This month's section deals with a question I posed re: amending the MW missile fire rules to make it harder to hit troops in shieldwall (see Glen's article on Hastings). I also put forth a proposal on making it possible to concentrate fire, combining stands to take advantage of the four figure per stand firing bonus. Here are some of the responses.

From Russ Lockwood

As we refought Hastings several times, we can attest to the effectiveness of huscarls shieldwalls as is. The Normans have their work cut out for them under the current rules. Now, the other units (fyrd) were a little more vulnerable. We did not, however, attempt the "bombardment" tactic where you just get inside long range and roll a few dice and hope for a good roll now and then for half the game, then advance up to short range for one shot before the defenders charge and chase. [After fighting the damned Burgundians for longer than I care to remember, it seemed to me that the archer-heavy armies also had the huge advantage of simply being able to sit back and shoot the other armies to pieces with little concern. Was this historical? Read on.]

Perry Gray:

I prefer the option that Shieldwall offers greater protection from missile fire. Despite volume fire in some battles (Carrhae and medieval English longbow battles), missile fire tended to be an annoyance. Arsouf is proof that archery did not mean guaranteed victory. Unanswered missile fire could gall troops into charging but would not usually assure victory. Carrhae is an exception as the Parthians kept resupplying themselves. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that this was a normal trend for all missile reliant armies.

I am glad that the feedback system works. The net is certainly proving useful in speeding up communications so that the rules can be fine-tuned.

As for your latest proposal, I saw two general options. First, you can consider the skirmishers as specialists/snipers, who operated in a fluid formation. They would not have a large supply of arrows and therefore would be unable to form up to concentrate their fire. This is the Greek view of psiloi/light troops.

Secondly, you can consider the troops more like Napoleonic or later skirmishers, who could be trained in a dual role. They can skirmish or form up in a more solid formation to concentrate their fire. This is more like some horse archer types, who could skirmish and operate in close formation.

Taking the first example, there is a notable exception, which would fit into this amended rule. The Athenians were able to defeat a Spartan force relying primarily on psiloi during one battle in the Peloponesian War (sic).

The psiloi harassed the Spartan formation, which was unprotected by light troops, and then fell back on the Athenian phalanx when the Spartans charged out. If the Spartans were in shield wall or something similar, they would not have been bothered as much by the psiloi. Granted this action took a long time to achieve results, but it does indicate that psiloi could concentrate their fire.

I guess this example is one way to approach the subject. Can you find other historical situations that support the two options. There are probably a few gamers, who wished that they could have used the proposed rule to improve the effectiveness of the forces, especially if fielding large numbers of light troops. I like the option of having troops change formation to to reflect their flexible formations. There were certainly a few historical models of troops being capable of switching between loose and close or loose and open order. The Spartans used troops to chase off skirmishers, (which indicates that they learned from their mistakes). Roman auxilia could be skirmishers and battle line troops. The 10th Century Byzantine infantry were capable of close and loose order formations (according to Nicephorus Phocas). More food for thought.

Karl Ranitsch:

I'm personally not in favor of this amendment (concentrated fire), for the very reason you outlined. Skirmishers to me were used to screen other troops, and any other casualty inflicting situations were a bonus. I don't think this one will fly, but I do like to get other opinions. I have no historical problem with skirmishers not having an appreciable effect at long range. But there's a different point of view: have you considered the effect of concentrating fire at all ranges? Compare the effect of 2 skirmishers with 1 archer: LONG RANGE Dice throw Average no. Chance of to hit of hits/turn no hits 1*Arch. 9 0.2 10 % 2*Skir. 11 none 100 % MEDIUM RANGE 1*Arch. 7 0.4 60 % 2*Skir. 9 0.4 64 % SHORT RANGE 1*Arch. 5 0.6 40 % 2*Skir. 7 0.8 35 % SHORT RANGE + extremely favourable circumstances 1*Arch. 1 1.0 none 2*Skir. 3 1.5 4 %

This means, in effect, that 1 archer base is superior to 2 skirmisher at long range, but that at short range, 2 skirmisher bases outshoot an archer by a substantial margin. Is this your intended effect? [Certainly not.]

Sean Scott:

Would the shield wall count against handgun? [No.] And yes I think it is a good rule.

