Stationary Missle attacks = gimp?

[Whammydill]

Stationary missile attacks can attack an adjacent area (non-diagonal.) In the case of archers, this seems to be seriously understimate the point and utility of these ranged weapons. The purpose of missile weaponry was to wither and weaken the enemy before melee engagement. With only one area of range, archers are fodder for every other unit type, with a paltry last shot before getting ganked. The only hope they have is that they hit, and rout the enemy before they get engaged. In addition there is no way to protect your archers with a line of pikemen or infantry, due to the one unit per area rule. Unless I'm mistaken archers were typically fielded with infantry or pike in defensive support. The archers would make their volleys and if threatened with advance would move to within the protection of said units.


Indeed not all archer units are fielding meticulously trained longbowmen as the English did in the Hundred Years War, a la Crecy, Agincort, Poiters or Halidon Hill. However, these battles showed that the true power of medieval combat lay in the massed volleys of these longbowmen, NOT the over-romanticised heavy armored cavalry/footmen. The English longbowmen dominated in their custom formations such as the three-battles formation. They were only truly outdone when caught unprepared such as the Battle of Patay

I realize everyone is entitled to use and disuse whatever rules they want so I am thinking of making the following additions for my house rules:

Adding a special muster/training option for archers.

Advanced Archery (or call it whatever). Archer units with Advanced Archery may shoot up to two areas in the Stationary Missile phase. Any shots taken beyond one area incur a -2 range penalty. Advanced Archery units who take the field before their enemy can plant sharpened stakes to help ward of charges, giving a bonus of +2 Defense against charges. Unit modifier: +1 range, +2 Defense vs Charge. +2GB muster cost, additional optional requirements, see below.

Additional requirements. Due to the years of training involved, A formal decree requiring every able bodied man to practice on a regular basis should be required before any province can muster these units. Furthermore, I use the Variant: Building musters rule, any unit with this training takes twice as long to muster as its cost.

This unit would have the following cost: (correct me if I'm wrong)

Base Unit: Archer, 0.5GB, +0 Melee, +2 missile, 2hits, move 1 ,+2 morale
Armor: Light: 0.5GB, 12 Defense
Experience: Veteran +2GB, +2 Melee, +4missile, 0 hits, 1 move, +4 morale
Training: Advanced Archer +2GB, +1 range, +2 def vs charge(possible unit swap, see below.)

**I understated the veteran training values to demonstrate the attention to archery training, skimping on other areas**

Total, 5GB (musters as 10GB if you use the variant build muster) +2 Melee, +6 missile, 2 hits, 2 move, +6 morale.
Special: +1 range, +2 missile vs Cavalry, possible +2 def. vs. charge. (Possible unit swap.)

Personally, I can only see Anuirean units having this sort of training, but thats me.

I'm also considering adding an element to the training that allows the archers to take advantage of other units for protection. Such as, if the archer unit is put in a situation where it gets its "last shot" before melee, and has at least one movement left, it can defer that shot and instead be replaced with an unengaged and adjacent infantry unit behind it, which is probably in the reserve. The unit to be swapped with must be readied for this purpose. The archers must spend the next action reforming before it can return to the field after it does this.

So what do you guys think. Am I missing something about archers that makes them not as gimpy as I think? Or does the advanced archery training seem fair and/or balanced to better reflect an archer unit, namely a longbow(maybe crossbow....maybe) equipped one's capabilities?

[AndrewTall]

I'd say elves and dwarves should also have any elite missile rule-sets - I've long wondered about a 'dwarven wall' analogous to the 'british square' formation but using crossbows - they have the discipline for it...

[bbeau22]

Stationary missile attacks can attack an adjacent area (non-diagonal.) In the case of archers, this seems to be seriously understimate the point and utility of these ranged weapons. The purpose of missile weaponry was to wither and weaken the enemy before melee engagement. With only one area of range, archers are fodder for every other unit type, with a paltry last shot before getting ganked. The only hope they have is that they hit, and rout the enemy before they get engaged. In addition there is no way to protect your archers with a line of pikemen or infantry, due to the one unit per area rule. Unless I'm mistaken archers were typically fielded with infantry or pike in defensive support. The archers would make their volleys and if threatened with advance would move to within the protection of said units.


