Shooting - TESTING MF SHOOTING NOW HIGHEST PRIORITY

[rbodleyscott]

It may be a bit soon, but we are interested in feedback on the revised shooting rules from those who have had a chance to test them in actual games.

(Cohesion test triggered by 1HP3B, but -1 modifier requires 1HP2B. MF shoot with 1 dice per 1st and 2nd rank base at effective range).

What is the general impression?

How is the new balance for shooty Cavalry vs other army types?

How is the balance for shooty LH or LF vs various opponents?

How is the balance for MF shooters? Longobowmen? Bowmen? Crossbowmen? - balanced, too effective or still not effective enough?

[hammy]

It may be a bit soon, but we are interested in feedback on the revised shooting rules from those who have had a chance to test them in actual games.

(Cohesion test triggered by 1HP3B, but -1 modifier requires 1HP2B. MF shoot with 1 dice per 1st and 2nd rank base at effective range).

I like this rule, it feels fine, there are extra dissadvantages to 4 base BG's because if they test it is always at -1, shooting now doesn't always force the -1 which used to feel a bit odd to me.

How is the new balance for shooty Cavalry vs other army types?

Played Crusader vs Seljuk last night. The game timed out with one Crusader flank in tatters but the Seljuks under pressure. It played well, shooty cavalry were effective but then Mark rolled quite well and broke a disrupted BG of 6 armoured spear with two volleys of 6 dice!!!

How is the balance for LH/LF?

LF and LH shooters are still able to contribute. They generally tend to be forcing tests without the -1 but I don't see that as a bad thing. LF were IMO too good before, the changes have not made them useless but the choice between MF archers and LF ones is less of a no brainer now.

How is the balance for MF shooters? Longobowmen? Bowmen? Crossbowmen? - balanced, too effective or still not effective enough?

Rolling fistfulls of dice can be intimidating but to be honest the difference between 6 and 8 dice normally only means a slightly increased death roll. I don't feel that MF bow are any better overall than they were before the changes. There are a few more bases lost to archery but I do specialise in rolling 1's on my death rolls.

Last night due to some very poor dice I was in the process of loosing with a BG of 4 armoured knights against a BG of 8 unarmoured archers. I lost a base to their initial volley and another base at impact despite winning comfortably and only receiving 3 hits.

I will contiue testing shooty mounted armies and see how things go.

Hammy

[dave_r]

How is the balance for MF shooters? Longobowmen? Bowmen? Crossbowmen? - balanced, too effective or still not effective enough?

I have been taking as much MF shooters as I possibly can. Last night I tried Neo-Babylonian against Seljuq Turks. The turks tried a thin line of Cavalry (3 BG's of four Supeior, unarmoured, unprotected, swordsmen) against 2 BG's of 6 MF Protected Bow. I absolutely massacred the cavalry. One charged in disrupted having already lost a base and the rest charged in without any disadvantages. Two BG's of Cavalry were destroyed.

I really think Bowmen are reasonably effective at the moment, however against the wrong type of troops (i.e. knights, cataphracts, chariots or heavy foot) they will get duffed up.

Quite like the interaction as it stands to be honest.

The -1 on the CT for 1HP2B did have some effect, mainly where I had 18 LF archers firing at a BG of 8 MF in a Vineyard. It certainly helped the MF, but not to an excessive amount.

My skirmishers also faced one BG of four skirmishers and conclusively won the exchange (I had 2*6 BG of Poor Bowmen facing 1*4 BG of LH, Lance, Swordsmen). Because there was no general in range (or support) the LH failed two successive CT's and then legged it.

Again this seemed reasonable.

[bddbrown]

It may be a bit soon, but we are interested in feedback on the revised shooting rules from those who have had a chance to test them in actual games.

Richard and I played two games. One without the new rule and one with the new rule. I've not had time to write up the battle reports yet. He used Sassanid Persians and I used Alexandrian Macedonian.