From Kevin Boylan:

I'm no expert on missile fire in Medieval Warfare, but my general perception is that is was not particularly effective at long range. Indeed, it would seem that even English longbowmen were trained for long-range fire by having them shoot at a circle 40 paces wide at a range of perhaps 200 paces (I can't recall where I read this). Thus, the concept of concentrating fire seems pretty dubious to me, especially if it involves troops less well-trained and/or less accurate than British longbowmen. Finally, unless one is dealing with "Trained" troops (in game turns), my perception is that each man usually shot at whatever enemy unit happened to be right in front of him -- and there was no way that a commander could order them to concentrate their fire in any meaningful way. An exception might be made for Trained troops, but even there I have my doubts.

Ultimately, it's my perception that Medieval battles were - with few exceptions - decided by melee, not fire. Now, one could say that fire decided melees by seeing to it that one side or the other was badly disorganized by the time hand-to-hand fighting commenced. Yet, even in the case of English longbowmen, this usually depended upon the enemy trying to charge across open ground -- thus bringing the range down to medium or close. Only in a few cases does missile fire seem to have decided battles against non-charging enemies, and usually there was some other factor at work. One could cite the Battle of Falkirk, for example, where the Scots Schiltrons were shot to pieces by Edward I's longbowmen because

A) they were virtually unarmored, and

B) packed together in such a dense mass that the archers virtually couldn't miss.

Another point worth considering is what range the British bowmen were firing at in that battle. The primary sources offer no clue, but my guess is that with the Schiltrons forced to remain stationary behind their own stake and rope barriers, the longbowmen probably fired their deadly barrages of arrows from no more than 50 yards away.

From: Steven Neate

Between you and me Terry, I think you are fiddling too much. Have you caught the DBM amendment bug? I hope that when Foundry reprint your rules that all the changes you have produced so far are included. Umpiring on a 2 to 1 vote doesn't necessarily mean that it is 'right'. In effect, you've just pissed off one-third of your 'electorate'. Personally, I would use SAGA to publicize rules suggestions "if players want to use them"; much like White Dwarf does for Warhammer Fantasy. Amendments are the WRG 'curse'. Everytime you introduce one, something else buggers up somewhere else in the rules.

I think that once Foundry decide to publish that you should stick to that version for some time and allow SAGA as an optional rules discussion without amending the rule book. It's a slippery slope.

[Actually, the amendment was favored more like 10-1! Yes, I am desperately trying to avoid WRG itis by doing these up right. I hate new editions every year. With any luck and forethought, the final edited Foundry edition will be able to stand on its own with no more fiddling. Now, however, I'm still trying to make sure there are no hidden glitches that skew the rules in favor of a particular army or troop type. We have been playtesting since the summer of 1996, so that's three years worth of suggestions, changes, tweaks, etc. I feel every one we've changed has improved the rules. Some dramatically. For instance, our Burgundian friend used to be able to sit back on his hills and literally crush his opponents with long-range longbow fire who were forced to attack him. Now he can't be so cocky. How effective was long-range fire? Not very. Granted, if you could get a concentration on a mass (column) who were unarmoured, you could hurt them, but usually, the fire was a nuisance at best until moving up to within effective or close range. The archers at Agincourt are a prime example of this. So all of these changes have been (I feel) a necessary evil before the 'big' printing starts. I've printed up perhaps 200 copies of MW total in the last two years. I have four left. The Foundry edition will be (I believe) a 2,000 copy run. As you can see, I want it to be right.]

Jeff Ball:

For what it's worth I was thinking about allowing concentrated fire only to Trained troops.  Most skirmishers (at least SI) would not be inclined to mass fire (else they would be formed as such).  SC might be a bit different, but perhaps not.  For others,  perhaps the defend order covers officers giving instructions to concentrate fire on targets?  I am not sure.  For the Liegnitz scenario I do not think we will be using this.  With the Mongols having LB we have decided we have enough scenario specific rules that we are not going to add this also.  We may, however, add a -1 for target disordered/fragmented -- representing the breakup of an orderly, defended/shielded line that leaves more vulnerable holes through which missiles can inflict casualties.  This should make for relatively light casualties against formed units lined up in good order, and a much more rapid attrition when units are pulled out of line by charges or FF when exposed and unshielded flanks become much more common and exploitable by the Mongol archers.

[Well, the missile fire amendment passed. So from now on, troops in shieldwall will be a little harder to hit, BUT, remember the shieldwall only moves at half speed (and charges at half speed, too), so get those archers up close and fire away. The concentrated fire amendment will be shelved so far as the formal edition of the rules is concerned, but feel free to use it if you so desire. Check out Jeff and Dave's huge Liegnitz game at Historicon on Saturday afternoon at 2:00.]