Missile combat - What did you think? Where to from here?

[NigelT]

Thanks to everyone who participated in combat archery at NAAMA 2007. Almost everything I've heard so far has been positive with people asking for more, even when it meant being a target and not shooting back.

So, now that you've all had a chance to digest things, I'd like to start talking about what you liked and didn't like and what you'd like to change about combat archery - while it's fresh in your minds.

I'll start the ball rolling -



I think the following could use some improvement:

* Communication about what the rules of each game are (my fault as marshal for not explaining clearly).
* Clarification about kit and ammunition requirements.
* Tactics - there is a lot of scope to do more with archery, siege, etc. We just need to think of more ways to use it.


I think the following worked really well:

* Volley fire into lightly armoured combatants - no injuries, everyone covered their face, and there were even a few kills.
* It changed the way combatants moved around the field and encouraged a bit more tactical thinking.
* It added an element of realism which was previously missing, and almost everyone loved taking part.
* Unarmoured archers could take part thereby involving many people who would otherwise not have been interested in combat.



Some questions for discussion:

* Should we be allowing direct fire with light armour? Personally I still think no, but with some training we could probably change the way we do volley fire to make it more effective.

* Should we allow speed-blunts as well as flu-flu's? Personally I think yes we could. The safety of flu-flus has to my mind been more than adequately demonstrated, so speed-blunts are only a small step up from there with an increase of perhaps 25% to 50% speed/impact. Speed blunts will travel faster and will hurt more if you get hit at close range. The use of speed-blunts will mean we have to be that much more careful with volley fire not turning into direct fire. It does mean that any SCA archer can bring their speed-blunts along and join any NAAMA battle as an archer (light or heavy) - most SCA people use speed-blunts as apposed to flu-flus.

* Is the armour requirement for light combat working? I think yes, we had no incidents that I'm aware of.

* Is the armour requirement for heavy combat working? Again I think yes. A few of us did some direct shooting both on the field and in the maze and the armour was perfect, no injuries. There is something rather special about being shot in the face and not losing teeth.

* Should we relax the requirement for announcing light-combat volleys? I don't think so. I think everyone did a splendid job of taking up the call 'volley' or 'incoming' and that worked really well to get people to stop and cover their faces until the threat had passed. It's safe and easy and everyone can play. I like it.



So, what do you think? Now that we've all had a chance to play with missile combat let's talk about where to from here. I'd like to collate everyones opinions and make some recommendations about missile rule changes. From there I'd ideally like every group and club in New Zealand to take those on board, and consider incorporating missile combat into their training syllabus.


Regards,
Nigel

[Angel]

I thoroughly enjoyed myself. This one of the things which really made my NAAMA. PvP in the maze was a hoot, as was playing chicken in the dark with glowstick-bedecked blunts.

But there were a few problems I encountered as a marshal:

Direct firing - all of the massed combat we did was to be announced volleys only, and there were numerous incidences of direct fire, despite warnings. The perpetrators know who they are. One person has a dent in their face plate from a direct fire shot out of a bow that was significantly higher than 30lb. It's lucky they were wearing more than the minimum required armour...

"Fog of war" is not a valid excuse - it's a very clear indication of lack of control - something that we really don't want on the field.

"It's only practise" is also not an excuse, and we weren't practising at the time, it was normal combat. "It's only practise" and "fog of war" definitely don't go together as excuses - if you lack the control to avoid direct firing during "practise", then how are you going to behave under stress?

"They did it first" is also no excuse. Just because one person screws up, doesn't legitimise you doing the same.

Unannounced firing - There were a few instances of people firing unannounced.

Unapproved arrows - Several arrows came into the fort that met none of the requirements. They were speed blunts without tape. I was grateful to find that at least the target points had been removed.

Reusing arrows - at least a dozen arrows were fired back into the fort that had started the battle inside it. Using arrows that haven't been checked is a BIG no-no, and even if someone actually checked the arrows, it was not included in the rules of the scenario and is considered cheating.

[Kath]

I think it is time to employ the use of air horns by marhsalls to signal commencement or cessation of fighting - would have been particularly useful during the fort battle.

Likewise could signal volley fire in instances where fire was from multiple sides of the fort (there were a couple of times I couldnt hear the call)

[gt1cm2]

I also found it a lot of fun, coming from a non combatant to actually doing something to be involve which didn’t including lugging water around for everyone was a great experience!

