In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.
Really? Any particular type of shooting? Is this suggested by competition results? Your basic foot archer is a little better than when MeG first came out but is still avoided by most players.
Martin
+1 Marty
I'm pretty sure that shooting is indeed underpriced - in other players' troops - but overpriced in my own troops.
That said, I was pretty impressed by the performance of my experienced javelin chariots at Derventio.
It is true there is a big difference between "get one shot, then die" unprotected loose foot archers and "load on Sunday and fire all week" horse archers, but there is also a big cost difference.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:47:37 PM
In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.
Which changes are you referring to?
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:47:37 PM
In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.
is it my shooting you to near death during our game ?
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 24, 2023, 06:10:35 AM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:47:37 PM
In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.
Which changes are you referring to?
Everything, shooting, slowing effects, types of shooting. There has been a raft of add ons and improvements to shooting and its effects. Has the author had the time to consider these changes and their effect on game balance?
Quote from: badhabum on November 24, 2023, 09:51:28 AM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:47:37 PM
In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.
is it my shooting you to near death during our game ?
Hmmmm the 2 TuGs you destroyed were by elephants and one was a mutual destruction. I do remember you rolling 3 black dice and getting 2 wounds at one point, I can't blame the rules for that 😂
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 24, 2023, 11:33:33 AM
Quote from: badhabum on November 24, 2023, 09:51:28 AM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:47:37 PM
In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.
is it my shooting you to near death during our game ?
Hmmmm the 2 TuGs you destroyed were by elephants and one was a mutual destruction. I do remember you rolling 3 black dice and getting 2 wounds at one point, I can't blame the rules for that 😂
From memory the 2 TUGS that were destroyed by my Nellies were already seriously damaged by some shooting which helped a lot as did your dice even if you started with a skull you did very bad after that
I'm sure. Can't blame the rules for my bad dice or your good dice. I think our dice were average where I destroyed TuGs. Looking forward to our next game.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 24, 2023, 11:17:16 AM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 24, 2023, 06:10:35 AM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:47:37 PM
In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.
Which changes are you referring to?
Everything, shooting, slowing effects, types of shooting. There has been a raft of add ons and improvements to shooting and its effects. Has the author had the time to consider these changes and their effect on game balance?
I believe the only shooting change in the last 2 years has been the introduction of Shower Shooting.
And as to the last point I believe the authors have.
I don't agree with Ray's premise. Massed shooters are so ineffective that players have to resort to the ahistorical (and likely impossible in the real world) tactic of having foot archers step back 2 BW in movement to gain space to slow down charges, since they die if the charge gets home. Pure bow units without stakes or obstacles are just dead if lancers are played properly. The same can be said of charges by any reasonably good foot. Has anyone ever found a real use on the table for unprotected tribal archers other than as speed bumps or potato peelers in the rear? And yet, the Ancients fielded them all over the place. I do not think they are overpriced. If anything, there is an argument for making them cheaper.
Shower shooters and the like are another matter entirely.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on November 29, 2023, 06:24:07 PM
I don't agree with Ray's premise. Massed shooters are so ineffective that players have to resort to the ahistorical (and likely impossible in the real world) tactic of having foot archers step back 2 BW in movement to gain space to slow down charges, since they die if the charge gets home. Pure bow units without stakes or obstacles are just dead if lancers are played properly. The same can be said of charges by any reasonably good foot. Has anyone ever found a real use on the table for unprotected tribal archers other than as speed bumps or potato peelers in the rear? And yet, the Ancients fielded them all over the place. I do not think they are overpriced. If anything, there is an argument for making them cheaper.
Shower shooters and the like are another matter entirely.
I do agree that foot archers, unless PB vs mounted or foot skilled, do seem a bit weak and vulnerable unless they manage a very modern fire and retreat manoeuvre. So they often en as : poor, unskilled TUGs whose destiny is to beef up the army morale but somewhere far far away from the front.
But is there a remedy to it and what does history say about it ? I am not a specialist.
I used an early Achaemenid Persian army and won by retreating as often as possible, having enough skilled shooters and a good cavalry support( exceptional guard cavalry did the job ).
But shooting on white takes a lot of time and it is easy to push trough fire . Upgrading shooting dice on green would kill the game so there is no easy solution I fear .
