Pike and Shot suggestions

[rbodleyscott]

I don't think gunpowder was any easier to come by than arrows. For example, getting salpetre was quite intensive. Quoteing J.R. Hale "War and society in Renaissance Europe":
"The best source being earth which had become saturated with urine or faeces, animal or human: sheepfolds, cattle yards, stables, dovecotes, earth closets and other domestic areas that had in the course of time, become saturated with nitrate-laden nightsoil"..... "By the second generation of the 16th century the digging of saltpetre out of the earth, its refining into crystallised potassium nitrate, and its marketing to state-owned gunpowder manufactories or for export, had developed into closely supervised monopolies"..... "The extent of their intrusiveness is shown by the justification offered by English salpetremen in 1628 for their digging under churches: 'The women piss in their seats, which causes excellent saltpetre.' "

And some of the churches would be 500 years old by then. Nice.

[TheGrayMouser]

I don't think gunpowder was any easier to come by than arrows. For example, getting salpetre was quite intensive. Quoteing J.R. Hale "War and society in Renaissance Europe":
"The best source being earth which had become saturated with urine or faeces, animal or human: sheepfolds, cattle yards, stables, dovecotes, earth closets and other domestic areas that had in the course of time, become saturated with nitrate-laden nightsoil"..... "By the second generation of the 16th century the digging of saltpetre out of the earth, its refining into crystallised potassium nitrate, and its marketing to state-owned gunpowder manufactories or for export, had developed into closely supervised monopolies"..... "The extent of their intrusiveness is shown by the justification offered by English salpetremen in 1628 for their digging under churches: 'The women piss in their seats, which causes excellent saltpetre.' "

And some of the churches would be 500 years old by then. Nice.

Always thought women were just as crude as men, just craftier hiding it

[JosephM]

Hello guys,

Not remotely a specialist in this field, but I think you can't really compare the longbow from the 100 years war vs shot used in the English Civil War. There are too many differences between the periods. That said I have been reading on Agincourt recently, so I'll say what I can. Firstly, casualties from the longbow were not that high. Most arrows only really killed horses, but they would have damaged a knight's armour Indeed at Agincourt, the French had learned the folly of the mounted charge against Longbows and they were mostly all dismounted. But the mounted units which were there suffered such casualties against the arrow storms that they ran back through their own vanguard, which did damage.

Then the land between the armies was recently ploughed, so the French had to struggle through it in full armour and under longbow fire. Anyone who did fall would hinder those behind him. Then when the lines joined, the English men-at-arms were fresh and had room to swing their weapons, whereas the French front lines were pressed from behind, so imagine a knight, in dented armour, with arrows sticking out of it pushed from behind and no room to swing his sword and mud up to his knees against a Englishman who had all the space he needed. Then when the longbowmen emerged, they were light, manoeuvrable and had hammers, so they ran into the weary French knights, just practically pushing them over. Longbows didn't cause many casualties to 15th century plate, but it was demoralising. In fact I think it was the longbowmen who caused the greatest casulaties but in the melee, not with their arrows.

However shot circa 1700 was able to pierce armour and anyone could fire a gun. The English used the longbow for much longer than most, but that was probably stubbornness. Eventually guns got so good that the bow was no longer needed. An effective weapon in 1100 it had mostly lost any effectiveness. Why have your yeomen training with a bow for so long, just to have him be shot with a man with a gun?

[TimW]

[url]

I don't think gunpowder was any easier to come by than arrows. For example, getting salpetre was quite intensive. Quoteing J.R. Hale "War and society in Renaissance Europe":
"The best source being earth which had become saturated with urine or faeces, animal or human: sheepfolds, cattle yards, stables, dovecotes, earth closets and other domestic areas that had in the course of time, become saturated with nitrate-laden nightsoil"..... "By the second generation of the 16th century the digging of saltpetre out of the earth, its refining into crystallised potassium nitrate, and its marketing to state-owned gunpowder manufactories or for export, had developed into closely supervised monopolies"..... "The extent of their intrusiveness is shown by the justification offered by English salpetremen in 1628 for their digging under churches: 'The women piss in their seats, which causes excellent saltpetre.' "

And some of the churches would be 500 years old by then. Nice.

While looking for naturally occuring saltpetre was still one source, by the 16th century obtaining saltpetre in Europe was no longer solely a matter of looking for naturally occuring saltpetre "brushes", there was also an organised production system. Long rows of outdoor "saltpetre beds" with porous walls were filled with the kind of materials that were known to produce saltpetre naturally (that saltpetre was actually the consequence of bacterial action was, of course, unknown at the time) and the resulting "brushes" then processed. Other than mining deposits in South America, the "niter bed" production systems used in the 16th century were in use basically unchanged right up to the early 20th century, the chemical process for producing potassium nitrate from nitric acid wasn't developed until 1903.

