In any wargame involving naval units (or space units) there is a balance of
power between large and small units. This balance of power involves among
other things armor, shields (where available), and the quality of defenses
against small units (missiles and fighters).
Can a small unit carry a weapon large enough to affect a warship? Is shooting
down such a unit easy or difficult? If an effective enough weapon can be
carried by a small unit, how many such hits will incapacitate or destroy the
larger ship?
We've all heard speculations of how ships from two different SFgenres would
interact. How would the Battlestar Galactica come out against the Enterprise?
The clash wouldn't be so much a clash of ships as concepts. The BG could
overwhelm the Enterprise with fighters, but how effective would they be?
Perhaps they would whittle the shields down while being agile enough to make
themselves difficult to destroy with the larger phasers on the Federation
ship. Or perhaps it would turn out that the weapons the Vipers carried would
be largely ineffective against the shields of the Federation ship. Perhaps the
Enterprise would sail on serenely and destroy the Galactica with it's
shipkilling weapons. The fact is, we don't know because we don't know where
the balance of power would be.
We have grown up in an era where the airplane is king. Yes we have
sophisticated air defenses, but the core of them are actually other aircraft.
Let's look at how a CVN group works today (you
real experts out there feel free to correct me -- I
was in the Air Force not the Navy).
The CVN sits in the middle of a large group of distributed and specialized
escorts. Some of these escorts deal with submarines, but unless there are some
rule changes involving cloaked ships in FT, let's forget about those for now.
It's generally acknowledged that an attack on a CVN battlegroup is most
effective when it's defenses are saturated and this is the accepted tactic.
One deluges the defenses with massive waves of fighters and missiles, some get
through and deliver their weapons.
The first line of defense is of course the aircraft. The Tomcats go up with
their warloads of 4 phoenix and 4 AA missiles (sparrow, AMRAAM, sidewinder,
whatever) and snipe at the massive waves of fighters and missiles with the
phoenix. These interceptions take place at up to 100 miles away from the
carrier. The Tomcats are themselves at a considerable distance away from the
carrier as they have to be OUTSIDE the next layer of defense so that they
don't get shot down by their own side.
The survivors keep coming. The Tomcats and the F18's now act as interceptors
firing short range dogfight AA missiles and guns. Some of the missiles and
aircraft get through this ring of defense however if there are enough of them.
Then Aegis and the various SAM's available in the fleet go to work. At about
20 miles or so, ships like the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke with their
vertical box launchers and other SAM launchers on the cruisers and destroyers
all begin launching at the targets that Aegis and the people running it feel
are the most dangerous targets. The SAMs account for more of the attackers. By
now the F14's and F18's have turned away since they have to stay out of CVBG
missile range.
The survivors attack the ships, preferably the high value ones. The last ditch
defense is the CIWS (close in weapon system, effectively a radar controlled
gatling gun). A few of the survivors will be shot down by these weapons. The
rest? BOOM.
If enough survivors get through to cripple the carrier (and the Aegis ships)
the group is in big trouble and the attack has been a success.
One can't envision a modern task force that would consider the idea of
building only missile defenses around a battleship. It wouldn't work because
our missile defenses, though very good, aren't up to repelling that kind of
massive attack without the range and power available with a carrier air group.
The balance of power is with the airplane.
How does it work in Full Thrust? Well this is a matter of opinion. I'll give
you mine, but I admit there are others. To me it looks as if the PDS's are the
equivalent of the last ditch CIWS system. Fighters are of course fighters.
ADFC is kind of a weak Aegis system, though all it's able to coordinate is
CIWS systems. What's missing is the shorter range SAM's that are such a useful
addition to the defenses of the fleet. ADFC's are not prohibited from firing
on fighters flying overhead without attacking, but that makes sense if they're
really CIWS type weapons.
Because of this fact, I think the balance of power is more on the side of the
fighter than they should be in FT. To redress this, to give ships what they
should have to help defend themselves (at least as well as we can today) I
recommend a new human space weapon system. We'll call it the Small Unit
Missile System (SUMS).
SUMS costs the same as a salvo missile launcher to install (3 for the launcher
and 2 each for each reload). Point cost is 3xthe mass of the weapons (as
standard). The symbol is a circle containing a salvo missile symbol and the
letter S, with a line to the magazine.
Maximum range is 50". Since the objective is to intercept them while they're
out there, the range has to be outside the range of 1 movement turn of a
fighter. Missiles can be targeted only against other missiles (MT or salvo
missiles) or fighters of any kind. 1D6 missiles will be on target. Each
missile on target destroys a single fighter (no rerolls).
Missiles are launched from the ship as a single high thrust unit. When they
get close, they break apart into 6 highly agile AI controlled missiles.
Because this is true, SUMS cannot be targetted at any target at or below 6"
(as measured after a fighter completes movement). Because of their agility,
SUMS move after all fighter movement. The target of a SUMS is at the
discretion of the targetting player and may be decided at the time of
intercept (the AI is programmed with the player's preferences and is able to
make intelligent choices). Movement need not be plotted.
Fighters (not missiles) can attempt to throw off a missile salvo. To do this,
they may jink (move erratically). This subtracts 1 from the number of fighters
destroyed by the missile salvo, but the fighter squadron may not attack that
turn AND it burns 1 CEF in the evasion.
