Are English Longbowmen underpowered?

[jamespcrowley]

Some good arguments being put forward to support my feeling that the English army, with its primary component of longbowmen, is under-represented.

I tend to agree that upgrading to superior is not the answer within the current format, as it distorts the melee value. However something along the lines that are being suggested needs to be implemented if the English army is to be a viable opponent in DAG battles. If their longbow fire is generally as ineffective as the stats seem to show then they are suffering from a major disadvantage.

rbodleyscott qoutes from his own section of the TT rules and mentions the English bowmen using, variously, ridges, pits, brambles, hedges, thorn bushes and ploughed fields to offer protection in the real world. Sadly FoG has none of those elements as such and the DaG maps rarely offer the same sort of terrain advantages. Even if they did, if the archery is ineffective, what difference will it make.

The English archer was not a romantic myth; quite the opposite in fact. But he was renowned as probably the best archer at that time and was regarded as such by contemporary sources.

[Paisley]

I find there are quite a few maps that allow archers to use terrain, either to hold the main line or to work one or other flank. Even a hill can make the difference (and steep hills even better).

I'm going to run a test fight tomorrow and see what happens and then what difference adding terrain makes. Making them superior definitely isn't the answer (if an answer is required) as it has very little appreciable affect on their ability to disrupt the enemy with fire.

Having both won with and been defeated by longbow heavy armies I'm not necessarily convinced they do need beefed - or at least not much. But it does seem to me, from bates' figures, that longbows are less effective base equivalent for base than on the table.

It's not so much the approach shooting as the bonus to impact that makes the difference if the archers are in terrain.

[deadtorius]

On the tabletop do archers get two bonus dice at impact if on the defensive?

Yes in the table top rules it states that they get the bonus dice, note though that they dont get those dice if charged in the flank or rear on the TT so likely just the rear in the PC game.

About steep hills, steep hills disorder MF troops who will lose 1 die per 3. On the TT its 1 die per front rank base in effective and 1 die per 2 bases for rear or any shooting beyond effective range. I havent been paying much attention to how many dice the average bow unit gets but it looks like you would lose 1 die for being on a steep hill. Yes it gives you protection when the knights come after you but it also affects your shooting. Normal hills will allow you to shoot more than 1 rank of bows over the heads of the lower units so you effectively double up your shooting dice that way. Set stakes with the front rank and it makes the ideal longbow shooting situation

[jamespcrowley]

Terrain helps archers on impact and melee but does nothing to improve their ability to disrupt enemy BGs with arrows - which is basically what they did historically.

[Xiggy]

The amount of casualties they cause will drop troops 1 moral grade all the time. They dish out as many casualties at range, as most armies do in hand to hand.

[SRW1962]

The English archer was not a romantic myth; quite the opposite in fact. But he was renowned as probably the best archer at that time and was regarded as such by contemporary sources.

You are right they were the best archers around, no matter what other missile weapon other infantry used at that time they could not hope to shoot it out with English Longbows as they would lose. Ay damn idiot could use a xbow and for that matter a bow of any type, but it took years of daily training from childhood to make an English Longbowman as good as they were. The Scots and French both tried to train their own Longbowmen without any great success following defeats suffered at the hands of the English and that was because it took so long to train to the same level and they couldn't maintain that. The truth is in the English army, if you weren't a knight and weren't good enough or strong enough to use a bow, you were given a bill and told to form up with all the other useless sods in the billmen units because the billmen were the untrained or unfit.

I actually think that they should be be allowed to upgrade to superior or at least given the option, to denote the quality of the English, they are the only Longbows in SOA to be given swordsmen status to reflect their enhanced abilities in strength as mentioned previously in my posts.

Having said all that I don't think that they are mistreated in the rules, generally ALL missile troops are downgraded but with their swordsmen staus they do at lest do okay in melee.

