Mounted bow range

[RichardThompson]

In the explanation at the front of the DBM rules it said:

Horse archers attacking infantry spearmen could sit still on their horses 200 paces away and shoot, but did not. Why should should they? They could and did instead in turn gallop by the infantry 10 paces away and be equally safe from being caught. The closer the range shot from, the easier it is to hit the target, the more likely that hits will penetrate the armour and the moreinjury inflicted after penetration.

Under FoG the shooty cavalry have no incentive to close the range!

I would suggest mounted Bowmen should have a short range of 2MU and a long range of 4MU.

This would also help HF since the cavalry would have to close to within charge range to shoot at full effect.

[hammy]

n the explanation at the front of the DBM rules it said:

Horse archers attacking infantry spearmen could sit still on their horses 200 paces away and shoot, but did not. Why should should they? They could and did instead in turn gallop by the infantry 10 paces away and be equally safe from being caught. The closer the range shot from, the easier it is to hit the target, the more likely that hits will penetrate the armour and the moreinjury inflicted after penetration.

Under FoG the shooty cavalry have no incentive to close the range!

I would suggest mounted Bowmen should have a short range of 2MU and a long range of 4MU.

This would also help HF since the cavalry would have to close to within charge range to shoot at full effect.

How would you work the effect of short and long range? If you run with long range needs 3 bases to get one dice of shooting then you may as well not have it at all.

The way I see it a BG of light horse that is 4 MU away from the enemy actually has small groups from it moving forwards to shoot then retiring. Sort of the other way round from DBM

[kevinj]

I think this is a good idea. It means the LH would need to take more of a risk if it wanted to try to inflict shooting damage rather than just delay the enemy. It also has the benefit that it improves Unprotected/Protected Cavalry relative to LH.

[hammy]

I think this is a good idea. It means the LH would need to take more of a risk if it wanted to try to inflict shooting damage rather than just delay the enemy. It also has the benefit that it improves Unprotected/Protected Cavalry relative to LH.

I am not saying that it is a bad idea, just that I don't see how a mechanic can be used to make the long range shooting less effective without it being utterly useless.

[MatthewP]

You could have more than one bg shooting at long range, so there are more bases, so it does not make long range shooting completely innefective just less so. I aggree it would encourage LH to get closer.

[philqw78]

You would have to reduce the points cost of shooty cav

[hammy]

You could have more than one bg shooting at long range, so there are more bases, so it does not make long range shooting completely innefective just less so. I aggree it would encourage LH to get closer.

It would mean you need a minimum of 6 bases of light horse to be worth shooting at long range. I am not saying that this is a bad thing but it would very significantly downgrade light horse bow.

[RichardThompson]

>If you run with long range needs 3 bases to get one dice of shooting then you may as well not have it at all.

Cavalry would only need 2 bases per die.

Large numbers of LH could still be effective at long range.


>The way I see it a BG of light horse that is 4 MU away from the enemy actually has small groups from it moving forwards to shoot then retiring.

The figures on the table should represent the front rank of the unit.

The front rank are the target for enemy shooting and the ones who may be caught by a charge.

[hammy]

>If you run with long range needs 3 bases to get one dice of shooting then you may as well not have it at all.

Cavalry would only need 2 bases per die.

Large numbers of LH could still be effective at long range.

True but there would be little reason to use bow armed light horse over javelin armed. Infact almost no reason IMO.

[kevinj]

True but there would be little reason to use bow armed light horse over javelin armed. Infact almost no reason IMO.

At the moment the only reason people use javelin armed LH is because they haven't got access to anything better, or because they are compulsory. Historically, they were a common troop type. Bow armed LH would retain the ability to shoot at long range is in sufficient numbers. The only question then would be whether that justifes the 1 extra point that they cost.

This might also make people consider fielding LH in 6s.

[philqw78]

>If you run with long range needs 3 bases to get one dice of shooting then you may as well not have it at all.