Indeed not all archer units are fielding meticulously trained longbowmen as the English did in the Hundred Years War, a la Crecy, Agincort, Poiters or Halidon Hill. However, these battles showed that the true power of medieval combat lay in the massed volleys of these longbowmen, NOT the over-romanticised heavy armored cavalry/footmen. The English longbowmen dominated in their custom formations such as the three-battles formation. They were only truly outdone when caught unprepared such as the Battle of Patay

I realize everyone is entitled to use and disuse whatever rules they want so I am thinking of making the following additions for my house rules:

Adding a special muster/training option for archers.

Advanced Archery (or call it whatever). Archer units with Advanced Archery may shoot up to two areas in the Stationary Missile phase. Any shots taken beyond one area incur a -2 range penalty. Advanced Archery units who take the field before their enemy can plant sharpened stakes to help ward of charges, giving a bonus of +2 Defense against charges. Unit modifier: +1 range, +2 Defense vs Charge. +2GB muster cost, additional optional requirements, see below.

Additional requirements. Due to the years of training involved, A formal decree requiring every able bodied man to practice on a regular basis should be required before any province can muster these units. Furthermore, I use the Variant: Building musters rule, any unit with this training takes twice as long to muster as its cost.

This unit would have the following cost: (correct me if I'm wrong)

Base Unit: Archer, 0.5GB, +0 Melee, +2 missile, 2hits, move 1 ,+2 morale
Armor: Light: 0.5GB, 12 Defense
Experience: Veteran +2GB, +2 Melee, +4missile, 0 hits, 1 move, +4 morale
Training: Advanced Archer +2GB, +1 range, +2 def vs charge(possible unit swap, see below.)

**I understated the veteran training values to demonstrate the attention to archery training, skimping on other areas**

Total, 5GB (musters as 10GB if you use the variant build muster) +2 Melee, +6 missile, 2 hits, 2 move, +6 morale.
Special: +1 range, +2 missile vs Cavalry, possible +2 def. vs. charge. (Possible unit swap.)

Personally, I can only see Anuirean units having this sort of training, but thats me.

I'm also considering adding an element to the training that allows the archers to take advantage of other units for protection. Such as, if the archer unit is put in a situation where it gets its "last shot" before melee, and has at least one movement left, it can defer that shot and instead be replaced with an unengaged and adjacent infantry unit behind it, which is probably in the reserve. The unit to be swapped with must be readied for this purpose. The archers must spend the next action reforming before it can return to the field after it does this.

So what do you guys think. Am I missing something about archers that makes them not as gimpy as I think? Or does the advanced archery training seem fair and/or balanced to better reflect an archer unit, namely a longbow(maybe crossbow....maybe) equipped one's capabilities?

I like where you are going with it. I agree that Elves, dwarves and Anuireans make the most sense. Of course, once other cultures see the advantage of long ranged bowmen they would most likely copy. I wouldn't let any human archers start with his advanced training, but allow them to upgrade the unit.

I just worry about their balance vs. Engineers. These improved archers cost one more gold bar but have better melee, defense, move and moral. You hire engineers for other reasons but many bring them into an army because of the two ranged ability, which would go away.

A balance might be that these units can never be simply trained from scratch but train as archers then improved afterwards. I like the stakes idea also, but almost any unit could use stakes. Perhaps another upgrade that allows any foot based unit to get a +2 vs cavalry charge on their home turf for an additional gold bar.

Goodjob.

-BB

[Whammydill]

good points. I agree that elven and dwarven units can have variations of this. However with the elven units having the capability, their likely hood to field these units isn't as high as Anuirean. In my mind the elves prefer forest action over the open field that would favor the longbow. This doesn't mean they can't or won't though.

