Back rank archers firing as in RTW.... (merged thread)

[dcd111]

I think the proper way to reduce the effectiveness of archers or other high trajectory weapons when in deep formation or standing close behind another unit is to reduce the accuracy of the men whos view is obstructed rather than have some of the men not shoot. Obstructed view means the man can't see the enemy. Not shooting should happen when the trajectory gets so low that they will likely hit their own men or when they are on auto-fire and shooting into melee or when fatigue is so high that some men haven't reloaded. This is how STW/MTW worked.

Just to confirm, isn't this very similar to how Palamedes said it will work, or is there a subtle difference I'm missing:

You will be happy to know that rear lines are very ineffective in M2TW. As a matter of fact even units standing too close behind friendly units will have a reduced missile effectiveness.

So missile tactics will be a big part of M2TW which I am very happy about, always prided myself on good missile tactics.

Jason

[Orda Khan]

The subtle difference being we were discussing archers as opposed to 'missile' units and the reasons why penalties should differ regarding rear ranks

......Orda

[Watchman]

You know, around the 1300s or so the North Italian urban militias developed a tactic where the crossbowmen were screened by a rank of pavesari, armoured spearmen carrying large "tower" shields. Really a reinvention of the ancient Persian sparabara trick, but hey, it worked.

Rather obviously this wouldn't have been done if the shield-bearers markedly detracted from the firepower efficiency of the crossbowmen (I think they normally kneeled out of the way when at rest).

Also, AFAIK it wasn't all that unusual to have (often rather lightly eqeuipped) horse-archers form up at the rear of shock cavalry while the latter were stuck in and lob arrows over their heads into the rear of the enemy formation. Back in the days when infantrymen commonly carried javelins the rear ranks often tended to "add their weight" to the melee in similar fashion. Not necessarily terribly accurate, but it's not like they really had that much better things to do either.

Just something to think about.

Mind you, for obvious reasons missile troops tended to operate in relatively loose order since most such weapons (particularly slings) need a bit of "elbow room" to use effectively. This likely left enough free space between the men in a rank that at the very least the guys immediately behind them would have had little trouble firing through the gaps, and if for example the front ranks kneeled to fire (dunno if they ever did though) presumably ranks further back could also have clear lines of fire.

Then again, infantry archers normally shot massed plunging fire anyway and slingers were virtually by definition loose-order skirmishers. AFAIK crossbowmen normally operated in either rather shallow formations (probably no more than about four or five deep tops, plus possibly an additional front rank of heavy troopers for close defence and absorbing incoming missiles) or as dispersed skirmishers, so...

Firearms had one advantage over most others in that they took quite little "elbow room" to use properly, which allowed massing the soldiers more closely and hence more focused firepower. 'Course, those guys at least always topped out at a three-rank salvo fire (which also tended to leade them sitting duck since everybody then had to spend the next minute orhalf reloading), but this came to be regarded as worth the sheer shock and firepower.

[dcd111]

The subtle difference being we were discussing archers as opposed to 'missile' units and the reasons why penalties should differ regarding rear ranks

......Orda

My post was, without question, the dumbest thing I have written in quite some time. Note to self: do NOT post during a busy work day when you don't have time to read the whole thread. Thank you for your restrained retort, Orda, a more severe thrashing would not have been inappropriate. Sorry to all for my rather lame intrusion.
- DCD

[Puzz3D]

Just to confirm, isn't this very similar to how Palamedes said it will work, or is there a subtle difference I'm missing:

Palamedes doesn't specify how they are reducing the effectiveness of back ranks. It could be by reduced accuracy or by fewer men firing. Reduced accuracy would be a more severe penalty because it would waste arrows.

[CBR]

When I tried deploying in deep formations it seemed like all archers did shoot so I guess accuracy is reduced.


CBR

[Orda Khan]

My post was, without question, the dumbest thing I have written in quite some time. Note to self: do NOT post during a busy work day when you don't have time to read the whole thread. Thank you for your restrained retort, Orda, a more severe thrashing would not have been inappropriate. Sorry to all for my rather lame intrusion.
- DCD

No need for an apology

......Orda