longbows so weak

[Grandviceroy2018]

Longbows seem terribly weak and ineffective in FOG.

yes, they do get some pluses against some troops and do not suffer minuses against others, but compared to almost every other miniatures or board or computer game i can think of seem very weak.

from all i have read they should be far more lethal......

am i missing something?


perhaps they should have more dice or the kill roll should be easier (ie instead of add 2 to the die to save from being killed perhaps it should be one or none?

thoughts?

[philqw78]

Just after the rules came out I thought they were far too effective. 2 BG of 6 Cataphracts routed by shooting alone.

[dave_r]

We could just refer the original poster to the hundreds of other threads about shooting being inefective, but the search engine is broke.

However, as a guiding principle, I too think that shooting is under effective and we need to improve Horse Archers vastly as they are obviously nowhere near as effective as they were historically. Perhaps if we made the CT get a minus two rather than the current minus one if you get one hit per two bases.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[philqw78]

You've been drinking again Dave haven't you

[dave_r]

Actually, no.

Still drunk from last night.

Just thought I'd get my retaliation in first when the usual suspects see the thread and immediately hijack it and begin demanding that shooting is reigned in.

[BlackPrince]

Not again!

Its all about the CT if you are playing against a lucky pick who never or rarely fails a CT then shooting will seem extremely ineffective whereas the reverse is true if you keep failing CTs shooting will be far too effective. The only way to minimise the random CT effects is to concentrate your shooting on a BG and go for the death roll.

A discussion on the effectiveness of longbow will almost be as long a as discussion as the effectiveness of shooting in FoG.
If the French had not obligingly charged across muddy fields to get at the English Longbow history may have viewed the effectiveness of the longbow differently.

[Polkovnik]

from all i have read they should be far more lethal......

Could you give some specific examples of what you have read about the effectiveness of longbows (i.e. reports from historical battles) that differs from the probable outcomes when using longbows in FOG ?

[Mehrunes]

If the French had not obligingly charged across muddy fields to get at the English Longbow history may have viewed the effectiveness of the longbow differently.

If you put a BG of knights into rough going (which gives a -1 for CTs due to severely disordered) then the longbows have 4-5 turns of shooting at them and you will most likely get a similar result.
If you charge them in the open, then....well....

[grahambriggs]

If the French had not obligingly charged across muddy fields to get at the English Longbow history may have viewed the effectiveness of the longbow differently.

If you put a BG of knights into rough going (which gives a -1 for CTs due to severely disordered) then the longbows have 4-5 turns of shooting at them and you will most likely get a similar result.
If you charge them in the open, then....well....

At Patay the English were charged in the open withoutt stakes and broke

[azrael86]

Longbows seem terribly weak and ineffective in FOG.

yes, they do get some pluses against some troops and do not suffer minuses against others, but compared to almost every other miniatures or board or computer game i can think of seem very weak.

Weak and ineffective compared to what? Historical opposition is going to be crossbows for the most part, heavy foot (against which longbow were iffy) or Knights (see variosu comments above re stakes).

Typically games will treat longbow as the best available missile weapon, and this is really rather context dependent. As a massed weapon for rapid fire longbow is very good. However many sets of rules will make an individual longbow a better weapon than a crossbow, which is only true once you take into account the rate of fire.

One factor is that longbow (with few exceptions) are average: Most knights are superior, hence it is eminently possible to struggle in the open.

6 lb v 4 knights at 4", should get two shots of 4 dice, average 2 hits, hence 2 tests. However it's easy enough for this to be 1 and 3, and then the Kn have only 1 test, with well over 50% chance of passing.

[grahambriggs]

Longbows seem terribly weak and ineffective in FOG.

yes, they do get some pluses against some troops and do not suffer minuses against others, but compared to almost every other miniatures or board or computer game i can think of seem very weak.

from all i have read they should be far more lethal......

am i missing something?


perhaps they should have more dice or the kill roll should be easier (ie instead of add 2 to the die to save from being killed perhaps it should be one or none?

thoughts?

You would need to check what the other games are using for historic references. Why do you think they are too weak?. Sounds like you think they should be shooting more bases off? Bear in mind that missile power in FOG is primarily designed affect the morale of a battle group. Longbow are very good at this.

Lots of people play in open competitions using longbow armies and they seem effective.

[madaxeman]

Longbows seem terribly weak and ineffective in FOG.

am i missing something?
?

Yes.

The ability to shoot against armoured troops and hit on 4's makes a huge difference in their effectiveness at shooting.

Being armed with swords makes them far more capable in melee than almost any other shooters in the game

[Skullzgrinda]

We could just refer the original poster to the hundreds of other threads about shooting being inefective, but the search engine is broke.

With no plans to repair or replace, apparently.

