Knights v Longbowmen & Stakes

[Floyd1]

Obviously the stakes provide a modifier + POA for the MF behind stakes v Mounted, in this case Knights. My question pertains to the Knight's POA modifiers. I do not see anywhere mentioned that stakes changes the terrain type present, so my understanding therefor is that MF in the open behind stakes, still count as being in the open ? So then, the Knights will still get a second + POA modifier for charging MF in the open - even if they are behind stakes ?

Thanks

[sesma]

You will find it in the glosary, see the open terrain definition on page 135. With the stakes MF get one POA and the knight get none couse the lance and mounted POAs do not count.

[Floyd1]

P135 lists defending Fortifications - not sure if that includes Portable Defences ?

[rbodleyscott]

P135 lists defending Fortifications - not sure if that includes Portable Defences ?

Portable Defenses count as FF vs mounted troops in close combat. Sesma is correct.

With the stakes MF get one POA and the knight get none couse the lance and mounted POAs do not count.

[Floyd1]

Thanks for the reply. I suppose this is one of the situations where you have to simply put your opinion aside and accept the rule and play accordingly. I do not understand the dynamics behind the interpretation. In many of the battles of the 100 years war, the English longbow men setup stakes in difficult terrain, ex marshy ground, river banks, etc - indicating that stakes alone was not necessarily sufficient to break up the mounted formations. In the rules, the MF do get a + POA for defending the stakes, which they otherwise would not have had. I cannot see how the stakes can change the terrain type for the mounted so that it is no longer Open Terrain. The terrain beneath the stakes remains unchanged - the stakes provide a + POA modifier. Surely terrain cannot be conditionally different, it either Open Terrain, or Uneven, etc. If mounted do not count as being in Open Terrain v Stakes, what terrain are they then in ? Uneven ? Then they should be Disordered also for not being in Open Terrain. Then surely HF fighting MF behind stakes should not provide the MF with a + POA modifier as their opponents are not mounted, but the HF should then also be Disordered ? My point is that terrain cannot be different in different circumstances for different troops - the terrain is either Open, or Uneven ? The historic tendency for English to set them selves up - physically in uneven or difficult terrain, end then setup stakes also leads me to think that the stakes in open terrain remains open terrain and does not effect mounted that much. That will force players to play more historically correct and setup longbow men behind stakes in uneven or rough terrain and not open terrain ?

Anyway - you cannot please all the people all of the time and in total I think FOG is the best rule set ever and I enjoy it tremendously.

Keep up the good work guys.

Thanks

[vercingetorix]

I think it might cause the knights to lose their poa for charging MF in the open because they can't charge as fast as normal when there are stakes. They would have to slow down and maybe even dismount to get past the stakes.

[viperofmilan]

I've got to agree with Floyd1's reasoning here. I certainly do not claim to be an expert, but I have read a fair amount of history over the years and my understanding of the English victories in the 100 Years War is the same as his. Terrain (bad going) had far more to do with English success than did stakes. The stakes give the longbow a + POA. They also negate the Knight's + POAs. Given the truly elegant interaction of POAs in FoG, this is excessive IMHO. One or the other would be quite sufficient.

I can understand RBS's natural, perhaps unconscious desire to make sure that English longbowmen never lose a combat to knights, just as I can understand that same motivation leading to their otherwise indefensible unique interpenetration rules. As Floyd1 says, we ought to just accept the rulings of the authors, no matter how idiosyncratic they might appear.

Please don't get me wrong. I too am a big fan of FoG. In 30 years of gaming I have never been so excited by a set of rules. These relatively minor points just give us something to kvetch about, while the forum gives us means to do so endlessly.

Viper

[Floyd1]

Yeah Viper - some emotional support - thanks. Good to hear I am not completely subjective seeing as I play Ordonnance French. My Kn can fortunately dismount as Superior HF, Heavy Weapon, so I was not complaining because I had no way of fighting Longbowmen behind stakes - the interaction with terrain type just got to me. Make Stakes provide a ++ POA v Kn if you want to, but dont make the terrain different ?

Anyway - great to hear somebody shares my view.

Keep up the fighting.

Cheers

[lawrenceg]

IIRC there is an old thread from playtesting on this topic which concluded that with stakes in the open, or in terrain with no stakes, the longbowmen still had a significant chance of losing.