There are extended range versions with a range of 70". Mass is 3 per salvo and
3xmass for point value. An ER SUMS is really only of use on a very large
board.
So what do you all think? Surely a system like this is not out of the
technological reach of the particpants.
[ka-snip]
David, it seems that you joined the mailing list one week too late. We
(well, others - for once I didn't have time to get involved) just had a
long discussion on anti-fighter missiles.
It should be available in the mailing list archives by now (Jerry, the URL
please?); the title of the thread was "WotW #5 AFHAWKS".
Regards,
In message <200104011917.f31JHsR22844@d1o4.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> [ka-snip]
Well, the AFHAWKS aren't quite the same, being another short-range (6 or
9 mu) 'last ditch' defence.
David's system appears to have a much longer range (up to 50 mu) - which
is largely irrelevant against all current salvo missiles, but can apply to MT
missiles and fighters.
I guess this is something else to discuss - I'll re-read it tomorrow,
when I'm more awake :-)
I'm not Jerry, but the Mailing list archives are at
http://www.warpfish.com/jhan/ft/Archive/
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
Thanks. Unfortunately AFHAWKS only returns a few hits and all are indirect
references to a similar system to the one I proposed.
Does anyone have the stats for it? I thought of salvo missiles targetted to
fighters, but their motion is too unpredictable to just target at them so I
tried to do a variation on them.
--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
I will just point out this is part of a debate that cycles through here
periodically. There are two, rather vociferous camps.
1. Fighters are just fine. Fighters break morale when they lose units and are
point balanced just fine.
2. Fighters are too powerful and need weapon systems to balance this. No, we
do not use morale.
My recommendation? If you use morale leave things as is. If you don't use
morale up the size and cost of a fighter bay and squadron by 50%. Otherwise
don't fix something that is broken because you chose to ignore rules.
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Roger Books wrote:
> I will just point out this is part of a debate that cycles
1.5. Fighter are too powerful; they should cost twice as much, or do
significantly less damage, even though we use morale.
> 2. Fighters are too powerful and need weapon systems to balance
My $0.02,
> Brian Burger wrote:
You just don't like fighters:P I'd say they're fine in cost. There are many a
time I'd trade off the fighters I have for the equivilant in ship based
weapons.
> > 2. Fighters are too powerful and need weapon systems to balance
I don't think they are. In some cases I don't think they're powerful enough.
> From: Jaime Tiampo [SMTP:fugu@spikyfishthing.com]
Part of the problem (and there is a small problem) with fighters is that thier
value increases with the number of squads you fly. If both sides take a force
of 2 Capitals, 4 Cruisers, and 8 Escorts and you field 2 flights of fighters,
they might be over priced. If you take the same mix and field 8 groups of
fighters, they might be under priced. I don't know of any easy way to model
this in the points.
> Part of the problem (and there is a small problem) with fighters is
Let's make it more extreme. If you have 6000 points and 1 fighter,
then they're not much use. If you have, say, 25-30 fighters and your
opponent doesn't, then fighters dominate the battle. I think both sides of the
CanAm FT battle would agree.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
I did try to look in the archives before I did my post, but I couldn't find
what I needed in the archive or the experimental search. I apologise if I
opened old wounds. We do use fighter morale.
My problem is that I don't particularly like the carrier battle. I'm a WWI
battleline man at heart (which FT is very good at by the way), but I can't
design ships like that because they get chewed by by fighters. By the time I
add enough PDSs to defend myself (I don't know how many that is because I've
never managed to defend myself) I don't have many points left for big guns. I
know, sounds like a personal problem, but I'd like to be able to defend myself
better. I think it's a reasonable
thing to wish for a anti-fighter missile system
like the Standard in use in the fleet.
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Let's make it more extreme. If you have 6000 points and 1 fighter,
Is this still true if the non-fighter group as a PDS/ADFC net with 20-30
PDS? In a 6000 pt force, that'd be pretty easy.
If you mean 25-30 fighter _groups_, then 36x30 = about 1/6 of your fleet
is
fighters. They can be neuralized by making at most about 1/9-1/10 of the
opposing fleet points anitifighter weaponry (PDS/ADFC) +/- if you use
things
like scatterguns or Class-1'sas PDS. in order to be balanced, the
opposing force would have to mount some fighter defence. This assumes that the
non-fighter player tactics take advantage of the antifighter systems.
The hardest place to do this kind of comparison is in one-off scnearios,
where the rock-paper-scissors effect penalizes - sometimes severely -
the side that guesses wrong about the opposing force. Perhaps if the Canadians
and Americans in Can-Am had both known from the design phase that the
Americans used fighters, the Canadians would have fared better.
> My problem is that I don't particularly like the
If that's the feel you want, force fighters to be weaker/more expensive
in your house rules. Or make PDS more effective. That'll change the balance of
your games and make fighters virtually disappear as elements. Weren't fighters
much less of a threat to ships in WWI?
> I think it's a reasonable
Its certainly reasonable to ask if you don't mind changing the balance of
the game. If you want FT to play more WWI-ish, then changing the balance
is probably what you want to do. FT is designed to accomodate that.
