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.