Slitherine

May I make a case for improving one of the Cindarella’s of our game, namely MF bowmen. The problems of these are well known so I won’t go over them here.

My suggestion is to review the lists and give at least some bowmen the swordsmen capability. There may also be a case for having a swordsmen* capability (ie a swordsmen POA (for every second bowmen) for bowmen which have some combat capability but perhaps not worth grading as full swordsmen.

Rationale;

Basically I think we are being too harsh on not giving some bowmen swordsmen status. Take for example Roman armoured archers (eg protected MF bowmen). These guys are long term regular soldiers with good kit (including swords). It is very likely that they would know how to use those swords (especially given the Roman predilection for sword training as part of their basic infantry training regime). Do I have evidence of sword skills in combat – well no – but look on the flip side. English longbowmen are given swordsmen ability ( and rightly so) but we have no knowledge they ever received formal training in sidearms but their they are in the thick of it and doing very well with their swords axes mauls etc.

I also think that we have been too conservative in giving some troops swordsmen ability when compared to other weapons. An example here is of those Japanese women and children who are graded as Heavy Weapon ! It seems that whereas guys carrying swords have to justify some skill in weapon usage if you’re a women or a bairn and carry a big axe you are entitled to be given HW ability – but if youre a long term regular archer with sword you can’t be a swordsmen - surely this cannot be right .

zocco wrote:..
I also think that we have been too conservative in giving some troops swordsmen ability when compared to other weapons. An example here is of those Japanese women and children who are graded as Heavy Weapon ! It seems that whereas guys carrying swords have to justify some skill in weapon usage if you’re a women or a bairn and carry a big axe you are entitled to be given HW ability – but if youre a long term regular archer with sword you can’t be a swordsmen - surely this cannot be right .

The japaese wives arent given HW just because they are flailing around with a broom. They were quite respected with a najinata. And it generally worked in enabling women to protect the home from armourd swordsmen.

In modern times in tournaments matching femal exponents of the naginata with kendo swordsmen results consistently favour the women. The impact of women using these "ignoble woman weapons" was they they were gradually introduced into japanese foot - and it is suggested that this is the primary reason for the incorporation of shin armour in standard samouri suits.

Standard script runs as follows:
1 Armoured swordsman protagonist raids household
2 Wife chops off protagonists foot
3 Wife finishes hanging out the washing

Anthony

MF bowmen Cinderellas. Hmm

Who is at the top of the Army rankings?


1 Christian Nubian

Though this may also be due to the prevalence of mounted armies. And the Nubians are very points efficient since they waste no points on armour, they spend those points instead on being superior. Being protected is pointless in most combats for them

philqw78 wrote:MF bowmen Cinderellas. Hmm

Who is at the top of the Army rankings?


1 Christian Nubian

The top bow armies are all bow sword or superior or both (Christian Nubian, English longbow and Ottoman)

Plain old MF bow are a bit on the fragile side but I think there is still mileage in armies where the MF bow is supported by decent troops.

In the development days of FoG there were some lists that allowed armoured archers (OK, I know you can get them in one of the Japanese lists now) but they were removed because I think they were too effective in close combat and archers in general don't like fighting hand to hand.

My only beef with MF archers/xbow (average unprotected or protected) right now is that they are relatively ineffective against massed LH in a shooting match due to the +2 on the death roll. I realise the LH usually cost almost twice as much but there is something not quite right about unprotected horsemen routinely riding into a hail of arrows without significant casualties. Same applies to LF. And before anyone mentions it, I don't buy the bit about it being fiendishly difficult to hit a fast moving target. That is true for skirmishers aiming at other skimishers not for massed archery.

Lowering the death roll modifier to a +1 for skirmishers shot at by a BG of MF (not bow*) with two full ranks should make it just a little dicier for the skirmishers and simulate the greater impact of casualties on a relatively small number of men.

jlopez wrote:Lowering the death roll modifier to a +1 for skirmishers shot at by a BG of MF (not bow*) with two full ranks should make it just a little dicier for the skirmishers and simulate the greater impact of casualties on a relatively small number of men.

This is deviating from the original topic slightly, however, as an alternative, how about allowing foot Bow to shoot at full effect in 2 ranks within effective range. This increases their firepower by 33% and makes it more likely that they will get the necessary hits to cause death rolls.

Currently the firepower of skirmishers is more effective than that from MF bowmen as it is easier to manoeuvre the skirmishers to concentrate their fire to offset the normal 50% firepower advantage the MF bow have. If it is a firefight between skirmishers and MF bow, and the MF bow are unprotected, then they also suffer as the skirmishers are shooting at a +.

I think that the solution here is to increase the relative shooting capability of MF Bows compared to light troops, rather than improving their melee capability as that emphasises their primary function. Either make LH/LF more vulnerable to shooting, or less effective.

How about lowering the death roll modifier for all troops to +1 if shot at mainly by MF ?

Oddly I find MF bow to be really rather effective against light horse and light foot skirmishers.

While it is possible for multiple BGs of light horse to 'gang up' on one BG of MF bow that does rather require the cooperation of the bow. If you consider a BG of 6 protected drilled MF bow and put them against 8 LH bow while there is possibly a slight advantage for the LH (assuming no other BGs and unlimited maneuver space) but the LH will be costing 64 points to the 42 of the bow. From a shooting PoV the MF will probably get 5 dice per round to the LHs 4.

