Slitherine

Perhaps the Militia's Raw quality rating reflects their lack of skill with the sword compared to the other troop types you mention?

I might guess that giving militia swords might possibly be related to the war being a Civil War. Lots of militias. The raw status would reduce the impact of swords but I would expect militias to be raw regardless of their weapons. I guess the problem boils down to giving militia longbowmen a sword capability gives them a powerful close combat assault and defensive capability which is very atypical of 14-60 year motley collection of part-time militia. I can see the sword capability with professional soldiers but have difficulty with reluctant militia which would rather be anywhere than on a battlefield. Of course, even militia LBs could melee if forced but I would expect a fairly, poor performance.

I have considered an Extra Nations type Mod based around the 15th Century, but at the moment I am too interested in creating more Nine Years War scenarios and then maybe expanding into the early 18th Century with the Great Northern War and WSS. I also think it would be better to wait and see what Slitherine release officially, at the very least it seems that the new Sengoku Jidai game would be a better basis for a medieval simulation.

Can't wait to see what is next after Sengoku Jidai. Although myself, I want to see them go back in history from Pike and Shot. Anything medieval would be great but Dark Ages and Ancients would be fun too. The odds of Late Medieval next may not be high with so many choices. Time will tell. Although I just started playing Pike and Shot. It is going to be awhile before I must have something new.

And if it is not Late Medieval next, I may start fooling around with Late Medieval. I am still trying to grasp of everything involved but clearly, it is doable after seeing your WOR Mod. So we will see.

Jagger2002 wrote:

Perhaps the Militia's Raw quality rating reflects their lack of skill with the sword compared to the other troop types you mention?

I might guess that giving militia swords might possibly be related to the war being a Civil War. Lots of militias. The raw status would reduce the impact of swords but I would expect militias to be raw regardless of their weapons. I guess the problem boils down to giving militia longbowmen a sword capability gives them a powerful close combat assault and defensive capability which is very atypical of 14-60 year motley collection of part-time militia. I can see the sword capability with professional soldiers but have difficulty with reluctant militia which would rather be anywhere than on a battlefield. Of course, even militia LBs could melee if forced but I would expect a fairly, poor performance.

Of course you have to bear in mind that the FOG WOR army lists are written for FOGAM not FOGR, and FOGAM has a "skilled swordsmen" capability as well as a "swordsmen" capability, so swordsmen capability is not quite so significant in FOGAM as it is in FOGR. It would be perfectly reasonably to represent militia bowmen as Bow, no swordsmen capability. (Although they would then very much be speed-bumps against men-at-arms or billmen).

Of course you have to bear in mind that the FOG WOR army lists are written for FOGAM not FOGR, and FOGAM has a "skilled swordsmen" capability as well as a "swordsmen" capability, so swordsmen capability is not quite so significant in FOGAM as it is in FOGR. It would be perfectly reasonably to represent militia bowmen as Bow, no swordsmen capability. (Although they would then very much be speed-bumps against men-at-arms or billmen).

Good point. I completely forgot about the two levels of swordsmen. I need to go check the POA's. The English militia longbows are another of those unusual units. I suspect they are more skilled in archery than expected from a militia unit but probably just as bad as any militia archery unit in melee.

rbodleyscott wrote:

bk917 wrote:One idea - shouldn't the long bow archer be able to do indirect fire over one of their units into the enemy? I tried this and the game said their line of sight was blocked. Maybe allow the retinue and Welsh longbows fire indirectly, but not the militia longbows?

Although battle accounts of the Wars of the Roses are too vague to tell, accounts of Hundred Years War battles make it clear that longbowmen were normally deployed beside men-at-arms, not behind them. One must assume that indirect fire (over other units) while theoretically possible, was too inaccurate to be effective. Obviously rear ranks of an archer unit must have used somewhat indirect fire. However, massed archers shooting over the heads of friendly units is the stuff of fantasy novels, not history.

Sorry to re-awaken an old discussion, but I thought this may be of interest. I know an elderly chap whose hobby was shooting with a longbow. Not the modern sighted and balanced ones but the traditional yew bow. His club often discussed the matter of indirect fire as portrayed in films etc. Once they were fairly accurate with direct shooting they placed straw bales between them and the target blocking the view. They then shot over the bales. They found it was very inaccurate even though they knew the range to the targets. Mainly he says because to clear the man height bales you had to be well back to clear them and allow the arrows to drop onto the target. He did say it may be more effective against a mass target but felt penetration would suffer.
Just thought I would share this.