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Let's make it more extreme. If you have 6000 points and 1 fighter,
Noam
> Is this still true if the non-fighter group as a PDS/ADFC net with
For 30 PDS, that kills (IIRC) abt 24 fighters, knocking most of the groups
down to 5 fighters each. This assumes that you've been able to keep everything
within ADFC range, which at ECC didn't happen
Noam
> The hardest place to do this kind of comparison is in one-off
And if the Americans had known the Canadians knew...and if the Canadians knew
the Americans knew the Canadians knew...who knows?
In message <20010403130451.61557.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com>
> David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
Well, one solution is to find a like-minded opponent and declare
fighters non-existent in you games :-)
Allegedly, in the Star-Fleet Battles rules there is a statement that if
one of the players does not believe in fighters - then they don't exist
:-)
I myself have use to use fighters as anything more than an extra PDS
system - but the fleets we use don't have a lot of fighters in the to
start with.
On 3-Apr-01 at 13:52, Charles Taylor (charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk)
wrote:
> I myself have use to use fighters as anything more than an extra PDS
Mostly it depends on your viewpoint. If I were playing an early Honor
Harringtion game there would be no fighters. If I were playing a late game I
would have fighters (LAC's).
> "Izenberg, Noam" wrote:
> The hardest place to do this kind of comparison is in one-off
Or if they brought along someone like me (who wanted to go but lives on the
west coast and couldn't take the trip:() who carries around fleet carriers and
likes to use them. I'd prefer to play a modern designed fleet with a huge
carrier, escorts and MT missile cruisers.
> If that's the feel you want, force fighters to be weaker/more
I think I've drawn this analogy before, but I believe FT fighters are more
akin to WWI torpedo boats than to WWI, WWII, or even modern aircraft. At least
that's my take on them.
I think the best point has been made though, the fighters are balanced as a
system with the other systems in the game. The really neat thing about FT, and
what Jon seems to insist on, is that FT is YOUR game, and that you should tune
it to the genre you play. If you and your fellow players don't like fighters,
then just don't use those systems.
Everything exists in the game so that players can model whatever genre they
want. Without balanced fighter rules, one couldn't do Battlestar Galactica
(where fighters do dominate), or even Star Wars. Heck, even Star Trek has
fighters, as mentioned in one DS9 episode.
Right now, even though I like fighters, we don't use them at all because
people here only want to play if its Star Trek, and I haven't gotten around to
putting together any carriers yet. Star Trek is however, at least earlier
versions, a ship of the line style anyways.
The beauty of FT is that its meant for all likes. Any point system is abusable
if taken outside of a genre. I personally couldn't imagine
designing a fleet just for a one-off game, as it seems that some people
do. I can imagine designing MY OWN fleet that I always play, one that has
certain design rules that I impose on myself, (thus establishing a genre). I
can also see those designs evolve from game to game slowly to react to the
tactics and designs of my enemy. But, I can't see designing a ship just for
the one game. Some people claim putting in "genre limits" is arbitrary. Hell,
I think its necessary for the game, in my opinion, no limits is arbitrary.
As I've said in the past though, I'm really more of a scenario type of player
anyway.
Anyways, my thoughts, such as they are.
Well, we're back to what assumptions/models you use for the game <grin>.
Well, if you are interested in WW1 navy in space just drop all but ther least
effective type of fighters from play. IIRC WW1 dive bombers were not too
likely to sink a ship. any ship. Maybe fighters are only to the level of SPADs
in your games!
If you like WW2 in space then there is the idea of lots of PDS's and
CVL's with 1/3 torp, 1/3 interceptor and 1/3 standard fighters.
Although I don't see the WW2 aspect of forces never seeing each other
(except through pilot's eyes) occurring - but was very common in WW2 in
PTO...
If you like "Modern" navy in space then you will need to remember that the
only major carrier forces in any number (tips of hat to Spain, USSR, UK,
France, and several one carrier navies) is American and they put a
lot of money into the interceptor/fighter F-14 and Phoenix missile to
insure that the interceptors engage the attack craft as far out as possible.
While I didn't follow the AFHAWKS very closely they might be
useful as another band of defense. Or how about AF-MT missiles (use AF
submunitions in MT missile hull.)
I'll let you fill in the blanks for my personal prejudice - the "Air
Force" model for FT. <VBG>
Gracias, Glenn/Triphibious (American Mongrel) You don't have to be
French to be
a 'frog', or even human! Nektons - Real Marines! (Die, Ralnai, Die!)
Starguard,
Dirtside 2, Ratner's Space Marines and Full Thrust/FB1. Resistance is
everything!
> "Izenberg, Noam" wrote:
> > My problem is that I don't particularly like the
Except that aircraft had a greater line of sight, and some of them even had
radios, they were no threat at all. It took a while for
heavier-than-air craft
to carry a heavy enough payload damage, let alone sink, a warship. As
reconnaissance platforms, they were sufficiently promising for the Royal Navy
to spend a lot of money in R&D during WWI. The fighter was developed to
prevent enemy aircraft from reconnoitering your forces.
