Looking for an army

[ravenflight]

Which bits of the lists don't work for you?

Quite a bit.

I think they are WAY too expensive.

Consider the bulk of the army is:

Medium Foot, Undrilled, Armoured or Protected, Average, Bow*, Heavy Weapon at 8 or 10 points

-vs (another option for the same style)-

Medium Foot, Undrilled, Armoured or Protected, Average, 1/2 Bow, Sword, 1/2 Heavy Weapon at 7 or 9 points.

SO, for an extra point what do you get:

(let's assume a line of 12 bases)

Long range shooting: 4 dice shooting vs 3 dice shooting.
Effective range: 6 dice shooting vs 6 dice shooting.

In impact you get the huge benefit of no support shooting vs 12 dice of support shooting.

And all this for the additional cost of 1 point.

Now, I'm not saying that I want to build a killer army that is going to kick arse and take names (hell, I run Vikings, Post Viking Medieval Scandinavian and Hoplites for crying out loud) but I DO want an even score. When you consider that a Muromachi Japanese army is going to be probably >50% Bushi (as above) you're looking at effectively wasting 40+ points. That's a BG of 8 LF archers in most armies, or upgrading 10 Legionaries from 'average' to 'killer' Legionaries (which would cut through the Muromachi like a hot knife through butter.

They probably would STILL cut through a hot knife through butter if they were 'my version' but they would at least put up a fight and have a remote chance of doing something with support shooting.

I don't think the list was thought through very well, with no disrespect to those who made it, and of course the rules/list writers always have their standard fall back comment 'they work in period against historical opponents' yadda yadda.

[grahambriggs]

Ah, so this is really a "heavy weapon, bow* are overpriced for for what they do" issue (which I think is a fair comment). And I suspect it's the bow* bit that is the problem. I've not found a troop type yet with that that I like. A number of people who know better than I have suggested it might not be the best written list out there.

While they might be a bit expensive as a troop type, the Muromachi generally is a big army. Having fought against it a couple of times it's biggest problem seems to be being undrilled. It seems quite vulnerable to a more manouverable army hitting it hard in one place before it can react. I suspect that means you have to take the Bushi as armoured as the protected guys would be an obvious target.

[IanB3406]

Can someone explain again why these guys are medium foot? What is the evidence battle wise where they were vulnerable to mounted, which I guess would be the only reason...


Certainly....
1). They shouldn't have a movement advantage...they are heavily armored guys not light footed mediums in any way of imagination.
2). They certainly aren't bushmen to have some advantage in terrain....

So, sounds like they were shoe horned in as medium foot as the fog model built on the classical period doesn't work for them.?

Ian

[grahambriggs]

I think they are MF because that is the norm of the EotD armies. And I think that was that people didn't see HF as right.Not sure why to be honest.

[ravenflight]

Can someone explain again why these guys are medium foot?

They have a bow.

If they did it MY way (1/2 HW 1/2 Bow, sword) then they could have them HF front rank no problem.

[IanB3406]

Their archery was not seen as effective versus the Mongols....not sure why bow* couldn't be heavy foot. They should be outshot by the Mongols, realizing any invasion force would be mostly infantry, if any mounted at all.

I'm not sure what the solution here is. I can understand the desire to get the history right, but has anyone heard of anyone trying fog for a historical samauri refight? I certainly haven't seen a report. So who's actually playing samauri or are all figures collecting dust like mine?

Ian

[ravenflight]

Not sure why bow* couldn't be heavy foot. They should be outshot by the Mongols, realizing any invasion force would be mostly infantry, if any mounted at all.

Firstly, the army lists all have 'shooters' as Medium Foot. Don't ask me why - that's the choice the writers made.

Secondly, dismounted Mongols are Elite, Superior or Average (and only Average if someone wants to take Average) Drilled, Bow, Swordsmen. Chances are they will out-shoot front rank Heavy Weapon, rear rank Bow as they get more shooting dice AND they are superior.

Lastly, the Mongol Invasions were very weird in that the first invasion the Japanese didn't fight the same way as the Mongols. There was a major cultural difference where personal challengers were not responded to and lone Samurai were cut down by massed Mongols because of it. The later invasion was quite different but was still rather more of a skirmish than an out and out battle and the numbers involved were very disproportionate.

[IanB3406]

Hmmm, in which case we should ignore any Mongol samauri interactions as there aren't any field battles to infer from. So we are looking at Sam on Sam fights. Any way to model this and somehow make this army worth more than a pile of horse poo?

[ShrubMiK]

In general, I get the impression that shields are hardly considered for cavalry when deciding what armour level they are awarded. Which I don't really agree with: a) those numidians would be more attractive to players if their shiled gave them an advantage aginst horse archers if they manage to get in close; b) FoG rules would leave you puzzled as to why cav moved away from the Hellenistic lancer types to shorter spears and shields.

But looking at Imperial-era Romans as a concrete example, the general approach for foot seems reasonably clear to me. Auxilia wearing get rated as armoured or protected if armed with light spear and reasonably large shield, but protected or unprotected if they have bow and smallish shield instead. And yet AFAIK there is no evidence that at any instant in history, bow-armed auxilia were wearing significantly different kit from the others - e.g. chainmail corslet in the early imperial period.

(And pikes seem to fit this approach as well, even leaving aside the need to achieve game balance. They may carry a shield, but it may be smaller than that of other close-combat infantry, and it is assumed they cannot use it as effectively.)

Not saying that authors cannot make exceptions to the general policy for particular lists...but it needs more justification than just saying that historically they wore armour.