Post by medievalthomas on Sept 11, 2019 21:02:12 GMT
A far better solution is to make medieval longbows and crossbows +3 v. Foot as their main differentiation was the ability to hinder and in some cases defeat heavy foot. All bows seem to have able to harass and defeat in the right circumstances mounted foes.
You can just use D3H2 which has "HOTT Shooters", so no rule changes are needed. These are well playtested rules and are as official as any DBX modes can be these days (in that they only use rules Phil Barker wrote - but just combined into a single hybrid system).
Real world testing using as equipment as close to the original as can be done. The best way to solve a lot of 'educated' guessing based on reading histories and speculating.
And the heat treating the armor was subjected to was 'normalization,' which improved ductility and actually softened it from the work hardening that resulted from the forging process making it less brittle. Not a casehardening as was done later to make armor even more resistant to penetration.
Based on accounts, I still think that Agincourt in particular can be recreated with DBA as written with perhaps a scenario requirement that the French knights (BD) focus their attack their on their English counterparts when given an option as in the battle (whether they were avoiding the 'arrow storm' from the archers, or just being Medieval and preferring to engage those of similar rank in battle rather than the lower class archers). At this point the archers can help eliminate the French knights by 'closing the door.' All with no change to the RAW.
On the other hand I somewhat agree with Medieval Thomas that longbow and crossbowmen should be a +3 in close combat - differing in that I feel that many of the rest of the 4BW in the lists were also more capable in hand to hand than a +2.
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 19, 2019 18:51:56 GMT
Good points goragrad re medievel armor and methods of improving (keep in mind that in period smiths/armorers had not way of testing their results - levels of "steel" in armor was in the end guess work).
French massing against English men at arms was a result of the arrow storm. Mounted French men at arms specifically tasked with going after archers. French foot battles stretched across the battlefield - those parts in front of the archers were the first to give way (many just piling in behind those advancing on the men at arms to avoid further losses from arrows. The areas of the English line held by men at arms offered a respite from the arrows and massing against these points was a defensive maneuver (and perhaps an attempt to kill Henry and so snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. (Most medieval armies hand injunctions against the taking of prisoners until the battle was won lessening the desire to fight only fellow nobles - though many old school historians still repeat this saw.)
To recreate Agincourt you must have some way for the out numbered Yeoman to collapse the French wings of men at arms prior to contact.
Have to disagree on that first parenthetical medievalthomas - while the medieval smiths/armorers weren't able to run a metallurgical analysis on there work to determine carbon percentages or a Brinell hardness, they did 'proof' them with specific weaponry.
They and their client would know whether the armor was capable of defeating a sword, axe, bow, lever or foot crossbow, or even a windlass crossbow based on it having actually tested it against such weapons. Crossbows being the most favored weapon.
In Ffoulkes' 'The Armoresr and His Craft' he even notes (on page 62) mail that at least in 1398 was proof against arrows. Without, however, noting what type of bow was being used.
With that in mind, your comment on the disinclination of the French at Agincourt to not wish to continue to advance directly at the archer may indeed be due to the effect of the knights being hit by a number of non-penetrating arrows. Not because they feared penetration, but because they wished to avoid the battering effect.
And as to your final point, I still don't see the +1 pip to contact suggested by Joe Collins as the answer,