Archery in this game kind of sucks.

[David Johnston2]

Archery in many games kind of sucks. To a large extent that's because GMs don't provide their groups with encounters that start at range and short change archers when it comes to magic goodies. Realistically unless you are a very high powered archer you should draw your blade when people close to arms-reach

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

It might also be relevent that those heavily armored French knights _lost_ at Agincourt.

For some reason they didn't charge on their horses (possibly fearign the effects of arrows on unbarded mounts) but dismounted and marched a long distance through a muddy field and when they finally got into melee range they didn't decimate the archers but rather were taken prisoner en masse and then stabbed to death with daggers when helpless.

A simple Guyrps-y hypothesis is that they were too encumbered by their armor and got into melee range with under 1/3 their FP and were too tired to fight well.

So "Armor Ruled and Ruled All!" is not something to be taken without some grains of salt.

Yup. Horses are large, soft targets (when not barded), and the picket defences of stakes protected the archers from being charged. Taking horses nearer to the archers would have been very costly, and horses were likely considered more valuable than knights in many ways.

I also think you're right - mounted knights wearing armour for an expected fight from horseback certainly isn't going to be ideal on foot in the mud.

The mere presence of the archers created a tactical concern for the French. They certainly weren't there thinking, "Oh, most the arrows aren't going to be effective", else they would have just waded in with footmen to crash the pickets and then had the cavalry sweep through. It was also the considered tactical position of the times that defenders typically won, and advancing often led to defeat. That would have been amplified with archers in defensible positions effectively controlling large portions of the battle field in terms of restricting movement.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Archery in many games kind of sucks.

It's actually very hard to make both ranged combat and melee combat viable and interesting. Usually you wind up with one dominating, or at best alternating dominance (this fight is all about the ranged combat, this other fight is all about the melee).

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It's actually very hard to make both ranged combat and melee combat viable and interesting. Usually you wind up with one dominating, or at best alternating dominance (this fight is all about the ranged combat, this other fight is all about the melee).

One technique that appears in some video and board games is limited frontage: ranged units might not deliver equal firepower to the front line units, but when your front line is full and you want to add more force they can contribute where extra melee can't really.

Probably only occasionally realistic and fairly rarely applicable in GURPS though.

[Farmer]

Giving heavy melee, light melee, ranged (long and short), magic (various types), high move, low move, strong defence, weaker defence, and all other combat variants an equal share all the time is essentially impossible.

What should be very rare is deliberately nerfing them in a given scenario. Make it more difficult? Sure. Highlight one over the other at various times?
Definitely (let each have a chance to shine). Try to give them all something to do, including resorting to secondary skills or options? Yep, that's the general aim.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Boge

Our GM doesn't like changing things. He also doesn't like to allow much more beyond the basic book rules, so I'm stuck with what it is. I also can't discuss things with the GM as he's sensitive and takes everything as a criticism of his GMing ability. Thus the /rant. It's really all I can do.

Well then. It's not that GURPS sucks, or that archery in GURPS sucks. That never was your problem, and it looks like you knew it from the start. It's that your GM sucks, and a bunch of posters going on to debate the effectiveness of archery (or not) for another couple dozen posts is now a side issue.

And you're right: until and unless you're willing to sit down and talk with the guy about your concerns, and he's willing to listen and pay heed, nothing's going to change.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Boge

The circumstances make it worse, but I still think archery needs improvement in Gurps. I know we could do house rules, but as I stated before, that's just not going to happen. If the actual Gurps book rules were different...

Damage is too low, especially when comparing weapon master to melee. Range penalties are too high.

I think you're missing the other part of the equation. It's not just damage done, it's also damage taken. In melee, you have far more risk than when you're standing back at range taking shots.

With the rules as they exist, with different types of ammunition, with things like strongbow, arm strength, weapon master, heroic archer, fast firing, multiple arrows at once, different types of bow, targeted attacks, move and shoot, and so on, there's plenty of damage that can be done, armour pierced, other effects (flaming, poisoned, explosive, magical, etc.) before most opponents get near you.

Against opponents in a tower or on a wall or in flight, the melee can do nothing. On the other side of a river, from the top of a cliff, in a tree, and more.

All of it whilst being safe from melee. The archer probably also has a better move with lighter armour (because they're less worried about getting into melee). If they're hidden, they can snipe.

So in balance, risk versus reward, it's pretty decent, it's scalable, and it's interesting and effective.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I think you're missing the other part of the equation. It's not just damage done, it's also damage taken. In melee, you have far more risk than when you're standing back at range taking shots.

With the rules as they exist, with different types of ammunition, with things like strongbow, arm strength, weapon master, heroic archer, fast firing, multiple arrows at once, different types of bow, targeted attacks, move and shoot, and so on, there's plenty of damage that can be done, armour pierced, other effects (flaming, poisoned, explosive, magical, etc.) before most opponents get near you.

Against opponents in a tower or on a wall or in flight, the melee can do nothing. On the other side of a river, from the top of a cliff, in a tree, and more.

All of it whilst being safe from melee. The archer probably also has a better move with lighter armour (because they're less worried about getting into melee). If they're hidden, they can snipe.

So in balance, risk versus reward, it's pretty decent, it's scalable, and it's interesting and effective.

This balance only works, though, if either you don't care about the fate of your melee allies or your melee allies don't rush in to melee while you're doing the shooting.

Once the melee is on, you being out of it makes you safe but does so by distributing the threat you'd draw to all your friends with a premium on top.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Boge

More clarification for those that care:
... When I attacked, the GM stated 30 yards away. ... The next round, my companions were attacking in melee range ...

I was hoping you might clarify how 30 yards got down to zero in a single turn.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

One technique that appears in some video and board games is limited frontage: ranged units might not deliver equal firepower to the front line units, but when your front line is full and you want to add more force they can contribute where extra melee can't really.

Probably only occasionally realistic and fairly rarely applicable in GURPS though.

It's reasonably realistic for unit sizes large enough to actually have a front line and a back line, but for typical RPGs unless you're fighting in tunnels you don't have enough people.