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)