MeG

There has been some discussion on how most bowmen are too easy a target for their enemies, mounted, foot and so on.

A solution might be for foot standing to receive to add a slowing effect on a "S" identical to the fireweapon one but as a generality .

Now would it apply for SK standing to receive in terrain or not ..to be discussed if the idea get's some interest .

It's simple and does not need many changes

Would it be applied to slingers ? why not

To Javelins ? it would make unskilled javelin a lot more interesting  8)

I haven't tried this on the table, but bows are so ineffective against anything mounted that I mostly only see them in opposing armies downgraded to poor, combat shy, and inexperienced. If they were not mandatory, they wouldn't be there, unless you really needed 200 points worth of filler or something. Were bows really this bad historically? I do not claim to know. I do know I have a large longbow army on my shelf that I am likely to sell unless longbow gets a bit better soon.

I have been looking at various possible solutions.

First, I would note that I have used protected crossbow, not combat shy quite effectively against various opponents.  If you uses unprotected, combat shy bowmen and then say bowmen are rubbish - well you won't get a huge amount of sympathy from me.

I would also say that I don't think there is too much wrong with shooting cavalry or skirmishing foot, so I haven't been looking to alter the balance for these.

I would also say that I am not a fan of crossbow getting the "S to wound" upgrade and it not applying to bow or powerbow.

My current thought is for these possible changes:

1. Replace the "S to wound" upgrade with a "Colour but No Skull upgrade"  (bear with me here).  So in the typical situation of experienced crossbow standing to receive, they would get to roll a GREEN dice but any skull would only count as a wound.  Any S would only be a slowing effect.  This has a minor effect of having an extra 1 in 6 chance of a slowing effect.
2. Loose/close order foot with Bw, XBw, PBw, Sling and Dart standing to receive a charge would get the upgrade against foot UGs that are charging their UG.
3. Loose/close foot with Bw, XBw, standing to receive a charge would get the upgrade against Cv, Cm, Ch that are charging their UG.
4. Loose/close foot with PBw standing to receive a charge would get a full colour upgrade against against Cv, Cm, Ch that are charging their UG.  They would lose the current upgrade against Cv, Cm, Ch when not being charged.
5. The existing exception to the downgrade for XBw, PBw within 1BW of FArm foot or FArm El would still apply.
6. Loose/close foot would not be able to shoot in the shooting phase and then fall back in the movement phase in the same turn.
7. The S as an additional slow for Firearms and Artillery would remain.

8. The Superior vs Skilled upgrade would also become the "Colour but No Skull upgrade".

A points adjustment would need to be made for XBw.
Clearly this change would need to be tested further.

Before someone asks, if you are on BLACK and then get the "Colour but No Skull upgrade", yes you end up rolling WHITE dice.  As there is no skull upgrade, the WHITE dice is equivalent to getting a full upgrade. The effect only kicks in on the WHITE getting upgraded.

Richard

Quote from: AntiokosIII on January 30, 2025, 02:25:58 AM
I haven't tried this on the table, but bows are so ineffective against anything mounted that I mostly only see them in opposing armies downgraded to poor, combat shy, and inexperienced. If they were not mandatory, they wouldn't be there, unless you really needed 200 points worth of filler or something. Were bows really this bad historically?

I totaly agree, bows are simply lambs for the slaughter.
Historicaly, no idea really except that these were used, and that there must have been areason. Romans used them un the east to counter cavalry ?

Thing with bows is that they cannot rertreat to safety, they simply stand to die. the effect on the game is a lost TUG and this is harsh.
Maybe when a TUG of foot bows is lost, they count for 1 demo point except of 2 ?

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 08:06:50 AM


6. Loose/close foot would not be able to shoot in the shooting phase and then fall back in the movement phase in the same turn.

would that not make them worse than they are now? Perhaps offer them a fallback at the charging phase before charges are declared? a bit like removing the SUgs?

Quote from: Jilu on January 30, 2025, 08:10:33 AM
I totaly agree, bows are simply lambs for the slaughter.
Maybe when a TUG of foot bows is lost, they count for 1 demo point except of 2 ?

My experience is that Bow are not simply lambs for the slaughter if protected and not combat shy.  I think the upgrades I have suggested would make them more effective.
Don't like the idea of messing with the scoring system.

Richard

Quote from: Jilu on January 30, 2025, 08:16:01 AM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 08:06:50 AM
6. Loose/close foot would not be able to shoot in the shooting phase and then fall back in the movement phase in the same turn.

would that not make them worse than they are now? Perhaps offer them a fallback at the charging phase before charges are declared? a bit like removing the SUgs?

The falling back tactic is unhistorical.  It generally only favours drilled troops (it being much harder for formed/tribal and uses cards that could be used to recover wounds etc.).
It is about making the effect when standing balanced enough to give reasonable results.

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 08:21:49 AM

Quote from: Jilu on January 30, 2025, 08:16:01 AM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 08:06:50 AM
6. Loose/close foot would not be able to shoot in the shooting phase and then fall back in the movement phase in the same turn.

would that not make them worse than they are now? Perhaps offer them a fallback at the charging phase before charges are declared? a bit like removing the SUgs?

The falling back tactic is unhistorical.  It generally only favours drilled troops (it being much harder for formed/tribal and uses cards that could be used to recover wounds etc.).
It is about making the effect when standing balanced enough to give reasonable results.

Richard

Richard, for us to understand what you seek :
What is the historical tactic ? Is it the same trough the ages?

Historical tactics:

You shot where you stood.
No troops could fall back when close to the enemy.  Once you fall back you start to run away....

Bow were widely used in Asia.  In China, bow and crossbow are used against mounted troops. They seem to prefer one or the other at various times. This may be due to a range of factors:
1. Logistics, ability to produce and distribute crossbow mechanisms in bulk.
2. Social, ability to train/obtain large numbers of archers (crossbows are easier to use).
3. Technical developments, both bows and crossbows evolve over time.

In western Europe, archers are less common.  This may be due to more widespread use of infantry with larger shields (mobility being more important in large parts of Asia).

The longbow becomes a dominant weapon, first against the relatively unprotected Scots and then against the armoured knight.  The advantage over the crossbow is rate of fire.  Later crossbows are capable of penetrating armour as effectively or more effectively than the longbow but cannot match the rate of fire of the longbow.  Longbowmen in the open were often ridden down by mounted troops and needed suitable terrain or stakes to prevent this.

In terms of wargaming effect: 
1. Infantry with shield cover probably should have an advantage over missile troops.
2. Infantry without shield cover should probably have a slight advantage over missile troops if led properly (i.e. generals to push through) and minimising how many shots they take.
3. Unprotected infantry should probably be at a disadvantage to missile troops.
4. Cavalry facing bows should be risky for both parties.  If cavalry can get in relatively unscathed then they should have the advantage. If not, then they should be bullied by the bows. Later knights should have an advantage except against the powerbow.

Should say that other related changes I would make (mostly to make the rules simpler to learn for new players) are:
1.  Recover wounds range for generals should be reduced from 4BW not 3BW.
2.  Press through fire range for generals should be increased from 2BW to 3BW.

In terms of effect on shooting, these two changes would sort of cancel out. 

I will still argue that Protected, Experienced Bow or Crossbow who are not combat shy or downgraded are more effective than most players seem to realise.
The other thing I might mention is that falling back tends to prolong the game.  Not being able to shoot back but increasing the effectiveness of shooting would have that benefit.

Hope that helps.  I stress again, this would need more testing and possible changes to points (and a definite change for Xbw).

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 08:06:50 AM
I have been looking at various possible solutions.

First, I would note that I have used protected crossbow, not combat shy quite effectively against various opponents.  If you uses unprotected, combat shy bowmen and then say bowmen are rubbish - well you won't get a huge amount of sympathy from me.

I would also say that I don't think there is too much wrong with shooting cavalry or skirmishing foot, so I haven't been looking to alter the balance for these.

I would also say that I am not a fan of crossbow getting the "S to wound" upgrade and it not applying to bow or powerbow.

My current thought is for these possible changes:

1. Replace the "S to wound" upgrade with a "Colour but No Skull upgrade"  (bear with me here).  So in the typical situation of experienced crossbow standing to receive, they would get to roll a GREEN dice but any skull would only count as a wound.  Any S would only be a slowing effect.  This has a minor effect of having an extra 1 in 6 chance of a slowing effect.
2. Loose/close order foot with Bw, XBw, PBw, Sling and Dart standing to receive a charge would get the upgrade against foot UGs that are charging their UG.
3. Loose/close foot with Bw, XBw, standing to receive a charge would get the upgrade against Cv, Cm, Ch that are charging their UG.
4. Loose/close foot with PBw standing to receive a charge would get a full colour upgrade against against Cv, Cm, Ch that are charging their UG.  They would lose the current upgrade against Cv, Cm, Ch when not being charged.
5. The existing exception to the downgrade for XBw, PBw within 1BW of FArm foot or FArm El would still apply.
6. Loose/close foot would not be able to shoot in the shooting phase and then fall back in the movement phase in the same turn.
7. The S as an additional slow for Firearms and Artillery would remain.

8. The Superior vs Skilled upgrade would also become the "Colour but No Skull upgrade".

A points adjustment would need to be made for XBw.
Clearly this change would need to be tested further.

Before someone asks, if you are on BLACK and then get the "Colour but No Skull upgrade", yes you end up rolling WHITE dice.  As there is no skull upgrade, the WHITE dice is equivalent to getting a full upgrade. The effect only kicks in on the WHITE getting upgraded.

Richard

I find it interesting . It would change the game for sure . Interesting to test .
If I follow the ArmHrs protection remains as it is unaffected ?

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 10:06:19 AM

I will still argue that Protected, Experienced Bow or Crossbow who are not combat shy or downgraded are more effective than most players seem to realise.

I agree Richard. They are especially effective when supported by decent close combat troops.

I would also agree that mounted and skirmisher bow are currently ok as they are. I will keep an open mind on foot missile troops' effectiveness but IMO it is not too far off the mark.

Steve

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 08:06:50 AM
I have been looking at various possible solutions.

First, I would note that I have used protected crossbow, not combat shy quite effectively against various opponents.  If you uses unprotected, combat shy bowmen and then say bowmen are rubbish - well you won't get a huge amount of sympathy from me.

I would also say that I don't think there is too much wrong with shooting cavalry or skirmishing foot, so I haven't been looking to alter the balance for these.

I would also say that I am not a fan of crossbow getting the "S to wound" upgrade and it not applying to bow or powerbow.

My current thought is for these possible changes:

1. Replace the "S to wound" upgrade with a "Colour but No Skull upgrade"  (bear with me here).  So in the typical situation of experienced crossbow standing to receive, they would get to roll a GREEN dice but any skull would only count as a wound.  Any S would only be a slowing effect.  This has a minor effect of having an extra 1 in 6 chance of a slowing effect.
2. Loose/close order foot with Bw, XBw, PBw, Sling and Dart standing to receive a charge would get the upgrade against foot UGs that are charging their UG.
3. Loose/close foot with Bw, XBw, standing to receive a charge would get the upgrade against Cv, Cm, Ch that are charging their UG.
4. Loose/close foot with PBw standing to receive a charge would get a full colour upgrade against against Cv, Cm, Ch that are charging their UG.  They would lose the current upgrade against Cv, Cm, Ch when not being charged.
5. The existing exception to the downgrade for XBw, PBw within 1BW of FArm foot or FArm El would still apply.
6. Loose/close foot would not be able to shoot in the shooting phase and then fall back in the movement phase in the same turn.
7. The S as an additional slow for Firearms and Artillery would remain.

8. The Superior vs Skilled upgrade would also become the "Colour but No Skull upgrade".

A points adjustment would need to be made for XBw.
Clearly this change would need to be tested further.

Before someone asks, if you are on BLACK and then get the "Colour but No Skull upgrade", yes you end up rolling WHITE dice.  As there is no skull upgrade, the WHITE dice is equivalent to getting a full upgrade. The effect only kicks in on the WHITE getting upgraded.

