Overhead archery

[Paul]

I think a lot depends on the period too. In the 3rd and early 4th centuries the Goths probably stayed close to their roots but towards the 5th century and onwards (ie after the battle of Adrianople in 378) they became far more Romanised and use of massed archers in their own separate units providing rear support was probably a thing. It doesn't take much for a man on a big horse to act as a spotter.
Something I didn't pick up on before was that Jamie mentioned about distances when shooting over someone.
My idea (without any detailed knowledge of the rules in question ) would be to make support/indirect fire at a minus one and that the distance from the archers to the unit being fired over must be at least 3 inches (or a distance that works with the ranges in the rules) and less than the distance from the unit fired over to the unit fired upon.

[ochoin]

BTW thanks for weighing in gentlemen. I appreciate the depth of knowledge.

The question now needs to be 'who' are these rules written for...are they specifically to be used for forces of Goths vs Romans?

My rules are originally written for Late Roman civil wars - late C4th & C5th.
I like my figures (delusional) & the period so much I wanted to expand on it. There were two options for opponents, really, with Sassanids or some barbarian mob. I chose the latter but may one day start to assemble a Persian army.

I'm aware during this period, many of the barbarians were thoroughly romanised &, to a degree, interchangeable. So the Franks had funny hair styles & the Visigoths carried coffin-shaped shields - so what.
My army will be mainly Goth infantry, Hun mounted archers, Sarmatian extra heavy & Goth heavy cavalry.
A smorgasbord of vulgarity.

donald

[Jamanicus]

Ultimately, they're your rules, so you've gotta be happy with them and to play your own interest too, so they're coming from an honest background amd I think Paul highlights that with the historical evidential side to thing

I recon overhead shooting should be fine, with the reductions in the 'to hit' and the distance to front and then from front unit to target enemy etc

[Jeremy]

I don’t necessarily agree with the reduction to hit. At the distance you would be firing to use plunging fire, I don’t think it makes a difference whether you have friends between or not.

In all the rules I’ve played, overhead fire has never had a reduction.

Generally as long as the target are further from friends than the shooters are to friends, it’s plausible.

[Paul]

I don’t necessarily agree with the reduction to hit. At the distance you would be firing to use plunging fire, I don’t think it makes a difference whether you have friends between or not.

It makes sense as you are not firing at something you can see if you are behind another unit, like "Golden Shot" you're relying on directions given by someone else.
If using "plunging" fire on a target the firing unit can clearly see yes i'd agree that no negative modifiers would be needed. Although it is more difficult to hit a target that way rather than a "flat" shot the target size probably negates that?
I think there does need to be a minimum distance though otherwise there is a real chance of hitting the intervening unit as arrows can be heavily wind affected!!

[ochoin]

If using "plunging" fire on a target the firing unit can clearly see yes i'd agree that no negative modifiers would be needed. Although it is more difficult to hit a target that way rather than a "flat" shot the target size probably negates that?

My thoughts were that the target for a plunging shot is smaller & better protected than that of a flatter trajectory eg a shield held overhead can cover all the head & body.

In my rules, each figure in an bow unit (somewhere between 9-12) gets a D6, hitting on 5-6, less armour saves. I'm inclined to simply take away 25% of the D6 to compensate for the difficulties of plunging fire.

Our American cousins have a colourful phrase, "suck it & see" which I hope originally referred to determining the flavour of lollies. I always run "drills" on my own & then any game will provide further evidence on how well all this will work. It's the easiest thing in the world to tweak your own rules.

donald

[Jamanicus]

Yeah, some good testing will be a nice treat for you once you've got an initial draft of rules.

I do take Jeremy's point though too. The main thing for me, I guess, would be to have the hit reduction, simply so that orientation of troop deployment (infantry up front, with archers always in the rear) doesn't become the norm.

Otherwise, why would anyone put archers in the front ranks?? Haha

[Paul]

My thoughts were that the target for a plunging shot is smaller & better protected than that of a flatter trajectory eg a shield held overhead can cover all the head & body.

Yeah my thoughts were based on the idea of "indirect fire" rather than plunging fire in general.
At the end of the day it's what feels right for you as if you ask 12 different wargamers their opinion you'll get at least 15 different opinions

[olicana]

The key problem is that of visibility. If you can't see the target you can't judge range so you can't shoot. Also, given trajectory, the range would be only on the long side. I've never liked overhead fire because having been a toxophilist, I can't see how it was done to any great effect except at prescribed ranges against stationary targets - almost pre-programmed fire: Advance to X range, shoot and hope volume had some effect.

Where archers and spearmen operated in mutual support, I suspect that the archers shot from the front then retired when threatened. They seem to have done this throughout history where melee troops and bow operated together in mutual support, often without formal drill (WoTR is a prime example).

So, IMHO, don't worry about overhead fire, what you need is a workable passage of lines rule / evade rule.

Personally, I'd just say that if the enemy approach to charge range the archers must & automatically retire and can't then advance / fire beyond the spearmen until the threat goes away (the gap is widened), though I suppose they could fire to the rear.

There would be a further caveat to reflect the job the archers have been given (for the whole battle) and reduce their flexibility to compensate. Any archers thus employed (taking advantage of the rule) can't go off and do something else as a separate unit mid battle. They are supports for the spearmen and follow exactly the same orders as they do (operating immediately at the front or back of the spearmen, perhaps with a small gap when at the front for visual effect). And, savagely, if the spears break, both break.

That gives you the option. Archers fight as stand alone units, or they become a support unit for a melee unit able to automatically use the melee unit as a shield.

[Paul]

The Roman Governor Flavius Arrianus is very clear that bodies of archers were normally deployed behind melee troops and joined in the general, pre hand to hand, missile barrage against the enemy, firing over the heads of their own troops. Cassius Dio, writing a bit earlier, describes similar deployments sometimes with the archers shooting between friendly units, but also explicitly describes the intention to fire over friendly units.