Is there any plan to do something about the auto-face for...

[Jhykronos]

... formed shooters? Hydaspes and Marathon scenarios devolve into something of a fiasco with all the backpedalling medium infantry. I can only imagine it getting worse if the Medieval English can do that.

[grumblefish]

... formed shooters? Hydaspes and Marathon scenarios devolve into something of a fiasco with all the backpedalling medium infantry. I can only imagine it getting worse if the Medieval English can do that.

Aye, Marathon is terrible because of that. I expected the Persians to stand ground and fire... but not run backwards while firing! Because of this, the battle in Marathon does not resemble the historical conflict at all.

I didn't mind it on Hydaspes, though, because given the Indian position you kind of expected the Macedonians to give chase anyway.

[batesmotel]

... formed shooters? Hydaspes and Marathon scenarios devolve into something of a fiasco with all the backpedalling medium infantry. I can only imagine it getting worse if the Medieval English can do that.

Aye, Marathon is terrible because of that. I expected the Persians to stand ground and fire... but not run backwards while firing! Because of this, the battle in Marathon does not resemble the historical conflict at all.

I didn't mind it on Hydaspes, though, because given the Indian position you kind of expected the Macedonians to give chase anyway.

Marathon is worse than just Persians running away. Instead what they do is to surround the Hoplites and then kill them with rear charges, shooting them all the way. It's almost as bad as if the Persians in the scenario were a shooty cavalry army. And it isn't that hard to break average hoplites when you're hitting them in the rear even if they are armoured.

Chris

[ianiow]

So it seems that we need to reduce their maneuverability so that they dont auto-face when they fire. But if they lose this they should gain something else in return. Perhaps increasing the lethality of their shooting? Or perhaps forcing enemy to retreat/evade from the withering storm of arrows?

And if we do this to the MF archers, what do we do with HC archers? Potentially they will be even more devastating.

[batesmotel]

So it seems that we need to reduce their maneuverability so that they dont auto-face when they fire. But if they lose this they should gain something else in return. Perhaps increasing the lethality of their shooting? Or perhaps forcing enemy to retreat/evade from the withering storm of arrows?

And if we do this to the MF archers, what do we do with HC archers? Potentially they will be even more devastating.

MF archers, especially undrilled, are not terribly effective in the TT rules unless they have some sort of impact POA. The biggest difference in missile fire in the PC rules and the TT rules is that bow fire at unprotected cav is at a ++ POA and against protected cav is at a +POA unless the cav is in one rank and hence will not melee at full effect. In the PC game, all cavalry is essentially treated as being in a single rank for being shot at and for evading, but treated as in a double rank for the purpose of combat. This tends to make unprotected and protected cav more effective in the PC version and eliminates one fo the strengths of MF bows.

Chris

[Paisley]

I think probably the best fix would be to prohibit movement (not change of face) and firing for non light troops. It would tend to make bow heavy armies stand on the defensive, which they historically tended to do.

[batesmotel]

I think probably the best fix would be to prohibit movement (not change of face) and firing for non light troops. It would tend to make bow heavy armies stand on the defensive, which they historically tended to do.

I think the MF bow is fine being able to fire after moving forward in to range. The big problem is them being able to back up and keep firing. That's what breaks things by effectively making them behave like skirmishers.

Chris

[keithmartinsmith]

MF can move and shoot but they take a -1 POA penalty if they move and shoot so their chances of inflicting damage and complex move tests is significantly worse. Keith

[batesmotel]

MF can move and shoot but they take a -1 POA penalty if they move and shoot so their chances of inflicting damage and complex move tests is significantly worse. Keith

If you play the Marathon scenario, you will find that the free facing change makes the undrilled Persian MF about as maneuverable as drilled MF in terms of being able to move around flanks and get behind the Greek hoplites in order to get rear charges. In many ways the shooting at this point is a fringe benefit. Similarly the free change of face for undrilled cavalry and HCh makes them much more useful in general than their schmuck counter parts that only have lances or light spears and hence often have to take an extra turn to change face after getting around a flank.

Chris

[Jhykronos]

MF can move and shoot but they take a -1 POA penalty if they move and shoot so their chances of inflicting damage and complex move tests is significantly worse. Keith

1. Given the number of dice they get they're still better skirmishers than the real skirmishers.
2. As the other posters point out, if you don't care about shooting, you still get ridiculously increased maneuverability just for having a bow.
3. Again, from a historical perspective, this battlefield behavior is... odd... to say the least.

[TheGrayMouser]

My 2 cents:
Although I agree that medium bow armed infantry is often times apparently too powerful (Marathon!), in other scenarios the balance seems just right.
I offer the suggestion that maybe it isn’t the units themselves that are the problem in, but the scenario design itself (no offense intended whatsoever to the designer(s)!)
In Marothon, for example, perhaps the medium bows should be dropped a level in quality so they are crushed handily when caught?
Also, the battlefield itself map is a lot more open than one would expect allowing the Persians to easily outflank the phalanx(even the ai performed this very well) …. Maybe the map should be constricted some more?