Richard

just to clarify my understanding, taking point 2 as an example, a Skilled crossbowman unit being charged by protected foot is white to green for being Skilled then standing to receive boosts that to Yellow but Skulls count as wounds.

say 6 cbmen firing, under the current rules of skilled shooters only with Greens, with an average of 3 dice giving a skull or a wound, a low equivalent of 3 wounds, best of 6 equivalent in wounds, 1 slow and 2 blanks

under proposal that would mean yellows with no skulls, with an average of 4 dice giving wounds , 1 slow and 1 blank. I assume hence the extra 1 in 6 chance of an additional slow.

it removes the skew of green dice for charges but this leaves it intact for normal distance shooting. Mounted would still get that skull skew effect in all circumstances esp if they have shoot and charge, whereas the skilled foot cb/archers cant throw skulls in a charge but the mounted can.

it feels like the differing rules between normal shooting, being charged shooting, or skilled shooting at superiors where it will follow the rules of charge shooting and not 'normal' shooting will get headache inducing pretty quickly and on top of that it'll be different for mounted compared to foot.

how about all skulls in shooting always count as wounds,
skilled shooters add two not one colour except at superiors where it is one.
The S as an additional slow for Firearms and Artillery becomes Firearms, artillery, powerbow and skilled shooters.
replace the "S to wound" with your proposed list, that should produce close to the same base effect.

only one not covered would be Powerbow V Cav/cm/ch but it wouldn't be a stretch to count their S as a further +1 on top of the firearm effect, a +2 in total per S.

as a slight aside, A Tug of 6 poor, tribal loose, unskilled bow, combat shy and a sug of 9 average, exp bow, combat shy has a combined cost of 462 points. A single tug of 6 formed loose, protected , experienced bow costs 450 points. the first option gives me a bigger army, the same effective firepower and the sug is totally expendable.

QuoteFirst, I would note that I have used protected crossbow, not combat shy quite effectively against various opponents....I will still argue that Protected, Experienced Bow or Crossbow who are not combat shy or downgraded are more effective than most players seem to realize.

In my experience protected crossbows are the point at which ranged units become viable. If you take them in an 8-pack then you can comfortably rely on getting 2 wounds on the charge and with that head start you have a fighting chance against a 6-pack of something of the same cost per base. And since the shooting is going to work against anything your opponent is incentivized not to send their best troops. Protected archers are a decent troop but they fall just below the line for me because they can't rely on that second wound.

QuoteIf you uses unprotected, combat shy bowmen and then say bowmen are rubbish - well you won't get a huge amount of sympathy from me.

The issue is that the archers most armies have are either unprotected or mandatory combat shy; and in many armies those troops are required. Those troops just lose to anything of the same cost, usually without even causing meaningful harm. Since they're going to lose anyway I may as well downgrade them to nothing and minimize my sunk points.

My group and I had just recently been discussing some ideas to float by the forum so this seems like a good time. We were trying to figure out what an archer might actually have accomplished on a battlefield and how to represent it. Did they fire at long range to cause disruption, did they wait for closer range and cause meaningful harm, did they cause disruption during to break-up an incoming charge?

All of these suggestions assume that ranged foot would lose the ability to back up and keep their lethality at range down (since the dev's don't want the game to be won through shooting alone). Also, all of these are just concepts, not fully fleshed out, I'm sure other adjustments would need to be made to get them all working right.

   1) Get rid of push-through-fire. I understand what it's meant to represent but it's always been odd to me that in this one case we allow a general to spend a card and negate the main benefit of a weapon. This would also allow archers to cause meaningful disruption at range.
   
   2) Being the target of shooting automatically causes 1 base of slow effect. This way charging an archer is automatically more expensive and gives the archer a real chance at slowing by 3 base widths. It also lets them cause slowing at range to disrupt formations.

    3) Let archers shoot before charges and then again if they are charged. At the moment archers only work by jockeying for timing and position to try and maximize their shooting hoping to cause meaningful harm before they get charged. This would allow them to just get a meaningful amount of use out of their weapon in one go without a lot of game slowing fuss, in the one turn that it matters, and let the dice land where they may.

   4) Get rid of slowing entirely and instead, for every base you would have slowed a charger the archer instead gets a +1 charge claim. Makes charging archers a bit of a gamble and gives an interesting boost to shoot and charge units.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 08:06:50 AM
I have been looking at various possible solutions.


1. Replace the "S to wound" upgrade with a "Colour but No Skull upgrade"  (bear with me here).  So in the typical situation of experienced crossbow standing to receive, they would get to roll a GREEN dice but any skull would only count as a wound.  Any S would only be a slowing effect.  This has a minor effect of having an extra 1 in 6 chance of a slowing effect.
2. Loose/close order foot with Bw, XBw, PBw, Sling and Dart standing to receive a charge would get the upgrade against foot UGs that are charging their UG.
3. Loose/close foot with Bw, XBw, standing to receive a charge would get the upgrade against Cv, Cm, Ch that are charging their UG.
4. Loose/close foot with PBw standing to receive a charge would get a full colour upgrade against against Cv, Cm, Ch that are charging their UG.  They would lose the current upgrade against Cv, Cm, Ch when not being charged.
5. The existing exception to the downgrade for XBw, PBw within 1BW of FArm foot or FArm El would still apply.
6. Loose/close foot would not be able to shoot in the shooting phase and then fall back in the movement phase in the same turn.
7. The S as an additional slow for Firearms and Artillery would remain.

8. The Superior vs Skilled upgrade would also become the "Colour but No Skull upgrade".

A points adjustment would need to be made for XBw.
Clearly this change would need to be tested further.

Richard

Interesting. I would suggest that a simpler and, perhaps, better approach based on this might be

1. All shooting only does a single hit on a skull (ie skulls are only special in melee). This might seem like a downgrade to shooting but only really impacts skilled shooters, powerbow etc who currently get greens. Making this change would make it less drastic to give out more shooting dice upgrades (like point 2) and the lists/points would not have to go out of their way to minimise the presence of green dice shooting like they currently do (ie the points could come down and Skilled shooter/cantabrian could become more commonly available).

2. Anyone who stands to receive a charge gets upgraded a colour. Bit of a boost but won't be as devastaing without skulls doubling up. Maybe exclude javelins if you feel necessary

3. Prompting through fire only possible if general is with unit and faces some risk. How do you encourage a unit through fire without leading it from the front? I would recommend shooters get a KAB on general prompting through fire if they roll any skulls in shooting. You should have to decide if you are prompting through fire (and play your card) before you see the shooting/movement rolls. It could also be required that the general joins the combat in the ensuing impact phase.

Just some thoughts

Martin

Quote from: tarnowski1 on January 30, 2025, 11:05:25 PM
how about all skulls in shooting always count as wounds,
skilled shooters add two not one colour except at superiors where it is one.
The S as an additional slow for Firearms and Artillery becomes Firearms, artillery, powerbow and skilled shooters.
replace the "S to wound" with your proposed list, that should produce close to the same base effect.

I have looked at this as an alternative.  My concern with this approach (after some limited testing) is that it removes some of the unpredictability of shooting and this takes something away from the game.  I hadn't looked at extending the S as an additional slow to powerbow or skilled shooters.  Not sure about it for skilled shooters, but my initial thought is that it might have some merit for foot powerbow (or possibly even bow/crossbow in 3 ranks?).

Richard

Quote from: Manzikert on January 31, 2025, 02:46:44 AM
All of these suggestions assume that ranged foot would lose the ability to back up and keep their lethality at range down (since the dev's don't want the game to be won through shooting alone). Also, all of these are just concepts, not fully fleshed out, I'm sure other adjustments would need to be made to get them all working right.

   1) Get rid of push-through-fire. I understand what it's meant to represent but it's always been odd to me that in this one case we allow a general to spend a card and negate the main benefit of a weapon. This would also allow archers to cause meaningful disruption at range.
   
   2) Being the target of shooting automatically causes 1 base of slow effect. This way charging an archer is automatically more expensive and gives the archer a real chance at slowing by 3 base widths. It also lets them cause slowing at range to disrupt formations.

    3) Let archers shoot before charges and then again if they are charged. At the moment archers only work by jockeying for timing and position to try and maximize their shooting hoping to cause meaningful harm before they get charged. This would allow them to just get a meaningful amount of use out of their weapon in one go without a lot of game slowing fuss, in the one turn that it matters, and let the dice land where they may.

   4) Get rid of slowing entirely and instead, for every base you would have slowed a charger the archer instead gets a +1 charge claim. Makes charging archers a bit of a gamble and gives an interesting boost to shoot and charge units.

Thanks for these ideas.  My initial thoughts are:

1)  My concern with getting rid of pressing through fire is that it takes one element away from the game.  It also would hinder mounted archery and I would rather not change that balance. Needing the cards does restrict the general's ability to do other things.

2) Having loose/close foot automatically cause 1 slowing effect is a possibility.  It would mean cavalry charging at 5BW would need to be pressed through fire because of the automatic slow.

3) Something I have considered is having loose/close foot shoot after the movement phase rather than before it (i.e. in the turn before they get charged). Skirmishers and mounted would still shoot when they currently do, before the movement phase.  I did quite like it, but feedback from others felt that it was an extra complication.

4) This is also an idea I have looked at and has some merit.  Again, my concern is that it would impact mounted archery - unless you only applied it to loose/foot infantry when it becomes an extra complication.

Richard

Quote from: martymagnificent on January 31, 2025, 04:56:22 AM

Interesting. I would suggest that a simpler and, perhaps, better approach based on this might be

1. All shooting only does a single hit on a skull (ie skulls are only special in melee). This might seem like a downgrade to shooting but only really impacts skilled shooters, powerbow etc who currently get greens. Making this change would make it less drastic to give out more shooting dice upgrades (like point 2) and the lists/points would not have to go out of their way to minimise the presence of green dice shooting like they currently do (ie the points could come down and Skilled shooter/cantabrian could become more commonly available).

2. Anyone who stands to receive a charge gets upgraded a colour. Bit of a boost but won't be as devastaing without skulls doubling up. Maybe exclude javelins if you feel necessary

3. Prompting through fire only possible if general is with unit and faces some risk. How do you encourage a unit through fire without leading it from the front? I would recommend shooters get a KAB on general prompting through fire if they roll any skulls in shooting. You should have to decide if you are prompting through fire (and play your card) before you see the shooting/movement rolls. It could also be required that the general joins the combat in the ensuing impact phase.

Just some thoughts

Martin

Thanks Martin,

My initial thoughts are:

1) See my earlier comments about removing skulls from shooting.  It does tend to make longer range shooting a bit predictable.
2) Isn't this much the same as my proposal about changing the "S" upgrade?
3a) I quite like the idea of selecting any pressing through fire before the charge - but it would affect the mounted archery balance.
3b) I see the prompting through fire as the officers leading the charge, not really the general.  Any risk to the general seems a bit extreme.
3c) Only allowing prompting through fire to UGs that the general is with would affect the mounted archery balance.

Richard

QuoteIf you uses unprotected, combat shy bowmen and then say bowmen are rubbish - well you won't get a huge amount of sympathy from me.

I agree 100%

Quote3) Let archers shoot before charges and then again if they are charged. At the moment archers only work by jockeying for timing and position to try and maximize their shooting hoping to cause meaningful harm before they get charged. This would allow them to just get a meaningful amount of use out of their weapon in one go without a lot of game slowing fuss, in the one turn that it matters, and let the dice land where they may.

I fear that would make shooters ( archers only ? ) a bit too powerful gatling style. PB would be killers vs mounted or any skilled vs their opponents . Survivalibility will be sometimes very limited or so I fear

QuoteI hadn't looked at extending the S as an additional slow to powerbow or skilled shooters.  Not sure about it for skilled shooters, but my initial thought is that it might have some merit for foot powerbow (or possibly even bow/crossbow in 3 ranks?).

The myth of the PB again ? it's effective range was not that different from other bows ! What worked was the speed of firing which other bows could match. Late armour were quite good vs PB .