> >I think it's a reasonable
FT, as written, is a fair approximation of aircraft in WWII (or would be if
class-2 beams could hit on a 6 to accompany the class-1 hit on a 5 or 6,
> > The hardest place to do this kind of comparison is in one-off
Jaime
> Or if they brought along someone like me (who wanted to go but lives
American team took about as many fighters as they possibly could, within the
design limitations
> Laserlight wrote:
> American team took about as many fighters as they possibly could,
So 4800 points of Carriers? Wow. You're right. I probably wouldn't have had
that much in carriers. Actually, thinking about it. I do have that much in
carriers, but they wouldn't have fit in the class restrictions. I have a 2300
pt fleet carrier and the rest are all capitals too.
> I'm thinking next year to have the battle take place within a red
I think that would be a shame. No reason to force your playing style by that
kind of ruling. I'd rather come up with a fighter killer fleet:) But then
that's just me. I'd rather get someone on their own playing field then force
them on mine:)
Actually, it was limiting the Salvo Missile Launchers (and 3 Missiles) to only
be switched with Fighter Bays (and vice versa) that sparked the idea. I am
very poor with salvo missiles, so I was thinking how I could ditch them. After
talking it over with Carl, we decided to go the Fighter Swarm route.
Why did we include the Markgraf/Ms? Carl convinced me that he was
proficient with salvo missiles.
If it was an open swap on all weapons/bays/screens I probably would have
picked something more conservative.
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
...
> If that's the feel you want, force fighters to be
I tried that and just about got lynched on the spot. Yes, fighters weren't a
big factor in WWI (or much in the Atlantic in WWII due to limited carrier
support).
> Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
I always get a kick out of this type of thinking.
I really try not to enforce artificial styles of play.
If someone likes fighters, and uses them well, why create an artificial limit
just because you got your butt waxed by them?
We can argue that fighters aren't fair, that they're too powerful, or not
powerful enough. The fact is that they are part of the game. If you don't like
them, change your house rules (which I think is cheesey) but don't create
scenarios specifically to punish someone who uses them.....that's stacking the
deck.
In most cases, as long as the rules are followed, thses things tend to work
themselves out. Usually what happens is that for a few games, a new tactic
(fighters swarms, missile swarms, etc.) will totally catch an opponent off
gaurd. then the opponent will come up with a strategy to compensate. This is
the history of war!!!!!
Way back in history...there was a terrible weapon called the crossbow. This
one weapon changed the face of warfare. Suddenly, a relatively untrained
footman could take down the best Knight!!!! Did everyone just start
complaining and stomp thier feet and threaten to 'tell Mommy'? Nope, heh heh
heh the technology and tactics of warfare changed to accommodate this new
developement.
Instead of creating an environment that artificially punishes someone who uses
a style of play that is diffenet, I would rather encourage you to let it take
it's course. I guarantee that it won't be long before the other teams develop
tactics that make fighters much less potent.
I tried to look up AFHAWKs on the experimental search and was unable to find
more than references. What is it and how does it work?
> --- Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> If someone likes fighters, and uses them well, why
Isn't it ok to create unusual scenarios with different star terrain? Some will
work for the fighters (asteroids) and this particular one would work against
them. It's just one game, maybe their next game will be asteroids and they can
arc effortlessly through the rocks while the ships are crashing into them. I
lost a ship to the rocks just last week.
...
> Way back in history...there was a terrible weapon
I bet they did actually. They probably railed at it as underhanded, just like
the submarine in WWI. It's in the nature of people to complain (me anyway).
...
I guarantee that it won't be long
> before
In real life, yes. In a game? Depends on how flexible the game is. Options can
be more limited than in real life.
In your example, you list as the crossbow as a countermeasure against the
mounted knight. If you were playing a middle ages wargame that didn't include
the crossbow, you wouldn't be able to use that particular tactic. In real life
the participants might develop any number of new weapon systems to deal with
large masses of fighters, but unless those new weapons are available in the
game, they won't happen.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, David Griffin wrote:
> --- Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:
In fact, they got the pope to forbid it as not christian.
Cheers,
I believe that the Pope put out an edit against the crossbow, sort of a
non-proliferation document.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
Heh heh actually, you are correct, if I remember my history correctly, The
Pope declared the crossbow so dangerous, that it was sure to end war. We saw
how well that worked heh hehheh.
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
iD8DBQE6y0X8JXH58oo6ncURAuhNAJ9dLBVSPC3kDCidw3g2lv2L86cTJACeLQt5
> QOsVuMADag2yUEvzJLgZu20=
I muttered that I might hold next year's CanAm-FT in a fighter-hostile
environment.
> --- Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:
..
> If someone likes fighters, and uses them well, why
A. I was the GM, and presumably will be again unless I can find someone else
to volunteer. B. Both teams will see the environment first, **then** design
their ships. If they bring fighters anyway, well, they deserve to lose C. I
feel the game will move faster without fighters.
> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@veriomail.com> wrote:
That was a dead letter from the moment it was signed.
> --- Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In most cases, as long as the rules are followed,
There's a maxim somewhere about the number exclamation points used before you
hit the point of dimishing returns. But at any rate, all I know is that I'm
real
hesitant to send fighters into a ADFC/PDS-heavy
environment. Say, any given IF task force.
> Way back in history...there was a terrible weapon
Actually, no. Crossbows were an adjunct to armored warfare and added no more
complexity to the situation than existed before (Willie the Bastard managed
combined arms tactics without it, for instance). And relatively untrained
crossbowmen weren't worth that
much--in fact the French imported Genoese crossbowmen
because their native troops were of such poor quality.
