New Shooting Rules

[Fab]

Hmm. Seems like this is particularly advantageous for those of us who prefer to be aggressive with their ranged units. There is now no risk in shooting the opponent's archers, as they can't shoot back (can't tell you how many frustrating times a return volley 6-1'ed me, while I internally cried out at the indignity of the situation) and you have a 50/50 shot to at least push them back, potentially eliminating the opposing stand's opportunity to fire that round. Careful selection of combat order is, in my opinion, more important than ever. I like it.

Not wild about splitting combat values, but it's a small price to pay for a better overall game. And hey, archers can 1-v-1 close order foot now.

Beware !
It's the other way round !

If your archers approach the enemy's archers, they shot first.
So your archers risk to be pushed back.

[David Kuijt]

Not wild about splitting combat values, but it's a small price to pay for a better overall game. And hey, archers can 1-v-1 close order foot now.

That was one of the big things -- in the old system archers could attack Thorakitaoi or EIRoman Auxilia (in mail, helmets, and big shield, with lots of training and elan) at +2:+3 (or even better, with piling-on) but were at +2:+4 against various Heavy Foot (many/most of whom did not have mail), and +2:+5 against Elite Foot (some of whom had no mail or no shields!). It made no sense. There was no way to go without adding a new (simple) combat factor.

And we're hoping (and initial playtest results suggest) that the new system, because of its simplicity vis-a-vis the old shooting system, is a net INCREASE in simplicity, in spite of adding the new combat factor for resists-shooting.

[David Kuijt]

Hmm. Seems like this is particularly advantageous for those of us who prefer to be aggressive with their ranged units. There is now no risk in shooting the opponent's archers, as they can't shoot back (can't tell you how many frustrating times a return volley 6-1'ed me, while I internally cried out at the indignity of the situation) and you have a 50/50 shot to at least push them back, potentially eliminating the opposing stand's opportunity to fire that round.

Beware !
It's the other way round !

If your archers approach the enemy's archers, they shot first.
So your archers risk to be pushed back.

Good point, Fab!

I personally love this one -- by letting the non-moving player shoot first, we make it so the player standing (and shooting) can drive back and/or even kill enemy archers before they get to shoot. Which makes sense, since "marching-and-shooting-at-the-same-time" is (a) dorky and (b) clearly not going to be as effective as standing and shooting at someone who is marching at you, preparing to get organized and fire at you.

[Andreas Johansson]

Returning to Archers v. Artillery, nobody has thought of a good historical example yet. A good point that was raised is that 15-16C artillery was often put behind field fortifications. While in many cases this clearly wasn't primarily intended to protect against enemy foot archers (think of Caldiran say - Selim's chief worry was indubitably the Kizilbash cavalry), it will nevertheless have had that effect.

Another thought is that the current rules makes Artillery very dangerous to other Artillery; shooting 4:2 works out to a 25% chance of a kill. Since, AFAIK, counterbattery fire was the exception in our period, this might merit a look.

[Andreas Johansson]

One tidbit that came up: apparently at Formigny, English longbowmen preferred to charge, capture, and try to drag away French guns over simply shooting the gunners. While this doesn't directly tell us how effective the latter tactic should be, it does suggest that moving into close combat with Artillery should be more attractive to Archers than engaging in a shooting match.

ETA: So to make a concrete(ish) rule proposal, I'd suggest that Artillery should be quite resistant to shooting to encourage Archers to engage at close range as well as to discourage counterbattery fire, and that the field fortifications battle card - I presume there'll be one? - should be quite attractive to use with Artillery.

All of this is based on late Medieval (or 16C) examples with gunpowder artillery, but I don't believe there's much in the way of other periods that have all three of Artillery, plentiful Archers (or Pavisiers), and much in the way of battle narratives.

[David Kuijt]

One tidbit that came up: apparently at Formigny, English longbowmen preferred to charge, capture, and try to drag away French guns over simply shooting the gunners. While this doesn't directly tell us how effective the latter tactic should be, it does suggest that moving into close combat with Artillery should be more attractive to Archers than engaging in a shooting match.

ETA: So to make a concrete(ish) rule proposal, I'd suggest that Artillery should be quite resistant to shooting to encourage Archers to engage at close range as well as to discourage counterbattery fire,

We're discussing something in that nature.

and that the field fortifications battle card - I presume there'll be one? - should be quite attractive to use with Artillery.

All of this is based on late Medieval (or 16C) examples with gunpowder artillery, but I don't believe there's much in the way of other periods that have all three of Artillery, plentiful Archers (or Pavisiers), and much in the way of battle narratives.

Right. I was just reading about a battle (7th or 8th century) between Arabs and Khazars where both sides apparently used artillery (non-gunpowder, obviously) on the opposing troops, but there was insufficient detail to tell whether it was a battle associated with a siege, or a siege with a battle later or earlier. And in either case, no Archers/Pavisiers.