Quote2) Being the target of shooting automatically causes 1 base of slow effect. This way charging an archer is automatically more expensive and gives the archer a real chance at slowing by 3 base widths. It also lets them cause slowing at range to disrupt formations.

Shooting by any weapon ( javelin , slings, ...) ART included ? any quality of shooters ? We might have to be sure of what is proposed

I'm really hyped to hear this is something being given some attention to! Yay!

I have to admit, though, that the proposed 8-step fix looks a little complicated?

I've long suggested to my group that it might help a lot if infantry shooting just always wounded on an S.
It would make these units hurt just a little bit more without too much extra danger of wacky RNG-based outcomes.
(Importantly, it lets foot archers inflict wounds faster than the wounds can be picked up, which would be a huge blessing!)

This change would require a different benefit for crossbows receiving chargers and skilled bow vs superior...
... but is there really anything all that wrong with just letting them roll green dice?

That would make a frontal assault on a fresh unit of crossbowmen legitimately dangerous, and make squaring your best archers off against your opponent's best troops no longer a categorically stupid idea.
(Neither of these are situations you should really feel comfortable feeding your best troops into the teeth of, IMHO?)


That said, take the above as nothing more my two cents. I'm just trying to make sure things as simple as possible.

QuoteI fear that would make shooters ( archers only ? ) a bit too powerful gatling style. PB would be killers vs mounted or any skilled vs their opponents . Survivalibility will be sometimes very limited or so I fear

I was a little loose with my language there. I meant all foot with a ranged weapon not just 'archers'. And it would make them do significant damage but only for one round in which they get charged. It does make skilled shooters and PB vs Cavalry a lot better but honestly at the moment I think they need it. Without going through the full math 3 green dice of shooting just doesn't make up for being down claims in the charge and the melee. I've not run though the full math but getting 6 greens of shooting seems like it would give them enough of a head start to be a legitimate threat.

QuoteShooting by any weapon ( javelin , slings, ...) ART included ? any quality of shooters ? We might have to be sure of what is proposed

Yes, the intention is all foot shooting, even unskilled javelins. It might seem odd to give it too them but it really wouldn't be much of a benefit. If an enemy wants to charge from their max distance they'll need to pay a bit extra to prompt through fire.

I'm not sure what part of historical abilities we are trying to reflect here? Is the idea that units of bow etc should be able to form part of a battle line? I was trying to think of examples and this is what I came up with:-

Achmaenid Immortals, generally fought behind pavises
Ottoman Janissaries, generally fought behind barricades
English longbow, generally fought behind stakes

If some of the best shooters from our period felt the need for defences then surely we should expect that more ordinary bow would be in big trouble if they tried to take a place in the battle line. I'm not convinced that anything needs changing/complicating

QuoteIt does make skilled shooters and PB vs Cavalry a lot better

I fear you overestimate the power of the PB vs cavalry . It's mostly mud that stopped the charges and when not behind stakes, the famous whelsh/englishman archer was a bit ridden down by the french knight ...PB is in many cases a myth . A powerfull weapon but overestimated in most cases .

Skilled shooters rolling 6 green dice ( if 3 files ) vs charging abything ..are you serious ? I just hope not it would be devastating and it never happened . Bows are powerfull but imagine unprotected infantry charging skilled shooters ...they will never survive .

For those who find all of it complicated, please remember my original proposal, first post of the discussion. My feeling is : simple

QuoteI fear you overestimate the power of the PB vs cavalry .

To be fair that's more an issue with the PB than with the rules I've proposed. In the current rules PB is the anti-cavalry bow and my rule changes would help it do that. If it shouldn't be then the PB would need to change. But they must have been good enough to be worth adopting in France and other places and to drive the adoption of horse archer. That would be a pretty huge expense to counter a weapon that didn't do much.

QuoteSkilled shooters rolling 6 green dice ( if 3 files ) vs charging abything ..are you serious ? I just hope not it would be devastating and it never happened . Bows are powerfull but imagine unprotected infantry charging skilled shooters ...they will never survive .

They wouldn't get it against superiors, fully armored, shield cover, or cavalry that charged from outside their starting range, but in most other cases yes. So they would still lose to things meant to counter them, but have a decent chance to beat things of a similar points cost that don't. Which should be the point for any unit. At the moment skilled foot bow costs more than short spear-melee expert and loses to it. Even with this change it's a pretty close match-up with the bows just eeking out a victory; which seems pretty right from a cost perspective. And as for beating unprotected, surely we can agree they would do that? If skilled bow doesn't beat unprotected infantry then why would anyone ever have bothered to use one, let alone get good enough to be considered skilled?

Quote from: daveparish on February 01, 2025, 11:03:59 AM
I'm not sure what part of historical abilities we are trying to reflect here? Is the idea that units of bow etc should be able to form part of a battle line? I was trying to think of examples and this is what I came up with:-

Achmaenid Immortals, generally fought behind pavises
Ottoman Janissaries, generally fought behind barricades
English longbow, generally fought behind stakes

If some of the best shooters from our period felt the need for defences then surely we should expect that more ordinary bow would be in big trouble if they tried to take a place in the battle line. I'm not convinced that anything needs changing/complicating

Not convinced. Janissaries generally fought behind barricades.  In pitched battles they tended to be held in reserve.  It was other archers who were placed behind the barricades. English longbow fought behind stakes to protect them in the open from knights.  Can't argue with the Persians, but the whole sparabara approach seems to have developed as a counter to cavalry.

New Kingdom Egyptians, Elamites, Nubians, Ostrogoths, Classical Indians all used archers in a battle line.
Almost all Chinese armies throughout history used either Crossbow or Archers in a battle line.  Often protected by specialists against cavalry.

The issue remains that too often players downgrade archers/crossbowmen and hide them as UG padding.

Richard

OK - good examples! Some of those (perhaps eg the Chinese and Indians) have front ranks of more fight-y bases in MeG. Does this reflect a historical position that the bow were too vulnerable on their own?

I just think there is a danger of seeing this in game terms (here is an underpowered unit that needs bolstering to be worthwhile in a game and points view) rather than historical ones (this historical battle account couldn't happen in MeG so certain units need changing)

Quote from: daveparish on February 01, 2025, 08:12:17 PM
OK - good examples! Some of those (perhaps eg the Chinese and Indians) have front ranks of more fight-y bases in MeG. Does this reflect a historical position that the bow were too vulnerable on their own?

I just think there is a danger of seeing this in game terms (here is an underpowered unit that needs bolstering to be worthwhile in a game and points view) rather than historical ones (this historical battle account couldn't happen in MeG so certain units need changing)

I agree they shouldn't be too powerful.  If it is a game issue, then a points adjustment for missile weapons might be appropriate.  But archers/crossbowmen did have a place on the battlefield.  Shooting is the hardest part of the rules to get correct.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 01, 2025, 07:45:54 PM
The issue remains that too often players downgrade archers/crossbowmen and hide them as UG padding.

As someone who routinely does the whole "downgrade shooter units to nothing and hide them behind the camp" thing: I pretty much only do it because those units are required troops, and because they've been an active liability to my army whenever I've tried doing literally anything else with them.

(Believe me, I'd far and away prefer that my mandatory unprotected crossbows were worth using, rather than just throwing up my hands and putting them on eternal KP duty.)

Hopefully that's a helpful data point and not just me whinging. XP

QuoteI'm not sure what part of historical abilities we are trying to reflect here? Is the idea that units of bow etc should be able to form part of a battle line? I was trying to think of examples and this is what I came up with:

I'm just hoping to make ranged units (specifically the ubiquitous unprotect or combat-shy archer from so many lists) something one would actually take by choice. Or at least something you wouldn't downgrade to oblivion without a second thought. Bows were used in battle for thousands of years, multiple successful armies specialized in their use. Many armies in MeG have them as a required troops suggesting that at least in the Dev's mind they were extremely common. There must have been something to make them worth bringing to a battle.

Maybe I'm wrong and archers were just generally not very useful. In which case those unprotected/combat shy archers really are just meant to be downgraded to trash to bulk up tug numbers by a bit. I just want to understand the design decision.

Quote from: daveparish on February 01, 2025, 08:12:17 PM
OK - good examples! Some of those (perhaps eg the Chinese and Indians) have front ranks of more fight-y bases in MeG. Does this reflect a historical position that the bow were too vulnerable on their own?

I just think there is a danger of seeing this in game terms (here is an underpowered unit that needs bolstering to be worthwhile in a game and points view) rather than historical ones (this historical battle account couldn't happen in MeG so certain units need changing)

+1

Quote from: Manzikert on February 01, 2025, 10:25:46 PM

I'm just hoping to make ranged units (specifically the ubiquitous unprotect or combat-shy archer from so many lists) something one would actually take by choice. Or at least something you wouldn't downgrade to oblivion without a second thought. Bows were used in battle for thousands of years, multiple successful armies specialized in their use. Many armies in MeG have them as a required troops suggesting that at least in the Dev's mind they were extremely common. There must have been something to make them worth bringing to a battle.

Fair point. Of course bows were useful in many situations eg sieges. I think it is the idea that the unprotected combat shy archers we are talking about were a useful part of a battle line that bothers me. The urge to make them useful because they are compulsory is a game play issue not a historical one.

Perhaps the problem is a list issue. Maybe many of these compulsory bow TUGS should actually be either skirmishers or else be integral shooters in other units (both are useful in MeG and both answer your point that bows were in use)

Quote from: daveparish on February 02, 2025, 08:54:01 AM

Quote from: Manzikert on February 01, 2025, 10:25:46 PM

I'm just hoping to make ranged units (specifically the ubiquitous unprotect or combat-shy archer from so many lists) something one would actually take by choice. Or at least something you wouldn't downgrade to oblivion without a second thought. Bows were used in battle for thousands of years, multiple successful armies specialized in their use. Many armies in MeG have them as a required troops suggesting that at least in the Dev's mind they were extremely common. There must have been something to make them worth bringing to a battle.

Fair point. Of course bows were useful in many situations eg sieges. I think it is the idea that the unprotected combat shy archers we are talking about were a useful part of a battle line that bothers me. The urge to make them useful because they are compulsory is a game play issue not a historical one.

Perhaps the problem is a list issue. Maybe many of these compulsory bow TUGS should actually be either skirmishers or else be integral shooters in other units (both are useful in MeG and both answer your point that bows were in use)

from a medieval point of view. Simply because its the are I have better grasp on, there are clear distinctions drawn between truly effective missile troops and 'dross'. The Genoese, English Longbowmen, Jannisaries etc. Or more esoteric, the Lithuanians, Serbian and Wallachian armies had two tiers of foot archer levy. Their picked foot musters were horse mounted with spear, axe, shield and the full muster the rest were just bow armed. In that you have a levy where a bow and a tree to hide behind is an effective use of poor quality manpower, when not digging latrines or tending to the horses. In the other you have a relatively effective battlefield presence.  I think we have to be cautious of assuming because they were at a battle they were of any practical use beyond they called to serve as part of a muster or fighting tail

Certainly many of the 15th Central and Eastern European reforms mandated the bringing of X number of cavalry and Y number of well armed foot with bows+ and 'others' with just bows to the army muster. Polish and Hungarian laws on obligatory service to the Crown are quite clear there. On paper (Vellum?) it exists , problem is none of the various Kings actually wanted such service, finding the levy useless for its purposes. That is from the Noble Knight downwards , not just the foot troops. Only real reason they mandated into law was to allow Nobles to buy their way out of service, allowing the Kings to raise household or 'reliable' mercenary troops. Worth noting that the late 15th to early 16th century Polish regulations on mercenary Infantry companies was 2/3 Crossbowmen, later firearms, and 1/3 Pavisers, later pike/spear.  the pure missile troops just didnt exist as a regulated unit. Even those formations its noted could not withstand a cavalry charge , if they managed to contact through the 'hail of bolts' so needed to be supported by cavalry or integrated with Battlewagons (Obertyn 1531 as an example).

