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?