[RyanDG]

You are right they were the best archers around, no matter what other missile weapon other infantry used at that time they could not hope to shoot it out with English Longbows as they would lose. Ay damn idiot could use a xbow and for that matter a bow of any type, but it took years of daily training from childhood to make an English Longbowman as good as they were.

I definitely agree that on an individual one on one basis the english longbowmen would outclass most others of its time frame, but ultimately speaking, if you look at the missile unit that changed the era of warfare I really think that the crossbow had a far greater affect on the era than the longbow - especially if you look at the effect on a more worldwide scale as opposed to localized warfare that occurred during the Hundred Year's War. This is why I think the longbow has been romaticized quite a bit. Yes, it was a weapon that when used effectively had a great hand in select battles - but it was always entirely dependent on terrain, tactics, and circumstance. The crossbow however was not localized and resulted in a lot more devastating results than the longbow and for a far longer time frame. Just my thoughts on a healthy historical debate of course.

[Skanvak]

I really think that before speaking of the quality of the bow aging peasant of england, we should first focus on putting the range weapon damage on line with the TT rules.

I mean rather see my french knight die from arrows (that tend to kill the horses...) than see them being slaughter bu superior english peasant waging second class sword...

[SRW1962]

You are right they were the best archers around, no matter what other missile weapon other infantry used at that time they could not hope to shoot it out with English Longbows as they would lose. Ay damn idiot could use a xbow and for that matter a bow of any type, but it took years of daily training from childhood to make an English Longbowman as good as they were.

I definitely agree that on an individual one on one basis the english longbowmen would outclass most others of its time frame, but ultimately speaking, if you look at the missile unit that changed the era of warfare I really think that the crossbow had a far greater affect on the era than the longbow - especially if you look at the effect on a more worldwide scale as opposed to localized warfare that occurred during the Hundred Year's War. This is why I think the longbow has been romaticized quite a bit. Yes, it was a weapon that when used effectively had a great hand in select battles - but it was always entirely dependent on terrain, tactics, and circumstance. The crossbow however was not localized and resulted in a lot more devastating results than the longbow and for a far longer time frame. Just my thoughts on a healthy historical debate of course.

All good points I would definitely agree with, but would like to add that it wasn't the Longbow that was a wonder weapon of any kind, just the skill of the users in the English army, plus good tactics and use of terrain to maimise their value. Yes it has been romanticised, but the ALL English victories against the French, Germans, Welsh, Scots, Irish etc. are romanticised by the English as I am sure those countries Romanticise their victoiries (although they have a lot fewer ). The xbow and later the arquebus, musket etc. would always be better weapons in the long run because as I said before any damn fool can use one and it took no real training at all to point and click as it were, and because of the nature of the xbow power wasn't gained from the user, but by the loading mechanism.

[Aryaman]

You are right they were the best archers around, no matter what other missile weapon other infantry used at that time they could not hope to shoot it out with English Longbows as they would lose. Ay damn idiot could use a xbow and for that matter a bow of any type, but it took years of daily training from childhood to make an English Longbowman as good as they were. The Scots and French both tried to train their own Longbowmen without any great success following defeats suffered at the hands of the English and that was because it took so long to train to the same level and they couldn't maintain that. The truth is in the English army, if you weren't a knight and weren't good enough or strong enough to use a bow, you were given a bill and told to form up with all the other useless sods in the billmen units because the billmen were the untrained or unfit

Do you know that for sure? In the indenture contracts billmen are listed as archers, they get the same pay.
For the rest, I am in complete agreement.

[SRW1962]

You are right they were the best archers around, no matter what other missile weapon other infantry used at that time they could not hope to shoot it out with English Longbows as they would lose. Ay damn idiot could use a xbow and for that matter a bow of any type, but it took years of daily training from childhood to make an English Longbowman as good as they were. The Scots and French both tried to train their own Longbowmen without any great success following defeats suffered at the hands of the English and that was because it took so long to train to the same level and they couldn't maintain that. The truth is in the English army, if you weren't a knight and weren't good enough or strong enough to use a bow, you were given a bill and told to form up with all the other useless sods in the billmen units because the billmen were the untrained or unfit

Do you know that for sure? In the indenture contracts billmen are listed as archers, they get the same pay.
For the rest, I am in complete agreement.