> footman > could take down the best Knight!!!! Did
everyone> just > start complaining and stomp thier feet and threaten > to >
'tell Mommy'? Nope, heh heh heh the technology and > tactics of warfare
changed to accommodate this new > developement.
Actually there was much moralizing on the unfairness of infantry standing up
in front of heavy cavalry. However most of it was done by armchair strategists
(hmmm... do we see a theme?). The actual soldiers were out buying wheellock
pistols to shoot pikemen with.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Actually, no. Crossbows were an adjunct to armored
He did? He seem to have used them at Hastings, though - they're not
shown on the Tapestry, but William of Poitiers recorded the use of crossbows
in that battle in his chronicle.
> Actually there was much moralizing on the unfairness
Um... considering that the edict against crossbows was issued some four
centuries before the wheellock pistols were even invented, I kinda doubt that
last statement <g>
Regards,
***
> Actually there was much moralizing on the unfairness
Um... considering that the edict against crossbows was issued some four
centuries before the wheellock pistols were even invented, I kinda doubt that
last statement <g>
***
Fair's fair, Oerjan. I believe John meant it as 'The actual soldiers were out
buying wheellock pistols' RATHER THAN moralizing on the unfairness of infantry
standing up in front of heavy cavalry, not rather than using crossbows.
Now, will John see this before he goes off? I don't think so. ;->=
In message <20010404004247.49799.qmail@web9607.mail.yahoo.com>
> David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I tried that and just about got lynched on the
You almost got lynched just for suggesting a rules change!
Those are some pretty fanatical players you've got there :-)
In message <20010404154649.14884.qmail@web9609.mail.yahoo.com>
> David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I tried to look up AFHAWKs on the experimental
Well, to quote:
<begin> AFHAWKS, AFSML`s, whatever you call them (I use the former), I think
we have enough discusion for a concesus to be reached (or is it`s the end of
the week, so due to be wrapped up?). Still, one thing needs to be considered.
STATS
AFHAWKS (AFSML) Fired from SML launcher Each round has a mass of 1 (cost x3)
Same intercept rolls as a SV interceptor pod (and KV scattergun?, no book
handy) Range=Do we go for 6 mu and 6 arc or 9 mu and only the 3 arcs covered
by the launcher (due to someone saying the area is roughly the same for both)
Requires the use of a firecon to fire, even though the firecon can have been
used earlier that turn. Can only be fired by a sml launcher that has not fired
this turn, and is fired in the pds phase.
Do we agree, or not. If so, what range do we use (I prefere 9 mu).
BIF
<end>
Was pretty well it.
Further thoughts about your SUMS concept - do you _really_ need the 50
mu range?
If you fire them as SMLs during the Launch Ordnance phase (after the Move
Fighter Groups phase), then any fighters that are more than 18 mu away are
incapable of reaching your ships this turn (12 mu secondary
move + 6 mu attack range).
So if you give your SUMS a range of 24 mu (like a SML/R) you can attack
fighters 'on the way in'.
Hmm.. you could use the SML/R mechanic, have a MASS 2 'standard' 24 mu
range version, and a MASS 3 'extended range' 36 mu range version.
In wich case it could be a varient of the AFHAWKS, AFHARKS-LR (long
range) and AFHAWKS-ER (Extreme/extended range).
Just my thoughts.
> Shawn wrote:
Well actually they did. In fact these weapons were declared unholy weapons and
tools of the devil by the church, it's important to remember that as
well as being well armed murderous thugs, the knightly class also provided the
government, justice system for medieval society. So the death of a knight on
the battlefield had consequences far beyond the death of a combatant. Medieval
warfare had developed in such a way that the risk of
death to the knightly class was low, campaigns involved moving through your
enemies' lands, depriving them of supplies (burning and pillaging), battles
though not uncommon were undesirable because risk they involved. So the
appearance of a weapon like the crossbow which could be produced in numbers
and used effectively en mass with very little training, stripped away the
advantages of the knightly classes, they of course viewed this as a unwelcome
development and protested loudly. But of course the genie was out of the
bottle.
> Shawn M Mininger wrote:
> >Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
They are only punished if they are not told ahead of time about the scenario
special rules. It is not stacking the deck because it affects all players
equally.
> In most cases, as long as the rules are followed,
As a matter of fact, they did. The Catholic church (back when being
excommunicated actually meant something) banned the use of the crossbow in
warfare between christian states (hunting was still allowed). After that, the
crossbow was mostly used as a weapon of war in the Crusades against the
moslem's.
While a crossbow could be competently (if not expertly) used after a few days
training, it was neither cheap enough to buy, nor easy enough to make for just
any peasant to own one, so they never seriously threatened to blunt a heavy
cavalry charge. The mounted knight was doomed by the pike square (which
evolved into the infantry square after the introduction of firearms).
> Instead of creating an environment that artificially
Unless you are using the Kra'Vak, you need as many fighters as the other guy,
or so many PDS escorts, that you are penalized if your opponent decides not to
use fighters (Kra'Vak can mount two or three scatterguns
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> He did? He seem to have used them at Hastings,
Eh? I was under the impression the vast majority of his archers were using
self bows. How many crossbows does WoP say were there?
