Are Archers are too Powerful?

[achilles]

I use common rules for archery. I did a few solo battles using equal
numbers per side, one side of archers against non archers on the
other. The result was the same every time. The archer side won
easily. Even when against mounted. So my question is why didn't
medieval armies fight exclusively with archers if they were so
decisive?

Just a thought
Ken

[Merlin the Mad]

I'd say your archery is too effective then! A historical comparison
should illustrate the different tactical situations affecting the
effectiveness of archers. Agincourt: c. 300 yards of muddy ground
across which thousands of French men-at-arms advance, mostly on foot:
the English archers were protected by an enstaked line, which kept the
few mounted French knights to reach the English line from penetrating
to the archers behind. The infantry advance was shot into a thoroughly
disordered mass with many wounded and some killed outright through the
weak spots in their plate harness. The English archery and mud
combined to wear out the French attack, and the English counter-attack
(engaged in by the archers in support of their own men-at-arms),
swiftly routed the French. By contrast, Verneuil less than ten years
later: the French cavalry did not dismount but launched a swift
mounted charge at the English archers before they could drive in their
protective stake line: the French penetrated right through the archers
and emerged in their rear. Instead of turning around and attacking the
disorganized English archers, the French cavalry instead continued on
to attack the baggage park well to the English rear. The contrast is
obvious: at Agincourt there was enough time to effect a decisive arrow
barrage that helped win the battle: at Verneuil the English archers
did not have enough time to shoot down the swiftly approaching French
cavalry, who successfully impacted into them, causing their line to
scatter in a rout that would have been permanent if the French had
finished the job.

In neither battle did the archery "kill" off the enemy. So I am
guessing that the missile fire rules you are using are too deadly by
more than a skosh....

Doug

[BTWilliams]

Ken,

Could you describe how your Archery rules work?

BTWilliams

> > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[achilles]

I have used different sets, I guess the real question is, what is the
probability that an archer can dispatch an opponent before he has a
chance to close in melee with the archer?

Ken

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Merlin the Mad]

One way of determining this is to look at the percentage of the body
covered in effective plate. In the early HYW this was considerably
less than at the end. Agincourt (1415) is the midway point in plate
armor development; still more like Crecy and Poitiers than Formigny
(1450). If the archer in question is at a range where he just doesn't
miss a target like a man-at-arms on foot coming straight at him, then
the base chance for an effective hit becomes the percentage of plate
covered area. With even cap-a-pie steel plate, like that commonly worn
at the end of the HYW, this is never going to be less than c. 6%; and
that would be with full face coverage. As the man-at-arms moves he
exposes the joints at his elbows and shoulders. The breaths and eye
slits are thin. From the flanks his vulnerability goes up double that;
and from the rear quarters his vulnerability is as high as c. 15%: any
clothyard shaft striking into the thin edges of the plate, sides of
the helmet, or hitting where the plate does not cover (butt, upper
rear thighs, backs of knees) are going to take the arrow without
turning it or absorbing much of the impact.

Men in deep, linear formation advancing into an AIMED arrow storm at
pointblank range (inside c. 70 yards) are especially vulnerable to
archery because they can't dodge or move out of formation; and the
archers in "herce" formation (projecting forward to take the enemy in
the flanks) are going to get some very effective shots in where the
plate is thinnest.

The estimated number of arrows impacting into the front rank of the
French during the last c. 70 yards of their advance at Agincourt was
c. 1,500 arrows into c. 500 men-at-arms every 5 seconds (12 rapidly
aimed shots per minute was a standard rate of "fire" for English
archers); and it took the French over a minute to close the last c. 70
yards. That is over 18,000 arrows into c. 500 front rank targets, or
c. 40 arrows received by each man-at-arms: even at the lowest possible
exposed area of c. 6% that is still over two arrows per man-at-arms
getting past the plate. Simple odds tells us that probably every
French man-at-arms in the front one or two ranks had been wounded by
arrows by the time they came to hand strokes with the English men-at-
arms. Wounds, from moderate to fatal, exhaustion from c. 300 yards of
slogging toward the English through mud in c. 60 lbs of armor, and
finally having to fight hand-to-hand against a fresh enemy: it's no
wonder the French van lost their fight! And most of the reason was the
overwhelming number of arrows used against them....

Doug

[Merlin the Mad]

I should add that what I described is a different fight than the kind
we typically play with 90mm figures. Small engagements, skirmishes,
involve archers and crossbowmen shooting at individually chosen
targets who are not in dense linear formations. The targets can be
moving from cover to cover. So a skirmish set of shooting rules ought
to determine the chance to hit AND penetrate any armor defenses. This
could be a two-step system, or both chances could be lumped together
into a single chance to hit "effectively".

But if a two-step system is used, then you have to determine the
chance to hit the target first; and if a hit is rolled, then roll for
the chance to get past the armor.

Really good archers, like the best of the English yeomen, would not
miss a man on foot coming straight at them at pointblank range; but
that's only true if nothing goes wrong, i.e. no bad arrow, broken bow
string, slippery footing for the archer, etc. and etc. To allow for
"Ah slipped", there should always be a chance to shoot and out-and-out
miss; but for the ideal shot (like a man on foot coming straight at
you) the chance to out-and-out miss should be pretty low: I'd go for
10% or less. And shooting at a horseman charging right at you would be
worse simply because the archer would be wanting to get out of the way
more than shoot! The very worst shot would be at a galloping horseman
beyond pointblank range, where the archer must estimate angle,
trajectory, AND lead the target all at the same time: and if he's got
other considerations going, like nearby enemies, or being shot at
himself, etc., then the chance to hit goes way down. I would never
make the chance to hit lower than 5% in a skirmish game, though.

Once the hit has occurred, then armor comes into play. I've given the
percentage chances for a clothyard shaft to get past plate armor, from
the front, flanks and rear. Chain mail would be half as effective as
plate (and that's being generous for the game's sake!). Leather or
padded cloth armors still less effective (worn together, they'd be
maybe two-thirds as effective as plate armor). Go forth, my son, and
have fun designing your missile "fire" rules!... :)

Doug