Supporting LF

Jhykronos · Post by **Jhykronos** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:21 am

Would there be a problem with giving supporting LF the ability to shoot at impact against all comers? As-is they seem to be a bit of a waste of points, IMO.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:57 am

Yes, they represent a specific tactic for a specific enemy type. If the BG deserved better support shooting the BG would have the option of a MF rear rank of shooters.

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:11 pm

It would make more sense to give a points discount for LF in mixed BG. Something like 50% rounded up, so Average/Bw LF would be 5 AP reduced to 3 AP in a mixed BG.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:15 pm

spikemesq wrote:It would make more sense to give a points discount for LF in mixed BG. Something like 50% rounded up, so Average/Bw LF would be 5 AP reduced to 3 AP in a mixed BG.

Don't forget that they do have an upside compared to normal LF in that they fight in the second rank with the POA of the front rank troops. They are also a cheap way of boosting the size of non-light BG to avoid 1HP2B or 1HP3B and autobreak. So they are worth the points if behind superior legionaries, but maybe not if behind poor protected spear.

waldo · Post by **waldo** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:59 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
spikemesq wrote:It would make more sense to give a points discount for LF in mixed BG. Something like 50% rounded up, so Average/Bw LF would be 5 AP reduced to 3 AP in a mixed BG.
Don't forget that they do have an upside compared to normal LF in that they fight in the second rank with the POA of the front rank troops. They are also a cheap way of boosting the size of non-light BG to avoid 1HP2B or 1HP3B and autobreak. So they are worth the points if behind superior legionaries, but maybe not if behind poor protected spear.

They are only worth it when behind superior legionaries and the like, a lot of armies have them as supporting average spears in which case they are next to useless. They might have an upside compared to normal LF (they also move more slowly and can't evade) but they have a downside compared to MF (don't shooot or fight as effectively), and they cost the same.

Also the idea that some armies used them as anti-cavalry has been extended to all armies with supporting archers. Is that really why the Vikings used them? To hold off all those mounted huscarl charges?

Walter

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:53 pm

waldo wrote:
They might have an upside compared to normal LF (they also move more slowly and can't evade) but they have a downside compared to MF (don't shooot or fight as effectively), and they cost the same.

Walter

The MF/LF parity is the real issue on supporters. Independent LF may have the same value as MF. But in BGs, that equality makes no sense. Solutions would be to increase the cost of supporting MF or decrease the cost of supporting LF.

Jhykronos · Post by **Jhykronos** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:33 pm

philqw78 wrote:Yes, they represent a specific tactic for a specific enemy type. If the BG deserved better support shooting the BG would have the option of a MF rear rank of shooters.

What, arrows suddenly don't work, except against troops that Ps-support worked against in DBM?

Less snarkily put, do we know it's a "specific tactic for a specific enemy type", considering some troops in the lists are deploying this way as standard operating procedure?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:37 am

Jhykronos wrote:Less snarkily put, do we know it's a "specific tactic for a specific enemy type", considering some troops in the lists are deploying this way as standard operating procedure?

Do you know? Vikings were mentioned earlier. I don't think they were holding off charges by Huscarls. But the Vikings did wander across a lot of Russia and Eastern Europe. And you are not forced to take the LF 1/3.

Put up some evidence and some rational against historical enemies.

For points, well foot at the time these (supporting LF) appear in the lists are on their back foot, anything helps

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:41 am

Jhykronos wrote: "specific tactic for a specific enemy type",

It was for the Roman order of battle against the Alans and others later

zocco · Post by **zocco** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:27 pm

I'd allow LF to shoot at foot in impact purely for game balance (in points spent) if nothing else as compared to MF shooters.

When you look at how mixed HW/Xbow or HW/bow are treated in the rules - free shots in impact and then the shooters get to count as HW (which frankly i regard as ubermensch

) its a crime for LF not to be able to shoot at incoming foot.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:30 pm

zocco wrote:When you look at how mixed HW/Xbow or HW/bow are treated in the rules - free shots in impact and then the shooters get to count as HW (which frankly i regard as ubermensch ) its a crime for LF not to be able to shoot at incoming foot.

But LF in second rank get the same POA's as front rank. You are right, they aren't worth the same as MF though. Its how to model it simply that is the problem.

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:14 pm

philqw78 wrote:
zocco wrote:When you look at how mixed HW/Xbow or HW/bow are treated in the rules - free shots in impact and then the shooters get to count as HW (which frankly i regard as ubermensch ) its a crime for LF not to be able to shoot at incoming foot.
But LF in second rank get the same POA's as front rank. You are right, they aren't worth the same as MF though. Its how to model it simply that is the problem.

