Help support TMP


POLL: Bows: Effective Fire at Long Range


127 votes were cast.


Back to POLLS home page


Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP writes:

@Flying Glove 1556

You are correct, of course.

I know little of medieval warfare & I am not silly enough to think my little experience proves much but I'm wondering about other factors that enhanced massed archery: a sodden battlefield making charges difficult, crowding of the target, poor leadership/co-ordination etc.

So I think the question, "Effective at long range…." might need modifiers.


Back to the Homepage



875 hits since 22 Oct 2015
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

VOTING RESULTS
AnswerVotes%Chart
no, it is not too effective
58
46%
bar of chart
yes, long-range bowfire is too effective in our rules
30
24%
bar of chart
no opinion
39
31%
bar of chart
POLL IS CLOSED
POLL DESCRIPTION
Writing in Slingshot magazine, Nick Harbud presents the case that "Reconstructors do not believe in effective long range bow fire."

Tests with reconstructed weapons show that archers simply miss more at longer ranges, and that medieval illustrations show no examples of high trajectory fire during pitched battles.

The traditional wargaming view is that massed archery creates an "arrowstorm" which can force a unit to retire or impair the unit's ability to fight.

Do you think our current rulesets make long-range bow fire too effective?

Poll set up by Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian, based on this pre-poll discussion.