Are English Longbowmen underpowered?

[jamespcrowley]

The English archer in this period of history was pretty much at the top of his game, comparatively.

And yet, for the most part only rated average, he has no real advantage over any other archers and cannot, under almost any circumstances, produce anything akin to an arrow storm. With, usually only a maximum of two hits before being charged, more often than not most of the damage they do is in melee.

I have not used or been abused by the Swiss but it is not hard to see why they have the opportunity to do so well, being able to field an almost total superior BG based army. I would suggest that the English bowman was in every way as steadfast and professional as any Swiss soldier of the time, on a man to man basis. Not sure if they met in any significant numbers but am inclined to believe that the English, if able tp properly deliver a storm of arrows, would give the Swiss a very hard time indeed. In FoG, as it stands, it would seem they have no real chance in anything other, maybe, than the densest of terrain.

Assuming missile fire gets quality re-rolls (?), having superior English archers might have some chance of being closer to their historical counter-parts.

[deeter]

Oddly enough, for a game called Storm of Arrows, all bowmen seem pretty impotent.

Deeter

[Paisley]

Longbow/sword medium foot do well against the Swiss so long as the Swiss are very disordered. So yeah, you need the terrain really. A straight charge over open ground will see the English routed sooner or later (even if they do well at impact). Now I'm not certain that's unhistorical as the Swiss moved fast over the ground and successfully dealt with longbow-heavy armies.

That said, I do think missile ranges are maybe a tad short. An extra hex or two for bows and crossbows might not be amiss.

[TheGrayMouser]

Wow, so many different experiances in this game!

I am getting slaughtered by masses of longbowmen...
I think that is the key, you really need a lot of them to achieve a Storm...
My gripe is they are too poweful in impact and melee, (and i do recognize the 6 dice they get represents point blank fire) When charged in the open by good going Knights, they more often than not take the impact w/o disorder and then tie up a expensive unit for 2-3 turns before they rout, only to have to face the next one.
I think english amies of the time were like 8 parts archers, 2 parts men at arms.... Convert over to FOG terms and that is really a lot of archer BG's...

[Paisley]

I do well with Lancastrians with almost maxed archers so long as they are in maxed terrain. I have 16 retinue, 8 Welsh and northern, and a 12 town and country at 600pts.

[jamespcrowley]

I'm not playing the nationalist card here, because I'm Irish, but rating the English Longbowman 'average', compared to a 'superior' cuckoo-clocker (no disrespect to any Swiss in the house) seems wrong to me.

No doubt some one will tell me that is how it is in the TT rules but, that being the case, I think they are wrong as well.

I recently massacred an English army with an Irish one and now the roles are reversed, I can see just how impotent the archers really are.

The problem here is that once players are familiar with the armies on offer, competitive players will not choose armies like the English because they only have a chance in certain limited terrain. Instead they will choose armies like Swiss (which seems way over the top at almost 100% superior) and we will end up with endless games of only a few army types - which will become very boring.

[Paisley]

I'm not Swiss, but I think their record speaks for itself. Rating their heavies as anything less than all superior in the SoA timespan would be a travesty. They were undefeated in the era and were prepared to take staggering casualties.

I'm unbeaten with Lancastrians as well as Swiss by the way, though I have played fewer games with them. And I've been badly beaten as Danes, Scots and various other nationalities.

I'm more than happy (see my other thread) to see Swiss cost more points, or to take a voluntary point handicap. But even as things stand, there's no shortage of people wanting to take a crack at the Swiss to see if they can win.

As I say, I think missile troops might be beefed a bit in range perhaps. But I'm not convinced that rating English archers as superior is merited.

I should add, I have beaten Swiss (narrowly) with my Lancastrians.

[deeter]

Paisley, I didn't think you knew how to build any army other than Swiss?

On the TT, losses are taken in whole bases. If a unit takes a lot of hits and rolls poorly, a base goes away. This can be quite common with a shooty army. On the PC, each hit is converted to a dice roll for losses. That's where things break down, I think. I can deliver a very accurate volley, but the random dice often deliver very few casualties. Yes, it's possible get 8 hits from one shot, but not very common.