(Cohesion test triggered by 1HP3B, but -1 modifier requires 1HP2B. MF shoot with 1 dice per 1st and 2nd rank base at effective range).

What is the general impression?

Good. In the first game I went down like nine pins. Yup, I'll wait until you've finished laughing.

...

With a bit of luck he shot the centre of my infantry (4 units) to fragemented in the first three rounds of shooting. This was combined with a few breaks from elephants and my companions losing to Dailami in the open at impact and fragmenting. All in all the game lasted less than 2 hours and I was in trouble after about 1.5. Worse thing about it was that I felt I had not done anything wrong. More worryingly this is the fifth game were bad luck has dominiated a game which out of about 20 games is a little too many for my liking.

In the second game I took the best quality troops I could. The -1 1HP2B did help, and really helps to stop the death spiral - cause once you get disrupted things seem to rapidly go downhill from there - even with an IC hanging around. However it seemed more important to have superior troops.

But I do like the way it means that 6 bases for cavalry now has some interest I think.

How is the new balance for shooty Cavalry vs other army types?

Better. I still think the advantage of shooty cavalry armies is in their flexability. For example I don't fancy using the Macedonians in a period that has Elite legionaries. There is little in the army that can touch them. But a shooty cavalry army can at least avoid combat if things don't look good.

How is the balance for LH/LF?

I always liked the balance as it was. But superior LF are my new best troop type. I am not sure the changes are really needed to be honest. It also makes LH armed with Lances even less useful - as any LH can pretty much defeat LF now.

How is the balance for MF shooters? Longobowmen? Bowmen? Crossbowmen? - balanced, too effective or still not effective enough?

We didn't have much MF etc, so no comment. I might play a Cv army against a shooty foot army to check this.

Hopefully I will get a chance to do full battle reports this week, but I can't promise anything.

[rbodleyscott]

How is the balance for LH/LF?

Not had an instance of LF vs LH since the changes. LF could potentially stand up to LH in the open in 5.01 so I don't see a problem. Will report when it happens.

Sorry, I explained myself badly. I meant:

How is the balance for shooty LH? (Against everything)

How is the balance for shooty LF? (Against everything)

I have edited the original post to make this clear for new readers. (Sorry if this makes your replies look a bit odd).

I have edited my reply now (and am proving my moderator power to let me edit your post Bwahhaha ) Hammy

[rogerg]

Last week's game saw a 6 of average heavy foot take two base losses advancing against a 10 of poor MF bowmen. We didn't have time to play out the impact. In another part of the battle, unprotected foot in cover along with some protected foot advanced on bowmen without loss. In this case the frontages were equal. This is not a very large sample, however, I liked the fact that the archers were no longer a push over. On a three element frontage, archers rounding down to four dice were not too much of a worry. On six dice they are in with a chance.

I do not know what history tells us. Throughout the period a lot of people went to war carrying a bow. This suggests it should be a bit more potent than we have seen under DBM.

Roger

[roanur]

Nik and I played game last week, Palmyran vs Tartar.
16 bases of Shooty Cav, 28 bases Shooty LH and 12 bases Shooty MF
vs
48 Bases Shooty MF, 18 bases Shooty LH and 16 Cataphracts

We found the MF need the 2 rank shooting to stand up to the LH and Cav, especially witht the Cav and LH getting the POA + shooting at them.

If you take a lot of MF bow take a IC, its a must!!!

We did think there could be more negatives on a test for the more hits u take.
We had instances where BGs failed CTs after taking min casualties to force the CT, whilst BGs that took lots more hits passed, seemed to be a dice thing.
Example 4 Superior Cav took 1 hit and failed test (They were in column)
6 Average LH took 4 hits and passed.
If we read it right the LH only have a -1 on CT?

We had a lot of tests but not a lot seemed to happen for a long time. Whether this is just our better use of our generals and greater understanding of the game or down to our dice we couldnt decide!

We both agreed the LH/Cv would eventually win the shooting. Which is why Nik brought his Cataphracts thru and duffed my Cav which felt right.

