Damn Light Horse again

[bddbrown]

The big problem Light Horse against Bowmen (long or not) is that they can't get away - effectively Bowmen have a 10" projection rate, so if it all goes wrong then you can't get away without getting shot again. Of course if the bowmen are drilled, it makes it that much easier.

I agree, it is truly tragic that LH might actually have to take a couple of shots where they aren't at a huge advantage.

Although of course most bowmen are average, whereas many Bw armed Cv and a substantial number of LH are superior....If you are undrilled, then the foot bowman has almost no chance of escaping if he disrupts (and being average is more likely to do so).

Lets add another culprit though: Ottomann Turk. The usual variant features Serbs: however, if there are no serbs, then the army can be fielded with everything able to evade except the janissaries. EVERYTHING has a missile weapon. The Janissaries are superior, and given the firepower they can hold on against pretty much anything except Heavy foot (who will struggle to reach them undisrupted, unless they are superior or elite. Facing such an army, LF is useless unless it is in terrain: Kn can never catch anyone: if you aren't a Cv/LH army then any Cv or LH you do have will be hopelessly outnumbered.

In reality, faced with this, you would take the Roman option and dig in. Perhaps a way forward is to permit MF or HF units to do just this, and if they are halted outside of close range for more than 4 turns, to claim cover against shooters. This wouldn't fix the problem directly, but it would perhaps stop the skirmishers winning.

Those saying 'it's a skill thing' don't seem to acknowledge that the level of skill to manoevre a drilled LH/Cv army is just NOT that great. If those who use them really think they are winning by skill, then by all means, turn up to Britcon with something Undrilled, or with few superior troops, for instance Isles and Highlands, and show us all how it is done.

25mm is not the answer: unless you propose 800 pts; and the entry level if plastics aren't available is prohibitive, certainly to new players and why should those, like me(and I'm sure most of you), that have thousands of 15mm figs be forced to change scale. It's be easier and cheaper to change ruleset.

Not me. Faced with that option I would do the same I did against Simon. And it would be easier because there would be less of them with all those superior troops. Hunkering down in a corner is just creating one way traffic and playing into the hands of the opposition. By being aggressive you can charge off the skirmishers and get a free bound where they don't shoot to rally. They only get every other bound to shoot you. And if you are worried about charging cavalry with bowmen, that's what the knights are for. Paul Cummins and I did this against Nik Gaukgroger with his Mamluks at the Chester double one year. The same principle of driving off the enemy with aggressive charges and relentless pressure across the whole line.

Try it a few times in a practise game and see how it works.

[hammy]

In reality, faced with this, you would take the Roman option and dig in. Perhaps a way forward is to permit MF or HF units to do just this, and if they are halted outside of close range for more than 4 turns, to claim cover against shooters. This wouldn't fix the problem directly, but it would perhaps stop the skirmishers winning.

I thought the problem was the skirmishers playing not to lose rather than actually winning games?
OK, Simon won the Challenge with Parthian but that is the first time for a while that a skirmisher heavy army has won a big open event in the UK and Simon is not a bad player.

Those saying 'it's a skill thing' don't seem to acknowledge that the level of skill to manoevre a drilled LH/Cv army is just NOT that great. If those who use them really think they are winning by skill, then by all means, turn up to Britcon with something Undrilled, or with few superior troops, for instance Isles and Highlands, and show us all how it is done.

There is nothing wrong with lots of undrilled troops. I have done farily well with Slave Revolt, Welsh and Early Libyans all of which have nary a drilled BG in them. I would happily take on LH hordes with any of these armies at any of the normal point to table size ratios.

25mm is not the answer: unless you propose 800 pts; and the entry level if plastics aren't available is prohibitive, certainly to new players and why should those, like me(and I'm sure most of you), that have thousands of 15mm figs be forced to change scale. It's be easier and cheaper to change ruleset.

Try 650 points of 15mm on a 5 by 3 table, it seems to be a popular format.

[azrael86]

This wouldn't fix the problem directly, but it would perhaps stop the skirmishers winning.

I thought the problem was the skirmishers playing not to lose rather than actually winning games?

The point is that if a skirmisher army gets lucky (e.g. average longbow who roll a 2 when testing for minimum shooting casualties, then roll a four next turn consitutues this), it can win. If it is unlucky, the LH or skirmishing cav just takes off and rallies. So it amounts to playing a form of scissors paper stone but using a stone that is covered in flaming oil.

