Slitherine

Just curious about what people think about the Longbows and stakes. Are they worth 61 points in general or do you need special situations to justify. As Burgundians, I used some against the fairly heavily armored late French and in that matchup, I am not convinced they were worth 61 points. Just not inflicting enough casualties.

Longbowmen with stakes are most effective when in a strong defensive position with the rest of their army, protected from flanking, as the Continental English tend to use them irl. Their shooting rate is very good in game (even against targets in woods), so more aggressive stance is possible imo, even if less effective.
Stakes give them a very good protection from mounted Men-at-arms (MAA) who often bounce off which gives longbowmen several opportunities/turns to shoot at the same target.

History shows that when those longbowmen didn't have time to place stakes or were flank-charged, they were crushed, while when they were in a strong defensive position, they were almost invulnerable to mounted MAA. I think the game shows that too.

I'd say that both in game and irl, their strength comes above all from the protection given by their stakes (and the terrain).

Once protected, their good shooting rate does the job.

So imho their cost is fine.

9 points is quite a bit for stakes that may or may not actually be used; the unit is in fact 63pts. I think a good measure of whether such units are worth their current cost will be to monitor how the English with stakes armies do in the Hundred Years War tournament.

If players have trouble playing English with stakes, it is not the cost of the longbowmen that must be reduced but the width of the map (like in SP with AI English). Especially as terrain have a high impact on the performance of this army. And the other side must accept to attack.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:12 pm If players have trouble playing English with stakes, it is not the cost of the longbowmen that must be reduced but the width of the map (like in SP with AI English). Especially as terrain have a high impact on the performance of this army. And the other side must accept to attack.

Sure, players must use terrain well, and defensive play is a necessity. But 63 is expensive, and I hardly think dropping them to 60 if they prove too difficult to use would be a big deal from an immersion standpoint.

I think that, if a human player can't do well with English with stakes against either another player or AI, it might be because the standard map is too wide for defensive play and allows enemy flanking too easily.

Of course, you could lower the cost of the longbowmen so that that player could buy more of them (and more of dismounted MAA, etc.).

But without changing their cost, the narrow maps for AI playing e.g. the English with stakes show that narrowing the maps works very well in this situation. And this is logical : irl to fight in a defensive position, the English couldn't lower the cost of their troops in a snap of fingers, instead they chose the location of their battles so that enemy flanking was not easy, even impossible. This is in this situation that longbowmen are useful. Moreover, imho lowering the cost of these longbowmen in game is not logical as one unit of them is potentially much stronger than a unit of mounted MAA that costs 70+ points. If you lowered the cost of longbowmen and thus allow more of them, you would not only add more stakes (which would be a good thing in a standard map) but you'd also add more shooting power which the English don't need.

So, if human players have trouble playing the English with stakes in MP (or against AI), my suggestion is first to try narrowing maps in advanced options (see red square) before thinking of changing their cost :



Maybe for casual gamers who wouldn't know where the advanced settings are, "narrow" maps and "very narrow" maps should be available (where the blue square is) ?

Btw I guess this discussion about defensive play with English with stakes won't help much in the case described in OP : what do you do when you have only a couple of longbowmen with stakes among a more offensive army (with mounted units), such as the Burgundian after 1415 or the French after 1445... I for one would say that you must be as cautious with them as with bowmen without stakes. But stakes is a plus for protection when you need it. Imho they are in game less useful and less effective in these lists than in the English lists where they are numerous and can/must be deployed in a defensive position. This lower efficiency in offensive stance is historical. I for one don't take many of them when playing the French after 1445. It of course also depends on the terrain.

(edit)
Moreover lowering the cost of the longbows might unbalance SP with narrow maps for AI playing the English with stakes or such.

(edit 2)
Note that the very narrow maps for AI playing the English with stakes or such were improved for this situation (compared to the plain ones you'll use for example in MP) by the addition of terrain to either side of the map at the level of the fortifications, this terrain being mountains in mountainous maps, marsh in marshy maps, and forest in other maps. And the extra Marsh and Forest terrain has a 50% chance on each flank of being impassable :