Sup LH bow and Swordsmen are my new fave troop type as well.
Hopefully gonna try more shooty Cav and loads shooty MF vs big BG foot armies.

But so far I like the interaction between MF and Cav/LH. Feels like the MF have a chance to shoot Cav off. But will/should die if they become disrupted and the cav charge home.

[robertthebruce]

I have always thought under DBM, the Bw shooting it was too powerful (I can make wonders with 8 Reg Bw (O) ), and not olny in shooting, in close combat as opposed to mounted also.


In AOW the Bw Shooters must defeat his Enemies at distance or Bye Bye, More Realistic .

How is the new balance for shooty Cavalry vs other army types?

I Think it??s Ok.

How is the balance for LH/LF?

LF: Ok

LH: What about the Mongols or Islamics Horse Archers?

They defeated to the European Knights by Shooting and skirmishing tactics. 6 Unprotected/Average/Bow LH, need to hit all the dices with -POA to force CT to 6 Heavy Armoured Kn (If you are taking 1 HP2B to test) and they need only 2 hits if you are using 1 HP3B) Better This.


LH it??s very effective in mass, Like the Genghis LH


David

[lawrenceg]

6 Unprotected/Average/Bow LH, need to hit all the dices with -POA to force CT to 6 Heavy Armoured Kn (If you are taking 1 HP2B to test) and they need only 2 hits if you are using 1 HP3B) Better This.

I think you misinterpreted the rule change here.

You still have to test at 1HP3B.
The 1HP2B is to give you a -1 on the dice when you test.

[jre]

With good quality MF troops, the balance is clearly now on their side against any kind of LH/CAV. Longbows are really bad news for any shooty cavalry army.

Now those rear support 4 MF XB are useful as LH blockers.

MF Bows (except those BGs of 4 bases, who now are practical against small mounted BGs with improved CT risk) now kill more bases but they do not degrade noticeably more enemies. However they now have the effect of precipitating events, as the enemy tries to remain as little time as possible in the kill zone, even with superior troops and an IC, due to the improved death rolls. Protected foot also arrives now with some losses (which really benefits those good quality bows above, but not so much those unprotected bows without melee POA).

Foot without impact POAs or armour now has many troubles with bows. Casualties on approach mean less dice in melee. A lost impact (quite easy with all those extra dice) may easily mean then a lost combat. And unlike the mounted they seldom can get away. So their usefulness is even more limited than it was before.

So now you either charge as quickly as possible the bows or stay away, which for me is better than the former "We are superior with an IC, what can happen to us" you saw often, when you were receiving 2-3 hits rather than 3-4 now.

I am quite happy with my handgun LF, even if now they get less often that deadly -2 CT. Some cheese from LF suicidal actions has disappeared. We tended to use LF in bigger BGs than LH, so they both lose and benefit from the change in shooting, as projectiles were one of the big LF killers. The small LH blocks are one of the big losers, as they seldom get the -1 modifier to CT now while they are now very fragile when faced with projectile MF.

In all, normal bows are improved, shooty cavalry has lost a bit, good quality/equipment projectiles improve proportionally more, and LH probably will be seen in groups bigger than 4 if possible. Protected foot now will be less eager to approach bows.

Jos?©

[robertthebruce]

In my Fisrt game I Used 1 HP2B to test, In My Second Game I Used 1 HP3B to Test.

I Like 1 HP3B munch.



David.

[shall]

Yes the proposal is 9put another way)

Test with no minuses if 1HP3

Test with a -1 if 1HP2

Si

[rbodleyscott]

We are still concerned that giving MF archers 1 dice per 1st and 2nd rank may be a game unbalancing step too far.

The problem with much of the (limited) play-testing is that it has been with crossbowmen or ordinary bowmen lacking protection and/or swordsmen capability. This means that when enemy close combat foot do finally get into contact with them, even if DISRUPTED, they make short work of them.

