I just ran a test which suggests to me that firing hits should be cumulative within a single round, not independent as currently. Granted the knight in quetion was heavily armoured and so taking 30 or so volleys to reduce him to 50% seems fair, I think he should be far more prone to failing cohesion testing than he was.
4 average longbowmen in command firing at a single, unsupported but in command superior heavily armoured foot knight. That's 36 points firing on 15.
Here's how it turned out:
Turn 1: hits scored 2x0 + 2x1 + 0x2 = 2
Turn 2: hits scored 0x0 + 2x1 + 2x2 = 6
Turn 3: hits scored 1x0 + 2x1 + 1x2 = 4
Turn 4: hits scored 0x0 + 2x1 + 2x2 = 6 The knight was now reduced to 75%
Turn 5: hits scored 1x0 + 1x1 + 2x2 = 5
Turn 6: hits scored 1x0 + 2x1 + 1x2 = 4 The knight was disrupted but rallied at the end of its own turn
Turn 7: hits scored 0x0 + 2x1 + 2x2 = 6 The knight was reduced to 50%
Turn 8: The knight routed after the second unit fired.
So I ran it again with almost identical results:
Turn 1: hits scored 3x0 + 1x1 + 0x2 = 1
Turn 2: hits scored 0x0 + 2x1 + 2x2 = 6
Turn 3: hits scored 1x0 + 1x1 + 1x2 = 5
Turn 4: hits scored 0x0 + 2x1 + 1x2 = 4
Turn 5: hits scored 1x0 + 2x1 + 2x2 = 4 The kniight was reduced to 75%
Turn 6: hits scored 1x0 + 2x1 + 1x2 = 4 The knight was disrupted but rallied at the end of its own turn
Turn 7: hits scored 1x0 + 1X1 + 2x2 = 5
Turn 7: hits scored 0x0 + 2x2 + 2x2 = 6 The knight was reduced to 50%
Turn 8: The knight routed after the second unit fired.
Are English Longbowmen underpowered?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
I then repeated with a swiss pike (superior, protected, in command, unsupported). Again, 36 points firing on 15.
The Swiss received hits per turn thus:
7, 2, 6, 3, 4, 7, 7
It was disrupted on turn three, reduced to 75% on turn 4, rallied on turn 5, disrupted again on turn 6 an drallied immediately, reduced to 50% on turn 7 and routed on turn 8 with the first volley.
It took 34 hits to break the first knight and 36 to break the Swiss. The Swiss was disrupted twice as often and for longer.
The Swiss received hits per turn thus:
7, 2, 6, 3, 4, 7, 7
It was disrupted on turn three, reduced to 75% on turn 4, rallied on turn 5, disrupted again on turn 6 an drallied immediately, reduced to 50% on turn 7 and routed on turn 8 with the first volley.
It took 34 hits to break the first knight and 36 to break the Swiss. The Swiss was disrupted twice as often and for longer.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Right same as the first test (longbows versus knights) with all factors identical except longbows are now superior.
Test 1:
Hits delivered by turn 6, 6, 3, 5, 5 (knights now at 75%), 3, 2, 5 (knights disrupted and at 50%), 5 (knights routed). 9 turns to rout. One disruption in 40 volleys
Test 2 (knights again):
Hits 4, 4, 3, 7 (knights at 75%), 9, 4, 5 (disrupted), 2 (50%), routed. 9 turns to rout, 1 disruption in 38 volleys.
So making bowmen superior does not increase their ability to disrupt/fragment foot sufficiently and will very likely give them a wholly unwarranted melee boost. So I think what's needed is for missile fire to do no more casualties (that's very important or you'll skew things badly) but to have a greater chance of forcing cohesion tests, and for those cohesion tests to be harder to pass.
A start might be to say that every hit requires a cohesion test and that every hit above one incurs a further -1 on the check (so 3 hits = -2) but with the provis that a unit cannot fail more than one test per turn from missile fire.
