Medium Foot - your opinions sought

[rbodleyscott]

We are looking for your opinions on a possible modification to the rules re Medium Foot.

At the moment MF
1) Are at - POA vs mounted in open terrain. (i.e. the mounted get a + POA)
2) Do not have a - POA vs HF in the open, but instead have a -1 cohesion test modifier if in close combat vs HF in the open.

One possible way of beefing up bowmen (and other medium foot), would be to replace both the above with

-1 cohesion test modifer if MF in close combat vs HF or mounted in the open.

This would obviously hugely improve the chances of bowmen and other MF vs mounted in the open, but still leaves them (slightly) less effective (against mounted and equally equipped HF) than HF in the open.

This would certainly improve the value of MF archers, and would also make other MF armies (eg Thracians, Spanish, Dailami dynasties) more effective.

The question is does it give a historical effect?

Does it give MF sufficient disadvantage in the open to compensate for their extra movement speed and advantage in non-open terrain?

Would it put HF out of business?

[nikgaukroger]

Regarding bowmen/crossbowmen can I refer you to my previously stated view.

Average, Protected, Bow/Crossbow should be able to hold off Average/Superior, protected cvalary but be more 50:50 against Superior, Armoured Cavalry. Poor, Unprotected/Protected, Bow should lose to Superior, Bow, -, Swordsman cavalry. Average, Protected, Longbow, -, Swordsman should need a hill, obstacle, bad going or stakes to hold off and beat Heavily armoured knights.

IMO Dailami should be able to stand in the open against ghilman - the case where they were broken by a ghilman charge was a desperation charge by the ghilman who had run out of arrows. So stand off is what we want here.

Roman cavalry broke through Spanish infantry only, IIRC, with an especially fierce charge - a check on Livy needed in case I've mixed it up with the sacrificial charges of earlier times.

On at least 1 wing of Alexander's army at Gaugamela Thracians formed the second line IIRC so he expected them to stand for a reasonable amount of time against some sort of mounted troops.

On the other hand the Roman cavalry seems to have been rather useful to Trajan in Dacia at times which may indicate their usefulness against Dacian MF types.

Possibly more thoughts later.

[sagji]

It would make MF spear/pike better than the HF version, and in general the extra 1MU and reduced terrain penalties would be much better than no -1 CT in the open vs mounted.
It would also significantly reduce the value of cavalry, and light horse.

[rbodleyscott]

It would make MF spear/pike better than the HF version

We don't have any MF pikemen in any lists and don't intend to.

When you say it would make MF spears better than HF spears, you mean because of the extra move distance and terrain capability? They would have the disadvantage of being more likely to drop cohesion if they lose. But you think that isn't enough to compensate?

I fear you may be right. OTOH Thureophoroi did replace hoplites in Hellenistic Greece.

It would also significantly reduce the value of cavalry, and light horse.

True, but the general opinion seems to be that they are somewhat over-(cost)-effective at present, so this might not be a bad thing.

Who else has an opinion? Please state it even if you agree with someone who has already posted.

[hammy]

Regarding bowmen/crossbowmen can I refer you to my previously stated view.

Average, Protected, Bow/Crossbow should be able to hold off Average/Superior, protected cavalry

The crossbow will I suspect have an advantage shooting and assuming steady crossbow they will now have an advantage at impact (support shooting) but if they loose the impact they could be unhinged.

Previously they would be at best equal at impact and possibly slightly down.

In Melee the crossbow will be a POA down but there is a goo chance the cavalry will be dirsupted

but be more 50:50 against Superior, Armoured Cavalry

Here the shooting will be even (I think, there are changes on the way for crossbow), the impact will slightly favour the crossbow but the melee will be ++ to the cavalry and there is a decent chance that the crossbow will be in the poo if the cavalry are not disrupted.

Poor, Unprotected/Protected, Bow should lose to Superior, Bow, -, Swordsman cavalry

Assuning the cavalry have better armnour the bow are in trouble here. They will be outshot and if disrupted then a mounted charge will probably seep them away. If the bow remain steady they have a chance of hanging on.

