Bow? I bow before no one!

From: James Frusetta <gerakkag_at_wam.umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:50:26 -0500 (EST)


Ed Tonry chides me:
> Don't forget, the bow is just a tool. You also have to consider the
> tactics used with each bow.

Um, wasn't assuming that the Ralians were going to spring in the saddle and start Subedeing all over the place. If you inferred this, I was unclear.
I'm curious in part over people's opinions on which is the _better_ bow, in terms of its value as a tool, not in terms of its value as a tool with tactics applied. For the latter, the Mongols clearly kicked medieval Brit longbow butt, and I would not need to ask opinons (I may well get them after such a leading comment, however :). Introducing a nomad bow will not introduce Mongol tactics, no.

Frex, English and Mongol arrow tactics were pretty much similar to "standard" foot/horse archer tactics. Big difference seemed to be that each was an exceptional example of the two styles (and your excellent point that they learned how to keep the archers out of harm's way).

> The Mongols put themselves at a comfortable bowshot from the enemy, and
> stayed there. If the enemy advanced, the Mongols fell back; if their
> foes retreated, the Mongols advanced. Being mounted archers, this was
> easy.

Actually, one of the favored tactics was for the mangudai, suicide troops like the "Lost Company,"to hi-ya into melee with horsed opponents -- this could include up to half the army. Then the Mongols break and flee, hopefully drawing the enemy's cavalry with them; you pelt them with arrows as you flee, drawing them up against fresh archer units and a heavy cav charge. Then, after slaughtering the enemy cavalry, you attack the infantry, which is probably goign to break and flee. Goofed up the Russians pretty good, at least. But staying at range and horse arching was a good traditional nomad tactic, since the Roman Empire -- the Mongols were unusual in partially breaking from that tradition. They didn't pelt their enemy all day -- they forthrightly and nastily suckered him in, slaughtered his cavalry and leaders, then exterminated the infantry when it fled. They were not nice, no.

> So farmers armed with Mongol bows, but without Mongol ponies, are a
> dangerous force - until you close with them. They don't have the full
> Mongol tactics, only the weapon part.
Well, yes, but I think that's easily explained: they use English tactics.

No, they're not Instant Mongols -- they're using a weapon comparable to the longbow, and will probably adopt longbow tactics. I was suggesting how you might be able to stick such bows in Ralios, not calling for the Pentization of Ralios. :) (If anything, I'd want the uzization of Ralios...).

Frex, I've assumed uz armies always put lots of pit traps and lines of stakes in front of their lines -- their air cav can pass over without problem, and spiders are nimble enough to avoid the problem, while it'll keep horse cav from closing in on your light infantry. (You might keep the portion before your heavy inf open, or you might just not set them in as thick there, to allow your ZZ bezerkers room to advance). Since Guhan and Halikiv are right there, and the Ralians would know something of Troll tactics (if only from Arkat's Dark Empire -- the Arkati uz will teach you this. I suspect the Knights are Not Amused by its use, however).

Ergo, you do what the English did and the trolls do -- you line up a bunch of archers and stick stakes in front of them to keep the horsies away. It's longbow tactics with a mongol bow. However, I do doubt that enough nomad bows are going to float into Ralios to allow you to pull this stunt. You _might_ be able to get enough to outfight a hundred men or so. Alternatively, just hire some Dragonewt mercs, or go to Guhan and get so many damn trollkin slingers the enemy can't kill them all. (Sure, he can _rout_ them, which is bad, but...). I do suspect they could do this with self bows, and may well do it when you're grossly outnumbered in knights. (If you have the advantage in knights, you might not want to restrict mobility on the field).

> Unprotected archers are useful only until they see themselves in
> danger. Then they start thinking how much safer it is behind the lines,
> maybe _way_ behind.

Particularly since the poor jerks usually didn't have any armor, and often didn't have a decent melee weapon. That's why they got smart enough to pound big pointy things in the ground between where the big guys with armor on horses were, and where they were. Or, frex, hide behind your infantry. Or, eventually, talk the infantry into _carrying_ the big pointy things and and holding them between you and the enemy, as the Swiss will.

On the flip side, it's _good_ to be a bowman in Glorantha under the RQ3 rules, as any Elf will tell you. Gah. Once you crank that crit up to 10%, and your impale to 40%, it gets _bloody_.

> Both the English and the Mongols came up with
> tactics which kept their archers better protected for a longer time.
Good point!
With the caveat that the Mongols were also an all-archer army, and one which trained from infancy with the bow. One of the questions here is if the nomad bow is _worth_ bringing in to Ralios as a trade item -- since your Ralian archers will probably never get as much experience and training with it as the Pentians.

I suspect any local ruler who's a Knight, however, is Not Amused by all this, and may prohibit its use. On the flip side, I can't see why the cities would be offended by it.

James Frusetta


End of Glorantha Digest V4 #182


WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail