foot bow, powerbow and crossbow

[daveparish]

It is actually the perfect situation - a compromise of historical simulation and game.

So historically minded wargamers can complain it is too "gamey" and game players that the game is hindered by attempts to be historical.

Since all wargamers like a good whinge everyone is happy !!   

[Doomsmile]

2.  Average, unprotected, experienced bow/crossbow is not quite effective enough in points terms so is often downgraded to poor/unskilled and then treated as levy to be held in the rear to increase the army break point.

I'm so sorry to be a pest, but may I ask a clarifying question?
I know these basic archers aren't effective enough... but not effective enough at what exactly?

If the intended purpose of basic archers is to be primarily/solely a tool for slowing or disruption-- for example--, I'm likely to suggest different possible solutions than if the default purpose of basic archers is to inflict attrition or some other task.

I guess in other words: what I think I lack here is an adequate understanding of what the developer vision is for these basic archers' default job.

I hope I'm making sense and not being too annoying here!!!

[Jilu]

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

it is this that you wish to know ?

[Doomsmile]

The reason I was doubting myself over that post was that I don't know if RJC et al want basic archers to be able to cause real damage in their own right, or if they're meant mostly to stall via slowing (or something else I haven't considered).


If archery is supposed to cause enough harm to later contest a fight against melee  infantry -- without the archers backing up-- then foot archers simply need to deal more damage in the 2 volleys they'll be permitted.
I have suggested that infantry shooting should always wound on S's if this is the intention. (And that skilled foot shooters vs Superior just get their full color upgrade.)

This would accomplish something similar to RJC's original 8-step plan, but in a simpler manner.
(Math Warning: an 8-base TUG of basic unprotected archers would likely cause 4 wounds to an infantry target on approach, but then be down claims for the duration of the combat, probably losing by a whisker. Medium cavalry might be really desirable for rushing down archers, since you'd only have to eat the shooting once, and the base you'll likely lose to shooting won't be a 200-point knight.)



If basic archers are meant primarily to be a speed bump via slowing, and Push through Fire is not revised, then I'd probably second Manzikert's suggestion that being shot at by infantry TUGs causes an automatic 1BW slowing in addition to whatever shooting results occur.
(That would make it so that an 8-base unit of archers shooting at a 3-wide target would slow them by 2BW on average, barring pushing through fire. The archers will get their faces stomped eventually, but could buy two turns or so. Cv/cm/ch will likely laugh this off. Also sounds annoying as sin when it works, TBH.)

[SteveO]

Are we trying to create a great game or create a great reenactment rule set. I don't think you can fully serve both masters.

You are spot on but I would hope we are going for the best possible balance between the two. Unfortunately, gamers are likely to have different views on where that balance should lie.

I would prefer to shift the balance towards the 'game' for playability reasons rather than simply to make an army or troop type unjustifiably effective. As mentioned elsewhere, we are already spoilt for choice if we want a miniatures game based on imagination.

Consequently, I think Richard's general approach of trying to improve the historical feel of the game while not adding complexity is good. In this particular case, that would mean making only a small improvement to bow armed troops IMO.

Steve

[Jilu]

Are we trying to create a great game or create a great reenactment rule set. I don't think you can fully serve both masters.

You are spot on but I would hope we are going for the best possible balance between the two. Unfortunately, gamers are likely to have different views on where that balance should lie.

I would prefer to shift the balance towards the 'game' for playability reasons rather than simply to make an army or troop type unjustifiably effective. As mentioned elsewhere, we are already spoilt for choice if we want a miniatures game based on imagination.

Consequently, I think Richard's general approach of trying to improve the historical feel of the game while not adding complexity is good. In this particular case, that would mean making only a small improvement to bow armed troops IMO.

Steve

i agree, but keeping it simple is important

[Hayung_is]

Bit late to the party but definitely want to echo that ranged TuGs in MeG feel like a weird space.

There a few things I think don't quite 'fit' with my understanding of historical use of archers;

1. Range and slowing effect: in MeG ranges of foot archers especially versus normal movement speeds means slowing can have a negligible affect on a TuG (especially a mounted one) in the grand scheme of a battle.

2. damage/disorder (particularly against cavalry) - archers were a common tool to even the playing field between heavily mounted forces and foot armies. But caught unsupported by heavy cavalry they were in a bad spot.

As mentioned above, possible tweaks could be to increase range but reduce damage output at longer ranges to allow disruption of enemy forces. At closer ranges, the damage could be as normal (taking more shots will have a net increase on damage output).
But I think against mounted, ranged TuGs should get bonus damage. Crossbows and powerbows could negate armour for mounted at close range in addition.

Overall I think archers should be a force multiplier. On their own they won't win a contest, but bringing archers should allow you to influence your opponents movement more - either by forcing them to close the distance faster, or disrupting their battle line by slowing some TuGs significantly if allowed to be shot with impunity. They should also have a reigning affect on mounted troops - who would take care to enter range without committing to a charge and this would allow support troops to better set up a trap.

Allowing the player more time to influence the opponent (by increasing range but decreasing damage) also encourages movement of supporting units - this could be paired with reducing the ability to move backwards - something I think should actually be made harder for all troop types TBH.

[badhabum]

But I think against mounted, ranged TuGs should get bonus damage. Crossbows and powerbows could negate armour for mounted at close range in addition.

The mongols did not badly when invading Austria, the Balkans, Italy ..

