Are bow ranges not way to long in wargaming?

[JW Boots]

I just looked at a Youtube in which two guys are testing modern bows on how far they can shoot at 45 degrees angles, sort of.

Modern bows a very hightech compared to what was used in ancient and medieval times. What I found interesting is that they mention the initial arrow velocity that together with the angle as a key variable that determines range. There also is, gravity, drag, etc. but these two parameters are prominent in the formula for the trajectory and range of projectiles.

Now the thing is this that the "traditional" bow they use, still a modern bow, goes at something like 160 FPS. Tests with replicated historic bows that I found are also in that ballpark area. The range they get is just over 100 metres, or some 130 paces, etc. And this is at a high angle... Most wargame rules I know give bows up to 200 paces range... Should we not reduce that?

Note that the modern bows reach arrow speeds of up to 300 FPS, probably unheard of in the past...

[Daeothar]

As an archer myself, I think I can comment on this from first hand experience.

Shooting with my barebow recurve @ 45 pounds (which is nominal for modern archery, but historical long- and horsebows regularly drew between 80 and 160 pounds) I can easily reach 200 meters, using carbon arrows.

Using my 50 pound horsebow, I can shoot wooden arrows up to 300 meters easily, and historical records place the top range of English longbows at 400 meters (which I have yet to try, due to lack of an appropriately long shooting range locally).

So the stated ranges of 200 meters are absolutely feasible for any bow with a draw weight over approximately 30 pounds.

However, this says nothing about target penetration (remaining energy on target) and accuracy.

English longbows had a reach of 400 meters, but IMHO, that gave more of a psychological effect rather than a reliable target penetration. It would certainly hurt unarmoured targets, but would rarely be fatal. Reliable killing ranges were below 200 meters, and accurate ranges would be below 100 meters.

Which was not an issue when used en masse, obviously.

So looking at this, I'd dare to state that the game designers took a range in game where arrows would still be lethal, ignoring the wounding/intimidating/annoying effect of the same arrows at longer ranges, simply for ease of play.

Longest handbow shot on record btw is at 1,222.01 meters...

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Ranges in a game being longer than the physical also abstractly take into account that not all shooting comes at the exact time and place of the resolution of the shot within the game turn, but might actually occur before and after some movement by either target or shooter.  It is a compensation for the granular moment of time that determines a turn. (particularly in IGo-Yougo games without reaction moves).  This abstraction insures that cav with a charge move of longer than the normal range of the bow still get shot at at least once and can’t just charge in from outside the bow’s range avoiding it all together.

Skirmishers in general are not static.  some could range forward to shoot, then fall back.  (Indeed, how to throw a javelin without running  movement towards the target!).  Formed archers might not be so flexible, but literalism in time and position of a unit stand on a table in the face of granular gameturns looks too distorted.  our games are often like playing with stop motion cameras or strobe lights.

It’s a good idea not to think of weapon ranges as literally distance, but more of a limitation on how many shots might be done within a span of time or a turn.

[Easy E]

Honestly, I think it depends on the game.  To me, the more important question isn't a given range per se but how the range of the weapons interact with the distance units can move.  Of course, I am assuming a more game-focused approach than a pure recreation approach.

[Cubs]

Finsbury Fields in London had a set of butts for public archery practice and the longest mark was set at 400yds (this was in the 1500's), so obviously this range was achieveable (but not common, or there would have been longer ranges!). This is aimed shots, although in battle longer ranges beyond about 200yds were probably volley fire into the air, for area effect. Shorter than this, for a bow with an 80lb draw or more, the arrow is going more or less flat into the target. Less than 100yds and an experienced archer is going to pick where on his target he wants to hit. Arguments abound as to which type of bow had a longer range - a warbow (longbow), heavy crossbow or recurved composite bow. To my mind, since there was no standardised size or power to any of them, it's much of a muchness, but needless to say they were probably comparable.

My answer is no, I think 200yds effective range is absolutely not too far for these types of bow (in fact you could argue it's way too little), but perhaps for smaller less powerful ones it is appropriate.

[JW Boots]

Thanks for all the answers and feedback. But I am going to toss in one more thing. On Trajan’s column archers are seen shooting up, but in a siege setting so aiming high at the top of the walls. In many other depictions archers seem to be shooting straight. Perhaps this is the artist being unaware of how things were done, or just trying to make things fit in the composition, etc. or… Any thoughts?

