Page 1 of 2
Split Shooting
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:31 pm
by spikemesq
I wonder whether forcing shooters to split their fire for the net result of no shooting makes sense. The familiar scene is a BG of 4 LH that has two targets in arc/range. Of course, the BG gets only one die per target, leaving no shots and often suffering return fire.
Although I understand that this tactic is legit and do not think this is "broken," the current treatment of split shooting strikes me as somewhat gimmicky and, in that respect, out of step with the general feel of the FoG rules. Of course under RAW, the answer is don't get your LH isolated, but even peeling off dice at the end of a line strikes me as a bit too effective.
Wouldn't make sense to have an exception to target priority that permitted the shooter to preserve otherwise lost shooting dice against a target that is also in arc and range? Basically, if a shooter's primary target will not be affected by it's shooting, that shooter can contribute to another valid target within arc/range.
Spike
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:16 pm
by hammy
The current shooting rule has the advantage of simplicity. Allowing a choice of target is not right at the scale of the game IMO.
Having bases that would not have an in game impact shoot elsewhere feels really odd.
Imagine a bunch of light archers being advanced on by a bunch of slingers and another bunch of javelinmen. Would a third of the archers ignore the slingers in front of them to shoot at the javelinmen just because it might cause a cohesion test?
There will always be a cut off point where shooting becomes ineffective.
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:54 pm
by spikemesq
hammy wrote:
Imagine a bunch of light archers being advanced on by a bunch of slingers and another bunch of javelinmen. Would a third of the archers ignore the slingers in front of them to shoot at the javelinmen just because it might cause a cohesion test?
True, but imagine the same bunch of archers facing slingers and spearmen. Would a third of the shooters plink at the spearmen instead of returning fire?
Splitting the four LH is probably the most frustrating, though. All things being equal, 40mm shift reduces their chance to causing test as effectively as turning them sideways.
Also, under the range before arc priority, clipping shooters can get pretty gamey where a closer enemy can dip a toe into your field of fire just enough to split your shooting and make everyone safe from it.
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 pm
by madaxeman
I've always understood it as a mechanic to reduce the effect of shooting generally - as in "shooting dice always round down against the interests of the shooters". It's a bit clunky, but shooting is also a bit good even with this fudge so I can't see why you'd want to power it up again
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:57 pm
by kal5056
The original "Party Line" was "Only expect shooting to help cause cohesion tests. Not casualties" I beleive this was stated some where in the introduction to shooting in the rules. It has been my experience however that after over 120 games that shooting can be MUCH more effective than this (especially against Average Battle Groups). I have frequently been on both sides of seeing battle groups quickly reduced to auto break from shooting.
If anything I am of the opinion that shooting is a bit over powered (not by much mind you).
Any rule that empowered missle troops even more would quickly throw the game out of balance.
Mind you I run Ottomans with a large block of Jannisarries.
Gino
SMAC
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:42 am
by marioslaz
kal5056 wrote:The original "Party Line" was "Only expect shooting to help cause cohesion tests. Not casualties" I beleive this was stated some where in the introduction to shooting in the rules. It has been my experience however that after over 120 games that shooting can be MUCH more effective than this (especially against Average Battle Groups). I have frequently been on both sides of seeing battle groups quickly reduced to auto break from shooting.
If anything I am of the opinion that shooting is a bit over powered (not by much mind you).
Any rule that empowered missle troops even more would quickly throw the game out of balance.
Mind you I run Ottomans with a large block of Jannisarries.
Gino
SMAC
I think this affirmation "Only expect shooting to help cause cohesion tests. Not casualties" depends on historical period. This is true for most armies in Europe up to Medieval age, where you don't see many bows or similar weapons. A totally different situation you have in East war theatres, where bow is in many cases the primary weapon.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:20 pm
by dave_r
Didn't cause many actual casualties though did they?
Certainly not against Western Knights.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:35 pm
by lawrenceg
dave_r wrote:Didn't cause many actual casualties though did they?
Certainly not against Western Knights.
