Pike and Shot suggestions

[rbodleyscott]

1. Army options in skirmish battles - I feel the selection should be more flexible to allow battles between armies who would normally fight each other. For example, when I selected the Otoman Turks, it is not possible to select either Russians or Transylvanians as their enemies, armies I imagine they would normally fight. On the other hand, they can fight Scots Covenanters; an interesting match up, but much less likely than Turks vs Russians. So it would be good if there was more flexibility here.

Yes, that was something of an oversight.

However, you can in fact play Ottomans vs Russians or Transylvanians (or indeed any other matchup) by toggling the filter off.

[jomni]

Regarding bows vs. firearms

Anyway, I can chip in with an Asian example. The Koreans were actually given the opportunity to procure firearms before the Japanese invasion of Korea. But during a test, they concluded that the arquebus took a long time to load and not accurate with all the smoke that they produced. The Koreans possessed the best bows in Asia or even the world because they are derivatives of the Mongol recurved composite bows. The Koreans also take their archery seriously as it was like a national sport for them. Anyone from commoners to nobles and scholars practised archery. So when the Japanese came invading Korea with their teppō firearms... guess who won?

[Hoplite39]

Thanks for the advice on turning the filter off. My first point is therefore deat with. The Turks can fight the Russians after all.

[TheGrayMouser]

Pleas add this whimsical wish list item

(this is something I always wanted for FOG) but the ability to have multi-multiplayer
ie 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 2

It would be great for campaign games
Actually, it would be fun for single player too, Ie lead an 800 point Swedish force with 400 point allied Germans(think Saxons) vs a 1200 point Imperial.

[simacole]

Regarding bows vs. firearms

Anyway, I can chip in with an Asian example. The Koreans were actually given the opportunity to procure firearms before the Japanese invasion of Korea. But during a test, they concluded that the arquebus took a long time to load and not accurate with all the smoke that they produced. The Koreans possessed the best bows in Asia or even the world because they are derivatives of the Mongol recurved composite bows. The Koreans also take their archery seriously as it was like a national sport for them. Anyone from commoners to nobles and scholars practised archery. So when the Japanese came invading Korea with their teppō firearms... guess who won?

The Koreans thanks to their superior navy, Ming intervention and guerrilla war. Your mod is great jomni, but I think you are wrong about this. I know there are sources that claim the Japanese early victories were largely due to firearms, but this is open to question. Both sides used both firearms and bows. The Korean bow was hardly the best in the world, either. While horn bows were used, they were expensive and most Korean archers were probably armed with simple bamboo bows (Jukgung:竹弓). The Japanese outnumbered Korean regulars by as much as four to one. In addition, in contrast to most of the Koreans who had not experienced combat, Hideyoshi's troops were battle hardened and much better trained. Their early successes were as much due to their shock tactics and better training than the superiority of their muskets.

I think the effects of firearms on morale are also underestimated factor though. As one Korean general pointed out:

The King asked him [Shi-eon Lee], "You have already told me about the low accuracy of Japanese muskets. Why, then, are Korean armies having great problem with defeating them?"
[Shi-eon Lee] then answered, "The Korean soldiers cower before the enemy and flee for their lives even before they have engaged the enemy. As for the commanders, they seldom leave their positions because they fear that they might be executed for deserting. However, there is a limit to executing deserting soldiers since there are so many of them. Truly, the Japanese aren't good musketeers, but they advance so rapidly that they appear right in front of the Koreans in the time Koreans can shoot only two arrows. It is said that Koreans are good archers, but they seldom hit the targets when the enemy is too far away, and are too scared to shoot when the enemy is near because they fear Japanese swords. Archery often becomes useless because Koreans, fearing the Japanese arme blanche, can barely shoot. The Japanese are reputed to be good swordsmen, but it is possible for Koreans to draw swords and hold their ground. However, the Koreans seldom do this and merely run for their lives.

Ming regulars, often equipped with longbows, but supported by cannon, fared much better against the Japanese, who in the end avoided them in open battle. Unlike the English, both the Koreans and the Chinese continued to use the bow alongside the musket up until the 19th century.

