Countng arrows in a game

[happyhiker]

Thought I’d update the post in case anyone is interested. 7mm dice came, they make great counters, small unobtrusive and not confused with normal dice. So we play tested 8 shots a game, which basically meant 4 turns of double shooting. Now this might work for less archers but our hyw English army is 50% or more archers, so total carnage, French massacred again with almost no  melee. Might be accurate, but makes a dull game. So next attempt will be shoot as normal 2 turns of double shooting. Failing that +1. I hadn’t realised how hard it is to write balanced rules...

@katie, great counters btw..

[Cubs]

I think it's tough to balance missile effectiveness in rules generally, but specifically when you're talking about HYW English (and Welsh!!) longbows. We think of them as battle-winners and they absolutely could be when used right, because they shagged up a French advance very effectively and neutralised their own crossbows so often. There's no lack of contemporary writers who confirm the respect English bowmen were held in by other nations (my own take is the bow was part of the equation, but the uniquely trained man made up the larger share of the equation). BUT when used poorly or in less than ideal circumstances, they were much less effective and largely defenceless against armoured knights.

How much to write into rules and how much to abstract into dice rolls must be a very difficult balancing act. Certainly limiting arrow supply is a good option, but then again, how much do you keep as a known quantity and how much unexpected?

[Atheling]

Just to chime in again, Military Archery has always been about volume of arrows, no matter which time period or army we are talking about so I think you're right to think of "counting arrows" in a game, with this caveat; if you're fighting large scale battles then this ought to come into play. If a skirmish game, then less so as it's safe to assume that in most circumstances an archer, be it a crossbowman, a bowman or handgunner has enough ammunition for a short encounter.

[Charlie_]

I think in a small scale encounter, longbowmen shouldn't need to be any more powerful than crossbowmen and handgunners. You can give each one slightly different rules to add flavour if you like, but longbow shouldn't have an obvious advantage.

In a large pitched battle scenario, longbowmen should be a better choice, due to the volume of arrows they can get in the air, in the perfect conditions to suit them. Which means a defensive static position, dug in with stakes and ditches etc, used in large numbers, and a helpful opponent who is going for a direct frontal assault. In this situation, longbow should be much more effective than crossbows/handguns. If not in such a situation, longbowmen shouldn't have any real advantage over other missile troops, and the English should not be superpowered. Remember, Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt were just three battles in a war that lasted over 100 years, and conveniently the only ones us English seem to remember! If the longbow was so good in every encounter, how come the French won the war?

[Dr. Zombie]

In a large pitched battle scenario, longbowmen should be a better choice, due to the volume of arrows they can get in the air, in the perfect conditions to suit them. Which means a defensive static position, dug in with stakes and ditches etc, used in large numbers, and a helpful opponent who is going for a direct frontal assault. In this situation, longbow should be much more effective than crossbows/handguns. If not in such a situation, longbowmen shouldn't have any real advantage over other missile troops, and the English should not be superpowered. Remember, Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt were just three battles in a war that lasted over 100 years, and conveniently the only ones us English seem to remember! If the longbow was so good in every encounter, how come the French won the war?

Finally someone said it! The amount of myth around the longbow is only equalled by the the amouth of myth about the katana. Both are not super secret overpowered weapons with near magical abilities.
Whilst I do get the English love affair with the longbow. It really was a pretty rare sight on battlefields in mainland Europe.

[Atheling]

Verneuil 1424 was a perfect example in the series of dynastic conflicts we call the HYW where the archers utterly failed to make an impact and it came down to a slogging match. Most of the time, in pitch battles archers was used to disrupt a charge, be it mounted or dismounted, to the point where said charge became as ineffective as was possible under the circumstances. In the case of Verneuil, the Italian's on their armoured horses punched straight through the English lines causing absolute mayhem. It is probably that was it not for the presence of John of Bedford, Regent of France, and the show of pageantry of the day before the "English" (re: English and Normans) would have been completely routed. As it was the personality and appeal to honour made by Bedford, might well have saved the day. Incidentally, the Scots had archers there too. The archery duel between the English and the Scots was described as "pittious" by the Burgundian chronicler Jean de Wavrin.

[Charlie_]

Verneuil 1424 was a perfect example in the series of dynastic conflicts we call the HYW where the archers utterly failed to make an impact and it came down to a slogging match. Most of the time, in pitch battles archers was used to disrupt a charge, be it mounted or dismounted, to the point where said charge became as ineffective as was possible under the circumstances. In the case of Verneuil, the Italian's on their armoured horses punched straight through the English lines causing absolute mayhem. It is probably that was it not for the presence of John of Bedford, Regent of France, and the show of pageantry of the day before the "English" (re: English and Normans) would have been completely routed. As it was the personality and appeal to honour made by Bedford, might well have saved the day. Incidentally, the Scots had archers there too. The archery duel between the English and the Scots was described as "pittious" by the Burgundian chronicler Jean de Wavrin.

And in warganing rules terms, it could be that they just rolled a lot of 1s that say! And at agincourt the French had that misfortune.

It also should be pointed out that longbows were used in Europe in the latter half of the 15th century, by the French and Burgundians most notably. We don't hear much about their longbows winning any battles. Could it be that they weren't as 'good' as their English counterparts? Or, could it be that they were perfectly effective troops, but longbows rarely ever won battles by themselves - when they seemingly do, it's an anomoly that goes down in history as some great military breakthrough.

[Atheling]

And in warganing rules terms, it could be that they just rolled a lot of 1s that say! And at agincourt the French had that misfortune.

It also should be pointed out that longbows were used in Europe in the latter half of the 15th century, by the French and Burgundians most notably. We don't hear much about their longbows winning any battles. Could it be that they weren't as 'good' as their English counterparts? Or, could it be that they were perfectly effective troops, but longbows rarely ever won battles by themselves - when they seemingly do, it's an anomoly that goes down in history as some great military breakthrough.

Good points Charlie.

I'm in danger of going OT here so I'll keep it brief. I think that the answer lies in that we don't actually know how the archers were used in conjunction with dismounted men at arms, at least as far as "English" armies go. We have snippets from various chronicles but nothing concrete. I would assume that the way men at arms and archers were used in conjunction with one another was probably fluid throughout Late Med. history. But, this is an assumption on my part.