Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: happyhiker on June 06, 2020, 10:14:21 PM
-
I’m trying to come with some simple medieval rules to play with my son. I’ve got most the mechanics, but I’d like to do longbows shoot twice, but thats too powerful so I’d like to come up with a way to count arrows. If a game last say 6 turns, longbows get 8 arrows, but once they’ve all been shot, archers are just unarmoured swords men. But I can’t figure out an easy way to keep track, counters for each unit is too cumbersome, and d6's are ugly and get confused In gameplay, just wondered if anyone can think of a better way of doing it ?
-
If you're looking for something fairly visually homogeneous why not go for some of the arrows provided with the Perry plastic longbowmen on a small base?
Or allow each unity of longbowmen to loose at a higher rate once per game? Or by a small increased factor (say a dice) each time they loose?
-
You could do little marker bases combining the arrows as mentioned above with a space (or dice frame) for a small 7mm dice.
We use these small dice a lot for markers in games as they are too small to be rolled so don’t get confused with normal dice.
Or, if you want to avoid markers entirely, perhaps allow double shots until a unit rolls something when rolling to hit. Quite what depends on the mechanics of the game. But something like more 1s than hits.
-
Roll a D8 each time you fire and a 1 means last arrow?
-
Wow thanks there’s some great ideas there. I’ve ordered some 7mm dice from eBay to try and Perry arrows would make great markers. A game mechanic might be easier than tracking if I can come up with the right one. D8 rolling a 1 is too harsh as you could fail too early in the game. Maybe no roll on normal shooting, but if you double shoot d6-3 if lesser than the turn count means last arrow for that unit. That would give 3 turns of fire away, but increasing jepody thereafter. Problem is it would encourage early shooting, whereas an actual counter makes you conserve arrows until they are most effective... bit of play testing needed I think.
-
Another thought on this. In For King and Parliament ECW rules, units have fairly limited ammo, 1-3 units typically. But this is ammo used for extra effect, so either long range shooting or double strength short range shooting. So you could do something similar- I.e. longbow units can always fire Normally but have a few double strength fire markers. Then you don’t have to worry about tracking every shot, just a few double shots.
-
A simple way is to allow archers to shoot twice but in one game turn only (when their player wants it) then you don't need markers or tracking. It represents a storm of arrows which can happen in one short moment but only once in the battle. The rest of the game the archers shoot normally (once per game turn) as long as they can; they will have to fight with swords anyway when the enemy reaches their other infantry.
-
A simple way is to allow archers to shoot twice but in one game turn only (when their player wants it) then you don't need markers or tracking. It represents a storm of arrows which can happen in one short moment but only once in the battle. The rest of the game the archers shoot normally (once per game turn) as long as they can; they will have to fight with swords anyway when the enemy reaches their other infantry.
Maybe only at short range too, though such a mechanism would be more generally applicable to the HYW then the Wars of the Roses (for example).
-
A simple way is to allow archers to shoot twice but in one game turn only (when their player wants it) then you don't need markers or tracking. It represents a storm of arrows which can happen in one short moment but only once in the battle.
Maybe only at short range too
Ah... I would rather allow it at long range / middle range...
such a mechanism would be more generally applicable to the HYW then the Wars of the Roses (for example).
Yes that's the main examples.
-
Or if you want an easy mechanism with no markers, allow them to shoot once per turn as long as they can/want, but if they want to let loose an arrow storm and shoot twice roll 2 dice (of your choice, but 2D6 is probably the easiest option) and if you get a double you've used up your arrows. Allow replenishment if the unit spends a turn in the baggage camp.
-
I’ve seen people make hexagonal markers with 1-6 painted around the edges. Stick some arrows in the middle and turn it to match the number of arrows left.
-
If you want to give some randomness to arrow availability, you may use a mechanism used in several Too fat Lardies rules, that is what they call the EDNA (ever decreasing number avalible) number. Basically, you asign a number to something that is spent, and every time you throw a dice and is over that number, you subtract one from that number. So, there is random, but every time you throw a dice value over the new number, is easier to "spend" the dice.
