Slitherine

Heavy weapons seem quite well balanced in terms of "value for money" under the rules. But do they reflect history well when negating armour?

Heavy weapons certainly seemed good against armour historically - metal armour might turn aside a pointed thrust completely while the momentum of a weighty weapon would not be completely stopped.

But does this mean that it completely negates armour? Not really. Padding under the metal will reduce the damage of the blow. And being hit by a halberd while wearing plate armour is surely better than being hit while wearing no armour - at least the armour will give some protection against glancing blows, and a shild allows you to deflect a blow. If armour is useless against heavy weapons then why did the legions facings Dacian falxmen get given extra armour?

Then there's the issue of the return blows. A guy with a heavy weapon but no armour or shield is likely to take more damage than one with body armour.

So it seems to me that, there should certainly be some levelling of the playing field, the current rules might go too far.

For discussion (and suspending thought of AP issues to focus on the historical interaction), would the following work better?:

- HW: negates fully one level of enemy armour superiority (e.g. protected troops don't get armour POA vs unprotected HW troops)
- HW does not negate three levels of armour (i.e. heavily armoured get a + armour POA vs Unprotected HW)
- for two levels of armour difference (e.g. armoured vs unprotected HW) there might be an interim - maybe POA if no net POA or similar?

I realise this causes AP issues - makes HW less effective for protected and unprotected troops so perhaps might have to make those cheaper? But heavy weapons armed men at arms are quite potent at present so wouldn't want to make them cheaper.

I'm of the opinion that armour isn't going to make much of a difference when you get hit by a very large object with lots of momentum. It might possibly save your life but as far as the battle is concerned you'd be disabled which in game terms is the same as dead.


Does it really need fixing?

HW works fine IMO. There are bigger issues to fix

Marc

hannibal wrote:HW works fine IMO. There are bigger issues to fix

Marc

True. Not sure the HW should be negated by skilled swrod. But that is a SSw issue.

One thought someone else made for color is that you dont get a +2 for winning on death rolls versus hits receveid by HW troops. Would change very little and add color. Maybe make Knights respect them a bit more.

hazelbark wrote:

hannibal wrote:HW works fine IMO. There are bigger issues to fix

Marc

True. Not sure the HW should be negated by skilled swrod. But that is a SSw issue.

One thought someone else made for color is that you dont get a +2 for winning on death rolls versus hits receveid by HW troops. Would change very little and add color. Maybe make Knights respect them a bit more.

They would be quite deadly against knights then, perhaps a bit too good IMO.

hazelbark wrote:One thought someone else made for color is that you dont get a +2 for winning on death rolls versus hits receveid by HW troops. Would change very little and add color. Maybe make Knights respect them a bit more.

Do you still get the +2 if you draw? What about HW v's HW? What is the rational behind this? When troops using big axes were doing as well, or worse, in the combat against their foes did they still cause as many casualties?

I agree with the original post. Iam not sure the total cancelling of armour advantage is historical.
The roman reaction to meeting Hvy weapon was to develop special anti-dacian armour. i.e. put more armour on. Although in FOG the extra armour isn't enough to change the class (no heavily armoured legionaries).
Obviously medieval armies use hvy wpn as it is very good vs armour.
In FOG if you are heavily armoured its ability to cancel out armour is wasted which doesnt tally well with it historically being the weapon of choice for most heavily armoured foot.

Possibly a better mechanism would be to count Armor rating as one class lower vs hvy wpn.

Result compared to currently
If two or three ranks lower would lose out a POA.
If one lower No change.
If the same would gain a POA.
If higher no change.

Might require some balancing as it would mean dismounted men at arms would have a + in melee vs similarly armoured knights as compared to even now. However, maybe this is reasonable as why else would you dismount as you move slower and are down on impact. You also lose the ability to break off.

Paul Longmore

The more complex the rule, the longuer the game will last

sometimes being simple add to playability and fun

Another issue with Heavy Weapons is their performance in the impact phase.