At that time is was the law to practice archery, so if they had any use as a bowman they would be used as such, if through weakness or simply lack of practice or usefulness they couldn't use a bow they were employed as billmen. You are right all foot were described as archers and on paper paid as such, but probably a fiddle going on to gain extra funds etc.

[Aryaman]

All good points I would definitely agree with, but would like to add that it wasn't the Longbow that was a wonder weapon of any kind, just the skill of the users in the English army, plus good tactics and use of terrain to maimise their value. Yes it has been romanticised, but the ALL English victories against the French, Germans, Welsh, Scots, Irish etc. are romanticised by the English as I am sure those countries Romanticise their victoiries (although they have a lot fewer ). The xbow and later the arquebus, musket etc. would always be better weapons in the long run because as I said before any damn fool can use one and it took no real training at all to point and click as it were, and because of the nature of the xbow power wasn't gained from the user, but by the loading mechanism.

That is something I always find odd, to a casual observer it would look like the English actually won the 100YW because all the noise about Crecy, Agincourt and the Longbow, Formigny and Castillon are barely noticed, even in France.
The English seem more eager to celebrate and romanticise battles that other peoples, for instance Blenheim is usually celebrated as an English victory, even if there were very few English soldiers fighting in the allied army.

[SRW1962]

All good points I would definitely agree with, but would like to add that it wasn't the Longbow that was a wonder weapon of any kind, just the skill of the users in the English army, plus good tactics and use of terrain to maimise their value. Yes it has been romanticised, but the ALL English victories against the French, Germans, Welsh, Scots, Irish etc. are romanticised by the English as I am sure those countries Romanticise their victoiries (although they have a lot fewer ). The xbow and later the arquebus, musket etc. would always be better weapons in the long run because as I said before any damn fool can use one and it took no real training at all to point and click as it were, and because of the nature of the xbow power wasn't gained from the user, but by the loading mechanism.

That is something I always find odd, to a casual observer it would look like the English actually won the 100YW because all the noise about Crecy, Agincourt and the Longbow, Formigny and Castillon are barely noticed, even in France.
The English seem more eager to celebrate and romanticise battles that other peoples, for instance Blenheim is usually celebrated as an English victory, even if there were very few English soldiers fighting in the allied army.

Dead right!

[RyanDG]

All good points I would definitely agree with, but would like to add that it wasn't the Longbow that was a wonder weapon of any kind, just the skill of the users in the English army, plus good tactics and use of terrain to maimise their value. Yes it has been romanticised, but the ALL English victories against the French, Germans, Welsh, Scots, Irish etc. are romanticised by the English as I am sure those countries Romanticise their victoiries (although they have a lot fewer ). The xbow and later the arquebus, musket etc. would always be better weapons in the long run because as I said before any damn fool can use one and it took no real training at all to point and click as it were, and because of the nature of the xbow power wasn't gained from the user, but by the loading mechanism.

That is something I always find odd, to a casual observer it would look like the English actually won the 100YW because all the noise about Crecy, Agincourt and the Longbow, Formigny and Castillon are barely noticed, even in France.
The English seem more eager to celebrate and romanticise battles that other peoples, for instance Blenheim is usually celebrated as an English victory, even if there were very few English soldiers fighting in the allied army.

To be honest - in a lot of ways, I think the 100 years war being seen as an English victory as opposed to a French victory (since the English ended up pretty much losing all of their continental European holdings) is due to William Shakespeare. I know its kind of odd to blame everything on a poet and a bard, but due to the popularity of Shakespeare's version of the events of the Hundred Years War (created at a time when England was struggling with national identity) and the fact that they have become the defacto main stream source for non-historians (I know I LOVE the Kenneth Branaugh versions ) - it is pretty obvious that we are going to view that era with rosey glasses for the English. Kind of funny that propaganda ends up being used as popular 'fact' after a few centuries.