Against longbowmen, from my own play tests, there is quite a high chance of not getting into contact with them at all. If you do go in DISRUPTED you probably won't win anyway with close combat infantry.

While longbowmen were historically good, they were not that good in the open. Against Scots historically they usually relied on being uphill in bad going! Even then, the Scots usually made it into contact - albeit disrupted.

Despite what has been said, the extra dice do make a substantial difference to the chances of enemy getting into contact STEADY, because there is much less chance of failing to inflict enough hits to cause a cohesion test (at -1) with every shot.

Comments please.

It is important that we do not imbalance the rules so that longbowmen armies dominate tournaments. (I assure you, after many test games, they are very good even with 1.5 ranks shooting.)

[lawrenceg]

We are still concerned that giving MF archers 1 dice per 1st and 2nd rank may be a game unbalancing step too far.

The problem with much of the (limited) play-testing is that it has been with crossbowmen or ordinary bowmen lacking protection and/or swordsmen capability. This means that when enemy close combat foot do finally get into contact with them, even if DISRUPTED, they make short work of them.

Against longbowmen, from my own play tests, there is quite a high chance of not getting into contact with them at all. If you do go in DISRUPTED you probably won't win anyway with close combat infantry.

While longbowmen were historically good, they were not that good in the open. Against Scots historically they usually relied on being uphill in bad going! Even then, the Scots usually made it into contact - albeit disrupted.

Despite what has been said, the extra dice do make a substantial difference to the chances of enemy getting into contact STEADY, because there is much less chance of failing to inflict enough hits to cause a cohesion test (at -1) with every shot.

Comments please.

It is important that we do not imbalance the rules so that longbowmen armies dominate tournaments. (I assure you, after many test games, they are very good even with 1.5 ranks shooting.)

According to the factors, longbowmen and bowmen shoot the same against everything except cataphracts and armoured or heavily armoured targets.

It's not clear what armour levels are involved in RBS's comment.

If he includes "protected" in "close combat infantry" then is the problem

1. all shooting is too effective in that it reduces protected attacking infantry to a state in which it cannot beat protected swordsmen in close combat

or

2. longbowmen (as protected swordsmen) are too effective in close combat ?

If he excludes "protected" from "close combat infantry" then is the problem

3. longbow shooting is too effective in that it reduces attacking infantry to a state in which it cannot beat protected swordsmen in close combat

or

4. longbowmen (protected swordsmen) are too effective in close combat ? (i.e problem 2 again)


On the basis that English longbowmen have been described in this forum as seeking to use hills, obstacles and bad going to protect themselves from both Scots and French (i.e. about all historical opponents) then one could easily make the case that "protected swordsmen" overrates the close combat capability of English longbowmen. Then perhaps problem 2 is the real probem and shooting balance itself is OK. The solution is to remove "swordsmen" POA from longbowmen.

However, I think Richard is saying that regardless of close combat, longbowmen's shooting is too effective, but ordinary bowmen's shooting is not too effective (or maybe it is too effective but has no effect on the overall result of the interaction). In that case the difference between lonbow and bow needs to be reduced. This could be achieved by changing longbows to use the same POA as bows, but count one grade better quality when shooting at cataphracts, armoured or heavily armoured targets.

Of course it may be that all shooting by MF is now too effective, in which case you need to go back to the lower number of dice. If the shooting between cav and MF is not then balanced (IIRC that was the original reason for changing to more dice for MF), you need to address it in a different way (e.g. improve POA for shooting against mounted or make CT harder to pass for mounted being shot at)

[rbodleyscott]

As usual, Lawrence has analysed the issues.

By "longbowmen" I really mean MF, Average, Protected, Longbow, Swordsmen.

My impression is that with the extra shooting dice, it is probably too easy for longbowmen or bowmen (who are the same vs protected foot as longbows) to stop an advance by protected enemy foot completely.

What then differentiates "longbowmen" is that if the enemy foot are at least DISRUPTED at contact, the longbowmen will probably win the combat, whereas most bowmen and crossbowmen probably won't - as they are either Unprotected or lack Swordsmen capability or both.

