Representing mixed missile troops

[nikgaukroger]

Starting a topic with Mike's email.

I've been working through my hundreds of pages of material and have some questions, the foremost following.

Do I assume correctly that, with the exception of Elizabethans etc., you want to avoid having a mix of missile troops (such as arquebus or pistol (the latter doing a good job for handguns combined with melee front line) combined with bow or crossbow) within a foot BG?

I ask spurred by the Ming, the Koreans, and the Japanese.

Crossbows are slow to load but have penetrating power, and can fit a minority of firearms except the cohesion test modifier would not apply.

For the Ming units that had switched their shooters to firearms entirely, a rear rank of Arq and a first rank with Pistol (Pistol being a weak POA like Bw*) and either HW/HW or better yet LtSp/Swordsmen works for the mix of spear/dao and sword/shield troops and to represent somewhat inferior firepower. Is this in the theoretical range of POA< like Bw*with 2 close combat POAs?

By the 1590s, Musket* can work for the Japanese shooting POA, being firearms with a minority of bowmen.

Koreans have a number of cases, especially after the army was wrecked in 1592.

It's a tough exercise matching them up against each other in a way that works nicely, with a view to other interactions as well. It would be helpful to get some guidance.

[nikgaukroger]

We are usually going with the classification that represents the majority of the shooters in the BG, hence the later C16th pike and shot formations are classed as Arquebus even though there were increasing proportions of muskets in the formations. This keeps things cleaner and stops players finding odd ways of exploiting what would often be fairly arbitrary ratios between different shooting types.

There is, of course, the possibility of addities - like the English formations - but they will be rare and almost certainly inefficient in some way. So any would have to be justified for us to put them in.

[SirGarnet]

Ming Shot:

* The key things to represent are that Ming shot used a low quality of arquebus, as on review seems inevitable given the institutional issues (which I can write on elsewhere). They also used other weird and wonderful devices created by Ming ingenuity, including very light artillery, and the overall effect is I think overstated by simply rating primarily firearms BGs the way Crossbow are - all Arquebus with front rank Light Spear. This is liable to give the wrong results against historical (notably Japanese) opponents and ahistorical opponents, and encourages player over-use of the troop type.

* For the better quality Ming infantry, one way to do this is to use a front rank of Light Spear, Swordsmen, with Arquebus in the rear rank. This puts out 3 dice o shooting rather than 6 dice for a 6-base BG, and has a decent front rank. The Pistol suggestion was a compromise to generate another shooting die from the front rank (at 1 per 2 for Foot Pistol), but I think it wise to drop the Pistol idea.

* Another alternative is to represent the typical Ming shot like the Crossbowmen but as of Poor grade - 6 bases of Poor MF Arq with front rank of Light Spear. This throws a lot of dice, but with negative rerolls it will be less effective than opposing shot. This may work since it seems necessary that a fair representation of the Ming will have a number of Poor BGs.

* Probably can't have both of these approaches at the same time!

* The last approach is to overrate them as all Arq and average, but the ensure their opponents are rated relatively better.

* The percentage of troops with firearms increased over the course of the dynasty, but not as much as one might expect. The quality and performance of the weapons and their users appears to be one retarding factor, along with the inherent institutional issues. The Ming prized artillery most, and there was only modest progress in their artillery arm. I have not seen anything indicating they devoted attention and funds to improving small arms, and the cultural bias against the individual soldier would push against wasting money on his personal equipment.

* These should all be mixed formations since that was standard for Ming missile troops at BG level, as well as typical for Chinese missile foot before and after the dynasty.

* This directly affects Japanese classifications in the 1590s-1640s, details TBD in another post.

* This indirectly affects Korean classifications.

Cheers,

Mike

[rbodleyscott]

* For the better quality Ming infantry, one way to do this is to use a front rank of Light Spear, Swordsmen, with Arquebus in the rear rank. This puts out 3 dice o shooting rather than 6 dice for a 6-base BG, and has a decent front rank. The Pistol suggestion was a compromise to generate another shooting die from the front rank (at 1 per 2 for Foot Pistol), but I think it wise to drop the Pistol idea.

Another way get the extra dice would be

Front rank Light Spear, Swordsmen
Rear rank Arquebus
+ Regimental guns (representing all the wheelbarrow rocket launchers and other ultra-light artillery).

What fun!

(Note that this gives them the same frontal firepower as Dutch Infantry hopen, however, at the cost of being far less resistant to mounted troops)

Poorer ones could be graded the same or possibly as

Front rank Light Spear
Rear rank arquebus

---------------------

Of course if you think that does not make them good enough against mounted troops, you could treat the various other H2H weapon in the front rank as equivalent to Bayonet

So you get

Front rank Bayonet (only - no shooting capability)
Rear rank Arquebus (no bayonet)
+ Regimental guns

This gives them the firepower of a Dutch hopen, makes them slight worse than pike/shot vs mounted troops, but slightly better in terrain.

In terms of points it isn't particularly cost effective.

[SirGarnet]

I think of the RGun as a sweetener rather than a solution because it doesn't give artillery benefits, just a single die in Impact or Shooting. The price is not cheap. Also, as it appears I am either missing something or the range is just the range of the shooting troops so 3 MU, they may well end up only contributed one impact die in the entire battle as enemy charges in from out of range.

Given the alternatives, the Light Spear Arq front rank/Arq rear rank with Poor quality seems the most appropriate way to represent the vast bulk of Ming shot. It is also consistent with the FOGAM list and the same as Early Polish Draby, though representing something different. Light Spear does provide initial resistance to many Impacts. Adding swordsmen gives perhaps too much close combat capability (thinking of Mongol/Jurchen/Korean cavalry, for example) at the expense of volume of shooting. A lot of Poor dice can still make the enemy nervous, and the shooters can get lucky.

Letting them add RGuns as an option in lieu of Light Artillery (3 for 2 seems right) is I think a very suitable option and for the Ming and good use for those rocketeer and weird weapons bases. Good flavour as well.

The Koreans had similar and additional devices as well, but to a lesser degree and I think that for them it is credibly folded into the basic shooting capability - Bow or Bow* - though a few RGuns can be justified.

There need to be enough Poor Ming compulsories and optionals to allow typical forces to be represented, but the player will in any event stock up on available average troops on the theory that players are leading a special force assembled from the cream of the Imperial army.

This also needs to mesh with Japanese opponents - Japanese comments to another thread. I'll post Ming specifics in their own thread as well - still sorting things out and more later today.

Cheers,

Mike