Leeds issues,shooty cav armies

[davidandlynda]

This could be because I was shot to pieces by Daves Sassanids but I do feel it is to powerful to the front of heavy foot,I think that foot bows should remain the same but feel that mounted should be just a tad weaker,shooting the flank and rear could remain the same.
Against the cavalry though it was test after test even though I was 8 element protected BG,the only solution was to advance and attempt to contact them,Dave was two deep so it was possible but I usually arrived disrupted,Some ideas afterwards suggested I deployed 2 wide and 3 or 4 deep to reduce the shooting ,that would have exposed the flanks though
David

[sagji]

4 Deep doesn't help much as only the front 3 ranks count for 1HP3B. It reduces the risk of a casualty but increases the chance of a CT.
This is where armoured troups are much better - harder to force a CT.
Also note if you have suffient fighting power (i.e. +) then hitting the cavalry disrupted is a bonus as it doesn't break off.

The best formation is 2 BGs of 8 each 3 wide, with a BG of 4 or 6 in a column behind both - BLs don't need corner to corner contact.

[kevinj]

I have to agree that Heavy foot does seem vulnerable to cavalry bowmwen. I was using Ottomans and in my first game the Timariots shot up a BG of Byzantine Skutaoi and then rode them down and in the second they reduced a unit of Hoplites to Fragmented in two shots.

[madaxeman]

Ive had hoplites battered to fragged by light horse shooters as well. Its hard to say whats just DBx thinking and whats real world though...

[hammy]

I am not sure that it is unreasonable that foot should suffer when shot by mounted bow but you do hear accounts of foot standing up to prolonged (day long) barrages without catastrophic effect.

I think that in ahistorical matchups mounted shooting is too powerful but I am rather at a loss of how to hurt mounted shooting without similarly upsetting foot archers who are far from super troops at the moment.

[dave_r]

I am not sure that it is unreasonable that foot should suffer when shot by mounted bow but you do hear accounts of foot standing up to prolonged (day long) barrages without catastrophic effect.

I suppose it depends on both the firers and the firees. The Scots at Falkirk certainly got a pasting from bow fire. Whilst this was longbow in AoW it doesn't make a difference as they count as protected rather than armoured.

It would be interesting to compare this with the examples you have to see if there is a a difference in the armour / equipment which makes troops more resilient. I guess a shield would be a good start.

[lawrenceg]

I am not sure that it is unreasonable that foot should suffer when shot by mounted bow but you do hear accounts of foot standing up to prolonged (day long) barrages without catastrophic effect.

This is something which concerns me a bit. Not just in our period there is evidence that shooting rarely makes the target run away. It is close combat that does that. Protracted shooting does cause casualties to mount up though, more so than close combat (it is more scary so most people run away before they are killed). So I wonder if allowing BG to break due to shooting is right. Maybe it would be better to stop at fragmented (but not allow rallying if 1HP3B hits taken this bound) and wait until the shooting base losses result in autobreak. Shooty cavalry that likes to charge will still be very effective troops, but so should they be. The Mongols did conquer almost the whole known world after all.

[nikgaukroger]

The question of whether an army ever broke because of shooting was raised on the Ancmed Yahoo group some time ago. IIRC the conclusion was that it never did on its own, there always needed to be a final charge to get rid of the shot up troops even if this was in effect just chasing them away.

There were, however, a few cases of heavy shooting causing the target to charge - Tegeans at Plataia IIRC. It is possible that the Shock Troops mechanism covers this though as those so forced were melee type troops from what I can recall.

[rbodleyscott]

In considering this issue, it should be borne in mind that all the troop degradation mechanisms in AoW are necessarily telescoped to produce a fast decisive game.

What we want is not history, but a speeded up version of history.

There are historical instances of knights charging enemy foot 16 times, but we don't really want to play this out in full.

The same is true of the shooting mechanisms.

I am not saying we should not consider the possibility of shooting not reducing BGs below FRAGMENTED, but this would be a significant change to the game balance we have at present.

My impression, and that of the other authors, after many many games, is that we have a good balance for the effects of shooting. However, this does depend on using the troops with this in mind - keeping them together to prevent the enemy from concentrating shooting on individual BGs (most important). Having generals in CT modifier range, and having rear support also helps but is not essential. It is also important to have generals near enough to bolster BGs that get disrupted by shooting, before the situation worsens. It is hard to cause 2 consecutive cohesion drops by shooting if troops are in solid lines.

First impressions are likely to overestimate the effect of shooting under the rules. It is noticeable that new AoW players tend not take the necessary precautions and hence may get a false impression. Shooting is far less dangerous once one learns how to deal with it.

This being the case, we need to be wary of altering the balance of the rules on the basis of early impressions.

