Slitherine

Useful stuff chaps.

One comment I would make is that in general you do not rout and army by shooting alone. In fact the mechanisms mirror Nicks historical point that there was generally a charge

This is why we test to rout for troops who go FRG. So the ideal tactic is to shoot until they wobble - then charge and finish them off. You can off course stand and shoot some more to make it happen but generally more effective to charge.

On the balance my sense is that it needs little twaeking but i am inclined to say

-1 for 1HP3 from combat or -1 for 1HP2 form shooting. This gives a new differentiation of even and -1 tests for shooting that mirros the loss/big loss/bad loss you can get in combat.

Taking Daves point on his Prot MF being shot up they really need to be 3 deep. If you face cavalry shooter then 2 frontage = 3 dice. At 4s this is 1.5 hits on aveage. 8 bases 2 deep get 3 hits and test. If they are 3 deep and 2 wide then its 1.5 hits needing 2 hits to force a test. This may not seem much but it is huge in voerall game effect. Try it and see. If you are armoured then 3 deep blocks will nullify much as you need a hit per frontage - so generally need to get 2 hits with 3 dice needing 5s - off an average of 1. The above would in the main increase the dice rolle for the CT tests by 1 for such tests. To get a test at a minus you would need 3 hits on 2 frontage - all hits - so 1 in 8 vs protected pre re-rolls.

Hope that makes sense. Much of the shooting issues is perhaps a mindeset shift that:

a) it was indeed very effective in the real world
b) people formed up in tight solid blocks when facing it
c) armour helped a great deal
d) expect to get hot at till you wobble and then charged
e) you can force shooting away with well chosen charges
f) when faced with skirmishers it is handy to have some of your own

Cheers

Si

Hi Si

i agree and understand everything that you are saying - but still think its too technical and not subjective enough (in espectto people who are learning the rules and who probably hate 7th!)

FWIW I think there is already a perfectly good, historically justifiable and wargamer-rationalizable mechanism for units to break from the effects of sustained, heavy & effective shooting. Its the autobreak mechanism. Lots of dead blokes = run away. I "get" it, its clear, it works, no-one can argue.

Adding to this "3 failed tests even if there are no actual casualties, especially when caused by skirmishing cavalry" as a cause of break is opening the rules to gamey stuff, with little historial justification (-ish!!), and which will allow wargamers who like to quote "no cheese", "historical precedent" or "I hated 7th" scope to dislike the rules instantly.

It also fundamentally changes the cohesion test from a measure of " a units ability to fight, caused by a number of things previously treated separately in rulesets, of which morale is only a part" (reader says "hey, cool idea, new yet startlingly obvious concept, I like these rules!") back - firmly IMO - into a "morale test - and these rules are all about morale tests" (reader says "Oh, smacks of 7th, that sucked, retrograde step that means I wil be f--ked over by exerienced players painfull, boo hiss").

Sure, sustained shooting on them can cause a units effectiveness to decline dramatically.

Sure, if they lose lots of casualties they will run away.

But making failing 3 CT = to losing 50% casualties in its effect on morale is a big step backwards towards recreating previous rulesets.

I reallty like the idea that the only way units actually run away is for them to be reduced to 50% (ish) casualties - or be threatened with being tonked in combat by someone much much better than them because thir morale is already wavering (reader says "so, you have to actually beat units in combat for them to rout, cool, oos of combat and stabbing each other with big pointy swords, cool!!")?

But saying they can bottle it and flee just because they are being shot at - ineffectively (ie potentially/theeoretically no deaths) - seems to me an unnecessary and potentially damaging step too far, even if it is to speed up the game.

madaxeman wrote:
I reallty like the idea that the only way units actually run away is for them to be reduced to 50% (ish) casualties - or be threatened with being tonked in combat by someone much much better than them because thir morale is already wavering (reader says "so, you have to actually beat units in combat for them to rout, cool, oos of combat and stabbing each other with big pointy swords, cool!!")?

Assuming I've correctly understood the boy Porter I agree. Break from total losses/being charged but not just from being shot.

nikgaukroger wrote:

madaxeman wrote:
I reallty like the idea that the only way units actually run away is for them to be reduced to 50% (ish) casualties - or be threatened with being tonked in combat by someone much much better than them because thir morale is already wavering (reader says "so, you have to actually beat units in combat for them to rout, cool, oos of combat and stabbing each other with big pointy swords, cool!!")?

