Slitherine

why archery units can't fire units behind a line of own units ? in many wargames archery units fire protected by lines of infantry and range is ridicolous especially for longbowmen that became more infantry that archery for melee ( i have seen archery withouth protection get disgregated heavy armour units in normal terrain exe !?! )

Archery units are pretty good already, if you gave them that ability, they'd become monstrously powerful. You can simulate it by putting units in front of them in a row that have one hex between them, giving the archers the ability to shoot past the empty hex. Or if the archers are on a higher elevation(hill), they can shoot past them.

infact longbow are too many effective in melee especially in hills and they have strange capability vs cavarly charge ( absurd ). A way its reduce their defense and melee and give them ability to fire beyond friend units to simulate arrow fly.

Ok heres my input into archer effectiveness.To me English Longbow men underperform especially against medieval protected infantry.These guys have no shields only padded jackets and arrows fired have not a great effect really.Slow moving formed infantry would of been mince meat against formed longbowmen firing volley after volley into them.Sure you can get lucky with archers and disrupt Protected HF and wear them down but to me this is one part of the Fog rules which need adjusting rember thees Longbow men were the best of the best and experts at their trade which is why they were eagerly used in medieval armies.To class them as average is not right and they should be able to hit on rolls of 3 and above,Way to counter their ability in melee which i agree is far fetched is to allow them hits with 5s and 6s in melee only.

i noticed that not british longbow are effective in melee only but generally many archery units of FOG like crossbowers ( cavarly charge often is useless against them ) and welsh archery. the short range of fog and low casualties for volley get archery units like infantry defensive line especially up hills. I think that it's more right more range and more casualties but malus in melee. In this way it's better more fortifications line to simulate tyipical defensive formations ( rigid ) of anglosaxons armies.

longbowmen are overrated in english speaking countries. masses of them were used in the war of the roses yet their role in deciding battles there was underwhelming. against the french, they were only successful in particular tactical situation: stakes in front, flanks protected by natural features, sheer stupidity on the part of french commanders. heavy cavalry would brush past them when they were not dug in. at patay, 1429, they were slaughtered. and they were never known for stopping infantry charges (presumebly slower and not as well armoured overall than french knights) in the war of the roses.

Agincourt my friend outnumbered 7 to 1 .The French threw everything at them and they wiped out Heavily armoured infantry ,crossbowmen and yes the Fantastic French Knights. It wasnt stupidity it was arrogance thet lost the French the battle that day.Guts and determination by well disciplined Longbowmen who were experts at their craft.

not so fast
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/research/ ... court.html

Turk1964 wrote:Ok heres my input into archer effectiveness.To me English Longbow men underperform especially against medieval protected infantry.These guys have no shields only padded jackets and arrows fired have not a great effect really.Slow moving formed infantry would of been mince meat against formed longbowmen firing volley after volley into them.Sure you can get lucky with archers and disrupt Protected HF and wear them down but to me this is one part of the Fog rules which need adjusting rember thees Longbow men were the best of the best and experts at their trade which is why they were eagerly used in medieval armies.To class them as average is not right and they should be able to hit on rolls of 3 and above,Way to counter their ability in melee which i agree is far fetched is to allow them hits with 5s and 6s in melee only.

Yes, I agree very much with this about longbowmen. They are very poorly represented in the game (mind you, medieval warfare is poorly represented in the game, full stop ). Across the various periods covered by FOG most archery fire is attritional and that is correct, but massed longbow fire was really the medieval equivalent of the machine gun. Used by the English it was absolutely lethal against the Scots in a number of battles and it caused French armies great difficulties in a number of key battles during the Hundred Years War (Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt). But in FOG the longbow is often not much more dangerous than the crossbow and regularly longbowmen units score derisory hits against "protected" enemies who seem to be able to just stand there and trade volleys for turn after turn. It is just plainly ridiculous - they would be forced to melee as quickly as possible or they would run.