Sorry rambling, MeG covers off both types of missile ethos pretty effectively already. Supported good quality Missile troops work and massed dross bowmen work if you can stop anything reasonably pointy getting to them. Actually those armies that did use weak levy bows are usually covered in the list with the options for barricades or obstacles. If you wish to take the offensive with missile fire you currently have to be creative with the old step back and repeat, trust the terrain gods,  or with support options but it works.

If the aim is to make it more a historical feel with the archery interactions my personal speculation is if you wish to remove the step back mechanism (I'd like to see it gone) , the key becomes the slowing effect of missile troops. create that additional firing turn by making it very unlikely that a cavalry charged launched from over 3bw away can make contact. Maybe as simple as a blank on a shooting dice against a charging tug counts as an S, an actual S as a firearm type additional slow.

 

Quote from: tarnowski1 on February 02, 2025, 10:11:36 AM

In that you have a levy where a bow and a tree to hide behind is an effective use of poor quality manpower, when not digging latrines or tending to the horses. In the other you have a relatively effective battlefield presence.  I think we have to be cautious of assuming because they were at a battle they were of any practical use beyond they called to serve as part of a muster or fighting tail

Yeah this is how I see the combat shy unprotected guys - pretty much just servants of the real fighters and with a bow principally for hunting rabbits or pigeons. In MeG they get downgraded and used as filler - the effect is that more real troops need to be killed to break the army, essentially an increase in morale. I can see how having your horse looked after and getting a nice rabbit stew after a hard day's fighting could be a morale boost, so actually using them as filler has a historical side!

QuoteThey wouldn't get it against superiors, fully armored, shield cover, or cavalry that charged from outside their starting range, but in most other cases yes. So they would still lose to things meant to counter them, but have a decent chance to beat things of a similar points cost that don't. Which should be the point for any unit. At the moment skilled foot bow costs more than short spear-melee expert and loses to it. Even with this change it's a pretty close match-up with the bows just eeking out a victory; which seems pretty right from a cost perspective. And as for beating unprotected, surely we can agree they would do that? If skilled bow doesn't beat unprotected infantry then why would anyone ever have bothered to use one, let alone get good enough to be considered skilled?

Where did you find foot SUP, that charges Shield Cover ? Also those skilled bows could go in terrain ...and they would not win vs unprotected guys ...shooting twice they would annihilate them

Shooting once is enough

Now is there a problem with foot missile focus units as it is now ?

QuoteWhere did you find foot SUP, that charges Shield Cover ?

I'm not saying they'd have both, either would reduce the effectiveness of shooting. Skilled bow only get's whites that wound on 'S' against superior and shield cover could reduce them to whites for the first round of shooting before the charge (if the change were to be implemented we might say the could use it on the charge as well).

QuoteAlso those skilled bows could go in terrain

Sure, but could you expand on that point? I'm not sure how terrain would radically change the situation. It would keep them safe from cav and close foot; but then they aren't being charged so they wouldn't be getting the second shot. They could shoot out of the terrain but that's exactly what they do now. Loose foot could go in after them and be shot twice. But of course woods and forest would reduce the effectiveness of the shooting. And other terrain types stop them from seeing infantry at longer ranges which would stop them from taking the first shot.

Quoteand they would not win vs unprotected guys ...shooting twice they would annihilate them

I don't think it's that one sided. Running some quick math an unprotected archer and an unprotected short spear-melee expert are both 54 points a base and the archer would barely eek out a victory. And honestly I don't see unprotected on the table all that much as it is, largely because they already get annihilated by most things anyway.

QuoteNow is there a problem with foot missile focus units as it is now ?

I think there is. And it seems to be the general consensus from players I talk to.

Quote from: tarnowski1 on February 02, 2025, 10:11:36 AMthere are clear distinctions drawn between truly effective missile troops and 'dross'. The Genoese, English Longbowmen, Jannisaries etc.

One big problem with that distinction is that well-regarded medieval European shooters (eg Genoese, low country guild crossbowmen, the vast majority of English longbowmen, etc) have the same effective firepower as pick-your-example junk/filler archers: Experienced Bow (xbow, etc).
If credible "I actually wanted to bring these guys" archers were Skilled (as is often the case with a lot of horse archer-based armies) or otherwise able to cause meaningful damage, I suspect you might see people voluntarily take a second TUG of these guys more often.

(Currently-- at least where I play-- the cheap filler archers are generally downgraded to oblivion and hidden in the back-- as I think Tarnowski might have been suggesting in his Polish and Hungarian examples if I understood correctly? If that is how these UGs are supposed to be used though, I kinda wish the game would be more upfront about it instead of apparently trying to trick me into actually using them?)

Quote from: Doomsmile on February 04, 2025, 01:12:20 AM

One big problem with that distinction is that well-regarded medieval European shooters (eg Genoese, low country guild crossbowmen, the vast majority of English longbowmen, etc) have the same effective firepower as pick-your-example junk/filler archers: Experienced Bow (xbow, etc).
If credible "I actually wanted to bring these guys" archers were Skilled (as is often the case with a lot of horse archer-based armies) or otherwise able to cause meaningful damage, I suspect you might see people voluntarily take a second TUG of these guys more often.

Have a look at the list that came second in this comp:-

https://gamer-at-the-end-of-time.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-theme-with-no-name-lists.html

Two crossbow and two powerbow - all Experienced.

Shows that it can be done - and explains why I don't think shooting needs any big changes (I may feel this particularly strongly because this is my usual local club opponent who shoots me up with armies like this on a regular basis!)

Quote
Quote
Now is there a problem with foot missile focus units as it is now ?

I think there is. And it seems to be the general consensus from players I talk to.

Yes but my point is WHAT is the problem ? what is the essence of the problem ?

To me it is just that they are too easily hit when charged hence my original proposal. Also there modern tactics of shooting, fall back, reload, shoot, one step back, reload shoot is very unrealistic

Now when people take downgraded unprotected combat shy poor unskilled bows ..you ask for them to be killed but so back to it What is the essence of the problem what should be solved

For me the core of the problem is that they (foot archers) so often only get to shoot once (while being successfully charged). Allowing the backing up is an, admittedly rather suspect, way of sometimes giving them a chance for another shot or two.

If you want to do away with the backing up changes are needed to give basic foot archers a chance at more shots (ie greater range, change the distance people can double to, upgrade shooting at chargers, make prompting through fire harder, etc)

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on February 04, 2025, 08:46:53 PM
For me the core of the problem is that they (foot archers) so often only get to shoot once (while being successfully charged). Allowing the backing up is an, admittedly rather suspect, way of sometimes giving them a chance for another shot or two.

But we could say that about a lot of the manoeuvres we use in MeG.  Many of us routinely employ moves that only the very best troops were capable of, particularly in regard to foot troops. However, most players want to have control/choices and not simply line up the troops and send them forward. We face the persistent challenge of balancing game versus simulation.

Quote
If you want to do away with the backing up changes are needed to give basic foot archers a chance at more shots (ie greater range, change the distance people can double to, upgrade shooting at chargers, make prompting through fire harder, etc)

These would be significant changes for the game. Do we really think that shooting is so poorly represented?

Quote from: badhabum on February 04, 2025, 03:18:22 PM
Yes but my point is WHAT is the problem ? what is the essence of the problem ?

Personally, I remain unconvinced there is a significant problem. I struggle to think of historical examples where unsupported foot archers/crossbowmen prevailed against enemy troops without advantages of terrain or defences.

Quote from: badhabum on February 04, 2025, 03:18:22 PM
Yes but my point is WHAT is the problem ? what is the essence of the problem ?

Huh. Thank you for reiterating that question. It legitimately got me reevaluating my assumptions here.


If I could back up and ask a direct question to Richard and the dev team:
If we were to take the single most common classification of dedicated shooter in MeG-- Loose, Average/Unprotected, Experienced Bow -- what is the developer intention for the general role, use case, and effect of these guys?

(And if I could ask a follow-up question: do any of those answers change if they're protected and/or crossbow-armed?)


TBH, I'm really kicking myself for being a dimwit and not just leading with that question before throwing out a bunch of opinions /smh/.

QuoteYes but my point is WHAT is the problem ? what is the essence of the problem ?

Ah, fair enough. It's honestly a bit hard to get to the essence of the problem because I'm not sure exactly what role the dev's want ranged units to have, except that they don't want the game to be dominated by ranged combat. Doomsmile is right that I should probably wait for their feedback ... but I spent too long writing this to not post it!

The TLDR is shooting doesn't do enough harm and has too short a range. So a ranged unit has to expect to get into melee but also doesn't do enough damage before melee to gain a real advantage (against targets of comparable cost). So ranged units have to be able to stand up reasonably well in melee. Any ranged units that can't do that may as well be downgraded as much as possible. Even the ones that can are usually a bit underpowered compared to their cost.

The main issue is that ranged weapons just don't have much of an effect at all. On average 3 white dice will do a single wound and have a 50/50 chance to cause a slow. If the shot is taken while the unit is not being charged then due to the order of play, and the fact that it's very difficult to get shots on a unit in melee, the target won't be engaged until the next turn. So they will be able to pick up the wound with a yellow, or very possibly an upgraded green, before you have the chance to stack more harm on them. The slow, if it even matters, can also be picked up with a yellow. So a ranged shot is unlikely to cause any meaningful or lasting harm if taken before the charge phase. If the shot is taken while the ranged unit is being charged they can expect to cause 1 shooting wound on average and then end up in melee; if the ranged unit is at a disadvantage in melee, which they usually are, the 1 shooting wound has a very small effect on the final outcome.

The second issue is that all of the ranged weapons have pretty short ranges relative to the movement speeds of the game. Most ranged weapons essentially only get to shoot once. Even for the weapons that do have enough range to fire beyond charge reach you have to have some control over timing/initiative; else your opponent will stay just out of shooting range or move up to within charge range. So ranged weapons don't do much and if you want to make use of it you have to be close enough to get into melee.

QuoteAlso there modern tactics of shooting, fall back, reload, shoot, one step back, reload shoot is very unrealistic

Completely agree, my hope would be to find a way to make ranged units worth taking without the need for the fallback moves which they currently need to eek out a another shot or two before getting stuck in a losing melee.

Letting ranged units shoot before charges and again if charged gives them some real benefit for their ranged weapon in the case of a unit that can stand up in melee, but also gives some interesting utility to ones that can't. It would let them fire before the charge to put some wounds on a target before their own side goes in. Which seems like something they'd have done historically. Skirmishers would have a lot more utility since not only would they be able to shoot before the charge to do a bit of harm then fall back to allow their own side to charge in. They'd also be able to absorb the first shot from a ranged unit before the charge, so a means to mitigate the advantage ranged units just got.

QuoteNow when people take downgraded unprotected combat shy poor unskilled bows ..you ask for them to be killed

Completely agree, fully downgrades ranged units are bad and deserve to be.

Quote from: Doomsmile on February 05, 2025, 12:56:13 AM

Quote from: badhabum on February 04, 2025, 03:18:22 PM
Yes but my point is WHAT is the problem ? what is the essence of the problem ?

Huh. Thank you for reiterating that question. It legitimately got me reevaluating my assumptions here.


If I could back up and ask a direct question to Richard and the dev team:
If we were to take the single most common classification of dedicated shooter in MeG-- Loose, Average/Unprotected, Experienced Bow -- what is the developer intention for the general role, use case, and effect of these guys?

(And if I could ask a follow-up question: do any of those answers change if they're protected and/or crossbow-armed?)

Check back on my earlier post.

To me, the essence of the problem is:

1.  The un-historic tactic of falling back while shooting.
2.  Average, unprotected, experienced bow/crossbow is not quite effective enough in points terms so is often downgraded to poor/unskilled and then treated as levy to be held in the rear to increase the army break point.
3.  The crossbow being more effective when charged has no historic basis (as far as I can see) and if anything it is the bow that is more useful when charged as it has a higher rate of fire - although this may have been countered by crossbows using volley fire.  At longer ranges, the lower rate of fire of the crossbow doesn't matter.  This is more a game mechanic to distinguish bow from crossbow.