In general, there is plenty of evidence that shooting causes a lot more casualties and less degradation in cohesion than hand-to-hand combat.
This has certainly been true since Napoleonic times, when rates of fire were slower and accuracy less than bows.
However, it is much quicker to degrade cohesion in hand-to-hand combat than to inflict casualties by shooting.
Also IMO the loss of a base in FOG is really just another kind of cohesion loss, not necessarily actual casualties. 4 bases of Superior knights would flee the field long before 3/4 of them have been killed.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:47 pm
by dave_r
In general, there is plenty of evidence that shooting causes a lot more casualties and less degradation in cohesion than hand-to-hand combat.
That isn't the question being asked though is it?
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 4:25 pm
by lawrenceg
dave_r wrote:In general, there is plenty of evidence that shooting causes a lot more casualties and less degradation in cohesion than hand-to-hand combat.
That isn't the question being asked though is it?
The answer is:
It makes no sense that the cumulative degradation inflicted over time by shooting is heavily dependent on the positions of boundaries between, and the sizes of, arbitrary groupings of troops.
Spike's suggestion would make sense.
Spike's suggestion may also shift play balance too far in favour of shooters.
IMO The existing rules get approximately the right results in the vast majority of cases (if you consider "absolutely no effect" approximately the same as "almost certainly no effect").
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:10 pm
by dave_r
It makes no sense that the cumulative degradation inflicted over time by shooting is heavily dependent on the positions of boundaries between, and the sizes of, arbitrary groupings of troops.
Actually, I think it does. People have a tendency to shoot at that which is going to endanger them most in the shortest time space. Mounted Archers don't think "If we all shoot at them over there they might break and then we can concentrate on that lot over there"
Given most Ancient Warfare didn't have gaps between units they just had a battle line with distinct units in the middle (or not as the case may be) so they wouldn't know a unit boundary anyway.
In reality they would be just firing at the nearest target. Which is what the rules say.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:42 pm
by MarkSieber
I've played a number of battles where skirmishers with bows/slings/javelins did not do any shooting damage because their fire got split up, but they were still performing their role to delay the advance or stop second moves or try to tempt out impact foot, which seems to represent them well.
With medium foot shooters it's more frustrating to see the split reduce them below effectiveness, but also a matter of deployment--they can get extra dice by ganging up in the right way, since the dropped dice come from the total number of bases and not per BG.
Where I've seen shooting completely wasted is with *Bow and sometime Bow cavalry. My Nikephorian cavalry rarely has any effect shooting and I've wondered if a better representation would be in the impact phase, perhaps as a plus. I'm not actually advocating this radical a change to the rules, but the function of those bow armed ranks seems to get lost.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:50 pm
by lawrenceg
dave_r wrote:It makes no sense that the cumulative degradation inflicted over time by shooting is heavily dependent on the positions of boundaries between, and the sizes of, arbitrary groupings of troops.
Actually, I think it does. People have a tendency to shoot at that which is going to endanger them most in the shortest time space. Mounted Archers don't think "If we all shoot at them over there they might break and then we can concentrate on that lot over there"
Given most Ancient Warfare didn't have gaps between units they just had a battle line with distinct units in the middle (or not as the case may be) so they wouldn't know a unit boundary anyway.
In reality they would be just firing at the nearest target. Which is what the rules say.
Consider this example:
Code: Select all
WWWXXXYYYZZZ 4 BG of 6 protected hoplites together in a battleline
HH 1 BG of 4 LH
Chance of causing a test on some hoplites = zero.
WWWXXXYYYZZZ 4 BG of 6 hoplites together in a battleline
HH 1 BG of 4 LH
Chance of causing a test on some hoplites = 25%.
WWWWXXXXYYYY 3 BG of 8 protected hoplites together in a battleline
HH 1 BG of 4 LH
Chance of causing a test on some hoplites = zero.
In reality, it is just a long line of hoplites, part of which is subjected to a certain amount of firepower with the same effect regardless of which part of the line gets shot at. But the result of shooting in the game depends drastically on where that boundary between one arbitrary BG and the next is relative to the LH.