Cavalry would only need 2 bases per die.

and therefore be useless against lancer cavalry. 1 deep they do not have enough dice at long range to cause a test. And long range is well within charge reach, so they do not want to be 2 deep. Come to short range one rank deep, get a 25% (?) chance of causing a test and a slightly greater than 50% chance of it being failed. Then have a far greater chance than previously of being caught in the evade.

[nikgaukroger]

True but there would be little reason to use bow armed light horse over javelin armed. Infact almost no reason IMO.

At the moment the only reason people use javelin armed LH is because they haven't got access to anything better,

Er, you mean the reason they used them historically then ...

[RichardThompson]

True but there would be little reason to use bow armed light horse over javelin armed. Infact almost no reason IMO.

At the moment the only reason people use javelin armed LH is because they haven't got access to anything better,

Er, you mean the reason they used them historically then ...

The DBM expanation goes on to say:

What of horse archers attacking horse javlinmen? Surely they would have gained from their longer range? So they might had the desparate javlinmen not immediately galloped to close the range. After two or three hurried shots the bowmen either continued the combat on inferior terms since he could not use shield and bow together, or galloped away to open the range and was often pursued off the battlefield or shot in the back.

This suggests that javelin-armed LH should have an advantage when fighting against horse archers.

LH with Light Spear already get a +1 in the impact phase, but not in the melee phase.

Should LH with large shields, such as Tarantines and Numidians be classed as protected?

Should Light Spear count against Skirmishers in the melee phase?

[philqw78]

The DBM explanation goes on to say:

I rest my case.

[nikgaukroger]

What of horse archers attacking horse javlinmen? Surely they would have gained from their longer range? So they might had the desparate javlinmen not immediately galloped to close the range. After two or three hurried shots the bowmen either continued the combat on inferior terms since he could not use shield and bow together, or galloped away to open the range and was often pursued off the battlefield or shot in the back.

This suggests that javelin-armed LH should have an advantage when fighting against horse archers.

Alas this is a piece of Barker bollocks.

[grahambriggs]

Quoting what one rule set says to change another is not likely to change a rule. The author of the other set may be using a correct historical interpretation or may not. Also, every ruiles author thinks there's is best and is unlikely to take on board ideas from other authors easily.

If you want javelin armed LH to interact differently with bow armed LH historical evidence would be good.

I'm not sure there are too many examples of the two coming into conflict. Romans vs. Parthians may be one. But the Parthians had lots more LH so the Romans either hid theirs or it got pummelled. The Achaemenid Persians moved from bow armed mounted to mostly javelin. However, we don't really know why. Not do we have any battles showing the latter doing much better.

[philqw78]

The Achaemenid Persians moved from bow armed mounted to mostly javelin. However, we don't really know why. Not do we have any battles showing the latter doing much better.

Was it because they thought the Lydians were much better?

[grahambriggs]

The Achaemenid Persians moved from bow armed mounted to mostly javelin. However, we don't really know why. Not do we have any battles showing the latter doing much better.

Was it because they thought the Lydians were much better?

If they did then it's odd that they waited 200 years before changing to javelins. I suspect it's more the case that the last 100 years of their empire the borders were relatively static, foreign policy was more a case of shelling out gold darics than actually fighting anyone so things drifted.

[kevinj]

True but there would be little reason to use bow armed light horse over javelin armed. Infact almost no reason IMO.

At the moment the only reason people use javelin armed LH is because they haven't got access to anything better,

Er, you mean the reason they used them historically then ...

My point was more related to how they function in game terms. If I have a choice between LH Bow at 8 points and LH Javelin at 7, I will choose the Bow every time because I believe that, for the additional cost, they are significantly better. Does anyone have any different experience?

[philqw78]

Perhaps they were 3rd, 4th generation Lydian subjects influencing what was done then. Since Lydia was a rich area the nobles there possibly had more influence on what the fighting gentry should be doing