> Um... considering that the edict against crossbows
Pikemen, pikemen. Knights evolved into armored pistoleers during the 16th
century. Pikemen are what ended the era of the heavily armed lancer, not the
crossbow. By your account crossbows were in general use by the 11th century.
Knights were in widespread use until the French Wars of Religion. The response
to crossbowmen was to simply ride them down. There is not enough time to get
off more than a few volleys. In fact, I don't know of a single time when
missle troops held off heavy cavalrymen unassisted until the invention of the
socket bayonet. Even at Crecy and Agincourt, the English had both tactical
obstacles and
dismounted men-at-arms to hold off the French.
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> Actually there was much moralizing on the unfairness
Which means that for some four centuries, there weren't any "actual
soldiers"... there was quite a bit of moralizing on this subject during the
12th to 15th centuries, and no wheellock pistols available for purchase <g>
Sorry, Beast; I still doubt it...
> Now, will John see this before he goes off? I don't think so. ;->=
<chuckle>
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Pikemen, pikemen. Knights evolved into armored
China, 12th century. Chinese standing army had few calvalry men. Average
chinese troops were armed with crossbows and short swords. Course they had the
stirriped crossbow which allowed one handed reloading at high rate. For quite
awhile they were able to hold off northern excursions into chinese territory.
The "knight" was outdated by 9th century in china. The advent of the grenade
in the 12th century also brought down finally the real effectiveness of the
mounted calvary to a tactical instead of overwhelming unit.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> > In fact, I don't know of a single time when missle
> China, 12th century. Chinese standing army had few
The assorted steppe nomads north of China never had heavy cavalry. All light
cavalry with missle weapons.
And trying to match missle-armed infantry with
missle-armed cavalry is a loosing game.
The "knight" was outdated by > 9th century in > china.
I wasn't aware the Chinese ever had them, in the true sense of the word. By
the 9th century knights were just starting to come into their own in Europe.
The advent of the grenade in the 12th century > also brought down > finally
the real effectiveness of the mounted > calvary to a tactical > instead of
overwhelming unit.
Once you get effective gunpowder weapons you've completely changed the rules
for cavalry.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> The assorted steppe nomads north of China never had
Actually fast mobile cavalry with missile weapons is *very* effective, They're
hard to hit and when skilled like the mongols more effective then a slow foot
army. That's why china fell. The skill of hte mongol
bowmen/calvary decimated the chinese armies.
> I wasn't aware the Chinese ever had them, in the true
They did. Full metal covered, lance wielding knights. Well not "knights" but
heavy calvary. They didn't last very long though. Most a footnote in chinese
history then a a big part of it. crossbow did away with them.
> Once you get effective gunpowder weapons you've
Or decent rank and file bowmen with longbows. The english longbow made it up
to 100lbs and more. That can go through armour like hot knife through butter.
Mostly I'm putting in the east view on this being a bitter opponent of the
eurocentric model for everything.:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> > Once you get effective gunpowder weapons you've
No they don't - not through plate, anyway. Mail, yes. Plate? If you're
reallyy lucky.
Cheers,
> John Atkinson wrote:
Medieval battle narratives are rarely that specific. When they are, they are
often wrong by an order of magnitude, at least.
This has been the topic of much debate on soc.history.medieval. William of
Poitiers wrote some time after the event, when crossbows were more common, in
Latin and refers one to William
attacking "with arrows and crossbow-bolts". Unfortunately, Latin
is not a great language to describe post-Roman military technology
and the phrase could as easily mean "with arrows and
sling-stones". Oh, and the Latin word for crossbow used at the
time could also refer to much larger engines as well, casting bolts or stones.
Of several accounts of Hastings, WoP is the only one that mentions anything
that could potentially be translated as a reference to
crossbows, and does so exactly once; the cause much hand-wringing.
The Anglo-Normans, once established, had quite a respectable
tradition of archery with self-bows made of yew, later revived
when found to be useful when shooting at Scots.
[...]
> In fact, I don't know of a single time when missle
I recall reading (it's outside my usual period of interest so I reserve the
right to be wrong) that this occurred first at Pavia, during the Italian Wars,
although this involved defending what a wargamer would call a "terrain
feature".
"Heavy cavalry" may have been around for a long time after that, but when did
they stop being "knights"? When did cease to be recruited from the petty
nobility and become just a bunch of troopers with pointed sticks?
> On 5-Apr-01 at 03:35, Jaime Tiampo (fugu@spikyfishthing.com) wrote:
If you are putting the east spin on things then why go with a longbow? The
eastern composite bow outranged and outpulled
the European bows _and_ they regularly used special tips designed
to punch through armour*. It is really amazing to me that a design brought
about by the lack of suitable wood turned out to be more efficient.
> --- David Brewer <david@brewer.to> wrote:
> Medieval battle narratives are rarely that specific.
Excepting Byanztine sources, and they tend to be wrong by an order of
magnitude when dealing with the opposition.:)
> The Anglo-Normans, once established, had quite a
Hey, people wrapped in one layer of cloth who obligingly stand there in a
packed formation make great targets. I find it noteworthy that every time the
English shot the Scots up, they won the fight. Every time they charged without
shooting them, they lost. It doesn't take a genius...
