Slitherine

Will not the changes to Armour cause a significant loss of potency to the Knights?

Also, what are the plans for Crossbows?

Thanks

If you mean Heavily Armoured Knights then I don't see much change. The only possible changes would be against Armoured troops.

Most (I can't think of any exceptions, but you never know) contemporary cavalry also has Swordsman capability, so the Knights will continue to get a POA for their better armour. If they have the enemy fighting in 2 directions they won't get the second POA, but they're probably onto a winner there anyway.

As for Foot, the main contemporary Armoured foot is either Heavy Weapon or Spear. HW is unchanged as it cancels the armour advantage anyway. Against Spears the only change would be again if they are fighting in 2 directions, or also if the Spear are fragmented. So again, some minor loss of effectiveness in circumstances where the Knights are already at an advantage.

I din't know of any specific changes for Crossbows, but there are some changes to shooting POAs for which we'll need to see the final published version.

The main crossbow/foot bow change considered was the 2nd rank -POA at impact shooting is dropped.

So the bow have a better chance of winning impact with more dice. The 2nd rank of crossbow wont need 6s versus foot.

So crossbow can no longer be mugged by disordered drunken sailors with their pants down.

I think Xbows are at a +PoA against armoured cavalry. This makes crusader xbows actually useful against Easter armoured cavalry - but will have little impact in Western Europe.

Hmmm, that gives them the same qualities as the longbow, does it not?

Eques wrote:Hmmm, that gives them the same qualities as the longbow, does it not?

...which are also being changed according to one of the threads which lists the actual changes...

"Crossbows (and longbows) get + POA vs non-single-ranked Protected and Armoured cavalry."

hmmm... maybe this change will destroy the complexity of the medieval game in the same way the changes to Romans/Barbarians are about to bring a crashing end to any realism and interest in the simulation of warfare in the Classical period, as now the many crossbow-using medieval armies will no longer be forced to deal with the tactical challenge presented by the fact that their missile weapon has been (up to now) so entirely pants in it's key historical matchup that those people who have played large number of games never bother to field them .. ?

Eques wrote:Hmmm, that gives them the same qualities as the longbow, does it not?

I don't believe so. Longbow will remain better versus foot having a zero POA.

Plus longbow in 8s will out shoot crossbow in 6s and 4s. And the famous english longbow still have swords, which matters a lot.

madaxeman wrote: hmmm... maybe this change will destroy the complexity of the medieval game in the same way the changes to Romans/Barbarians are about to bring a crashing end to any realism and interest in the simulation of warfare in the Classical period, as now the many crossbow-using medieval armies will no longer be forced to deal with the tactical challenge presented by the fact that their missile weapon has been (up to now) so entirely pants in it's key historical matchup that those people who have played large number of games never bother to field them .. ?

I am trying to decipher this balderdash.
Longbow knight interaction mostly unchanged. Longbow less able to dance but 6% better at impact.

It depends on your view of realism. in V1 romans do not fear barbarians even with bad dice. There was not enough historical there to suit me.
Do you think the crossbow was historically useless weapon? And to make it 6% better in impact and better versus non knights is hardly revolutionary. Crossbow were so bad they were to be avoided. Now that is less true. Which seems to me to be closer to history. Its not like the suddenly become crossbow machine guns.

Me thinks you "hmmm" too fast.

Me thinks you "hmmm" too fast.

Me thinks you are missing the sarcasm.

Could maybe give longbow a bit more range to differentiate it more from the Crossbows (which were totally outclassed by the advent of the longbow if I remember my history correctly). Always thought it a bit strange that longbows were given the same range as normal bows to be honest.

madaxeman wrote:."

hmmm... maybe this change will destroy the complexity of the medieval game in the same way the changes to Romans/Barbarians are about to bring a crashing end to any realism and interest in the simulation of warfare in the Classical period,

Well will it?

hazelbark wrote:

madaxeman wrote: hmmm... maybe this change will destroy the complexity of the medieval game in the same way the changes to Romans/Barbarians are about to bring a crashing end to any realism and interest in the simulation of warfare in the Classical period, as now the many crossbow-using medieval armies will no longer be forced to deal with the tactical challenge presented by the fact that their missile weapon has been (up to now) so entirely pants in it's key historical matchup that those people who have played large number of games never bother to field them .. ?

I am trying to decipher this balderdash.
Longbow knight interaction mostly unchanged. Longbow less able to dance but 6% better at impact.

Me thinks you "hmmm" too fast.

I could be wrong....but I do believe Tim is using sarcasm.

kevinj wrote:

Me thinks you "hmmm" too fast.

Me thinks you are missing the sarcasm.

Could be as Tim is well known for his automaton like behavior and witicisms resembling paint drying it is likely that i missed his point. But then again i am sure there will soon be a lego video of hannibal talking to Benny Hill explaining it to me.

Eques wrote:Could maybe give longbow a bit more range to differentiate it more from the Crossbows (which were totally outclassed by the advent of the longbow if I remember my history correctly). Always thought it a bit strange that longbows were given the same range as normal bows to be honest.

The effectiveness of various bows is not cut and dried by any means. There are good arguments thAt Eastern composite bows are just as good or better than longbows, crossbows are desirable (or not) for a variety of reasons. Iris notable that the one direct confrontation of longbows and quality crossbows is not much of a fair fight, iirc the crossbows were forced to leave their lavishes behind and had wet bows. OTOH crossbows were much feared in the middle east...

Corssbows were easy to use so given to the masses. Though a few users, Genoese maybe, were highly regarded
Longbows were more difficult and people trained for life to use them well.
The composite bows, mentioned by Ethan, were used by troops that were well trained/pracitced and feared. The Mongols. (other users of this bow don't get a mention in discussions about it)

So not so much the weapon as the user

But FoG is reducing the effects of quality so another nice bit of the rules going.

philqw78 wrote:

But FoG is reducing the effects of quality

You mean Elite, Superior etc? Please tell me your joking.

ethan wrote: There are good arguments thAt Eastern composite bows are just as good or better than longbows,

Maybe in the medieval period but certainly not in the classical (I have seen arguments on this forum that "composite bows" as used by the Persians should get their own category which I don't agree with). There was no classical Agincourt or Crecy. The Persians tried to make one at Marathon and Plataea but it didn't work out too well.

Eques wrote:

ethan wrote: There are good arguments thAt Eastern composite bows are just as good or better than longbows,

Maybe in the medieval period but certainly not in the classical (I have seen arguments on this forum that "composite bows" as used by the Persians should get their own category which I don't agree with). There was no classical Agincourt or Crecy. The Persians tried to make one at Marathon and Plataea but it didn't work out too well.

Not really. Had the Persians been behind field defences or glutinous mud the parallel might have some meaning. The longbow also had its failures of course.

Well it was a very broad parallel of heavily armed troops losing out to massed missile troops.

Maybe in the medieval period but certainly not in the classical (I have seen arguments on this forum that "composite bows" as used by the Persians should get their own category which I don't agree with). There was no classical Agincourt or Crecy. The Persians tried to make one at Marathon and Plataea but it didn't work out too well.[quote][/quote]

On the other hand persian bows conquered an enormous empire whereas english longbows won a couple of battles while they lost France.