Heads they win, tails they don't lose.

[philqw78]

And a word from his sponsors

Try 650 points of 15mm on a 5 by 3 table, it seems to be a popular format.

[dave_r]

The point is that if a skirmisher army gets lucky (e.g. average longbow who roll a 2 when testing for minimum shooting casualties, then roll a four next turn consitutues this), it can win. If it is unlucky, the LH or skirmishing cav just takes off and rallies. So it amounts to playing a form of scissors paper stone but using a stone that is covered in flaming oil.

Heads they win, tails they don't lose.

As I pointed out this is utter rubbish - with a 10" projection then LH can't get away from bowmen - they only move 7". The Light Horse move up to within 4", both fire. There is a much better chance of the LH going disrupted than the bowmen. The bowmen move to be very close in their own turn and fire again. Probably at this point the LH are disrupted. They then can't get away without futher shots in the bowmens next turn, which will likely fragment them.

I have been here a thousand times* and it typically does not bode well for the Light Horse. Unless you are dead lucky.

Have you actually tried it on the table or is this just theory?

* You've got to exaggerate to make your point

[peterrjohnston]

I have been here a thousand times* and it typically does not bode well for the Light Horse. Unless you are dead lucky.

Have you actually tried it on the table or is this just theory?

Would that include you tonking Nik's longbow army 25-0 with Skythians at the WIC last year? Or was that the 1001st time of trying?

[zocco]

Ok,
How about this then.

1. Give FOOT bow the ability to shoot in 2 ranks at FULL effect (LH users have permission to faint at this point).
2. Give some of the better shooty foot, Swordsman capability . Armoured Roman archers come to mind here. It seems a bit odd that these guys don't get swordsmen capability when a whole load of spotty Steppe LH types do.

if the above two points were taken onboard we might just find that LH willdo what they historically did - keep well outta the way of foot archers.

[dave_r]

1. Give FOOT bow the ability to shoot in 2 ranks at FULL effect (LH users have permission to faint at this point).

They don't need it.

2. Give some of the better shooty foot, Swordsman capability . Armoured Roman archers come to mind here. It seems a bit odd that these guys don't get swordsmen capability when a whole load of spotty Steppe LH types do.

You mean like just about every army in the Empires of the Dragon book? Or most Longbowmen...

[dave_r]

Would that include you tonking Nik's longbow army 25-0 with Skythians at the WIC last year? Or was that the 1001st time of trying?

That was more to do with my flank march arriving first turn and then three BG's of Cavalry Lancers riding down three units of Nik's in one turn. Then about to charge a further unit up the chuff after it was about to be burst through by it's mates.

The one bit of luck Nik did have was when I failed my test and a BG of Lancers charged his Armoured HF. I was fragmented at the end of the impact phase. Very likely to break in the next turn. The Longbow unit next door broke and Nik threw a double one for his cohesion test and immediately dropped to Fragged...

Of course, my BG of 6 Poor Bowmen shooting Nik's six Armoured HF BG to fragmented was funny. As was Nik throwing a double one when testing for a Longbow BG that had taken a couple of hits that had rear support and an IC nearby. Most would argue this falls into the dead lucky category.

[david53]

Would that include you tonking Nik's longbow army 25-0 with Skythians at the WIC last year? Or was that the 1001st time of trying?

That was more to do with my flank march arriving first turn and then three BG's of Cavalry Lancers riding down three units of Nik's in one turn. Then about to charge a further unit up the chuff after it was about to be burst through by it's mates.

The one bit of luck Nik did have was when I failed my test and a BG of Lancers charged his Armoured HF. I was fragmented at the end of the impact phase. Very likely to break in the next turn. The Longbow unit next door broke and Nik threw a double one for his cohesion test and immediately dropped to Fragged...

Of course, my BG of 6 Poor Bowmen shooting Nik's six Armoured HF BG to fragmented was funny. As was Nik throwing a double one when testing for a Longbow BG that had taken a couple of hits that had rear support and an IC nearby. Most would argue this falls into the dead lucky category.

Dos'nt sound like you at all being lucky with the dice

[ethan]

You mean like just about every army in the Empires of the Dragon book?

