Mixed formations

[RichardThompson]

If the FoG design notes on this site it says:

Formations with 1/3 LF Bow represents a single rank of bowmen that would not produce significant shooting on the scale of the game, so only counts for the support shooting against mounted that was their primary purpose.


This doesn't make much sense for Spearmen which are already very good at resisting mounted charges.

I suspect that they included Bowmen mainly to counter skirmishers. Why not let the rear rank of bowmen shoot normally?

They would only get one dice per two bases so they wouldn't have a huge effect in game terms. However it would make Spear/Bow units a little bit better than they are now.

[philqw78]

You are aren't you

[RichardThompson]

You are aren't you

?????

[david53]

You are aren't you

naughty

[pezhetairoi]

Good question. I always wondered that. Especially with the arab armies.
Who would charge the spearmen anyway? Maybe very courageous cataphracts ... the bows seem to have no effect for extra cost.
Makes the unit look nice though.

[waldo]

Good question. I always wondered that. Especially with the arab armies.
Who would charge the spearmen anyway? Maybe very courageous cataphracts ... the bows seem to have no effect for extra cost.
Makes the unit look nice though.

The point cost is a problem - same as MF yet nowhere near as effective. Shouldn't they be cheaper as they don't get the benefits of a wholly LF unit but still shoot as LF?

Walter

[philqw78]

A small number of Bowmen were added to the rear ranks of these units specifically to counter charges by shock mounted.

[Polkovnik]

Good question. I always wondered that. Especially with the arab armies.
Who would charge the spearmen anyway? Maybe very courageous cataphracts ... the bows seem to have no effect for extra cost.
Makes the unit look nice though.

They don't have no effect in game terms. They increase the size of the unit. It is useful if the points of the LF are a lot lower than the point of the HF they are supporting. Eg in Roman armies, something like 14 points for the HF and 6 for the LF (IIRC). Its a cheap way to increase the size of the BG.
Not so useful for Def Spear where the HF are 7 pts and the LF are 5. Given the choice you are better off with more spear.

[RichardThompson]

A small number of Bowmen were added to the rear ranks of these units specifically to counter charges by shock mounted.

Which armies are you referring to in this post?

[philqw78]

All of those with LF, not MF, in their rear ranks.

[RichardThompson]

Good question. I always wondered that. Especially with the arab armies.
Who would charge the spearmen anyway? Maybe very courageous cataphracts ... the bows seem to have no effect for extra cost.
Makes the unit look nice though.

They don't have no effect in game terms. They increase the size of the unit. It is useful if the points of the LF are a lot lower than the point of the HF they are supporting. Eg in Roman armies, something like 14 points for the HF and 6 for the LF (IIRC). Its a cheap way to increase the size of the BG.

Did Roman armies add 'a single rank of bowmen' just to increase their bulk?

Not so useful for Def Spear where the HF are 7 pts and the LF are 5. Given the choice you are better off with more spear.

In game terms you are better-off with more spear. In historical terms, many armies decided they were better off with bows instead. Perhaps they need to be improved in game terms to match their historical value?

[philqw78]

In game terms you are better-off with more spear. In historical terms, many armies decided they were better off with bows instead. Perhaps they need to be improved in game terms to match their historical value?

They already had the bows. You will find the bow were not re-trained spearmen or replacing spearmen but troops that already used bows and wouldn't stand much chance in the open with so many mounted around (strangely unlike FoG, which is another thread) but could aid their closer packed comrades by firing overhead from behind. So thats where they were put.

[grahambriggs]

Good question. I always wondered that. Especially with the arab armies.
Who would charge the spearmen anyway? Maybe very courageous cataphracts ... the bows seem to have no effect for extra cost.
Makes the unit look nice though.

They don't have no effect in game terms. They increase the size of the unit. It is useful if the points of the LF are a lot lower than the point of the HF they are supporting. Eg in Roman armies, something like 14 points for the HF and 6 for the LF (IIRC). Its a cheap way to increase the size of the BG.

Did Roman armies add 'a single rank of bowmen' just to increase their bulk?

Not so useful for Def Spear where the HF are 7 pts and the LF are 5. Given the choice you are better off with more spear.

In game terms you are better-off with more spear. In historical terms, many armies decided they were better off with bows instead. Perhaps they need to be improved in game terms to match their historical value?

Romans had a single rank of archers (preceded by eight rank bracing for impact or chucking hand weapons) against the Alans. It wasn't an issue of bulk particularly, more that if the front 4 ranks braced that was enough to resist the charge so you had the rear 5 ranks putting a lot of missiles into the air and that was seen as the best way of taking out the Alans.

[RichardThompson]

Romans had a single rank of archers (preceded by eight rank bracing for impact or chucking hand weapons) against the Alans. It wasn't an issue of bulk particularly, more that if the front 4 ranks braced that was enough to resist the charge so you had the rear 5 ranks putting a lot of missiles into the air and that was seen as the best way of taking out the Alans.

The rules already handle this interaction very well.

What would the Roman archers do when horse archers appeared?

I suspect that they would have shot back.

[philqw78]

What would the Roman archers do when horse archers appeared?

I suspect that they would have shot back.

From a thrid rank at 1 per 2 bases halved could be allowed I suppose, but pointless

[madaxeman]

What would the Roman archers do when horse archers appeared?

I suspect that they would have shot back.

From a thrid rank at 1 per 2 bases halved could be allowed I suppose, but pointless

I think the problem is that this battle happened a long long time ago, which was probably under DBM when LH bases had to close to contact with enemy foot to shoot.