[Moriarty]

I suspect the artist must have had some knowledge of archery, otherwise those figures would not look like archers at all. Some of the bows are shown unstrung, some shooting into combat, and some bows shooting up actually have the upper limb of the bow out of their ‘panel’ on the column. They look like archers to me.

[ced1106]

Honestly, I think it depends on the game.  To me, the more important question isn't a given range per se but how the range of the weapons interact with the distance units can move.  Of course, I am assuming a more game-focused approach than a pure recreation approach.

Yeah, that.

And, IIRC, Rangers of Shadowdeep has crossbows with 24" range, which makes playing on a 3x3 board against zombies (first scenario) boring, unless you choke the board with terrain, and prevent LOS to enemies. Weren't miniature gaming tables huge back in the days? For miniature skirmish games, it's not practical to require your players have 4x6 boards, and standard scale is 28mm. The smaller boards make a range that would work on a much larger board too dominant for a game.

[ithoriel]

Thanks for all the answers and feedback. But I am going to toss in one more thing. On Trajan’s column archers are seen shooting up, but in a siege setting so aiming high at the top of the walls. In many other depictions archers seem to be shooting straight. Perhaps this is the artist being unaware of how things were done, or just trying to make things fit in the composition, etc. or… Any thoughts?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. If it's why are archers on the column aiming at different points then the answer is simply that they are aiming at different targets. Action on the column is shown at pretty close range so arrow trajectories are going to be pretty flat. It's been decades since I looked at photos of the column but I don't remember any scenes of archers firing over the heads of another unit nor at long range which is where they would be firing upwards at a target at the same level.


Does that help any or am I misunderstanding what you are getting at?

[Cubs]

The smaller boards make a range that would work on a much larger board too dominant for a game.

If you're using things like 1"=2yds for a skirmish game, this would give bows a big advantage. Probably because if you were actually in a scenario where an enemy was 50 yards away with a bow and you don't have one and no cover, you're in trouble! I guess this is where you have to block line of sight, add in dodge rules, etc.. One of those occasions where realism needs to be dialled down to increase fun perhaps. Or increase the effectiveness of shields or heavy armour, which in reality were very effective defence from missile fire (not to mention close combat), whereas games usually only add a token saving throw.   

[cadbren]

Action on the column is shown at pretty close range so arrow trajectories are going to be pretty flat. .... I don't remember any scenes of archers firing over the heads of another unit nor at long range which is where they would be firing upwards at a target at the same level.

The column depicts events during the Dacian Wars and there is at least one scene where Dacian archers are firing at Roman auxiliaries who are defending a fort so naturally the archers are firing up at the soldiers on the battlements. There are other scenes depicting Dacian and Roman archers firing as part of ground combat and their bows are slightly raised as you might expect.
The Dacian archers appear to be mixed in with melee fighters while the Eastern Roman archers appear to be firing from behind a group of legionaries.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

If you're using things like 1"=2yds for a skirmish game, this would give bows a big advantage. Probably because if you were actually in a scenario where an enemy was 50 yards away with a bow and you don't have one and no cover, you're in trouble! I guess this is where you have to block line of sight, add in dodge rules, etc.. One of those occasions where realism needs to be dialled down to increase fun perhaps. Or increase the effectiveness of shields or heavy armour, which in reality were very effective defence from missile fire (not to mention close combat), whereas games usually only add a token saving throw.   

Movement rates might need to be increased.  What is the turn length, and how many aimed shots can be made in timespan, and how far can a charging zombie move in that same time.  If the range is maxed out at 24 inches we all know that distance can be covered by charging, at a trot, heavy infantry in around 30-60 seconds, if we arbitrarily give it a scale of 10 paces per inch.  How many aimed shots at a particular target can an average archer achieve in 30-60 seconds  Crossbows, one shot if loaded.  Longbowmen? 2? 3-4? more?  In game terms i would probably limit to one shot per turn and give the crossbow or musket 1 shot every 2 rounds and if not precisely aiming at an area target, maybe let two arrows fly.  Definitely make armoured troops. with shields, pavises, or heavy armour get more than nominal benefit.  Zombies should get a benefit in that only certain hits can stop a zombie who are quite unconcerned about hits on the heart or lungs and feel no pain.  Not every hit can be a head shot unless aiming at point blank.  Even a slow zombie ought to be able to absorb multiple hits before it is close enough to eat the shooter. 

Too one really needs to penalize archers very heavily if they get pulled into close combat.  D&D was really bad in this in that archers could too easily disengage and shoot rapid fire as if they were armed with SMGs at targets 5 ft away.

