MF bowmen

[jlopez]

The problem with undrilled MF missile users is the inability to wheel/turn to face the threat. So they often get hit hard by something without being able to shoot at it.

That could be fixed, and such troops made more palatable, by allowing them to wheel/turn without a CMT as long as that gets them more shooting dice. It seems reasonable that shooting the enemy more is what they would do naturally. And it's similar to what undrilled hand to hand MF can do in that those can wheel and charge without a general directing them, so isn't a great departure. Plus, if the enemy were to distract them frontally with other troops, they'd be shooting those so couldn't react without a CMT.

Nice one. That would make a heck of a difference for undrilled MF archers/xbowmen without giving them the super manoeuverability of drilled MF.

[pbrandon]

Undrilled MF can wheel without a CMT. That's what their generals are for. Using a CN army makes you think a bit more about where your generals need to be. Usually in more places than you have generals...

Paul

[hammy]

Undrilled MF can wheel without a CMT. That's what their generals are for. Using a CN army makes you think a bit more about where your generals need to be. Usually in more places than you have generals...

Paul

Indeed, a lot of people seem to miss that one. Commanders are very important in armies largely made up of other undrilled troops. You need to have them with the BGs that need to wheel or do anything clever which normally means thinking well ahead.

[grahambriggs]

Undrilled MF can wheel without a CMT. That's what their generals are for. Using a CN army makes you think a bit more about where your generals need to be. Usually in more places than you have generals...

Paul

Indeed, a lot of people seem to miss that one. Commanders are very important in armies largely made up of other undrilled troops. You need to have them with the BGs that need to wheel or do anything clever which normally means thinking well ahead.

While I agree that this is how those armies work at present, that's a game mechanic. My counter arguments are:

- but undrilled impact foot don't need a general to make a wheel in a charge. It comes naturally to them to get off the best charge they can. Archers would do the same with shooting.

- LF don't need a general to make them wheel. So LF are clever enough to shoot at the enemy but MF aren't?

- archers can wheel outside of 6MU to face the enemy, but not within. Why?

- undrilled MF archers are rarely seen on the table as they are so clumsy that they can't bring their firepower to bear easily.

[madaxeman]

interesting suggestion - there are simply not enough commanders around to apply minor tweaks to MF bowmens positioning to chase LH and LF, however I also don't remember seeing many drilled bowmen either, so perhaps this would not make much difference ....

[hazelbark]

But doesn't the system already have that?

Infantry advance into effective range of the archers who shoot and may or may not disrupt the infantry
Archers shoot some more and may or may not disrupt or even fragment infantry
If infantry are non shock and are disrupted then they have to pass a CMT or stand there like lemons and get shot again.....
If infantry are unfortunate enough to be fragmented then they are in deep poo

I agree, but how often do regular MF bow actually successfully do this if they face more than an isolated unit?

I have seen it, but almost never when it more than one enemy BG of foot closing.

[hazelbark]

to MF bowmens positioning to chase LH and LF,

Allow undrilled MF bow to wheel w/o CMT if only skirmishers within 6 MU.

[Delbruck]

Allow undrilled MF bow to wheel w/o CMT if only skirmishers within 6 MU.

Why just bowmen? Sounds like a reasonable idea that would be applicable to all undrilled.

[jlopez]

interesting suggestion - there are simply not enough commanders around to apply minor tweaks to MF bowmens positioning to chase LH and LF, however I also don't remember seeing many drilled bowmen either, so perhaps this would not make much difference ....

Quite right and I really don't think commanders spent most of their time sheperding archers which is what they would have to do in FOG to keep skirmishers in their sights.

It would make a difference. I've run undrilled and drilled longbowmen in the same army and I can tell you skirmishers run rings around the undrilled archers whilst they tend to head away from drilled ones. Half the time the undrilled archers never get a shot.

[hammy]

But doesn't the system already have that?

Infantry advance into effective range of the archers who shoot and may or may not disrupt the infantry
Archers shoot some more and may or may not disrupt or even fragment infantry
If infantry are non shock and are disrupted then they have to pass a CMT or stand there like lemons and get shot again.....
If infantry are unfortunate enough to be fragmented then they are in deep poo

I agree, but how often do regular MF bow actually successfully do this if they face more than an isolated unit?

I have seen it, but almost never when it more than one enemy BG of foot closing.

