Inderect Fire

[raithe]

I've been reading over chainmail again since I'm going to use it for combat in my next campaign. Seeing as we'll be using it anyway I was brushing up on some of the 1:20 rules so we could do large battles. One thing that strikes me as really odd is the rules for inderect fire. It states that range is REDUCED by 1/3rd and damage by one step. Now I'm no expert but didn't archers always fire that way if possible? As I understand it a bow achieves maximum range and penetration when fired at a 45 degree angle. Therefore I'm thinking of inverting this rule so the penalty only aplies to troops firing within 3" of a unit, meaniing they must fire straight, and assuming the normal tables apply to inderect fire. thoughts?

[coffee]

Here's my take on it:


Normal fire is assumed to be at a 45 degree angle (or close to it).

But when firing over the heads of friendly troops, one would take every precaution to minimize friendly casualties, so the archers would be firing at a much steeper angle. This would naturally tend to reduce the range. And with the arrows dropping almost straight down, there would be a corresponding less chance to hit an individual target. Add this to the superiority of armor on the top surfaces and you get better armored targets becoming 'arrow-proof'.

Like I say, this is just my take on it.

[raithe]

Interesting interpretation. Most likely that, or something similar, is what is being implied. Have to mull over this one a bit.

[oldgeezer]

I think it also applies to the fact that "indirect fire" is when the firing unit does not have clear line of sight to the target; you're firing "by guess and by gosh".