Bow armed troops shouldn't be so bad that they aren't placed in the line. Against unprotected troops they should be more capable. They appear throughout history.  But they shouldn't be too effective either. 

Richard

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 05, 2025, 08:51:19 AM
2.  Average, unprotected, experienced bow/crossbow is not quite effective enough in points terms so is often downgraded to poor/unskilled and then treated as levy to be held in the rear to increase the army break point.

Suggest it is just not the points cost vs value that is the issue otherwise the solution would just be to drop the cost, but the actual in game effectiveness (which I think is what you are getting at).

Any "good enough" archers as opposed to "levy dross" in terms of numbers is more likely an army list issue.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 05, 2025, 08:51:19 AM

Bow armed troops shouldn't be so bad that they aren't placed in the line. Against unprotected troops they should be more capable. They appear throughout history.  But they shouldn't be too effective either. 

Richard

Now that is a reasonable goal.

How about slows count as general claims in combat for any opponents - representing some level of disorder.

So if UG slowed by one, then +1 for any opponents in charge and melee combat.

Or would that be too powerful?

Quote from: badhabum on February 04, 2025, 03:18:22 PM


Yes but my point is WHAT is the problem ? what is the essence of the problem ?

I think possibly the problem is Unprotected Experienced shooters don't have a role. They don't have the survivability of Protected (not combat shy) to make a useful contribution to the battle without costing you a TUG loss, and they don't have the "filler" value of Unprotected Unskilled Combat shy. So you don't buy them, and if they are compulsory, you downgrade them.

Quote from: accard on February 06, 2025, 02:00:49 AM
How about slows count as general claims in combat for any opponents - representing some level of disorder.

So if UG slowed by one, then +1 for any opponents in charge and melee combat.

Or would that be too powerful?

It has been looked at as an idea.  It would be incredibly powerful.  Consider impact weapon only gets a +2 claim.  So if you got one slow and had short spear, this would be as effective...

Richard

Have  bows in close order?
Have bows cost 1  point instead of 2 points for army demoralisation?
increase stopping power?
S = slow and wound?

Are we trying to create a great game or create a great reenactment rule set. I don't think you can fully serve both masters.

You could say that they have integral shooters for impact

Quote from: rayfredjohn on February 07, 2025, 08:03:24 AM
Are we trying to create a great game or create a great reenactment rule set. I don't think you can fully serve both masters.

We are not creating a simulation, we want a great game - but the game is based upon history.  If you don't care about the history you can play fantasy games (and nothing wrong with that I stress - more players play fantasy games than historical games!).

Richard

All historical Wargames have an element of fantasy in them.

I was just reading about the Las Vegas Open, 1,100 40K players. Mind boggling.

That was only 1 of the systems being played. The biggest one.

Quote from: rayfredjohn on February 07, 2025, 11:44:06 AM
All historical Wargames have an element of fantasy in them.

Usually the players recounting of their dice  ;)  :P

Quote
I was just reading about the Las Vegas Open, 1,100 40K players. Mind boggling.

That was only 1 of the systems being played. The biggest one.

Read about those numbers recently; definitely mind boggling - historicals is a very small part of wargaming as a whole.

I resemble that remark

It is actually the perfect situation - a compromise of historical simulation and game.

So historically minded wargamers can complain it is too "gamey" and game players that the game is hindered by attempts to be historical.

Since all wargamers like a good whinge everyone is happy !!    :) :)

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 05, 2025, 08:51:19 AM
2.  Average, unprotected, experienced bow/crossbow is not quite effective enough in points terms so is often downgraded to poor/unskilled and then treated as levy to be held in the rear to increase the army break point.

I'm so sorry to be a pest, but may I ask a clarifying question?
I know these basic archers aren't effective enough... but not effective enough at what exactly?

If the intended purpose of basic archers is to be primarily/solely a tool for slowing or disruption-- for example--, I'm likely to suggest different possible solutions than if the default purpose of basic archers is to inflict attrition or some other task.

I guess in other words: what I think I lack here is an adequate understanding of what the developer vision is for these basic archers' default job.

I hope I'm making sense and not being too annoying here!!!

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 30, 2025, 10:06:19 AM
Historical tactics:

You shot where you stood.
No troops could fall back when close to the enemy.  Once you fall back you start to run away....

Bow were widely used in Asia.  In China, bow and crossbow are used against mounted troops. They seem to prefer one or the other at various times. This may be due to a range of factors:
1. Logistics, ability to produce and distribute crossbow mechanisms in bulk.
2. Social, ability to train/obtain large numbers of archers (crossbows are easier to use).
3. Technical developments, both bows and crossbows evolve over time.

In western Europe, archers are less common.  This may be due to more widespread use of infantry with larger shields (mobility being more important in large parts of Asia).

The longbow becomes a dominant weapon, first against the relatively unprotected Scots and then against the armoured knight.  The advantage over the crossbow is rate of fire.  Later crossbows are capable of penetrating armour as effectively or more effectively than the longbow but cannot match the rate of fire of the longbow.  Longbowmen in the open were often ridden down by mounted troops and needed suitable terrain or stakes to prevent this.

In terms of wargaming effect: 
1. Infantry with shield cover probably should have an advantage over missile troops.
2. Infantry without shield cover should probably have a slight advantage over missile troops if led properly (i.e. generals to push through) and minimising how many shots they take.
3. Unprotected infantry should probably be at a disadvantage to missile troops.
4. Cavalry facing bows should be risky for both parties.  If cavalry can get in relatively unscathed then they should have the advantage. If not, then they should be bullied by the bows. Later knights should have an advantage except against the powerbow.

Should say that other related changes I would make (mostly to make the rules simpler to learn for new players) are:
1.  Recover wounds range for generals should be reduced from 4BW not 3BW.
2.  Press through fire range for generals should be increased from 2BW to 3BW.

In terms of effect on shooting, these two changes would sort of cancel out. 

I will still argue that Protected, Experienced Bow or Crossbow who are not combat shy or downgraded are more effective than most players seem to realise.
The other thing I might mention is that falling back tends to prolong the game.  Not being able to shoot back but increasing the effectiveness of shooting would have that benefit.

Hope that helps.  I stress again, this would need more testing and possible changes to points (and a definite change for Xbw).

Richard

it is this that you wish to know ?

The reason I was doubting myself over that post was that I don't know if RJC et al want basic archers to be able to cause real damage in their own right, or if they're meant mostly to stall via slowing (or something else I haven't considered).


If archery is supposed to cause enough harm to later contest a fight against melee  infantry -- without the archers backing up-- then foot archers simply need to deal more damage in the 2 volleys they'll be permitted.
I have suggested that infantry shooting should always wound on S's if this is the intention. (And that skilled foot shooters vs Superior just get their full color upgrade.)

This would accomplish something similar to RJC's original 8-step plan, but in a simpler manner.
(Math Warning: an 8-base TUG of basic unprotected archers would likely cause 4 wounds to an infantry target on approach, but then be down claims for the duration of the combat, probably losing by a whisker. Medium cavalry might be really desirable for rushing down archers, since you'd only have to eat the shooting once, and the base you'll likely lose to shooting won't be a 200-point knight.)



If basic archers are meant primarily to be a speed bump via slowing, and Push through Fire is not revised, then I'd probably second Manzikert's suggestion that being shot at by infantry TUGs causes an automatic 1BW slowing in addition to whatever shooting results occur.
(That would make it so that an 8-base unit of archers shooting at a 3-wide target would slow them by 2BW on average, barring pushing through fire. The archers will get their faces stomped eventually, but could buy two turns or so. Cv/cm/ch will likely laugh this off. Also sounds annoying as sin when it works, TBH.)

Quote from: rayfredjohn on February 07, 2025, 08:03:24 AM
Are we trying to create a great game or create a great reenactment rule set. I don't think you can fully serve both masters.

You are spot on but I would hope we are going for the best possible balance between the two. Unfortunately, gamers are likely to have different views on where that balance should lie.

I would prefer to shift the balance towards the 'game' for playability reasons rather than simply to make an army or troop type unjustifiably effective. As mentioned elsewhere, we are already spoilt for choice if we want a miniatures game based on imagination.

Consequently, I think Richard's general approach of trying to improve the historical feel of the game while not adding complexity is good. In this particular case, that would mean making only a small improvement to bow armed troops IMO.

Steve

Quote from: SteveO on February 07, 2025, 11:38:36 PM

Quote from: rayfredjohn on February 07, 2025, 08:03:24 AM
Are we trying to create a great game or create a great reenactment rule set. I don't think you can fully serve both masters.

You are spot on but I would hope we are going for the best possible balance between the two. Unfortunately, gamers are likely to have different views on where that balance should lie.

I would prefer to shift the balance towards the 'game' for playability reasons rather than simply to make an army or troop type unjustifiably effective. As mentioned elsewhere, we are already spoilt for choice if we want a miniatures game based on imagination.

Consequently, I think Richard's general approach of trying to improve the historical feel of the game while not adding complexity is good. In this particular case, that would mean making only a small improvement to bow armed troops IMO.

Steve

i agree, but keeping it simple is important

Bit late to the party but definitely want to echo that ranged TuGs in MeG feel like a weird space.

There a few things I think don't quite 'fit' with my understanding of historical use of archers;

1. Range and slowing effect: in MeG ranges of foot archers especially versus normal movement speeds means slowing can have a negligible affect on a TuG (especially a mounted one) in the grand scheme of a battle.

2. damage/disorder (particularly against cavalry) - archers were a common tool to even the playing field between heavily mounted forces and foot armies. But caught unsupported by heavy cavalry they were in a bad spot.

As mentioned above, possible tweaks could be to increase range but reduce damage output at longer ranges to allow disruption of enemy forces. At closer ranges, the damage could be as normal (taking more shots will have a net increase on damage output).
But I think against mounted, ranged TuGs should get bonus damage. Crossbows and powerbows could negate armour for mounted at close range in addition.

Overall I think archers should be a force multiplier. On their own they won't win a contest, but bringing archers should allow you to influence your opponents movement more - either by forcing them to close the distance faster, or disrupting their battle line by slowing some TuGs significantly if allowed to be shot with impunity. They should also have a reigning affect on mounted troops - who would take care to enter range without committing to a charge and this would allow support troops to better set up a trap.

Allowing the player more time to influence the opponent (by increasing range but decreasing damage) also encourages movement of supporting units - this could be paired with reducing the ability to move backwards - something I think should actually be made harder for all troop types TBH.

QuoteBut I think against mounted, ranged TuGs should get bonus damage. Crossbows and powerbows could negate armour for mounted at close range in addition.

The mongols did not badly when invading Austria, the Balkans, Italy ..

Aldo thr ARMHRS is a protection vs PB and Xbow . It's partly for gaming reasons so as to keep a potential serious opponent tp those pesky shooters and also because historicaly it was a protection . Please remember that PB already do have a colour upgrade vs mounted .  In my opinion it's mostly myth but I accept it . Now if ARMHRS is not to be a protection vs short range PB and XBOW then you will unbalance the game in favour of the many mixed crossbowmen armies in the game and the english PB armies

Quote from: Hayung_is on February 10, 2025, 02:24:21 AM

Overall I think archers should be a force multiplier. On their own they won't win a contest, but bringing archers should allow you to influence your opponents movement more - either by forcing them to close the distance faster, or disrupting their battle line by slowing some TuGs significantly if allowed to be shot with impunity. They should also have a reigning affect on mounted troops - who would take care to enter range without committing to a charge and this would allow support troops to better set up a trap.

Sorry, but if we set aside the poor, unprotected archers, I believe average ranged troops are already a force multiplier. You should play my friend Robert with his 100 Years War French. If you hang back you get shot to death and if you try to get to the crossbowmen you get ridden down by the knights!