Joseph LeConte's "Instructions for the Manufacture of Saltpetre" written in 1862 for the Confederate government outline this "niter bed" large-scale production process which had been used in Europe for a considerable period, but not in America it seems. http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/lecontesalt/leconte.html

England produced little saltpetre during the early reign of Henry VIII so it was imported from Europe where production was much higher. By the 1630s England was still a small-scale producer, but Charles I was producing over 200 tons a year. Charles II is known to have also imported considerable quantities of saltpetre from India, sometimes as much as 1,000 tons a year.

[KateMicucci]

Roger Williams says that an advantage of firearms is that it was easier to find ammo for them (in 1590), but that claim ranges between dubious and "so what?". Gunpowder was still very expensive, and fletching arrows could not have been that hard. Cortes's crossbowmen and his native allies were able to fletch hundreds or thousands of new arrows for the crossbows, while the musketeers, who frequently ran out of powder during the frequent heated battles, could only be resupplied by ship.

The evidence also shows that a yew shortage probably had very little effect, if any, on the decision to switch. Firearms could be as much as 10x more expensive than bows- even if a short supply of yew drove the prices up, the bows were still much cheaper.

From a very good article on the subject of the longbow-firearms debate in 16th century England:

The slowness of English military authorities to adopt ‘weapons of fyre’ is a curious matter. Quite apart from the nation’s already mentioned deep-rooted sentimental attachment to the bow, there was also a worry within government and the upper classes that, if firearms were put in the hands of the common people, they might be used to undermine public order or be exploited by papists to promote revolt. But there was also a more practical rational – cost. While bows were cheap, firearms were expensive. A good yew-wood bow and a set of arrows each ‘a clothyard long and fletched with the wing of a grey goose’, was significantly cheaper than a harquebus. According to the historian C. G. Cruickshank, in 1566 a high quality bow of imported yew cost 6 shillings and 8 pence, a bow of second quality was 3 shillings and 4 pence, while a bows of English yew cost a mere 2 shillings. During the latter part of the Queen’s reign, calivers ranged from 12 to 30 shillings and muskets from 18 shillings to £2. With the average cost of a bow being 3 shillings, and a firearm 30 shillings (not including all the associated items that went with musketry), then the cost of refitting a company with gunpowder weapons was very considerable indeed. Something that would not have escaped a notoriously parsimonious queen was also well known for her dislike of soldiers.

It was cost which confounded the first attempt to modernize the nation’s fighting capability. In 1567, with the arrival of Alva’s Spanish army in the Low Countries, William Pelham (Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance Office) wrote to Burghley proposing the formation of a special unit of harquebusiers. At that time firearms still had a certain mystique and Pelham proposed to pay for the new corps by charging the public to watch them train. Two years later (by which time the Spanish presence had become a serious threat), the government made a similar proposal of its own for the formation of a harquebusier and caliver corps with wages set at 9 pence a day, shooting practice to be held once every two weeks, and arms to be held at an arsenal. But, as with the first proposal, it also foundered on the issue of finance.

http://www.alderneywreck.com/index.php/ ... -matchlock

One of the more interesting features many people are not aware of, is the simple psychological fact that firearms made smoke and noise, thus intimidating the opposition. Even in primitive warfare, the opposing sides would usually engage in a shouting match prior to combat, trying to intimidate the other side before engaging.
Call it heckling if you will, but it is a significant factor. The side making the loudest noise had a significant advantage.

I do not think that the noise of firearms could have been particularly intimidating- it seems to me that soldiers would be intimidated by the sight of a superior enemy, and their allies dying around them.

The Mexicans were intimidated by horses, for the brief time that they thought that they were carnivorous predators, and by cannon, for the brief time they (apparently) thought that they were a new species of living creatures like the horses. They quickly lost their fear of both.

John Smythe (and Ben Franklin) made the argument that the noise of arrows and the fact that the arrows are slow enough to be visible is more intimidating than firearms. Barwick retorted that the opinion of the French soldiers he served with was that the sound and sight of arrows is not comparable to the fear of a weapon that kills where it strikes.

As French society did not allow the development of the longbow during medieval times, the changing society of England, mainly enforced urbanization due to the growth of the wool industry, destroyed the yeomen of the peasantry who made up the bulk of archers.