Test 1:
Hits delivered by turn 6, 6, 3, 5, 5 (knights now at 75%), 3, 2, 5 (knights disrupted and at 50%), 5 (knights routed). 9 turns to rout. One disruption in 40 volleys
Test 2 (knights again):
Hits 4, 4, 3, 7 (knights at 75%), 9, 4, 5 (disrupted), 2 (50%), routed. 9 turns to rout, 1 disruption in 38 volleys.
So making bowmen superior does not increase their ability to disrupt/fragment foot sufficiently and will very likely give them a wholly unwarranted melee boost. So I think what's needed is for missile fire to do no more casualties (that's very important or you'll skew things badly) but to have a greater chance of forcing cohesion tests, and for those cohesion tests to be harder to pass.
A start might be to say that every hit requires a cohesion test and that every hit above one incurs a further -1 on the check (so 3 hits = -2) but with the provis that a unit cannot fail more than one test per turn from missile fire.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Good plan.
For the test to be fairly combared to my above, you'd need 8 bases of longbows firing at 2 bases of knights. It's very important that the knights are counted as in command but unsupported.
For the test to be fairly combared to my above, you'd need 8 bases of longbows firing at 2 bases of knights. It's very important that the knights are counted as in command but unsupported.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Well I used 16 bases of longbows (average MF) shooting at a unit of 4 bases of knights (heavily armoured HF superior in command), just one volley.
at extreme range the knights suffer on average 3 hits (on 5's to hit it isn't inconceivable to be hit 16 times, although extremely unlikely) and need to roll 7 or better on 2 d6 not to drop a cohesion level, then there is a death roll requiring the knights to roll 2 or more on 1 d6 not to lose a base (25% of the unit). To summarize the knights have a 50% chance of staying in good order and a 83% chance of losing no casulaties at all.
at effective range the knights suffer on average 4 hits (again could be much higher on 5's) and need to roll 7 or better on 2 d6 not to drop a cohesion level, then roll 3 or more on 1 d6 not to lose a base (25% of the unit). so, again it is 50% chance to stay in good order and a 67% chance of not losing any casulaties.
A bit different I think.
at extreme range the knights suffer on average 3 hits (on 5's to hit it isn't inconceivable to be hit 16 times, although extremely unlikely) and need to roll 7 or better on 2 d6 not to drop a cohesion level, then there is a death roll requiring the knights to roll 2 or more on 1 d6 not to lose a base (25% of the unit). To summarize the knights have a 50% chance of staying in good order and a 83% chance of losing no casulaties at all.
at effective range the knights suffer on average 4 hits (again could be much higher on 5's) and need to roll 7 or better on 2 d6 not to drop a cohesion level, then roll 3 or more on 1 d6 not to lose a base (25% of the unit). so, again it is 50% chance to stay in good order and a 67% chance of not losing any casulaties.
A bit different I think.
Oh fair enough, the proportions will be the same.
So probably just accumulating missile hits over the turn would do. It might be hard to do though as the firing isn't all done at once.
In theory on the pc, 4 units of longbows could inflict 12 hits as a max (3/counter) but the average seems to be about 6 per turn or 1.5 per counter, which is of course what it should be by probabilities. That would give 8 units (equal to your 16 bases) a (highly unlikely) max of 24.
Hmm. on the table your knights have a 50% chance not to lose cohesion... should be the same on the pc (cohesion tests being the same, I think). And yet... even at one test per turn they were failing 1 in 8 or thereabouts. Is something not right, I wonder.
If on the table the knights take a volley at extreme range and a volley at normal range and have a 50% of losing cohesion each time then they end up 75% of the time with a cohesion loss after two rounds of firing. That just doesn't seem to happen in my 4 trials. They'd also lose a base about 25% of the time, i think, which will no happen in 2 rounds of pc firing. It takes about twice that.
Maybe bows do need an increase of 2 hexes range to help compensate. Or maybe they just need a bi of help in disrupting their foes.
So probably just accumulating missile hits over the turn would do. It might be hard to do though as the firing isn't all done at once.