As for the separate issue of stepping back, I would agree that we probably use it far more often than it was used historically. However, making it harder will have a significant effect on game balance because some armies will quickly be bowled over by non-historical opponents if they are forced to stand and fight. I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider it; only that we are back to choosing the balance between game and simulation. After all, we already have the possibility of Italian Wars Gendarmes facing off against Hittite javelinmen.😊

Quote from: SteveO on February 14, 2025, 11:37:11 PM

Quote from: Hayung_is on February 10, 2025, 02:24:21 AM

Overall I think archers should be a force multiplier. On their own they won't win a contest, but bringing archers should allow you to influence your opponents movement more - either by forcing them to close the distance faster, or disrupting their battle line by slowing some TuGs significantly if allowed to be shot with impunity. They should also have a reigning affect on mounted troops - who would take care to enter range without committing to a charge and this would allow support troops to better set up a trap.

Sorry, but if we set aside the poor, unprotected archers, I believe average ranged troops are already a force multiplier. You should play my friend Robert with his 100 Years War French. If you hang back you get shot to death and if you try to get to the crossbowmen you get ridden down by the knights!

As for the separate issue of stepping back, I would agree that we probably use it far more often than it was used historically. However, making it harder will have a significant effect on game balance because some armies will quickly be bowled over by non-historical opponents if they are forced to stand and fight. I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider it; only that we are back to choosing the balance between game and simulation. After all, we already have the possibility of Italian Wars Gendarmes facing off against Hittite javelinmen.😊

I don't think bringing up an example of some of the best shooting TuGs in MeG, combined with fast powerful cavalry in the form of knights is a compelling argument that ranged TuGs function very well. Noting that longbow already benefit from the 5BW range, combined with backstepping changes the dynamic of engagement with infantry versus bow and crossbow.

I don't think you can just delete stepping back with how bow is right now. Combined with longer range and more potential for slows though makes it less necessary and you might miss it less - right now its downright essential for ranged TuGs to get their value.

Quote from: badhabum on February 14, 2025, 03:17:32 PM

QuoteBut I think against mounted, ranged TuGs should get bonus damage. Crossbows and powerbows could negate armour for mounted at close range in addition.

The mongols did not badly when invading Austria, the Balkans, Italy ..

Aldo thr ARMHRS is a protection vs PB and Xbow . It's partly for gaming reasons so as to keep a potential serious opponent tp those pesky shooters and also because historicaly it was a protection . Please remember that PB already do have a colour upgrade vs mounted .  In my opinion it's mostly myth but I accept it . Now if ARMHRS is not to be a protection vs short range PB and XBOW then you will unbalance the game in favour of the many mixed crossbowmen armies in the game and the english PB armies

It does change the balance and points could reconsidered for either side of the coin. ARMHRS is quite expensive right now in my opinion.

QuoteIt does change the balance and points could reconsidered for either side of the coin. ARMHRS is quite expensive right now in my opinion.

I have absolutely no problems with that

It's not broken so do not fix it  ;D

One could have bows shoot from the second rank while in combat. it would give them more dice to resist.

One thing that might help would be for y'all in the dev team to play for a while using armies where infantry shooters historically formed the force's backbone.
Maybe some current first-hand experience of what these guys can and can't accomplish might help identify what would need to change for this kind of army to win games occasionally.
(And if an army based around infantry shooters can succeed, then those kinds of troops will probably be useful enough for players to not automatically trash and hide their own archers.)


I might selfishly suggest Elamites, Pueblo Culture, Venetian Greece or Kongo-- all of these armies rely heavily on experienced bow as a primary weapon-- but those are just suggestions based on what I find cool. XP

Edit: got two armies confused; corrected.

Quote from: Doomsmile on February 25, 2025, 06:09:11 PM

I might selfishly suggest Elamites, Pueblo Culture, Venetian Greece or Kongo-- all of these armies rely heavily on experienced bow as a primary weapon-- but those are just suggestions based on what I find cool. XP

That is a fairly obscure set of armies! The only one I've seen on the table is the Venetians in Greece which I played against at a comp. It seemed pretty tough to me. By the way the player using it (Lance) is a club mate of one of the dev team so I'm pretty sure they will have played against that one. More generally, considering the number of comps RJC and Nik go to, I wouldn't assume any ignorance on their part    ;) ;)

I think I can say that both Richard and I have some experience of using and facing armies which rely on a significant number of Experienced shooter infantry. Richards post way back on page 1 of ideas certainly draws on that and the stated experiences of others.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 25, 2025, 07:27:33 PM
I think I can say that both Richard and I have some experience of using and facing armies which rely on a significant number of Experienced shooter infantry. Richards post way back on page 1 of ideas certainly draws on that and the stated experiences of others.

Wow, that is what I wrote, isn't it. That sucks. My sincerest apologies for my thoughtlessness, and for whatever insult I caused with my previous post. It was a crummy and presumptuous thing to write.

Quote from: daveparish on February 25, 2025, 06:57:45 PM
That is a fairly obscure set of armies! The only one I've seen on the table is the Venetians in Greece which I played against at a comp. It seemed pretty tough to me.

Well, at least there's a silver lining to my boorishness.
When I said "selfishly suggest", I meant that those are armies I'd love to get away with bringing to a table myself.
So it's super exciting to hear that Venice in Greece has been hitting the table and seeing success!!! I'll need to arrange some stand-ins to give those massed combat-shy crossbowmen a shot try! =D

No offence taken  8)

We're 6 pages deep into this thread so maybe I'll start a new one, but I wanted to re-float the idea I shared earlier. Remove the ability of all foot tugs to back-up and let foot ranged units shoot twice, once before charges are declared (after moving generals) and again if a path of charge passes within one base width of their arc of fire (as per current rules). To keep the rules clean we would also move cavalry shooting before charges are declared but only allow them to shoot once (either before charges OR at a charger).

This change would put foot shooters into three distinct levels of usefulness. Crap shooters (unprotected and/or combat shy) could be integrated into the line of battle to fire off a volley just before your other troops charge to deal some damage before the main clash. They'd need to be held back or covered by counter-charging/intercepting your opponent since they're vulnerable; but the potential to put a wound or two on an enemy before melee combat would give them a purpose.

Better shooters (the various flavors of protected NOT combat shy) would also be able to deal some damage to support a charge but also have the potential to do enough shooting damage when receiving a charge that they stand a chance of winning the ensuing melee against a cost appropriate opponent.

Skilled shooters would do quite significant damage to a charger and used well could punch a bit above their weight against other foot. Your opponent would need to use the right tools against them (covering their troops with skirmishers, using cavalry to charge from outside shooting range to mitigate damage, etc).

From a historical perspective I think this all sounds pretty good. It makes sense that archers would shoot into an enemy formation to disrupt it and cause some casualties as the lines were coming together. And it stands to reason that they would start shooting as soon as an enemy came in range, and would continue to shoot until they were engaged (represented by the multiple shots). Better equipped archers could stand up to melee but would be expecting to do enough harm with shooting to make the difference. And from a gamest perspective implementing this rule would also have some interesting fringe benefits beyond making shooters more useful.

It makes shooters in general a bit less finicky which streamlines the game a bit; since it's no longer necessary to fish for every chance to shoot hoping to roll 2 wounds so they stick. It gives skirmishers some new utility; they can cover your line from the pre-charge shooting to mitigate the effect and do their own pre-charge shooting before falling back through the line to let your real troops charge in. It makes darts meaningfully distinct from javelins since they can be sure to get their black dice of shooting against infantry before the charge.

I ran some 'back of the napkin' math on different flavors of archer to see how this would impact the balance against various points comparable match-ups. This post is already more than long enough so I won't post the details but the vast majority of match-ups were very points appropriate. For example with the change an experienced bow, unprotected OR combat shy archer (54 OR 53 pts) just barely loses to a base infantry (60 pts). An experienced bow archer (75 pts) just barely loses to a melee expert infantry (76 pts). The math does break down a little with skilled bows who tend to punch significantly above their weight. But skilled foot shooters are relatively rare. And they wouldn't be invulnerable, the opponent would just need to be a little clever about dealing with them.

Overall it seems like a fix that's easy to implement, is no more complicated than the current system, removes the a-historical back-up move, and gives ranged units in general, but cheap shooters and skirmishers especially, some more utility. There are a few kinks to work out (how would slows work since there are multiple shots, how exactly would shield cover function for example, etc) but overall it seems like it does the job.

Quote from: Manzikert on March 03, 2025, 06:08:39 AM
I ran some 'back of the napkin' math on different flavors of archer to see how this would impact the balance against various points comparable match-ups. This post is already more than long enough so I won't post the details but the vast majority of match-ups were very points appropriate. For example with the change an experienced bow, unprotected OR combat shy archer (54 OR 53 pts) just barely loses to a base infantry (60 pts). An experienced bow archer (75 pts) just barely loses to a melee expert infantry (76 pts). The math does break down a little with skilled bows who tend to punch significantly above their weight. But skilled foot shooters are relatively rare. And they wouldn't be invulnerable, the opponent would just need to be a little clever about dealing with them.

How would you beat late medieval skilled powerbow front rank melee expert?

QuoteHow would you beat late medieval skilled powerbow front rank melee expert?

That would obviously depend on what tools my army had, but there are a couple of general options available. A 6 pack of the skilled powerbow front rank melee expert costs 798 points. For 748 points you can afford an 8 pack of short spear melee expert infantry and a 6 pack of fully downgraded javelin skirmishers. The skirmishers absorb the first round of shooting at 5 base widths and then the second round just before the charge (which should statistically break the skirmisher unit). The infantry charges, take 2 wounds from shooting, and then (back of the napkin math) they should beat the archer unit in a close fight.

There is an extra wrinkle to consider. If the archer has the command advantage they might be able to press forward before the charge turn to force the skirmisher back. That would give them 2 shots on the infantry in the charge turn. But even then my math shows the infantry just barely eeking out a victory if I assume they're able to expand out to get supporting files.

Another alternative, a 6 pack of lancer melee expert and a 6 pack of fully downgraded javelin skirmishers is 852 points. Using the same basic tactic the cavalry would take 2.5 wounds from shooting on the charge and then hit the archer for reds with shatter which does 3.5 wounds even if you don't count the shatter. The archer should do 1 wound back (again assuming no shatters). So by the first round of melee the wounds are tied and the archer has lost a base or 2 of their melee expert which should give the lancers the edge.

In both cases we have a fairly close match-up against points comparable units that are fairly broadly available. Obviously I'm not taking into account every possible maneuver either side might try to gain an advantage, but since the points are so close whoever out maneuvers their opponent deserves the win.

Sorry, I am not convinced that such significant changes are warranted either historically or for game play.

+1 no such changes please

FWIW I think RJC's original suggestion on page 1 of this topic would be worth testing.

On the face of it, javelins look a bit hard-done-by, missing out on the upgrade, but most javelin-armed foot TUGs have short spear and protection so aren't at such a disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat (and I'm not aware of any complaint about them being too weak).

QuoteFWIW I think RJC's original suggestion on page 1 of this topic would be worth testing.

Reading back through RJC's suggestion, I also think it sounds good; definitely worth a test. I would suggest that instead of 'color upgrade but skulls wound' the shooter just get's to roll an extra black die. That keeps things simpler by avoiding exceptions to the usual roll results. I haven't run the math in detail, but overall that should give about the same level of effect without the added complexity. It does increase the maximum number of possible wounds, but with more dice it should tend toward the average. I'd also suggest giving the bonus to javelins as well, again just to keep things simpler.

That said I'm worried this doesn't quite do enough to keep players from fully downgrading unprotected/combat shy shooters.

Has there been a MEG podcast on unprotected bowmen? OR missile troops in general?

One advantage of the no-skulls upgrade (over an extra black die) is it does not help you much if you are shooting on green or yellow already, so it only helps the weak units that really need the help.

Quote from: Manzikert on March 07, 2025, 06:11:34 PM

That said I'm worried this doesn't quite do enough to keep players from fully downgrading unprotected/combat shy shooters.

