Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/13/2004 2:15:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sholl202000@... writes:

> Also, can you tell me why crossbows are so weak against so
> many troop types?>>

As Connie is busy, I'll help dispel this, one of my favorite Warrior myths.

It is true, that a glance at the weapon factor table shows CB is one worse than
LB in all but three places (it is the same vs LC and SHI and better vs SHC).

However, that is not the whole story. At 120p or less, CB is actually better
than LB. here's why:

CB shoots two full ranks and LB is 1.5 ranks. Therefore, CB catches up with LB
in all the places where it is -1 factor and is better than LB where it is even
on the factor chart or higher.

For example, using reg loose or close CB/LB troops on a 1E frontage in two ranks
at 120p or less, LB shoots 6 and CB 8 figures. Against SHK, for example, where
CB is a 0 and LB a 1, 6@1 is 9 and 8@0 is 8, so they do the same CPF to a 2E SHK
unit.

But vs LC, for example, those same CB-men do 8@2=16 vice the LB 6@2=12, thus a
2E CB unit can force a recall on a 4E LC where 2E of LB do not. CB is also
better vs dismounted K and cataphracts.

Therefore, CB is actually better than LB at 120p or less as it matches LB
everywhere but shoots better against three troop types and is nowhere worse at
that range.

CB IS worse than B at 80p or less against most things, but that 40p advantage is
bigger than most people think due to movement distances, and it is noticeably
better against heavily armored stuff.

The bottom line: none of B, LB, CB is totally worse than another - they each
have their sweet spots and favored uses and it is a style decision on the
players part which to use - all else being equal.

Jon

[Frank Gilson]

Also note that you can put CB behind LB on the Early Burgundian
list, if you want the "best of both worlds" .

Skirmish formation alters things, also...as you don't then get the
full 2nd rank of CB anymore. This is a concern now that shooters are
often matching up against shooters.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/13/2004 2:15:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sholl202000@y... writes:
>
> > Also, can you tell me why crossbows are so weak against so
> > many troop types?>>
>
> As Connie is busy, I'll help dispel this, one of my favorite
Warrior myths.
>
> It is true, that a glance at the weapon factor table shows CB is
one worse than LB in all but three places (it is the same vs LC and
SHI and better vs SHC).
>
> However, that is not the whole story. At 120p or less, CB is
actually better than LB. here's why:
>
> CB shoots two full ranks and LB is 1.5 ranks. Therefore, CB
catches up with LB in all the places where it is -1 factor and is
better than LB where it is even on the factor chart or higher.
>
> For example, using reg loose or close CB/LB troops on a 1E
frontage in two ranks at 120p or less, LB shoots 6 and CB 8
figures. Against SHK, for example, where CB is a 0 and LB a 1, 6@1
is 9 and 8@0 is 8, so they do the same CPF to a 2E SHK unit.
>
> But vs LC, for example, those same CB-men do 8@2=16 vice the LB
6@2=12, thus a 2E CB unit can force a recall on a 4E LC where 2E of
LB do not. CB is also better vs dismounted K and cataphracts.
>
> Therefore, CB is actually better than LB at 120p or less as it
matches LB everywhere but shoots better against three troop types
and is nowhere worse at that range.
>
> CB IS worse than B at 80p or less against most things, but that
40p advantage is bigger than most people think due to movement
distances, and it is noticeably better against heavily armored stuff.
>
> The bottom line: none of B, LB, CB is totally worse than another -
they each have their sweet spots and favored uses and it is a style
decision on the players part which to use - all else being equal.
>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/13/2004 2:46:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

> Also note that you can put CB behind LB on the Early Burgundian
> list, if you want the "best of both worlds" .>>

Notcied that, did ya? Damn, I was planning on this next time we practiced Dogs
of War.....

>
> Skirmish formation alters things, also...as you don't then get the
> full 2nd rank of CB anymore.>>

Quite correct and a consideration - if you spend a lot of time in skirmish
(decidedly unmanly for a true LBman), the LB gains back its advantage.
J