impact foot

[fogman]

Is impact foot an offensive or both an offensive and defensive stance as in the game? Did impact foot designated troops actually countercharge? My initial thinking was when an impact foot unit is already engaged in melee, should it still benefit from the bonus? Forget about pila count, if impact foot is connected to some sort of momentum, what if there is no momentum?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Is impact foot an offensive or both an offensive and defensive stance as in the game? Did impact foot designated troops actually countercharge? My initial thinking was when an impact foot unit is already engaged in melee, should it still benefit from the bonus? Forget about pila count, if impact foot is connected to some sort of momentum, what if there is no momentum?

RBS has answered this elsewhere. Basically if there's enough frontage to charge, enough of the enemy unit is not engaged to counter charge. Setting that aside, he noted that systems that did take away impact from engaged units just saw players use gamey unrealistic tactics to take advantage of the mechanic.

I would forsee players fall back blocking a unit of light cavalry to charge some legions and stay stuck in melee, allowing a second unit that really shouldn't be able to take on legions head on to close into impact without fear.

[fogman]

Easy fix: midget units don't take away impact bonus.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Easy fix: midget units don't take away impact bonus.

Perhaps. Should a fragmented unit of peasants strip impact too? Anyway I don't know if that was the specific issue RBS was referring to, just my first guess on what people would do - it was some version of DBA perhaps? Before my time. In any case, I would refer to Schweetness' post as a pretty good summary of why I think such a change would not improve the game.

[fogman]

Fair enough. This rules set have been around for a long time so I assume all refinements are done. Just pointing out things as a mental exercise.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Fair enough. This rules set have been around for a long time so I assume all refinements are done. Just pointing out things as a mental exercise.

Yeah, if the series gets another game announced I'd encourage you to join beta testing - that's when changes are most possible.

[fogman]

William the Breton's description of the fighting at Bouvines:

"Setting aside their lances and drawing their swords, the combatants attacked each other and intertwined in one single melee, hitting one another furiously, covering the fields with their blood, and turning the grass red."

[then, the beaten enemy cavalry took refuge inside their infantry squares]

"Our knights who were fighting with their swords and shorter weapons recoiled from attacking the infantry armed with spears: these men, with their spears, longer than daggers and swords, and in an impenetrable formation as if surrounded by a triple wall, were so well defended that there was no way to engage them. The king, having taken stock of the situation, sent against them three thousands mounted men armed with lances..."

[quite clearly, their lances were lost in the melee]

-----------------

Unrelated to the sword/lances issue, a usual tactic was to kill the enemy knight's horse:

"And while Ferrand fought, and by his presence heightened the courage of his men, lances were broken, swords and daggers collided; the combatants split each other's head with axes and their lowered swords plunged into the entrails of the horses when the iron vestment that covered their masters' bodies did not allow the sword to get through. Along with their horses, the men tumbled, and became easier to overcome when they were so thrown down into the dust."

[Athos1660]

William the Breton's description of the fighting at Bouvines:

"Setting aside their lances and drawing their swords, the combatants attacked each other and intertwined in one single melee, hitting one another furiously, covering the fields with their blood, and turning the grass red."

[then, the beaten enemy cavalry took refuge inside their infantry squares]

"Our knights who were fighting with their swords and shorter weapons recoiled from attacking the infantry armed with spears: these men, with their spears, longer than daggers and swords, and in an impenetrable formation as if surrounded by a triple wall, were so well defended that there was no way to engage them. The king, having taken stock of the situation, sent against them three thousands mounted men armed with lances..."

[quite clearly, their lances were lost in the melee]

Nobody said mounted knights never use "swords and shorter weapons" nor that they were never in melees. That's only what this extract means.

Let's have a look at another extract from the same William the Breton's description of the same battle, this time seemingly depicting mounted knights using their lances several times, during several charges in a row : against the sergeants, then against the knights, then against the battalion of the Champenois, before using their swords "when their lances broke" :

Gautier of Ghistelle and Buridan, who were knights of noble prowess, were exhorting the knights of their echelon to battle and were reminding them of the exploits of their friends and ancestors with, it seemed, no more fear than if they had been jousting in a tournament. After unhorsing and striking down some of the above mentioned sergeants, they left them and turned toward the middle of the field to fight the knights. They were then met by the battalion of the Champenois, and they attacked and fought each other valorously. When their lances broke, they pulled out their swords and exchanged wondrous blows.

Btw, the fact that a mounted knight has pulled his sword after having discarded/lost/broken his lance does not mean he can't actually charge efficiently with it and has to stay "immobile" in a melee.

[fogman]

I don't even know what exactly you are refuting/trying to prove.

[Athos1660]

I don't even know what exactly you are refuting/trying to prove.

In that case, re-read the whole thread starting with your own OP :

I''m sure someone must have pointed this out but I can't find it. It seems to me that if the impact factor for impact foot, say for Roman foot, represents the throwing of pila preceding the charge, would it not be logical that they can benefit from it only once, so that they would be mere swordsmen thereafter? And wouldn't that also apply to lance armed cavalry?

To express it simply, my answer about lance armed cavalry is : no.

[MVP7]

I''m sure someone must have pointed this out but I can't find it. It seems to me that if the impact factor for impact foot, say for Roman foot, represents the throwing of pila preceding the charge, would it not be logical that they can benefit from it only once, so that they would be mere swordsmen thereafter? And wouldn't that also apply to lance armed cavalry?

To express it simply, my answer about lance armed cavalry is : no.