My solution? I would double (at least) the potency of the longbow against unarmoured targets and I would double the rate of disruption caused by the longbow against armoured units. Close-range longbow firing at armoured enemies should also be more lethal than it is. Longbowmen grouped in two ranks should all be able to fire en masse (i.e. the rear rank of archers should be able to fire over the front rank of archers). This would make longbow fire more deadly and more realistic. Some longbowmen units should also be classed as "superior" (e.g. Cheshire archers). Other changes would be to reduce the melee capability of archers. Some had swords, particularly in the retinues, but others did not and fought with anything they could put their hands on, including discarded weapons; and all archers should have a limited amount of ammunition (so they could only shoot a certain number of times). This initial allocation of ammunition could be supplemented by extra arrows carried by the supply wagon (a new unit type that needs to be created for FOG 2.0, in my opinion).

Previous discussion of the longbow in FOG is here . . .

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... 84&t=21614

i do not agree at all. remember that up to the american civil war, masses of infantrymen would march to within range of each other in the open and fire away. we hear of firefights that go on for hours. arrows can't possibly be more lethal musket balls.

one thing that should be introduced is range based effectiveness. arrows lose kinetic energy very quickly and it makes little sense to have the same lethality at all ranges.

fogman wrote:i do not agree at all. remember that up to the american civil war, masses of infantrymen would march to within range of each other in the open and fire away. we hear of firefights that go on for hours. arrows can't possibly be more lethal musket balls.

From the Anne Curry article that you have linked to above . . .

"The real contrast between the armies,’ she argues, ‘was their composition rather than their size.’ Of the 12,000 French, around 75 per cent were men-at-arms. The corresponding proportion for the English was 20 per cent, with the rest archers. Their superiority in terms of men-at-arms, all fighting on foot with swords, lances and maces, gave confidence to the French and led to them placing more troops in the vanguard in anticipation of winning the day with a huge first clash against the weaker English force. But they underestimated the effectiveness of the huge numbers of English archers. At over 7,000, and defended by both stakes and the geography of the battlefield, they proved inaccessible by cavalry charge.

The French vanguard had no choice but to advance into a constant barrage of arrow fire, akin to modern machine-gun fire. Those who managed to reach the English men-at-arms were too tightly packed to raise their weapons to fight. Most were killed or injured in the melee, many by a swift dagger to the neck. Their fate persuaded their colleagues in the remaining French lines that entering the fray could be suicidal. As a result Agincourt was marked by accusations of cowardice and treason."

So, "akin to modern machine-gun fire" means we should be thinking of the Somme rather than the Battle of Blenheim here. The rate of fire that longbowmen were capable of was much greater than that of handgunners, arquebusiers, or musketeers.

one thing that should be introduced is range based effectiveness. arrows lose kinetic energy very quickly and it makes little sense to have the same lethality at all ranges.

Yes, and I have said that in my earlier post - so we do not completely disagree with each other.

Longbow enmasse were a deadly weapon indeed.The rate of fire would be far more effective than an Napoleonic infantry Volley. The British waited until the enemy were 50 yards away or less then openened up with a devestating volley then charged in. The longbow men started firing a lot further out than that and by the time the enemy reached them they were severly depleted and what was left were easy pickings .The French if they caught any English longbow men would cut of their first 2 fingers so they could never use a bow again. The English when facing the french would raise their 2 fingers in a reverse victory and ask them politly to come and take them

watch this mike loades' documentary on the longbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVo0JJ-InQQ

ballistic tests show armour is only pierced at close range, 20 m. it was the horses that were being shot at to bring down a charge, also at short range. there is no way longbows pack more firepower than a napoleonic musket volley. it's laughable to think that a military technology 400-500 years older would be more effective.

needless to say longbows are not akin to machine guns either, at best a figure of speech.

fogman wrote:watch this mike loades' documentary on the longbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVo0JJ-InQQ

ballistic tests show armour is only pierced at close range, 20 m. it was the horses that were being shot at to bring down a charge

There is nothing in that clip to contradict what I am saying about the longbow. And what they describe as happening at Crecy tallies with what Anne Curry says happened at Agincourt. I am not asking for long range casualty rates for heavily armoured knights to be increased, I am asking for the number of "disrupts" to increase considerably (i.e. doubled). But I am asking for an increase in casualty rates against "protected" or "unprotected" troops at any range and an increase in casualty rates for all types of armoured troops at close range.

needless to say longbows are not akin to machine guns either, at best a figure of speech.

