Slitherine

Fascinating stuff, chock. Thanks for that.

Nice discussion all round chaps.

I'd like to second Mousies concept of bowfire/missile fire at chargers and then a morale test, before contact. That would be for all missile troops that stand. Perhaps impact troops should be done that way as well ie pilum, francesca? armed. Although that is getting away from the TT rules.

Gary

Nobody has commented on the different rates of fire that there would have been between crossbowmen/arbalesters and longbowmen that is not represented in the game at the moment. In open ground I cannot think of an example where crossbowmen got the better of archers in preliminary exchanges, but I still have a great deal to learn about the 100YW.

The other thing I've come across is that in some battles archers put down caltrops to deny ground to mounted enemy troops and to shape charges to their front where the stakes would give them greater protection. I am thinking here of the Battle of Aljubarrota 1385 between Portuguse and Franco-Castilian-Aragonese forces. Could they be incorporated in the game at some point a bit like stakes are, I wonder? I know it is a relatively minor detail, but these sorts of things really give the game some character. Again, like my suggestion for stakes, they could be invisible until an enemy was 2 hexes away and they would automatically disrupt mounted enemies. Just another idea for the FOG pot.

Hey Stockwell, i believe the rate of fire is incorporated (abstractly) within the POA's for differnt missle weapons. You will notice crossbows actually fair worse than bows vs unarmoured or protected troops, representing the lower rate of fire.

Caltrops would be neat but likly better for a user made scenario than open dag battles.. i dont think troops carried sacks of them around to sprinkle around while maneuvering in the face of the enemy

TheGrayMouser wrote:Hey Stockwell, i believe the rate of fire is incorporated (abstractly) within the POA's for differnt missle weapons. You will notice crossbows actually fair worse than bows vs unarmoured or protected troops, representing the lower rate of fire.

Oh, Ok then. I didn't realise that was the way it has been represented. Fair enough then.

Caltrops would be neat but likly better for a user made scenario than open dag battles.. i dont think troops carried sacks of them around to sprinkle around while maneuvering in the face of the enemy

Yes, certainly for set-piece style scenarios, TGM - I can see the problem with the idea in DAG battles.

TheGrayMouser wrote: Caltrops would be neat but likly better for a user made scenario than open dag battles.. i dont think troops carried sacks of them around to sprinkle around while maneuvering in the face of the enemy

There is a way of representing caltrops in the scenario editor, TGM. Somebody else discovered the idea, not me - but if you just click on "ditch" just once you get something that looks like a divot in the ground and that badly disrupts troops moving onto it.

I did something like that for the Gaza scenario I did for the FoG historical scenarios. Used ditches to represent caltrops. It worked but not very well, particularly against the AI who insisted on charging its defending elephants through them.

Deeter

TheGrayMouser wrote:Hey Stockwell, i believe the rate of fire is incorporated (abstractly) within the POA's for differnt missle weapons. You will notice crossbows actually fair worse than bows vs unarmoured or protected troops, representing the lower rate of fire.

Erm . . . 18 months later.

Are you sure about that, TGM? I have just conducted an experiment. I took 100 longbow shots (troops were rated "average") at "protected" crossbowmen and scored a total of 242 % hits making an average score of 2.42%.

Then I swapped things round and my "average"-rated crossbowmen took 100 shots at the "protected" longbowmen and scored 191 % hits for an average score of 1.91%.

So, roughly speaking, the longbowmen were only slightly outshooting the crossbowmen by 5 hits to 4 - which would suggest in a game (often only 3 or 4 turns of shooting followed by 3 or 4 turns of melee-ing) that crossbowmen could generally hold their own in a missile exchange against longbowmen. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

stockwellpete wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:Hey Stockwell, i believe the rate of fire is incorporated (abstractly) within the POA's for differnt missle weapons. You will notice crossbows actually fair worse than bows vs unarmoured or protected troops, representing the lower rate of fire.

Are you sure about that, TGM? I have just conducted an experiment. I took 100 longbow shots (troops were rated "average") at "protected" crossbowmen and scored a total of 242 % hits making an average score of 2.42%.

Then I swapped things round and my "average"-rated crossbowmen took 100 shots at the "protected" longbowmen and scored 191 % hits for an average score of 1.91%.

well, it's just right...longbowmen give more hits than Xbowmen in an exchange...but they don't have machineguns yet...long range fire is much more reasonable than impact/melee combat in the game

frankpowerful wrote:well, it's just right...longbowmen give more hits than Xbowmen in an exchange...but they don't have machineguns yet...long range fire is much more reasonable than impact/melee combat in the game

Hello Frank. But longbowmen fired about twice as fast as crossbowmen, didn't they? And they usually got the better of them in medieval battles e.g. Crecy 1346. So roughly, they should be causing casualties at a similar 2:1 rate, I would have thought.

I have just fired 100 shots from "superior" longbowmen at "protected" crossbowmen and scored 286 % hits or 2.86% a hit, which roughly means they would be out-shooting "average" crossbowmen by 3:2. You start to get a lot of "disrupts" here so, in any second round of shooting, the longbowmen would definitely start to prevail.

I wonder what people think? Should some longbowmen in the DAG be classified as "superior" (12pts maybe) in the period 1300-1500?

Just an idea I already show a while back.

It would be great to have a troop rating for shooting and another one for melee and impact.
So you could have Superior Longbowmen for shooting and average for impact and shooting.
Don't know if that would be possible to do in the future though.

Cheers!

stockwellpete wrote: I have just fired 100 shots from "superior" longbowmen at "protected" crossbowmen and scored 286 % hits or 2.86% a hit, which roughly means they would be out-shooting "average" crossbowmen by 3:2. You start to get a lot of "disrupts" here so, in any second round of shooting, the longbowmen would definitely start to prevail.

I wonder what people think? Should some longbowmen in the DAG be classified as "superior" (12pts maybe) in the period 1300-1500?

definitely
and what about inflicting the same rate of hits at 5 hex and point blank distance? was it really so? or it simply follows the TT rules?

Fedem wrote:Just an idea I already show a while back.

It would be great to have a troop rating for shooting and another one for melee and impact.
So you could have Superior Longbowmen for shooting and average for impact and shooting.
Don't know if that would be possible to do in the future though.

Cheers!

Yes, I like this idea, Federico. It is the same question though with all the ideas we have - does it fit in with the overall design philosophy of FOG?

frankpowerful wrote: definitely
and what about inflicting the same rate of hits at 5 hex and point blank distance? was it really so? or it simply follows the TT rules?

Yes, that is another good point, I think, Frank. The English used the longbow at long range to hit target areas rather than individual soldiers, whereas the Welsh used the longbow much more as a shorter range ambush weapon, with really deadly effect. I am not sure what the TT rules say about this though.

stockwellpete wrote:

frankpowerful wrote: definitely
and what about inflicting the same rate of hits at 5 hex and point blank distance? was it really so? or it simply follows the TT rules?

Yes, that is another good point, I think, Frank. The English used the longbow at long range to hit target areas rather than individual soldiers, whereas the Welsh used the longbow much more as a shorter range ambush weapon, with really deadly effect. I am not sure what the TT rules say about this though.

The TT has long and short range for most missle weapons which effects how many dice are thrown, the POA's remain the same regardless of range.