However, as a guiding principle, I too think that shooting is under effective and we need to improve Horse Archers vastly as they are obviously nowhere near as effective as they were historically.

I think there is a huge qualitative difference between the primitive self bows, and the fully evolved compound shortbow. I tend to agree with you, I do not think one could replicate Carrhae under the rules. I also disagree that that such peoples as the Sarmatians made no significant use of the bows. Why carry them around in battle for centuries then? Why do the copycat city boys from Byzantium still use bows when the people they are imitating do not, and have not for 600 years?

Still, these are quibbles. I am ecstatic that a rules set decently reflects horse archer tactics and makes such armies viable.

[dave_r]

I think there is a huge qualitative difference between the primitive self bows, and the fully evolved compound shortbow. I tend to agree with you, I do not think one could replicate Carrhae under the rules.

You would need to ask the Madaxeman about that

http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/warfare_2008_1.php

[grahambriggs]

We could just refer the original poster to the hundreds of other threads about shooting being inefective, but the search engine is broke.

With no plans to repair or replace, apparently.

However, as a guiding principle, I too think that shooting is under effective and we need to improve Horse Archers vastly as they are obviously nowhere near as effective as they were historically.

I think there is a huge qualitative difference between the primitive self bows, and the fully evolved compound shortbow. I tend to agree with you, I do not think one could replicate Carrhae under the rules. I also disagree that that such peoples as the Sarmatians made no significant use of the bows. Why carry them around in battle for centuries then? Why do the copycat city boys from Byzantium still use bows when the people they are imitating do not, and have not for 600 years?

Still, these are quibbles. I am ecstatic that a rules set decently reflects horse archer tactics and makes such armies viable.

Umm, actually, I have been able to get a similar result to Carrhae, if you substitute early Persians for Parthians. 650 point game. The two sides being:

Romans with 2TCs, a BG of cav and of LF. Everything else BGs of 4 armoured legionaries. Deployed in square with fortified corners for good measure.

Early Persians with 8 immortals, 8 shooty cav, some shooty MF and LF, 16 armoured hoplites.

Romans stay in square and Persians concentrate 8-10 shots per turn at the fortified corners needing 6s. No effect on one corner but on the other we get lucky and take a base off. Eventually that BG routs, thinning the Roman line such that they have to try and close or defeat is inevitable. The undamaged half of the deployment is fine and drive off the shooty cav. The damaged half is too weak and loses to shootng disruption, hoplites, sparabara and Immortals.

If a contact army cedes the initiative to a missile army in FoG, Carrhae is perfectly possible.

[petedalby]

The number of longbow armies used at competitions seems to have declined in the last 12 months or so? Or have I just missed them?

[nikgaukroger]

The number of longbow armies used at competitions seems to have declined in the last 12 months or so? Or have I just missed them?

A change in fashion I think, rather than any reflection on the power of their shooting. They were successful, then people worked out how to beat them more regularly and so players moved on from them looking for a "next big thing" - the usual competition cycle

As for the original question about whether longbows are not good enough, I would answer that they are about right - comparison with other rule sets is not necessarily a good thing as many previous sets have given the longbow much too great an effect - the myth of the English longbow I fear - in FoG massed longbows are quite capable enough IMO.

[shall]

I strongly sense that we hit our objective for Longbow effectiveness and I personally still find them attractive armies to use.

In essence we wanted:

• LBw to lose to mounted on average in the open, unless they had been fortunate enough to badly shoot attackers up.
  Odds of shooting them up too low per round for this to happen on average unless the attackers are slowed over challenging ground.
  In the open, stakes are therefore important for secure survival - as they were.
  But if you get an opponent who comes in piecemeal (shock troops losing control) or gets bogged down in the attack (slowed by terrain effects) you can shoot them off whatever their armour given enough shots.

If you feel Longbows should be more effective than this, this is perhaps the mythology that some have mentioned. In reality they were very potent with secure flanks and behind terrain or defences. As somebody said they were ridden down in the open. In FOG they are very very good if used carefully and mindful of their weaknesses.

Might be worth opening a forum on Longbow tactics as I am sure the regular protagonists will be very ahppy to share some tips to making them very effective in FOG.

Si

[peterrjohnston]

A change in fashion I think, rather than any reflection on the power of their shooting. They were successful, then people worked out how to beat them more regularly and so players moved on from them looking for a "next big thing" - the usual competition cycle

The rankings site would suggest, for what's it's worth, that the English armies are certainly don't have "killer army" status. In fact the rankings are pretty mediocre.

[shall]

Do the ranking suggest any killer armies though? ... seems quite a mix.

Certainly I don't feel there is any killer army, I generally am pretty ambivalent between 10-20 options for any comp. Or is that just me missing something?

Si