With stakes in bad terrain this changed to an insignificant chance.

It is therefore in the bowmen's interest to set up stakes in terrain if possible, which incentivises the historical behaviour.

[rogerg]

The stakes prevent the bonuses for 'open terrain'. The terrain type itself does not change, so the knights are not losing combat dice. The stakes blunt the impact of the charge and let the bowmen fight at even odds in the melee round.

[rbodleyscott]

The stakes prevent the bonuses for 'open terrain'. The terrain type itself does not change, so the knights are not losing combat dice. The stakes blunt the impact of the charge and let the bowmen fight at even odds in the melee round.

Although, as Roger says, they will be on even POA in the melee, the longbowmen are Average whereas the Knights are usually Superior. Hence it is still possible for the knights to win, provided that they are not too badly overlapped. The match-up favours the longbowmen overall but it isn't a walkover. In uneven going or worse, the knights would additionally lose dice for Disorder which makes the situation even worse for them.

Also, bear in mind that Agincourt was not an "equal points" battle. The English really needed to maximise their situational advantage to compensate for superior French numbers. (Even modern reassessments still give the French a 3:2 numerical advantage.) Mud + stakes was a good way of achieving this.

[Floyd1]

The stakes prevent the bonuses for 'open terrain'. The terrain type itself does not change, so the knights are not losing combat dice. The stakes blunt the impact of the charge and let the bowmen fight at even odds in the melee round.

Point taken. I did not think of it that way - at least the Kn do not lose dice v Stakes. Not sure it only "blunts" the impact of the charge though ?

[Floyd1]

[quote="lawrenceg"]IIRC there is an old thread from playtesting on this topic which concluded that with stakes in the open, or in terrain with no stakes, the longbowmen still had a significant chance of losing.

Lets take 8 bases of LB vs 4 bases of Kn - LB in open behind stakes. LB, with stakes, costs 10.5pts per base. Kn (Superior, Drilled) costs 26pts per base. We all know that a single +POA "can" swing a battle in your favour. The additional cost of 1.5pts per base, in the Impact phase, swings the battle +++POA (3 POA's) in the favour of the LB. LB gets extra + for behind stakes and Kn lose ++. A +++ swing at 1.5pts per base sounds serious to me.

So, at 6MU, LB gets 4 dice needing 4's to hit from shooting - Kn cannot reply. At 2MU, LB gets 6 dice needing 4's to hit from shooting - Kn cannot reply. Before contact, LB has 2 unopposed chances of Disrupting Kn and at 2MU especially a chance to kill a Kn base. This has happened to me twice. Enemy scores 5 hits, Kn deathroll is 2 - Superior can only re-roll 1's - lose a base. Lets say Kn stays Steady and does not lose any bases. Impact phase. LB get 12 dice, Kn only get 8. LB has 4 dice needing 5's and another 8 dice needing 4's. Kn have 8 dice needing 5's (and that's only if they remained 4 bases and steady). Then Melee. If LB has not yet damaged Kn, in Melee its all even - 8 dice per side, both needing 4's to hit, but, if Kn do not disrupt or hurt LB, in JAP, Kn has to break off, so yet another round for LB shooting with 6 dice needing 4's, followed by another round of Impact in the LB favour.

Not sure how these odds leaves LB in open behind stakes with a significant chance of losing ? Also do not think these odds merely "blunt" the Kn charge ?
Please keep in mind that the odds are at a good case scenario for the Kn and provide they stay steady, otherwise they loose dice and it becomes even more hairy. Please also keep in mind, this is troops costing 26pts per base fighting troops costing 10.5pts per base ? Surely at such a major point difference the Kn should have a much better chance at destroying their opponents ?

Anyway - this is all in good spirit. I play French Ordonnace, so also have 18 bases of LB with stakes, so its not sour grapes for loosing Kn against LB. Also keep in mind that this is not just against Kn - its against all Mounted, so the point that Kn are usually Superior is not going to really help Average, Protected, Cavalry much . Suppose in such case the LB will have a slightly better chance to survive in the open behind stakes.

