foot bow, powerbow and crossbow

[Doomsmile]

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.

Wow, that is what I wrote, isn't it. That sucks. My sincerest apologies for my thoughtlessness, and for whatever insult I caused with my previous post. It was a crummy and presumptuous thing to write.

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.

Well, at least there's a silver lining to my boorishness.
When I said "selfishly suggest", I meant that those are armies I'd love to get away with bringing to a table myself.
So it's super exciting to hear that Venice in Greece has been hitting the table and seeing success!!! I'll need to arrange some stand-ins to give those massed combat-shy crossbowmen a shot try! =D

[nikgaukroger]

No offence taken 

[Manzikert]

We're 6 pages deep into this thread so maybe I'll start a new one, but I wanted to re-float the idea I shared earlier. Remove the ability of all foot tugs to back-up and let foot ranged units shoot twice, once before charges are declared (after moving generals) and again if a path of charge passes within one base width of their arc of fire (as per current rules). To keep the rules clean we would also move cavalry shooting before charges are declared but only allow them to shoot once (either before charges OR at a charger).

This change would put foot shooters into three distinct levels of usefulness. Crap shooters (unprotected and/or combat shy) could be integrated into the line of battle to fire off a volley just before your other troops charge to deal some damage before the main clash. They'd need to be held back or covered by counter-charging/intercepting your opponent since they're vulnerable; but the potential to put a wound or two on an enemy before melee combat would give them a purpose.

Better shooters (the various flavors of protected NOT combat shy) would also be able to deal some damage to support a charge but also have the potential to do enough shooting damage when receiving a charge that they stand a chance of winning the ensuing melee against a cost appropriate opponent.

Skilled shooters would do quite significant damage to a charger and used well could punch a bit above their weight against other foot. Your opponent would need to use the right tools against them (covering their troops with skirmishers, using cavalry to charge from outside shooting range to mitigate damage, etc).

From a historical perspective I think this all sounds pretty good. It makes sense that archers would shoot into an enemy formation to disrupt it and cause some casualties as the lines were coming together. And it stands to reason that they would start shooting as soon as an enemy came in range, and would continue to shoot until they were engaged (represented by the multiple shots). Better equipped archers could stand up to melee but would be expecting to do enough harm with shooting to make the difference. And from a gamest perspective implementing this rule would also have some interesting fringe benefits beyond making shooters more useful.

It makes shooters in general a bit less finicky which streamlines the game a bit; since it's no longer necessary to fish for every chance to shoot hoping to roll 2 wounds so they stick. It gives skirmishers some new utility; they can cover your line from the pre-charge shooting to mitigate the effect and do their own pre-charge shooting before falling back through the line to let your real troops charge in. It makes darts meaningfully distinct from javelins since they can be sure to get their black dice of shooting against infantry before the charge.

I ran some 'back of the napkin' math on different flavors of archer to see how this would impact the balance against various points comparable match-ups. This post is already more than long enough so I won't post the details but the vast majority of match-ups were very points appropriate. For example with the change an experienced bow, unprotected OR combat shy archer (54 OR 53 pts) just barely loses to a base infantry (60 pts). An experienced bow archer (75 pts) just barely loses to a melee expert infantry (76 pts). The math does break down a little with skilled bows who tend to punch significantly above their weight. But skilled foot shooters are relatively rare. And they wouldn't be invulnerable, the opponent would just need to be a little clever about dealing with them.

Overall it seems like a fix that's easy to implement, is no more complicated than the current system, removes the a-historical back-up move, and gives ranged units in general, but cheap shooters and skirmishers especially, some more utility. There are a few kinks to work out (how would slows work since there are multiple shots, how exactly would shield cover function for example, etc) but overall it seems like it does the job.

[LawrenceG]

I ran some 'back of the napkin' math on different flavors of archer to see how this would impact the balance against various points comparable match-ups. This post is already more than long enough so I won't post the details but the vast majority of match-ups were very points appropriate. For example with the change an experienced bow, unprotected OR combat shy archer (54 OR 53 pts) just barely loses to a base infantry (60 pts). An experienced bow archer (75 pts) just barely loses to a melee expert infantry (76 pts). The math does break down a little with skilled bows who tend to punch significantly above their weight. But skilled foot shooters are relatively rare. And they wouldn't be invulnerable, the opponent would just need to be a little clever about dealing with them.

How would you beat late medieval skilled powerbow front rank melee expert?

[Manzikert]

How would you beat late medieval skilled powerbow front rank melee expert?

That would obviously depend on what tools my army had, but there are a couple of general options available. A 6 pack of the skilled powerbow front rank melee expert costs 798 points. For 748 points you can afford an 8 pack of short spear melee expert infantry and a 6 pack of fully downgraded javelin skirmishers. The skirmishers absorb the first round of shooting at 5 base widths and then the second round just before the charge (which should statistically break the skirmisher unit). The infantry charges, take 2 wounds from shooting, and then (back of the napkin math) they should beat the archer unit in a close fight.