Perhaps allowing a colour upgrade if shot in the flank but frontally it would still be the same problem.
What we know is that at Marathon, the greeks did charge quickly as they were afraid of persian shooting so do we underestimate the effects of archery ?
I do not have the answer but retrezting and shoot and shoot do seem to be MEG's answer . Unhistorical but it works
Quote from: badhabum on November 29, 2023, 07:09:44 PM
What we know is that at Marathon, the greeks did charge quickly as they were afraid of persian shooting so do we underestimate the effects of archery ?
Ah, so shooting should have a speeding effect, rather than a slowing. And no shield cover for hoplites, apparently.
FWIW I think shooting is difficult to calibrate and balance. Most of it is with green or white dice - that is a factor of 2 in lethality, so there is no fine adjustment on effectiveness.
A formed loose foot average unprotected experienced bow (324 points for 6) is shooting white against incoming green versus foot skirmishers with identical ratings (396 points for 9, or 360 if you make them combat shy [-1 in combat is no handicap if you evaporate on contact]), or against protected loose bow (450 points for 6).
Not a factor of 2 difference in cost, although there are other interactions to take into account.
Formed loose foot average unprotected (no weapons) would be 234 for 6. Does adding an experienced bow make them 38% more useful? If you don't plan to fight with them, clearly not. If you do plan to fight with them, are they only 10% less useful than the combat shy skirmishers?
Probably something that the authors and list checkers should actively monitor.
Is the problem their effectiveness in shooting or their brittleness in combat?
my two cents are on the combat issue.
it is the result of added factors that makes them brittle :
- loose infantry in the open is inferior to anything but loose infantry tugs and elephants
- the majorty is unprotected, makes them inferior to other shooters tugs or sugs, and most combat tugs
- they mostly have no charge or melée capabilities
- alot of them have the honor to be combat shy, that makes them even crapier combined with the above, this is in fact overkill for them.
Makes you wonder why they are not SUGs, they should be a new UG type : BUGs, worse than SUGs for movement and receving shot, worse than TUGS for everything else
Interesting that everyone is focussing on foot shooting
Personally, I focused on foot shooting because I know how it works. I have no real clue how to make horse archers work, although I have tried for years to learn the skill. In the hands of a highly skilled player they can be devastating. In the hands of a duffer like me, they are a recipe for either a draw, or a loss if too many of them get run down by their targets. I do not agree that advantages mostly due to a player's skill ought to be penalized by point costs. YMMV.
I personally think shooting effectiveness is about right. I have a couple of minor quibbles, which to be fair are maybe just based on my expectations having been set by previous rulesets:
- shooting should in general be more effective against mounted than foot (except where the horses are armoured).
- skirmishers should not in general outshoot non-skirmishers of equal ability (which they do if both are unprotected, but they don't if both are protected).
I don't see a problem with the mass of common unprotected foot archers being ineffective in combat, as I am not aware of historical sources suggesting such troops were particularly effective if their shooting failed to prevent a better equipped enemy from closing with them. Any bow-armed troops which did perform better in combat are presumably classified accordingly, e.g. being given protected, short spear, etc. The existence of sparabara etc. (or use of stakes or other obstacles in some battles) does imply that pure archers were recognised to be weak.
I'll also suggest that Greek hoplites historically being encouraged to close quickly with Persians does not IMO provide evidence that shooting should be made more effective in the game. You can argue about whether or not the interaction of charge distances, slowing effects of shooting, and the ability of the shooters to withdraw and keep firing produce something close to the historical effects.
I'm not sure that there shouldn't be more opportunity for archers to shoot over friendly troops in support - is there evidence that this could only be done by specialised mixed formations? (Obviously it should be less effective, I don't know how the rules would reflect this without making it too weak to be worthwhile).
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 30, 2023, 12:01:40 PM
Interesting that everyone is focussing on foot shooting
Because foot are rather not so mobile as mounted, rarely flexible SK/Loose and cannot skirmish/run away unless skirmish so not a TUG 8)
My feeling they are a bit underpowered except the "perhaps overpowered" PB vs mounted
So what did we miss, what was the real impact of shooters in antique, medieval battles ? and it includes shower of javelin