Cheers

[philqw78]

Enemy scores 5 hits, Kn deathroll is 2 - Superior can only re-roll 1's

Quality re-rolls do not apply to death rolls so the Kn would lose a base on 1, 2 or 3

[Duke68]

Not sure how these odds leaves LB in open behind stakes with a significant chance of losing ? Also do not think these odds merely "blunt" the Kn charge ?
Please keep in mind that the odds are at a good case scenario for the Kn and provide they stay steady, otherwise they loose dice and it becomes even more hairy. Please also keep in mind, this is troops costing 26pts per base fighting troops costing 10.5pts per base ? Surely at such a major point difference the Kn should have a much better chance at destroying their opponents ?

I agree with you, as I've already wrote in another topic IMHO bowmen and longbowmen MF are a little underpriced (like pikemen).

GD statement "point cost take in account many situation that can arise in a match" it's not so correct (IMHO) because with skilled players the tipical battle situation are always the same, nobody tryes to charge MF longbows with LH or with unprotected MF.

And 26pts per stand of Kn are good only against a lot of units that nobody dare to put in fron of them (and often so weak units are never taken in the player's lists) so in practical situation they have to win the day against pikes or longbowmen that are cheaper and performs better than them.

[rogerg]

The example quoted is a little unlikely. A four base unit of knights will attack the longbowmen two bases wide, they do not want a large impact frontage. Other troops will draw overlapping longbow fire. The knights will take two rounds of three dice needing 4's, unlikely to take off a base. Superior knights with a general nearby will be unlikely to lose a level either. They will need 6 or 7, re-rolling 1's. If they fail the first test they may well be able to bolster in the longbowmen's turn.

The impact compact will be four dice on 5's with a superior re-roll versus four on 4's and two on 5's for shooting. This favours the longbow even with the superior knight re-rolls. However, as the most likely hit result will be around 3 to 2 this will not be too bad for the knights.

In the melee the factors are even, the knights will presumably expand to three wide. If superior, but overlapped, the six dice to eight is fairly even. Should they not dirsrupt the longbow they get to break off and try again. If the longbow are disrupted then it is probably over for them as the knights will not break off and also have the dice advantage.

Overall the advantage is with the longbow, but the knights' ability to break off if they are losing makes it worth a try. Should the longbow not pass the CMT to put the stakes down it is another story altogether.

Points wise it is not simply 1.5 per base for a big advantage. Most armies have all or nothing for stakes. I have just played six games at Britcon with a Tudor army. 60 points spent on stakes. They were used in only two games. In one game only three bases were used. After I put them down the enemy horse withdrew and foot charged over them. In the other game, a group of knights passed their CMT and would not charge over them. They did fragment from the shooting however. I think that was a very high points cost for little return. In a themed competition they may be more valuable, but that applies to a lot of other things.

[lawrenceg]

IIRC there is an old thread from playtesting on this topic which concluded that with stakes in the open, or in terrain with no stakes, the longbowmen still had a significant chance of losing.

snip

Not sure how these odds leaves LB in open behind stakes with a significant chance of losing ? Also do not think these odds merely "blunt" the Kn charge ?

After much searching I found the thread and I remembered it wrong. The bowmen have an insignificant chance of losing if behind stakes.

[vercingetorix]

There are several reasons that stakes may not work or be usefull.

LB fail to put them down.

Infantry charges over stakes.

If the LB put them down they need to pass a CMT to pick them up and move.

there are also other ways of dealing with LB behind stakes.

[viperofmilan]

Once again, I have to come out in support of Floyd1, who must be a fellow of great discernment and profound native intelligence. To my mind, he has clearly and accurately laid out what is a very considerable advantage given to longbow with stakes when fighting knights. I think that saying that there are tactics/troops that can be used to mitigate somewhat this huge advantage misses the point. Floyd1 could always just run Romans and avoid the entire issue. But the point surely is, or should be whether or not the +++ shift in favor of the longbowmen simply for having emplaced stakes in open terrain is justified or not.

Now I don't have a dog in this fight and this is just my opinion. I don't run any medieval types (yet). I would suggest that either giving the longbow a + POA for having stakes or negating the knights +s POA for fighting in open terrain would be sufficient to reflect the impact of stakes, but that applying both is tilted too far in favor of the longbow.

[rogerg]

My knowledge of history does not extend to quoting battles where knights beat longbow behind stakes. I do not remember any examples being quoted during the development of the rules.

As to the game, there is at least enough chance of the knights winning for some players to try it. Others decide to dismount their knights. It would seem that the game balance is about right.

The points cost is so great for stakes that I am looking at using longbow without them.