foot bow, powerbow and crossbow

[nikgaukroger]

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?

The 2nd Skull on a Red die replaces the blank on a Yellow die so no need for any concern 

[daveparish]

Like I say would be rare. But do you mean both Skulls become wounds? Or both Skulls stay Skulls?

[nikgaukroger]

Both Skulls would be wounds if I understand Richard's idea. So the shooting effect of a Yellow die would be 4 chances of a wound, 1 chance of an S and 1 chance of a blank; and for a Red die 5 chances of a wound and 1 chance of an S.

[SteveO]

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)

Or to put it another way - are the historically successful 'bow-heavy' armies ineffective in MeG, against historical opponents at least? If the much vaunted English longbowmen could be ridden down in the open, what are we expecting of unprotected/poor bowmen?

[Manzikert]

The message seems to be:...

Thank you. This is a pretty good summary of where I stand from a general balance perspective.

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.

Not really, but this is a perfect illustration of what I am trying to do. The role of a spear is not 'good in melee' it's 'anti-cavalry'. A unit with long spears completely negates cavalry charges and has a huge advantage against cavalry in melee. And it does that regardless of the other characteristics of the unit using it. A unit of poor quality longspear beats a units of knights! A unit that's 3.5 times it's cost per base! Having a longspear negates cavalry charges, negates cavalry melee expert, gives the user a +2 bonus in charge and melee (in 2 ranks) against cavalry, and a +1 bonus in charge and melee (in 2 ranks) against infantry. It's gives the wielder those benefits regardless of any other factor about the unit. What makes Citizen Hoplites ok troops is that they get those bonuses on top of being a base infantry. What makes Spartan's very good is that they're superior melee expert. But they all get the 'anti-cavalry' benefit (and moderate general melee benefit) of having a long spear.

So I'm not saying that an experienced bow, combat shy, archer should be as good in a general sense as a superior, experienced bow, melee expert. I'm saying they both have 'experienced bow' that trait should have some appreciable benefit on the table in it's own right. Having a bow (and ranged weapons in general) should give a unit some sort of battlefield utility. I've offered my thoughts on what that utility might be and how it could be reflected. But I'd love to hear other people's thoughts.

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 why not? Sticking with the longspear example, the rules currently allow all units with longspear the benefits of a longspear. Why should an unprotected combat shy archer benefit any less from having experienced bow that a superior melee expert? The bow doesn't stack with any of those other characteristics, it operates differently in a completely separate phase. Whatever experienced bow does (and we may not agree on exactly what that is) both of those troops would do that thing equally well.

[LawrenceG]

But why not? Sticking with the longspear example, the rules currently allow all units with longspear the benefits of a longspear. Why should an unprotected combat shy archer benefit any less from having experienced bow that a superior melee expert? The bow doesn't stack with any of those other characteristics, it operates differently in a completely separate phase. Whatever experienced bow does (and we may not agree on exactly what that is) both of those troops would do that thing equally well.

OF course, experienced bow does give the same benefits for all loose foot TUGs that have it.

The difference is:

If the TUG is unprotected, it will cost you a lost TUG if you try to use the benefit.

IF it is protected and not combat shy, it probably won't.

Also bear in mind that damage done to an enemy TUG is no benefit at all (well, hardly any) if that TUG doesn't break.


Actually having looked at the points cost, I think unprotected bow might hang on long enough to be OK if you use them 4-deep, though one would be entitled to grumble about having to pay for bows for half the TUG that will never get used.

[Manzikert]

OF course, experienced bow does give the same benefits for all loose foot TUGs that have it.

The difference is:

If the TUG is unprotected, it will cost you a lost TUG if you try to use the benefit.

IF it is protected and not combat shy, it probably won't.

Yes, agree. Experienced bow does currently do something, it's just that it's so little it's not worth doing. They do a negligible amount of damage at long range (negligible because it can be picked up with a yellow or in all likelihood a green by the end of the phase) and a minor amount of damage during the charge basically the same as a short spear for 3 times the cost (more if you consider the bow has to be 2 deep). They also have the potential to slow but that rarely has any meaningful effect. If those capabilities are on an otherwise worthwhile unit then they're a nice bonus, but they don't really do anything in their own right.