This training is best balanced using the build muster rule, 10gb muster time, even though it only costs 5gb means you aren't seeing this unit any time soon. especially if you don't have any high law holdings. ESPECIALLY if you only have guild or temple holdings.

I can totally see how this infringes on the engineers turf. However its my personal opinion that this because the battlemap as it is, is too small. But it is what it is. I'm open to changes in the size of the map, to beefing up artillery a little in my game. I'm cautious on changes though becuase it tends to make a buttefly effect and you wind up changing the entire dynamic eventually.

Maybe change the dynamic of the training then? Cost more? Cost more to muster, but count as less for upkeep? Owing to the cost of training being the expensive part, but upkeep is no different than any other unit

In my original draft of the Advanced Archery, I was going to require that Advanced missile training be required to have it. However in order to have two trainings, you have to be elite, and I can't see units coming out of the box, elite.

Another thing I was considering is, the longbow was considered by many armies as unchivalrous especially the French. Giving that joe schmo peasant could kill mr expensive knight too easily. Sour grapes to be sure, but a valid point from their own point of view. Given that Birthright is big on *great deeds* and such to advance bloodline levels...etc. I was pondering making any resounding victory where advanced archers are a signifigant factor disquallify for such a *great deed*

[Gwrthefyr]

A bit of longbow-fanboyism here. :p

Dwarves make little sense with advanced archery, but that's just me, even crossbows would tend to be problematic for their sizes.

And while these battles you listed were indeed great victories, they happened in situations where the English army had command of the battlefield before the battle, and had the time to actually protect their longbowmen. Presenting Patay as some kind of weird exception forgets that they were also dependent on engineers prior to the battles (surprise should affect them badly), and that almost every time they were flanked, or faced with artillery (which is would be less powerful in the field), the French won. And Agincourt could easily be put away the same way as Patay, namely that it was a stroke of luck that the field narrowed on the english side at Agincourt, preventing the french cavalry from flanking ;).
And as Commynes noted, longbows needed numbers, huge numbers (at Agincourt, they were about 80% of the English force) - I frankly doubt a single company of longbowmen would have a similar kind of effect, but then again, all armies are so small here. Maybe they could have a bonus for massed fire (there is a square effect to fire, IIRC - and stacking 30 standard units of archers with a line of pikes would also probably have that effect, only no one raises 8.000 soldiers, nor the opposition 25.000; although it's true the basic rules do not allow stacking, even if I remember a number of PBEMs allowing it).

The costs seem reasonable, but could be slightly upped, given that three longbowmen (non-militia; the county militias were not of the same calibre at all) would cost as much as a lance in the early Tudor period.

[Whammydill]

Excellent points Gwrthefyr! The English were extremely longbow heavy. Alot of their victories were a combination of good choice of battlefield, preparation, and sheer luck. It can hardly be disputed that the longbow pretty much closed the book on the knight of yor, though. I just need to find a good, fair dynamic for representing such dedicated archery in Birthright. I'm too much a toxophilite to resist.

I may go down the massed fire route, maybe allow the longbow unit a diagonal shot instead of increased range. Then if more than one unit shoots at a unit, they can aid another or something I dunno. I'll keep cracking at it. Keep the ideas comin!

[Gwrthefyr]

Excellent points Gwrthefyr! The English were extremely longbow heavy. Alot of their victories were a combination of good choice of battlefield, preparation, and sheer luck. It can hardly be disputed that the longbow pretty much closed the book on the knight of yor, though. I just need to find a good, fair dynamic for representing such dedicated archery in Birthright. I'm too much a toxophilite to resist.

I may go down the massed fire route, maybe allow the longbow unit a diagonal shot instead of increased range. Then if more than one unit shoots at a unit, they can aid another or something I dunno. I'll keep cracking at it. Keep the ideas comin!

