HW v Mounted

[ethan]

My feeling is that there area number of ways one could have made the combat system. A perfectly valid option would have been something like "lances and light spears don't count against steady heavy foot." Then heavy foot with halberds would be pretty solid, but not quite as good as spears. You could have gone with basically "heavy foot, unless charging shock mounted, get a PoA verus mounted (pikes get 2)."

FoG didn't go this route, there are many arguements on the side they chose, like most things about ancient warfare it is pretty hard to actually know very much...The route chosen is basically fine. I think arguing this one as to what is more "realistic" is probably not going to get very far, everyone could marshal arguments to support a number of positiions. The question for me is "does the choice that was made work for the game?" I think it does reasonably well in this case so not much really to say here IMO.

[nikgaukroger]

Why did they bring in billmen & halberdiers during the hundred years war if they were so worse off against mounted than the spearmen they already had ?

Which would you choose, in game terms, to face off knights - HF, Protected, Poor, Defensive Spear or HF, Heavily Arrmoured, Superior, Heavy Weapon ?

That is essentially the English choice.

Sorry, but that is a rather silly answer. Thats only the choice you would make using the army list created for FOG under the rules imposed in the GAME of FOG - not what the English did choose! If the spear would have been a "better" choice they would have been HF, Sup, HA, (?)Sp in FOG terms. You are repeating Hammy´s mistake just some posts above.

Fair-ish point

Actually, the answer for the HYW is that the English used the tactics that had been successful against the Scots in the previous decades and found that they also worked against the French so carried on with them - and they were a combined arms of shooters and dismounted men-at-arms approach. They were developed for use against massed Scots spearmen and you have to look at the whole system not just part of it. Good generals helped as well

[dave_r]

Good generals helped as well

Better than the Scots and French anyway. The Scots were typically dreadful and the French were little better.

[benos]

To be hoest i think a number of medevial polearm troops are better represented in the game as spear ( probabaly offensive spear as they were generally better troops than the spear levies)
but that is a case by case basis mostly for those that habitually fought off mounted and they loose this option when pike become a significant option
other heavy wepaons feel right having a harder time against mounted.
Ben

[Scrumpy]

Reran the army as Eastern Forest culture with impact foot everywhere, a true Army of Northern Virginia !

Ended up in a bloodbath with some Sea Peoples last night with one unit ploughing through 3 or 4 units of the enemy with skillful generalship ie rolled great dice lol.

Ended up 10/12 v 10/13 in lost attrition, that is what makes FoG so much better than the old rules in my opinion, you fight hard you get some points for it, and not a crappy 9-1 loss.

[azrael86]

Reran the army as Eastern Forest culture with impact foot everywhere, a true Army of Northern Virginia !

Ended up in a bloodbath with some Sea Peoples last night with one unit ploughing through 3 or 4 units of the enemy with skillful generalship ie rolled great dice lol.

Ended up 10/12 v 10/13 in lost attrition, that is what makes FoG so much better than the old rules in my opinion, you fight hard you get some points for it, and not a crappy 9-1 loss.

but did you charge the cannons?