The net effect is that enough enemy protected foot get through to beat up other bowmen/crossbowmen but possibly not longbowmen.

Of course theoretical considerations can only take one so far. What matters is the actual chances of Protected enemy foot getting into contact with Longbowmen (or bowmen/crossbowmen) in good order in actual games. (Bearing in mind that historical longbowmen felt the need for terrain advantages).

This is clearly less if the shooters get more dice.

It is difficult to see how English longbowmen can be re-classified. They clearly have enough protection to count protected, and they were certainly more willing to get stuck into close combst than is documented for most other historical archers.

My view is that the problem (if indeed there is one) is too much shooting effect. This is not because they are longbows - which shoot the same as bows vs Protected foot. So if it needs to be toned down reducing the dice back to 1.5 ranks may be the answer.

[shall]

Ok my thoughts now I have had a chacne to resurface from the redraft....

I am concerned that going to 2 dice per rank for shooting makes bows too powerful.

There will already be a major shift in mindsets as we represent shooting properly in AOW.

Part of that is a mindset shift from factor 4 DBM bows - real bowmen were not so good in the open unless very high calibre. It is good to be different especially if our logic is correct!!!

I do not think we should risk a situation where bow armies dominate AOW comps in year 1.

Without beeing 100% sure that we are safe to go with 2 dice per front rank, I would therefore prefer to stick with 1.5 as was. Even if just for risk management purposes. It makes for a safer and better lauinch of the game.

Better to have people come back and argue that bows are perhaps a bit too weak than for everyone to plump for HYW Enlgish and Indians. Also it makes for more combat and less shotting. If anything we have a little too much shooting going on perhaps. As regards my game experience. I felt the Indians at Leeds were adequate at 1.5 dice. I found the time I used them at 2 dice they were too powerful even withthe 1Hp2 for the - on the cohesion test.

I do not believe anyone can make me 100% sure in the time available. I therefore propose we go back to the 1.5 dice of the old version

If anyone has the time the test I would like to run is the odds of foot troops getting into a line of bowmen STDY/DISR/FRAG if they are:

Protected HF if Ave
Armoured HF if Ave
Heavily Armoured HF if Ave

And then sam for MF with faster move

And then same for Armoured Cavalry who are Sup

Shooters average in all cases.

Does anyone out there have a simulator ready to do that and give some %ges - BRUCE? LAWRENCE?. Assume 3 short range shots for the HF and 1 long and 2 short for the MF and Cav as this is the right plan for the bowmen.

If I get the chance I will do it from our simulator and report back.

Cheers

Si

[malekithau]

From my limited playtesting experience I think that 1.5 is the way to go. 2 per base is a little too good. Yes the difference between 6 dice and 8 dice is perhaps one more hit but when 1 hit equates to 16.5 % swing for the death roll its not something to be taken lightly. Personally I like 1.5 ranks, 3hpb for CT and 2hpb for -1.

Perhaps shooting should have a lessened chance of death rolls then currently?

Missile troops were not the deciding factors in the majority of ancient battles its only later when horse archers and the English longbows made an impression that archery really made itself felt. I guess that is one of the problems when dealing with such a long span of time.

John O

[dave_r]

In the last few weeks I have extensively tested Longbowmen - i.e. Scottish Average, Longbow, Protected, Swordsmen. I have tried these mainly with Medieval French and Scots Common.

As it stands (i.e. 2 dice per frontage) they are extremely powerful. They will make mincemeat of Cavalry, but die like dogs against heavily armoured knights.

Against Protected Spearmen, the spearmen will generally make it into contact disrupted and will then proceed to win the combat (unless they are unlucky), however I needed an IC in tow and then bolstered after the first melee round. The factors if going in disordered are + to the spearmen in impact and evens in melee. Generally speaking this resulted in drawn combats - which allows the spear to bolster and then gradually duff up the bowmen (steady they are at + in melee)

Light foot and light horse get blown away extremely quickly.