In theory on the pc, 4 units of longbows could inflict 12 hits as a max (3/counter) but the average seems to be about 6 per turn or 1.5 per counter, which is of course what it should be by probabilities. That would give 8 units (equal to your 16 bases) a (highly unlikely) max of 24.
Hmm. on the table your knights have a 50% chance not to lose cohesion... should be the same on the pc (cohesion tests being the same, I think). And yet... even at one test per turn they were failing 1 in 8 or thereabouts. Is something not right, I wonder.
If on the table the knights take a volley at extreme range and a volley at normal range and have a 50% of losing cohesion each time then they end up 75% of the time with a cohesion loss after two rounds of firing. That just doesn't seem to happen in my 4 trials. They'd also lose a base about 25% of the time, i think, which will no happen in 2 rounds of pc firing. It takes about twice that.
Maybe bows do need an increase of 2 hexes range to help compensate. Or maybe they just need a bi of help in disrupting their foes.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Or perhaps test once per volley that scores any hits (but only lose a max of one level of cohesion in a round of shooting).
Hitting on a 5 or 6 a unit should in theory score thus:
0 - 8/27
1 - 12/27
2 - 6/27
3 - 1/27
it scores at least one hit about 2/3 of the time. But 2 hits (the number required for a cohesion test, which I overlooked before) only 7/27 or about 25% of the time.
Now in a battle it is very likely that the unit hit will be both in command and supported giving the +2 on the cohesion test. So the test is passed on a 5 or more. Thus 5/6 of the time (or roughly 80%, actually nearer 83%). It may in fact get more bonuses than that, but we'll take that as a reasonable supposition given competent players. So the chance for a shot to disrupt is about 5%.
But suppose the test was compulsory from just one hit. Then the chance of forcing a test would be 19/27 or about 69%. If we stick to 'only one test per round from missile fire then there'd be a roughly 70% chance of forcing a test and a 20% chance of it being failed. So about 14% for a shot to disrupt. Much better but not over te top. Thus two units (18pts) firing at a single knight (15pts) disrupt it about 30% of the time (all calculations pretty rough but near enough). That to me seems better.
Hitting on a 5 or 6 a unit should in theory score thus:
0 - 8/27
1 - 12/27
2 - 6/27
3 - 1/27
it scores at least one hit about 2/3 of the time. But 2 hits (the number required for a cohesion test, which I overlooked before) only 7/27 or about 25% of the time.
Now in a battle it is very likely that the unit hit will be both in command and supported giving the +2 on the cohesion test. So the test is passed on a 5 or more. Thus 5/6 of the time (or roughly 80%, actually nearer 83%). It may in fact get more bonuses than that, but we'll take that as a reasonable supposition given competent players. So the chance for a shot to disrupt is about 5%.
But suppose the test was compulsory from just one hit. Then the chance of forcing a test would be 19/27 or about 69%. If we stick to 'only one test per round from missile fire then there'd be a roughly 70% chance of forcing a test and a 20% chance of it being failed. So about 14% for a shot to disrupt. Much better but not over te top. Thus two units (18pts) firing at a single knight (15pts) disrupt it about 30% of the time (all calculations pretty rough but near enough). That to me seems better.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28284
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
(Disclaimer: I am not one of the developers of the PC version).
I have not found longbowmen to be underpowered in FOG PC. All my favourite armies use them - in most cases as many as the list allows.
I think part of the problem arises from undercritical analysis (by popular historians) of the historical prowess of longbowmen, to the point where the expectation is that they should mow down everything in front of them like machine guns and stop a cavalry charge in open terrain by archery power alone.
To quote the the relevant section of the TT Storm of Arrows book (which I did write):
"Although the arrow storm laid down by English longbowmen was extremely effective, it was not considered enough on its own to stop a charge by mounted men-at-arms. The English invariably tried to form up in defensive positions, with their flanks secured by woods, hedges or other difficult terrain, and their front also protected in one way or another. At Morlaix (1342) and Crecy (1346), for example, they formed up on a ridge behind concealed pits, at Mauron (1352) on a ridge partly protected by tangled brambles, at Poitiers (1356) behind hedges and amongst thickets and thorn bushes, at Agincourt (1415) behind muddy ploughed fields and stakes, and so on. After 1415, the use of stakes in front of the archers became standard practice, soon copied by the Burgundians and, later, by the French. At Patay (1429), however, the English archers were ridden down by mounted French men-at-arms who managed to charge them before they could emplace their stakes."