[jomni]

Thanks for the info. Yes the Koreans mainly lost the land battle due to inexperience no matter what weapon and skill that they have. They have 200 years of peace compared to the battle hardened Japanese. And their culture actually prefer scholars than generals. The Korean cavalry arm were veterans against the Jurchens but they were poorly led and not the right troops to take on the Japanese infantry. Logistics won the war for the Koreans and Ming Chinese since they control the sea.

[TimW]

I suspect the Japanese defeat against Korea was largely similar in cause to their defeat in 1945.

After a very good start, once the opposing forces included powers with greater population, greater economic resources and a willingness to continue the war through to victory, Japanese defeat was only a matter of time. I forget the reference, but it has been pointed out that once Ming China was involved if every heroic Samurai or Ashigaru despatched 10 of the enemy before falling in heroic combat, the numerical odds against Japan would remain exactly the same as they were to start with. As in 1940/41 Japan needed a quick and hopefully decisive victory or the combination of a long and vulnerable line of supply and sheer weight of numbers would eventually lead to an inevitable conclusion.

[simacole]

Maybe in some ways similar to the problems they faced in China from 1937 to 1945. Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea was the first Japanese invasion of another country. His forces were used to civil war within Japan, but I don't think they really had any idea of the complications involved in holding down a population of another nationality. It's clear from the accounts that a Korean national consciousness did exist. The Righteous Armies, as the irregular forces were known, really did play a major role in the defeat of the Japanese, even accounting for the exaggerations of a Korean nationalists. As in China in the 20th century, the Japanese controlled the communication routes and the cities/fortresses. They could not control the countryside. They could beat the Koreans in the field, but the Righteous Armies didn't stop around to fight them in open battle. I don't think the Japanese were outnumbered in terms of regular troops, though this is hotly disputed. However, many of their troops were pinned down defending their communications. I don't think the Ming forces outnumbered the Japanese either. This is contentious though too.

[jomni]

Richard,

Will there be co-op mode in the future release?

[rbodleyscott]

Richard,

Will there be co-op mode in the future release?

Not for the upcoming release, although it can be added later if there is sufficient demand.

[TLord]

I'm really tempted to buy this. Looks a fun title in an era that interests me. I was wondering if there were any plans to add the wars and campaigns of the age of Louis XIV? His wars with the Dutch, The Grand Alliance, The Williamite Wars for example? That was a fascinating period and I think worthy of being covered by an expansion for this game.

[rbodleyscott]

I'm really tempted to buy this. Looks a fun title in an era that interests me. I was wondering if there were any plans to add the wars and campaigns of the age of Louis XIV? His wars with the Dutch, The Grand Alliance, The Williamite Wars for example? That was a fascinating period and I think worthy of being covered by an expansion for this game.

It is planned, but on the back burner at present.

[TLord]

I'm really tempted to buy this. Looks a fun title in an era that interests me. I was wondering if there were any plans to add the wars and campaigns of the age of Louis XIV? His wars with the Dutch, The Grand Alliance, The Williamite Wars for example? That was a fascinating period and I think worthy of being covered by an expansion for this game.

It is planned, but on the back burner at present.

Good to hear it is planned for some point. I guess I'll pick this up soon and dig into it!

[Philippeatbay]

I just happened to pull out my copy of Nothing Gained But Glory because I was wondering if the maps were as good looking as I remembered.

The maps are gorgeous, but I can't help wondering if the Skanian War is ever going to make an appearence in this series. Lots of small battles with a manageable number of units. It's a little later in the 17th century than the Thirty Years War, but not as much of a stretch as the Great Northern War (17th century-style armies as opposed to 18th century-style armies).

It would be nice to see this part of Sweden's history covered, and it would dovetail nicely with more battles involving Poland.

[lk2500]

I didn't read through the entire thread so I don't know if this issue was raised.

During the 2nd Battle of Newbury I had rushed some cavalry up to stop the Parliamenterian army from crossing the bridge. I set up a unit in a spot to get a flank charge on an enemy that had just crossed the bridge to my side of the river, but didn't have enough action points to actually change facing yet. Next turn I was unable to change facing to set up the flank attack due to the fact that there was enemy horse facing me - on the opposite side of the unpassable river.

