Archers
-
goodwoodrw
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie

- Posts: 321
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:50 am
Archers
Why can't archers fire over infantry. It appears that all ranged units have to be in the front ranks to fire, this puts them at an unnecessary risk.
Re: Archers
from what i can remember it's from the table top rules, but i'm sure the developer will comment on it in more depth than i can
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Archers
Probably because massed bodies of archers shooting over other separate bodies of troops wasn't a thing in this period. (OK, I think there was the odd occasion if you look at the whole ancients period but they'd be the sort that you'd set up an individual scenario rule for and not have as a general rule)
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2

- Posts: 28411
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Archers
Because historically only very small bodies of archers shot overhead, and then only to dampen a charge somewhat rather than to cause long distance casualties. It is in fact very difficult to hit anything when shooting over other troops.goodwood wrote:Why can't archers fire over infantry. It appears that all ranged units have to be in the front ranks to fire, this puts them at an unnecessary risk.
This issue has been discussed at great length by the Society of Ancients (a group dedicated to studying Ancient Warfare for wargaming purposes) over many decades, and the firm conclusion was that significant overhead shooting was not widely used. The reason for this presumably being that it would be rather ineffective.
It is true that the Romans sometimes put a rank or two of archers behind their legions against charging lancer armies (e.g. Arrian's Order of Battle vs the Alans), and Late Roman units probably had integral archers, but the effect of these was really part of the Impact combat rather than effective long-distance shooting.
Richard Bodley Scott


-
goodwoodrw
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie

- Posts: 321
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:50 am
Re: Archers
Thanks, now I understand why, my ancients knowledge of warfare is limited. 
Re: Archers
My issues with archers in the game are twofold:
1. An archer would carry many more arrows than a javelinman would carry javelins. At least 4 times the amount of ammunition.
2. One of the main purposes of higher ground was to allow greater range when shooting. Wish this could be represented in the game.
I can live with the game as it is, but it could still be improved.
1. An archer would carry many more arrows than a javelinman would carry javelins. At least 4 times the amount of ammunition.
2. One of the main purposes of higher ground was to allow greater range when shooting. Wish this could be represented in the game.
I can live with the game as it is, but it could still be improved.
-
GiveWarAchance
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier

- Posts: 752
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 4:05 pm
Re: Archers
Sounds realistic to not allow overhead shooting. It's like crossbows and slingers in Total War which I always move around to enemy flanks to do proper damage with direct aimed fire.
Many centuries after this Roman era, I think the medieval longbows could do it cause they often fired in high archs into the air to indirectly saturate an area filled with badguys like artillery, rather than aiming at targets directly.
Many centuries after this Roman era, I think the medieval longbows could do it cause they often fired in high archs into the air to indirectly saturate an area filled with badguys like artillery, rather than aiming at targets directly.

