Foot Bow fire

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:18 pm

I am pretty happy to have my mounted bow fire, but the foot bow fire seems a little weak. Maybe not weak, but it seems inevitable that the attacker will reach the bowmen and massacre them. Is it that I haven't tried enough foot bow fire?

Also I note in the rules a section that allows specific army lists to have additional kind of interpentration. I presumed this was going to be some sort of billmen/bowmen interaction, but it it not listed under HYW beta list. Who might have this special featue?

Lastly the portable obstacles possibly ought to have an impact POA - versus Pike or all Impact foot. But not melee. My point is a hard charging/pressing group of foot are going to have to stumble around stakes or whatever and lose some of their umph.

stevoid · Post by **stevoid** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:42 am

hazelbark wrote:I am pretty happy to have my mounted bow fire, but the foot bow fire seems a little weak. Maybe not weak, but it seems inevitable that the attacker will reach the bowmen and massacre them. Is it that I haven't tried enough foot bow fire?

Also I note in the rules a section that allows specific army lists to have additional kind of interpentration. I presumed this was going to be some sort of billmen/bowmen interaction, but it it not listed under HYW beta list. Who might have this special featue?

Lastly the portable obstacles possibly ought to have an impact POA - versus Pike or all Impact foot. But not melee. My point is a hard charging/pressing group of foot are going to have to stumble around stakes or whatever and lose some of their umph.

I'm glad someone has raised this topic, so far I'm not predicting a lot of foot bow armies or the inclusion of many non-longbow blocks of bow in other foot armies. It would be great if anyone has some positive experiences of foot bow to report back!

Regards the interpenetration, NKE get it but with the jury out on HI/MI for the non-bow I'm not sure how much use it will be.

Also keen to hear about how anyone has gone using NKE to date.

Cheers,

Steve

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:58 am

MF w/bow are not open terrain troops unless very well supported by decent HF. Otherwise, they are the only troop in the game that can consistently kill LF that is hiding in terrain. MF built for close combat spends all game pursuing the LF, whereas MF w/bows just shoot the LF to pieces. They can also support blocks of HF by shooting LH (and CV w/bow) quite easily. I think one of our problems is thinking about them in DBM terms: here they move faster, can fight in most terrain, but unfortunately can't stand to good mounted in the open.

andy63 · Post by **andy63** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:35 pm

Also keen to hear about how anyone has gone using NKE to date.

Hi Stevoid, used the NKE at the Manchester Beta compitition did quite well and came 3rd but this was only a one day comp and only played two games and nither was against 1st & 2nd place competitors.
I then took it at Warfare and did quite well the Saturday finishing up the board in 2nd place.
Then had to play Richard Bodley Scott on the Sunday morning with is Lithuanians, at this point i would like to mention i chose my foot as MI not HI. I decided to put loads of terrain down i got the Initiative And chose Woodlands and the terrain fell quite good for me to sit back and get a draw. You may think this as negative but i did not feel i could beat Knights in the open,all was going well at first and i think even Richard had come to the conclusion it was a draw,but to his credit to Richard he decided to come and get me,and at one point i thought i got him,he decided to attack between two woods which i occupied with Lt foot he exposed his flanks to me but it was then i realised Lt foot can not Attack none Skirmishers even flanks and rears and his knights came crashing in on my Chariots.
He beat these and i also made a couple of mistakes on the other flank which i gifted him 2 BG of Lt Foot when i got court out in the open by Richards LH.The game ended 20 - 12 (I Think) to Richard.

I then played Lance with is super hard Serbs i got no terrain and all those hard Knights ran straight over me.
Come to the conclusion NKE needs to be played in period which i think will be a good army, in an open comp i think it struggles,with no Lt horse or Knights to give you that punch and the foot (well i think it is good against Biblical foot but will struggle against later good foot) One good thing is you get to use plenty of chariots unlike DBM.

Andy.

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:21 pm

I have been playing about with Indians and must admitthat the foot bow (leter type protected but not swordsmen have done quite well against mounted particularly if you keep the elephants in support. I have beaten a roman army twice as well.
John

stevoid · Post by **stevoid** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:36 pm

andy63 wrote:
Also keen to hear about how anyone has gone using NKE to date.
Come to the conclusion NKE needs to be played in period which i think will be a good army, in an open comp i think it struggles,with no Lt horse or Knights to give you that punch and the foot (well i think it is good against Biblical foot but will struggle against later good foot) One good thing is you get to use plenty of chariots unlike DBM.

Andy.

Hi Andy,

Thanks very much for that report. Kind of what I thought about NKE - they will be opponent/terrain dependent and therefore a finesse army - pretty much as they are under another rule set

To be fair I've had a lot of success with them in the past, they just need to be driven in a certain way.