I don't have a source, since the middle ages are of zero interest to me, but I've heard that the French also used longbows during the HYW, only of a slightly lesser poundage.

[simacole]

And yet the English army in the Pinkie campaign thirty years before had included several hundred mercenary German arquebusiers, as well as Italian and Spanish mounted arquebusiers, who would have been far more expensive to maintain. I think the argument for the slowness to adopt firearms is overstated. Like other armies of the time they made extensive use of mercenaries. In the absence of involvement in a major war you didn't of course keep masses of mercenaries on your pay. The militia/trained bands etc. lagged behind and traditional weapons predominated, as they did in pretty much any army. I wouldn't dispute the expense of firearms and the cheapness of bows though. There are ample reports of the decline in archery and the increasing use of pressing vagabonds and the prison population into service though. I think societal changes were an important part of the decline of Longbow use too.

[Aryaman]

I think everybody agrees that an archer requires a longer period of training to be proficient than an arquebusier, so one problem is that of numbers, so regardless of how effective is the longbow, it requires trained archers, and it was easier and quicker to recruit a large force of effective arquebussiers than one of archers, and losses were also more easily replaced.

[Aryaman]

Regarding the question of performance, and indirect testimony is found at the battle of Lepanto. The Ottomans used the composite bow, a weapon equal if not superior to the longbow, however it was found inferior to the arquebus and the musket used by the christians, especially in penetrative power.

[TimW]

OK, so what do we know for certain?

Firearms were considerably more expensive than bows. Gunpowder required a manufactury production system and there was no way you could make gunpowder "in the field" because of the raw materials required.

Yet pretty much every organised state whose infantry had previously relied on bow or crossbow, from England all the way to Japan, switched from the bow/crossbow to the arquebus/musket during the middle part of the 16th century. States that traditionally relied heavily on horse archers (e.g. The Tatar influenced armies and the Turks) tended to keep the bow for mounted use but still switched to gunpowder weapons for their foot. In 17th century North America the native population also tended to switch from bow to musket as firearms became available, at least for use on foot.

How the bow/crossbow was used tactically doesn't seem to make any difference. England, whose massed archers who, as far as we know, would engage by massed fire, switched in the same way that skirmishing Genoese crossbowmen became arquebusiers.

So gunpowder, despite potential supply issues, despite a much slower rate of fire , despite the increased risk of accidents and despite the cost of the weapons themselves was clearly considered to have a significant enough advantage over both forms of bows to justify the expense.

The need for continual and lengthy training to use a bow effectively might have been a part of it, though you can train someone to fire a crossbow just as quickly as you can train them to fire an arquebus and neither requires great strength or stamina.

I don't think military fashion alone can explain this because what general or ruler would consider following a fashion that resulted in much higher military expenditure while resulting in a reduction in the casualties caused? "Thanks to our wonderful, costly and very trendy new firearms not only can we now fire at less than a quarter the rate our old-fashioned archers managed, we can kill dozens in the time it took them to kill hundreds and we can't even see what we're shooting at after five minutes" is hardly a success story.

Maybe it comes down to stamina? The old WRG Gush rules penalised archers who fired too often as it was assumed they'd run out of arrows (a known problem from the 100 Years War) and they'd get tired. If effective rapid-fire archery could only function in short bursts before the archers tired that might explain much.

Whatever the reason, it's certainly the case that the longbow retained its effectiveness against unarmoured opponents as the Wars of the Roses and campaigns against the Scots demonstrate. I find sources that complain the Elizabethan yeoman archer was a poor specimen compared to his grandfather a bit dubious as well. That things have gone downhill compared with a couple of generations ago seems a perennial complaint of humans everywhere. The late Victorians who complained that the soft, city-dwelling working class were feeble shadows of their "peasant" rural grandparents is a more recent example of ths same syndrome.

[shawkhan2]

For those who do not think....that noise has an effect on battle, here is an excerpt from William S. Frisbee's book, "Psychology of Killing."

"When animals confront each other they begin by posturing. They both attempt to intimidate the opponent into believing it is inferior and in danger. At this point they may fight, or one may submit or flee, and when they do fight it is very rarely to the death. When one submits it exposes some vulnerability to the enemy, like its throat.

Humans are not much different. Firearms are an excellent method of posturing, they are loud and dangerous, and the bullets zipping by overhead can be terrifying to the enemy. They provide a primal release when fired and can give the shooter a feeling of power. Posturing is very evident in combat tactics. War cries are a form of posturing. A battle cry cannot kill, but it provides a primal release and can intimidate the enemy. Bullets slamming into the ground or wall near a trooper can be frightening and when they are put there by some screaming 'maniac' it is much more terrifying.

This may be why so many rounds were fired in Vietnam without any real hits. (52,000 shots to score 1 hit? Our troops weren't that bad at shooting!). US troops were in many cases superior at posturing. However, when it comes down to it, when the crunch comes, many people, regardless of how tough they sound in the barracks, find it hard to kill their fellow man and prefer to posture when possible.

Fire superiority means one side has postured successfully and has intimidated the enemy. In the Civil War there are cases where yelling matches have been held and the loser has retreated, simply because they were intimidated by the other side's battle cries. (This happened in the woods where they couldn't see each other but superior units retreated from inferior units because of effective posturing on the other side.)

The military does not recognize this as posturing, per se, they call it intimidating the enemy."

Call it intimidation, posturing, noise is a serious factor in winning battles. This was another factor in why the firearm overtook the longbow.

[KiwiWarlord]

Foot Pursuing Routing Foot.

My knowledge of historical battles of the period is not great re the fine detail such as foot pursuing routing enemy.
Swiss would pursue but others ? I would think that most would be a bit knackered and resting up, reloading matchlocks etc.

Question to the group, Did large Pike & Shot units go chasing after their routing opponents ?

I have been caught out many times in the game with my Foot Regiments, Tercios etc breaking the line and pursuing routers then getting thumped in the flank/rear and sent packing.

Should the chance of foot pursuing routers be reduced ?

[Aryaman]

Historically, foot didn´t pursuit foot except for a short distance. The reason is clear, routing infantry throw away everything to run faster, so they easily outrun the enemy, especially if they try to keep formation. It has been said many times that in premodern battles the routing army suffered most casualties in the pursuit, but it is misleading, most casualties were not kia´s but Mia´s, and a good number, depending on circunstances, could return to the ranks after days, or even weeks after a battle.
So, IMO it would be perfectly sound historically to stop the attacking unit in the place vacated by the routed unit, but of course such a radical change should be examined carefully because of its impact on how the game is played.

[TheGrayMouser]

There not too many things in this game that are way out of bounds for realism. On thing however, I would like to be tweeked a bit is Infantry chasing cavalry
This happens when cavalry defeat an opponent and for the next two to five turns (plus the turn they stop pursuit but cant move), infantry(that are kiels) can vector in on the "helpless" cavalry and destroy them w rear or flank hits. The Ai is particulary good at this!. It is effective but I just cringe when a victorious gendarme or Miller unit is stalked by a big pike and shot unit and then destroyed.

A rule that NO INFANTRY unit can impact charge a cavalry unit in "pursuit mode" would be a great additional After all, a cavalry unit chasing a routed cavalry unit or even a fleeing unit of infantry whom have dropped all their gear, would both be moving a heck of a lot faster than any large kiel, I just cant imagine such a formation holding to attempt such a feat.

[TimW]

I don't think Vietnam War ammunition usage/casualty rates are much help at all in the 16th and 17th century. Far too many changes in military technology and consequently tactics for any meaningful comparison.

As for trying to intimidate the enemy, blocks of thousands of oncoming merciless Swiss, advancing swiftly accompanied by what a contemporary called "the deep wails and moans of the Uri Bull and Unterwalden Cow*" or landsknechts chanting "look out, here I come" in time with their drums were posturing on a grand scale. Not to mention what 8 ranks of lowered pike-heads looked like when viewed from the receiving end...

*two instruments said to have been made from the horns of the now extinct aurochs.

[TimW]

The Ai is particulary good at this!

Isn't it just. I'm sure I've actually seen the AI manoeuvre units ready in anticipation to hit one of mine in flank and rear when it wins a melee and pursues.

If I've a gripe with P&S it's over pursuit. The tendency of units to go racing into the midst of the enemy actually makes it more dangerous to win a melee against the AI than lose it much of the time.

While entire brigades or even wings of an army might pursue a broken enemy for a considerable distance I'm less convinced that a single regiment would go roaring off in pursuit into the middle of thousands of the enemy after a single enemy regiment or that a single enemy breaking would result in multiple regiments haring after it while the vast bulk of the enemy around them remained in good order. Or that they'd end up with their rear facing one unbroken enemy and another to each flank.

Well I suppose they might do it once. But after taking 100% casualties as a consequence they'd never get the chance to do it a second time.

