Slitherine

kevinj wrote:My point was more related to how they function in game terms. If I have a choice between LH Bow at 8 points and LH Javelin at 7, I will choose the Bow every time because I believe that, for the additional cost, they are significantly better. Does anyone have any different experience?

I don't doubt that most people would choose LH Bow over LH Javelin Light spear but there is not that much difference, certainly not as much as there is between Javelin Light Spear and Bow Sword.

The question is, given the choice would anyone take LH bow over LH Javelin light spear if mounted bow had an effective range of 2 MU and a maximum range of 4 MU.

Without swords no. The bow now have to get to within 2MU to be effective and therefore have much more chance of being caught in an evade and are down at impact if they stand. At 2 MU both have an equal chance of becoming disrupted.

grahambriggs wrote:Quoting what one rule set says to change another is not likely to change a rule. The author of the other set may be using a correct historical interpretation or may not. Also, every ruiles author thinks there's is best and is unlikely to take on board ideas from other authors easily.

If you want javelin armed LH to interact differently with bow armed LH historical evidence would be good.

I would have preferred to quote an historical source but I don't know of any that describe such actions in that much detail.

I thought the passage I quoted was a reasonable 'thought experiment'.

The idea that LH with Spear and Shield should be superior in melee to LH Bow seems logical to me.

grahambriggs wrote: I'm not sure there are too many examples of the two coming into conflict. Romans vs. Parthians may be one. But the Parthians had lots more LH so the Romans either hid theirs or it got pummelled. The Achaemenid Persians moved from bow armed mounted to mostly javelin. However, we don't really know why. Not do we have any battles showing the latter doing much better.

Romans Vs Huns

Skythian Mercenaries where widely employed so would have come up against Numidians, Thracian, Greeks etc. etc.

RichardThompson wrote: Romans Vs Huns
Skythian Mercenaries where widely employed so would have come up against Numidians, Thracian, Greeks etc. etc.

IIRC These encounters are why Hun and skythian LH get sword. The Romans and Greeks were worse in melee.

I don't doubt that most people would choose LH Bow over LH Javelin Light spear but there is not that much difference, certainly not as much as there is between Javelin Light Spear and Bow Sword.

The question is, given the choice would anyone take LH bow over LH Javelin light spear if mounted bow had an effective range of 2 MU and a maximum range of 4 MU.

I would expect Bow/Sword to be significantly better as they cost over 40% more than Javelin Light Spear.

Maybe we should also consider reducing Javelin range to 1 MU. That would allow the LH Bow to maintain a shooting advantage over LH Jav in return for the 1 extra point they cost.

As to Phil's point, I am in favour of making LH easier to catch. It is one of the consistent criticisms of the game that they are too effective and too slippery. At the moment 4 LH with Bow can shoot LH Jav at extreme range with a 25% chance of inflicting 2 hits and less than 3% chance of being caught in an evade. At 2MU the chance increases to just under 20%.

kevinj wrote:As to Phil's point, I am in favour of making LH easier to catch. It is one of the consistent criticisms of the game that they are too effective and too slippery. At the moment 4 LH with Bow can shoot LH Jav at extreme range with a 25% chance of inflicting 2 hits and less than 3% chance of being caught in an evade. At 2MU the chance increases to just under 20%.

Would this mean reducing foot Jav to 1MU as well? I would hope not.

kevinj wrote: As to Phil's point, I am in favour of making LH easier to catch. It is one of the consistent criticisms of the game that they are too effective and too slippery. At the moment 4 LH with Bow can shoot LH Jav at extreme range with a 25% chance of inflicting 2 hits and less than 3% chance of being caught in an evade. At 2MU the chance increases to just under 20%.

I wonder if there are any cases of JLS LH catching Bow ones in the historical record. Would allow us to judge whether the probabilities of catching them is historically imbalanced.

I wonder if there are any cases of JLS LH catching Bow ones in the historical record. Would allow us to judge whether the probabilities of catching them is historically imbalanced.

Do we really have enough tactical detail of ancients battles to judge such instances? We can't even determine conclusively from Ammianus Marcellinus whether Persian archers shooting at the Romans were foot or mounted.

philqw78 wrote:

RichardThompson wrote: Romans Vs Huns
Skythian Mercenaries where widely employed so would have come up against Numidians, Thracian, Greeks etc. etc.

IIRC These encounters are why Hun and skythian LH get sword. The Romans and Greeks were worse in melee.

And the Romans converted to the hunnic style of LH. Presumably they thought they were better!