Assuming I've correctly understood the boy Porter I agree. Break from total losses/being charged but not just from being shot.

and if I understand it as well, are we essentially saying shooting should only ever be able to reduce a BG to fragmented or break them by inflicting casualties beyond their autobreak number.

If so I also agree.

cheers
Matt

Assuming I've correctly understood the boy Porter I agree. Break from total losses/being charged but not just from being shot.

In which case should we remove the +2 from the Death roll for being shot at? This makes it fairly unlikely (except from a completely surrounded BG) to take a casualty from shooting.

I quite like the no break from shooting concept as well.

The +2 should proabably stay - it reduces the effect of mounted shooty types as they need a lot of them to get the hits in. Means that foot bow can outshoot cav bow (2 ranks of cav makes a tempting target).

In fact the more I think about it the nicer it becomes. Means HYW English work well - shoot them to not feeling happy, then charge in with the swords to finish 'em off.

though (to reply to myself) what happens when you shoot at fragmented troops - not a lot. Maybe fragmented dont get the +2 on the death roll v shooting?

Upon reflection I really don't think this is a good idea. We have evidence of armies breaking to shooting, therefore to not allow it would be wrong IMO. Maybe there should be a CMT to not charge if you have fragmented troops in front of you which would simulate the final charge?

dave_r wrote:Upon reflection I really don't think this is a good idea. We have evidence of armies breaking to shooting,

No we don't - at least that was the conclusion of the Ancmed debate I mentioned - which battles are you thinking of? IMO there needed to be that final shove to get them running away.

which battles are you thinking of

Falkirk?

Off the top of my head I seem to remember a quote along the lines of "the Scottish Schiltrons were broken by arrows". Admittedly it could be open to debate when the knights charged.

Anyway, this kind of supports my point - would a forced CMT to not charge bring in the final charge anyway?

Shot to pieces and then dispersed by a final mounted charge I believe.

Why do you want this CMT? If the enemy are fragmented and you'll break them by charging surely that'll be enough incentive to get the charge made.

Why do you want this CMT

For shooters then they would choose to shoot - you get an additional -1 on the CT for 1hp3b. Not a great incentive, however you would want to simulate the final tally ho (or possibly pursuit) when the shootees have had enough.

Didn't something similar happen at Mohi when the mongols slaughtered the Hungarians?

paulcummins wrote:though (to reply to myself) what happens when you shoot at fragmented troops - not a lot. Maybe fragmented dont get the +2 on the death roll v shooting?

And/or you don't allow rallying to fragmented troops that failed a CT for shooting hits this bound.

Falkirk?

Off the top of my head I seem to remember a quote along the lines of "the Scottish Schiltrons were broken by arrows". Admittedly it could be open to debate when the knights charged.

According to the book I have, the English knights' first (and spontaneous) charge routed the Scots bowmen but made no impression on the schiltrons.
The English archers then arrived and concentrated their shooting on limited areas in the schiltrons.

"Accordingly the result of a few minutes of the deadly arrow shower was that many points of the masses had been riddled, and the whole had been rendered unsteady. Then Edward bade his knights charge a second time, aiming at the shaken sections of the enemy's front. Bursting in at points where the killed and wounded were thicker than the unstricken men, the English men at arms broke all the schiltrons in quick succession. "

Gosh.what have I started, my thought is to make cavalry with bow and sword ,Bow* ,swordsmen,same sort of troops to the Highlanders I used the bow not being the main weapon, slightly cheaper but one dice less,light horse can stay bow as its the same
David

Gosh.what have I started,

A very good debate Dave - well done!

FWIW I think shooting is too powerful as well. I like the idea of not being able to be routed by shooting.

I read an account of Xenophon's walking holiday in Persia with 10,000 friends recently and I was struck but how little damage they took from shooting on the whole campaign. Contrast that with the experiences discussed earlier.

