Slitherine

On page 80, it states: "The primary objective of shooting (in the game) is to cause deterioration of the enemy by forcing cohesion tests. Causing base losses is secondary."

What is the rationale for that MAJOR assumption?

Focusing on cohesion checks seems to defang missile weaponry.
Historically, the primary reasons for shooting various missile weaponry types were to:
1) Kill opposing foot or mounted troops [and/or their mounts]
2) Kill them at a distance to avoid receiving casualties.

So why the de-emphasis on killing threat bases, when, as history testifies to, missile weaponry killed and/or wounded thousands of ancient and medieval warriors?

Thanks/Cheers

Looking at the tactical use of missile weapons on the organizational level that concerns us here (where each "battlegroup" represents a rather large body of troops) over the course of the 4500 years of warfare covered in FOG, you will see that although on a "personal" level the intent surely was to kill opposing troops, the tactical effect was primarily one of disruption, with some notable exceptions (Hundred years war come to mind).

Although it absolutely is possible to "kill" using missile weapons in FOG, it requires the application of a substantial amount of firepower, high quality archers, and potent weapons (such as the longbow), which is as it should be in my opinion.

Loss of cohesion and loss of bases can both get you in FOG and shooting can cause both. I don't really see them as different things, they both represent the breakdown in formation and loss of fighting will of part of the enemy army due to casualties, falling morale, running away, hiding, dodging, tripping over etc etc. When it comes down to it, you only NEED one mechanism to show all of this but FOG's two keeps up a popular wargame convention and on balance speeds up play as BG's potential decline in ability is faster!

Martin