Archery in this game kind of sucks.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

No, the statistics from Agincourt don't apply to small-group skirmishes. Do you have statistics from small-group skirmishes?

I'm not going to argue about arrows penetrating armor, because that doesn't matter if you're shooting people who aren't wearing armor. Which is most people. Even on some battlefields.

Unless you get hit in the vitals, an arrow hurts but it isn't really a serious danger.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Unless you get hit in the vitals, an arrow hurts but it isn't really a serious danger.

(A) With low tech medicine I question calling a stab wound 'not really serious' even if you probably won't bleed out from it.

(B) Some of them will hit vitals or arteries or catch someone in the neck.

(C) Are we assuming that you have to critically wound someone to get them to stop being an effective combatant?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Unless you get hit in the vitals, an arrow hurts but it isn't really a serious danger.

Even without hitting a major vein or artery, prior to antibiotics, it's pretty easy for a minor puncture to be deadly, either because the arrow was contaminated (accidentally or deliberately), because the wound became contaminated after it was delivered, or because it was in the abdomen and hit some part of the digestive tract.

[johndallman]

Haroldnut reported for spamming.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Boge

Conclusion, bows suck ...

One way of using a ranged weapon in GURPS that has worked for me on several characters is to carry it to the verge of melee, fire once, drop it and Fast-draw a hand weapon, then join in the melee.

This works well with crossbows and black powder weapons, which take a long while to reload, but can be carried ready to fire for a few minutes. It's less use with bows.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Even without hitting a major vein or artery, prior to antibiotics, it's pretty easy for a minor puncture to be deadly, either because the arrow was contaminated (accidentally or deliberately), because the wound became contaminated after it was delivered, or because it was in the abdomen and hit some part of the digestive tract.

On the other hand, a man who is going to die days later of septicemia, or even hours later of blood loss, isn't hindered from killing you in the meantime.


--

In general, the conclusion I would draw is not "bows suck" but "instant kills are a lot harder in GURPS or in reality than they are in the movies". It's worth noting that headsman executioners, trained professionals killing restrained targets with oversized blades and every opportunity to target the blow to best effect, still routinely failed to kill their victim in one stroke (hence the development of the guillotine as a more effective and thus more "humane" alternative).

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Only at the start. The archers were on the wings and for a lot of the battle they were shooting in a direct line at shorter ranges. Even then they were demonstrably ineffective given how few arrows caused a casualty.

Well, a few things. Firstly, we don't even know for sure where it happened, so let's not get too carried away with certainties here.

The shorter ranges you are proposing (and I don't disagree) where still behind pickets designed to deflect cavalry. It wasn't 10-20 yards as might be the case in a small unit engagement in a fantasy GURPS game, for example, or even a "realistic" version of a single archer along with a few melee against a few melee. The ranges were likely significantly more, albeit shorter than the initial volleys. Also, we don't really know how many arrows were fired initially compared to later. So it's not a simple, linear, set of ranges to simply plug the numbers into.

And, as others have mentioned, the quality and relative protection of the armour was certainly more than being proposed in this thread by the OP. Really, Agincourt isn't a useful study in this case.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

On the other hand, a man who is going to die days later of septicemia, or even hours later of blood loss, isn't hindered from killing you in the meantime.

Back on the gripping hand, one must consider the psychological effect of "Oh god I've been shot," which I think is what even modern firearms largely rely on to incapacitate (although they are better at breaking bones than bows - provided you manage to hit bone, that is - and can thus physically reduce a foe's ability to fight you).

For OP, if you can't communicate your frustrations with the GM, and he won't let you make a new character (or modify yours*), I guess your best bet (aside from just ducking out - as others have noted, oftentimes no game is better than a bad game) is probably to switch to the spear, at least until you manage to pilfer some bodkins from your higher-TL opponents (provided they have any), or are up against some rare and elusive creature that isn't encased in armor. Yeah, it sucks that all the points you spent on archery were largely wasted, but that's what happens when your GM runs things in a manner that nerfs your character.

*One thing I've considered is to have characters allow some skills (possibly even Advantages) degrade over time, and get those points back to invest in something else. Being able to rearrange 1 point each session should be doable without any issue; indeed, going up to 4 points per session might work, essentially doubling character point gain in exchange for losing unused traits. I doubt your GM would be willing to do something like this, however.

[Gnome]

I understand the OP's frustration, but I think it's nothing to do with GURPS and everything to do with the particular game events of the campaign and the GM deliberately nerfing his character. Maybe the GM is building toward the time when they eventually find steel weapons, stronger bows, etc.? Trying to give benefit of the doubt here...though nerfing one player's character consistently is not cool.

In my experience, archers are extremely effective in GURPS, especially cinematic archers. As a GM for a long-running DF campaign with a Wood Elf Scout (classic "Legolas" type character), I had to constantly think about how to prevent that character from dominating every encounter and shooting the enemies in the eye before the melee characters had a chance to do anything. Of course, in DF it's easy to use magic to negate archers completely with spells like Missile Shield...but that's another story.

Normally, you become aware of an enemy at some range. That means the archer always gets the first shot, and usually many shots before the melee fighters can do anything.
Then, once battle erupts, if it's a remotely interesting encounter, there are allies and enemies positioned at various points around the battlefield. As an archer, you can more or less target anyone, anytime, without having to use turns to move around. And you can stay safely out of melee range, not having to worry about defenses while you attack! This is a huge advantage.

All of this is especially true with Heroic Archer, which lets you Move and Attack essentially without penalty, attack every turn (or multiple times a turn with Extra Attacks), ignore penalties for enemies that enter close combat with you, etc.

It's definitely possible to make a highly effective archer on a modest number of points. Use the 125-pt Archer template from DF 15:8 for example.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Farmer

Really, Agincourt isn't a useful study in this case.

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.