Suggestion for you - Switchable units

[Cheimison]

I think this is a good idea... remember me the FOG I double role of knights... some knights units can be turned from mounted to unmounted status... this made you had or a heavy cavalry unit or a heavy infantry unit as you need.

YES. I really don't like when they don't let you dismount your knights in war games. Dude is wearing articulated plate, he's probably more agile in that than most of us computer nerds are in our hoodies.

However, IMO it was normal to make such a decision prior to, or at the start of the battle and not during.

But mainly for coordination reasons. The logistics involved are much simpler than "magicking pikes out of the air", for example. The Normans would literally just break their lances (which were disposable, anyway) to fight on foot. And medieval noble warriors had huge degrees of personal leeway and initiative, not only compared to modern bureaucratic monoliths but even compared to the ancient armies like the Romans. They were certainly more sophisticated than Germanic war bands, but retained some of that culture. For all their small size, medieval armies were some of the most flexible I've read about. Some knights carried bows. They generally armed themselves however they pleased.

[stockwellpete]

I'm pretty sure skirmisher is not a good way to depict them even at the start of a battle.

Possibly a better question for English longbowmen is whether in the WotR (and maybe late HYW) they should be separate from the men-at-arms types or in a combined body ...

The Foard and Curry book on Bosworth that I am reading suggests mixed retinues for both armies.

[Scutarii]

I'm pretty sure skirmisher is not a good way to depict them even at the start of a battle.

Possibly a better question for English longbowmen is whether in the WotR (and maybe late HYW) they should be separate from the men-at-arms types or in a combined body ...

The Foard and Curry book on Bosworth that I am reading suggests mixed retinues for both armies.

Maybe have a mixed unit for them??? you can have men in arms heavy foot, longbow medium infantry and a heavy foot that mix both... this was a very attractive unit in old FOG but that work not well at all... instead add a unit that can split in to have in list a mixed unit as extra option... but i think in mantein for some knights the ability to dismount.

Lets see what offer first DLC if implement "Inmortal fire" i want see what they do with heavy cavalry with bows and the inmortals infantry (in old FOG they were medium foot with bows) if we see medieval books...

[edb1815]

But in the end in medieval armies you are going to need add mounted-dismounted knights and the portable defenses for longbow units....

With the medieval period there is also the interesting question of how you might deal with longbowmen. At the start of the battle could they be classed as skirmishers and then have the ability to merge into a medium foot unit for melee purposes, or are they best depicted as medium foot massed archer units (with sword capability for retinue types) throughout?

In table top FOG Longbows are mediums with swordsman ability in melee. Plus option for stakes.

[edb1815]

I'm pretty sure skirmisher is not a good way to depict them even at the start of a battle.

Possibly a better question for English longbowmen is whether in the WotR (and maybe late HYW) they should be separate from the men-at-arms types or in a combined body ...

The Foard and Curry book on Bosworth that I am reading suggests mixed retinues for both armies.

The retinues may have been mixed but wasn't the tactical use separate? In other words prior to the battle they deployed separately. Longbows shoot several volleys withdraw and then men at arms/billmen moved up for melee. I guess one could argue that could still be represented by a mixed unit as well. Referring back to table top FOG they were separate units rather than mixed. In HYW it seems the longbowmen were deployed in separate blocks - ie; Agincourt.

[stockwellpete]

The retinues may have been mixed but wasn't the tactical use separate? In other words prior to the battle they deployed separately. Longbows shoot several volleys withdraw and then men at arms/billmen moved up for melee. I guess one could argue that could still be represented by a mixed unit as well. Referring back to table top FOG they were separate units rather than mixed. In HYW it seems the longbowmen were deployed in separate blocks - ie; Agincourt.

They don't actually know how the battle of Bosworth was fought in any great detail. They don't know how many fought on each side, they are not sure where the Yorkists deployed or what proportion of soldiers present in the general vicinity of the battlefield actually took part in the fighting.

[nikgaukroger]

The retinues may have been mixed but wasn't the tactical use separate? In other words prior to the battle they deployed separately. Longbows shoot several volleys withdraw and then men at arms/billmen moved up for melee. I guess one could argue that could still be represented by a mixed unit as well. Referring back to table top FOG they were separate units rather than mixed. In HYW it seems the longbowmen were deployed in separate blocks - ie; Agincourt.

You have to be a bit careful with English armies across the HYW and into the WotR. They changed over the period and it is all too easy to fall into the trap of seeing them as basically the same over the period.

For example the ratio of men-at-arms to archers changed quite a lot. Around the time of Crecy the indentured retinues were roughly 1:1 and these were supplemented by more bowmen raised by commission of array (this battle is about the last time such commission of array troops were used in an overseas war). After this we see 1:2 men-at-arms:archers, probably getting to about 1:3 by Agincourt. Some time after Agincourt, and by the 1430's probably, it may well have been more like 1:5 and finally for Edward iV's 1475 expedition the indentures are usually requiring 1:10 (His 1481/2 expedition against the Scots where Gloucester commanded was probably similar) The latter especially raises questions on how the troops types worked together. (Associated question - what is the source for the "billmen" usually seen in lists for these later armies? The indentures do not mention them ...).

Now all of that is for armies raised to fight overseas against foreign enemies where the campaigns were planned extensively in advance and troops raised by indenture. Armies raised more quickly for home defence and in the civil wars of the WotR would be highly unlikely to be composed in the same way - or be of the same quality maybe. There would be far more of getting who turned up with what equipment they turned up with than was the case with the "royal expeditions". There is also the different social and political dimension to a civil war which may affect who will fight where by putting a greater emphasis on personal loyalties. All of these may well impact on how they should be depicted.