In melee, though, losses in the double didgets are more the norm. That's why I rely on the swords my bowmen carry, not their bows.

Deeter

[Paisley]

I like Swiss becasue their army is pleasingly symmetrical when it takes the field.

My understanding from the tabletop threads is that people recommend longbow armies max out on longbows if at all possible, advice I followed with my Lancastrians (dubious as I was over the merits of poor quality longbows - but they do okay so long as they mass fire on one target and are in terrain. One even routed a Swiss pike in melee).

I do agree though that the missile fire could do with a wee boost, and the most obvious thing to me is to extend range to allow anothe rturns worth of shooting.

[SRW1962]

An English longbowman would knock seven sorts of s@#/ out of a Swiss pikeman if they had to get to grips with each other, it would be like matching Hulk Hogan against Brad Pitt. These men were abnormally strong and compared to modern men they would seem superhuman because of their upper body strength.

Consider this, a modern longbow has a draw weight of less than 60lb (27kg approx), their longbows had a draw weight almost 3 times this of 160-180lb (73-82kg approx) which is absolutely phenomenal! I weigh 16.5 stone or 230lb (105kg) and I consider myself very muscular and very strong with 18" arms and a 48" chest (and no I don't take steroids, okay I did last year but that was only as part of my chemotherapy regime) and yet there is no way in hell I could draw a bow with a pull like that. I don't know anyone who could and I know some really big guys who have been professional wrestlers and involved in strong man competions etc. and neither could they do that, these longbowmen must have been built like gorillas!

At Agincourt despite suffering from the effects of malnutrition and dysentery these guys fought the cream of French nobility and killed most of them in melee with basically daggers and hand weapons against fully armoured knights with polearms and spears. Okay the French had their own problems with the mud and cramping etc but its still no mean feat to accomplish and they were outnumbered by at least 2-1 (or more likely 4-1) even at the most conservative of estimates. How would the Swiss have fared in the same situation or how would they have fared if they had the French positions and numbers in an Agincourt type scenario, I think not very well. It wasn't just the bowfire it was the physical attributes of the English using it that made them very tough to beat (thats why they should always get the swordsmen ability and probably be superior too) and its why they were so highly prized (or feared).

[RyanDG]

An English longbowman would knock seven sorts of s@#/ out of a Swiss pikeman if they had to get to grips with each other, it would be like matching Hulk Hogan against Brad Pitt. These men were abnormally strong and compared to modern men they would seem superhuman because of their upper body strength.

Consider this, a modern longbow has a draw weight of less than 60lb (27kg approx), their longbows had a draw weight almost 3 times this of 160-180lb (73-82kg approx) which is absolutely phenomenal! I weigh 16.5 stone or 230lb (105kg) and I consider myself very muscular and very strong with 18" arms and a 48" chest (and no I don't take steroids, okay I did last year but that was only as part of my chemotherapy regime) and yet there is no way in hell I could draw a bow with a pull like that. I don't know anyone who could and I know some really big guys who have been professional wrestlers and involved in strong man competions etc. and neither could they do that, these longbowmen must have been built like gorillas!

At Agincourt despite suffering from the effects of malnutrition and dysentery these guys fought the cream of French nobility and killed most of them in melee with basically daggers and hand weapons against fully armoured knights with polearms and spears. Okay the French had their own problems with the mud and cramping etc but its still no mean feat to accomplish and they were outnumbered by at least 2-1 (or more likely 4-1) even at the most conservative of estimates. How would the Swiss have fared in the same situation or how would they have fared if they had the French positions and numbers in an Agincourt type scenario, I think not very well. It wasn't just the bowfire it was the physical attributes of the English using it that made them very tough to beat (thats why they should always get the swordsmen ability and probably be superior too) and its why they were so highly prized (or feared).

You sound like an English apologist.

[SRW1962]

maybe I am

[jamespcrowley]

My purpose in starting this thread was less to start a Swiss-bashing debate than to find a way to promote the English longbow man to his correct historical position and, in consequence, allow the English army to be the extremely viable and highly regarded entity that it was.

This can only be achieved, I believe, by allowing the real possibility of a 'storm of arrows' - something that was a historically verified aspect of the English army of the period and something that cannot happen in the current iteration of FoG.

