Are bow ranges not way to long in wargaming?

[SteveBurt]

the other factor is range vs unit frontage. If missile ranges are much longer than unit frontage, then the scale is a large skirmish (e.g. WAB or WRG 6th). If missile ranges are about the same as frontage, then it is a big battle set, and if there is no ranged shooting at all, then it is a very big battle set.

[fred]

the other factor is range vs unit frontage. If missile ranges are much longer than unit frontage, then the scale is a large skirmish (e.g. WAB or WRG 6th). If missile ranges are about the same as frontage, then it is a big battle set, and if there is no ranged shooting at all, then it is a very big battle set.

A very good point. I’ve tended to think more about movement speeds vs ranges - i.e. the number of turns under fire. But the above is a very good short-hand. And does perhaps show the impact of what is accepted as normal due to what we are used to from early rulesets.

[cadbren]

Also, what’s even the point of shooting 14 arrows quickly at the same target?

Accuracy under pressure, modern militaries and police do this all the time. It's not that you can hit the same target with multiple redundant attacks, it's that you can hit the same spot all the time meaning you can hit any spot.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Hitting any spot by training to shoot at one spot from the same range and location is not really training in flexibility to hit just anything that comes up. Targets that charge you or are moving and targets that shooting back are much harder.  Even course type ranges with surprise  pop-up targets don’t give one the constraint of hostile action has against the shooter

[Basementboy]

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.

This is a very good quote, and how I shall explain the time in a turn to players from henceforth

[Hobgoblin]

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.   

That point about armour is absolutely key, I think. If you have a bow and know how to use it, and an unarmored antagonist is bearing down on you from 100 yards or so, you're probably fairly confident of hitting them before they get to you - and slowing them in the process. But give that person a helmet, a reasonable amount of  armour and a big shield in the Viking or Norman mode, and you're going to be much, much less confident. You're also likely to get fewer shots in as you consider trying to pin a foot or 'dummy' your release to get them to peek above their shield rim, and so on.

[SteveBurt]

I had a re-enactor friend who was adamant that it was impossible for even fully armoured knights to close with longbows. Even after I pointed out that the knights got into contact at Agincourt and Poitiers (badly disordered of course, but clearly not impossible, not that he would change his mind).

[Daeothar]

It's the reason even trained English longbow archers usually put up defensive barriers at their front. No use doing that when nothing can ever reach you...

Also, it depends on the size of both the charging force and the amount of archers; put 1000 archers vs 10 knights and he might be righ, switch those numbers and then not so much... 

[JW Boots]

I had a re-enactor friend who was adamant that it was impossible for even fully armoured knights to close with longbows. Even after I pointed out that the knights got into contact at Agincourt and Poitiers (badly disordered of course, but clearly not impossible, not that he would change his mind).

Being to blame for starting this discussion after having seen a YouTube video. Yes, YouTube is full of <fill in what you think>, but I tend to be impressed by what Tod’s Workshop does and shows. They also have some on (replicated) longbows versus armour that I found enlightening. For example: https://youtu.be/ds-Ev5msyzo?si=kzf6aPIidnA30pW4

[Harry Faversham]

Love the reply to the penishead re-enactor...


"If the baddies can't make contact with English Longbowmen. Why the fook did they all carry a an eight foot long stake???!!!"
 

[williamb]

The Mongol bow is capable of a range over 500 meters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_bow  There are two main types of archery fire - massed fire at a massed target (as at Agincourt) or individual fire at an individual target in a skirmish.  Massed fire can be done at longer ranges because the archers are not shooting at individual targets but at the group.  Ranges will be much shorter when an individual is shooting at another individual due to factors that can affect the path of the arrow such as cross winds, target movement, etc.  This distance can be seen in the horse archery contest videos.  Modern archery contest shooting at targets, like the Olympics, have ranges of 50 or 70 meters.  https://www.worldarchery.sport/sport/disciplines/target-archery while deer hunters normally limit their range to about 40 meters.

This web site has online archery manuals from medieval times https://www.archerylibrary.com/  There is also treatise on Arab archery by Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr (Arab Archery, An Arabic Manuscript Of About A.D. 1500: A Book On The Excellence Of The Bow And Arrow And The Description Thereof )  that is available from Amazon and other book sellers.

[DaveCrow]

I think there is a factor we often don't consider. Abstraction. We are not modeling a one for one infliction of casualties, movement of troops etc. We are modeling a generalized snapshot of battlefield conditions at any given moment. Part of ranges on the tabletop is the effective control distance. Bows provide a threat zone and impact on the general fighting capacity of the enemy, this may or may not correspond exactly to the physical range of the bow.

Of course movement, shooting, terrain, unit frontage and depth, vertical relief, all are on different scale on the table top. The larger the figure sizes the greater the variation in scales between various tabletop elements in the same game becomes.

In historical wargaming we should never ignore the evidence of historical accounts, allowing for some exaggeration, and archeology, as well as practical experimentation.

[cadbren]

Hitting any spot by training to shoot at one spot from the same range and location is not really training in flexibility to hit just anything that comes up. Targets that charge you or are moving and targets that shooting back are much harder.  Even course type ranges with surprise  pop-up targets don’t give one the constraint of hostile action has against the shooter

It's training to hit the target consistently, you can argue that a follow up course in shooting under different conditions could happen but being to hit the target is the first step. I'm not sure how you'd train to shoot a bow while someone else was shooting at you or even what the point of such training would be - archers didn't face off and duke it out at close range with arrows.