Slitherine

hammy wrote:I would have thought the chariots and lancers are not a bad threat to shooty cavalry. The key against shooty cavalry is not to charge when they are just in charge reach but to advance as close as possible before charging. If you can do that with lancers then the shooty cav have to stand or risk a 1/3 chance of being hit in the rear by your lancers. Also push past the shooty cavalry by foring back their light horse friends and then try to get behind them and stop their evade, that works quite well too.

You may find that an IC is better value than 2 TCs and 10 points of troops against shooty cabv too. The +2 on CTs for all troops within 12 MU is not to be sniffed at.

Thanks. I have been seriously considering the IC, but shooty cav threads on here tend to go:

New player: "Shooty cav is too powerful"
Seasoned player:"Get an IC"
Veteran player: "I regularly beat them without the need for an IC"

so I thought I would see if I could do without.

So far I have tried to push with the foot and use the mounted as reserves against the inevitable outflanking.

I'll give the mounted attack a try, but I imagine any competent opponent will put the LH versus my mounted while the cavalry ride around the flanks of the infantry.

So far I have tried to push with the foot and use the mounted as reserves against the inevitable outflanking.

Having tried this tactic with protected foot, can I say that if you want to do this then an IC is a must. Especially with average troops. If you decide to go single ranked then rear support is also a must.

I'll give the mounted attack a try, but I imagine any competent opponent will put the LH versus my mounted while the cavalry ride around the flanks of the infantry.

Put your chariots on each flank? If you single rank your infantry (given rear support and an IC) then you should be able to cover the table. If some Cavalry look like they are about to "get fruity" then you can always contract, probably a couple of double ranks is enough.

i.e put your 4x8 in single, use the 2x6's to provide rear support for all 4 and have an IC driving in the middle.

Don't know if it will work - but it would be worth a try to see just what happens.

I hadn't thought about an IC in this context either, but it's excellent advice. Couple that with rear support (cheap MF for instance) and you'd get a +3.

Speaking of antidotes to shooty cav, what about an army with massed MF bow and elephants, namely Classical Indian? Granted, their foot is unprotected for most of the list's period, but you can have a great deal of archers. The elephants could push forward en masse, backed up by a block of cheap javelinmen and possibly stationing chariots on the wings, refused. Someone must have tried this. Be interesting, too from a historical context--Skythian or Kushan versus Classical Indian.

daleivan wrote:I hadn't thought about an IC in this context either, but it's excellent advice. Couple that with rear support (cheap MF for instance) and you'd get a +3.

Speaking of antidotes to shooty cav, what about an army with massed MF bow and elephants, namely Classical Indian? Granted, their foot is unprotected for most of the list's period, but you can have a great deal of archers. The elephants could push forward en masse, backed up by a block of cheap javelinmen and possibly stationing chariots on the wings, refused. Someone must have tried this. Be interesting, too from a historical context--Skythian or Kushan versus Classical Indian.

Classical indian is rather scary for shooty cavalry. Alternating BGs of elephants and bow, advance at 4MU a move, if the cavalry threaten bow move the elephants to threaten the cavalry etc.

Certainly a nasty one - you may end up having to charge into the Bw BGs giving up overlaps from the nellies which can go horribly wrong

i think shooty cav armies can also end up encoutnering armies they can't beat in the required time frame.

Also they can torture the KN but i always find that a well played support for the KN means some of the shooty cav gets mauled.

hazelbark wrote:i think shooty cav armies can also end up encoutnering armies they can't beat in the required time frame.

This is my main fear in playing a shooty cav army. I'm not sure about "can't beat." I know what you're getting at Dan, but if my opponent is kind enough to roll poorly on cohesion tests, there's no nut that I can't crack!

However, I do know that I have to maintain time discipline and hope that I can get my opponent to respond in kind when doing the shooty cav thing.

Players that make good use of generals and rear supports will take some time for me to soften up and stretch out. Inspirational commaners are particulary tough to overcome here.

In playtesting Burgundians got an unbeaten track against shooty cavalry. Drilled Knights and longbows working in pairs with dismounted knights in the flank to soak the excess missile dice. LH can move away, although not always unscathed. Cavalry usually is mauled and/or caught by the knights. French Ordonnance should work too.