This is because the English longbow man has the same, very limited, opportunity to obtain hits as any other longbow unit. Assuming that the 'to hit' numbers are the same as the TT - 4,5 and 6 without PoAs - then the maximum three dice each only have a 50/50 chance. So, after 25 -30 longbow BGs have fired a ‘mild shower’ of arrows, you are lucky to have got one or two disruptions at best and this will generally be repeated for a second shot and a third, if that is still possible. Instead of being melee’d by a largely disrupted force, as often happened historically, the opposition is, by and large, untouched.
The only solutions to this, as far as I can see, are one or more of the following:
• Increase longbow range by at least one hex
• Make retinue longbow men superior so that they benefit from quality re-rolls on a 1
• Give longbows a +1 POA in any event, with the existing PoAs kicking-in as listed.
Without change, the English army is effectively emasculated.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey Jim, I still think the key is what made the English superior in many of these battles was really how they used their army and the shear #'s of bowmen. The longbow, although powerful, was not a secret weapon and other countries used it as well... The problem that these countries had is they were never able , for a variety of reasons, mostly social , to raise large quantities of bowmen...
Even used in mass, i dont think the longbow would have really impressed say , middle eastern , or eatern armies , as they had equivilently powerful weapons... Also it was the crosbow that kept the Arab, Tukish horse archers etc at bay

I would have no problem with Lonbows getting a litle more edge in missle combat, although I dont agree w adding to the range. Making them superior would give them way too much staying power in melee and impact combat, I think they are too good in that respect as it stands now.

[Paisley]

I'm aware one could carp at various assumptions in the below theoretical example but, on the whole, I think it gives someting solid to at least argue from): do you thing a roughly 30% chance of forcing a heavily armoured man at arms into disruption before contact (and remember there's then defensive fire too) is too little?

Let's say the longbows are against foot men at arms and lack 'terrain'. There's no reason for them then not to fire at 5 hexes (because they can advance at no detriment to ensure that) range and so they get two shots before the man at arms hits home. Let's say the man at arms is a 15pter. Therefore three longbows fire at 2 men at arms (in theory I know there will be exceptions). So you get 1.5x2 shots = 3 shots. They get 3 dice at - PoA (assuming heavy armour) per shot. each dice hits on 5 or 6

You need 2 hits to force a cohesion test.

3 dice at 1/3 chance will score 2 hits 5/9 of the time or about 55% of the time.

Let's say 50% because that makes it easier for the maths and downplays the bows a bit

That gives 3x50% chance of a cohesion test.

So no cohesion test 1/9 times
one cohesion test 3/9 times
two cohesion tests 4/9 times
three cohesion tests 1/9 times.

Let's assume that the unit gets +1 for being in command and another +1 for rear support. So it fails cohesion 1/6 of the time. In the event of three hits it gets a -1 to the test so we'll just say there will be an average of 2 cohesion tests (as the modal value).

It will pass both tests 25/36 times.or about 70% of the time.

So the longbows have only a 30% chance of disrupting the heavily armoured man at arms on the approach (roughly).

[RyanDG]

Without change, the English army is effectively emasculated.

I disagree - with proper use of terrain, the English army is still a highly effective unit. I called SRW an English apologist above, but I think it bears repeating. The English longbow, while an effective tactic, is often times over romaticized for the period (especially for English speaking cultures who have grown up on Henry V). As it stands now, the longbowmen in game require proper use of terrain and tactics in order to remain effective - which historically speaking - was the way it was. The longbowmen had a huge disadvantage and that was that while being a highly mobile force, they were limited to terrain considerations to be used at their full potential. If the terrain was less than idea, the longbowmen were pretty much a non-issue in most confrontations. I was a bit on ends with the longbowmen at first when I first started playing storm of arrows, but after a bit more time and beginning to recognize certain things I'm starting to feel that the current in game version of the longbow is about as effective as I would like it to be.

Against mounted knight/horse based armies, the longbow is extremely deadly - especially with stakes. However, against footed, drilled and mobile armies (such as the Swiss) the Longbow is going to suffer substatially unless terrain is heavily in their favor. I think this is the way it should be.

