Bows LF versus MF

[deadtorius]

Wanting to build a successor pike army and I have the option of bows being LF or MF. So far my bows have always been LF so I am used to having them run away if someone comes and threatens them. MF wont be able to do that and I am not sure they really wan to stand up to those nasty Romans. I know you get more dice with MF bows, especially if they are in a single rank.
Any suggestions

[nikgaukroger]

LF in these armies IMO.

[deadtorius]

Thanks, will keep it in mind as I have to decide for when I start to base the figs

[hazelbark]

Any one have good stories with large amounts of MF Bow? Not HYW obviously.

[paulcummins]

again - not your basic bow, but the Early Perisan machine gunners do a good job.

[grahambriggs]

again - not your basic bow, but the Early Perisan machine gunners do a good job.

That they do

[davidandlynda]

Lynda and I are considering going up to the Scottish Open,if we do she was thinking of using Chritian Nubian ,I've been trying to disuade her but maybe in the interests of experimentation ..........
David

[carlos]

2 * 8 Sup MF w/ bow are okay in the Christian Nubian army. Take loads of LF and some LH and you should have enough time to point the MF in the right direction. Plus, they are a tasty morsel that will draw a lot of enemies in, leaving flanks and rears exposed. Their large amounts of superior shooting dice can be deadly if combined w/ some LF or Cv shooting. I've used CN for about 5 games so far and the MF have always done well, especially against other foot that is just Protected.

[hazelbark]

They look like fun. Mameluke ally maybe (haven't worked a list yet) to stiffen the mounted arm.

Camels for fun and to frighten small drops of enemy LH.

[daleivan]

I had a great deal of fun with Classical Indians and their MF bow. Worked great in tandem with elephants

Dale

[carlos]

They look like fun. Mameluke ally maybe (haven't worked a list yet) to stiffen the mounted arm.

Camels for fun and to frighten small drops of enemy LH.

Mamluks are pretty much mandatory in my opinion. Camels in this list are useless against LH as the bedouin or the nubian cavalry are much better. Reasons being that camels don't frighten LH unless they are in a BG of 6 (rare from my experience) and then they don't have swordsmen which is a helpful PoA against LH, especially in period LH. So to go hunting LH w/ the nubians pick Cv, prot, lancers, swordsmen (bedouins) or Cv, prot, lgt spr, swords (nubian). Cheaper and more effective. To be honest I can't find a good match-up for the camelry at all which is pretty damning in my opinion.

[ethan]

The camels should kill LH that they catch (as will most any formed troops) but not because they are camels (which probably doesn't matter much against LH).

In impact the Cm will be at worst on evens (excluind lance armed LH) and rolling twice as many dice per frontage. So against a 2 frontage LH group the camels are likely to win impact 2 hits to 1 (2 hits to 2/3 if they have a poa from the light spears). In the subsequent melee the camels (down a poa to swords) will still win on average 1 1/3 hits to 1. Against a 2 wide LH the camel disruption effect won't matter.

I agree that in general the camels look a bit weak, but they should be fine against LH.

Against other formed troops the camel effect is worth a bit more than a poa, but probably still not enough, although you have a chance of sweeping away Ghilman types on the charge. Charging aginst bow/sword Cv on a 2 wide frontage the Camels get 4 dice with one PoA. The Ghilmans get 3 dice minus a poa. So the ghilmans on average get 1 2/9 hits (if superior) versus the camels two hits. Even if the Ghilman are disrupted this doesn't help enough in the subsequent melee phase where teh Ghilman have a double PoA. If the Camels get lucky and kill a Ghilman on teh charge the Ghilman are possibly in trouble (2 dice versus 4 with a double poa difference).

[SirGarnet]

Christian Nubians without camelry are like Romans without legionaries - yes it's legal, it might even be advantageous, but it's just so wrong! Grasping at straws, maybe the Camelry improved moderately to a high point at some time during the many centuries covered by this list?

Carlos, what kind of list are you playing and finding effective?
(I realize you leave the signature Camels in the camp *sigh*).

Mike

- Would walk a mile for a camel if a horse was two miles away. -

[carlos]

Problem w/ Nubian camelry against Ghulam types is that you need to be very lucky to both survive the shooting (2 turns being hit at 3+) and then need a really damaging impact phase (at least cause a casualty). These are both very unlikely to happen and then you get absolutely butchered in the melee phase. Even if the Ghulam types take a casualty in the impact phase, it's still even odds at the melee phase (4 dice at 33% vs 2 dice at 66% although the Ghulams are superior). The big problem w/ the camels is not that they are only average or that they are only protected, but rather that they don't have the swordsmen PoA. Everybody in their book except foot archers have a melee PoA of some kind, whereas they have crap armour and no Swordsmen. That hurts them a lot.

My current Nubian list looks like this:
- IC, TC, Mamluk TC
- 1 BG of javelinmen
- 4 BGs of LF archers
- 2 BGs of Sup MF archers
- 3 Nubian LH
- 2 Bedouin CV
- 3 Mamluk/Halqa Ghulam types
- 2 MF Spearmen

17 BGs total so very tough to break, lots of shooting w/ bows and javelins. Not a lot of hard-hitters but it's an army that can skirmish a lot and then deliver a hard blow where it counts. A sort of medieval Numidian if you will. Camels or not, very fun to play. And the thing I miss the most to be honest is using the noble cavalry as I really really love my paint job on those, but they just don't fit the strategy that well and always end up being targeted and killed by something nasty like knights.