[Daeothar]

https://youtube.com/shorts/WjWUn22gLUE?si=yxV8UPiWGcUq0prP

https://youtu.be/QKWJMs8Ujms?si=vhIDDviavtQ9VFpk

Mihai Cozmei is a bit of a legend in the field and shows what can be done with a horsebow and a non-standard quiver. He's shooting a 65 pound bow and is hitting his targets reliably...

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Yes, and then there’s the draftee fyrdman with a hunting bow who only practices 1 day a month to get away from the plowing.  Not every one would be a Legolas and even this extraordinary display is from long practiced “kata” routine, choreagraphed, rather than actual combat reactions.  it’s gymnastics, not fencing.  No one is shooting back at them or are they even targeting a moving target.  These guys could probably shoot blind, because they know the range and ground perfectly.  What range are they shooting at, do they have a powerful but hard to pull bow because they need the penetration ability or are they using a light bow because they are aiming at a butt at short range and it’s easier to get off quick shots with a light bow?

Also, what’s even the point of shooting 14 arrows quickly at the same target? after the first hit and penetration, subsequent shots are wasted.  This rate of loosing arrows make more sense against unaimed area type fire, but we are talking about targets that need more precision to be taken out.  The skill and techniques used to achieve such a ROF would be counter productive to a combat archer.

Finally even if we accept that this ROF is routine and could generate penetration within a target rich area of effect, do we need to be literal in our resolution mechanic about each individual arrow is resolved?  Or is the die roll an aggregate of many shots in the same way that melee fighting is not resolved on a single blow or swing by swing basis.  it’s a flurry of activity over the few seconds.

[Daeothar]

Yes, and then there’s the draftee fyrdman with a hunting bow who only practices 1 day a month to get away from the plowing.  Not every one would be a Legolas and even this extraordinary display is from long practiced “kata” routine, choreagraphed, rather than actual combat reactions.  it’s gymnastics, not fencing.  No one is shooting back at them or are they even targeting a moving target.  These guys could probably shoot blind, because they know the range and ground perfectly.

The 'kata' routine you mention is comparable to as practicing (a lot). In fact the Japanese kata was meant to practice techniques without an actual opponent. Which is exactly the same as able bodied men being required to shoot a 100 arrows at a target each sunday morning after mass. Most of history had archers shooting less frequently than that though, I agree.

The person in the clip is famous for shooting at moving targets, often when he himself is moving as well (on horseback even). I won't flood the thread with more clips, but if you feel so inclined, look up Mongolian horse archery (or Turkish or Tartar or Hungarian for that matter); you'll find some utterly remarkable displays of skill, by people who all have regular jobs that take up most of their time (as opposed to being a full time archer).

I've been into archery (barebow/horsebow 3D-shooting mostly) for a long time, but I still am amazed at what they show is possible with a bow.

What range are they shooting at, do they have a powerful but hard to pull bow because they need the penetration ability or are they using a light bow because they are aiming at a butt at short range and it’s easier to get off quick shots with a light bow?

In the footslogging clip I understand he is shooting a 60 pounder at a target approximately 20 meters out. The riding one is with a 40 pound bow at a target approximately 10 to 20 meters away, depending on the location of the horse at the time of the shots.

I linked these two (first ones coming up searching for rapid firing handbows) to illustrate that your statement of shooting a longbow would be at a rate of 2, 3 or 4 arrows a minute is lowballing it. Through testing and reading we know that for a trained archer with a longbow, a combat rate of fire was approximately 6 arrows a minute. they could go faster, but accuracy would suffer and also they would tire faster. We're talking longbows here of poundages well over 100 by the way, some going up to as much as 180 pounds.

So I showed the wrong type of bow here, but the illustration stands; an impressive rate of fire can be achieved with a handbow.

Crossbows, while more powerful and having longer ranges, (longest recorded footbow (crossbow) shot is over 1800 meters), have a very low rate of fire compared to the handbow. However; they were much easier to master than handbows, which require constant training and upkeep of strength to wield effectively (mostly longbows of higher poundage that is). Which is why they became more popular later on, when the arms race between armourers and weaponsmiths was well underway.

Then there's the type of bow used in a skirmish. Most skirmishers would not be wielding a hugely powerful but rather cumbersome longbow. Shorter (hunting) bows were more commonly used when scouting, skirmishing and hunting. They were shorter, sometimes recurved or even composite, and of lower poundage. The advantage of the smaller bows is agility, faster reaction times and ease of use in wooded or urban environments.

