Slitherine

I was looking at the Scandinavian medieval troops and saw that their starting army had a mixed BG of heavy pole-arm and crossbowmen with three in the front and three in the back.

Now, I wonder why there are no simple maneuver for units to interpenetrate itself if they contain mixed troops, this seem a little counter intuitive to me?

I think it would be logical for crossbowmen to be out in the front while closing with then enemy trying to at lest do some damage, even three stand do pretty much nothing anyway, perhaps a disorder if you are lucky. Then they would slip back when the enemy gets closer and support from the back.

If English Longbow and Men-at-Arm can interpenetrate each other I see no reason why a mixed unit of similar troops would not be able to do it, they are after all trained to work together as one force!?!?

I think at least make it a complex maneuver or something... or am I completely delusional about how such a unit would act?


I also wonder why the English in the 100 years war army can't mix Men-at-Arms with Longbow formation, didn't they do this quite often?

JorgenCAB wrote:I was looking at the Scandinavian medieval troops and saw that their starting army had a mixed BG of heavy pole-arm and crossbowmen with three in the front and three in the back.

Now, I wonder why there are no simple maneuver for units to interpenetrate itself if they contain mixed troops, this seem a little counter intuitive to me?

I think it would be logical for crossbowmen to be out in the front while closing with then enemy trying to at lest do some damage, even three stand do pretty much nothing anyway, perhaps a disorder if you are lucky. Then they would slip back when the enemy gets closer and support from the back.

If English Longbow and Men-at-Arm can interpenetrate each other I see no reason why a mixed unit of similar troops would not be able to do it, they are after all trained to work together as one force!?!?

I think at least make it a complex maneuver or something... or am I completely delusional about how such a unit would act?


I also wonder why the English in the 100 years war army can't mix Men-at-Arms with Longbow formation, didn't they do this quite often?

It's a moot point, however. Troops in the rear rank of mixed formations shoot as if from the front rank. So why would you want the crossbowmen in the front rank?

They do... I must have missed that point or section of the rule book. That make it "sort of" a moot since they are already performing that maneuver in some respect.

But, in this instance it actually can have a relevance. The Scandinavians often fought in broken ground and actually being able to put the medium in the front at time can be a good thing. They fight almost as well if not better than the heavy infantry in certain terrain.

I guess you should just be able to put whatever troops you want up front during a move as a simple maneuver in that regard. To me it seem as a rather simple and proper thing to do in a formation like this. Or that is a moot point to since they fight as well in the front as the heavy support bad in the back anyway?

The Scandinavians often fought in broken ground and actually being able to put the medium in the front at time can be a good thing. They fight almost as well if not better than the heavy infantry in certain terrain.

There is nothing stopping you deploying your BG with the XB in the front if you so wish?

I didn't write any of the lists but I'm guessing historically the XB supported the guys with the heavy weapons? So that is how the BG is configured. You are perhaps looking at how to play the formation to best advantage rather than how it was actually used?

I suspect it won't change but there is nothing to stop you having your own house rules in your own group to simulate mixed BGs as you see fit. But it wouldn't be permitted in a competition using the published rules.

Well, I do have a fair bit of knowledge in the subject being from Scandinavia myself and done some studying in the matter.

Infantry in medieval Scandinavia was very well suited for broken ground warfare and crossbowmen would often be deployed in a forward or even skirmishing position in broken terrain. When the enemy got near they would scurry back behind the heavy infantry who would receive the charge. The crossbow would then often draw sword and join the melee and try to flank enemy formations or simply use their crossbows in a skirmishing fashion to nip away at the enemy infantry or more likely enemy skirmishers.

The crossbow was favored because it had better penetrating power (Scandinavians often used heavy armor on all infantry), fighting in the often rather broken and wooded terrain usually favored it rather than the bow. Lying down behind a ridge line, fallen tree or other obstacle tend to be easier using a crossbow.

I'm not really interested in tournaments so that is of no concern (I also intend to use this for Fantasy models), but after reading the rules again I believe it does not matter since the whole formation take tests as if it were heavy infantry anyway and the heavy will always be better in the front anyway even if they get fewer dice, the swordsmen (crossbowmen) in the back are not disrupted and will contribute to the fighting. So I guess it is a moot point...

Anyway... thanks for answering my questions!

One other question related to this. If a BG stand in rough terrain and want to expand and contract only moving the medium infantry around, the heavy are never moved. Will I still get a -1 on the dice for the roll even if the medium foot is not disrupted but the heavy are?

You would perhaps not do this very often, but it might happen.

Hello Jorgen, bear in mind that a battle group might represent several units totalling several thousand men. So the crossbowmwn shoot as if in the front rank, which could be seen to represent the skirmishing out front and falling back when the enemy charge.

It is usually the case that you will want the heavy weapon troops at the front as the HW gives an impact POA against anything that will come into the bad terrain and the crossbowmen don't. This is normally more important than losing dice for disorder. The crossbowmen will get to fight in the melee.

Yes, that was pretty much my interpretation of things after some thought...

Oh, and don't forget the crossbowmen get to contribute to the impact through 'support shooting'

Yes I know, that seems quite nasty, especially if they are placed in a good defensible position.