José

That'd work.

There was a Burgundian Ordonnance army at Rampage and I was very relieved not to have to face it with my Seljuqs

Did beat a Wars of the Roses army though, but the player was quite new to FoG

Food for thought:

I encountered a wall of knights with a wall of shooty cav this weekend.

I was suprised when on my opponent's first opportunity to charge that instead of charging, he moved his "wall" to within 1 MU of my "wall." This way, his chances of catching me would be much easier. The risk, of course, is that he granted me an extra two rounds of shooting. As it turned out, I don't think it cost him to do so. Another risk in doing this is that one BG of knights will charge without orders (it didn't happen in this case.)

The end of the battle saw victory being determined elsewhere (with the help of some opportune die rolling I might add.) I eventually had to accept his last charge with two of my shooty cav BGs or risk evading off the table. They quickly became disrupted and certainly would have fragmented or broken in the comming turns. It could have been that the decision to hold off on charging on the first opportunity was a costly delay. However, all other things being the same, it was probably only the difference between a 24-1 and a 22-3 loss.

I was simply pleased with the fact that I kept the wall of knights occupied with the wall of shooty cav as I believe I had the rest of his army (slightly) outmatched. In any event, the knight vs shooty cav matchup was rather more suspenseful due to my opponent's tactic.

hercimurthemediocre wrote:Food for thought:

I encountered a wall of knights with a wall of shooty cav this weekend.

I was suprised when on my opponent's first opportunity to charge that instead of charging, he moved his "wall" to within 1 MU of my "wall." This way, his chances of catching me would be much easier. The risk, of course, is that he granted me an extra two rounds of shooting. As it turned out, I don't think it cost him to do so. Another risk in doing this is that one BG of knights will charge without orders (it didn't happen in this case.)

THis tactic is often recommended by the experienced players on here.

If you have "arrow-proof" armour it is not too risky.

Even disrupted knights should easily beat single ranked cavalry.

hercimurthemediocre wrote:
I eventually had to accept his last charge with two of my shooty cav BGs or risk evading off the table.

Of course if they are likely to lose in melee it is to your advantage if they evade off table - only 1 AP lost per BG instead of 2

nikgaukroger wrote: Of course if they are likely to lose in melee it is to your advantage if they evade off table - only 1 AP lost per BG instead of 2

Understood.

Due to the progress of the battle elsewhere, relative local strength in numbers, and the proximity of an Inspired general, I decided to take it thinking that I could hold out for a few turns. Besides, he was close to my camp at that point and evading off table would have allowed him the freedom to go after it unmolested.

I essentially had the option of taking the risk to allow no attrition points or conceeding two immediately and two more in the next 2-3 turns. I just liked my odds and the risk/yield ratio.

Besides, I've endured a lot of "girly man" shooty cav comments lately and evading off table was simply unacceptable

I've read through the rules but haven't played yet, so I can't speak from game experience. As I was looking at the rules and army lists, I got the general impression that Field of Glory had downgraded asian composite bows to somewhere below the much overrated English longbow, which it has a long history of outshooting in distance and penetration ability. I'm getting the impression by comments here that horse archer armies are good in these rules in spite of this? Did I miss something?

NAV wrote:I've read through the rules but haven't played yet, so I can't speak from game experience. As I was looking at the rules and army lists, I got the general impression that Field of Glory had downgraded asian composite bows to somewhere below the much overrated English longbow, which it has a long history of outshooting in distance and penetration ability. I'm getting the impression by comments here that horse archer armies are good in these rules in spite of this? Did I miss something?