Something like -1 points per LF base if supporting protected or unprotected troops ?

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:16 pm

zocco wrote:When you look at how mixed HW/Xbow or HW/bow are treated in the rules - free shots in impact and then the shooters get to count as HW (which frankly i regard as ubermensch )

I have started a separate thread on this issue. Maybe you would like to contribrute.

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:51 pm

Further thought on this issue :

There are three main uses of supporting LF (in order of significance IMO):
1) Increase the BG size for HPB and autobreak level
2) Filling in for removed bases and fighting in melee (half dice but counting as front rank for POAs)
3) Support shooting vs mounted at impact (half dice, normally needing 5s or 6s to hit)

In 1 and 2, the better the main troops, the better the support (as it counts the same as the main troops), so the more expensive the main troops, the better value the support. For 2, the support is not so good for spears because they lose POAs when there is only one rank of spear.

So how about the following points adjustments :
-1 LF supporting Protected or Unprotected HF/MF
-1 LF supporting spearmen

They would be cumulative so LF Bow supporting Protected Spearmen would cost 3 points each.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:45 am

Polkovnik wrote:Further thought on this issue :

There are three main uses of supporting LF (in order of significance IMO):
1) Increase the BG size for HPB and autobreak level
2) Filling in for removed bases and fighting in melee (half dice but counting as front rank for POAs)
3) Support shooting vs mounted at impact (half dice, normally needing 5s or 6s to hit)

In 1 and 2, the better the main troops, the better the support (as it counts the same as the main troops), so the more expensive the main troops, the better value the support. For 2, the support is not so good for spears because they lose POAs when there is only one rank of spear.

So how about the following points adjustments :
-1 LF supporting Protected or Unprotected HF/MF
-1 LF supporting spearmen

They would be cumulative so LF Bow supporting Protected Spearmen would cost 3 points each.

Unless they are poor, in which case they increase the BG size by %50 for 3 or 4 points.

zocco · Post by **zocco** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:32 am

philqw78 wrote:
zocco wrote:When you look at how mixed HW/Xbow or HW/bow are treated in the rules - free shots in impact and then the shooters get to count as HW (which frankly i regard as ubermensch ) its a crime for LF not to be able to shoot at incoming foot.
But LF in second rank get the same POA's as front rank. You are right, they aren't worth the same as MF though. Its how to model it simply that is the problem.

I'm also wondering about whether FOG is treating mixed formations with rear rank MF shooter historically. One would have to wonder why English dismounted men-at-arms and bowmen fought in separate formations. If FOG is right it would be better to have deployed the archers as a rear rank. The bowmen would get to shoot in impact and then count in melee as HW - awesome !

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:53 am

zocco wrote:I'm also wondering about whether FOG is treating mixed formations with rear rank MF shooter historically. One would have to wonder why English dismounted men-at-arms and bowmen fought in separate formations. If FOG is right it would be better to have deployed the archers as a rear rank. The bowmen would get to shoot in impact and then count in melee as HW - awesome !

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:05 pm

philqw78 wrote:
zocco wrote:I'm also wondering about whether FOG is treating mixed formations with rear rank MF shooter historically. One would have to wonder why English dismounted men-at-arms and bowmen fought in separate formations. If FOG is right it would be better to have deployed the archers as a rear rank. The bowmen would get to shoot in impact and then count in melee as HW - awesome !
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing

Having just done very well with said combination i mostly disagree.

1st You would give up speed.
2nd you would give up the ability to move in terrain
3rd you would lose approx 33% of your firepower which is important in narrow frontages.
4th the HW folks are going to do a lot of heavy fighting and suffer base losses. So the 2nd rank suddenly increases your vulernablity.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:17 pm

As a quick note here, have others seen players not buying LF supporting ranks in their games? It seems to me that I've seen them fairly often so I suspect they aren't currently too over priced. On most lists it is optional to include them, unlike most MF rear rank archers, so people haven't been buying them because they are required to in the list for the most part.

Chris

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:02 pm

batesmotel wrote:As a quick note here, have others seen players not buying LF supporting ranks in their games? It seems to me that I've seen them fairly often so I suspect they aren't currently too over priced. On most lists it is optional to include them, unlike most MF rear rank archers, so people haven't been buying them because they are required to in the list for the most part.

Chris

In my experience they are useful when they are cheap compared to the troops they are supporting, for example 6 point LF supporting 14 pt legionaries, but not so useful when they cost nearly as much as the troops they are supporting. For example, 3 pt LF supporting poor def spear at 4 points each. In this case you would be better just taking more bases of def spear.