As for the DAG terrain, you are absolutely correct - DAG battles terrain are incredibly random and subject to many variations. However, the lack of good defensive terrain should not be an excuse to improve the English longbow above their historical counterparts. The English longbowmen historically speaking were victims of terrain. For every battle of Crecy or Agincourt, there was another battle where the French were able to butcher the English longbowmen simply due to the terrain on the field not supporting England's mixed arms longbow tactics. Agincourt and Crecy always seem to be the go to battles when people are supporting the longbowmen, but despite the dmg the Longbowmen mustered in their arrow shafts, as much (if not more of the battle) was determined by the men at arms in melee. The arrows and the longbowmen served their purpose (ie disordering/disrupting lines of French soldiers -- which absolutely can occur in FOG now -- and forcing impetuous advances), but the English won due to terrain (#1 factor), superior tactics (#2 factor). The longbowmen, while absolutely beneficial in the use of the tactics, was not the end all of the battle and is part of what I mean when I say that they have been over romanticized.jimcrowley wrote:That may well be true in real life when the ground can be picked but in a DAG game you get the map you get. If you don't get good defensive terrain -rare in my experience- you are buggered with a bow based/MF army.
Even with good defensive terrain, most of the benefit will be derived from the fact that MF are less penalised in rough/difficult terrain, in melee/impact combat only. There is no advantage to missile combat other than the terrain slowing the enemy, so that you may get three shots instead of two; much difference that will make. More often than not rough terrain will just curtail your line of sight.
Basically you are saying that the English archers at Crecy and Agincourt did no appreciable damage to the French other than in melee? Or against the Scottish at Halidon Hill, Nevilles Cross and Homildon Hill?
Because that is the only way they can dish out damage at present In FoG.
I also disagree with your assumption that as of right now the only way that the existing longbowmen can do dmg is in melee. I'm fighting three battles right now where I've been able to defensively position my longbow men in such a way that I have the enemy player funnelled into specific narrow killing zones. In one battle, I have not connected into melee yet and the battle already has him losing 9 AP vs. my 1 from a fragmented skirmisher I let get to close to the enemy.
With proper terrain (which should be absolutley required for the longbow to be effective), the longbow can wreck havoc on an enemy.
(As a side note - that extra shot in terrain is actually extremely beneficial - especially if you are massing fire on single targets...)
