Bow & Longbow

[Kevin Boylan]

Since 2.2+ is making distinctions between different 'grades' of spear and blade, it may be advisable to do the something along the same lines with bow. Some may argue that this would be too much given that we've already added the Pavise element type -- which is definitely a step in the right direction. However, Pavise appears only rarely on the army lists compared to the huge mass of undifferentiated 3Bw, 4Bw, 3Lb and 4Lb that are presently lumped together as "Bow" regardless of significant differences in armament, organization and tactics .

It seems to me that the existing rules -- being written by Brits -- naturally tend to equate generic Bow elements with English longbowmen. Thus, all bow quick kill knights and fire with deadly +4 effect vs. all mounted. Yet, on the other hand, English longbowmen, rated as bow, are surprisingly fragile in historical matchups against enemy foot such as French spear +2 vs. +4 and dismounted knights +2 vs. +5.

I believe that there is a sound historical basis for distinguishing between different types of bow -- particularly as the army lists already distinguish between "mere" bows and longbows (though currently to no purpose). One might, for example, classify 3Bw or 3 Lb as +2 vs. foot and +3 vs. mounted, and deny them a quick kill vs. knights. 4Lb, on the other hand, might be rated as +3 vs. foot and +4 vs. mounted.

[Rich Gause]

The 3/4Bw distinctions(as well as those for Ax) in DBA are not the same as the 3/4 Bd or Sp distinctions.The 3Bd/Sp(as well as Wb) represent looser formerd faster elements so it is easier to make rules distinguishing them by their different characteristics. The 3/4 Bw and Ax only represent a difference between irregular/regular elements which have no effect in DBA. There are even 3Bw versions of English Longbowmen. Also IMO +3 is too high a factor for Bw to have vs foot and +3 is too low a factor for Bw to have vs mounted. The idea about Bw losing their QK on Kn has some appeal. I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile to try to sort out all the Bw who sometimes used stakes and let them keepp a QK vs KN if the general QK was removed.

[Pavane]

Also, many bowmen are represented as Psiloi so we actually already have two classes of archers based on fighting style. We don't need three archer classes in DBA.

[pozanias]

I think the question is a good one. I don't really have an answer as to whether or not we should have separate classifications for 3Bw and 4Lb (for example).

However, I would like to frame the discussion a little bit:

1. IMO, the question shouldn't be: are English Longbowmen different enough from say Egyptian bowmen to warrant a distinct troop type? But rather, are English Longbowmen different enough from other medieval bowmen/crossbowmen to warrant a distinct troop type?

2. does this type of distinction occur in other periods as well?

3. would changing factors improve the in-period interactions of bow with other element types?

One last thought, as with other significant ideas that have been mentioned during beta testing, it is my opinion that these ideas should be incorporated into the development process of 2.2++. The only exceptions are things that could be easily thought out and thoroughly tested in a short period of time. Of course others may disagree.

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by pozanias

1. IMO, the question shouldn't be: are English Longbowmen different enough from say Egyptian bowmen to warrant a distinct troop type? But rather, are English Longbowmen different enough from other medieval bowmen/crossbowmen to warrant a distinct troop type?

I'd have to say yes, they are sufficiently different. One need only consult a few examples from the 100 Years War to note the vast difference in capability between English longbows and French-employed crossbowmen. Welsh longbowmen (3Lb), on the other hand, never presented an equivalent threat to Norman, British, or Marcher knights because of their very different organization, tactics, lack of stakes, etc., etc.

[kontos]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

I'd have to say yes, they are sufficiently different. One need only consult a few examples from the 100 Years War to note the vast difference in capability between English longbows and French-employed crossbowmen. Welsh longbowmen (3Lb), on the other hand, never presented an equivalent threat to Norman, British, or Marcher knights because of their very different organization, tactics, lack of stakes, etc., etc.

So do we go another step further in distinction and introduce a separate Legionnaire Blade class as they were certainly superior to your "average" blade over the course of history? I am not so sure we should mix "fighting styles" with "eliteness" of troops based on a few historical battles. Just because more or "better" historical documentation is available for English history, as opposed to Assyrian for example, doesn't mean we have to react and change every troop type out there. Just my 2 cents.

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by Rich Gause

The 3/4 Bw and Ax only represent a difference between irregular/regular elements which have no effect in DBA. There are even 3Bw versions of English Longbowmen. Also IMO +3 is too high a factor for Bw to have vs foot and +3 is too low a factor for Bw to have vs mounted. The idea about Bw losing their QK on Kn has some appeal. I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile to try to sort out all the Bw who sometimes used stakes and let them keep a QK vs KN if the general QK was removed.

I don't know that I would agree that the only difference between 3Ax and 4Ax is irregular vs. regular. There is a world of difference, for example, between "true" Roman imperial Auxilia and Medieval Irish auxilia in terms of weaponry, formation, tactics, etc., etc..

I'm not suggesting a +3 vs. foot for ALL bow, but merely for certain longbow units that historically demonstrated a greater capability for hand-to-hand combat than was demonstrated by other archers. The historical evidence is also quite strong that most archers were far less capable when confronting shock cavalry (i.e., Knights) than English longbows were.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

The historical evidence is also quite strong that most archers were far less capable when confronting shock cavalry (i.e., Knights) than English longbows were.

I like your ideas for scenario special rules, Kevin, but absent the introduction of a point system, I am very wary of them for general use.

Speaking to the scenario special rules thing, the Two Davids current plan (still under development) for Fall In (in November) is to run a Fall of Assyria Campaign Theme. In that, we are discussing the idea of removing the Bow QK on Kn who charge them as a special rule for that campaign only. Because the Heavy Chariots of that period were not much afraid of bows -- certainly no more than Light Chariots of the same period would be.

[ferrency]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

Speaking to the scenario special rules thing, the Two Davids current plan (still under development) for Fall In (in November) is to run a Fall of Assyria Campaign Theme. In that, we are discussing the idea of removing the Bow QK on Kn who charge them as a special rule for that campaign only. Because the Heavy Chariots of that period were not much afraid of bows -- certainly no more than Light Chariots of the same period would be.

An alternate change that would have similar effects would be to turn HCh into Cataphracts for this tournament.

It's my understanding that there's some debate as to whether there were really any heavy chariots that were used similarly to how knights were used later on.

Alan

[Richard Lee]

Originally Posted by ferrency

An alternate change that would have similar effects would be to turn HCh into Cataphracts for this tournament.

It's my understanding that there's some debate as to whether there were really any heavy chariots that were used similarly to how knights were used later on.

Alan

That sounds an interesting idea. If it works well, it might be relatively easy to incorporate it into either 2.2+, or whatever follows 2.2+ in the future.