Average, Protected, Longbow, -, Swordsman should need a hill, obstacle, bad going or stakes to hold off and beat Heavily armoured knights.

The bow will be at - in the impact and - in the melee phase. Add in the fact the knights will probably be superior (assuming 100YW) it would take a brave man to back the bow but I will do some tests.

IMO Dailami should be able to stand in the open against ghilman - the case where they were broken by a ghilman charge was a desperation charge by the ghilman who had run out of arrows. So stand off is what we want here.

This proposed rule does take things pretty much in thi direction. If the ghilmen can't disrupt the Dailami then this is an even combat but should the ghilmen win they have the edge.

On the other hand the Roman cavalry seems to have been rather useful to Trajan in Dacia at times which may indicate their usefulness against Dacian MF types.

Aren't most Dacian foot impact foot? if that is the case the Romans will be + at impact and assuming armoured cavalry be + in melee too. I would definitely back the Romans in this fight.

Off home to do some testing

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

I should point out for those reading Hammy's post that in the latest (forthcoming) version, crossbows get to shoot with the same dice as bowmen, but with the following POAs

-1 vs all foot irrespective of armour class
0 vs all mounted (except elephants) irrespective of armour class
+1 vs elephants

[petedalby]

One possible way of beefing up bowmen (and other medium foot), would be to replace both the above with

-1 cohesion test modifer if MF in close combat vs HF or mounted in the open.

I think this makes sense Richard.

HF should enjoy some advantage and the CT modifier gives quite an edge. MF cost the same as HF and the current -1 vs Cav in the open is a big disadvantage.

Gets the thumbs up from me.

Pete

[petedalby]

Would it put HF out of business?

Just another thought on this.

Why not increase the HF move distance in the open to the same as MF? I still have reservations about HF's ability to get stuck into an opponent who is keen to avoid contact.

Pete

[nikgaukroger]

Fundamentally I quite like the idea of changing MF to a -1 CT rather than a PoA disadvantage - based on a limited rules understanding but having read a lot on this forum

Taking Pete's idea but going the other way I'd suggest MF move as HF and cost the same points - the better terrain ability balanced out by the -1 CT penalty if losing in the open (would that be about balanced?). I wouldn't increase the HF move as this, IMO, would affect the feel of the game as a massed battle - its one of the problems I always had with DBR compared to DBM, felt more like a skirmish than a big fight.

[rbodleyscott]

Taking Pete's idea but going the other way I'd suggest MF move as HF

That was rather my feeling after reading Pete's post.

[jre]

In my experience non-bow MF tend to hug terrain if there are good mounted troops on the other side. If it becomes CT dependent, well armed MF will be used in the open (spearmen, Impact foot) more, while the poor peasants will remain in hiding.

That will hurt early chariot armies (whose enemy was mostly MF they could ride over quite easily, till now). Fighting MF, LSp, Sw chariots go from +, + to 0, 0. Quite a difference!

I personally think it would be better to deal with it in a list approach (allowing the choice among HF and MF, adding more anticavalry weapons such as LSp) rather than change MF concept as loose order that is cautious around any cavalry.

It may be in our games, but the speed and the terrain/ambush capability is what makes MF what it is. Take away the speed and the danger zone of potential ambushes is shorter than the detection distance.

So, I like it as it is, but would propose adding the option to have some troops as HF in MF armies, as deep cavalry-resistant groups (who therefore move more slowly and have trouble with obstacles).

Jos?©

[nikgaukroger]

On the chariot era point I would assume that a lot of the foot who chariots would dominate will be Unprotected, Poor quality and not Swordsmen whilst the chariots will be Superior (do they count as Armoured as well?). Even the better types are only going to be Protected and Average - apart from the Assyrian and Egyptian foot who were a definite class above the rest.

Of course if changes are made to MF we will need to have a review of such troops in the lists as some may need to be changed to get the correct effect.