LEEDS FEEDBACK: Jerusalem via Leeds

[neilhammond]

I've published a more generic account of my Leeds games on the open forum under the title Jerusalem via Leeds. This is more of a technical commentry. I have mentioned some of my points to Richard so there might be some duplication of commentary.

The Early Crusaders seemed to behave as I expected. The lack of light infantry means that they are quite a clumsy army. The missile troops struggle on the flank to turn to face off outflankers. In terms of competition gaming I suspect this will make them a weaker army - especially since a similary army with LF missile troops will cost the same points but would be more flexible.

I found the fact that battle lines of mixed crossbows and spears couldn't move together without a CMT when close to the enemy a bit strange - since historically they operated in close coordination.

The knights were okay, except against legionaries where they struggled, even when the legionaries were disruptued. Whilst they did have an advantage at impact they were subsequently disadvantaged in combat which meant they were unable to pressurise the Romans effectively. The proposal to make SSw not count against mounted Sw makes sense in exchange for being equal at impact.

I had to guard the missile troops carefully (even as protected), and generally kept them in terrain to protect them against mounted troops and HI.

Crossbows were generally pretty ineffective. Their minus against all foot limits their use. Whilst I accept they would have a lower rate of fire than bow, their penetration power was much greater. I'll have to dig around to see if I can find anything on crossbows in the crusades.

The competion was good - relaxed and friendly - and the venue was great. So when's the next AoW comp?

Neil

[nikgaukroger]

I found the fact that battle lines of mixed crossbows and spears couldn't move together without a CMT when close to the enemy a bit strange - since historically they operated in close coordination.

Its the old thing of having the "loose order" troops - for want of a proper descrition for MF - move faster than the "close order" troops.

Crossbows were generally pretty ineffective. Their minus against all foot limits their use. Whilst I accept they would have a lower rate of fire than bow, their penetration power was much greater. I'll have to dig around to see if I can find anything on crossbows in the crusades.

It'll probably all be about their effectiveness against mounted

Strickland & Hardy's "The Great Warbow" may contain some useful information as it has a good bit on crossbows in it. My recollection is that in general crossbows have a loweer rate of fire but when they hit they do more damage - which is what you say