Used historically, I find that longbowmen are not underpowered at all in FOG PC.
I have not found longbowmen to be underpowered in FOG PC. All my favourite armies use them - in most cases as many as the list allows.
I think part of the problem arises from undercritical analysis (by popular historians) of the historical prowess of longbowmen, to the point where the expectation is that they should mow down everything in front of them like machine guns and stop a cavalry charge in open terrain by archery power alone.
To quote the the relevant section of the TT Storm of Arrows book (which I did write):
"Although the arrow storm laid down by English longbowmen was extremely effective, it was not considered enough on its own to stop a charge by mounted men-at-arms. The English invariably tried to form up in defensive positions, with their flanks secured by woods, hedges or other difficult terrain, and their front also protected in one way or another. At Morlaix (1342) and Crecy (1346), for example, they formed up on a ridge behind concealed pits, at Mauron (1352) on a ridge partly protected by tangled brambles, at Poitiers (1356) behind hedges and amongst thickets and thorn bushes, at Agincourt (1415) behind muddy ploughed fields and stakes, and so on. After 1415, the use of stakes in front of the archers became standard practice, soon copied by the Burgundians and, later, by the French. At Patay (1429), however, the English archers were ridden down by mounted French men-at-arms who managed to charge them before they could emplace their stakes."
Used historically, I find that longbowmen are not underpowered at all in FOG PC.
I quite agree that longbowmen could not defend their own front by fire against charging cavalry - they needed some kind of obstacle too.
But... they do not often even disrupt attacking foot knights, even firing four units into 1 (see above tests). And when I say not often, I mean really not often. I'm not so sure about that. The casualty rates seem fine. The low potential to disrupt heavily armoured infantry less so.
But... they do not often even disrupt attacking foot knights, even firing four units into 1 (see above tests). And when I say not often, I mean really not often. I'm not so sure about that. The casualty rates seem fine. The low potential to disrupt heavily armoured infantry less so.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Despite being branded an English apologist (thanks Ryan) I do agree with what you have written above and earlier in this thread have said pretty much the same thing in terms of how longbows gained their greatest effect in battles. Also from my own remake of the Agincourt scenario I found that the Longbows behaved pretty damn well to be honest. But having said that there is a bit of a difference with how effective the longbow (or ALL missile fire for that) is in the PC version to the TT version, that is if Paisley's tests and my own are correct of course. Couple this to the effectiveness of melee combat when ganging up considerations are taken into account (will have to compare between the PC and TT) and the bias may have shifted in favour of close combat in the PC game, which when compared to the original game may not be right at all. I will admit before I finish that I have not tested out the effectiveness of melee compared to the TT version yet but my gut feeling is that the bias has indeed changed.rbodleyscott wrote:(Disclaimer: I am not one of the developers of the PC version).
I have not found longbowmen to be underpowered in FOG PC. All my favourite armies use them - in most cases as many as the list allows.
I think part of the problem arises from undercritical analysis (by popular historians) of the historical prowess of longbowmen, to the point where the expectation is that they should mow down everything in front of them like machine guns and stop a cavalry charge in open terrain by archery power alone.
To quote the the relevant section of the TT Storm of Arrows book (which I did write):
"Although the arrow storm laid down by English longbowmen was extremely effective, it was not considered enough on its own to stop a charge by mounted men-at-arms. The English invariably tried to form up in defensive positions, with their flanks secured by woods, hedges or other difficult terrain, and their front also protected in one way or another. At Morlaix (1342) and Crecy (1346), for example, they formed up on a ridge behind concealed pits, at Mauron (1352) on a ridge partly protected by tangled brambles, at Poitiers (1356) behind hedges and amongst thickets and thorn bushes, at Agincourt (1415) behind muddy ploughed fields and stakes, and so on. After 1415, the use of stakes in front of the archers became standard practice, soon copied by the Burgundians and, later, by the French. At Patay (1429), however, the English archers were ridden down by mounted French men-at-arms who managed to charge them before they could emplace their stakes."