If you are comparing roughly equal points you have to look at a BG of 8 MF in which case they are actually quite hard for 8 bases of LH to even get a cohesion test against. In a straight up shooting match each BG of LH will take a CT half the time with a -1 while the MF will only take a CT just over 30% of the time and there will only be a -1 on one shot in 16.

hammy wrote:Oddly I find MF bow to be really rather effective against light horse and light foot skirmishers.

While it is possible for multiple BGs of light horse to 'gang up' on one BG of MF bow that does rather require the cooperation of the bow. If you consider a BG of 6 protected drilled MF bow and put them against 8 LH bow while there is possibly a slight advantage for the LH (assuming no other BGs and unlimited maneuver space) but the LH will be costing 64 points to the 42 of the bow. From a shooting PoV the MF will probably get 5 dice per round to the LHs 4.

If you are comparing roughly equal points you have to look at a BG of 8 MF in which case they are actually quite hard for 8 bases of LH to even get a cohesion test against. In a straight up shooting match each BG of LH will take a CT half the time with a -1 while the MF will only take a CT just over 30% of the time and there will only be a -1 on one shot in 16.

I was thinking more of the undrilled variety of MF bow/xbow, average, protected or unprotected. They are almost entirely absent from most armies as far as I can tell and with good reason.

As for over effective skirmisher shooting I did suggest that any non skirmisher BG taking a CT from shooting entirely from skirmishers should get a +1 on it's CT. This was not well received by the light horse brigade

This was not well received by the light horse brigade

Which would be another point in it's favour...

Against the LH heavy Shooty Cav armies that my Romans seem to face quite often, the MF bow are often the most useful unit in the game. Even the Classical Indian MF Bow Sword are not that bad when taken in numbers.

hammy wrote:As for over effective skirmisher shooting I did suggest that any non skirmisher BG taking a CT from shooting entirely from skirmishers should get a +1 on it's CT. This was not well received by the light horse brigade

Because they are all about preserving their prefered armies not about the game or the hobby. Rather selfish actually.

hazelbark wrote:Because they are all about preserving their prefered armies not about the game or the hobby. Rather selfish actually.

really

hammy wrote:

philqw78 wrote:MF bowmen Cinderellas. Hmm


In the development days of FoG there were some lists that allowed armoured archers (OK, I know you can get them in one of the Japanese lists now) but they were removed because I think they were too effective in close combat and archers in general don't like fighting hand to hand.

So why not allow MF bowmen to evade charges?

Jilu wrote:

hammy wrote:

philqw78 wrote:MF bowmen Cinderellas. Hmm


In the development days of FoG there were some lists that allowed armoured archers (OK, I know you can get them in one of the Japanese lists now) but they were removed because I think they were too effective in close combat and archers in general don't like fighting hand to hand.

So why not allow MF bowmen to evade charges?

Because they didn't do it historically?

One idea I thought for MF bow, but may be too powerful. Infantry hitting frontally in impact and the bowmen win. The infantry take a a CMT and if they fail they bounce off 1 MU.

The idea being the arrow fire was so severly the infantry paused in the hail and never really got the gumption to charge.

Then don't allow the units to fire again in the immediate shooting phase ala chargers/evaders.

Gives the bow a chance to prevent being closed upon.

hazelbark wrote:One idea I thought for MF bow, but may be too powerful. Infantry hitting frontally in impact and the bowmen win. The infantry take a a CMT and if they fail they bounce off 1 MU.

The idea being the arrow fire was so severly the infantry paused in the hail and never really got the gumption to charge.

Then don't allow the units to fire again in the immediate shooting phase ala chargers/evaders.

Gives the bow a chance to prevent being closed upon.

But doesn't the system already have that?

Infantry advance into effective range of the archers who shoot and may or may not disrupt the infantry
Archers shoot some more and may or may not disrupt or even fragment infantry
If infantry are non shock and are disrupted then they have to pass a CMT or stand there like lemons and get shot again.....
If infantry are unfortunate enough to be fragmented then they are in deep poo

jlopez wrote:

hammy wrote:Oddly I find MF bow to be really rather effective against light horse and light foot skirmishers.

While it is possible for multiple BGs of light horse to 'gang up' on one BG of MF bow that does rather require the cooperation of the bow. If you consider a BG of 6 protected drilled MF bow and put them against 8 LH bow while there is possibly a slight advantage for the LH (assuming no other BGs and unlimited maneuver space) but the LH will be costing 64 points to the 42 of the bow. From a shooting PoV the MF will probably get 5 dice per round to the LHs 4.

If you are comparing roughly equal points you have to look at a BG of 8 MF in which case they are actually quite hard for 8 bases of LH to even get a cohesion test against. In a straight up shooting match each BG of LH will take a CT half the time with a -1 while the MF will only take a CT just over 30% of the time and there will only be a -1 on one shot in 16.

I was thinking more of the undrilled variety of MF bow/xbow, average, protected or unprotected. They are almost entirely absent from most armies as far as I can tell and with good reason.

The problem with undrilled MF missile users is the inability to wheel/turn to face the threat. So they often get hit hard by something without being able to shoot at it.

That could be fixed, and such troops made more palatable, by allowing them to wheel/turn without a CMT as long as that gets them more shooting dice. It seems reasonable that shooting the enemy more is what they would do naturally. And it's similar to what undrilled hand to hand MF can do in that those can wheel and charge without a general directing them, so isn't a great departure. Plus, if the enemy were to distract them frontally with other troops, they'd be shooting those so couldn't react without a CMT.