Aldo thr ARMHRS is a protection vs PB and Xbow . It's partly for gaming reasons so as to keep a potential serious opponent tp those pesky shooters and also because historicaly it was a protection . Please remember that PB already do have a colour upgrade vs mounted .  In my opinion it's mostly myth but I accept it . Now if ARMHRS is not to be a protection vs short range PB and XBOW then you will unbalance the game in favour of the many mixed crossbowmen armies in the game and the english PB armies

[SteveO]

Overall I think archers should be a force multiplier. On their own they won't win a contest, but bringing archers should allow you to influence your opponents movement more - either by forcing them to close the distance faster, or disrupting their battle line by slowing some TuGs significantly if allowed to be shot with impunity. They should also have a reigning affect on mounted troops - who would take care to enter range without committing to a charge and this would allow support troops to better set up a trap.

Sorry, but if we set aside the poor, unprotected archers, I believe average ranged troops are already a force multiplier. You should play my friend Robert with his 100 Years War French. If you hang back you get shot to death and if you try to get to the crossbowmen you get ridden down by the knights!

As for the separate issue of stepping back, I would agree that we probably use it far more often than it was used historically. However, making it harder will have a significant effect on game balance because some armies will quickly be bowled over by non-historical opponents if they are forced to stand and fight. I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider it; only that we are back to choosing the balance between game and simulation. After all, we already have the possibility of Italian Wars Gendarmes facing off against Hittite javelinmen.😊

[Hayung_is]

Overall I think archers should be a force multiplier. On their own they won't win a contest, but bringing archers should allow you to influence your opponents movement more - either by forcing them to close the distance faster, or disrupting their battle line by slowing some TuGs significantly if allowed to be shot with impunity. They should also have a reigning affect on mounted troops - who would take care to enter range without committing to a charge and this would allow support troops to better set up a trap.

Sorry, but if we set aside the poor, unprotected archers, I believe average ranged troops are already a force multiplier. You should play my friend Robert with his 100 Years War French. If you hang back you get shot to death and if you try to get to the crossbowmen you get ridden down by the knights!

As for the separate issue of stepping back, I would agree that we probably use it far more often than it was used historically. However, making it harder will have a significant effect on game balance because some armies will quickly be bowled over by non-historical opponents if they are forced to stand and fight. I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider it; only that we are back to choosing the balance between game and simulation. After all, we already have the possibility of Italian Wars Gendarmes facing off against Hittite javelinmen.😊

I don't think bringing up an example of some of the best shooting TuGs in MeG, combined with fast powerful cavalry in the form of knights is a compelling argument that ranged TuGs function very well. Noting that longbow already benefit from the 5BW range, combined with backstepping changes the dynamic of engagement with infantry versus bow and crossbow.

I don't think you can just delete stepping back with how bow is right now. Combined with longer range and more potential for slows though makes it less necessary and you might miss it less - right now its downright essential for ranged TuGs to get their value.

But I think against mounted, ranged TuGs should get bonus damage. Crossbows and powerbows could negate armour for mounted at close range in addition.

The mongols did not badly when invading Austria, the Balkans, Italy ..

Aldo thr ARMHRS is a protection vs PB and Xbow . It's partly for gaming reasons so as to keep a potential serious opponent tp those pesky shooters and also because historicaly it was a protection . Please remember that PB already do have a colour upgrade vs mounted .  In my opinion it's mostly myth but I accept it . Now if ARMHRS is not to be a protection vs short range PB and XBOW then you will unbalance the game in favour of the many mixed crossbowmen armies in the game and the english PB armies

It does change the balance and points could reconsidered for either side of the coin. ARMHRS is quite expensive right now in my opinion.

[badhabum]

It does change the balance and points could reconsidered for either side of the coin. ARMHRS is quite expensive right now in my opinion.

I have absolutely no problems with that

It's not broken so do not fix it 

[Jilu]

One could have bows shoot from the second rank while in combat. it would give them more dice to resist.

[Doomsmile]

One thing that might help would be for y'all in the dev team to play for a while using armies where infantry shooters historically formed the force's backbone.
Maybe some current first-hand experience of what these guys can and can't accomplish might help identify what would need to change for this kind of army to win games occasionally.
(And if an army based around infantry shooters can succeed, then those kinds of troops will probably be useful enough for players to not automatically trash and hide their own archers.)


I might selfishly suggest Elamites, Pueblo Culture, Venetian Greece or Kongo-- all of these armies rely heavily on experienced bow as a primary weapon-- but those are just suggestions based on what I find cool. XP

Edit: got two armies confused; corrected.

[daveparish]

I might selfishly suggest Elamites, Pueblo Culture, Venetian Greece or Kongo-- all of these armies rely heavily on experienced bow as a primary weapon-- but those are just suggestions based on what I find cool. XP

That is a fairly obscure set of armies! The only one I've seen on the table is the Venetians in Greece which I played against at a comp. It seemed pretty tough to me. By the way the player using it (Lance) is a club mate of one of the dev team so I'm pretty sure they will have played against that one. More generally, considering the number of comps RJC and Nik go to, I wouldn't assume any ignorance on their part   

[nikgaukroger]

I think I can say that both Richard and I have some experience of using and facing armies which rely on a significant number of Experienced shooter infantry. Richards post way back on page 1 of ideas certainly draws on that and the stated experiences of others.