Shooting during the Impact Phase

[RichardThompson]

The rules don't take into account the missile fire from the front rank during the impact phase.

A unit of 8 Bowmen in two ranks would get 8 melee dice and 4 'supporting fire' dice in the impact phase.
A unit where the front rank were armed with sharpened mangos and the rear rank with bows would get exactly the same.

This feels wrong since point-blank shooting from say, longbows was very effective.

How could this be fixed?

Perhaps archers should get the same number of 'supporting fire' dice in the impact phase as they would in normal shooting?
Perhaps they shouldn't have a -POA for shooting in the impact phase?
Perhaps they should just get +POA like people who are throwing spears?

[jlopez]

I've used lots of longbows, including the unprotected, poor variety and I reckon the impact phase support shooting is quite well balanced. Same as the impact foot vs cataphract: you need overlaps, supports and a general makes a significant difference.

It's not an aspect of the game I feel needs fixing. Sorry.

[nikgaukroger]

I've used lots of longbows, including the unprotected, poor variety and I reckon the impact phase support shooting is quite well balanced. Same as the impact foot vs cataphract: you need overlaps, supports and a general makes a significant difference.

It's not an aspect of the game I feel needs fixing. Sorry.

I concur.

[grahambriggs]

If they're shooting at point blank range then perhaps the 8 melee dice are actually representing that?

[timmy1]

Again Nik and Graham have it spot on. Bows in melee can look after themselves (as my armoured superior legion found out...)

[david53]

I've used lots of longbows, including the unprotected, poor variety and I reckon the impact phase support shooting is quite well balanced. Same as the impact foot vs cataphract: you need overlaps, supports and a general makes a significant difference.

It's not an aspect of the game I feel needs fixing. Sorry.

I concur.

Why make something more difficult it works very well as i have found out when charging those CN superior bows.

[RichardThompson]

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Should FOG:AM give Firearms a +1 in the impact phase too?

Most early firearms, naptha bombs, greek fire syphons etc. must have been primarily impact weapons.

[philqw78]

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Should FOG:AM give Firearms a +1 in the impact phase too?

Most early firearms, naptha bombs, greek fire syphons etc. must have been primarily impact weapons.

Are you mad?

[dave_r]

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Should FOG:AM give Firearms a +1 in the impact phase too?

Most early firearms, naptha bombs, greek fire syphons etc. must have been primarily impact weapons.

Are you mad?

Well he keeps posting rubbish suggestions, so it is a distinct possibility.

[Strategos69]

Well he keeps posting rubbish suggestions, so it is a distinct possibility.

Very polite, indeed. It is this kind of behavoiur that encourages people to keep helping with their ideas and time.

[RichardThompson]

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Should FOG:AM give Firearms a +1 in the impact phase too?

Most early firearms, naptha bombs, greek fire syphons etc. must have been primarily impact weapons.

Are you mad?

Were the Ming Chinese mad to introduce them?

Are the FOG:R authors mad?

[philqw78]

Were the Ming Chinese mad to introduce them?

Yes

Are the FOG:R authors mad?

Definately yes.

[nikgaukroger]

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Should FOG:AM give Firearms a +1 in the impact phase too?

Most early firearms, naptha bombs, greek fire syphons etc. must have been primarily impact weapons.

Are you mad?

Well he keeps posting rubbish suggestions, so it is a distinct possibility.

***Moderator Comment***

Dave, behave. In this particular forum anyone is allowed to float any ideas, rubbish or otherwise, without them being mocked. It is what the V2 forum is for

[nikgaukroger]

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Should FOG:AM give Firearms a +1 in the impact phase too?

Most early firearms, naptha bombs, greek fire syphons etc. must have been primarily impact weapons.

FoG:R PoAs are set to get the right effect within FoG:R, and it is a mistake to think anything in those rules could/should be just transferred to FoG:AM. Some are suitable, but these are those that are based on FoG:AM mechanisms that have been seen to not work/be weak. FoG:R combat mechanisms are, almost by definition, not going to be suitable as they are modelling something different. To take the case of Pistols they clearly are representing something quite different from naptha bombs, etc.

[dave_r]

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Dave, behave. In this particular forum anyone is allowed to float any ideas, rubbish or otherwise, without them being mocked. It is what the V2 forum is for

Spoilsport. OK, the problem I have is that you keep posting ideas, but they don't join up - this is a case in point.

You have started a thread elsewhere that the points cost of Bowmen should be increased, indicating that they are too good. Then in this thread you are trying to make them better?

It would probably help if you gave us an idea of what you are trying to achieve rather than just type random thoughts onto a page.

[RichardThompson]

A quick scan through my new FOG:R book shows that Pistols count in the impact phase.

Dave, behave. In this particular forum anyone is allowed to float any ideas, rubbish or otherwise, without them being mocked. It is what the V2 forum is for

Spoilsport. OK, the problem I have is that you keep posting ideas, but they don't join up - this is a case in point.

