I have recently started using Late Heian Japanese (mostly because they are pretty).

I don’t know of any detailed historical accounts of how the units equipped with Heavy Weapon and Bow(*) fought but I would assume they counter-charged foot and stood to receive mounted.

Would it be reasonable to ...

OK, I'll try again.

Consider a unit of 8 spearmen with 4 LF in the back rank. They would get a maximum of two shooting dice.

If they were opposed by an enemy unit with up to 6 bases then they would shoot (because they could get 1HP3B)

If they were opposed by 8 bases (say 2 units of 4 LH in two ...

Consider a long line of spearmen with a LF back rank.

If they faced skirmishers one rank deep then they would get to fire.

If they faced skirmishers two ranks deep then they would only get to fire if they overlapped the unit, or if the skirmishers had already lost a base.

Not perfect, but a ...

Arrian seems to overestimate the effect that these missiles (plus artillery, slingers, etc) will have "And the expectation is that the Scythians will not get close to the infantry battle formation because of the tremendous weight of missiles" - then goes on to say what to do if the charge presses ...

If the FoG design notes on this site it says:

Formations with 1/3 LF Bow represents a single rank of bowmen that would not produce significant shooting on the scale of the game, so only counts for the support shooting against mounted that was their primary purpose.


This doesn't make much sense ...

It is not my intention to cause any strife, if the statistics guys say that legions are better, i can accept that they are a little better in the interaction between the two.

That's not the main point however, legionnaries struggle to beat even armoured spearmen, if the spearmen don't lose ...

(Sorry for the long post).

It was well known, in a previous wargames rules that, republican / early imperial romans were a hopeless army, those few romantics who played with them, had to minimize the number of legionary bases and increase the number of supporting troops.

Legionairies were one of ...

Romans had a single rank of archers (preceded by eight rank bracing for impact or chucking hand weapons) against the Alans. It wasn't an issue of bulk particularly, more that if the front 4 ranks braced that was enough to resist the charge so you had the rear 5 ranks putting a lot of missiles into ...

Another issue with Heavy Weapons is their performance in the impact phase.

Some Heavy Weapons like halberds were 6 foot long and had a spike on the end so should probably get a +1 in the impact phase like 'Light Spears' do.

Others like two handed axes probably shouldn't get this bonus.

Good question. I always wondered that. Especially with the arab armies.
Who would charge the spearmen anyway? Maybe very courageous cataphracts ... the bows seem to have no effect for extra cost.
Makes the unit look nice though.

They don't have no effect in game terms. They increase the size of ...

philqw78 wrote:A small number of Bowmen were added to the rear ranks of these units specifically to counter charges by shock mounted.

Which armies are you referring to in this post?

If more people brought Average, Protected Impact Foot I suspect the amount of bows would quickly diminish.

Consider a three deep line of Average, Protected HF Impact Foot, Sword (with +1 for a general) against a two deep line of Average, Protected Cavalry Bow, Sword. The points are about even ...

Restricting the list to armies with more than 50 games is good statistics. It reduces the impact of one good player is a themed tournament.

I realise there are several troop types that do well - Bowmen, HA knights, Pikes etc. but I can only tackle one target per post.
Restricting the number of ...

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Dave, behave. In this particular forum anyone is allowed to float any ideas, rubbish or otherwise, without them being mocked. It is what the V2 forum is for :shock:

Spoilsport. OK, the problem I have is that ...

philqw78 wrote:You are aren't you

?????

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Should FOG:AM give Firearms a +1 in the impact phase too?

Most early firearms, naptha bombs, greek fire syphons etc. must have been primarily impact weapons. Are you mad?

Were the Ming Chinese mad to introduce ...

Are you planning to re-issue the army lists or just the rules? Personally I hope you don't touch the army lists for a while because people have only just bought the current set.

However if you do decide to change them here are a few points to consider:

- Make the last two columns of the army list ...

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Should FOG:AM give Firearms a +1 in the impact phase too?

Most early firearms, naptha bombs, greek fire syphons etc. must have been primarily impact weapons.

If the FoG design notes on this site it says:

Formations with 1/3 LF Bow represents a single rank of bowmen that would not produce significant shooting on the scale of the game, so only counts for the support shooting against mounted that was their primary purpose.


This doesn't make much sense ...

Some elephants, such as Sassanids would have had a large number of bow-armed crew or escorts. Why not let them shoot? They would have had at least as many bowmen as bow armed chariots.

Some elephants, such as Kushan would have had armour. On the Khurasan website it says:
"Note the elephant has the ...