And it should be a regular occurence with a solid line of foot advancing on a line of archers? I can't think of may situations where archers shot a serious assault to a standstill. The Persians never seemed to manage it against the Greeks for example.

If you look at the Dom Roms against archers then there will be two volleys of 3 shots against each BG of 4 armoured MF. That means each shot will have a roughly 25% chance of forcing a test and there will be a roughly 40% chance of that test being failed (assuming a commander in the vicinity). That is not that bad a set of odds for the archers

[marco]

i'm not a great player
but i totaly agree with m grahambriggs about the mf undrilled bw

i will add that the advantage of number is not paid

- mf undrilled bw are only one point less than drilled

- a mass of bowmen, undrilled, unprotected, 16 for example, can shoot one a bg of 4 heavily armoured sup
hard to demoralize and if they touch the two bg : the two bg of bwmen are in bad situation...
in dbm, the flank attack would dissuade this and the recoil of the target when shot will give the attackers the disavantage
in fog 4 bases can routed 16 bases...or at minima immobilised them

[philqw78]

- a mass of bowmen, undrilled, unprotected, 16 for example, can shoot one a bg of 4 heavily armoured sup
hard to demoralize and if they touch the two bg : the two bg of bwmen are in bad situation...
in dbm, the flank attack would dissuade this and the recoil of the target when shot will give the attackers the disavantage
in fog 4 bases can routed 16 bases...or at minima immobilised them

So the nearest we have to your situation is a large unit of Lombard archers beating the Varangian guard.

Old rules are not the best judge of new rules as well.

[marco]

and the varangian are supermen ?
they will have won against 4*men ?
i think that you anlyse this situation in fog term (romantic terms ?)
not very realist in my point of view
anyway if you take this situation with protected bow, it will be nearly the same
at azincourt a part of the french dismounted to attack long bow
not enough
with bad result for the french outnumbered

in fog the 16 bases will have only 8 bases in fight against the 4 bases of hf
the other one will juste act as supporter ?

i see things with abstraction no link with a situation in my mind

a mass of bowmen can deliver a wall of fire
and it's certainly hard to move without stopping to protect you behind your shield
harder i think when you have to face mass of bowmen drilled to deliver mass fire together

mass bowmen are just mass target for troop searching melee if they have good armour (armoured ?) and good commandement


that said , i like this rule !
and i know that there is no perfect rule

i will be at the clichy tournament with great pleasure!

[hammy]

If you consider a BG of 4 bases advancing on 2 BG of 8 bow then I am not sure you are correct that the bow are going to be beaten.

For a start each volley of shooting will see at least 6 dice of shooting against the attackers so even with armoured targets you would expect 2 hits per turn.

If the infantry can survive the approach shooting (and if they are heavy foot there will be 4 volleys at short range) then the impact is 2 dice vs 3 on each BG so there is no chance that the attacker can inflict 1 HP3B and there is only a small chance that the attacker will win by 2 hits so it is likely that the 8 bases will pass any cohesion test.

The melee will be 2 dice against 4 on each side so again the bow are unlikely to lose by 2 and cannot take 1HP3B.

Have you actually played this fight out? To me it does not seem that it is that bad for the bow.

[marco]

thanks m hamilton for this answer
you are maybe right
you are better palyer than me
(meet you in lille and you win with a strange army)

maybe not so bad for the bow...
but i think it should be worst for the bow killer

that said , i think i like too much bow...

ps mf against hf, the mf get - 1 on the cohesion test

[hammy]

thanks m hamilton for this answer
you are maybe right
you are better palyer than me
(meet you in lille and you win with a strange army)

maybe not so bad for the bow...
but i think it should be worst for the bow killer

that said , i think i like too much bow...

ps mf against hf, the mf get - 1 on the cohesion test

You are right that the MF get a -1 for fighting HF but it is likely that in the case you have suggested that this -1 would be the only penalty.

If you look at a long line of reasonable quality foot advancing on a line of bow then if they foot make it into contact the bow are in trouble. That said when I used Early Libyans with 4 BG of 8 MF bow the bow were not the liability I expected them to be. The army actually did very well in the end.

[ethan]

I think MF bow, even undrilled are ok, it is more an issue with other troop types being too good or too cheap. In other words, adjust the world around them there are not IMO good changes to be made. Possibly a few more MF bow could be armoured or have swords but that is not a huge deal.