What? I don't recall most archers in EoD being Bow/Sw. There are some Bw/Lt Spear and lots of mixed ranks (melee front, bow/xbow back) but not much in the way of English longbow style Bw/Sw.

In any case, MF bow are fine against LH, indeed they are a fairly cost effective counter to LH. The problem that MF bow have is that they are pretty vulnerable to a lot of other things, including heavier mounted. One possibility would be to let MF bow second ranks shoot at full effect in the impact phase instead of down a PoA.

[hazelbark]

1. Give FOOT bow the ability to shoot in 2 ranks at FULL effect (LH users have permission to faint at this point).
2. Give some of the better shooty foot, Swordsman capability . Armoured Roman archers come to mind here. It seems a bit odd that these guys don't get swordsmen capability when a whole load of spotty Steppe LH types do.

if the above two points were taken onboard we might just find that LH willdo what they historically did - keep well outta the way of foot archers.

Actually as someone who would like to see foot bows stronger, I don't think this is their problem. Foot bow are most vulnerable to foot. Generally if the foot get into impact it is over baring luck or small numbers. A double POA is just hard to beat.

I think a better fix (need different thread) would be:
foot that don't inflict equal or more hits at impact, break off 1 MU and do not move or get to melee that turn. Probably prohibit the bow from firing in that shooting phase.
Extend the long range of foot bow to 8 MU or maybe just Crossbows get that extra range as they are donw a POA its a milder increase.

[dave_r]

What? I don't recall most archers in EoD being Bow/Sw. There are some Bw/Lt Spear and lots of mixed ranks (melee front, bow/xbow back) but not much in the way of English longbow style Bw/Sw.

Here is the question that was asked.

Give some of the better shooty foot, Swordsman capability

That was the question that I answered.

In any case, MF bow are fine against LH, indeed they are a fairly cost effective counter to LH. The problem that MF bow have is that they are pretty vulnerable to a lot of other things, including heavier mounted. One possibility would be to let MF bow second ranks shoot at full effect in the impact phase instead of down a PoA.

It would be easier if you just said why not just make everybody turn up with a WotR army and cut out the middle man.

[ethan]

Actually as someone who would like to see foot bows stronger, I don't think this is their problem. Foot bow are most vulnerable to foot. Generally if the foot get into impact it is over baring luck or small numbers. A double POA is just hard to beat.

I can live with the vulnerability to foot, but they need to be a more generic counter to mounted.

If MF bow where a fairly good generic counter to mounted (especially non-Heavyily Armoured knights) then wrt to foot I see the situation as:

- Drilled MF bows get out of the way, opposing combined armys armies of foot and mounted have a counter to the bows. Opposing all mounted have a tough time.
- Undrilled MF get, well, runover but then they are probably cheap...

I have seen a number of comments on this forum that MF bow aren't worth having if you have a LF bow option. The MF option needs to be a serious one to consider. I don't actually think it would take much, just a little bit more juice to the MF bow.

[Ghaznavid]

Actually as someone who would like to see foot bows stronger, I don't think this is their problem. Foot bow are most vulnerable to foot. Generally if the foot get into impact it is over baring luck or small numbers. A double POA is just hard to beat.

I can live with the vulnerability to foot, but they need to be a more generic counter to mounted.

If MF bow where a fairly good generic counter to mounted (especially non-Heavyily Armoured knights) then wrt to foot I see the situation as:

Problem is, they don't seem to have been the counter of choice to mounted. In the long run everyone that had to contend with mounted opponents increased their own mounted arm. I don't think anyones answer to mobil mounted foes was a foot archers (nope French Knights do not really count as mobile mounted foes and frankly at the start the English used archers because they were available, not necessarily because they expected to beat the French knights with them).
That's not to say that undrilled, average MF archers without any melee capacity aren't a bit of a dog troop type, the problem is to help them without strengthening the already plenty powerful LB or superior MF archers.

[hammy]

If MF bow where a fairly good generic counter to mounted (especially non-Heavyily Armoured knights) then wrt to foot I see the situation as:

- Drilled MF bows get out of the way, opposing combined armys armies of foot and mounted have a counter to the bows. Opposing all mounted have a tough time.
- Undrilled MF get, well, runover but then they are probably cheap...