[jamespcrowley]

Hey Jim, I still think the key is what made the English superior in many of these battles was really how they used their army and the shear #'s of bowmen. The longbow, although powerful, was not a secret weapon and other countries used it as well... The problem that these countries had is they were never able , for a variety of reasons, mostly social , to raise large quantities of bowmen...
Even used in mass, i dont think the longbow would have really impressed say , middle eastern , or eatern armies , as they had equivilently powerful weapons... Also it was the crosbow that kept the Arab, Tukish horse archers etc at bay

I would have no problem with Lonbows getting a litle more edge in missle combat, although I dont agree w adding to the range. Making them superior would give them way too much staying power in melee and impact combat, I think they are too good in that respect as it stands now.

I agree that giving superior staus would perhaps give them too much staying power but, within the system, how else can you increase their 'skill' without doing that? Even then that only affords a quality re-roll.

Perhaps the +1 PoA which, given the available numbers, could be the answer? at least it would give a 66% of a hit

The range aspect is more difficult to come to terms with. A javelin would have a range of 30 - 40 yds (2) at best. A sling, maybe 100- 120 yds (4). Yet a longbow should easily top 200yds but only has 1 hex more range.

Just played two games from each side, Irish v English and, each time, the English were roundly beaten because they could do so little damage with their bows. Only in melee did the archers get any notable results and, historically, that is not in the least accurate.

[Paisley]

The issue may be that missile troops in general (not just longbows) are underpowered compared to the table because missile hits on the table (as I understand it) are combined whereas on the pc each fire is separate (another 'piecemeal' effect).

[TheGrayMouser]

Some good points here, also mathematially if knights aproach a longbow unit and stop at maximim range 5 hexes, the longbow, if it stands, has 2 shots before impact is made, if it runs it will have one shot and be hit in the rear! Two shots are generally not enough to disrupt a knight especially a superior one, but I feel the longbows will out numper the knights in a real game situation so there technically would be more chances to disrupt....

I dont play the TT game but having medium bowfire (not lights) have a cumulative effect on cohesion tests to simulate being under a true withering some of arrows, might be effective... It should be easy to program (easy for me to say!), the program just needs to remember that the target shot once, regular check, shot twice, minor penalty, shot thrice major penalty for cohesion loss.... Not perfect but would keep the same tempo to the game without introducing new phases etc Heck, if an ancient game like Pacific General could keep track of multiple atatcks on the same unit during a turn, why not a modern game!

[jamespcrowley]

Without change, the English army is effectively emasculated.

I disagree - with proper use of terrain, the English army is still a highly effective unit. I called SRW an English apologist above, but I think it bears repeating. The English longbow, while an effective tactic, is often times over romaticized for the period (especially for English speaking cultures who have grown up on Henry V). As it stands now, the longbowmen in game require proper use of terrain and tactics in order to remain effective - which historically speaking - was the way it was. The longbowmen had a huge disadvantage and that was that while being a highly mobile force, they were limited to terrain considerations to be used at their full potential. If the terrain was less than idea, the longbowmen were pretty much a non-issue in most confrontations. I was a bit on ends with the longbowmen at first when I first started playing storm of arrows, but after a bit more time and beginning to recognize certain things I'm starting to feel that the current in game version of the longbow is about as effective as I would like it to be.

Against mounted knight/horse based armies, the longbow is extremely deadly - especially with stakes. However, against footed, drilled and mobile armies (such as the Swiss) the Longbow is going to suffer substatially unless terrain is heavily in their favor. I think this is the way it should be.

That may well be true in real life when the ground can be picked but in a DAG game you get the map you get. If you don't get good defensive terrain -rare in my experience- you are buggered with a bow based/MF army.

Even with good defensive terrain, most of the benefit will be derived from the fact that MF are less penalised in rough/difficult terrain, in melee/impact combat only. There is no advantage to missile combat other than the terrain slowing the enemy, so that you may get three shots instead of two; much difference that will make. More often than not rough terrain will just curtail your line of sight.

Basically you are saying that the English archers at Crecy and Agincourt did no appreciable damage to the French other than in melee? Or against the Scottish at Halidon Hill, Nevilles Cross and Homildon Hill?
Because that is the only way they can dish out damage at present In FoG.