The knight of yore survived the hundred years wars in France, though - they were still heavy cavalry obsessed until the 17th century, with half the standing army being heavy cavalry in the 16th century (and most of the rank and file being nobles until the last Valois kings) - if anything, the french magnates were defeated by the Valois kings' artillery after their little succession problem was solved. In England, the passing of the knight is easily attributable with the hecatomb of the nobility during the wars of the roses.

The long range could also be used for a diagonal shot (that's how it was done with long range units in Gorgon's Alliance).

[Whammydill]

Damn gunpowder! :D just makes war so....impersonal. Good information! I had forgot about the mechanics of war in the PC game, my CD's were lost long ago. :(

[kgauck]

Indeed not all archer units are fielding meticulously trained longbowmen as the English did in the Hundred Years War, a la Crecy, Agincort, Poiters or Halidon Hill. However, these battles showed that the true power of medieval combat lay in the massed volleys of these longbowmen, NOT the over-romanticised heavy armored cavalry/footmen.

If archery is so marvelous, why is it so unique to the English? Why don't we see Scottish, French, Spanish, Germany, Italian, and so on companies of archers, and why don't we see them winning battles?

The answer is two-fold. One part is that the English victories were very much due to factors apart from weapons and very much questions of leadership and the cohesion of leadership. Both Edward and Henry had (during the time of their victories) a group of friends and relations who were very talented. During the rest of the Hundred Years War, longbows or not, there are no great victories and obviously, the war was never won. Second, there were dramatic technological changes that happened to longbows in the generation before the start of the Hundred Years War. There was an interesting article in Scientific American about 10 years ago based on (then) new archeaological evidence. In D&D terms, its like before, say 1300, only longbows were available, and after 1300 in England, composite longbows with strength bonuses became available.

Its because of this interpretation that I have ruled that only among the Rjurik are composite longbows martial weapons, and are exotic weapons for all other peoples. Likewise (for the guy who was going to post about how the mongols of the same period also had military success with bows) the Khinasi have compound shortbows as martial weapons and everyone regards them as exotic weapons.

In this way, any power might have elite archers. But only the Rjurik can have elite archers with composite longbows, and only a well organized realm forced by a PC regent can produce the kind of well coordinated court associated with Edward or Henry, and produce the total package.

The mighty longbowmen was a distinctivly English fighting man. The French tried and failed to devise their own archery arm to match it. Likewise the same type of excellent unit could only be Rjurik.

[RaspK_FOG]

Dwarves should not receive advanced archery benefits in my mind, as the weapon of their choice would be either the throwing axe (with hardly any range on a flat field) or the crossbow, which lacks a lot in terms of range.

However, always keep in mind that realism should be the province of individual DMs: in my games, I prefer using racial preferences in the form of different rarities and proficiencies.

Under such a system, bows (what games call "shortbows" :rolleyes:) are widespread but require some competence to use, and most people who are proficient with them are the Khinasi, the Rjurik, the Sidhelien, and maybe the Vos for hunting before winter comes - there are Anuireans, for sure, and maybe a few Brecht who are competent with a bow, but Kharamul should rarely bother with such devices: arrows are not quite as enticing in the caverns and the thrushing mountain winds... Crossbows, on the other hand, are of particular interest to the Anuirenans, Brecht and Kharamul, as they suit their preference and environment a lot. The Khinasi are the only ones I can imagine using a composite bow, and the longbow seems almost explicit to the Rjurik.

[Whammydill]

If archery is so marvelous, why is it so unique to the English? Why don't we see Scottish, French, Spanish, Germany, Italian, and so on companies of archers, and why don't we see them winning battles?

The answer is two-fold. One part is that the English victories were very much due to factors apart from weapons and very much questions of leadership and the cohesion of leadership. Both Edward and Henry had (during the time of their victories) a group of friends and relations who were very talented. During the rest of the Hundred Years War, longbows or not, there are no great victories and obviously, the war was never won. Second, there were dramatic technological changes that happened to longbows in the generation before the start of the Hundred Years War. There was an interesting article in Scientific American about 10 years ago based on (then) new archeaological evidence. In D&D terms, its like before, say 1300, only longbows were available, and after 1300 in England, composite longbows with strength bonuses became available.

