Units with mixed weaponry

[martin goddard]

In CK units may pay extra points for being bow armed.

The following takes into account that there is a whole grave yard full of ancient period rule sets that attempted to cover all the  options of 2000 years.  e.g I read some  text about a chap who had categorised bows into 4 types, concluding that his rule set was the only "proper" rule set . I have little appetite for such nonsense.

Mixed bow/spear units (foot and mounted)were quite common in ancient times.
In CK, players can have a unit of bows and a unit of spears etc.
Players could line these units up one behind the other for the visual aspect of the game.
Players place their own casualties, so they can choose which bases are hit (i.e hits can be put on spears to protect the bows ).

Do we need a new rule/more complexity? Probably not.

From a distance I can see that ,many ancient competitions degenerate into previously unheard of armies leading the table of wins.
Is this because ancient players have a real interest in exploring little heard of armies in order to diversify the gaming experience?

I suspect not as the  armies chosen seem to have a concentration of all the best troop types for that rule set ,  rather than  a whole lot of poorly armed troops from an interesting culture?

I dislike "My army should win just because of my build" rule sets. Horrible (sad face).

CK will have armies that are a bit better than others that is  accepted.
Would you/should you  stand a chance if you used Ancient Britons, Servile rebellion, Nubian or Germans, yes indeed. That should make CK a good rule set to play all and sundry with?



martin

[Moggy]

Agree completely Martin. Not a fan of "trick" Armies that are almost unbeatable or Armies that go the other way.  Has anyone done the Sparticus Army yet?


Derek

[John Watson]

I don't see mixed weapon units as tricky. They were often the norm, in the same way that pike armies became the norm until the Romans did for them. Mixed bow and spear armies lasted from biblical times until the end of the WotR period, so I would hardly call them gimmicky. I would suggest that such units should have a reduced bow effect (say 2 dice instead of 4 for foot) for shooting and a reduced fighting ability (the existing bow armed CO -1 that already exists).
John

[Stewart 46A]

Derek,
I used the Spartacus army and won, mainly due to the number of units, lost lots but helps the ground.

John,
With in the rules it's an added complication and how would you cost them?

Stewart

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

I'm with John. His appraisal seems fair to me. They will have 1/2 the 'firepower' of the ranged weapons and 1/2 the clout of an all hand-to-hand unit since the archers will not be as effective back up in the rear ranks...

[John Watson]

I'd cost them the same as a CO spear unit with bow. You don't have to use an army with mixed weapon units.
Also I think we have to be careful not to over simplify the rules. As it is the game plays very quickly.
John

[martin goddard]

Interesting.
There are still extra rule changes to consider.

1.What is the points adjustment for being shieldless.
2. I am making the close order +2 bonus apply to fighting units. This is because it is a  mass of fighting infantry that have extra power rather than massed bow troops. Should mixed units be included or excluded?
3.Players will need to base such troops as 2 bow figures and 2 spear figures. That would look good but this might reduce army flexibility. By this I mean the figures can only be used for such units, but the army might have the option of spear and bow units as separates.
4. If such units were auxiliary or cavalry then the bow factor would be difficult.

Not sure this will go forward or not, but time can be taken over this matter as it is not central to the rule progression.


martin

[Stewart 46A]

Martin
I think cost of mixed unit should use the close order points line with all +/- for bow ,shields etc
But firing before a fight hit on '6' only (intense fire 5,6)
Keep all other reactors to keep it simple

Obviously army lists will have to be amended if these units are staying or did all armies use these type of units?

Stewart

[Moggy]

As a thought here.

Can't this happen if you have bow units in the row behind acting as rear support?  Maybe allow rear supporting bow armed troops contribute to the fight in the zone ahead of them. I don't readily recall the ground scale but surely this could be "fudged" a bit. That way the rear supporting bow armed troops can either provide rear support or bow-fire.( I would suggest not both)

That way you wont have to get fussy with the army lists, points values, rebasing, etc.

Derek

[John Watson]

The mixed units were used by certain nations. As far as I am aware they did not generally have separate all bow and all spear units. Some, like the Byzantines and the Assyrians had all bow units, but not all spear units. They were certainly used by only a few armies. At the moment none of these are on Martin's list of armies, but I am sure Ancient enthusiasts would want them included. If you don't have his option then there will be no Assyrians, Byzantines or Chinese (there may be others).
John