It did occur to me last night that there's a better example than the longspear for what I'm trying to illustrate. Horse with ranged weapon. All Horse with ranged weapon has the ability to evade a charge, and that ability is completely independent of any other qualities the unit might have. It gives ranged horse a lot of tactical flexibility that allows it to fill many different roles depending on what else that particular unit can do. On one hand you have Cavalry with unskilled javelin. Obviously that's not going to cause any meaningful harm at range, and it's not especially good in melee either. But it can guard your flank or threaten an opponents flank while using the ability to evade to deny any unfavorable engagements and stall. You have Mongols or other good shooters that use their ability to evade to maximize their shooting. And you have competent melee cavalry (Superior, Experienced bow, Melee Expert) which is going to be way more effective in melee than at range but still has the ability to evade to avoid counter units or set up maneuver traps.

What I'd love to see is foot shooters take on some utility of their own.

[Doomsmile]

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.

Gunna have to soft disagree with you here-- Qin are one of my main armies and I've always found their unprotected crossbowmen utterly worthless. I'm not sure what Mr. Entwhistle's doing with them to to make them pull their weight, but they've been active liabilities on the table whenever I've attempted to support my actual fighting Infantry with them.

(Not sure where this idea that Warring States crossbowmen are protected short spear comes from; perhaps you're thinking of Song or Ming dynasty troops? Warring States (incl. Qin) missile troops are just dude with bow, usually unprotected.)

[nikgaukroger]

Qin are usually fielded with the conscript infantry in mixed formations so the Unprotected crossbowmen get a crust of Protected Polearm in front of them. Field in 9's and they have a stodge factor as well as the shooting.

[Hayung_is]

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).

Just to drop in here, more recent sources on Song Dynasty suggests they fielded large groups of Xbow and Bow who were drilled to repel cavalry charges and Song armies had many engagements with mongols where they weren't just steamrolled and may have even won several battles  - chinese history on battles is unfortunately light on the details so you won't get much of a recount of how much effect the bows had. But its not a stretch to imagine a region which had significant amount of conflict would continually field large quantities (and they were large numbers, there is evidence of that) of bowmen/xbows if they weren't at least somewhat instrumental in winning a battle.

I don't have enough experience to say MeG represents this "well" historically, but as an experienced gamer can do the math and an army which comprises of a large enough proportion of ranged TuGs that would be historically reflective of Song armies can tell you're paying more than what you're getting and if you want to be "competitive" (or just have a game that is more likely to be resolved due to player decisions than match ups, which is the key driver here) and the sensible play is to take minimal ranged TuGs for some support and max out foot troops.
A big reason why you probably see almost zero Southern Song played due to the punishing minimums on crossbow (which is historically accurate).

[Doomsmile]

Qin are usually fielded with the conscript infantry in mixed formations so the Unprotected crossbowmen get a crust of Protected Polearm in front of them. Field in 9's and they have a stodge factor as well as the shooting.

Ah, okay. That would help.

(I personally think the army runs better with the conscript fighters in their DC mob form, but that's just build preference. ... and the fun of referring to them as "enthusiastic conscripts." )

[SteveO]

Just to drop in here, more recent sources on Song Dynasty suggests they fielded large groups of Xbow and Bow who were drilled to repel cavalry charges and Song armies had many engagements with mongols where they weren't just steamrolled and may have even won several battles  -

As a Mongol player, I can reassure you that masses of crossbowmen/bowmen are tough opponents as the rules stand now.

[LawrenceG]

Just to drop in here, more recent sources on Song Dynasty suggests they fielded large groups of Xbow and Bow who were drilled to repel cavalry charges and Song armies had many engagements with mongols where they weren't just steamrolled and may have even won several battles  -

As a Mongol player, I can reassure you that masses of crossbowmen/bowmen are tough opponents as the rules stand now.

Yes, being large numbers of unprotected loose foot experienced bow is not so bad when your opponent is  smaller numbers of unprotected loose or skirmish mounted experienced bow.

[SteveO]

Yes, being large numbers of unprotected loose foot experienced bow is not so bad when your opponent is  smaller numbers of unprotected loose or skirmish mounted experienced bow.

So maybe those unprotected archers work well enough against historical opponents?

[Doomsmile]

So maybe those unprotected archers work well enough against historical opponents?

I'm not so sure about that. The main body of Southern Song's other main historical opponent (Jin 4507, post 1180CE) consists of cavalry ranging from protected+bow+spear+melee-expert to elite cataphracts.

I would argue (guess I am arguing ) that charges from these sorts of cavalry are unlikely to be repelled by either the unprotected or protected crossbowmen available to contemporary Song armies under the current classifications and rules.