Auteur |
Message |
Korik
Archer
Inscrit le: 19 Juil 2018 Messages: 58
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 28, 2018 12:01 am Sujet du message: Interpenetrating LMI |
|
Foot Kn/HI/MI can pass through bow/crossbow which are both LMI
In that case, why the restriction on interpenetrating javelinmem, also LMI?
And for that matter, why can’t LMI interpenetrate other LMI?
I’m also not sure why being impetuous should make a difference. Outside of charge reach, other than being unmanouverable, impetuous troops dont cause any issues provided they stand still or make a full move |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014 Messages: 1468
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 28, 2018 3:52 am Sujet du message: |
|
Korik a écrit: | Foot Kn/HI/MI can pass through bow/crossbow which are both LMI
In that case, why the restriction on interpenetrating javelinmem, also LMI?
And for that matter, why can’t LMI interpenetrate other LMI?
I’m also not sure why being impetuous should make a difference. Outside of charge reach, other than being unmanouverable, impetuous troops dont cause any issues provided they stand still or make a full move |
The “FOot through bowmen†is a common thing in many Ancients rules, and it’s kinda not a literal interpenetration, instead it is there to simulate the Medieval mixed men at arms and bowmen/longbowmen formations, and other similar ones from earlier in history.
Best to think of it as a different way of simulating the same thing as a mixed sword/bow unit (with slightly different strengths and weaknesses) rather than literal interpenetration based on relative troop densities.
 _________________ www.madaxeman.com |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
ethan
Signifer
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 347
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 28, 2018 2:07 pm Sujet du message: |
|
madaxeman a écrit: |
Best to think of it as a different way of simulating the same thing as a mixed sword/bow unit (with slightly different strengths and weaknesses) rather than literal interpenetration based on relative troop densities.
 |
I personally wish it would go away and just be replaced by the perfectly serviceable mixed unit rules in ADLG. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mark G Fry
Signifer
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017 Messages: 323
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 28, 2018 7:45 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Both mixed units (of Knights and Archer etc) and units of foot Knights passing through Archers and vice versa are (generally) complete nonsense - with no historical justification.
It was (apparently) originally a DBM mechanism, based upon a misinterpretation of what is described in a particular C15th chronicle (The Arrival) as what happened at the Battle of Towton during the English Wars of the Roses. In fact, what is describes is open to huge conjecture and bears no relationship to any other described battle tactics from the period or earlier.
And before anybody goes quoting mixed Longbows and Pikes in C15th Burgundian armies - again, this is a 'suggested' experimental formation. There is no record of it ever having been used in battle.
At the level we are depicting historical armies it is perfectly acceptable to have alternate units of Foot Knights (or MAA) and archers (Longbows)
Where there are truly mixed units - such as Italian City States Milita (HF spears and Crossbows) then they are (correctly) depicted as Mixed Units.
Even in C14th & C15th Iberian armies there is no record of Javelinmen (Almughavars and such like) interpenetrating each other or Foot Knights.
Cheers
Mark |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Korik
Archer
Inscrit le: 19 Juil 2018 Messages: 58
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 28, 2018 9:07 pm Sujet du message: |
|
If this were a specific rule covering swordsmen swapping out with bowmen in the anticipation of hand to hand combat then fair enough, although that would suggest some cooperation between the two units which would lend weight to the mixed unit solution, but this is a general rule about what types of troops can pass through other types of troops
I don't know whether or not Roman Legionaries trained to pass through bowmen but for some reason neglected passing through javelin armed infantry (who were probably better than the bowmen at moving in a dispersed formation) but it isn't a matter of training - one of the units could be from an allied contingent which might not even speak the same language
And it isn't a case of the two units supporting each other - the HI can interpenetrate the bows and then carry merrily on their way without a backward glance
With a few exceptions, the footprint of a unit is impassable terrain (apart from burst throughs, and I STILL don't understand why impetuous troops are excluded in this case - even DBM didn't make this distinction, and also allowed the interpenetration to work both ways), making this seem an 'artificial' rule created to cover a specific circumstance rather than relying on the mainstream rules
I realise ADLG, like other rule sets, is simply a framework for moving figures around on a tabletop without anarchy ruling, but you feel that there should be at least a degree of consistency _________________ Korik |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
ethan
Signifer
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 347
|
Posté le: Lun Oct 29, 2018 11:12 am Sujet du message: |
|
Mark G Fry a écrit: | Both mixed units (of Knights and Archer etc) and units of foot Knights passing through Archers and vice versa are (generally) complete nonsense - with no historical justification. |
I suspect if you want to go this route then you probably need to consider regrading the Archers as Elite M Sw Longbows vice Longbows. I don't think that formation will lead to historical outcomes. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mark G Fry
Signifer
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017 Messages: 323
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
Posté le: Mer Oct 31, 2018 10:23 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I totally agree Ethan.
