Warriors vs Medium Foot

[SnuggleBunnies]

Do medium foot have any advantages over warriors? Warriors can move 3 spaces, and can charge cavalry. Do, for example, later Yari Ashigaru have anything to recommend them over the earlier warrior types? The tables in the manual make it seem possible that medium foot are more resistant to cavalry charges, but I'm not too sure.

Any clarification greatly appreciated.

[rbodleyscott]

Do medium foot have any advantages over warriors? Warriors can move 3 spaces, and can charge cavalry. Do, for example, later Yari Ashigaru have anything to recommend them over the earlier warrior types? The tables in the manual make it seem possible that medium foot are more resistant to cavalry charges, but I'm not too sure.

Any clarification greatly appreciated.

There is no real advantage to medium foot over warriors, except that Warriors with Impact Foot capability are liable to continue pursuing longer before being brought under control than Medium Foot.

The distinction is merely to model historical behaviour.

[jomni]

You would like to have warriors if you can get hold of them. They can even charge at horses at will. But they become rare
in the army lists especially during the later era.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Doesn't that seem kind of strange? I mean, I don't think that ashigaru devolved in their capabilities as the Sengoku era went on...

[jomni]

Not really. It's just a change in tactics as Richard stated. In the later era, there are no more Poor / Raw quality Ashigaru. All of them are Average quality so they actually got better. Though they don't go chasing horses anymore.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Ah, I didn't take quality into account. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanations.

[kongxinga]

Isn't it a sad reflection of the times in the game when the best that East Asia can offer is warriors? The manual suggests modding in East Versus West, but I don't think, given equal players, that Asian army lists can stand against any of the lists in Europe. Medium foot is so vulnerable to losing melee against heavy foot, determined, mixed and heavy foot are very rare, no pikes, no pistol impact and pistol melee cav.

I knew it was bad, but I did not know it was so bad. When army lists go from 1636 to 1700 with no changes, while Europeans are getting salvo infantry, French Style impact foot pike and shots, and bayonets, East Asia relies on warriors to do crazy charges. I don't even know why they bother with shields, those don't even give any armour, and by the time the charge reached a pike and shot block half are dead and half are facing the question of running or impaling themselves on pikes. Are matchlocks even comparable to muskets or just arqubuses here? The only faction that has the same problem that I recall is Ottomans, with a single list for the entire late period. And I thought Asian cavalry could hold its own with fierce charges, but bows and sword cavalry is really bad compared to dedicated chargers with heavy lance or impact pistol followed by melee pistol. And IIRC light lance Japanese cav are hard countered by both heavy lance and pistol impact cav.

The one way I could see it work with Asian civs is to hide in rough terrain and try to shoot it out. Or buy 6 cannons and shoot it out behind a obstacle. I don't think most Europeans can get 6 cannons.

[rbodleyscott]

Realistically, the only European troops that should appear in East Asia in this era are a few Portuguese or Dutch infantry of no great quality and some artilery. The Portuguese did not even bother with Pikes. Certainly no salvo troops or pistol armed cavalry.

The numbers involved were relatively small, so for the size of battles that SJ represents, there should only be a few units as allies in a local army.

We will never know what would have happened if a full size Western army met an East Asian army in this era.

Having said that, Japanese armies do very well in open Field of Glory: Renaissance tournaments, using essentially the same set of rules, so I think you might be surprised how well they would stand up in a what-if scenario.

[Stephen1024]

From a realistic point of view a samurai army meeting western army, the western army wants live and go home, samurai willing to die, that in itself makes a big difference.

Then comes the home advantage someone protecting the things they love will always fight harder.

You can throw in close combat advantage to samurai that you silly enough get to close to, samurai trained in hand to hand combat since childhood. As vets of pacific area of world war 2 will tell you what the Japanese where like up close, they would warn you not get in to hand to hand.

My GF a Filipina they still have blade culture, she practiced Filipino martial arts since been child, She very capable with sticks knifes and hands for her same techniques for all three, during world war 2 some Filipino's were only armed with bolo (machetes) they were very useful at that time. Even in modern times a knife will beat gun in close combat, takes to long draw gun. I believe a person with gun vs knife needs 21 feet of space to draw and fire a gun.

Combat is about know all possible advantages and exploiting all enemys weaknesses, strongest or best army only as good person commanding it.

Unfortunately hard program game with some those points.

[kongxinga]

I think the Japanese doing well in tournaments is really a testament to how well FOG Renaissance (actually all iterations of the FOG system) is designed and balanced. I was really amazed how within FOG Ancients and Medieval you can have Early Roman Legions versus French Hundred Years war and still be able to play. Obviously if I remember correctly the scale of the units is different, so a Roman Hastati Unit might have more men than French Dismounts, but both would be Disciplined Superior Swordsman, Armoured and cost the same. So I guess the East Asian Units might be cheaper and therefore you get more of them, or some other way of balance.

My theory crafting leads me to think that Asians may lose the cavalry fight if they can't get enough rounds of firing off, just like how Eastern European Lists do. One tiny advantage is that Asian Cavalry actually can evade instead of just light cavalry! I am not sure how matchlocks will fare versus pike and muskets, muskets seems to have the range advantage, so that means braving a few rounds of fire before beginning to fight, and the short range seems kinda risky if the Pike and shot blocks decides to melee. Protected shot seems only marginally effective versus cavalry at impact, and suffer badly at melee. I used to dislike musket swordsmen like Haiduks, but now I understand how resilient they are. Asians can concentrate firepower with dedicated bowmen behind matchlocks though, but overall it seems like a tough fight. It might be better if there were two or three infantry units to a single pike and shot unit, but I really don't know how the unit costs are calculated here.

I was going to mention Czarist Russia in addition to the Portugese and the Dutch, but Russians are not the typical Western European list. The Qing had several skirmishes with the Russians in the early period after subduing the Ming Loyalists in the south. You are right about the Dutch being of terrible quality in Asia, they had several poor showings on both land and sea against Ming Remnants in this period.

Historically speaking, you know a country is stagnating when one list can cover a large period. I think Ottomans had one list from 1650-1700 while the French, English and Imperials all had several later period ones reflecting the rapid development in military technology. That doesn't mean you can't win with Ottomans due to how well the FOG system is designed. The lists here take the cake, for example, Japanese Home army 1604-1700 means nearly 100 years of standing still, and sadly this is probably historically correct. Contrast this to the lists of England/British where almost every decade there is a new list.

[jomni]

True. After unification, Japan closed itself and never participated in wars. Thus we has stagnation.