Slitherine

I am just trying to sort out my Western Han Chinese (Don't mention rebasing or lack of any superior troops for generals such as Pan Chao). Looking at the army list am I correct in thinking that average mixed close combat/crossbow units should be 6-32 bases whilst if you have separately deployed close combat troops & crosssbow armed foot they each have total bases 6-32 bases?

Nope, you get 6-32 of the HW guys and 6-32 of the crossbow whether or not they are in combined BGs. Loads of rebasing however you field them

Thanks for the quick reply Nick, as for the rebasing it is probably on hold I have played a couple of outings against their traditional nomad foes using what I take to be their traditional tactics of holding the line with infantry prior to counter attacking with Cavalry with poor results ( I still think that they should be armoured Heavy Infantry to deal with Cavalry bow fire especially if not in mixed units). As very few people I know have asian armies I will have to stick to my Syracusan's , Sassanid Persians (lets not start on the missing heavy infantry debate for this army) and Principate Romans .

jonphilp wrote:Thanks for the quick reply Nick, as for the rebasing it is probably on hold

To be honest as in FoG base depth is less important you could easily use HF sized bases - if there are no HF in the army it get hard to confuse them with anything

I have played a couple of outings against their traditional nomad foes using what I take to be their traditional tactics of holding the line with infantry prior to counter attacking with Cavalry with poor results ( I still think that they should be armoured Heavy Infantry to deal with Cavalry bow fire especially if not in mixed units).

Being HF or MF makes no difference to resisting bows.

Mixed HW and Crossbows in 8 should be reasonably resilient to missile fire. Sure if someone masses 8 bases of superior cavalry against them that can do some damage, but then they aer committing 36-38 AP a file to take on 14 or so of yours, meaning your cavalry are free elsewhere to cause equal amounts of havoc.

True about resisting bow fire if armoured, but when cavalry/lancers charge into MI in the open it tends to be an another story. Unfortunatly with the terrain placement rules how often do you get the center of the battlefield covered by non open terrain. I am investing in a multitude of portable defences.

Last thing you really want is too much terrain as it stops people coming and fighting you. As for obstacles I think the same applies to the Han as it does to the English longbow armies - you're better off without them as only a real idiot will charge mounted over them and you should beat them anyway

Hi Nick,

You should meet Dave from our club. All his cavalry can do is charge, sometimes with surprising results.

jonphilp wrote:Hi Nick,

You should meet Dave from our club. All his cavalry can do is charge, sometimes with surprising results.

Every club has one of those

Shouldn't there be some allowance for foot archers as well as crossbows in his army?

I know the premise for the start date is the massed use of crossbows, but it seems to me that the changeover was unlikely to be very sudden.
I believe the terracotta army, some 140 years after the start date for this list, has archers as well as crossbows.

Shouldn't there be (as a minimum) an option for the LI to be bow or crossbow, or for some of the poor quality troops to be bow armed instead od crossbow?

By their nature army lists enforce artificial break points and these are often arbitrary. This avoids over flexibility and helps create the character of an army at a particular period. The accounts we have from this period are clear that the crossbow was the missile weapon and that is what is reflected in the list - you can always assume some bow armed troops in there (as IIRC we mention for the Tang) but the effect is that of crossbows

nikgaukroger wrote:By their nature army lists enforce artificial break points and these are often arbitrary. This avoids over flexibility

Unless you are Roman.......

nikgaukroger wrote:The accounts we have from this period are clear that the crossbow was the missile weapon and that is what is reflected in the list

This is true and fair enough, it's just unfortunate that the crossbow has been severely nerfed under FoG. In putting together Chinese lists I'm trying to use the cheapest possible crossbow options to make up the compulsory numbers (and use them to skulk around the camp), unless they are in the mixed battlegroup of course, where using the armoured option strikes me as being quite useful!

nikgaukroger wrote:- you can always assume some bow armed troops in there (as IIRC we mention for the Tang) but the effect is that of crossbows

Yes, pretending my considerable numbers of Chinese archer figures are crossbows brings them back into employment - just hope my opponents don't get too confused!

Intothevalley wrote: This is true and fair enough, it's just unfortunate that the crossbow has been severely nerfed under FoG.

I have come back around on crossbows, against cavalry they are fine.

ethan wrote:

Intothevalley wrote: This is true and fair enough, it's just unfortunate that the crossbow has been severely nerfed under FoG.

I have come back around on crossbows, against cavalry they are fine.

And against Elephants they can be devastating, as my elephants found out last week

ethan wrote:

Intothevalley wrote: This is true and fair enough, it's just unfortunate that the crossbow has been severely nerfed under FoG.

I have come back around on crossbows, against cavalry they are fine.

Yeah I've found that they're very useful against mounted, but except vs heavily armoured knights and Cats they are no better than bows, and much worse against all foot. So, IMO they are much less flexible - I'm happy to use 1 BG of drilled Xbows so I can deploy them behind the main battle line and then move them to where they might be needed, but if they're in the line then they might end up facing enemy foot, which equals easy AP to my opponent.

Nik wrote

'Every club has one of those'. Is that a Dave, or an idiot who charges cavalry at everything...?