Bow & Longbow

[Rich Gause]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

True nuff, but then the Raider element type was invented primarily in order to "fix the Dark Ages" without reference to what came before or after.

All I'm suggesting is that if the army lists distinguish between Bw and Lb, then perhaps we might want to take advantage of that. Don't see how that would involve a huge task of differentiation as it's already been done.

But 3Bd in DBA are specifically 3Bd because in the DBM army lists they are a faster more loosely formed type of Bd so it is easy to say 3 Bd are raider because by definition when Phil made the DBA army lists he made them with the idea that all 3 Bd are slightly different from 4 Bd in a similiar way. That is simply not true for Ax and Bw. Yes English medieval longbowmen are some of the best bow armed troops fielded by anybody anywhere. But not all troops DBA classifies as Lb are that markedly superior to the troops it classifies as Cb or just plain Bw to warrant an increase to value vs foot of 3 for Lb. Scenario special rules for English long bow are fine. Making all Lb super troops by making them better than all other bow for standard DBA not so fine.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

but then the Raider element type was invented primarily in order to "fix the Dark Ages" without reference to what came before or after.

Not true at all, Kevin. For one thing, Raiders do more to fix the Chariot period than they do for the Dark Ages. For another thing, when considering Raiders we looked at its impact everywhere. And for a third thing, that wasn't why they were invented. It is just one of the reasons Raiders are a good idea.

[Whether or not enhancing longbow and de-hancing other bow is reasonable is a separate issue, I'm just responding to your comment above regarding the origin of the Raider idea]

[snowcat]

...and while we're at it, we'll have Spartan Reg Sp(S) fighting a bit better on the table than Someone's Crap Levy Irr Sp(I) - thanks!

(Sorry Kevin, Pandora's Box and all that.)

[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.

[Bob Santamaria]

I am opposed to any further troop types - I would prefer they abandoned plans to expand the number of troop types at all.

Adrian

[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.

[david kuijt]

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.

There are some real questions on that issue, yes.

Making HCh act as Cat has some pluses, but some parts that really don't fit as well. Cat are slower than light foot -- and multi-horse chariots are as fast (sometimes faster) than two-horse chariots. Putting HCh down to 4mu movement when the light foot move 5mu and LCh 6mu doesn't seem to work.

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by Rich Gause

But 3Bd in DBA are specifically 3Bd because in the DBM army lists they are a faster more loosely formed type of Bd so it is easy to say 3 Bd are raider because by definition when Phil made the DBA army lists he made them with the idea that all 3 Bd are slightly different from 4 Bd in a similiar way. That is simply not true for Ax and Bw.

Just to clarify, I have never suggested distinguishing between 3Ax and 4Ax, and am thus a little puzzled why this is even being discussed.

[lkmjbc]

Kevin:
You are fighting a losing battle here. I've tried this several times... to no avail.

I've been told that all LB battles were won by LB fighting from bad going. I've been told that Agincourt had a steep hill in the middle of the battlefield. I've been told that the LB didn't do anything... they were just there to cover the deployment of the Men at Arms. I've been given every rationalization in the book.

Don't get me going on Longbow itself. I had one "expert" tell me that no can pull an 80lb bow...and that all LBs were in the 60lb pull category. When I pointed out that a friend's father at 67 years old shoots an 80lb Lb when he hunts in Africa... I was told that was impossible.

The mind boggles.

You can't play WOR or HYW as written (and do historical battles).

Here is a simple fix.

Take away QK vs Knts from all bow.
3Bw play as written, but change their move to be 300 paces (same as Ax- 5 MUs)

4Bw play as Pavise. You may consider making 4Bw/Pavise shoot at +3 vs inf.

Joe Collins

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by lkmjbc

Here is a simple fix.

Take away QK vs Knts from all bow.
3Bw play as written, but change their move to be 300 paces (same as Ax- 5 MUs)

4Bw play as Pavise. You may consider making 4Bw/Pavise shoot at +3 vs inf.

Joe Collins

Joe,

Thanks for the vote of support, as this has been a rather lonely debate for me thus far. I like your proposed fixes, which are elegant and straightforward -- certainly moreso than my own.

I particularly like the idea of taking away the QK vs. Knights (at least for non-LB archers anyway). For, whether it was Assyrian chariots charging Bablylonian bowmen, Macedonian Companions charging Persian archers, Condatta knights charging crossbows, or Marcher knights charging Welsh longbow, there is little evidence that they did so at great risk -- and much to suggest, to the contrary, that they had little trepidation and great confidence in a favorable outcome. "True" longbow are the only exception I'm aware of -- and we have definite proof in the fact that Knights chose to dismount rather than attack them on horseback.

Like Raiders and Light Spear, your proposed "fix" would thus be applicable across a broad range of periods and army lists. I like it.

Kevin