However, if those things are done then the battle will swing to an easy Greek victory instead of an easy Persian...
Perhaps some battles just don’t translate that well to any game system…

[Jhykronos]

Honestly, the balance issues, while important, are really secondary. The point is that those archers shouldn't be able to do that, not in anything trying for even the slightest bit of historical versimiltude. Agincourt is going to look pretty darn silly if the English archers that should be manning the stakes are dancing around the battlefield, using their bow-powered steering to get into cheap rear attack position.

[IainMcNeil]

English archers are drilled so will be able to manoeuvre like this anyway, without a free turn. However if they are not manning their stakes they will be in trouble if they do get caught and they are slower than knights so it will happen eventually. Also, when moving they get a - in shooting so running around like this will probably not help them much at least against histiorical opponents.

I think the issue is with undrilled troops who get a free turn. This is the issue I think we need to look at but we need to spend some time making sure we fix it in a good way.

[Paisley]

The issue is that retreating (or indeed advancing) whilst firing was impossible for massed infantry, drilled or otherwise armed with bow or crossbow. The simplest fix is to allow units to move OR fire. Changing facing and firing is fine. Movement is not. Obviously light infantry and light horse should be able to do both, and non-light cavalry also, but at a much bigger penalty than currently exists (otherwise medium bow armed troops are better than lights)

[TheGrayMouser]

Honestly, the balance issues, while important, are really secondary. The point is that those archers shouldn't be able to do that, not in anything trying for even the slightest bit of historical versimiltude. Agincourt is going to look pretty darn silly if the English archers that should be manning the stakes are dancing around the battlefield, using their bow-powered steering to get into cheap rear attack position.

Why not?? I guess I dont see the issue especially when one consider Pike units in game... No one seems to have a problem when Pike units can move backwards 2 hexes and reface in order to avoid other heavy troops (ie Romans ) When you think about it, Pike were at minimum 16 men deep and likly much denser in the later Succesor eras (and likly much less trained than the originals under Alex/Phillip) If you can accept a pike phalanx can avoid all contact w legions if they so chose, why not medium bowmen, who were likly only 2-4 ranks deep anyways doing the same?

My only issue w medium bows is the 6 attack dice they get in impact combat.... Seems excessive and since the attacker gets no armour POA, attacking any medium bow causes IMHO excessive damage to the attcker Perhaps reduce the overall dice to 4, at least equal w most attackers

[Jhykronos]

English archers are drilled so will be able to manoeuvre like this anyway, without a free turn.

Ummm... isn't the free turn thing the whole point? It would be pretty tough for even drilled medium infantry to perform this maneuver without the free "face what they shoot" business.

However if they are not manning their stakes they will be in trouble if they do get caught and they are slower than knights so it will happen eventually.

Are they slower than knights? They would be faster than the dismounted men-at-arms at agincourt, and AFAIK they move the same rate as the mounted knights, at least in the table top game.

Also, when moving they get a - in shooting so running around like this will probably not help them much at least against histiorical opponents.

The - in shooting is honestly pretty trivial when the other guy can't catch you... attrition will catch up to him on any but the smallest battlefield. And it's irrelevant if the free turn gives you the maneuverability dance around and charge him in the rear.

I think the issue is with undrilled troops who get a free turn. This is the issue I think we need to look at but we need to spend some time making sure we fix it in a good way.

Nobody should get a free turn for shooting, with the possible exception of lights, IMO.

[Jhykronos]

Why not??

Because it's supposed to be a historical scenario?

I guess I dont see the issue especially when one consider Pike units in game... No one seems to have a problem when Pike units can move backwards 2 hexes and reface in order to avoid other heavy troops (ie Romans )

Heh, well no one complains about it in a thread about archers, anyway

When you think about it, Pike were at minimum 16 men deep and likly much denser in the later Succesor eras (and likly much less trained than the originals under Alex/Phillip) If you can accept a pike phalanx can avoid all contact w legions if they so chose, why not medium bowmen, who were likly only 2-4 ranks deep anyways doing the same?

Achemenid persian archers were 10 ranks deep, IIRC, with front rankers bearing big wicker body shields. Anyway, the point about whether such troops COULD do such a thing is moot, when in the battle accounts we have, they never did.

(Actually, the phalanx backing thing probably bothers me less... I do recall something about "feigned" withdrawls by Spartan phalanxes at one point, not to mention Philip's wing at Chaeronaeia. Not that they should be able to completely avoid contact, though... but that's off topic anyway. In a game about historical battles, when a historical interaction is seriously wrong for a troop type over the entire period, there is a problem. Whether it concerns pikes, archers, or flaming pigs doesn't really matter)

My only issue w medium bows is the 6 attack dice they get in impact combat.... Seems excessive and since the attacker gets no armour POA, attacking any medium bow causes IMHO excessive damage to the attcker Perhaps reduce the overall dice to 4, at least equal w most attackers

The 6 dice is in line with the tabletop rules, at least. Most people over there don't seem to regard medium infantry with a bow as a particularly attractive buy... probably because in later combat phases they tend to get butchered.