The thing that has puzzled me about this whole thread has been why you shouldn't downgrade them? There has been all sorts of abstract talk about them acting as force multipliers and an assumption that if a troop type is in an army list then it must be made effective (please don't think I'm getting at anyone - the whole thread has these assumptions).

But where is the history in this? I haven't seen a single battle named in this thread as one where troops like these had a big effect and where that effect can't be replicated on the tabletop. Seems to me that they are exactly the sort of troops a general would put at the back to guard the camp and dig some more latrines. The historically effective archers for example Longbowmen or Cretans are already effective on the table (as Powerbow, Skilled skirmishers etc).

Quote from: daveparish on March 07, 2025, 07:55:27 PM

The thing that has puzzled me about this whole thread has been why you shouldn't downgrade them? There has been all sorts of abstract talk about them acting as force multipliers and an assumption that if a troop type is in an army list then it must be made effective (please don't think I'm getting at anyone - the whole thread has these assumptions).

But where is the history in this? I haven't seen a single battle named in this thread as one where troops like these had a big effect and where that effect can't be replicated on the tabletop. Seems to me that they are exactly the sort of troops a general would put at the back to guard the camp and dig some more latrines. The historically effective archers for example Longbowmen or Cretans are already effective on the table (as Powerbow, Skilled skirmishers etc).

I agree. I think we should be using the points system to bring 'balance' to the game rather than creating ahistorical effects.

Quote from: daveparish on March 07, 2025, 07:55:27 PM

Quote from: Manzikert on March 07, 2025, 06:11:34 PM

That said I'm worried this doesn't quite do enough to keep players from fully downgrading unprotected/combat shy shooters.

But where is the history in this? I haven't seen a single battle named in this thread as one where troops like these had a big effect and where that effect can't be replicated on the tabletop. Seems to me that they are exactly the sort of troops a general would put at the back to guard the camp and dig some more latrines. The historically effective archers for example Longbowmen or Cretans are already effective on the table (as Powerbow, Skilled skirmishers etc).

But is that not why we have Average or superior camps to represent the camp guards?

Bowmen, using normal bows were used on battlefields, some armies had full of those.
In Meg, one unit can be useful against skirmishing cav, but is otherwise only good in support.

Armies where the bowmen have a first rank of shortspears are pretty much better, i used the indians quie effectively.

overall, bowmen, have the problem of being weak at impact and melee.

giving them a little + somewhere, somehow, might make them more attractive.

I advocate, an extra dice from the second rank during combat representing the rearranks bases still shooting. As long as there are rear ranks.

Quote from: Jilu on March 08, 2025, 06:47:02 AM

Armies where the bowmen have a first rank of shortspears are pretty much better, i used the indians quite effectively

Exactly- where bowmen were effective historically then they get extra characteristics (like short spear for the Indian bow TUGs) that make them work on the table.

I repeat can anyone cite a historical battle where they think the game doesn't reflect a historical account and that is because of how unprotected combat shy type bow are represented in the game?   

Or unprotected, not combat shy archers.

I'm really surprised at the general anti-archer stance in the community. Are people really convinced that the bow wasn't a very effective battlefield weapon? It was used on 5 continents over thousands of years. Multiple successful militaries relied on them as a mainstay of their armies, there are plenty of examples of profession state sponsored archer forces, and even armies that didn't have that often included significant numbers of them.

For a weapon to have that kind of pedigree it must have had some sort of meaningful effect on the battlefield. I don't understand why people feel it wasn't of any use, or why representing 'good' archers should be done by making them better melee combatants rather than making the bow a worthwhile weapon in it's own right.

Quote from: Manzikert on March 09, 2025, 08:12:07 PM
Are people really convinced that the bow wasn't a very effective battlefield weapon? It was used on 5 continents over thousands of years. Multiple successful militaries relied on them as a mainstay of their armies, there are plenty of examples of profession state sponsored archer forces,

I'm agreeing with you  - and saying that they are already effective on the tabletop ( Longbowmen, Cretans, Indians have all been mentioned and there are plenty more eg Achmaenid, Japanese, Ottoman etc)

Quote from: Manzikert on March 09, 2025, 08:12:07 PM
why representing 'good' archers should be done by making them better melee combatants rather than making the bow a worthwhile weapon

Sorry I may have been misleading there (someone else mentioned the Indians). The short spear isn't carried by the bow - it is carried by the associated troops who are guarding the bow (have a look at the Classical Indian list). This is a big part of the issue. All those good bow we talked about had some sort of protection for melee - stakes or barricades or associated protecting troops. The balance between melee and firepower in our period meant bow couldn't just stand out in the field on their own. I think this is the misunderstanding underlying this thread. That is why I suggested talking about a specific battle account so we could look at evidence. Saying that obviously archers did this or that, doesn't really get anywhere because we won't reach agreement (which is why this thread is so long   :) :)  )

QuoteI'm agreeing with you  - and saying that they are already effective on the tabletop ( Longbowmen, Cretans, Indians have all been mentioned and there are plenty more eg Achmaenid, Japanese, Ottoman etc)

Skilled shooting is certainly effective, but it's pretty rare for foot. The fact that there are a few good archers out there doesn't resolve the issue of shooting being ineffective in general. Unless we wanted skilled shooting be more widely available, but even as a proponent of shooting I think that would be too good.

QuoteThe short spear isn't carried by the bow - it is carried by the associated troops who are guarding the bow (have a look at the Classical Indian list).

Sure, assuming you're talking about the mixed tugs with front rank short spears. But I'd still call that a case of making an archer work by making it a better melee combatant rather than making shooting effective in it's own right. Even if we made every archer in the game melee expert that wouldn't make shooting any better.

QuoteSaying that obviously archers did this or that, doesn't really get anywhere because we won't reach agreement (which is why this thread is so long   :) :)  )

That's reasonable. But to be fair I and others have asked a couple of times what the design decision behind archers should be; AKA what archery did in practice that we can try to replicate on the table. We didn't get much of a response. So in ignorance of what other people think we should try to reflect I've been making my own proposals.

OK l'll try it another way. Think about troops with spear. You could have Spartan Hippeis (very good troops), Citizen Hoplites (ok troops) or Peasant levy (not so good). But no one says "Oh these levy must be made good in melee because spear is a good weapon, just look at those Spartans!" That is effectively what you are trying to do with bow.

Maybe I'm wrong - but if you are going to convince anyone I think you are going to have to be specific. Not with generalities about bow must be this or that and then applying it to the unprotected combat shy type - but with specific examples, which means historical accounts of specific battles. Otherwise there is no case for any changes.

The message seems to be:

Protected crossbow: useful

Protected bow: marginally useful, could do with a boost to make them as useful as crossbows

(interpolating: Either of the above with combat shy: straying into filler territory, could do with a boost to make them marginally useful)

Unprotected crossbow or bow not combat shy: Filler but expensive so always downgrade to unskilled combat shy if you can, but historically these were bog-standard line troops, so shouldn't they be as useful as, say, protected unskilled javelin short spear?

Unprotected combat shy: Filler and they are supposed to be, but you still might as well downgrade to unskilled to save points (so shouldn't they be cheaper?).


FWIW I think calibrating bow/crossbow is difficult because it is a fine line between obliterating the opponent with shooting before contact, or getting contacted by an almost unscathed opponent and obliterated in close combat.

Quote from: LawrenceG on March 10, 2025, 09:54:30 AM

Unprotected crossbow or bow not combat shy...historically these were bog-standard line troops,

Maybe this is the source of our disagreement. Who says they were line troops? Can you give an example? I can't think of one of the top of my head.

Quote from: daveparish on March 10, 2025, 11:18:34 AM

Quote from: LawrenceG on March 10, 2025, 09:54:30 AM

Unprotected crossbow or bow not combat shy...historically these were bog-standard line troops,

Maybe this is the source of our disagreement. Who says they were line troops? Can you give an example? I can't think of one of the top of my head.

Chinese warring states (early and middle) crossbowmen immediately spring to mind, and archers were important in the Arab Conquests (and the Integral Shooters may not really represent them properly). Suspect there may be some medieval eastern European types as well, but that isn't an area I'm confident in.

Were they unprotected? Did they have supporting troops - a previous post suggested that if they have front rank short spear or melee expert to represent supporting troops then that was not what is being talked about here.

Also to note that Chinese armies with crossbow are already very successful in competition (Pete Entwhistle's Qin spring to mind) - but they are protected and get short spear support.

Basically I'm arguing that the troops with bow/crossbow that were successful are already catered for and do work on the tabletop and the idea of making every bowman so capable is unhistoric

Well, list 5918 Songhai gets 16-64 unprotected experienced bow.

IF 64 bases of bowmen are not the main line, what are they?

Funnily enough I was looking at the Songhai as a possible fun army (can't resist a gimmick like stampeding cattle!). But read the Troop Notes. The troops that get all the emphasis are the cavalry and heavier infantry - that's what I would understand as the line of battle. The Note says "Most infantry were of poor quality" which I take to include the archers.

Let's just say if I do this army I won't be taking more than the minimum unprotected archers and I will feel happy that as far as possible I am taking a "historic" army. If I dropped a load of other stuff to take 64 unprotected archers I would feel much more queasy about whether I was being "historic"

Quote from: daveparish on March 10, 2025, 11:51:00 AM
Were they unprotected? Did they have supporting troops - a previous post suggested that if they have front rank short spear or melee expert to represent supporting troops then that was not what is being talked about here.

Unprotected. Other troops were in separate bodies, but the crossbowmen were (as far as I can see) line of battle troops* - a front rank with other capabilities would not be a proper representation IMO.


* you may recall how protective the Chinese were about their crossbow technology and preventing it falling into other hands at this time.

Ok - well that's one to the unprotected side! Do you think MeG represents them OK as it is, or are any of the suggested modifications needed (for these troops at least)

Quote from: daveparish on March 10, 2025, 01:15:41 PM
Ok - well that's one to the unprotected side! Do you think MeG represents them OK as it is, or are any of the suggested modifications needed (for these troops at least)

I think Richard's suggestions at the start of this were broadly sensible, many of those since then less so IMO. I also liked a suggestion he made in a different context that if downgrading troops you could do one of quality and shooting skill, but not both. Suspect the classification of some missile troops may be worth looking into as part of any change - work out which were properly "junk" and so on.

 I definitely like the "you can downgrade one but not both" idea. Nice and simple as well.
Had another look at Richard's ideas and they do seem reasonable. I wonder if the "Colour but no Skull" upgrade is another complexity that might be a barrier for new players ... but if you are removing the S to Wound idea completely then there is no nett increase in complexity. I also like the "you can't shoot and fall back in the same turn" idea. Again nice and simple

I think you are right - it would be good to look at the lists and see if some bowmen min's and max's are misleading (in the sense that they allow a proportion of crap bow that was never seen actively on the field in that army). Perhaps more of them should be skirmishers (more useful on the table and potentially more historically accurate for their role in some cases).


PS This will probably be very rare but what happens if you get a "Colour but no Skull" upgrade on a Yellow dice? Do you lose one of the two Skulls on the Red - and how do you tell which one?

Quote from: daveparish on March 10, 2025, 02:19:29 PM
PS This will probably be very rare but what happens if you get a "Colour but no Skull" upgrade on a Yellow dice? Do you lose one of the two Skulls on the Red - and how do you tell which one?

The 2nd Skull on a Red die replaces the blank on a Yellow die so no need for any concern  8)

Like I say would be rare. But do you mean both Skulls become wounds? Or both Skulls stay Skulls?

Both Skulls would be wounds if I understand Richard's idea. So the shooting effect of a Yellow die would be 4 chances of a wound, 1 chance of an S and 1 chance of a blank; and for a Red die 5 chances of a wound and 1 chance of an S.

Quote from: daveparish on March 10, 2025, 01:15:41 PM
Ok - well that's one to the unprotected side! Do you think MeG represents them OK as it is, or are any of the suggested modifications needed (for these troops at least)

Or to put it another way - are the historically successful 'bow-heavy' armies ineffective in MeG, against historical opponents at least? If the much vaunted English longbowmen could be ridden down in the open, what are we expecting of unprotected/poor bowmen?