Its because of this interpretation that I have ruled that only among the Rjurik are composite longbows martial weapons, and are exotic weapons for all other peoples. Likewise (for the guy who was going to post about how the mongols of the same period also had military success with bows) the Khinasi have compound shortbows as martial weapons and everyone regards them as exotic weapons.

In this way, any power might have elite archers. But only the Rjurik can have elite archers with composite longbows, and only a well organized realm forced by a PC regent can produce the kind of well coordinated court associated with Edward or Henry, and produce the total package.

The mighty longbowmen was a distinctivly English fighting man. The French tried and failed to devise their own archery arm to match it. Likewise the same type of excellent unit could only be Rjurik.

Wow, thats an amazing revelation! That nicely restructures my thinking on this. I had always considered the English's success with the longbow as a product of their war machine infrastructure. From the decree by Edward I, that any sport but archery on Sundays was illegal, they had gained a crop of really good archers, but over time these archers weren't easily replaced. Not to mention the logistical difficulties in producing such numbers of longbows and the arrows to go with them. I imagine they pretty much decimated the available Yew supply in Europe. With the appearance of powder weapons, and the easily (comparatively) trainable units that use them, putting the longbow on the backburner.

I'm fond of the racial feat modifications in respect to the Rjurik. I think I'll work with that. This discussion has made me realise that such a dominate force of archers was, though effective for a time, a one-off accomplishment not likely to be replicated by just any regent. Yay for epiphany!

[Gwrthefyr]

I imagine they pretty much decimated the available Yew supply in Europe.

Actually, by the last part of the 15th century, wine traders were ordered to import it from Italy at the rate of 10 yew trunks to a cask, because it was getting so hugely rarefied in England. And gunpowder also requires something which is a killer: salpeter. The english kept with the longbow longer because of their notorious problems with salpeter procurement (which resulted in the famous story of the guns of Calais being barely able to shoot past their own walls in 1554 - or Henry VIII's annoyed reaction upon learning that his german reiters were pistoleers and not lancers); this was also a problem for China in the south.

[RaspK_FOG]

I mean no offence, but did you mean Ritter instead of reiter?

[Beruin]

I mean no offence, but did you mean Ritter instead of reiter?

Well, in German, Ritter means knight, while a Reiter is simply a horseman. So the latter is probably more fitting.

[Gwrthefyr]

I mean no offence, but did you mean Ritter instead of reiter?

Reiter - it means rider and was the generic term used, at least for german mercenary cavalry (the french called them reîtres, to rhyme with maître; much like landsknecht/lansquenet was the generic term for a german (non-swiss) mercenary footman in England and France). Ritter is the title for a knight.

[Gman]

The Japanese Longbow equivalent (forget the name) can be used by an experienced user both on horsebow and kneeling - so if you are really keen on Dwarvish technology and bow use then there is a longbow option available. Good at creating stuff those dwarves...

Also the only culture that I have heard of with a "knight class" cohesive enough to kick gunpowder use back out after it came in. (At least for a while)

Ahh ...I fondly remember the Korokoburru (spelling may not be right) Dwarf equivalent in Oriental D&D Samurai.

[RaspK_FOG]

That would be the Korobokuru; the great bow originally made for the samurai caste (since their original primary weapons were the yari [spear/lance] and bow and arrow) is known as the daikyu (literally "great bow").

I just felt I had to ask because you wrote "reiter," without using a capital R in the beginning of the word, something which is... well, an error in itself. That's why I asked whether you meant something else entirely. :o I know the difference between Reiter and Ritter, since I know some German; and I know a bit of French, too (or, at least, how to pronounce them :D).

Tidbit: isn't it interesting that the German and Japanese invented similar words for their higher caste? Knecht and samurai both mean "servant."