We would be particularly interested to hear the views of those play-testers who have played a lot of games.

[hammy]

In considering this issue, it should be borne in mind that all the troop degradation mechanisms in AoW are necessarily telescoped to produce a fast decisive game.

We should be wary of altering the balance of the rules on the basis of early impressions.

Very true but one thing that has struck me as odd from the first game of AoW I have played is that while a melee can force an unmodified CT whenever you force a CT from shooting there is always a -1 by default.

At Leeds I specifically took an IC to counter enemy shooting (because he gives me a +2 against shooting) and while he was in the right place he worked very well.

One other thing is that while I realise that massed mounted shooting was effective was it really as good as massed foot shooting? Unfortunately there is no historical evidence (to my knowledge) for decent massed bow against mounted archers but I have agut feeling that Ghilmen would not have liked a stand up shooting contest with decent foot bows.

Is there any mileage in taking away the automatic -1 for shooting CT's and perhaps boosting the shooting of foot bow to be full dice for the second rank? I suspect that both of these would break too many other things but if you weaken shooting then foot bow who are not that good at the moment will get even worse.

Hammy

[paulcummins]

how about removing the auto -1, but be able to go up to a -2 from foot shooting

so 1 hp3b =0 adjustment
>1hp3b = -1
>=3hp3b = -2

so big blocks of concentrated fire are more likely to break troops

I kept getting 6 hits in for no effect (-2 off death roll, -1 on CT)

[rbodleyscott]

how about removing the auto -1, but be able to go up to a -2 from foot shooting

so 1 hp3b =0 adjustment
>1hp3b = -1
>=3hp3b = -2

so big blocks of concentrated fire are more likely to break troops

I kept getting 6 hits in for no effect (-2 off death roll, -1 on CT)

In earlier iterations we had such modifiers, however:

We have deliberately flattened out the effect of massed shooting, because otherwise it is difficult to simulate the effects of skirmish shooting and massed shooting using the same system. We have therefore deliberately damped down the increased effect of massed shooting. However, massed shooting is far more likely to have a decisive effect because
1) you are likely to get enough hits to cause a CT every bound.
2) you have a reasonable chance of causing base losses.

The key to effective shooting is to cause consecutive cohesion drops without a chance to rally - this is far more likely to occur with massed shooting. It is also far less likely to occur if shooting cannot be massed due to the enemy being in a solid line.

Is there any mileage in taking away the automatic -1 for shooting CT's and perhaps boosting the shooting of foot bow to be full dice for the second rank? I suspect that both of these would break too many other things but if you weaken shooting then foot bow who are not that good at the moment will get even worse.

Nothing is set in stone, but:

The main reason for wanting to keep the -1 for 1HP3B for shooting is because it keeps the CT modifer chart consistent. It would be less elegant if it counted for close combat but not for shooitng.

The main reason for wanting to keep 1.5 ranks for MF shooters is that it allows Near Eastern 1/2 melee 1/2 bow BGs to shoot at 2/3 the effect of an all bow BG. Maybe that is not necessary - however, if Cavalry stay at 1.5 ranks 1/2 lancer 1/2 bow cavalry BGs will continue to shoot at 2/3 the effect of a fully bow armed BG. However, as the cavlary BGs are shock troops they may be forced to charge instead of shooting.

[jre]

I think one of the reasons why cavalry bows make a bigger impression is also because they usually are superior while most of the foot bows are average. Those rerolls really help to force CTs, while they seldom fail their own CTs. Of course a top of the line Ghulam costs 18 points while a mediocre bow costs 5. Yet MF bows are quite useful to frighten those same cavalry, if adequately supported and with some CT bonuses.

Defensive spearmen, protected MF longbows look just like what is needed to frighten cavalry. I wonder if the Burgundian Ordonnance will have those...

Jos?©

[bddbrown]

The main reason for wanting to keep the -1 for 1HP3B for shooting is because it keeps the CT modifer chart consistent. It would be less elegant if it counted for close combat but not for shooitng.

You could just add a +1 on the chart for CTs caused by shooting. I have to admit I was on the receiving end of too much shooting effect from Hammy at Usk where he shot my elephants done to Broken in 3 Bounds. I would worry however about making shooting any weaker combined with having an IC around - it might make it impossible to do any damage to say armoured superior foot at all.

[hammy]

The main reason for wanting to keep the -1 for 1HP3B for shooting is because it keeps the CT modifer chart consistent. It would be less elegant if it counted for close combat but not for shooitng.