Havent' really had the chance to test against heavy foot - the one time it did occur the heavy foot had no general and were surrounded so took lots of hits and could not recover ever.

I think that they probably are a bit too powerful at 2 dice per frontage, but if they are to return to 1.5 dice per frontage I think we should revert to -1 for 1hp3b.

If the Longbowmen are in rough going (their ideal place) then it is going to be a close run thing against good quality medium foot - which to my mind is a good thing. However, I get the feeling that spearmen will stuff them in rough going as well.

[lawrenceg]

If anyone has the time the test I would like to run is the odds of foot troops getting into a line of bowmen STDY/DISR/FRAG if they are:

Protected HF if Ave
Armoured HF if Ave
Heavily Armoured HF if Ave

And then sam for MF with faster move

And then same for Armoured Cavalry who are Sup

Shooters average in all cases.

Does anyone out there have a simulator ready to do that and give some %ges - BRUCE? LAWRENCE?. Assume 3 short range shots for the HF and 1 long and 2 short for the MF and Cav as this is the right plan for the bowmen.

If I get the chance I will do it from our simulator and report back.

Cheers

Si

I've quickly calculated the following cases to find the probability of getting into contact STEADY.
I assumed BG size 6 for shooters and targets, in 2 ranks.
I assumed all CT were at zero net adjustment (i.e. any -1 for lots of hits cancelled by rear support or generals).
I ignored rallying.

Average HF: 3 shots at effective
Protected HF if Ave : 2 dice 25%, 1.5 dice 36%
Armoured HF if Ave: Longbow at same POA as Protected. With just Bow, 2 dice 39%, 1.5 dice 57%
Heavily Armoured HF if Ave : Longbow 2 dice 39%, 1.5 dice 57%. Bow 2 dice 70%, 1.5 dice 84%


Average MF with faster move: 1 shot at maximum, 2 at effective
Protected (all) or Armoured (Longbow): 2 dice 31%, 1.5 dice 40%
Armoured (bow) or Heavily Armoured (longbow): 2 dice 47%, 1.5 dice 61%
Heavily Armoured (Bow): 2 dice 77%, 1.5 dice 87%

Cavalry, not in a single rank: 1 shot at maximum, 2 at effective
Armoured Cavalry Superior: Longbow 2 dice 43%, 1.5 dice 46%. Bow 2 dice 50%, 1.5 dice 57%

[rbodleyscott]

I've quickly calculated the following cases to find the probability of getting into contact STEADY.
I assumed BG size 6 for shooters and targets, in 2 ranks.
I assumed all CT were at zero net adjustment (i.e. any -1 for lots of hits cancelled by rear support or generals).
I ignored rallying.

Average HF: 3 shots at effective
Protected HF if Ave : 2 dice 25%, 1.5 dice 36%
Armoured HF if Ave: Longbow at same POA as Protected. With just Bow, 2 dice 39%, 1.5 dice 57%
Heavily Armoured HF if Ave : Longbow 2 dice 39%, 1.5 dice 57%. Bow 2 dice 70%, 1.5 dice 84%


Average MF with faster move: 1 shot at maximum, 2 at effective
Protected (all) or Armoured (Longbow): 2 dice 31%, 1.5 dice 40%
Armoured (bow) or Heavily Armoured (longbow): 2 dice 47%, 1.5 dice 61%
Heavily Armoured (Bow): 2 dice 77%, 1.5 dice 87%

Cavalry, not in a single rank: 1 shot at maximum, 2 at effective
Armoured Cavalry Superior: Longbow 2 dice 43%, 1.5 dice 46%. Bow 2 dice 50%, 1.5 dice 57%

I think that a 25% chance of protected HF getting into contact with archers steady is a bit harsh, and supports reverting to 1.5 ranks. I appreciate that Lawrence has ignored rallying - which of course is only possible if not suffering consecutive cohesion drops - but I think you can see why we fear 2 ranks may be excessive.