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 

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