[Paisley]

I can't see the issue with free turn and fire. It's a possible fix, I grant. But no move (but allow free turn) and fire solves the problem just as well and makes bowmen (bar lights of course) perform better. In fairness it might then be worth increasing bow range a bit to compensate. But the ever retreating, ever firing mass of bow armed medium/heavy foot and cavalry (though as I said above, I can see a case for cavalry, but at a higher penalty than currently) does make for some really bizarre encounters. historically, formed bowmen were almost always static. If, as at Agincourt, they moved, it was to advance. But they stopped before firing again. Plataea, Marathon, Agincourt, Crecy, etc etc. Not much retreating and firing going on in any of those battles.

I don't want the game to be a perfect simulation, and abstract is often simpler, more fun and in the end as or more realistic in outcome as complex. But this infantry retreat and fire business is daft I think.

I have zero problem with undrilled being able to 180 turn and move as currently. That is proportional to drilled's abilities (both are inflated above what was historically possible, but given counters represent groups of units, I'm not too worried about that). But move and fire is a big problem because it allows an exploit that makes bow armed foot more manoeuverable than others.

in the battle accounts we have, they never did

Actually that's not quite true. Tissaphernes' wing at Cunaxa withdrew from the Greeks (who mistakenly believed they were fleeing but as the wing was a cohesive whole after the Greek advance, it's pretty clear they were just withdrawing. They weren't firing as they went, mind.

[Jhykronos]

IActually that's not quite true. Tissaphernes' wing at Cunaxa withdrew from the Greeks (who mistakenly believed they were fleeing but as the wing was a cohesive whole after the Greek advance, it's pretty clear they were just withdrawing. They weren't firing as they went, mind.

Don't have a problem with them turning and running (facing away from the enemy, of course). That's not the same thing as backpedalling and shooting, or dancing around the flanks to get in position for a rear attack (thanks to some free turns).

Actually, I've seen more than one person who knows a lot more than I do about the Persians say those guys should be drilled anyway.

(BTW, my "between the lines" reading of Xenophon gave me the same impression as you... the Greeks got completely outgeneralled at Cunaxa, and never really figured it out, even in subsequent generations)

[TheGrayMouser]

Why not??

Because it's supposed to be a historical scenario?

I guess I dont see the issue especially when one consider Pike units in game... No one seems to have a problem when Pike units can move backwards 2 hexes and reface in order to avoid other heavy troops (ie Romans )

Heh, well no one complains about it in a thread about archers, anyway

When you think about it, Pike were at minimum 16 men deep and likly much denser in the later Succesor eras (and likly much less trained than the originals under Alex/Phillip) If you can accept a pike phalanx can avoid all contact w legions if they so chose, why not medium bowmen, who were likly only 2-4 ranks deep anyways doing the same?

Achemenid persian archers were 10 ranks deep, IIRC, with front rankers bearing big wicker body shields. Anyway, the point about whether such troops COULD do such a thing is moot, when in the battle accounts we have, they never did.

(Actually, the phalanx backing thing probably bothers me less... I do recall something about "feigned" withdrawls by Spartan phalanxes at one point, not to mention Philip's wing at Chaeronaeia. Not that they should be able to completely avoid contact, though... but that's off topic anyway. In a game about historical battles, when a historical interaction is seriously wrong for a troop type over the entire period, there is a problem. Whether it concerns pikes, archers, or flaming pigs doesn't really matter)

My only issue w medium bows is the 6 attack dice they get in impact combat.... Seems excessive and since the attacker gets no armour POA, attacking any medium bow causes IMHO excessive damage to the attcker Perhaps reduce the overall dice to 4, at least equal w most attackers

The 6 dice is in line with the tabletop rules, at least. Most people over there don't seem to regard medium infantry with a bow as a particularly attractive buy... probably because in later combat phases they tend to get butchered.

your points:
A Hope my "why not" wasnt taken as being sarcastic or devaluing your opinion. I was thinking along the line of general game play and not specific historical scenearios

B Touche

C Agree, however the game mechanics of Medium infanty need to cover a spectrum of tropp types covery many centuries and cultures. Perhaps we need another unit class? Light Medium Infanty!

D Yeah, Phil and Alex could do amazing things although I doudt the mass levied phanlanxes of the later sucessor states , which were even deeper and armed w longer sarrissas could do this...
I brought up the pikes because rebalances to one troop type could have ramifications on the relaitive imortance of others...
E Not in my game of marathon! My hoplites were mostly 2 skulls attrited before they were able to even pin the medium archers and then were manhandled in both impact and mele phases

Cheers