Personally I think that foot units interpenetrating each other is so rare in the periods covered by the LADG lists, as to be really noteworthy.
Hence Roman Legionaries (or Hastatii, Pricipes and Triarii) are trained specifically to do this.
There are instances of Javelinmen (or the equivalent) interpenetrating with mounted troops - a specific example being javelin armed medium infantry in Italian City State armies, that cooperate with and can interpenetrate with their mounted men-at-arms, but again it is rare enough to be noteworthy in the chronicles.
The MF swordsmen bow units are a very rare troop type historically and justifiably so in the lists:
Early Japanese Samurai; Turkish Janissaries; Medieval Scottish Highlanders are all (IMHO) correctly classified.
I'd suggest that certain small late Byzantine guard units were probably eligable to be classified as dual armed bow/swordsmen (as they were the models for the creations of Janissary troops). Some Central American units armed with bows sword-sticks and shield or North American Woodland Indians could also conceivable also be classified similarly - but we are stretching the classification to its extreme I'd suggest.
Milan had units of foot militia apparently dual armed with both halberds and handguns, but these appear to be an early C16th innovation, so outside the scope of the current LADG rules. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Maverick2909
Légionaire
Inscrit le: 01 Juil 2017 Messages: 103
Localisation: Oklahoma City, OK
|
Posté le: Jeu Nov 01, 2018 5:14 pm Sujet du message: |
|
ethan a écrit: | Mark G Fry a écrit: | Both mixed units (of Knights and Archer etc) and units of foot Knights passing through Archers and vice versa are (generally) complete nonsense - with no historical justification. |
I suspect if you want to go this route then you probably need to consider regrading the Archers as Elite M Sw Longbows vice Longbows. I don't think that formation will lead to historical outcomes. |
This all the way, or having them classified as 1/2 Heavy Sword 1/2 bow, which contrary to what Mark thinks there has been some evidence that MAA and Longbowmen fought together in the same formations. That said, I agree the interpenetration of LMI is a silly mechanic which very rarely is used.
My biggest beef is the price of longbows in the game coupled with how mediocre bow in general are. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mark G Fry
Signifer
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017 Messages: 323
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
Posté le: Sam Nov 03, 2018 6:16 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Do please expand on where this info about MAA & Archers in combined units comes from please Maverick2909 ?
A primary historical source would be ideal of course.
In all my studies I cannot find anything that even approximates to it from a close historical source?
Formations of MAA & billmen (or soldiers with bills - as the word "Billman" is a C16th invention) yes, even MAA and Pikes but not MAA and Archers.
Cheers
Mark |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Maverick2909
Légionaire
Inscrit le: 01 Juil 2017 Messages: 103
Localisation: Oklahoma City, OK
|
Posté le: Ven Nov 09, 2018 5:18 am Sujet du message: |
|
Mark G Fry a écrit: | Do please expand on where this info about MAA & Archers in combined units comes from please Maverick2909 ?
A primary historical source would be ideal of course.
In all my studies I cannot find anything that even approximates to it from a close historical source?
Formations of MAA & billmen (or soldiers with bills - as the word "Billman" is a C16th invention) yes, even MAA and Pikes but not MAA and Archers.
Cheers
Mark |
"‘The day after King Richard, well furnished in all things, drew his whole army out of their encampments, and arrayed his battle-line, extended at such a wonderful length, and composed of footmen and horsemen packed together in such a way that the mass of armed men struck terror in the hearts of the distant onlookers. In the front he placed the archers, like a most strong bulwark, appointing as their leader John, duke of Norfolk. To the rear of this long battle-line followed the king himself, with a select force of soldiers."
That's from (a) Proclamation of Henry Tudor
DATE: 22-3 August, 1485. AUTHOR: King and council. TEXT: Tudor Royal Proclamations, Vol. I. The Early Tudors (1485-1553), ed. P.L. Hughes and J.P. Larkin (New Haven, 1964), p. 3. (English; spelling modernized about the Battle of Bosworth.
That's just one example, there are more but it's late and I don't feel like tracking down more. There is also the contemporary sources from Towton which you dismiss as false for some reason. The fact of the matter is, past blurbs like the one above, we don't know precisely how they deployed man to man. From what we can deduce though, they generally would put the archers in front and as the ranks closed would draw the archers back into the ranks of MAA. We do know from archaeology and other primary sources that the archers were well equipped to fight in close combat.
Additionally, there are numerous accounts where the strength of units is referred to in a total which combines the MAA and archers and leaves the guesswork as to what percentage was which up to the historian. This contributes to the theory that they fought together, with the archers in front at the beginning of the battle and then closing ranks as the armies approached.
You're essentially trying to say what has been a commonly established practice is false based off no actual evidence on your own part. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|