QuoteThe message seems to be:...

Thank you. This is a pretty good summary of where I stand from a general balance perspective.

QuoteOK l'll try it another way. Think about troops with spear. You could have Spartan Hippeis (very good troops), Citizen Hoplites (ok troops) or Peasant levy (not so good). But no one says "Oh these levy must be made good in melee because spear is a good weapon, just look at those Spartans!" That is effectively what you are trying to do with bow.

Not really, but this is a perfect illustration of what I am trying to do. The role of a spear is not 'good in melee' it's 'anti-cavalry'. A unit with long spears completely negates cavalry charges and has a huge advantage against cavalry in melee. And it does that regardless of the other characteristics of the unit using it. A unit of poor quality longspear beats a units of knights! A unit that's 3.5 times it's cost per base! Having a longspear negates cavalry charges, negates cavalry melee expert, gives the user a +2 bonus in charge and melee (in 2 ranks) against cavalry, and a +1 bonus in charge and melee (in 2 ranks) against infantry. It's gives the wielder those benefits regardless of any other factor about the unit. What makes Citizen Hoplites ok troops is that they get those bonuses on top of being a base infantry. What makes Spartan's very good is that they're superior melee expert. But they all get the 'anti-cavalry' benefit (and moderate general melee benefit) of having a long spear.

So I'm not saying that an experienced bow, combat shy, archer should be as good in a general sense as a superior, experienced bow, melee expert. I'm saying they both have 'experienced bow' that trait should have some appreciable benefit on the table in it's own right. Having a bow (and ranged weapons in general) should give a unit some sort of battlefield utility. I've offered my thoughts on what that utility might be and how it could be reflected. But I'd love to hear other people's thoughts.

QuoteMaybe I'm wrong - but if you are going to convince anyone I think you are going to have to be specific. Not with generalities about bow must be this or that and then applying it to the unprotected combat shy type

But why not? Sticking with the longspear example, the rules currently allow all units with longspear the benefits of a longspear. Why should an unprotected combat shy archer benefit any less from having experienced bow that a superior melee expert? The bow doesn't stack with any of those other characteristics, it operates differently in a completely separate phase. Whatever experienced bow does (and we may not agree on exactly what that is) both of those troops would do that thing equally well.

Quote from: Manzikert on March 11, 2025, 04:46:49 AM

But why not? Sticking with the longspear example, the rules currently allow all units with longspear the benefits of a longspear. Why should an unprotected combat shy archer benefit any less from having experienced bow that a superior melee expert? The bow doesn't stack with any of those other characteristics, it operates differently in a completely separate phase. Whatever experienced bow does (and we may not agree on exactly what that is) both of those troops would do that thing equally well.

OF course, experienced bow does give the same benefits for all loose foot TUGs that have it.

The difference is:

If the TUG is unprotected, it will cost you a lost TUG if you try to use the benefit.

IF it is protected and not combat shy, it probably won't.

Also bear in mind that damage done to an enemy TUG is no benefit at all (well, hardly any) if that TUG doesn't break.


Actually having looked at the points cost, I think unprotected bow might hang on long enough to be OK if you use them 4-deep, though one would be entitled to grumble about having to pay for bows for half the TUG that will never get used.

QuoteOF course, experienced bow does give the same benefits for all loose foot TUGs that have it.

The difference is:

If the TUG is unprotected, it will cost you a lost TUG if you try to use the benefit.

IF it is protected and not combat shy, it probably won't.

Yes, agree. Experienced bow does currently do something, it's just that it's so little it's not worth doing. They do a negligible amount of damage at long range (negligible because it can be picked up with a yellow or in all likelihood a green by the end of the phase) and a minor amount of damage during the charge basically the same as a short spear for 3 times the cost (more if you consider the bow has to be 2 deep). They also have the potential to slow but that rarely has any meaningful effect. If those capabilities are on an otherwise worthwhile unit then they're a nice bonus, but they don't really do anything in their own right.

It did occur to me last night that there's a better example than the longspear for what I'm trying to illustrate. Horse with ranged weapon. All Horse with ranged weapon has the ability to evade a charge, and that ability is completely independent of any other qualities the unit might have. It gives ranged horse a lot of tactical flexibility that allows it to fill many different roles depending on what else that particular unit can do. On one hand you have Cavalry with unskilled javelin. Obviously that's not going to cause any meaningful harm at range, and it's not especially good in melee either. But it can guard your flank or threaten an opponents flank while using the ability to evade to deny any unfavorable engagements and stall. You have Mongols or other good shooters that use their ability to evade to maximize their shooting. And you have competent melee cavalry (Superior, Experienced bow, Melee Expert) which is going to be way more effective in melee than at range but still has the ability to evade to avoid counter units or set up maneuver traps.

What I'd love to see is foot shooters take on some utility of their own.

Quote from: daveparish on March 10, 2025, 11:54:57 AM
Also to note that Chinese armies with crossbow are already very successful in competition (Pete Entwhistle's Qin spring to mind) - but they are protected and get short spear support.

Gunna have to soft disagree with you here-- Qin are one of my main armies and I've always found their unprotected crossbowmen utterly worthless. I'm not sure what Mr. Entwhistle's doing with them to to make them pull their weight, but they've been active liabilities on the table whenever I've attempted to support my actual fighting Infantry with them.

(Not sure where this idea that Warring States crossbowmen are protected short spear comes from; perhaps you're thinking of Song or Ming dynasty troops? Warring States (incl. Qin) missile troops are just dude with bow, usually unprotected.)

Qin are usually fielded with the conscript infantry in mixed formations so the Unprotected crossbowmen get a crust of Protected Polearm in front of them. Field in 9's and they have a stodge factor as well as the shooting.

Quote from: daveparish on March 07, 2025, 07:55:27 PM

Quote from: Manzikert on March 07, 2025, 06:11:34 PM

That said I'm worried this doesn't quite do enough to keep players from fully downgrading unprotected/combat shy shooters.

The thing that has puzzled me about this whole thread has been why you shouldn't downgrade them? There has been all sorts of abstract talk about them acting as force multipliers and an assumption that if a troop type is in an army list then it must be made effective (please don't think I'm getting at anyone - the whole thread has these assumptions).

But where is the history in this? I haven't seen a single battle named in this thread as one where troops like these had a big effect and where that effect can't be replicated on the tabletop. Seems to me that they are exactly the sort of troops a general would put at the back to guard the camp and dig some more latrines. The historically effective archers for example Longbowmen or Cretans are already effective on the table (as Powerbow, Skilled skirmishers etc).

Just to drop in here, more recent sources on Song Dynasty suggests they fielded large groups of Xbow and Bow who were drilled to repel cavalry charges and Song armies had many engagements with mongols where they weren't just steamrolled and may have even won several battles  - chinese history on battles is unfortunately light on the details so you won't get much of a recount of how much effect the bows had. But its not a stretch to imagine a region which had significant amount of conflict would continually field large quantities (and they were large numbers, there is evidence of that) of bowmen/xbows if they weren't at least somewhat instrumental in winning a battle.

I don't have enough experience to say MeG represents this "well" historically, but as an experienced gamer can do the math and an army which comprises of a large enough proportion of ranged TuGs that would be historically reflective of Song armies can tell you're paying more than what you're getting and if you want to be "competitive" (or just have a game that is more likely to be resolved due to player decisions than match ups, which is the key driver here) and the sensible play is to take minimal ranged TuGs for some support and max out foot troops.
A big reason why you probably see almost zero Southern Song played due to the punishing minimums on crossbow (which is historically accurate).

Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 11, 2025, 06:18:01 PM
Qin are usually fielded with the conscript infantry in mixed formations so the Unprotected crossbowmen get a crust of Protected Polearm in front of them. Field in 9's and they have a stodge factor as well as the shooting.

Ah, okay. That would help.

(I personally think the army runs better with the conscript fighters in their DC mob form, but that's just build preference. ... and the fun of referring to them as "enthusiastic conscripts." :P )

Quote from: Hayung_is on March 12, 2025, 01:44:53 AM

Just to drop in here, more recent sources on Song Dynasty suggests they fielded large groups of Xbow and Bow who were drilled to repel cavalry charges and Song armies had many engagements with mongols where they weren't just steamrolled and may have even won several battles  -

As a Mongol player, I can reassure you that masses of crossbowmen/bowmen are tough opponents as the rules stand now.

Quote from: SteveO on March 12, 2025, 10:45:22 PM

Quote from: Hayung_is on March 12, 2025, 01:44:53 AM

Just to drop in here, more recent sources on Song Dynasty suggests they fielded large groups of Xbow and Bow who were drilled to repel cavalry charges and Song armies had many engagements with mongols where they weren't just steamrolled and may have even won several battles  -

As a Mongol player, I can reassure you that masses of crossbowmen/bowmen are tough opponents as the rules stand now.

Yes, being large numbers of unprotected loose foot experienced bow is not so bad when your opponent is  smaller numbers of unprotected loose or skirmish mounted experienced bow.

Quote from: LawrenceG on March 13, 2025, 11:46:01 AM

Yes, being large numbers of unprotected loose foot experienced bow is not so bad when your opponent is  smaller numbers of unprotected loose or skirmish mounted experienced bow.

So maybe those unprotected archers work well enough against historical opponents?

Quote from: SteveO on March 13, 2025, 11:18:03 PM
So maybe those unprotected archers work well enough against historical opponents?

I'm not so sure about that. The main body of Southern Song's other main historical opponent (Jin 4507, post 1180CE) consists of cavalry ranging from protected+bow+spear+melee-expert to elite cataphracts.

I would argue (guess I am arguing :P ) that charges from these sorts of cavalry are unlikely to be repelled by either the unprotected or protected crossbowmen available to contemporary Song armies under the current classifications and rules.

Quote from: Doomsmile on March 14, 2025, 01:37:00 AM

I would argue (guess I am arguing :P ) that charges from these sorts of cavalry are unlikely to be repelled by either the unprotected or protected crossbowmen available to contemporary Song armies under the current classifications and rules.

But should they from the available historical evidence?

Quote from: SteveO on March 14, 2025, 11:33:56 PM

Quote from: Doomsmile on March 14, 2025, 01:37:00 AMI would argue (guess I am arguing :P ) that charges from these sorts of cavalry are unlikely to be repelled by either the unprotected or protected crossbowmen available to contemporary Song armies under the current classifications and rules.

But should they from the available historical evidence?

Basically, yes. https://dragonsarmory.blogspot.com/2024/07/unit-heavy-song-crossbowmen.html

Song frequently fought Jin and Mongol forces which utilised large amounts of cavalry and particularly shock cavalry and cataphracts. The Song solution was massed blocks of crossbowmen using volley fire who were trained to stand and fire against charging cavalry. Yue Fei added to this strategy by having dedicated 'horse choppers' with large swords.

Chinese armies fielded large proportions of ranged units (ie. more than one or two TuGs) and the Song seemed to lean into this even more heavily.
The Song resisted the Jin and later the mongols for several decades of ongoing conflict.

Fielding the kind of proportion of ranged TUGs a historical song army appear to have is a recipe for getting steamrolled by shock cavalry (of any flavour).

QuoteFielding the kind of proportion of ranged TUGs a historical song army appear to have is a recipe for getting steamrolled by shock cavalry (of any flavour).

Not if you use the "spear protection" characteristic and perhaps some FARM first rank options or something like that

I wonder if to help skirmishers to be more efficient ( all shooty guys all shooty weapons ) , enable them and foot well any TUG  shooty to shhot at long range vs charging UGs by activating them would not be a first positive step and second to introduce the flank and rear firing effect or a colour upgrade if the shooting is a flanking fire (ncluding if the path of charge will present the flank during the move ) . That would make bows on the flank much more efficient. Shield cover should also not be all-round but frontal unless in ORB formation . That would perhaps balance things and make skirmishers more useful