I don't know much about the differences between the Asian composite bows and the English longbows but are you sure the approximately 1m long shortbow that could be fired from horseback had more penetration power than the 1.8m longbow? This is not a challenge because I have no idea, it just seems counter intuitive and wondered if you were talking about some kind of Asian bow that was fired from foot?
Anyway, as far as the rules are concerned they pretty much make all bows the same except they give the longbow a little better penetration power but the power of bows in FOG is less about their killing power and more about the number of hits you inflict, which causes the target unit to loose cohesion. Horse archers in this game can basically keep firing into you till you loose cohesion and then charge into you when your weak. If the enemy tries to fight back the horse archers can basically just run away (evade) and generally make it difficult for you to catch them and fight back. An utterly cowardly way to fight and should be looked down on with complete derision.

flameberge wrote:

NAV wrote:I've read through the rules but haven't played yet, so I can't speak from game experience. As I was looking at the rules and army lists, I got the general impression that Field of Glory had downgraded asian composite bows to somewhere below the much overrated English longbow, which it has a long history of outshooting in distance and penetration ability. I'm getting the impression by comments here that horse archer armies are good in these rules in spite of this? Did I miss something?

I don't know much about the differences between the Asian composite bows and the English longbows but are you sure the approximately 1m long shortbow that could be fired from horseback had more penetration power than the 1.8m longbow? This is not a challenge because I have no idea, it just seems counter intuitive and wondered if you were talking about some kind of Asian bow that was fired from foot?
Anyway, as far as the rules are concerned they pretty much make all bows the same except they give the longbow a little better penetration power but the power of bows in FOG is less about their killing power and more about the number of hits you inflict, which causes the target unit to loose cohesion. Horse archers in this game can basically keep firing into you till you loose cohesion and then charge into you when your weak. If the enemy tries to fight back the horse archers can basically just run away (evade) and generally make it difficult for you to catch them and fight back. An utterly cowardly way to fight and should be looked down on with complete derision.

It is true that a composite recurved bow enables you to shoot the same arrow with the same velocity using a shorter bow than the equivalent simple wooden bow. Whether one that was short enough for handy use from horseback with an arrow designed for shooting other unarmoured horse archers would be able to beat a longbow optimised for use on foot with an arrow designed to kill an armoured target is a different matter.

Accounts of the Crusades mention crusader foot with many Turkish arrows stuck in their (mail) armour without suffering any injury, so it would appear that the Asian composite bow/arrow system did not have good penetration, at least at that time.

THe performance of both types of bow is affected by the weather - wooden bows are not so good in hot weather, composite bows don't like damp weather. So a direct shoot-off comparison in Wales might not give the same results as one in the Syrian desert.

Regardless of technical differences, bow performance is limited by the strength of the archer.

THis sort of detail is beyond the scope of the game.

And yes, horse archers are very effective in FOG even with their lower power bows.

A lot of the effect of bows is the combination of the bow and the arrows used.

In simple terms in warfare longbowmen had a powerful bow with heavy arrows whilst horse archers had a powerful (and more efficient) bow but used a range of arrows of which many were quite light. Thus at battlefield ranges longbowmen tended to have better penetration against heavier armoured targets.

nikgaukroger wrote:A lot of the effect of bows is the combination of the bow and the arrows used.

In simple terms in warfare longbowmen had a powerful bow with heavy arrows whilst horse archers had a powerful (and more efficient) bow but used a range of arrows of which many were quite light. Thus at battlefield ranges longbowmen tended to have better penetration against heavier armoured targets.

It's also worth noting that the Asiatics never up-armoured to the extent that western knights did (with the possible exception of cataphracts). On the other hand, western armour may have been driven as much by the crossbow as by the longbow. It's all very complicated.

I'll have to see how a horse archer army does in the game. Asiatic composite bows (those used by Huns, Mongols, Turks, etc.) outshot longbows in every contest. I have the numbers but not with me. They are provided in a book by John May called Ghengis Khan, and the velocity, distances and penetrations are also noted. If it doesn't matter in the scope of the game, I am curious as to why a longbow would be an upgrade, unless the ability of the "short bow" is game-mechaniked in some other fashion while weilded by horse archers. This isn't an attempt to create a super-army, just a desire not to see a weapon downgraded into "just a bow" when another one is elevated to something more spectacular than it was, outside a given situation (angry French knights). Thanks.

outshot longbows in every contest

,

velocity, distances and penetrations

Much as the velocity, penetration and max range of 5.56 outperforms 7.62 no doubt. I know which I'd rather be shot by.