[SRW1962]

To be honest - in a lot of ways, I think the 100 years war being seen as an English victory as opposed to a French victory (since the English ended up pretty much losing all of their continental European holdings) is due to William Shakespeare. I know its kind of odd to blame everything on a poet and a bard, but due to the popularity of Shakespeare's version of the events of the Hundred Years War (created at a time when England was struggling with national identity) and the fact that they have become the defacto main stream source for non-historians (I know I LOVE the Kenneth Branaugh versions ) - it is pretty obvious that we are going to view that era with rosey glasses for the English. Kind of funny that propaganda ends up being used as popular 'fact' after a few centuries.

Most people in England know of Shakespeare, and some may even know of Henry V and Agincourt but most probably don't know about The Hundred Years War as they don't even teach about it in schools any more. So those that do know about it would have had to specifically read about it and therefore know that the English lost the war (or at least I would hope they would).

[deadtorius]

Going back to the original post I just noticed something in a DAG SoA game. MF can start off outside bow range, move once and get shot and then charge the shooters, so you get one chance to do something to them before they close on you. Heavy foot that start in rang of bows can be shot at 2 times if they start right at max range of the bows. They can move up to charge range in their second move and then close. Mounted I guess could almost start out of bow range move into range and then charge home.
As I had said before I think you get more shooting opportunities on the TT then in the PC game

[SRW1962]

You're right they do and because of the cumulative effect of shooting in the TT game it does more damage in terms of cohesion loss and potential casualties.

[deadtorius]

oddly enough I find my TT bows and pikes both do better than their virtual PC cousins do in battle.
Well hopefully one of the devs sees this and starts to think of a solution to the lack of shooting opportunities. I don't know if adding more dice to make up the difference or changing hit numbers is the answer, but that can be debated about by others. Now that we are moving into the era of the bow, it seems that they should be made more useful in the game. Not a lot of ancients armies used bows, but I am sure if Swifter comes out on PC with all the chariot armies and even more bows than SoA it would bring about all kinds of odd situations compared to the TT

[Paisley]

I deployed 15 longbowmen in a line on flat ground. I set the two units on either flank forward one and two hexes so as to allow flank fire. Two foot knight generals supported the line so as to have the longbowmen in command (and also to fight if required). The knights were 16pts, the longbows 9. Both drilled, the knights superior, heavily armoured, the archers protected average swordsmen. 32 + 135 pts = 167 (discounting generals).

Against them I sent 9 superior undrilled heavily armoured dismounted knights. Six in the front rank, 3 supporting one hex to the rear, one general. The knights costing 14 points (but I assumed they were in fact dismounted early French and so counting 19). Thus, discounting the general, 171pts - a pretty fair match.

I decided that the longbows should not manoeuvre but stand and take the charge (as historically), but I did allow units on the flanks to shift to gain firing positions as needed. The French were able to contact with only one disruption on the way (instant rally in heir turn). Then there was slaughter. Final score 1/9 to 20/17 to the French.

Now the question is 'did longbows on open ground ever stop French knights on foot?' I don't think they did historically but they certainly can't in the game.

So next question... what if they defend a ditch? A historically appropriate obstacle.

[Paisley]

So I gave them thir ditch (which gave them an extra's turn shooting and improved their impact chances a lot and melee chances a bit.

The result?

French win 4/17 to 18/17. the French were more badly mauled than previously but still quite an easy win, even with the flanking archers getting some rear charges in.

I wonder... is there any chance of someone using the table rules to send 18 bases of dismounted knights against 30 bases of longbows + 4 bases of knights? Both in the open and then with the archers behind a ditch.

Or proportionately similar.