For instance, suppose that a unit of archers has a 3 as EDNA number. Every time they shoot, you throw a dice. If is 3 or less, nothing happens. But if is over 3, you subtract 1 and the new EDNA is 2. When they shoot again, if the dice values is 3 or more, you subtract 1 again, and the new EDNA number is 1. Now, the only way to not spend all arrows is to score a 1!!!
So, you never know how many arrows remain.
This system may be used for any troops that spend ammunition. Grenades in an infantry squad, for instance. Of for turns for arriving a reserve of troops.
-
thanks for all the replies. I'm a strong advocate of simpler is better. I think it comes down to using some 7mm d6's(on order) and count arrows Or a random mechanism. The EDNA sounds clever but would still need a counter per unit, so I might as well count arrows. Shoot normally, but double twice per game is an idea so is a d6 based on turn count. I think I'll have to play test each. It will come down the system my son likes best to be honest. I like a non random count because it adds tension the player has to decide, use arrows now, but at the risk running out. I suppose a random chance of losing all arrows does the same. At least the lock down is good for playtest time...
-
If you want to keep it simple, how about when a unit is fresh you hit on x on x number of d6.
After that first fire, Mark unit with a counter.
On subsequent firing, if a 1 is rolled, put a, different colours counter on unit and from that point they fire at less effect for rest of game. No book keeping them, just coloured counters.
-
I use the little casualty markers from WarBases for tracking ammunition. They get themed stuff put on them. Pack-horses and supply dumps and things.
(https://www.fysh.org/~katie/wargames/pictures/fw/20141115_191220_small.jpg)
Fantasy armies get their own versions:
(https://www.fysh.org/~katie/wargames/pictures/fw/rats/20160530_164929_small.jpg)
The markers are reasonably cheap and, to be honest, I enjoy making the little dioramas...
-
Thought I’d update the post in case anyone is interested. 7mm dice came, they make great counters, small unobtrusive and not confused with normal dice. So we play tested 8 shots a game, which basically meant 4 turns of double shooting. Now this might work for less archers but our hyw English army is 50% or more archers, so total carnage, French massacred again with almost no melee. Might be accurate, but makes a dull game. So next attempt will be shoot as normal 2 turns of double shooting. Failing that +1. I hadn’t realised how hard it is to write balanced rules...
@katie, great counters btw..
-
I think it's tough to balance missile effectiveness in rules generally, but specifically when you're talking about HYW English (and Welsh!!) longbows. We think of them as battle-winners and they absolutely could be when used right, because they shagged up a French advance very effectively and neutralised their own crossbows so often. There's no lack of contemporary writers who confirm the respect English bowmen were held in by other nations (my own take is the bow was part of the equation, but the uniquely trained man made up the larger share of the equation). BUT when used poorly or in less than ideal circumstances, they were much less effective and largely defenceless against armoured knights.
How much to write into rules and how much to abstract into dice rolls must be a very difficult balancing act. Certainly limiting arrow supply is a good option, but then again, how much do you keep as a known quantity and how much unexpected?
-
Just to chime in again, Military Archery has always been about volume of arrows, no matter which time period or army we are talking about so I think you're right to think of "counting arrows" in a game, with this caveat; if you're fighting large scale battles then this ought to come into play. If a skirmish game, then less so as it's safe to assume that in most circumstances an archer, be it a crossbowman, a bowman or handgunner has enough ammunition for a short encounter.
-
I think in a small scale encounter, longbowmen shouldn't need to be any more powerful than crossbowmen and handgunners. You can give each one slightly different rules to add flavour if you like, but longbow shouldn't have an obvious advantage.
In a large pitched battle scenario, longbowmen should be a better choice, due to the volume of arrows they can get in the air, in the perfect conditions to suit them. Which means a defensive static position, dug in with stakes and ditches etc, used in large numbers, and a helpful opponent who is going for a direct frontal assault. In this situation, longbow should be much more effective than crossbows/handguns. If not in such a situation, longbowmen shouldn't have any real advantage over other missile troops, and the English should not be superpowered. Remember, Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt were just three battles in a war that lasted over 100 years, and conveniently the only ones us English seem to remember! If the longbow was so good in every encounter, how come the French won the war?
