Official 'beef about massed (cheap) bows' thread

[Delbruck]

Commanding out the units so you can send 8 shot into them and have a column of 4 pike that may get both armour and pike POA is also a benefit.

Yeah I would have thought this was the way to go. After all you shouldnt need the pike mixed in as most of these pike/shot armies have cav good enough to keep the chinese mounted away.

Still going to be a very tough match up (with the archer only costing 5 points a base versus the 8 or so for the sperated musket bases) but it should work some of the time.

Taking a GC may also become more common.

Martin

Qinq with light spear will be up one POA in impact vs pure musket BG,s, and pike in combined units cannot form up deeper than than their original BG.

[Skullzgrinda]

At a superficial glance no one had a real battle plan other to advance and find out how effective the bow shooting was.

"Good morning, good morning!" the General said,
When we met him last week on the way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
"He's a cheery old card" grunted Harry to Jack,
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
But he did for them both with his plan of attack.
~ Siegfried Sassoon

[hazelbark]

pike in combined units cannot form up deeper than than their original BG.

I don't have my rules with me, but doesn't that sentence say unless there are no shot left in the unit. Or something like that?

[hazelbark]

[
Still going to be a very tough match up (with the archer only costing 5 points a base versus the 8 or so for the sperated musket bases) but it should work some of the time.

Taking a GC may also become more common.

Points don't change when you take out the commanded out units. Or is 8 the normal?

I do think the original thought that a GC was not as helpful as the 80 points warrented, is another of my preconceptions that I am shifting away from.

[timmy1]

I have certainly shifted away from the GC not being required. With all the shooting there is, CTs are very common especially against troops with Firearms. Also the number of death rolls is high (especially if you are Mr Porter) and often times you will find yourself taking a test at -2 (one per 2 and 25%) for subsequent shots.

Less of a problem with Bows unless there are lots of them e.g. Qing.

[marty]

the other problem with seperating out is that if you managed to beat a quing unit in combat it wouldnt have the -on the CT for losing to HF.

Martin

[Samei00]

Hi I thought if you had armoured pike in a mixed BG then the whole BG counted as armoured v shooting help reducing the effectiveness of bows?

[hazelbark]

Hi I thought if you had armoured pike in a mixed BG then the whole BG counted as armoured v shooting help reducing the effectiveness of bows?

I believe that is only the swedish formation.

[deadtorius]

Check page 122, you count the majority of armour rating for a target being shot at, so armoured pikes, flanked by 2 stands of unarmoured shot = unarmoured target. A unit in Swedish Brigade counts the front pikes armour for its target status.
So pike and shot unit will get shot at as unarmoured.
If there are equal numbers of bases in the front rank of armoured and unarmoured count the lowest of these armour ratings... so looks like unarmoured for an early Tercio as well. Looks like kiels might be the worst nightmare for the Chinese in the end. At least the bows still add +2 to the death roll compared to straight up death rolls from the shot.

[marty]

Oh no their worst nightmare are armoured warriors with IF/SW or more economically SP. The 4" move combined with needing a 5 to hit in shooting (probably at 8 el units) means the hail of bowfire is much less likely to matter. 2 POA's down once the melee starts as well! Bring on the Samurai say I! The armoured Japanese archers at only 1 point more than the Quing are probably also a good bet.

Of corse if you're using a 17th Century European army you may be short on Samurai and the like although highlanders might get the job done with a little more difficulty.

Martin

[Delbruck]

Oh no their worst nightmare are armoured warriors with IF/SW or more economically SP. The 4" move combined with needing a 5 to hit in shooting (probably at 8 el units) means the hail of bowfire is much less likely to matter. 2 POA's down once the melee starts as well! Bring on the Samurai say I! The armoured Japanese archers at only 1 point more than the Quing are probably also a good bet.

Of corse if you're using a 17th Century European army you may be short on Samurai and the like although highlanders might get the job done with a little more difficulty.

Martin

I agree, the (early) Samurai are probably the perfect army against the Qinq or any other army of masses bows. Early 16th century European armies using armored foot should be good also.

The question ... 8 Qinq archers with regt gun (49 pts) face a 6 pack of German pike & shot also with regt gun (51 pts), who has the advantage? In the game, it is probably the Qinq, but is this realistic? Are the Qinq Chinese peasants who have trained their entire life with the bow? Most armies converted first to crossbow then to gunpowder weapons because the average peasnt could be trained with these weapons. Training to become a good archer took a lifetime.

