Protected troops other than shot

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Wed May 11, 2011 2:48 pm

Sorry if I am missing something but according to the glossary foot bases in enclosed fields count as protected but only shot seem to gain any advantage from this. What about warriors etc.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed May 11, 2011 3:36 pm

marshalney2000 wrote:Sorry if I am missing something but according to the glossary foot bases in enclosed fields count as protected but only shot seem to gain any advantage from this.

Correct.

What about warriors etc.

Some warriors (e.g. highlanders with musket*) are shot.

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Wed May 11, 2011 6:05 pm

Trying to grasp the logic of this. Why would a highlander with a bow be any less protected than a highlander with a musket if they are both lining an enclosed field?
Thanks in advance.
John

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed May 11, 2011 9:42 pm

marshalney2000 wrote:Trying to grasp the logic of this. Why would a highlander with a bow be any less protected than a highlander with a musket if they are both lining an enclosed field?
Thanks in advance.
John

Firstly, "Protected" has a specific meaning under the rules, it is not used in the general dictionary definition sense. With regard to foot, that meaning is to give shot an advantage vs mounted.

Making it apply to Warriors with Bow would entail changes to the POA table that would add to the complexity of the rules.

I am afraid that FOGR design policy is that "Renaissance technology" is king. Obsolete troop-types have to be dealt with as simply as possible in the rules - essentially they have to take the crumbs from the table - like suckers they are not necessarily given an even break.

As, generally speaking, the "Renaissance technology" did indeed usually beat the old technology in historical conflicts, this seems to work OK from a top-down perspective, even if it may look illogical from a bottom up perspective.

A bit like the classic debate on longbowmen being logically better than arquebusiers.

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Thu May 12, 2011 9:52 am

Richard, I am sure you will make an exception for my Covenanting Rebel devoted worshippers with double barrelled prayer books. No cavalry on earth could shift them from an enclosed field.
Think carefully before answering less your immortal soul and place in the next world be placed at risk.
John

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu May 12, 2011 10:15 am

marshalney2000 wrote:Richard, I am sure you will make an exception for my Covenanting Rebel devoted worshippers with double barrelled prayer books. No cavalry on earth could shift them from an enclosed field.
Think carefully before answering less your immortal soul and place in the next world be placed at risk.

Long since lost, I am afraid.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Thu May 12, 2011 9:20 pm

I can vouch for that...

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Fri May 13, 2011 9:37 am

That explains the dice luck ...

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri May 13, 2011 9:45 am

Maniakes wrote:That explains the dice luck ...

Mwahahahahaha

viperofmilan · Post by **viperofmilan** » Fri May 20, 2011 4:33 pm

So let me see if I have understood RBS correctly.

I have 3 troop types
- MF armed with sword
- MF armed with arquebus and sword
- HF armed with heavy weapon

Situation 1: My MF Italian Wars swordsman in an enclosed field would not count its +1 sword POA when fighting an arquebus toting, sword armed MF Haiduk, but the fortunate Haiduk would get the +1 POA?

Situation 2: My HW armed HF in an enclosed field would get the +1 HW POA when fighting MF swordsman described above, but would not get the +1 HW POA when fighting the gun-totin Haiduks as above?

Situation 3: Both the MF Swordsmen and the MF Hiaduks would get the +1 SW POA against the HF HW in the enclosed field?

And all of these interactions are intentional?

Does this strike anyone else as slightly off center?

Kevin[/list][/list]

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:47 pm

viperofmilan wrote:And all of these interactions are intentional?

Shot in enclosed fields are assumed to be shooting from behind field boundary walls and hedges. (Yes, in close combat too, some are still shooting if the situation permits).

The other types you mention cannot do that - all they can do is defend.

This gives the shot the initiative in field to field combat - even if attacking.

However, even if there was not this logic (as there isn't for crossbowmen, say) we would still go with simple POAs that get the major interactions right. If some non-typical troops' interactions are slightly off in certain restricted circumstances, we would accept that for the sake of keeping the POAs relatively simple.

The design philosophy is that obsolete weaponry gets the short straw when fine-tuning conflicts with simplicity.

Protected troops other than shot

Protected troops other than shot

Re: Protected troops other than shot