long range and foot archers having it. I have never come across accounts where ancient slings would have struggled to hit or kill at long range any more than bows. So to reiterate my question: Why would all foot bowmen, including militia and hunters, cause significantly more casualties on average at long range than the same number of slingers or mounted expert horse archers?

Anabasis talks about ranges but it most certainly means effectiveness in practice. The Greeks would have had much to worry about if the Persian archers and slingers weren't doing anything, and the Rhodians hitting the enemy formation was certainly effective. It may have been pretty low intensity skirmishing where even risk of losses caused a withdrawal, but it's not like every stone and arrow kills someone even in the most ideal battlefield conditions. I mainly posted the Anabasis quote as an example that highlights that there really isn't a systematic difference in the (effective) range of bows and slings that would warrant the kind of generalization that is currently done with FoG2 bow and sling ranges.
Dux Limitis
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by Dux Limitis »

slings indeed should have a long range of 4,but may should deal less damages in a long range shot than bow(At a quarter effectiveness,bow is half).
Nijis
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 951
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:33 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by Nijis »

Maybe sling (with bullets) should be a different weapon type with a range of 4, in the way that longbows are slightly preferable to bows? Rhodian and Balaeric slingers and other very specialized ancient troops would use them. Were pre-cast lead bullets used by medieval Iberian slingers and others?
Dux Limitis
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by Dux Limitis »

Nijis wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:20 pm Maybe sling (with bullets) should be a different weapon type with a range of 4, in the way that longbows are slightly preferable to bows? Rhodian and Balaeric slingers and other very specialized ancient troops would use them. Were pre-cast lead bullets used by medieval Iberian slingers and others?
The Greek and Romans were note to use the pre-casted sling bullets,here're some artifacts(Problem is not all will do like them and how much more damages could they deal than ordinary stone?If they all hited at unprotected and lighly protected targets my guess is not that much of different):
Attachments
greekslingbullets.jpg
greekslingbullets.jpg (171.82 KiB) Viewed 1943 times
images(16).jpg
images(16).jpg (30.3 KiB) Viewed 1945 times
images(15).jpg
images(15).jpg (26.44 KiB) Viewed 1945 times
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by MVP7 »

I don't think there's need or even sense in trying to split sling itself into several weapon types any more than there is for bows (longbow being an outlier and fan service rather than the norm in FoG2).

While lead is the best ancient ammo for long range slinging, it's not strictly mandatory for achieving long ranges. According to sling wikipedia page the 1981 the Guinness world records longest distance shot with sling was 437 meters using 52 gram ovoid stone, while the current Guinness record is 477 meters with 62 gram dart as projectile. That's not a big difference for a stone and a dart (which would likely be pretty close to lead bullet in terms of ballistics). It's not like the Balearic and Rhodian slingers were the only ancients to use lead projectiles either (at least in the Mediterranean world). Even with the whole range of different possible slings and projectiles taken into account the variance likely isn't that different from bows which are covered by one weapon class (and longbow). Approaching the whole subject from the effectiveness point of view, highly skilled shooters would likely cause more damage from long range than less experienced shooter on average, no matter what specific sling/bow and projectile each used (within reason of course).

It would be interesting to hear RBS's thoughts and opinions on the subject of sling and bow ranges in the game.
Athos1660
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by Athos1660 »

The sling seems to have disappeared from some Western medieval armies in favour of the bow, for example in the Anglo-Norman, the Anglo-Irish, the English or the French. Why, if this statement is true and if both weapons really had the same shooting range and efficiency ? Is it a matter of cultural preferences (the Germanic/Syrian bow vs the Mediterranean sling, the Northern woods vs the stones of the Southern garrigue) ? Are there other reasons (cost, training...) ? Technical improvements of the bow over time ?

btw...
MVP7 wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:20 pm (longbow being an outlier and fan service rather than the norm in FoG2).
I must admit this comment made me smile :-)
(a friendly smile)
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by MVP7 »

Athos1660 wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:45 am The sling seems to have disappeared from some Western medieval armies in favour of the bow, for example in the Anglo-Norman, the Anglo-Irish, the English or the French. Why, if this statement is true and if both weapons really had the same shooting range and efficiency ? Is it a matter of cultural preferences (the Germanic/Syrian bow vs the Mediterranean sling, the Northern woods vs the stones of the Southern garrigue) ? Are there other reasons (cost, training...) ? Technical improvements of the bow over time ?
My impression is that the crossbow, being a weapon you can use proficiently without extensive training, replaced both sling and bow as the main ranged military weapons in the West (as well as parts of Middle East and East Asia). English longbowmen are an exception to the European trend and you don't generally hear much about the average or poor missile troops regardless of era and weapon.