I am not sure that having a line that read -1 for "having suffered 1HP3B in close combat" is less elegant than having one that reads -1 for "having suffered 1HP3B in from shooting or close combat"

I accept I have not played as many games as the authors but when I am selecting armies the first place I look is for light foot or mounted shooters. When asked to put together an armoured spear list for Leeds I started by getting all the archers slingers and javelinmen I could and then added hoplites to make the points. My Hungarian list for Leeds was designed in a similar manner. It feels to me that at tme moment light foot shooters especially are a no brainer when it comes to army selection.

Light foot are 66% as effective as medium foot shooters but massively harder to hurt. Unarmoured medium foot really don't want to get into a firefight so point for point light foot shoot almost as well as medium.

I accept that if shooting CT's are reduced to not have the -1 for 1HP3B then medium foot shooters who are just OK if you use them right at the moment will become worse.

I would like to see a package of changes being:

Remove the -1HP3B for shooting
Change medium foot shooting to one dice per 2 bases in the front 2 ranks at extreme range and one dice per base at effective range.

Hammy

[lawrenceg]

Maybe LF shooters should cost more points.

[nikgaukroger]

That would require a rather inelegant separate cost for LF bows, etc.

I think something like Hammy's solution might be the way forward. Looks as though it would make MF archers more effective against mounted but ghilman types will still be better than average/poor archers which is about correct. However, might it make archers a bit too good against Protected HF?

[hammy]

Maybe LF shooters should cost more points.

Possibly but see the thread on rear support where integrated LF shooters are IMO already too expensive for what they add.

I agree that compared to MF bow LF bow (as long as there are other troops for them to hide behind) are much better.

The really bad one is a BG of 6 LF bow (or sling) against 6 unprotected MF bow. The LF get 3 dice at + and the MF get 4 dice at even but the LF have still got the option to pull back, wheel to get better shooting angles etc.

The other problem with making LF bow more expensive is that even a 1 point increase would then make them 75% of the cost of LH bow.

Hammy

[madaxeman]

In considering this issue, it should be borne in mind that all the troop degradation mechanisms in AoW are necessarily telescoped to produce a fast decisive game.

What we want is not history, but a speeded up version of history.

There are historical instances of knights charging enemy foot 16 times, but we don't really want to play this out in full.

The same is true of the shooting mechanisms.

I am not saying we should not consider the possibility of shooting not reducing BGs below FRAGMENTED, but this would be a significant change to the game balance we have at present.

My impression, and that of the other authors, after many many games, is that we have a good balance for the effects of shooting. However, this does depend on using the troops with this in mind - keeping them together to prevent the enemy from concentrating shooting on individual BGs (most important). Having generals in CT modifier range, and having rear support also helps but is not essential. It is also important to have generals near enough to bolster BGs that get disrupted by shooting, before the situation worsens. It is hard to cause 2 consecutive cohesion drops by shooting if troops are in solid lines.

First impressions are likely to overestimate the effect of shooting under the rules. It is noticeable that new AoW players tend not take the necessary precautions and hence may get a false impression. Shooting is far less dangerous once one learns how to deal with it.

This being the case, we need to be wary of altering the balance of the rules on the basis of early impressions.

We would be particularly interested to hear the views of those play-testers who have played a lot of games.

I think all his is fair and just, however these rules wil be played by wargamers who have the unhistorical advantages of knowing the odds, much better C3 over their troops formations, selections and maneuvers than any historical general - and many of whom used to play 7th to boot. So, if there is a way to engineer morale tests for the enemy without taking them yourself (ie by shooting), they know thats a good way to win at minimum risk to yourself, and they remember how to do it as well.

I suspect that because of this you will actually get a speeded up version not of history, but of waver tests under 7th, where experienced players give less experienced ones a horrid, torrid time by knowing some tricks to do with how many bases shoot at who and when.

Its all well and good saying "stick in lines and this won't be a problem, the answer is learn the countermeasures not change the rules" - but thats also another way of saying "historical tactics are the only answer to something devastating and probably a bit cheesy". Not every wargamer is ever going to be a great historical general, but nearly every one will be able to pick up a cheesy tactic off a yahoo group and try it out. So, I suspect this is one situation where the rules might need to help out poor "historical" tactics or risk leaving a bad taste (of cheese!) in the mouths of a few of the not-quite-Hannibals out there.

[plewis66]

... but thats also another way of saying "historical tactics are the only answer to something devastating and probably a bit cheesy".

I'm not sure it's cheesy, if the way to deal with it is to use historially correct tactics. Surely, that means the rules are getting it right? Concentrated fire on unsupported troops with little by way of direct command surely ought to be devasting, and the way to dea with it must be to provide support and command to the troops.

I've suffered from shoting quite considerably in several of my 15 or so games with my Romans, but in every case I've been able to see that it was my own tactical errors that made it so devastating, and it certainly felt that the effects I was suffering were a good reflection of might have happened 'in real life' in a similar tactical situation.