[Gwrthefyr]

Also the only culture that I have heard of with a "knight class" cohesive enough to kick gunpowder use back out after it came in. (At least for a while)



That wasn't entirely a question of the military class' cohesion, but central government control. The trading privileges of the dutch were very tightly controlled, by that point the primary chinese maritime trade was either piracy or in Indonesia and the bakufu had just suppressed its main enemies in a series of wars. This left local foundries, which had either been torched during the civil wars, or were under the direct control of the shogun and his close allies, and thus rather easy to get destroyed.

[kgauck]

Abandoning gunpowder was only possible because there was no one outside the system using against them. So the word we're looking for is isolation.

[Gheal]

Some comments on previous messages.
Japan daikyu is asymmetrical - upper part is much bigger, than lower part. Sorry, no caves and low ceilings. :) But dwarves still have their beloved crossbows - not flimsy thing which are reloaded by simple belt hook and stirrup on far end. Really heavy crossbows (they are not so big, as anyone can suppose) have detachable devices for getting ready (I'm sorry, don't remember proper english words). Their bolts are harder to balance than arrows - so they are less precise on long range. Their reloading speed is awful, compared to bows, especially shortbows. But throwing force of such crossbows is ten or even twenty times greater, than normal bows. This compensate shorter "working path" for shorter bolts. Add greater weight and caliber of bolts, and they have tremenduous stopping power. If I recall correctly, Catholic church several times forbade use of crossbows, not bows.
So I can propose pluses to hit against armored troops for crossbows.
Shooting on long ranges was effective with "volley fire" training option, and I wholeheartedly agree with proposition about advanced training option and -2 to hit for volley fire at long range (and even worse, maybe, for crossbows).

[kgauck]

Tidbit: isn't it interesting that the German and Japanese invented similar words for their higher caste? Knecht and samurai both mean "servant."

In the case of German (and the English cognate, "knight"), Knecht is derived from the word for boy, and its meaning was like what we would recognize later as the function of a squire. A young man or boy who goes to battle with an adult warrior and serves him. The person he serves is a carl, which is now a proper name, which means both "man" and "warrior", as if the two words have the same meaning.

[RaspK_FOG]

Yes, and we also have huscarls. :)

And, yes, as I mentioned earlier, it's true that the Karamul would have a preference for the crossbow. The daikyu also is, truly, asymmetrical - it would not be usable on horseback otherwise (the reason other relied on recurving their bows for that extra bit of strength).

[Gman]

My point was (due to its asymmetrical shape) a dwarf would be able to use the daikyu (:) thanks) - A Longbow size and power weapon without needing to be close to 6 foot tall. (Another advantage of a crossbow for caverns is that it can be carried loaded for longer without much strain or need or as much concentration by the user - although eventually reducing the power of the crossbow by causing it to flex out of shape and loose its elasticity) and flat trajectory of fire (this might be partly irrelevant as often 30 foot would be a pretty big range underground). Daikyu would still be slightlybetter than an longbow in a more restricted space.

My understanding of the crossbow is that it is a good flat trajectory weapon - thus also easier to aim but that its range suffers.(unless you want to have a really big crank and spend 5 minutes winding it) When firing from a hilltop the arcing fire of the Longbow boosts its already better range - Thus when the English fought crossbow troops (If they were properly situated and prepared) they got had such a substantial range and ROF advantage that on several occassions crossbow troops were decimated before getting into range.

Hmmm Elite Dwarvish Strength Daikyu Specialist Unit. Drool... Ok ok sometimes I live in a fantasy world. :p

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, I don't think any dwarf or korobokuru or whatever would be able to stretch a daikyu; I will check up on my old 2e material to see what they thought of this out of curiosity, but some daikyu need more than one man to string them, for one part, and you raise it above your head, bring it down with an outstretched left arm, stretching the string so that the right arm is close to your ear. I find it quite unlikely that dwarves and korobokuru would be able to open their arms that wide. :confused:

The irony is that the daikyu is nearly as long as 6 feet, too.