And as for the impact foot, the impact capability isn't just the thrown weapons. There's little difference in the equipment of most "light spear" and "impact foot" infantry. Impact foot merely implies a combination of factors that makes them more devastating at charge than contemporary "light spear" units. In some cases the impact foot doesn't even necessarily have thrown weapons (e.g. Zealots, Berserkers). It's a top down, not a bottom up capability.

As for the Romans specifically, it is almost certain that the whole cohort wouldn't be throwing their pila in one charge. Even if they did, there's no historical accounts where that would be observable or mentioned as a significant tactical factor in Rome's countless battles (which already largely renders the whole point irrelevant in a top down design).

Even if running out of pila was (or had the potential to be) a significant factor in normal field battle, there are many ways it could and would have been mitigated. In Marian organisation even at the Contubernium level there would be two servants/slaves and a donkey for every 8-10 legionaries and that ratio goes up with every level or the legionary organisation. As battles tend to take hours rather than minutes and are not fought non-stop, there's plenty of time and people to deliver new pila to the fighters. Furthermore, thrown weapons could go several times back and forth between the two sides, it's not like they break* or disappear after the first throw. A situation where there would be no throwing weapons left on active infantry battlefield would be rare.

And then there's the fact that there still hasn't been any concrete suggestion on how exactly the effect of javelin/lance attrition should be changed, and what historical examples is the suggestion based on. If you just say that "it's something that the balance people should take into consideration", that has already been done by RBS et al: Unit size modifier is an abstract of physical losses, fatigue, disrupted organisation, and other factors like weapon breakage. Unless a indisputable quantitative and meaningful problem can be pointed out in current solution, and a better one based on evidence is presented, there's little reason for making any arbitrary changes just for the sake of it.

* Experimental archaeology shows that pilum generally doesn't bend out of shape on impact or after it. The reason for the narrow metal spike is that it punches straight through a wooden shield and can easily hit the man behind (with enough energy to potentially penetrate mail). The myth of pilum being purposely designed to break on impact is based on (IIRC) one battle led by Gaius Marius where the pila were modified to break on impact but there's no archaeological evidence of it ever becoming a common practice. For other thrown weapons there's obviously even less reason to assume that they would consistently break on impact.

[fogman]

I don't even know what exactly you are refuting/trying to prove.

In that case, re-read the whole thread starting with your own OP :

I''m sure someone must have pointed this out but I can't find it. It seems to me that if the impact factor for impact foot, say for Roman foot, represents the throwing of pila preceding the charge, would it not be logical that they can benefit from it only once, so that they would be mere swordsmen thereafter? And wouldn't that also apply to lance armed cavalry?

To express it simply, my answer about lance armed cavalry is : no.

sure, whatever you say.

[fogman]

I''m sure someone must have pointed this out but I can't find it. It seems to me that if the impact factor for impact foot, say for Roman foot, represents the throwing of pila preceding the charge, would it not be logical that they can benefit from it only once, so that they would be mere swordsmen thereafter? And wouldn't that also apply to lance armed cavalry?

To express it simply, my answer about lance armed cavalry is : no.

And as for the impact foot, the impact capability isn't just the thrown weapons. There's little difference in the equipment of most "light spear" and "impact foot" infantry. Impact foot merely implies a combination of factors that makes them more devastating at charge than contemporary "light spear" units. In some cases the impact foot doesn't even necessarily have thrown weapons (e.g. Zealots, Berserkers). It's a top down, not a bottom up capability.

As for the Romans specifically, it is almost certain that the whole cohort wouldn't be throwing their pila in one charge. Even if they did, there's no historical accounts where that would be observable or mentioned as a significant tactical factor in Rome's countless battles (which already largely renders the whole point irrelevant in a top down design).

Even if running out of pila was (or had the potential to be) a significant factor in normal field battle, there are many ways it could and would have been mitigated. In Marian organisation even at the Contubernium level there would be two servants/slaves and a donkey for every 8-10 legionaries and that ratio goes up with every level or the legionary organisation. As battles tend to take hours rather than minutes and are not fought non-stop, there's plenty of time and people to deliver new pila to the fighters. Furthermore, thrown weapons could go several times back and forth between the two sides, it's not like they break* or disappear after the first throw. A situation where there would be no throwing weapons left on active infantry battlefield would be rare.

And then there's the fact that there still hasn't been any concrete suggestion on how exactly the effect of javelin/lance attrition should be changed, and what historical examples is the suggestion based on. If you just say that "it's something that the balance people should take into consideration", that has already been done by RBS et al: Unit size modifier is an abstract of physical losses, fatigue, disrupted organisation, and other factors like weapon breakage. Unless a indisputable quantitative and meaningful problem can be pointed out in current solution, and a better one based on evidence is presented, there's little reason for making any arbitrary changes just for the sake of it.

* Experimental archaeology shows that pilum generally doesn't bend out of shape on impact or after it. The reason for the narrow metal spike is that it punches straight through a wooden shield and can easily hit the man behind (with enough energy to potentially penetrate mail). The myth of pilum being purposely designed to break on impact is based on (IIRC) one battle led by Gaius Marius where the pila were modified to break on impact but there's no archaeological evidence of it ever becoming a common practice. For other thrown weapons there's obviously even less reason to assume that they would consistently break on impact.

"Impact foot" is a gaming category, not an actual reality, so I will leave it as whatever the rules masters want it to be. This may be the wrong forum to talk about these things.