-
In a large pitched battle scenario, longbowmen should be a better choice, due to the volume of arrows they can get in the air, in the perfect conditions to suit them. Which means a defensive static position, dug in with stakes and ditches etc, used in large numbers, and a helpful opponent who is going for a direct frontal assault. In this situation, longbow should be much more effective than crossbows/handguns. If not in such a situation, longbowmen shouldn't have any real advantage over other missile troops, and the English should not be superpowered. Remember, Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt were just three battles in a war that lasted over 100 years, and conveniently the only ones us English seem to remember! If the longbow was so good in every encounter, how come the French won the war?
Finally someone said it! The amount of myth around the longbow is only equalled by the the amouth of myth about the katana. Both are not super secret overpowered weapons with near magical abilities.
Whilst I do get the English love affair with the longbow. It really was a pretty rare sight on battlefields in mainland Europe.
-
Verneuil 1424 was a perfect example in the series of dynastic conflicts we call the HYW where the archers utterly failed to make an impact and it came down to a slogging match. Most of the time, in pitch battles archers was used to disrupt a charge, be it mounted or dismounted, to the point where said charge became as ineffective as was possible under the circumstances. In the case of Verneuil, the Italian's on their armoured horses punched straight through the English lines causing absolute mayhem. It is probably that was it not for the presence of John of Bedford, Regent of France, and the show of pageantry of the day before the "English" (re: English and Normans) would have been completely routed. As it was the personality and appeal to honour made by Bedford, might well have saved the day. Incidentally, the Scots had archers there too. The archery duel between the English and the Scots was described as "pittious" by the Burgundian chronicler Jean de Wavrin.
-
Verneuil 1424 was a perfect example in the series of dynastic conflicts we call the HYW where the archers utterly failed to make an impact and it came down to a slogging match. Most of the time, in pitch battles archers was used to disrupt a charge, be it mounted or dismounted, to the point where said charge became as ineffective as was possible under the circumstances. In the case of Verneuil, the Italian's on their armoured horses punched straight through the English lines causing absolute mayhem. It is probably that was it not for the presence of John of Bedford, Regent of France, and the show of pageantry of the day before the "English" (re: English and Normans) would have been completely routed. As it was the personality and appeal to honour made by Bedford, might well have saved the day. Incidentally, the Scots had archers there too. The archery duel between the English and the Scots was described as "pittious" by the Burgundian chronicler Jean de Wavrin.
And in warganing rules terms, it could be that they just rolled a lot of 1s that say! And at agincourt the French had that misfortune.
It also should be pointed out that longbows were used in Europe in the latter half of the 15th century, by the French and Burgundians most notably. We don't hear much about their longbows winning any battles. Could it be that they weren't as 'good' as their English counterparts? Or, could it be that they were perfectly effective troops, but longbows rarely ever won battles by themselves - when they seemingly do, it's an anomoly that goes down in history as some great military breakthrough.
-
And in warganing rules terms, it could be that they just rolled a lot of 1s that say! And at agincourt the French had that misfortune.
It also should be pointed out that longbows were used in Europe in the latter half of the 15th century, by the French and Burgundians most notably. We don't hear much about their longbows winning any battles. Could it be that they weren't as 'good' as their English counterparts? Or, could it be that they were perfectly effective troops, but longbows rarely ever won battles by themselves - when they seemingly do, it's an anomoly that goes down in history as some great military breakthrough.
Good points Charlie.
I'm in danger of going OT here so I'll keep it brief. I think that the answer lies in that we don't actually know how the archers were used in conjunction with dismounted men at arms, at least as far as "English" armies go. We have snippets from various chronicles but nothing concrete. I would assume that the way men at arms and archers were used in conjunction with one another was probably fluid throughout Late Med. history. But, this is an assumption on my part.