Not sure if that was set up that way on purpose or an oversight.

[rbodleyscott]

An oversight.

[KateMicucci]

Regarding bows vs. firearms

Anyway, I can chip in with an Asian example. The Koreans were actually given the opportunity to procure firearms before the Japanese invasion of Korea. But during a test, they concluded that the arquebus took a long time to load and not accurate with all the smoke that they produced. The Koreans possessed the best bows in Asia or even the world because they are derivatives of the Mongol recurved composite bows. The Koreans also take their archery seriously as it was like a national sport for them. Anyone from commoners to nobles and scholars practised archery. So when the Japanese came invading Korea with their teppō firearms... guess who won?

The Imjin war probably demonstrates the superiority of the firearm over the bow better than any other war.

Here are a couple sentences from The Book of Corrections, written by the Korean high commissioner Song-Nyong Yu, showing the Japanese guns outperforming Korean bows:

"Today, the Japanese exclusively use muskets to attack fortifications. They can reach [the target] from several hundred paces away. Our country's bows and arrows cannot reach them."

"The Japanese had the use of muskets that could reach beyond several hundred paces, that always pierced what they struck, that came like the wind and the hail, and with which bows and arrows could not compare."

There are many other examples. The Koreans used whatever Japanese firearms they could capture, though due to poor training they kept overcharging and destroying them.

Meanwhile, the Japanese commanders were complaining that they didn't have enough guns. One demanded that all of the reinforcements be armed with guns:

"When troops come [to Korea] from the province of Kai, have them bring as many guns as possible, for no other equipment is needed. Give strict orders that all men, even the samurai, carry guns." Asano Yukinaga

This brief summary of the war demonstrates how important firearms were to the Japanese war effort:
http://www.samuelhawley.com/imjinarticle1a.html

So again, the evidence does not at all support the idea that bows were superior to 16th century firearms.

[shawkhan2]

Unless the Japanese had some type of super musket I sincerely doubt the possibility that they could hit a man-sized target at several hundred paces (3-500 yards?).

I have fired many black powder weapons and I would defy the best shot in the world to hit a man-sized target with a smooth bore musket at even 200 yards.
Even with perfect aim a non-spinning projectile randomly curves one direction or another making it impossible to follow the planned trajectory.

Our resident short-range curmudgeon, Fogman, claims that even 100 yards was not practical with a musket.

The Koreans were among the best archers in the world. With flight arrows, they could reach out at least 300 yards. And an arrow flies straight, due to fletching.

First-hand historical accounts tend to be subjective, to say the least.
I think losers tend to make up excuses for their loss.

But an interesting text, nevertheless. I do maintain that firearms won mainly through intimidation, they made smoke and noise, terrifying to be on the receiving end of that.

[deadtorius]

Of course they were not just shooting at a single target, but a mass of archers, close packed on a wall. More likely to hit someting, point at wall pull trigger repeat. The Korean describing the musket balls being like hail probably gives some idea of what being on the receiving end was like. Problem with defending a fixed obstacle, no where to go or duck. You're camped in up there and pray the lead hail does no hit you. The excess blood caused by successful hits, lethal or not, is likely more unnerving than being hit with arrows, less blood less major wounds. Don't forget at the time this was a new and horrifying weapon to the Koreans. Eventually they get used to it and it is not so frightening any more.

[shawkhan2]

Well, I have no dog in this fight, but I am trained in ballistics and can tell you there is no way anyone with a musket could hit anything smaller than a mountain at 3-400 yards. Just calculating the trajectory for firing would be nearly impossible for hitting a wall or a house, let alone a person. The musket balls would be falling at something like an 80 degree angle at that range, and moving at the speed of a child's BB gun. I think the range must have been much, much closer for the story to make any sense.

Even with modern firearms, there is not one person in 10 who could hit a target at that range w/o telescopic sights.

I think the writer exaggerated, but of course I was not there.