Some Heavy Weapons like halberds were 6 foot long and had a spike on the end so should probably get a +1 in the impact phase like 'Light Spears' do.

Others like two handed axes probably shouldn't get this bonus.

RichardThompson wrote:Another issue with Heavy Weapons is their performance in the impact phase.

Some Heavy Weapons like halberds were 6 foot long and had a spike on the end so should probably get a +1 in the impact phase like 'Light Spears' do.

Others like two handed axes probably shouldn't get this bonus.

But heavy weapons do get a POA at impact, just not against mounted.

The question you should ask is who has the edge, a bloke charging on a horse with lance or a bloke standing on the ground with a halberd?

There is an argument that halberd is better than heavy axe but as the POAs are sorted for historical effect the question you need to ask is the one I posed above. If you argue that a halberd gives a POA against mounted then knights would have no edge against halberdiers at either impact or in melee. I would suggest that is possibly just a touch wrong.

I might agree with you Hammy, but heavy weapon is used to represent "anti-cavalry" units such as menvlatoi and some chinese units . Units which were used to break a cavalry charge .

They are not so "anti-cavalry" . Spears are better .

bahdahbum wrote:I might agree with you Hammy, but heavy weapon is used to represent "anti-cavalry" units such as menvlatoi and some chinese units . Units which were used to break a cavalry charge .

They are not so "anti-cavalry" . Spears are better .

With regard to halberds and cavalry, surely the question to ask is whether the effect on the table is as we might expect from history? It's not really an interaction I know much about, except that Swiss moved to using more pike and that worked better.

There might be an argument that halberdiers are better represented as having both offensive spear and heavy weapon capabilities but that would creat more problems than it solves I think.

bahdahbum wrote:I might agree with you Hammy, but heavy weapon is used to represent "anti-cavalry" units such as menvlatoi and some chinese units . Units which were used to break a cavalry charge .

They are not so "anti-cavalry" . Spears are better .

Well in the Chinese lists the anti cavalry troops are heavy foot while the rest of the infantry are medium foot which is a POA to start with.
Menvlatoi are also heavy foot so are only a POA down against lancers and light spear cavalry

Spear skutatoi are 1 POA better than cavalry

bahdahbum wrote:Spear skutatoi are 1 POA better than cavalry

Not normally as they have second rank Bw.

philqw78 wrote:

bahdahbum wrote:Spear skutatoi are 1 POA better than cavalry

Not normally as they have second rank Bw.

not if you are Themtic Byzantine. Nikes are not the only Byzantine list...

why would you have them stay one front rank spear, second rank bow ? They may be in 4 ranks or with 2rank spear, next 2ranks bow , next 2 rank spears .. or 4 bases spear in 2 ranks and 4 bases bow in 2 ranks just next to them in uneven terrain

Phalanx do not have to stay in 4 ranks ....why should skutatoi stay in 2 ranks, one of spear, one of bow

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n wrote:I agree with the original post. Iam not sure the total cancelling of armour advantage is historical.
The roman reaction to meeting Hvy weapon was to develop special anti-dacian armour. i.e. put more armour on. Although in FOG the extra armour isn't enough to change the class (no heavily armoured legionaries).
Obviously medieval armies use hvy wpn as it is very good vs armour.
In FOG if you are heavily armoured its ability to cancel out armour is wasted which doesnt tally well with it historically being the weapon of choice for most heavily armoured foot.

Possibly a better mechanism would be to count Armor rating as one class lower vs hvy wpn.

Result compared to currently
If two or three ranks lower would lose out a POA.
If one lower No change.
If the same would gain a POA.
If higher no change.

Might require some balancing as it would mean dismounted men at arms would have a + in melee vs similarly armoured knights as compared to even now. However, maybe this is reasonable as why else would you dismount as you move slower and are down on impact. You also lose the ability to break off.

Paul Longmore

You dismount to get the extra POA against longbow shooting, plus you are not affected by stakes. You are + in impact, + in melee and don't have to break off if they don't disrupt the first go.