You have started a thread elsewhere that the points cost of Bowmen should be increased, indicating that they are too good. Then in this thread you are trying to make them better?

It would probably help if you gave us an idea of what you are trying to achieve rather than just type random thoughts onto a page.

There is method in my madness.

I am suggesting bowmen should be:
- more effective at very short range (impact shooting from front rank),
- about the same at short range (skirmishing in HF charge range)
- less effective at long range

Alternatively Bows should be a bit more expensive if the rules stay as they are.

The overall theme to my suggestions is that the current 'super troops' should be made a little less effective (or more expensive). Hopefully this will give some other types more of a chance (such as protected average HF without a pike).

I am sorry if you find some of my ideas are so unacceptable. Why not make a few, better proposals of your own?

[dave_r]

There is method in my madness.

I am suggesting bowmen should be:
- more effective at very short range (impact shooting from front rank),
- about the same at short range (skirmishing in HF charge range)
- less effective at long range

Alternatively Bows should be a bit more expensive if the rules stay as they are.

The overall theme to my suggestions is that the current 'super troops' should be made a little less effective (or more expensive). Hopefully this will give some other types more of a chance (such as protected average HF without a pike).

I am sorry if you find some of my ideas are so unacceptable. Why not make a few, better proposals of your own?

That would have been a better start. But the main point where your argument falls down is that bowmen aren't super troops. They are effective, yes, but run up against a Spartan and see how far it gets you.

Possibly the problem is that the main troop type that could really butcher them aren't around much. But then again, an Ancient British has done fairly well at Britcon for the last couple of years and he certainly isn't bothered by masses of bowmen. If more people brought Average, Protected Impact Foot I suspect the amount of bows would quickly diminish.

All these things are cyclical. I would hope FoG v2.0 closes certain loopholes and areas of weakness in the rules rather than spend ages trying to correct perceived issues that don't really exist.

[hammy]

There is method in my madness.
The overall theme to my suggestions is that the current 'super troops' should be made a little less effective (or more expensive). Hopefully this will give some other types more of a chance (such as protected average HF without a pike).

I am sorry if you find some of my ideas are so unacceptable. Why not make a few, better proposals of your own?

My problem is that there are in essence three different types of bow armed troops in FoG.
Medium foot bow, Cavalry bow and skirmishers with bow.

They are not equal and if anything medium foot bow are considered to be rather a weak troop type.

OK Christian Nubian is doing well in comps at present but none of the other MF bow armies are......

It may well be that Christian Nubian is doing well because it is a good counter to massed light horse skirmishers who were the flavour of the month a while back. Light horse and lancers seem to be the counter to the Dominate swarm and so on.

In any tournament game there will always be one or other army that is doing well. Ancient Britons are actually a really good army against a lot of the armies that are popular in open tournaments. They are very good against Christian Nubian fior a start. Should the ABs be hamstrung?

[RichardThompson]

If more people brought Average, Protected Impact Foot I suspect the amount of bows would quickly diminish.

Consider a three deep line of Average, Protected HF Impact Foot, Sword (with +1 for a general) against a two deep line of Average, Protected Cavalry Bow, Sword. The points are about even.

The sequence of events is:

The cavalry moves to 4MU and shoots.
The infantry moves to 1 MU and gets shot twice.
The infantry charge and get +POA at impact
The melee round is at no POA
The Cavalry break-off and start shooting again.

For simplicity lets say a unit of 4 Cavalry is lined up against a unit of 6 infantry.

Each round of shooting there is (3/8 * 10/36 + 1/8 * 15/36) = 15.6% chance of disrupting the infantry.

By the time they can declare a charge over 40% of the infantry are disrupted or worse!

If some units fail the CMT to charge then the others will be overlapped in melee etc.

This is an important reason why impact foot are rarely seen.

The cavalry are more manoeuvrable and do not charge without orders so may be able to get at an even bigger advantage.

[hammy]

If more people brought Average, Protected Impact Foot I suspect the amount of bows would quickly diminish.

Consider a three deep line of Average, Protected HF Impact Foot, Sword (with +1 for a general) against a two deep line of Average, Protected Cavalry Bow, Sword. The points are about even.

I suspect Dave is talking about foot bow, not mounted bow.

FWIW there is a small flaw in your calculation. If the cavalry manage to disrupt the infantry then they won't break off........

OK, the melee would be 4 dice vs 3 but there is a decent chance that the cavalry could disrupt at impact and even lose a base.

In the real world though there would most likely be a screen of light foot bow infront of the heavy foot and then the cavalry would look pretty silly.

Also what historical interraction is this not simulating? I suspect that average protected impact foot vs average protected bow sword cavalry was not one of the key matchups when the rules were written but I don't have a big problem with the way it pans out.

It is similar to Roman legionaries vs Sassanid cavalry. The difference is that both sides would be armoured and superior and then end result is that the Romans have a slight edge in close combat from the impact phase but that the Sassanids may be able to break up the Roman formation if they do not close in a determined fashion.