> I recall reading (it's outside my usual period of
Yup. Pavia is also one of the first times you see large numbers of effective
battlefield artillery, large number of effective shot, and otherwise is the
first battle that has a more 'Renaissance' flavor than a medieval one.
> "Heavy cavalry" may have been around for a long time
Easy answer: Knights were gone on the Continent when Henri IV ordered the
Gendarmie of France to discard their lances and replace with pistols. There
may have been a small contingent of knights left in England, but by
Elizabeth's reign they no longer took the field.
Just one tiny comment. If I remember correctly, most of the eastern armor of
this period was actually made of multiple layers of lamenated paper.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> No they don't - not through plate, anyway. Mail, yes. Plate? If you're
Plate? Hell yeah. Don't get me on this argument. As a memeber of the SCA in an
area were plate is proof from missile fire even though we TESTED regular
arrows with high power bows throw plate armour and it is like a hot knife. At
long range no, but once you get closer it's just nasty to look at.
> Shawn M Mininger wrote:
Incorrect. Metal and leather still domminated infantry. Dress armour was silk.
Japanese I'm not so sure of but I believe it was a composite of lackered
bamboo and silk.
From: "Jaime Tiampo" <fugu@spikyfishthing.com>
> Shawn M Mininger wrote:
Japanese armour was also mostly metal.
Some Chinese armour was indeed made of lacquered/glued layers of paper.
It was cheaper, and in the tropical south, lighter and somewhat more
comfortable than metal or leather. But overall, it remained a rare curiosity.
See: Joseph Needham, 'Science and Civilisation in China', the volume on paper.
Cheers Karl Heinz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Plate? Hell yeah. Don't get me on this argument. As a memeber of the
I assume you used either hardened spring steel armour, if representing 15th
century armour, or very thick plate for 14th century? Recent research has
shown the plate to be of a LOT harder steel than was originally supposed. And
certainly VERY much harder than the mild steel
most re-enactment armour is made of. I won't start about aluminium if
you won't, wither;)
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Shawn M Mininger wrote:
Or metal, for Sengoku period.
Cheers,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Which means that for some four centuries, there
Of course not. They were out riding down infantry like they didn't exist. No
one in Europe was using crossbowmen as more than an adjunct to knights. When
knights were threatened as 'lords of the battlefield' it was by pikemen. At
which time there were pistols starting to become available.
I was going to avoid this thread, but I must agree with Jamie here. Where the
idea that plate armor was proof against arrows came from is beyond me. There
was a constant progression of weapon developement back then just as today. For
every weapon there was a defense and for every defense a new weapon, etc.
Also keep in mind you always have to think of what you're talking about. Some
later plate armor was resistent but this same armour was designed for knights
who no more than fixed lance mounts on horse back.
Range, quality, tactics, all these are factors in an arguement that is so NOT
cut and dry.
Eli
> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:49:28 -0700
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:04:06 +0200 (CEST) Derk Groeneveld
> <derk@cistron.nl> writes:
But you could use it on the Heathens, IIRC.
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> China, 12th century. Chinese standing army had few calvalry men.
Average
> chinese troops were armed with crossbows and short swords. Course they
The Chinese infantrymen had a lot of pole arms too. In fact, pole arms were
the primary weapons as with any other medieval army. Even then most of the
successful battles were fought from behind walls. Usually if Chinese armies
met nomad cavalry in field battles they (the Chinese) got slaughtered. But
then the advancing nomad cavalry would run against Chinese city walls and get
stumped. This was how it usually went except for the few times the nomads got
successful siege equipment, or when the Chinese had effective horse archer
armies, usually from subject peoples. The most spectacular case was probably
during the Ming dynasty,
when at the battle of Tu-Mu a Ming army of 500000 men (by *Ming*
records) was defeated by a Mongol army of 20000 men. The Mongols captured the
Chinese emperor and got to the city walls of Beijing, but then they weren't
able to attack and pretty much gave up.
> into chinese territory. The "knight" was outdated by 9th century in
The heavily armored Chinese cataphract of the Northern and later Sui dynasties
was ended by the introduction of Turkish style light lamellar armor and horse
archer tactics. Heavily armored cavalry were still used quite a few times by
the Khitans, the Jurched, and even the Song in later times, usually with
spectacular success against Chinese infantry. On the whole though, the light
horse archer tended to dominate field battles in the Chinese sphere. The early
gunpowder weapons were actually next to useless. They didn't have enough
explosive power or reliability to successfully do anything. This is clearly
indicated in the fact that no successful battles against any unit type has
ever been recorded for
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, John Atkinson wrote:
> The assorted steppe nomads north of China never had
Actually, although most of the nomad tribes were not able to afford adequate
armor or weapons, some of the nomad confederations that became major powers
were able to. For example, the Xianbei who founded the Northern Wei dynasty in
China started the whole armored cataphract concept in China. The later Khitans
and Jurched were noted for their armored cavalry, with armor for both men and
horses, often noted as practically invulnerable to arrows. Also remember that
the steppe nomads were the ones who invented the long lance that evolved into
the kontos in the West. This was available too. The Chinese called it fan
qiang (barbarian lance), and many illustrations show them to be wielded with
both hands in the familiar manner.