[kgauck]

Stationary missile attacks can attack an adjacent area (non-diagonal.) In the case of archers, this seems to be seriously understimate the point and utility of these ranged weapons. The purpose of missile weaponry was to wither and weaken the enemy before melee engagement. With only one area of range, archers are fodder for every other unit type, with a paltry last shot before getting ganked.

If we assume that a unit is roughly 18 people across and 12 people deep (a reasonable medievial box formation) then a unit (and the minimum size of a unit square is around 36 feet deep. At the battlemat scale we could understand that as walking speed for lightly armored units (or anyone with a move of 30 ft) or a hustle speed for heavily armored units (or anyone with a move of 20 ft).

And given the range of archers, two squares is a single range increment for shortbows, and three squares would be a range increment for longbows. So without penalty (unless we assume the feats Point Blank Shot or Far Shot) a unit of archers can hit something two or three squares away as easily as they can hit one square.

So a range increment does a 10% penalty to hit (-2 on d20), but using the warcard system you got something where a +1 or -1 was worth about 11% to hit, and many people simply added a null result and used a d10 table of results. Either way, going out a range increment is like imposing a -1 penalty to the warcard's attack.

That's archers, but other units have some range increments. I think its safe to assume that scouts are archers and assume they have shortbows to aid their primary purpose as a swift unit. Other units I think we can generally assume a javelin, and so their range increment is one. If someone had a unit of slingers, they would pose a problem, so the easy fix there is to insist that such a unit be trained sufficiently to have Far Shot, thereby extending their range to two on the assumption that just mustering folks and handing them slings won't get the full effectiveness with this uncommon weapon.

Since I've mentioned Far Shot, the warcard effect would seem to add a single square to the range increment. This would make shortbows a 3 square range, and longbows a 4 square range. Aside from slings, no other weapon should benefit from far shot.

Acknowledging the archery ranges also strongly suggests we look at rapid movement across a battlefield. As I said earlier, normal units should be able to move one square, though heavy units may actually have to hustle to move a full square. Given normal unit run speeds, a heavy armored unit should be able to cross two squares at a run, and a light armored unit four squares. Closing that final distance on a battlefield at a run was very common, so requiring units to walk slowly toward their enemy while being shot by archers out to two or three squares without penalty seems inappropraite. I would only allow one run per battle for a given unit however. I also would not allow units to run up hill. If you place your archers on a hill, as Henry did at Agincourt, units without terrain bonuses should have to slog up toward the archers.

This brings up the issue of the scout, who has a fast movement, but pays normal terrain bonuses. The scout class (along with the barbarian class) has fast movement, and has a standard movement of 40 ft. Of course its only reasonable to assume that a scout unit is a mixure of scouts, rangers, and warriors. So a movement of 2 and a freedom from most terrain restrictions would probabaly be the best way to handle the scout.

[AndrewTall]

Actually, I don't think any dwarf or korobokuru or whatever would be able to stretch a daikyu <snip> The irony is that the daikyu is nearly as long as 6 feet, too.

Dwarves should be able to strong the bows in pairs, as long as one is strong enough - one bends the bow held diagonally against the ground, the other strings it. Otherwise they'd need a brace of some sort to hold one end still while they bent the other, either way would be impractical in most places though (if mildly comical) so I'd still go for crossbows, which have the added advantage of being able to be used lying down for sniping (one of the two reasons, along with armour penetration for them being banned I think).

I'd expect serious dwarves to go for a geared crossbow (not just fulcrum and lever, certainly not hand pulled) with an autoloading topbox myself. The dwarves should have the technology to make these - in most campaigns they have a reasonable technological advantage over other races indicating both interest in innovation and the high crafts skills necessary to make gears and layered bow arms. They are still going to have RoF issues - its endemic in the crossbow design and the shorter bolts will likely lead to shorter range even if the dwarves can improve fletching and straightness of the bolts.

A ratcheted crossbow has the advantage of being able to be carried partly bent and readied to fire rapidly to lessen the strain slightly - although any bow held bent for a prolonged time will lose strength and I don't see the inherent waste of carrying the bow ready to fire at all times as very dwarven.