Delbruck wrote:

I wonder if there are any cases of JLS LH catching Bow ones in the historical record. Would allow us to judge whether the probabilities of catching them is historically imbalanced.

Do we really have enough tactical detail of ancients battles to judge such instances?

Reading the accounts intelligently, and making sensible judgements based on what is said, then you may well be able to even if they are not 100% explicit. Although I must confess no interactions between LJS LH and Bow LH spring immediately to mind which could be used.

We can't even determine conclusively from Ammianus Marcellinus whether Persian archers shooting at the Romans were foot or mounted.

Well in most cases you can if, as mentioned above, you read it intelligently. Alas, he is often rather partially quoted by some to try and prove preconceived ideas about Sasanid foot that do not stand up when his accounts are read as a whole. Not that it is the case for all his accounts, of course

Edit - just to say that I am not suggesting that the contributors to this thread aren't intelligent, just in case the post came over as if I were

RichardThompson wrote:Horse archers attacking infantry spearmen could sit still on their horses 200 paces away and shoot, but did not. Why should should they? They could and did instead in turn gallop by the infantry 10 paces away and be equally safe from being caught. .........

This would also help HF since the cavalry would have to close to within charge range to shoot at full effect.

Do you not see the contadiction here ? Your first passage states that horse archers can effectively shoot at heavy infantry without fear of being caught. Which is what they can do in the FOG rules currently. You want them to have to move so close to shoot effectivley that the infantry can catch them. Which the passage you quote states would not happen, as they are "safe from being caught".

Polkovnik wrote:

RichardThompson wrote:Horse archers attacking infantry spearmen could sit still on their horses 200 paces away and shoot, but did not. Why should should they? They could and did instead in turn gallop by the infantry 10 paces away and be equally safe from being caught. .........

This would also help HF since the cavalry would have to close to within charge range to shoot at full effect.

Do you not see the contadiction here ? Your first passage states that horse archers can effectively shoot at heavy infantry without fear of being caught. Which is what they can do in the FOG rules currently. You want them to have to move so close to shoot effectivley that the infantry can catch them. Which the passage you quote states would not happen, as they are "safe from being caught".

Why is this a contradiction?

HF stand no chance of catching LH.

However charging gives them a respite from the shooting.

RichardThompson wrote:Why is this a contradiction?

HF stand no chance of catching LH.

However charging gives them a respite from the shooting.

But they also get a much greater chance of catching cavalry who are not nearly as manouverable, so have no choice but to stand until the foot are within 1MU and then be charged with a 1/12 chance of being caught. Also most mounted who shoot at effective range will be pinned by their targets in this scenario.

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

RichardThompson wrote: Romans Vs Huns
Skythian Mercenaries where widely employed so would have come up against Numidians, Thracian, Greeks etc. etc.

IIRC These encounters are why Hun and skythian LH get sword. The Romans and Greeks were worse in melee.

And the Romans converted to the hunnic style of LH. Presumably they thought they were better!

Horse archers are certainly better at shooting
- Bows have a longer range than javelins
- You can carry a lot more arrows than you can javelins

I still think LH with Spear and Shield should be better than LH Bow in melee and at least equal to LH Bow, Sword.

I still think LH with Spear and Shield should be better than LH Bow in melee and at least equal to LH Bow, Sword.

Why??

Each one have a side arm and each one aren't very good at use it. Swordsmen doesn't mean you have a sword, it means you have a side arm, know to use it competently AND have the b....ks to use it

Lets be honest here the range dice ect is done to allow a resonable game thats what it is if we add loads of things it'll end up like MM and as complex .

There has to be a trade of to allow a rule set to run well and for the majority of people to have fun playing without having to have a) a maths degree and b) great memories

Dave

olivier wrote:

I still think LH with Spear and Shield should be better than LH Bow in melee and at least equal to LH Bow, Sword.

Why??

Each one have a side arm and each one aren't very good at use it. Swordsmen doesn't mean you have a sword, it means you have a side arm, know to use it competently AND have the b....ks to use it

Because of the shield.

Cavalry with a big shield tend to be classed as protected.

Why aren't LH treated the same?

Some of them are, see the Spanish ones in SOA or for a "fighting" javelin LH ses the Albanian or lithuanian in EE

olivier wrote:Some of them are, see the Spanish ones in SOA or for a "fighting" javelin LH ses the Albanian or lithuanian in EE

Why are the Numidians, Tarantines and Late Romans which we have used as examples in this discussion not treated the same?

May be because they were not the killers you assume they were

(except, perhaps, the Numidians and only in a short time period...... )