Matchlocks vs Warriors

[SnuggleBunnies]

Having watched a few game play videos on Youtube, I have a question regarding Matchlocks vs Warrior type infantry.

Warriors seem capable of charging 3 squares, and Matchlocks have a range of 2 squares. So, (correct me if I'm wrong) if a unit of Matchlocks is confronted by a unit of Warriors 3 tiles away, it can either move forward one tile, lowering its accuracy, and fire on the Warriors. Subsequently, having suffered one volley of reduced effectiveness, the Warriors can charge. Or, the Matchlocks can wait, in which case, the Warriors can charge without taking any fire at all.

Doesn't this seem... odd? As we all know, Matchlocks dramatically altered Sengoku Warfare, precisely because head on melee assaults became more difficult to conduct. With movement and range in its current set up, how is the interplay between these two unit types balanced?

[TheGrayMouser]

Having watched a few game play videos on Youtube, I have a question regarding Matchlocks vs Warrior type infantry.

Warriors seem capable of charging 3 squares, and Matchlocks have a range of 2 squares. So, (correct me if I'm wrong) if a unit of Matchlocks is confronted by a unit of Warriors 3 tiles away, it can either move forward one tile, lowering its accuracy, and fire on the Warriors. Subsequently, having suffered one volley of reduced effectiveness, the Warriors can charge. Or, the Matchlocks can wait, in which case, the Warriors can charge without taking any fire at all.

Doesn't this seem... odd? As we all know, Matchlocks dramatically altered Sengoku Warfare, precisely because head on melee assaults became more difficult to conduct. With movement and range in its current set up, how is the interplay between these two unit types balanced?

If the Matchlocks stand still and don't fire in their turn, and the Warriors charge on their(the Warriors) turn, the matchlocks will "opportunity fire"(once) at the warriors as they close.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Ah, that would make sense. I had been under the impression that opportunity fire applied to moves, but not charges.

[TheGrayMouser]

Ah, that would make sense. I had been under the impression that opportunity fire applied to moves, but not charges.

Hmm, actually you might be right! I have been playing P&S for a long time and now I am finding such a basic principle of the game is eluding me! Either way though, it hasn't come up in the P&S game as being an issue, and in the ealier era , the arquebus only has a range of 2 grids as well...

The "explaination" if indeed opportunity fire does not happen when one charges into a unit, is that fireams units were not firing by platoon or multiple ranks an dthus any firing "value" into the "charger" is reflected oin th ePOA already.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think whether or not it happens in Pike and Shot isn't as noticeable because Warrior units are rather uncommon; most infantry is mixed or medium foot. But in SOTS, there are large numbers of Warrior types, making the interplay between the two types more vital to the balance of the game.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think whether or not it happens in Pike and Shot isn't as noticeable because Warrior units are rather uncommon; most infantry is mixed or medium foot. But in SOTS, there are large numbers of Warrior types, making the interplay between the two types more vital to the balance of the game.

Good point, I was thinking of the Swiss though that can move three hexes, but Japanese warfare no doubt was much different! ( and I know very little about)

[rbodleyscott]

Someone elsewhere was commenting that they feared matchlocks were too effective in the game.

These things balance out.

The greatest successes of matchlocks in the Sengoku Jidai were when they were behind field defences. Without those, they need to be much more circumspect and try to work round the edges of the conflict.

[jomni]

Also about the army lists, the Warriors become less common as matchlocks become common.
During the "warrior era", matchlock units started off as light foot. During the peak of matchlock usage, only a few units are warriors (Samurai and monks) the ashigaru (backbone of the Japanese army) are medium foot.
Also continental armies are mostly medium foot.

[Huskie]

I've played the game quite a bit, as the dev. mentioned it balances out. The matchlocks are indeed a powerful and versatile unit, but I've managed to route and disperse them in numerous battles. There was not a battle I fought where I left any unit of matchlocks alive... Cavalry is a key and important shock and support unit. In some cases, they can win a whole battle (I've beat the Chungju scenario, yay me).

[kongxinga]

Slight sidetrack, there are warrior units in Pike and Shot? Off the top of my head I am guessing those come from Scottish lists right? I thought that category was unused, sort of like "sling" troops.

[rbodleyscott]

Slight sidetrack, there are warrior units in Pike and Shot? Off the top of my head I am guessing those come from Scottish lists right? I thought that category was unused, sort of like "sling" troops.

Yep, Scottish highlanders. (And also some units in various Mods).