Sieggy wrote:As I read the story, the Warlord led dwagons flew over a hex containing archery in the process of getting to a hex with seige in it.
Panel 6, marbit shown with siege in background.
"Near hex, second stack is where we start."
This suggests the first stack is the archers, placed there to defend against Air. Scouts can tell if ground assault, which has lower Move, is even possible. You don't defend against the impossible.
Then "Archery gets their hitsies," then "Let's descend to attack."
Since no mention of a hex edge occurs between the stack selection and descent to attack siege, the idea the archers are in a different hex isn't consistent. Further, archers in a different hex cannot defend off-turn, while in the same hex can defend as long as the attack proceeds..
He is also in combat with the Marbits in question, not with siege. Under orders, he could be directed away from the marbits, so what this lone green is doing is against orders. This can occur when a Warlord is lost. Unled stacks must attack any enemy they can.
I have already conceded that different dragon breath weapons have different limitations, Gweens can attack siege without engaging in melee with groudn troops (panel 10), so something different has happened to put the dwagon in Panel 8 off plan.
That's good enough for me. Only needed the one. Archers have limited quivers.
Then why aren't the archers on top of the Tower laying fire into the Atrium and sniping at the airborne units?
Range and cover. The archons are mentioned as being far fromt he Tower, which implies that range matters to archery, and they can put buildings between themselves and the tower while still remaining in airspace. (Such as the tall atrium walls.)
I just finished reading Cornwell's 'Azincourt', which went deeply into the subject of archer tactics - given the numbers topside and the rate of fire they should be able to maintain, there's no reason for ANYTHING to be alive either in the airspace or the Atrium
Going to have to read that. Saw a really good documentary on that, and one of the few Arms vs. Armor comaprisons that I cite from such documentaries, because for once, someone did it right.
The host found a bodkin arrowhead in the soil (you can still find them at Agincourt) and demonstrated that it was straight iron. He found period armor, and demonstrated carbon content (steel, not iron) and thickness. He then had a breastplate made, arrows made, and fired them at bow strengths consistent with bows found in that wreck whose name isn't coming to mind.
The arrowheads bent. Soft iron bends against hard steel.
And that's not inconsistent wiht other tets against real armor. Last night, I watched a brand new Mythbusters, where they fired 1700's pistols at Chinese iron armor, and the rounds bounced. Real armor is a lot better defense than the flat steel a lot of documentaries test weapons against. And armorer I saw interviewed explained that the act of bending the steel hardens it, and tempering it hardens it further, making real steel armor far more effective than a flat steel plate.
Anyway, I wonder how Cornwell saw the defeat of the knights. My documentary suggested that once the horses were shot from under them, the mud caused steel shod feet to sink deep, but the archers' leather shoes would walk quite well (deomsntrated in the Agincourt soil, by wetting the soil into mud and trying to actually walk on it), so he thought the archers simply let the knights exhaust themselves, then they just walked out and slit their throats... which would have had the reported effect of enraging more knights to charge in and get slaughtered. Dying to arrows might not have caused that.