[grahambriggs]

Romans had a single rank of archers (preceded by eight rank bracing for impact or chucking hand weapons) against the Alans. It wasn't an issue of bulk particularly, more that if the front 4 ranks braced that was enough to resist the charge so you had the rear 5 ranks putting a lot of missiles into the air and that was seen as the best way of taking out the Alans.

The rules already handle this interaction very well.

What would the Roman archers do when horse archers appeared?

I suspect that they would have shot back.

Arrian has all the missile troops shooting when the Alans ("skythians") are in range. I don't think the authors are saying that they didn't shoot - just that they don't feel it was effective enough to be represented in the shooting phase. I imagine it's going to be more difficult shooting from a ninth rank than the first rank.

Note arrian also says the javelin armed ranks 4 to 8 should also shoot and the rules don't allow this either in the shooting phase.

Arrian seems to overestimate the effect that these missiles (plus artillery, slingers, etc) will have "And the expectation is that the Scythians will not get close to the infantry battle formation because of the tremendous weight of missiles" - then goes on to say what to do if the charge presses home.

[lawrenceg]

Romans had a single rank of archers (preceded by eight rank bracing for impact or chucking hand weapons) against the Alans. It wasn't an issue of bulk particularly, more that if the front 4 ranks braced that was enough to resist the charge so you had the rear 5 ranks putting a lot of missiles into the air and that was seen as the best way of taking out the Alans.

The rules already handle this interaction very well.

What would the Roman archers do when horse archers appeared?

I suspect that they would have shot back.

Arrian has all the missile troops shooting when the Alans ("skythians") are in range. I don't think the authors are saying that they didn't shoot - just that they don't feel it was effective enough to be represented in the shooting phase. I imagine it's going to be more difficult shooting from a ninth rank than the first rank.

Note arrian also says the javelin armed ranks 4 to 8 should also shoot and the rules don't allow this either in the shooting phase.

Arrian seems to overestimate the effect that these missiles (plus artillery, slingers, etc) will have "And the expectation is that the Scythians will not get close to the infantry battle formation because of the tremendous weight of missiles" - then goes on to say what to do if the charge presses home.

Or maybe he estimated it correctly and in FOG it is factored in as the impact phase +1 POA for impact foot or light spear foot and the extra dice for 3rd rank LF archers.

[shadowdragon]

If the FoG design notes on this site it says:

Formations with 1/3 LF Bow represents a single rank of bowmen that would not produce significant shooting on the scale of the game, so only counts for the support shooting against mounted that was their primary purpose.


This doesn't make much sense for Spearmen which are already very good at resisting mounted charges. I suspect that they included Bowmen mainly to counter skirmishers. Why not let the rear rank of bowmen shoot normally? They would only get one dice per two bases so they wouldn't have a huge effect in game terms. However it would make Spear/Bow units a little bit better than they are now.

If you've played the game you would know that it has no effect in game terms. The usual options are 2 LF added to 4 HF/MF, 3 LF added to 6 HF/MF and, perhaps, 4 LF added to 8 HF/MF. (I can't remember if any army list allows the last type of BG.) At best this would be 1, 1 or 2 dice; and, therefore, a maximum number of 1, 1 or 2 hits. This means no chance for a casualty since need at least 3 hits for a chance of causing a casualty. A CT (Cohesion Test) would be taken by the opponents if 1 hit is caused per 2 bases. That means the HF/MF unit reinforced by LF would only have a chance to force a CT if the enemy missile troops had no more than 2 bases for the first 2 cases or 4 bases in the last case. However, since the enemy needs to cause 3 hits, 5 hits or 6 hits and the enemy missile troops which isn't likely for a 2 base or 4 base BG. Of course, the enemy could bring up more BG but then the LF archers would be splitting their effect. And once we get into a many unit on many unit situation it's pretty difficult to predict the situation, but it would be safe to say that allowing the LF to shoot in the missile phase would be NOISE in game terms.

[RichardThompson]

If the FoG design notes on this site it says:

Formations with 1/3 LF Bow represents a single rank of bowmen that would not produce significant shooting on the scale of the game, so only counts for the support shooting against mounted that was their primary purpose.


This doesn't make much sense for Spearmen which are already very good at resisting mounted charges. I suspect that they included Bowmen mainly to counter skirmishers. Why not let the rear rank of bowmen shoot normally? They would only get one dice per two bases so they wouldn't have a huge effect in game terms. However it would make Spear/Bow units a little bit better than they are now.

If you've played the game you would know that it has no effect in game terms. The usual options are 2 LF added to 4 HF/MF, 3 LF added to 6 HF/MF and, perhaps, 4 LF added to 8 HF/MF. (I can't remember if any army list allows the last type of BG.) At best this would be 1, 1 or 2 dice; and, therefore, a maximum number of 1, 1 or 2 hits. This means no chance for a casualty since need at least 3 hits for a chance of causing a casualty. A CT (Cohesion Test) would be taken by the opponents if 1 hit is caused per 2 bases. That means the HF/MF unit reinforced by LF would only have a chance to force a CT if the enemy missile troops had no more than 2 bases for the first 2 cases or 4 bases in the last case. However, since the enemy needs to cause 3 hits, 5 hits or 6 hits and the enemy missile troops which isn't likely for a 2 base or 4 base BG. Of course, the enemy could bring up more BG but then the LF archers would be splitting their effect. And once we get into a many unit on many unit situation it's pretty difficult to predict the situation, but it would be safe to say that allowing the LF to shoot in the missile phase would be NOISE in game terms.

Consider a long line of spearmen with a LF back rank.

If they faced skirmishers one rank deep then they would get to fire.

If they faced skirmishers two ranks deep then they would only get to fire if they overlapped the unit, or if the skirmishers had already lost a base.

Not perfect, but a small step forwards.