Sling (like bow) is a weapon that takes a lot of training to master and that's not something that your average medieval European society would have invested in. Medieval era warrior elites, the people with time and incentive to train martial skills, were increasingly fighting on horseback and sling is hard to use on horseback. For the same reason the Asiatic cultures with long history of mounted warriors likely preferred bows from the get go. Bow is generally a better hunting weapon so many cultures would likely have more experience with bows because of that. It's also worth noting that sling didn't really disappear and remained in use through the medieval period. Slings remained popular in Italy and Iberia at least around 11th and 12th centuries and staff slings were used well into the age of gunpowder (especially in sieges and later as grenade launchers). One downside of sling is that it's hard to use in tight formation which is probably one of the reasons it wasn't specifically invested into and doesn't come up in famous open battles like the bows and crossbows do.

I don't think sling ever became mechanically outdated. Sling bullet has better aerodynamics than arrow or bolt and in ancient sources slings are often noted to have better range than most archers. Against lightly armored targets at long range there's little reason to assume that sling bullet would have worse terminal ballistics than arrow or bolt fired from same distance. Even the crossbow and longbow had surprisingly short effective range against heavy armor and slings with heavy projectiles could be devastating against any armor from shorter ranges. In Americas a long sling with heavy stone projectiles was the most dangerous weapon the Conquistadors faced (while bows and other weapons did little against the late medieval armor).

In modern pop-culture the sling is just not a sexy weapon. It's often forgotten and underrated, many perceiving it as little more than Dennis the Menace's slingshot, while crossbows and bows (especially longbows) remain very popular in sports, movies and games (where their performance is always overrated to a ridiculous degree). To modern people the sling (specifically a short shepherd's sling with small stone projectile) in probably best known from the story of David and Goliath which is interpreted as... well... a David vs Goliath story where a boy defeats warrior with a toy, when in reality it's closer to a story of a marksman bringing an ancient handgun to a knife fight and winning.
Athos1660
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by Athos1660 »

First I must admit that, in terms of playing this game, I like the current system that distinguishes ranges/accuracy depending on the unit/weapons (slings, infantry bows, mounted bows), whatever its actual historicity.

That said, while I've never shot with a sling nor a bow and while I read a couple of articles stating that the range of the sling could be similar to that of a bow, I am still under the impression that reaching accuracy at long range with a sling that has to be quickly swung in an arc and the tab released at a precise moment is (much) harder than reaching the same accuracy with a bow you have time to position and draw, accuracy of a shot depending on its angle and its force. But I may be mistaken.
Gaznak
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by Gaznak »

Athos1660 wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:22 pm First I must admit that, in terms of playing this game, I like the current system that distinguishes ranges/accuracy depending on the unit/weapons (slings, infantry bows, mounted bows), whatever its actual historicity.

That said, while I've never shot with a sling nor a bow and while I read a couple of articles stating that the range of the sling could be similar to that of a bow, I am still under the impression that reaching accuracy at long range with a sling that has to be quickly swung in an arc and the tab released at a precise moment is (much) harder than reaching the same accuracy with a bow you have time to position and draw, accuracy of a shot depending on its angle and its force. But I may be mistaken.
My (limited) experience with slinging is that if you are throwing at or near the limit of your range you can't really aim very well because it is too hard to see your projectile. You basically have to look for where you are kicking up dust. Arrows are much, much easier to track in the air.
Athos1660
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Bows and slings

Post by Athos1660 »

Interesting. The invisibility of the sling bullet into the air actually seems to be an advantage ascribed to the sling (over the arrows) according to (some) ancient author(s) as enemy couldn't see the bullets coming. But if its downside is that it doesn't make it easier to aim during the next shot unlike with the bow (still at long range), it is not really an advantage. It makes me think of the use and interest of tracer ammunition in a more recent time.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”