To what extent does missile file slow down advancing infantry or cavalry?

[Justin Swanton]

This is something I'm thinking of incorporating into Optio, but it's not something I'm very knowledgeable about. Other rulesets have it: in Mortem eg Gloriam missile file will directly slow the advance of an enemy line, whilst in DBx missile fire often inflicts recoils, effectively slowing down the enemy. But how effective were bowmen, slingers and javelinmen in retarding the arrival of their opponents? Did they do better against cavalry than infantry? Were some heavily protected infantry, e.g. pikemen, unaffected?

In Optio there are two phases per turn and heavy infantry advance one square per phase. Faster infantry like peltasts advance 2 squares. Cavalry advance 3. What in your opinion would be a good way of replicating the drag that missiles would have on these troop types?

And to the floor.

[Erpingham]

Ah, so many clarifications   I shall assume you are looking for Classical examples.

First query - why do you think slowing the enemy advance a major tactical consideration for missile troops?
Second, did it depend on the tactics of the missile troops?  Did a unit of sparabara have different objectives than a bunch of Balearic slingers, or a line of heavy skirmishers like velites?

[Justin Swanton]

First query - why do you think slowing the enemy advance a major tactical consideration for missile troops?

It determines how much fire a missile unit can pour into advancing enemy before being contacted.

Second, did it depend on the tactics of the missile troops?  Did a unit of sparabara have different objectives than a bunch of Balearic slingers, or a line of heavy skirmishers like velites?

I would think the overall objective was the same - try to inflict a bit of demoralisation on the enemy before the heavy troops got stuck in. In some cases it could stop enemy troops dead in their tracks. (I'm thinking of Greek psiloi being used to stop cavalry).

But it's a good question. What was the point of missile fire?

[Imperial Dave]

so if fired upon, as infantry do you shrink under raised shields and slow the advance to maintain cohesion and thus cover OR do you run faster and harder to minimise the time exposed to fire?

[aligern]

Didn't slow them at Marathon.
Roy

[Erpingham]

It determines how much fire a missile unit can pour into advancing enemy before being contacted.

Yes and no.  Rate of fire (for want of better) is at least as important.  Also, why is this important?  One might postulate that once the advance starts, the assorted psiloi are mainly involved in getting out of the way.  Their time is before the advance starts.

try to inflict a bit of demoralisation on the enemy before the heavy troops got stuck in.

I think this is actually a more plausible objective than trying to slow the enemy.  The enemy can come on a fast as they like as long as they are disordered.

so if fired upon, as infantry do you shrink under raised shields and slow the advance to maintain cohesion and thus cover OR do you run faster and harder to minimise the time exposed to fire?

A choice of counter strategies   It probably depends who you are, your tactical doctrine, your protective equipment, your morale  and many other things.  If you are the Spartans, you plod forward "in the shade".  If you are Athenians you close at the double. 

[Justin Swanton]

OK, just to clarify. In Optio, missile-capable troops score one or more 'missile hits' on opponents, once per player's move. That means twice per turn. 6 missiles hits drops the opponent's morale by 1 interval. Once a unit's morale drops below the last morale interval the unit routs.

My take is that missile fire didn't so much disorder troops as demoralise them - being constantly bombarded by enemy fire without being able to do anything about it is psychologically demoralising, abstraction made of any actual casualties. So the longer that missile troops can shoot enemy units, the better their own melee troops will do against the enemy when they eventually engage in melee combat.

Slowing down the enemy's advance hence becomes important as that gives more time for the missiles to hammer at enemy morale. It's not simply about slowing the enemy as such. But as Roy points out, enemy would sometimes speed up to get past the missile barrage, like the hoplites at Marathon or Alexander's Companions at Issus. So do we cater for that? Is there a guideline on who gets slowed down and who doesn't, and to what extent the slowed down types actually slow down?

[Imperial Dave]

almost feels like a close order vs open order question...?

[Nick Harbud]

Slowing down the enemy's advance hence becomes important as that gives more time for the missiles to hammer at enemy morale. It's not simply about slowing the enemy as such. But as Roy points out, enemy would sometimes speed up to get past the missile barrage, like the hoplites at Marathon or Alexander's Companions at Issus. So do we cater for that? Is there a guideline on who gets slowed down and who doesn't, and to what extent the slowed down types actually slow down?

The tactic of closing swiftly to avoid missile casualties was much favoured during the 19^th century.  Paddy Griffiths Forward Into Battle discusses it at length.  Whilst in many cases it can be efficacious, one can come a cropper if the opponent is sitting behind hedgerows, stakes, barbed wire or similar obstacles.

[Erpingham]

The tactic of closing swiftly to avoid missile casualties was much favoured during the 19^th century. 

Which is why we should be cautious about applying it to ancient battles.  19th century armies armed nearly everyone with a missile weapon and had batteries of artillery.  Compare a hoplite battle with a skirmish screen of psiloi. 

The Athenians at Marathon was surely a deliberate tactic, not a spontaneous response to be shot at.  What other examples do we have of missilry impacting on the advance of heavy infantry in the Classical period? Or even cavalry?  What was that impact? A change of speed of advance, a change of direction, disorder?

[Justin Swanton]

What other examples do we have of missilry impacting on the advance of heavy infantry in the Classical period? Or even cavalry?  What was that impact? A change of speed of advance, a change of direction, disorder?

This is what really interests me.

[Nick Harbud]

19th century armies armed nearly everyone with a missile weapon and had batteries of artillery.   

I have come across many ancient competition opponents where this statement is true or nearly so, especially Persians, Indians, Tibetans, Chinese and sundry Steppe Nomads or eastern Successors.  Western European armies are the exception and, using the Sabin principle, it is amazing any of them ever won a battle.

[Erpingham]

19th century armies armed nearly everyone with a missile weapon and had batteries of artillery.   

I have come across many ancient competition opponents where this statement is true or nearly so, especially Persians, Indians, Tibetans, Chinese and sundry Steppe Nomads or eastern Successors. 

Assuming these competition gamers are accurately portraying the tactics of the original armies and not just exploiting army lists and an over-estimation of the effects of missilty in the rules being played, the east should therefore be the place where Justin looks for examples.

[Duncan Head]

The tactic of closing swiftly to avoid missile casualties was much favoured during the 19^th century. 

What other examples do we have of missilry impacting on the advance of heavy infantry in the Classical period?

And when the battle-cry was raised in the usual manner by both sides and the trumpets' blare increased the ardour of the men, here and there they fought hand-to‑hand with spears and drawn swords; and the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks.

[Erpingham]

And when the battle-cry was raised in the usual manner by both sides and the trumpets' blare increased the ardour of the men, here and there they fought hand-to‑hand with spears and drawn swords; and the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks.

Yes, that looks like it.  Though in this case, I get the idea of getting into combat rather than hanging about exchanging missiles.