English Longbowmen unarmoured?

[entropyembrace]

Hi, This is my first post here so I thought I'd start with a bit of an introduction before getting to my question. I've been playing Pike & Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai since I received both as gifts for Christmas and have been enjoying them greatly. I really appreciate how well researched these games are and I get a really sense of historical authenticity while playing them.

When I started a campaign using the 1494- army lists as England against ai France I was a bit shocked to see that the English longbowmen were considered unarmoured. From watching interviews with Dr. Tobias Capwell of the Wallace collection on youtube and reading The Longbow from Mike Loades I know that 15th century English longbowman would have been heavily armoured with brigadine, cuisses and sallet. Considering that at the dawn of the 16th century none of the other troop types represented in Pike and Shot seem to have abandoned their armour I wonder why the English longbowmen are going into battle completely unarmoured?

Was this design decision based on some historical evidence I'm unaware of? Or is there some other reason why they're represented as unarmoured in Pike and Shot?

[rbodleyscott]

When I started a campaign using the 1494- army lists as England against ai France I was a bit shocked to see that the English longbowmen were considered unarmoured. From watching interviews with Dr. Tobias Capwell of the Wallace collection on youtube and reading The Longbow from Mike Loades I know that 15th century English longbowman would have been heavily armoured with brigadine, cuisses and sallet.

The best were, the majority weren't, especially going forward into the 16th century. Likewise, most of them were probably not expert swordsmen. Rating them as unarmoured + swordsmen capability gets the most historical balance between them, men-at-arms and other contemporary troop types in close combat.

[entropyembrace]

The best were, the majority weren't, especially going forward into the 16th century. Likewise, most of them were probably not expert swordsmen. Rating them as unarmoured + swordsmen capability gets the most historical balance between them, men-at-arms and other contemporary troop types in close combat.

Thanks for the reply It makes sense if longbowmen were overperforming in game with even a "some men armoured" rating. It just seemed strange to think they had the same armour rating as late 17th century infantry which usually were truly unarmoured.

[rbodleyscott]

The best were, the majority weren't, especially going forward into the 16th century. Likewise, most of them were probably not expert swordsmen. Rating them as unarmoured + swordsmen capability gets the most historical balance between them, men-at-arms and other contemporary troop types in close combat.

Thanks for the reply It makes sense if longbowmen were overperforming in game with even a "some men armoured" rating. It just seemed strange to think they had the same armour rating as late 17th century infantry which usually were truly unarmoured.

If you play within period, it is all relative. They are relatively unarmoured compared with contemporary men-at-arms. They should not be fighting 17th century troops, and nor should the men-at-arms.

The game isn't intended to give an accurate simulation of what would happen if 15th century troops fought 17th century troops. (Though it does allow you to muck about with such matchups if you choose).

In our design philosophy, getting the simulation to work well in contemporary matchups outweighs absolute classifications.

[entropyembrace]

If you play within period, it is all relative. They are relatively unarmoured compared with contemporary men-at-arms. They should not be fighting 17th century troops, and nor should the men-at-arms.

The game isn't intended to give an accurate simulation of what would happen if 15th century troops fought 17th century troops. (Though it does allow you to muck about with such matchups if you choose).

In our design philosophy, getting the simulation to work well in contemporary matchups outweighs absolute classifications.

Thanks for the insight It makes a lot more sense to me now