Bows v LH

If you remove all of the gumpf from the sentence that isn't relevant to the situation you are thinking about, it reads "Light Horse destroyed....by.....Bows". The sentence doesn't discriminate between shooting and close combat. I have lost many to both!

In that case is the best outcome a WWg can get shooting or in close combat against LH is a flee result?

Well, perhaps their historical purpose was to drive them off rather than destroy them?

Hmmm...surely it all depends upon how many men a bow and war wagon element represents.

Assuming an army of 25,000, divide that by 12 elements, and we get about 2,000 bowmen in an element, standing 8 ranks deep.
A war wagon takes up a lot of space, and they are not deployed 8 ranks deep.
If we say 10 or 12 men to a wagon (some of whom will be carrying melee weapons only), and they are deployed in a single line (or maybe in a checkerboard formation), then there will be a lot less than 2,000 bowmen in a WWg element.
Probably the equivalent to one or two ranks of a corresponding Bw element...say roughly 500 bowmen.

And 2,000 shooters would probably have much more effect than 500...although the 500 would have more ammo in the wagons, suffer less fatigue as they are not moving about, and be more confident as they are protected from return fire.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

Because unlike 2000 massed archers, I doubt WWg would put nearly as much fire area coverage downrange against fast moving LH...

I think you're missing the point. Are you disappointed that WWg can't kill LH? I suspect they can - you have to flee them off their base edge. Or across even a paltry river. Or if they are up against a side board edge, they can be recoiled off. I am not understanding why you think LH are invulnerable against WWg?

In addition, Artillery range is significant - hence why they destroy LH. Alexander used Artillery to famous effect against the Skythians at Jaxartes. Annihilated them. WWg lack the effective range, volume of fire, etc.

Bw of course are QKed by ANY mounted, no? So they ARE more vulnerable than WWg. I am not seeing WWg QKed by LH for example . And eventually, a steady trundling line of WWg can surely shove LH into bad going (if there is one) and then they do not flee, but are shot down by WWg.

WWg would have been cumbersome to use. Easy for LH to see and avoid (and Skythian LH were basically surprised by Alex's Art at Jaxartes, as they had been carefully managed and there number heavily masked). A WWg would be vulnerable to being infilrtated by swarms of LH, and would not necessarily be all that great at keeping up volume of fire due to space constraints (6-12 WWg versus 2000 bowmen...). But WWg do just fine against LH. Try one against a Skythian army. Use EAP (Cyrus's army).

Obviously I am puzzled as to why the WWG is the only missile element that doesn't destroy LH. That is a glaring inconsistency.

I am not sure what ART's greater range has to do with its effectiveness against LH. We are speaking of engines that often had reloading times of minutes (including those hand cannon carried by some PS) or even tens of minutes for early firearms. Certainly not capable of bringing a target under heavy sustained fire for the extent of their range.

As to crew size, sources vary for the Chinese from 7 to 25. Ans then there were the repeating crossbows giving much higher rates of fire.

With a +4 vs a +2, BW and CB have a very good chance of seeing off LH before they get into CC. Far from being more vulnerable than WWG.