The English longbow, while prevalent in western literature, actually had but a very small temporal and geographical window where it was relevant, while the shorter hunting- and horsebows were used for a much longer time, before and after the longbow, and also over a much larger area (i.e. the entire world, basically).

Obviously the above results in skirmishing bows being less lethal. But bear in mind that what is shown of arrow wounds in movies is usually not very accurate. Even a pointblank hit from a longbow would very rarely be instantly lethal or even incapacitating. Follow up shots were often required, and even then they would only serve to slow down and incapacitate a target. Given time, an untreated bleeding arrow wound would obviously be lethal, but we're talking hourse here, or minutes at the fastest. And the conflicts we generally play out with our miniatures on the table top, especially skirmishes, would be over in minutes (even though we take hours to come to that conclusion with our measuring, dice rolling and rules lawyering )

Also, what’s even the point of shooting 14 arrows quickly at the same target? after the first hit and penetration, subsequent shots are wasted.  This rate of loosing arrows make more sense against unaimed area type fire, but we are talking about targets that need more precision to be taken out.  The skill and techniques used to achieve such a ROF would be counter productive to a combat archer.

Historical accounts from the first two crusades show that the tactics used by islamic light cavalry depended on exactly this (as illustrated by the riding clip I linked to). They would ride along the enemy battle line, shooting loads of relatively low powered arrows into the ranks before wheeling away (often shooting rearwards when doing so). Harassing and demoralizing the enemy, before the big push came to finish them off.

Crusader knights, being heavily armoured were described as looking like pin cushions, having dozens of arrows sticking out of them, but none penetrated their mail and gambeson combination. The displayed tactics were to be used against much more lightly armoured opponents, and proved a nuisance at best when dealing with crusader heavy infantry and cavalry.

But the tactics and equipment had been viable up to that time.

And the same goes for the dark ages and early medieval periods in western Europe; not many, if any, combatants were armoured, especially in skirmishes (as opposed to pitched battles, when the good stuff usually was wheeled out). And in those low intensity cases, hugely powerful bows were rarely used, but the hunting bows commonly in use were more than able to fulfill the same tasks the longbows did against armoured targets. However; they would have a higher rate of fire!

Finally even if we accept that this ROF is routine and could generate penetration within a target rich area of effect, do we need to be literal in our resolution mechanic about each individual arrow is resolved?  Or is the die roll an aggregate of many shots in the same way that melee fighting is not resolved on a single blow or swing by swing basis.  it’s a flurry of activity over the few seconds.

For a good representation of a skirmish, it would be best to keep track of wounds for each individual miniature, incapacitating them further with each wound. And arrows should not be lethal (unless perhaps a one in a million shot mechanic is introduced, for hitting your opponent's leader in the eye for instance ), but rather, they should add wounds.
The longer term effects of having your body pierced by sword, spear and arrow points should not matter in a skirmish game, but when played as part of a campaign, it should be preferable to roll for the effects after the game, to see if the recipient of the arrows would miss further engagements or might even succumb to his wounds and die.

Now, when looking at skirmish games where bows are used, like Frostgrave for instance, density of terrain is substantial, but ranges are also capped at 24 inches (I believe). Firing rate is one per round. And when we look at the length of a skirmish, which we established at a couple of minutes, and a game usually being between 5 and 7 turns, the firing rate seems quite within realistic rates; about 1 every minute or so. Even at faster paced games, this would still translate to approximately 1 arrow every 10 seconds.

Which is possible to achieve with a longbow, but quite easy to do with a shorter bow. So the rate of fire seems ok to me.

Also, on ranges in game; the fact that boltguns in 40K only had a range of 24 inches always seemd ridiculous to me, but I understood that this was done to balance the game. Infinity showed that unlimited range on the board was entirely possible and actually very realistic, but it changed the dynamics of the game a lot. Instead of running straight up the table, you had to sneak and leapfrog your miniatures through the terrain. The terrain density of that game was obviously much highter than that of 40K.

So an in-game range of 24 inches, while perhaps long on a 3x3 board, should still be playable. Besides; charging straight across the board at an opponent wielding a bow might not be the smartest of decisions even in the best of circumstances.

In the end, it's all about game balance and the bought miniature should be worth its cost, but also not be overpowered. It depends on how the rest of rules are constructed if a range limitation or a ROF limitation is required. Because in the real world, both the range, power and rate of fire of bows vary immensely, but usually exceed those in the games in which they are represented...