Lance and I had another game last night where I fielded a Later Serb with 4 x 8 base BGs of LF bow, plus a 4 of LF HG and 2 BGs of LH bow. I lost one base for the loss of his whole army. The high point was Elite Hvy Armd Knights, with a General, being routed by bow fire alone. (Ok, my dice were pretty good!)

LF bow seem exceptionally good. Cavalry can rarely catch them in a charge.

Perhaps LF should have their move reduced to 4 MUs as well?

Pete

According to the book I have, the English knights' first (and spontaneous) charge routed the Scots bowmen but made no impression on the schiltrons.
The English archers then arrived and concentrated their shooting on limited areas in the schiltrons.

"Accordingly the result of a few minutes of the deadly arrow shower was that many points of the masses had been riddled, and the whole had been rendered unsteady. Then Edward bade his knights charge a second time, aiming at the shaken sections of the enemy's front. Bursting in at points where the killed and wounded were thicker than the unstricken men, the English men at arms broke all the schiltrons in quick succession. "

That seems fairly similar to most accounts I have read. There must have been more to Falkirk than is reported, because what honestly puzzles me is that as you say the Scots Cavalry and Bowmen were ridden down / scared away by the English Knights, but the English infantry seem to have taken approx 2, 200 casualties. I would be interested to hear theories about how these casualties were cause seing as the Schiltrons were unsupported and unexposed.

There were also four schiltrons of pikemen. The shooting must have been significant, because the first charge was soundly repulsed (restor was paid for 111 horses).

Don't know if this adds to the shooting debate though!

The 2200 figure is from Heath IIRC but the Osprey states that infantry casualties are unknown - the latter does seem more likely to me as these sorts of numbers are rarely in the accounts, they only record casulaties amongst the people that matter. Mind you isn't this the battle where the English and Welsh had a big punch up before the battle which left many dead?

It is always possible that infantry accompanied the English knights in the final attacks of course.

Interesting debate. I am not sure whether there is a problem with shooting being too powerful or not. One of my concerns is that changes being proposed will make troop types like superior, armoured, offensive spearmen backed by an IC almost unstoppable by any shooting army.

We've played a number of games where one side had lots of shooters and the other did not, and it has turned out fine for the non-shooters. A lot depends on context and circumstance. I also wonder how much of this is realtively good players taking bow armies because they like the armies rather than because they think they are over-powered.

I am going to play a few more games with armies that have little or no shooting against Cv bow armies and see how it goes. I'll try and make them proper battle reports.

bddbrown wrote:Interesting debate. I am not sure whether there is a problem with shooting being too powerful or not. One of my concerns is that changes being proposed will make troop types like superior, armoured, offensive spearmen backed by an IC almost unstoppable by any shooting army.

We've played a number of games where one side had lots of shooters and the other did not, and it has turned out fine for the non-shooters. A lot depends on context and circumstance. I also wonder how much of this is realtively good players taking bow armies because they like the armies rather than because they think they are over-powered.

I am going to play a few more games with armies that have little or no shooting against Cv bow armies and see how it goes. I'll try and make them proper battle reports.

In my experience it is not shooters that cause the problem it is shooters than can evade. Over the Leeds weekend I found it almost impossible to take out shooting cavalry with my Swiss and that was even after I spent a lot of thought on how to do it.

It is notable that the armies that have won both tournaments so far have been shooty mounted armies and that in Leeds the Romans who finished second didn't fight a mounted shooty army after the first round.

I will be taking a mounted shooty army to the club tonight and fully expect to massacre my expected Roman opponents.

Hammy

bddbrown wrote: Interesting debate. I am not sure whether there is a problem with shooting being too powerful or not. One of my concerns is that changes being proposed will make troop types like superior, armoured, offensive spearmen backed by an IC almost unstoppable by any shooting army.

To be honest I'd expect Superior Armoured infantry to be pretty shooting resistant on an historical basis.

bddbrown wrote: We've played a number of games where one side had lots of shooters and the other did not, and it has turned out fine for the non-shooters. A lot depends on context and circumstance. I also wonder how much of this is realtively good players taking bow armies because they like the armies rather than because they think they are over-powered.

I think the latter is a very good point. The mounted ghilman type armies have the sort of flexibility that good players of most ancient wargames seem to prefer.