In terms of their rate of fire, in relation to anything else on the medieval battlefield, they do bear some comparison with the modern machine gun, just as mounted knights bear some comparison to the modern tank.

Turk1964 wrote:Agincourt my friend outnumbered 7 to 1 .The French threw everything at them and they wiped out Heavily armoured infantry ,crossbowmen and yes the Fantastic French Knights. It wasnt stupidity it was arrogance thet lost the French the battle that day.Guts and determination by well disciplined Longbowmen who were experts at their craft.

It was the mud!

I cant find a link or referance but years ago the discovery channel ? possiblity had a detailed show where they did some tests in the vicinity of the battle field and it appears the ground there was a high % of clay
Using hydraulic "legs" they simulated the kinetic energery of laden men "stepping into" such muddy ground
They tested with rough hewn leather coverings over the hydraulic legs(simulating boots, shoes) as well as smooth polished steel ( ie foot armour the dismounted Fr knights would have been wearing.)
The test showed that the arnoured footwearers did not "sink" substantially any deeper into the mud than lighter equiped men, however the smooth surfaces or the foot arnour created a horrible suction and clinging effect.
The amount of energy to pull ones armoured feet/ legs out of the mud step by step would have been utterly exhausting , especially considering the french knights had at least 4-500 yards of this to muck thru.


Did anyone else recall this show? Id like find it , it was really interesting

I saw it too. It was the wet mud and the absence of strong leadership over the French knights that was their main problem.

Trying to find it again... may be a link here soon.

voskarp wrote:I saw it too. It was the wet mud and the absence of strong leadership over the French knights that was their main problem.

Trying to find it again... may be a link here soon.

Cool hope you can find it, Im at work and really cant google "smooth wet dirty legs" as all kinds of naughty sites will come up

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Turk1964 wrote:Agincourt my friend outnumbered 7 to 1 .The French threw everything at them and they wiped out Heavily armoured infantry ,crossbowmen and yes the Fantastic French Knights. It wasnt stupidity it was arrogance thet lost the French the battle that day.Guts and determination by well disciplined Longbowmen who were experts at their craft.

It was the mud!

I cant find a link or referance but years ago the discovery channel ? possiblity had a detailed show where they did some tests in the vicinity of the battle field and it appears the ground there was a high % of clay
Using hydraulic "legs" they simulated the kinetic energery of laden men "stepping into" such muddy ground
They tested with rough hewn leather coverings over the hydraulic legs(simulating boots, shoes) as well as smooth polished steel ( ie foot armour the dismounted Fr knights would have been wearing.)
The test showed that the arnoured footwearers did not "sink" substantially any deeper into the mud than lighter equiped men, however the smooth surfaces or the foot arnour created a horrible suction and clinging effect.
The amount of energy to pull ones armoured feet/ legs out of the mud step by step would have been utterly exhausting , especially considering the french knights had at least 4-500 yards of this to muck thru.


Did anyone else recall this show? Id like find it , it was really interesting

I saw the same show TGM. It was called Battlefield Detectives where they use forensic science to examine the why and how of these battlefields. The episode in question is number two.

Steve

voskarp wrote:I saw it too. It was the wet mud and the absence of strong leadership over the French knights that was their main problem.

Trying to find it again... may be a link here soon.

Didn't find it on Youtube, where I think I saw it, but on this rather... I-don't-know site: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v6262390w2F7h ... rk+Secrets

Good find guys!
Wow the history channel was pretty goo 6 years ago

Now all they have is 80 episodes of Swamp people on every day...