> I wasn't aware the Chinese ever had them, in the true
Knights as feudal nobles, no, not since the Zhou dynasty, but then they didn't
use calvary. Knights as in heavily armored cavalry, yes. That's why I tend to
refer to them as cataphracts rather than knights. The heavily armored
cavalrymen really took off in China around the 4th and 5th centuries,
dominated the battlefield, until around the beginning of the Tang dynasty (7th
Century), when a lot of light Turkish horse archers
began showing up as allies/mercenaries. The use of the old two-piece
breast plate armor declined and the use of the lighter Central Asian style
lamellar armor increased, and the cavalry became generally less and less well
armored.
> Once you get effective gunpowder weapons you've
Yes, once you get *effective* gunpowder weapons. The Song dynasty Chinese
gunpowder weapons were not very effective. They were more used as terror
weapons to scare people with the loud noise, or during sieges when larger
bombs could be used against unmoving targets.
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Actually fast mobile cavalry with missile weapons is *very* effective,
While nomad cavalry were very effective, they generally couldn't attack
Chinese cities. The reasons that the Mongols were able to win was that they
had effective siege equipment.
> They did. Full metal covered, lance wielding knights. Well not
The heavily armored cavalry was used for a few hundred years, like I've noted
before, and has always excited the imagination like it did elsewhere. Many
Ming dynasty novels speak of them like magical weapons, although they always
get the details wrong. The main reason for their demise though, was that they
couldn't match the light horse archers for their speed and maneuverability.
Whereas in the years they were popular, they fought inside China against
infantry, and they could ride roughshod over them. But under the Tang's
expansionist policies, wars had to be fought in the steppes and in Central
Asia, with and against Turkish horse archers. So the Tang adopted lighter
equipment. Heavily armored cavalry was used later though, and with success
during the Song dynasty. The crossbow never really did much against cavalry,
except during sieges, since like John said, they could be ridden over easily.
> Mostly I'm putting in the east view on this being a bitter opponent of
> --- Chen-Song Qin <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
For example, the Xianbei > who founded the
> Northern Wei dynasty in China started the whole
> Yes, once you get *effective* gunpowder weapons.
You know that and I know that. But many people are too enamored of saying
"Well, the Chinese invented gunpowder weapons!" as a way of refuting the
statement that practically everything of consequence militarily was invented
in Europe. Oddly enough, most of these people are of European descent. It's to
the point that I don't bother arguing it anymore. It's not Politically Correct
to give Europeans credit for anything.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Eli Arndt wrote:
> I was going to avoid this thread, but I must agree with Jamie here.
- From actual experiments?
> Also keep in mind you always have to think of what you're talking
I'm not sure what you want to say here, but 15th century german giothic armour
IS resistant to bodkins (except possibly at point blank range, not 100% sure
about that). It's also of very hard steel, and easily light enough to fight on
foot in.
Of course, there's still a good many place where arrows CAN penetrate,
armpits, back of legs, inner arms etc. The fact that of those armoured people
ecorded to have died by arrows, in the war of the roses, almost all
died when lowering their bevor/raising their visor for air/drink, should
tell you something?
> Range, quality, tactics, all these are factors in an arguement that is
Of course. Cheap, lesser quality armour would not be proof etc.
Cheers,
Yes, Japanese armour was lackered bamboo, tied together with silk (or maybe
leather, I am not sure).
Corey
> At 09:53 AM 4/5/01 -0700, you wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:54:49 -0600 (MDT) Chen-Song Qin
> <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> writes:
<snip>
> Mostly I'm putting in the east view on this being a bitter opponent
I don't understand this exactly. While I am Cherokee, Hispanic and "Anglo" and
I find a completely blindered view of "...the REAL warriors of the world are
restricted to (fill in the blank) culture.." a sad form of cultural blindness;
there are some really cool European
cultures/warriors. I guess I am supposed to assume the emphasis is on
the "...for everything..." rather then the "...eurocentric model..." but it
could be taken either way. Also, if this is a knee jerk total rejection of war
gaming, say the SYW (I don't have any armies for this
but it's a good example,) just because it is euro-centric then it's as
bad as only seeing history/war games thru European Eyes.
> Hey, plus the cultures I mentioned had some cool equipment :)
Yes, just as some European (and to bring this back On-Topic <grin>) do
some of the not yet cultures of the SF war game genres.
Gracias, Glenn/Triphibious (American Mongrel) You don't have to be
French to be
a 'frog', or even human! Nektons - Real Marines! (Die, Ralnai, Die!)
Starguard,
Dirtside 2, Ratner's Space Marines and Full Thrust/FB1. Resistance is
everything!
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> I don't understand this exactly. While I am Cherokee, Hispanic and
but
> it could be taken either way. Also, if this is a knee jerk total
I think you take this wrong. I was just trying to bring up that quite a few of
the things put down around that say "something or other didn't happen during
this or so time or was never common.. yadda yadda yadda.." aren't quite true
if you take a global view on it.:) I just brought up the chinese take on these
weapons of this time because the time and place is a current study of mine,
although I haven't hit the deep weapons research. I'd say the same contrary
things for people who bring up pure "whatever"centric view. Mostly I see a
eurocentric view on things since it's most of what we learn about and what
most people are interested in.
> Yes, just as some European (and to bring this back On-Topic <grin>)
do
> some of the not yet cultures of the SF war game genres.
Actually it's all on topic:) No one said it was just a euro talk:)