Used historically, I find that longbowmen are not underpowered at all in FOG PC.
I'd just like to say the last thing I will ever be is an English apologist. That out of the way...
I have just tested an average armoured spearman with the same 4 longbows shooting.
First test: On the third turn he was at 75%, on the fourth he was disrupted, 5th routed.
Second test: First turn disrupted (but rallied), second turn disrupted again, third turn at 75%, fourth turn fragmented, 5th routed.
The victim of course, as in all the other tests, simply stood and took it.
Of course the effect of support shooting at impact has a part to play too... if shooting becomes too effective at disrupting on the approach, the added effect at impact may be too much. Then again, I don't think often 4 units will be able to gang up on 1 with their fire if all are being borne down on by heavy foot.
I'll try and find time to do a test tomorrow similar to the Swiss pikes versus knights I did before.
I have just tested an average armoured spearman with the same 4 longbows shooting.
First test: On the third turn he was at 75%, on the fourth he was disrupted, 5th routed.
Second test: First turn disrupted (but rallied), second turn disrupted again, third turn at 75%, fourth turn fragmented, 5th routed.
The victim of course, as in all the other tests, simply stood and took it.
Of course the effect of support shooting at impact has a part to play too... if shooting becomes too effective at disrupting on the approach, the added effect at impact may be too much. Then again, I don't think often 4 units will be able to gang up on 1 with their fire if all are being borne down on by heavy foot.
I'll try and find time to do a test tomorrow similar to the Swiss pikes versus knights I did before.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
The Swiss need nobody apologising for them...
I'm going to slightly reserve judgement on the longbow issue save to say it seems to me to be out of kilter with the tabletop probabilities. If anyone would like to check mine and SW's maths in relation to the rules, that would be great.
The reason I'm slightly cautious is the two extra dice they get at impact. After I've run a few combats I'll have a better idea.
I'm going to slightly reserve judgement on the longbow issue save to say it seems to me to be out of kilter with the tabletop probabilities. If anyone would like to check mine and SW's maths in relation to the rules, that would be great.
The reason I'm slightly cautious is the two extra dice they get at impact. After I've run a few combats I'll have a better idea.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5286
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
wading in on the original thought here, the main difference I see between the TT and the PC games are the number of opportunities the bows can shoot in each game.
On the TT bows shoot in both their own turn and the enemy turn. I have used MF bows with fairly good results in my Selucid army. I start by moving so my targets are just within long range, and shoot at them. During their turn they move usually into effective range and I shoot them. During my turn I stand and shoot them again. during their turn they are usually in charge range so they charge me. So I get 3 chances to shoot them, 3 chances to cause a cohesion drop etc.
In the PC game you only ever shoot on your turn, so if you move into long range and shoot, the enemy moves up you might get one extra shot and then they charge you. I think you actually get less shooting opportunities in the PC game then you do on the TT, so less chances to cause a cohesion drop etc. Being the one with the longbows all the time I am not sure what its like to be on the receiving end in the PC game.
On the TT bows shoot in both their own turn and the enemy turn. I have used MF bows with fairly good results in my Selucid army. I start by moving so my targets are just within long range, and shoot at them. During their turn they move usually into effective range and I shoot them. During my turn I stand and shoot them again. during their turn they are usually in charge range so they charge me. So I get 3 chances to shoot them, 3 chances to cause a cohesion drop etc.
In the PC game you only ever shoot on your turn, so if you move into long range and shoot, the enemy moves up you might get one extra shot and then they charge you. I think you actually get less shooting opportunities in the PC game then you do on the TT, so less chances to cause a cohesion drop etc. Being the one with the longbows all the time I am not sure what its like to be on the receiving end in the PC game.