There is an extra wrinkle to consider. If the archer has the command advantage they might be able to press forward before the charge turn to force the skirmisher back. That would give them 2 shots on the infantry in the charge turn. But even then my math shows the infantry just barely eeking out a victory if I assume they're able to expand out to get supporting files.

Another alternative, a 6 pack of lancer melee expert and a 6 pack of fully downgraded javelin skirmishers is 852 points. Using the same basic tactic the cavalry would take 2.5 wounds from shooting on the charge and then hit the archer for reds with shatter which does 3.5 wounds even if you don't count the shatter. The archer should do 1 wound back (again assuming no shatters). So by the first round of melee the wounds are tied and the archer has lost a base or 2 of their melee expert which should give the lancers the edge.

In both cases we have a fairly close match-up against points comparable units that are fairly broadly available. Obviously I'm not taking into account every possible maneuver either side might try to gain an advantage, but since the points are so close whoever out maneuvers their opponent deserves the win.

[SteveO]

Sorry, I am not convinced that such significant changes are warranted either historically or for game play.

[badhabum]

+1 no such changes please

[LawrenceG]

FWIW I think RJC's original suggestion on page 1 of this topic would be worth testing.

On the face of it, javelins look a bit hard-done-by, missing out on the upgrade, but most javelin-armed foot TUGs have short spear and protection so aren't at such a disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat (and I'm not aware of any complaint about them being too weak).

[Manzikert]

FWIW I think RJC's original suggestion on page 1 of this topic would be worth testing.

Reading back through RJC's suggestion, I also think it sounds good; definitely worth a test. I would suggest that instead of 'color upgrade but skulls wound' the shooter just get's to roll an extra black die. That keeps things simpler by avoiding exceptions to the usual roll results. I haven't run the math in detail, but overall that should give about the same level of effect without the added complexity. It does increase the maximum number of possible wounds, but with more dice it should tend toward the average. I'd also suggest giving the bonus to javelins as well, again just to keep things simpler.

That said I'm worried this doesn't quite do enough to keep players from fully downgrading unprotected/combat shy shooters.

[LawrenceG]

Has there been a MEG podcast on unprotected bowmen? OR missile troops in general?

One advantage of the no-skulls upgrade (over an extra black die) is it does not help you much if you are shooting on green or yellow already, so it only helps the weak units that really need the help.

[daveparish]

That said I'm worried this doesn't quite do enough to keep players from fully downgrading unprotected/combat shy shooters.

The thing that has puzzled me about this whole thread has been why you shouldn't downgrade them? There has been all sorts of abstract talk about them acting as force multipliers and an assumption that if a troop type is in an army list then it must be made effective (please don't think I'm getting at anyone - the whole thread has these assumptions).

But where is the history in this? I haven't seen a single battle named in this thread as one where troops like these had a big effect and where that effect can't be replicated on the tabletop. Seems to me that they are exactly the sort of troops a general would put at the back to guard the camp and dig some more latrines. The historically effective archers for example Longbowmen or Cretans are already effective on the table (as Powerbow, Skilled skirmishers etc).

[SteveO]

The thing that has puzzled me about this whole thread has been why you shouldn't downgrade them? There has been all sorts of abstract talk about them acting as force multipliers and an assumption that if a troop type is in an army list then it must be made effective (please don't think I'm getting at anyone - the whole thread has these assumptions).

But where is the history in this? I haven't seen a single battle named in this thread as one where troops like these had a big effect and where that effect can't be replicated on the tabletop. Seems to me that they are exactly the sort of troops a general would put at the back to guard the camp and dig some more latrines. The historically effective archers for example Longbowmen or Cretans are already effective on the table (as Powerbow, Skilled skirmishers etc).

I agree. I think we should be using the points system to bring 'balance' to the game rather than creating ahistorical effects.

[Jilu]

That said I'm worried this doesn't quite do enough to keep players from fully downgrading unprotected/combat shy shooters.

But where is the history in this? I haven't seen a single battle named in this thread as one where troops like these had a big effect and where that effect can't be replicated on the tabletop. Seems to me that they are exactly the sort of troops a general would put at the back to guard the camp and dig some more latrines. The historically effective archers for example Longbowmen or Cretans are already effective on the table (as Powerbow, Skilled skirmishers etc).

But is that not why we have Average or superior camps to represent the camp guards?

Bowmen, using normal bows were used on battlefields, some armies had full of those.
In Meg, one unit can be useful against skirmishing cav, but is otherwise only good in support.

Armies where the bowmen have a first rank of shortspears are pretty much better, i used the indians quie effectively.

overall, bowmen, have the problem of being weak at impact and melee.

giving them a little + somewhere, somehow, might make them more attractive.

I advocate, an extra dice from the second rank during combat representing the rearranks bases still shooting. As long as there are rear ranks.

[daveparish]

Armies where the bowmen have a first rank of shortspears are pretty much better, i used the indians quite effectively

Exactly- where bowmen were effective historically then they get extra characteristics (like short spear for the Indian bow TUGs) that make them work on the table.

I repeat can anyone cite a historical battle where they think the game doesn't reflect a historical account and that is because of how unprotected combat shy type bow are represented in the game?   

[LawrenceG]

Or unprotected, not combat shy archers.