I have seen a number of comments on this forum that MF bow aren't worth having if you have a LF bow option. The MF option needs to be a serious one to consider. I don't actually think it would take much, just a little bit more juice to the MF bow.

Undrilled MF bow are perfectly usable troops. I too used to follow the "there is no point in MF bow if you can have LF" but that is no longer the case.

With a bit of tactics and timing you can take on a lot of different enemy troops effectively with MF bow.

Last night one of my Indian MF bow BGs along with some MF light spear and rear support from clubmen forced back an enemy flank of two BGs of superior armoured shooty cav. The shooty cav were most perturbed when they were on the wrong end of 7 dice of shooting in one volley (I had a single base of chariots helping out).

The key with MF bow is getting lots and lots of shooting dice. During the beta I was pushing hard to get full dice for both ranks of MF bow but now I think that it would have been far too much. My Classical Indian army is however high on the list of armies that will be fully tarted up for FoG in the near future. I need a few more figures to fill out BGs and they will ready before too long.

[ethan]

Problem is, they don't seem to have been the counter of choice to mounted. In the long run everyone that had to contend with mounted opponents increased their own mounted arm. I don't think anyones answer to mobil mounted foes was a foot archers (nope French Knights do not really count as mobile mounted foes and frankly at the start the English used archers because they were available, not necessarily because they expected to beat the French knights with them).

I thought that Crusaders (and their enemies) found crossbowmen pretty effective against their various Moslem opponents. Granted they were used in concert with Spear and Knights, but the Xbows weren't an afterthought from what I recall.

Still it is an interesting question what are the use of foot archers generally in history?

Are they seen as an effective troop type? or are they generally (leaving aside longbows, jannissaries and a few other super elite troops) just something you took because they were around? Lots of peasantish types could use a bow, telling them to stand in a line and shoot was pretty easy so voila! you had troops.

Would be interesting to see what other uses of MF archers in history we can find. The Chinese seem to have used a fair number, the Germans fielded fair numbers of Xbows I think, Fatimid Egypt has a corp of Armenian archers IIRC, there are many others.

[hammy]

I thought that Crusaders (and their enemies) found crossbowmen pretty effective against their various Moslem opponents. Granted they were used in concert with Spear and Knights, but the Xbows weren't an afterthought from what I recall.

Still it is an interesting question what are the use of foot archers generally in history?

Are they seen as an effective troop type? or are they generally (leaving aside longbows, jannissaries and a few other super elite troops) just something you took because they were around? Lots of peasantish types could use a bow, telling them to stand in a line and shoot was pretty easy so voila! you had troops.

Would be interesting to see what other uses of MF archers in history we can find. The Chinese seem to have used a fair number, the Germans fielded fair numbers of Xbows I think, Fatimid Egypt has a corp of Armenian archers IIRC, there are many others.

Well in FoG Crusader armies that go running after the Arabs with their knights leaving the crossbowmen and spears behind end up as very dead Crusader armies very quickly (well Armoured knights die very quickly while heavily armoured ones die but take a little longer to do so). If the cunning Cruisader player can keep their knights back and under control while dictating the game with their infantry the Arabs can be in trouble.

As for armies with lots of MF bow in history what about Indians, Egyptians, Early Persian

[Ghaznavid]

Still it is an interesting question what are the use of foot archers generally in history?

Are they seen as an effective troop type? or are they generally (leaving aside longbows, jannissaries and a few other super elite troops) just something you took because they were around? Lots of peasantish types could use a bow, telling them to stand in a line and shoot was pretty easy so voila! you had troops.

As for armies with lots of MF bow in history what about Indians, Egyptians, Early Persian

Well Indians get Elephants, which isn't the worst answer to enemy mounted, especially if spread among the otherwise vulnerable infantry (and mixing Elephants and foot was a standard tactic). Egyptians is a wide field, but like Early Persians they tended to have a significant mounted arm of their own, so I'm not sure they foot archers acted as counter to enemy mounted. Also considering the lengths to which Cyrrus went to counter the Lydian Cavalry, despite having good Cavalry himself it does not look like he placed much confidence in his archers vs. enemy mounted.

[ethan]

Undrilled MF bow are perfectly usable troops. I too used to follow the "there is no point in MF bow if you can have LF" but that is no longer the case.

Actually, I agree with this and have been using them quite a bit lately. I would note it is a minority view around here.