I'm also highly suspicious that the AI works out during the first turn of melee how it will end, then uses the turns between the charge and rout to position multiple units to catch the pursuers >:-)

[rbodleyscott]

I'm also highly suspicious that the AI works out during the first turn of melee how it will end, then uses the turns between the charge and rout to position multiple units to catch the pursuers >:-)

There is nothing to stop a player doing this. The AI has not been programmed to do it, so when it happens it is by chance.

[TheGrayMouser]

Going on a tangient, but something I think many would like to see is multiple opponent multiplayer ie 2x2 team play. Would be great for tournaments and campaigns(especially campaigns, a big conundrum in any campaign is what if 2 players/allies combine forces "invade a province" with two different armies... Really no way resolve this except to fight 2 seperate battles, maybe average the results etc... every solution is of course very abstract.)

[KateMicucci]

If I've a gripe with P&S it's over pursuit. The tendency of units to go racing into the midst of the enemy actually makes it more dangerous to win a melee against the AI than lose it much of the time.

This is the most annoying/frustrating thing about the game. Sisak is especially bad about this, where you can use the exact same tactics and either end up defeated or winning 40%-0% depending on whether you get screwed by pursuit and flank charges.

Maybe routers should be dispersed more frequently in crowded conditions. So perhaps if they ever have to make more than a 45' turn to continue running, they are dispersed. Thus protecting the pursuing unit a bit from opening up its flank to the reserves.

I've also observed cav maneuvering around another enemy unit directly in front of it in order to continue chasing routers, exposing its flank to a charge. In pretty much every case I think that it would be better to charge the new enemy, whatever type it is, rather than get charged in the flank.

[Hoplite39]

I've had P&S on the iPad for a while now and am quite enjoying it. I have played the tutorial, but haven't done the campaign, which in effects just seems to be more a series of challenges with a history lesson than a campaign in its true sense.

I prefer to play smallish skirmish battles. I really love the introduction of Tercio to Salvo which opens up the possibilities (although that brings up limitations which I'll mention later). The fact that I can play as the Ottoman Turks or the Russians really adds to the value of the game. It's great to fight hypothetical battles. For example, I fought a battle between Spanish and English imaging that the Spanish Armada landed successfully. It's good the game allows such possibilities.

Also, as a Scot, it's great to be able to play a Scots army. I am surprised there is not some sort of Irish rebel army, even if the army composition is made up. It's not something I'm desperate for, but I bet others would like it.

After playing a few tutorials, I noticed a few quirks and possible improvements. None are game breaking, and some are cosmetic.

1. Army options in skirmish battles - I feel the selection should be more flexible to allow battles between armies who would normally fight each other. For example, when I selected the Otoman Turks, it is not possible to select either Russians or Transylvanians as their enemies, armies I imagine they would normally fight. On the other hand, they can fight Scots Covenanters; an interesting match up, but much less likely than Turks vs Russians. So it would be good if there was more flexibility here.

2. No draws in Skirmish - I recently fought a battled where my army was 60% routed and the enemy 64% routed. At the end, the game said I lost, but technically it was a draw as in effect both sides lost. So it would be nice if the game allowed for draws. I appreciate that there is no draws in the campaign where you either win or don't in the challenge. But for a skirmish, a draw result makes sense. In fact, I see a draw like in Rugby. They are rare, but can happen.

3 Defensive positions - I was disappointed that I cannot place defensive positions in a defence skirmish. The positions are fixed for you. Currently, the defender receives defensive structures fixed by the game plus points to spend (that are much less than the attacker). An alternative system would be to allow the defender to have the same points as the attacker, but to enable him to spend points on a defensive structures. I realise this is more than just a cosmetic change as it involves development, but if it could be done, it would be a welcome improvement.

4. More armies - I am in favour of having as many armies as possible. I already mentioned Irish rebels. But you could also have Portuguese, Catalans rebels, moors, etc. Believe me, people will buy the game just to be able to play their country/region. I posted a screenshot of a Scots army on Twitter and I immediately got some queries from a couple of Scots followers who were interested just because they could play as Scots.

5. Generic militia/rebel/Indian armies - It would be useful to have the option to fight as or against a low quality/high quantity army. It may not be interesting for some, but for those who wish to simulate and/or role-play a campaign, such an option could be interesting. I would envisage that rebel militias would only be allowed to pitch cheaper untried units with no armour. Indians would not have fire arms or cavalry. Alternatively, you could allow gamers to create armies using an army editor from units already available. That would be another way to solve the issue.

Anyway, these are just my initial observations.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks for your suggestions.