Cost of shooting

[rayfredjohn]

In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.

[martymagnificent]

Really? Any particular type of shooting? Is this suggested by competition results? Your basic foot archer is a little better than when MeG first came out but is still avoided by most players.

Martin

[SteveO]

+1 Marty

[LawrenceG]

I'm pretty sure that shooting is indeed underpriced  - in other players' troops  - but overpriced in my own troops.


That said, I was pretty impressed by the performance of my experienced javelin chariots at Derventio.

It is true there is a big difference between "get one shot, then die" unprotected loose foot archers and "load on Sunday and fire all week" horse archers, but there is also a big cost difference.

[nikgaukroger]

In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.

Which changes are you referring to?

[badhabum]

In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.

is it my shooting you to near death during our game ?

[rayfredjohn]

In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.

Which changes are you referring to?

Everything, shooting, slowing effects, types of shooting. There has been a raft of add ons and improvements to shooting and its effects. Has the author had the time to consider these changes and their effect on game balance?

[rayfredjohn]

In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.

is it my shooting you to near death during our game ?

Hmmmm the 2 TuGs you destroyed were by elephants and one was a mutual destruction. I do remember you rolling 3 black dice and getting 2 wounds at one point, I can't blame the rules for that 😂

[badhabum]

In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.

is it my shooting you to near death during our game ?

Hmmmm the 2 TuGs you destroyed were by elephants and one was a mutual destruction. I do remember you rolling 3 black dice and getting 2 wounds at one point, I can't blame the rules for that 😂

From memory the 2 TUGS that were destroyed by my Nellies were already seriously damaged by some shooting which helped a lot as did your dice even if you started with a skull you did very bad after that

[rayfredjohn]

I'm sure. Can't blame the rules for my bad dice or your good dice. I think our dice were average where I destroyed TuGs. Looking forward to our next game.

[nikgaukroger]

In light of changes over the last two years I think the rules / list committee should look again at the cost of all shooting. Shooting is now underpriced and balance should be brought back before the 2024 lists go live.

Which changes are you referring to?

Everything, shooting, slowing effects, types of shooting. There has been a raft of add ons and improvements to shooting and its effects. Has the author had the time to consider these changes and their effect on game balance?

I believe the only shooting change in the last 2 years has been the introduction of Shower Shooting.

And as to the last point I believe the authors have.

[AntiokosIII]

I don't agree with Ray's premise. Massed shooters are so ineffective that players have to resort to the ahistorical (and likely impossible in the real world) tactic of having foot archers step back 2 BW in movement to gain space to slow down charges, since they die if the charge gets home. Pure bow units without stakes or obstacles are just dead if lancers are played properly. The same can be said of charges by any reasonably good foot. Has anyone ever found a real use on the table for unprotected tribal archers other than as speed bumps or potato peelers in the rear? And yet, the Ancients fielded them all over the place. I do not think they are overpriced. If anything, there is an argument for making them cheaper.
Shower shooters and the like are another matter entirely.

[badhabum]

I don't agree with Ray's premise. Massed shooters are so ineffective that players have to resort to the ahistorical (and likely impossible in the real world) tactic of having foot archers step back 2 BW in movement to gain space to slow down charges, since they die if the charge gets home. Pure bow units without stakes or obstacles are just dead if lancers are played properly. The same can be said of charges by any reasonably good foot. Has anyone ever found a real use on the table for unprotected tribal archers other than as speed bumps or potato peelers in the rear? And yet, the Ancients fielded them all over the place. I do not think they are overpriced. If anything, there is an argument for making them cheaper.
Shower shooters and the like are another matter entirely.

I do agree that foot archers, unless PB vs mounted or foot skilled,  do seem a bit weak and vulnerable unless they manage a very modern fire and retreat manoeuvre. So they often en as : poor, unskilled TUGs whose destiny is to beef up the army morale but somewhere far far away from the front.

But is there a remedy to it and what does history say about it ? I am not a specialist.

I used an early Achaemenid Persian army and won by retreating as often as possible, having enough skilled shooters and a good cavalry support( exceptional guard cavalry did the job ).

But shooting on white takes a lot of time and it is easy to push trough fire . Upgrading shooting dice on green  would kill the game so there is no easy solution I fear .

Perhaps allowing a colour upgrade if shot in the flank but frontally it would still be the same problem.

What we know is that at Marathon, the greeks did charge quickly as they were afraid of persian shooting so do we underestimate the effects of archery ?

I do not have the answer but retrezting and shoot and shoot do seem to be MEG's answer . Unhistorical but it works

[LawrenceG]

What we know is that at Marathon, the greeks did charge quickly as they were afraid of persian shooting so do we underestimate the effects of archery ?

Ah, so shooting should have a speeding effect, rather than a slowing. And no shield cover for hoplites, apparently.

[LawrenceG]

FWIW I think shooting is difficult to calibrate and balance. Most of it is with green or white dice - that is a factor of 2 in lethality, so there is no fine adjustment on effectiveness.

A formed loose foot average unprotected experienced bow (324 points for 6) is shooting white against incoming green versus foot skirmishers with identical ratings (396 points for 9, or 360 if you make them combat shy [-1 in combat is no handicap if you evaporate on contact]), or against protected loose bow (450 points for 6).

Not a factor of 2 difference in cost, although there are other interactions to take into account.

Formed loose foot average unprotected (no weapons) would be 234 for 6. Does adding an experienced bow make them 38% more useful? If you don't plan to fight with them, clearly not. If you do plan to fight with them, are they only 10% less useful than the combat shy skirmishers?

Probably something that the authors and list checkers should actively monitor.