Now, are you saying that this is the correct historical result?
Yes, the FOG targeting rules give the historical target, but the historical target does not give the correct overall historical effect.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:19 pm
by dave_r
You are using an ahistorical example to try and prove that in FoG shooting doesn't work historically.
In history there would likely be a big line of stuff (likely skirmishing horse archers if there was at least some of them) so ALL the BG's would get peppered.
Can you name me one instance where a single lone unit of LH has attacked an enemy line 9 times it's width?
Surprisingly, if you use ahistorical tactics you will get ahistorical results.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:58 pm
by lawrenceg
dave_r wrote:You are using an ahistorical example to try and prove that in FoG shooting doesn't work historically.
In history there would likely be a big line of stuff (likely skirmishing horse archers if there was at least some of them) so ALL the BG's would get peppered.
Can you name me one instance where a single lone unit of LH has attacked an enemy line 9 times it's width?
Surprisingly, if you use ahistorical tactics you will get ahistorical results.
No, but if it was, say, the one BG of 6 LF in the Hellenistic Greek starter army up against some 8 HF Bgs in the Galatian starter army, are you saying it would be ahistorical? Or the 1 BG of 4 MF Bow allowed in a battleline of Western Dominate Roman Auxilia against some barbarians? Or simply an 8 LF matched against two 8LFs in any period where there is a lot of LF?
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:37 pm
by madaxeman
dave_r wrote:Can you name me one instance where a single lone unit of LH has attacked an enemy line 9 times it's width?.
Er, it seems to happen in every fricking game in which I've had the misfortune to play you and your abomination of a a Skythian army ?
And the worst thing is that the scurvy dogs on horseback always manage to evade away as well, no matter how many units I try and throw at them, whether its 1, 9 or 90 !!!
tim
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:26 am
by marioslaz
lawrenceg wrote:In general, there is plenty of evidence that shooting causes a lot more casualties and less degradation in cohesion than hand-to-hand combat.
I have no data about, but I feel this is right. Anyway, we should think a while about the concept of "casualty". Shooting casualty is a man dead or with a serious wound. Hand-to-hand casualty, besides dead and wounded, is also a man with his weapon broken, or dead tired, etc.
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:37 am
by marioslaz
lawrenceg wrote:
Consider this example:
[...]
Your example is right and wrong at the same time.
It's right because indeed this is what happens with FOG rules.
It's wrong because historically if you had a so small number of skirmishers you would have used them in another way, or you could just expect they triggered some reaction in opponent ranks, as for CMT rules by shock troops to not charge in FOG.
In conclusion, I feel skirmishers are very well depicted in FOG. I add also skirmishers' role in FOG has been the first rule of FOG that impressed me favourably.
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 5:30 pm
by shall
Although I understand that this tactic is legit and do not think this is "broken," the current treatment of split shooting strikes me as somewhat gimmicky and, in that respect, out of step with the general feel of the FoG rules. Of course under RAW, the answer is don't get your LH isolated, but even peeling off dice at the end of a line strikes me as a bit too effective.
Wouldn't make sense to have an exception to target priority that permitted the shooter to preserve otherwise lost shooting dice against a target that is also in arc and range? Basically, if a shooter's primary target will not be affected by it's shooting, that shooter can contribute to another valid target within arc/range.
Its called "next go" ..
Generally if my shooting gets split by a good move then I will remove the split next time. This gives 3 scenarios ... no split, split for a move and recover, split several bounds. The latter is rare in practice unless the shooter is in a mess. So not soemthing that bothers me really - I actually think that far from broken its very realisticwhe thought of over several bounds.
Si
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 5:53 pm
by Skullzgrinda
dave_r wrote:You are using an ahistorical example to try and prove that in FoG shooting doesn't work historically.
In history there would likely be a big line of stuff (likely skirmishing horse archers if there was at least some of them) so ALL the BG's would get peppered.
Can you name me one instance where a single lone unit of LH has attacked an enemy line 9 times it's width?
Surprisingly, if you use ahistorical tactics you will get ahistorical results.
The Little Bighorn. The attack failed.