I'm hoping that the Sherden will stay HI (quite plausible) and give one BG of in the open IF. Will have to adapt a little if the close fighters become MI but no real difference to having them as Bd F I guess. I've used progressively less bow under other rules as well so perhaps no change here after all.

Did you get much mileage out of skirmishing with the chariots and also boosting the BG size of the army with cheap BGs of 4 LF?

Cheers,

Steve

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:04 pm

carlos wrote:MF w/bow are not open terrain troops unless very well supported by decent HF. Otherwise, they are the only troop in the game that can consistently kill LF that is hiding in terrain. MF built for close combat spends all game pursuing the LF, whereas MF w/bows just shoot the LF to pieces. They can also support blocks of HF by shooting LH (and CV w/bow) quite easily. I think one of our problems is thinking about them in DBM terms: here they move faster, can fight in most terrain, but unfortunately can't stand to good mounted in the open.

So how to support them? I mean I have had some luck turning drilled BG s of bow 90 degrees and marching behind another BG as the enemy gets close, but that basically means you take one shot at most at normal range. If the ranges for foot bow MFs was 2" further I would see the ability to have some disordering fire, but I sort of see MFs of foot bows need to fire in at angles while the enemy force deals with a more serious foe. Not exactly feeling right.

Nor I should stress is this my definiative view but sort of the only part that hasn't seemed right in the interactions, which is saying a lot as gettting as much right as FoG does is quite a positive achievement.

I can see what you say as they are good antidotes to LF and LH, although I have yet to be convinced those are important antidotes.

I agree with the danger of DBM terms thinking. I think it that rules particulary weaker bow seem overpowered in shooting. So shaking off those expectations are important. And I don't mistake any rule set as a substitute for history. And history does suggest that bowmen were not the first among equals (baring a few notable HYW examples).

Rather I was wondering how people have found the Bow MF BGs functioning for them in games.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:23 pm

Well the stake equipped longbowmen in my Anglo-Irish have worked pretty well - the CMT for placing stakes can be quite a nervous test though

On the other hand I haven't worked out what I'd do with ordinary MF bowmen other than hope they have a LF option so as to take them as that

On yet another hand I'm OKish (still have concerns about the mounted + PoA against MF) with the historical representation of the interactions so ...

andy63 · Post by **andy63** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:23 pm

Stevoid Wrote
Did you get much mileage out of skirmishing with the chariots and also boosting the BG size of the army with cheap BGs of 4 LF?

Hi Stevoid, Yes used lots of BG of Lf for Boosting size of army but the downsize of this is they still cost you 2 attrition points when you lose them (and believe me they can be lost quite easily) as regards to Skirmishing with the Chariots but what i find your opponent who wants to get in contact with you will not charge you at is maximum distance but will take another round of fire and move to milimeters in front of you then charge you, its then suicide to try and evade, you got to hope your fire at least Disrups him but against Knights needing a 5 its close and even if you do its a close run think in Impact and Melee.

Andy.

[/quote][/i][/u][/code][/url][/list]

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:29 am

I added a BG of Janissaries to my Ottomans to good effect but I still wouldn't risk them in the open against mounted - too risky!

I've also tried English longbows - they're pretty good but that CT to place the stakes when you're in charge reach is a bit nervy!

Pete

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:39 am

petedalby wrote:I've also tried English longbows - they're pretty good but that CT to place the stakes when you're in charge reach is a bit nervy!

If you set them up in advance, no sane opponent will come near them, so you really do need to play the "chicken" game to use them effectively. (As at Agincourt.) But you risk being "caught without your stakes down". (As at Patay).

And if you are going for cut-priced Undrilled longbowmen such as in HYW (Britain), Anglo-Irish or Scots (Continental) the extra risk of failing the CMT in my view makes stakes not worth taking.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:55 am

I wouldn't dream of taking the Anglo-Irish longbowmen without stakes - partly because I'd want the Justicar's to have them and it is then an all/none option for the stakes so the colonists have to have them as well. Just make sure you bolt a general onto them when they get close

BTW Scots don't get stakes for their bowmen.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:20 am

nikgaukroger wrote:BTW Scots don't get stakes for their bowmen.

Good point.

marco · Post by **marco** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:24 pm

what about the militia longbow of the wor
they can have stake as well ?

marco

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:12 pm

Aye we Scots bowmen don't need the stakes that you soft English do. We trust in our blue woad paint and cut down trees as required.
We can also support our bow with the Scot's general who count as two pieces of artillery ( fireballs from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse).
John

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:16 pm

marco wrote:
what about the militia longbow of the wor
they can have stake as well ?

marco

Yes - in fact it is an all/none option for all longbow BGs whether retinue or otherwise.

Foot Bow fire

Foot Bow fire

Re: Foot Bow fire