The other question is weapons costs. Is an arquebus really superior to a bow in the game (for the one extra point)?

[Scrumpy]

And is the musket really only 1 pt better than an arquebus ?

Is there really a glut of Qing armies out there ? Apart from Matt Iverson, who is one of the best fog players in the USA, have the Qing done consistantly well in tourney play ?

[chubooga]

[quote="DelbruckI

The question ... 8 Qinq archers with regt gun (49 pts) face a 6 pack of German pike & shot also with regt gun (51 pts), who has the advantage? In the game, it is probably the Qinq, but is this realistic? [/quote]


tbh, IMHO, its pretty close though I agree thats it feels favourable to the bow... as to whether its realistic... not sure, are there any historical examples of bow units out shooting musket or the other way round?

However, IMHO, I feel its important we consider that the pike and shot units have few other situations where they are severally disadvantaged... they can ignore armour, front off mounted comfortably and have tactical options to command out the musket etc......not bad for only 2 points more. The bow on the other hand, have the nemesi you mentioned on IF / SW but also really dont like mounted troops, in particular with armour and pi/sw, struggle against armoured foot of most types...and have few tactical options other than hold the line....

while I can see the attraction of the formidable line of 'cheap' bowmen with gun... I do also think it has inherent weaknesses which most other armies can exploit...... for 2 pts more per unit... its close, but I favour the P+S overall for open play...... but hey, I havent played that much out of period, only playing at britcon so far...... and I follow this thread with interest ... in particular becase I have a chinese army sitting in boxes as we speak!

[Simpleton]

Hmmm... perhaps instead of hiring landsknechts Henry VIII should field 6 x 8 longbowmen BGs! I have plenty of Wars of the Roses figures.

In the Early Tudor army you have to have more Billmen than Longbowmen, so 48 stands of archers and 48+ stands of Billmen gets very expensive. However maybe the authors would like to comment on why the Later Tudor army has no such restriction? A sudden resurgence in the ancient weapon systems?

[Scrumpy]

Standard answer... because it does / does not....

[Simpleton]

The massed bow is that with enough dice and logner range they have an effect.

As said the Qing also had light spears and regimental guns.

As observation the people who go creamed by this often were getting themselves in situations where 2 BGs were shooting at one. So yes 18 dice are going to do damage.

The Qing also used terrain effectively.

At a superficial glance no one had a real battle plan other to advance and find out how efective the bow shooting was.

The problem is.....is that the normal TYW/ECW infantry 6 pack doesn't have much of an answer. Except for any armor worn by the pikes, the close combat factors are the same.

I think they will do well in tournaments as most players bring a generic list of their particular army. In a friendly game it seems that if the Chinese deploy with spears 2 ranks deep to get a + vs mounted they make good targets for artillery, if the deploy wide, they can be taken out by Pistol armed shock mtd, especially if they are armored. This assumes the Pistol make it past Impact which is an even call. If they don't oh well.... they'll bounce and be shot to bits. So if I played a friendly game I would run my Royalists as a mounted raid with nothing but dragoons and pistol cavaliers.

[Simpleton]

Qinq with light spear will be up one POA in impact vs pure musket BG,s, and pike in combined units cannot form up deeper than than their original BG.

Please read the rules in whole sentences, the rule on p.183 says:

"Composite battle groups cannot adopt a formation with pike deeper than they would have been in the original battle groups unless all shot have been detached." (the italics are mine)

[johngl]

Hmmm... perhaps instead of hiring landsknechts Henry VIII should field 6 x 8 longbowmen BGs! I have plenty of Wars of the Roses figures.

In the Early Tudor army you have to have more Billmen than Longbowmen, so 48 stands of archers and 48+ stands of Billmen gets very expensive. However maybe the authors would like to comment on why the Later Tudor army has no such restriction? A sudden resurgence in the ancient weapon systems?

I meant the later version - the Early Henrician army is allowed a mere 36 longbowmen.

[rbodleyscott]

it seems that if the Chinese deploy with spears 2 ranks deep to get a + vs mounted they make good targets for artillery

Light Spear capability is not the same as Spearmen capability. So forming up with 2 ranks of Light Spear has no effect.

[Scrumpy]

Apart from halving his fire power of course.