Bows

[ravenflight]

I think the bow vs pike and shot interaction that many people have cited components of here include the 6 bases vs often 8 bases.

This whole interaction has sort of bugged me from early on. However I don't have a good solution or even a preferred one.

That's exactly why I created the BG size thread, but got no comments.

Which tells you something ...

To keep you happy I'll go and comment

That was my point. If Hazelbark and myself are the only ones who see it as a problem, then it's not a problem. I wasn't begging for comments on my post. It was more pointing out 'been raised and ignored'

[DavidT]

My preference is to leave ranges as they are and reduce bows to 1.5 ranks at short range.

[urbanbunny1]

One thing for me that has always annoyed me with bow armies is that they get short range at 4" vs the 3" that musket do.

That extra one to two turns of being in effective range can really rip a P&S unit to pieces.

Yes, a musket unit will cause casualties, but when when you are getting 7 to 9 dice hitting on 4 thrown at you, you will fail a test pretty soon.

If they had the same range as musket, that could work.

[nikgaukroger]

Same short range as Musket would be my choice if a change is to be made to this.

[kevinj]

Does anyone have an objection to this as a proposal?

[quackstheking]

Are we doing this for historical accuracy or for game balance?

Whilst it evens up the Musket vs Bow dynamic, it completely changes the "in period theme" dynamic. Reducing bows range makes them extremely vulnerable to Warriors who can charge 4" and therefore they will now only face 1 round of shooting at short range which if they are armoured as well gives them a double advantage (therefore only hitting on 5/6). It would make bow based armies less viable.

I have always considered the -2 on the death roll to be a sufficient penalty and never saw the need for range changes.

I assume there must have been a good reason when the rules were drawn up to have a range differential so what has now changed?

Until these changes started being considered, I had not heard of issues with bows!

So back to my first question, if we are doing the is for game balance between musket and bow then I don't support the change!

Don

[kevinj]

It's principally a game balance thing, and the interactions between Bow and Musket armed troops is the main problem that I see. The Bow ranges appear to have been inherited from Fog AM.

[Maniakes]

The only straight up fight between bow and musket that I can bring to mind happened when the Ming general Coxinga was re-taking Formosa (Taiwan) from the Dutch. In a straight shoot out Ming bowmen broke the Dutch musketeers with firepower (there is an account with all the usual cliches about darkening the sun with arrows etc!). Of course there could have been a lot of other factors involved (you could consider Coxinga a Great General for example)

Dave P

[nikgaukroger]

I assume there must have been a good reason when the rules were drawn up to have a range differential so what has now changed?

As Kevin has said it is nothing more than that was what it was in FoG:AM and that seems to have been the then "traditional" bow range - having looked back at the author's forum from FoG:R development it looks to be as simple as that.

[nikgaukroger]

It's principally a game balance thing,

And also, maybe, to cut out some of the dicking around measurement that seems to take place because of the difference.

[madaxeman]

Dons point about warriors is a very good one IMO.

It also feels more important to keep 4" for the in-book/in-theme interactions, rather than applying a 3" short range as a "fix" for the out of theme musket/bow interaction

[RonanTheLibrarian]

I'm with Don and the axe-wielding gentleman - given that most tourneys are tightly-themed, I think that "out of theme" battles will be rare and the bow ranges should stay as they are. Actually, I think having bow and musket with the same max range is also wrong - bow should be 1"-2" greater for that, too, but I can't see that being accepted.

[quackstheking]

And also, maybe, to cut out some of the dicking around measurement that seems to take place because of the difference.

That rarely happens now - as we are all allowed to measure distances most players will say I'm in 4" and out of 3" etc - never been a problem!

also if we start looking at the early Western Period, the dynamics there are changed too - Bow is weak enough now against generally armoured Pike in Kiels but at least got a few shots in with 4" short range. It is still hard to get enough hits on an Armoured Keil even to make them take a test let alone fail one especially with hitting only on 5/6 plus Kiels counting as self supported! And let's not forget Swiss pike whizz along at 4" a time as well so are now guaranteed to roll over Bow.

I'm strongly in favour of leaving Bow short range at 4" - I think we may sort out one problem and create a few others especially in-period and if we start to make Bow a non-viable option then it will hamstring many army's used now and then open up a plea for a points reduction!

Don

[timmy1]

I agree with Don.

The proposed change also impacts the DF / Bow interaction negatively IMO and I say that as someone who plays Swiss a lot.

[DavidT]

I have played a number games with handgunners v bows using my Milanese against my friend's Early Henrician English and the current situation seems to get the interaction right in terms of range.

So I would vote for maintaining the effective range of bows/xbows at 4MU.

[Jhykronos]

It also feels more important to keep 4" for the in-book/in-theme interactions, rather than applying a 3" short range as a "fix" for the out of theme musket/bow interaction

I'd say the arquebus/bow interaction is more relevant to historical matchups, though.

[quackstheking]

My last word on bow short range!

It would seem really odd if mounted bow could shoot 4" at short range but foot bow couldn't! That would give Mtd bow a big advantage over foot bow, yet if we aligned mounted and foot bow short range at 3" then mtd bow becomes even more non viable!

Don

[ravenflight]

It also feels more important to keep 4" for the in-book/in-theme interactions, rather than applying a 3" short range as a "fix" for the out of theme musket/bow interaction

I'd say the arquebus/bow interaction is more relevant to historical matchups, though.

I think in this sense the rules have it right.

The main reason the Japanese went to the arquebus was due to ease of training. "Here, point this in the general direction of the enemy and put the glowing red bit in the pan". It wasn't due to the arquebus being a better weapon (except for that).

Indeed, there are photographs as late as the 1800's of Samurai with bow (although I'd postulate that this is for nostalgic reasons more than quality)

[Jhykronos]

The main reason the Japanese went to the arquebus was due to ease of training.

I disagree. Sorry, but I never fully bought the "ease of training" explanation for either the crossbow or the gun. My own impression is that the Japanese adopted the arquebus because is -was- a devastatingly effective weapon.

"Here, point this in the general direction of the enemy and put the glowing red bit in the pan".

Umm... you forgot the 2-3 dozen steps you need to memorize to load the bloody thing. And the long list of what-not-to do's you need to know so your powder doesn't blow up in your face. And the care you need to instill so that it all doesn't turn into a soggy club when it rains. Not to mention you need to drill it well enough so your troops can perform it all at the same time someone is trying to kill them.

It wasn't due to the arquebus being a better weapon (except for that).

Sure it was a better weapon. The clans that were early adopters of the arquebus won overwhelming victories with it... especially in the period when the Teppo was too rare to be issued in mass (so ease of training wouldn't even really be a factor).

Oh, and in the specific example of the Japanese, isn't there an actual reference stating that the Teppo had longer range than the bow? (IIRC)

[Vespasian28]

Once again, if you have an interaction that doesn't work with historically unlikely opponents, then in tourneys where this may happen introduce a tourney rule. Don't mess with the main rules trying for an impossibly global panacea .