|
|
Post by spellslingsellsword on Aug 30, 2019 13:58:08 GMT -6
I thought this was a well done test.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 14:17:47 GMT -6
Ooooh. This is good! You can embed the video using the text editor buttons, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by spellslingsellsword on Aug 30, 2019 14:56:35 GMT -6
Ooooh. This is good! You can embed the video using the text editor buttons, though. Thanks, now embedded. :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 16:14:14 GMT -6
Very cool...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 1:48:39 GMT -6
Imagine that range with a fully armored horse in that same armor that is also carrying a man with a lance. The entire thing is coming at you at full speed. Think you could keep your cool to even aim a shot?
Morale check!
hee hee hee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 11:23:54 GMT -6
That's why archers are mass fire weapons, and why you start shooting at 200 yards. Throw enough arrows out there, something is going to hit a gap.
Notice the one that hit below the breastplate.
|
|
tec97
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 157
|
Post by tec97 on Sept 26, 2019 13:05:35 GMT -6
That's why archers are mass fire weapons, and why you start shooting at 200 yards. Throw enough arrows out there, something is going to hit a gap. Notice the one that hit below the breastplate. Didn't the archers typically use indirect fire? Tough to test with a single archer firing at a single mounted breastplate, but I wonder what would have happened if you had arrows dropping from height onto the upper surfaces... |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 26, 2019 23:12:08 GMT -6
That's why archers are mass fire weapons, and why you start shooting at 200 yards. Throw enough arrows out there, something is going to hit a gap. Notice the one that hit below the breastplate. Didn't the archers typically use indirect fire? Tough to test with a single archer firing at a single mounted breastplate, but I wonder what would have happened if you had arrows dropping from height onto the upper surfaces... My understanding is that many armies in antiquity, and from continental Europe during the medieval period, with their relatively small proportions of archers, would often place their archers in the rear and use indirect fire. From the battle lines that I've seen drawn out for battles involving England, however, the English preferred their longbow-men to have a direct line of sight to the enemy. For example, at Agincourt the English infantry took up the center of the battlefield, while archers took up both the left and right flanks with no intervening allies between them and the French (and in fact, supposedly the original French battle plan called for their own crossbowmen and archers to be in front of the infantry, but due to the English re-positioning and picking a more constricted battlefield, they were deployed in the rear instead and ended up contributed very little to the battle). This is why it was so important in English battle strategy to have time prior to the fighting for the archers to dig ditches and drive sharpened stakes into the ground in front of their position. This is also reflected in clout archery - the modern descendant of mandatory Sunday longbow practice, in which competitors aim for a target 180 or more yards away (depending on regional rules) - aiming around 30° up from the horizontal is the rule of thumb for high-poundage longbow archers. Naturally, if the target was approaching you, you would also want to reduce the angle with each successive volley. Angles higher than 45° would still come into play sometimes, even for the English, but primarily during sieges or other attacks against fortified positions. |
|