My comments are – weapons are checked every day for fighters, maybe arrows and bows for the archers should be as well to ensure that no one is getting a higher poundage bow thru onto the field.

The archers were not organised well in terms off knowing what we were allowed to do. I have no idea if there was a practise/training round on Saturday morning but even if there was it shows that the archers need to be gathered together before combat begins to briefly go over the rules. At one stage archers were unsure if we were allowed to do direct hits as we thought we were firing onto heavy combatants but no one actually knew and could confirm.

And have someone in charge of the archers that a) knows what they’re doing and can communicate and b) knows to listen to the field marshal.

Leave the fibre glass tape on the arrows, at least if they break all the bits are kept together meaning the blunts aren’t lost and can be reused. I’m guessing someone will say we should just oil them with linseed but I disagree with that.

I can’t comment on the use of speed blunts, I think only the fighters can as they would be the ones taking the hits.

I think a few workshops are needed like discussed on the bowmen’s thread.

[Kath]

yeah good comments Cindy.....

Next years NAAMA organisers should appoint a Head of Archery or Archery Marshall.....if they dont we should appoint one...

Nigel?

[NigelT]

What? Me??!!!

I'm happy to do it again, but that'll be up to the organisers of NAAMA 2008. I'll keep pushing it along in the mean time anyway since the ball is now rolling.

Nigel

[Grayson]

[raven]

[stephan]

more archers and more free firing from them!
i wasent hit once and it would have ben cool to do more feild work

it was awesome
but i was upset that my helm did not pass specs even though the blunt would not passed through the ocular but apparntly the nocked end could

in all respect to nigel i thought this was a bit over the top and has turned me off from archery combat as i would have to invest in a new helm

i loved the fort battle and watching the arrows flying over the wall was cool

regards stephan

[Angel]

[NigelT]

[adrianf]

as a mobile target in the light armoured section i really enjoyed the atmosphere of marching into fire.

one recommendation i would make is allowing more room (if possible) because in the limited space we had i dont think the archers usually only got 2-3 volleys before they had to stop

[Stuart]

Greeting all,

A number of issues are outstanding from the combat archery experiment at NAMMA.

Let us remind ourselves that the primary purpose of battlefield archery is to deny the enemy use of fortifications and resources by neutralising combatants.

Did we achieve this at NAMMA ? In short, no.
Neither side (either assaulting or defending the fort ) managed to effectively carry out it’s intended design purpose.
It follows that we must identify strengths and weaknesses so as to allow battlefield archery to flourish, or we continue with the status quo and let it die ( as has happened before ).

Successes.

The idea captured the imagination and most people showed a willingness to participate.

Failures.

Bureaucratic and inflexible rules & procedures that thwarted innovation and frustrated advancement.

Points of concern:

1) Target zoning was wrong. High angle volley shots cannot hit anything and accuracy comes from closing the distance. Several afternoons of target practise showed that archers can early hit shields, stomachs and legs on demand. ( Thanks to Nigel T for being a willing target ). Shots could be called by a specially experienced and dedicated captain of archery. The rule should be closer the target, the lower the shot. I would suggest a minimum range of 8 paces for the close range leg shot.
2) Archers need to train and shoot as a unit before any battle.
3) The head is never targeted and no shot goes higher than the waist/beer gut.
4) Arrows do not fly straight, they describe a parabolic path. A good archer knows that and allows appropriate elevation.
5) During a battle, archer’s fire needs to be directed to targets of opportunity.
6) Crossbows are weapons of close range and are useless as volley weapons.
7) The concept of heavy and light archery is useless on the battlefield. During the smoke and confusion of battle it was impossible to differentiate between different armour classes.
Marshals should consult with captains before rushing to judgement. Ideally, the rank of marshal and captain of archers should be integrated.
9) The captain of archers/marshal should endeavour to teach and try to be inclusive.
10) Horse archers are to be encouraged.
11) Arrow scrurrers and retrievers are to be encouraged.
12) Learn to track incoming arrows. They are not difficult to spot.
13) Stop spreading fear stores. This sort of battlefield archery has been practiced across the world for over 30 years. It`s far less dangerous than personal combat. Harden up. Are you warriors or wimps ?


I want this to be progressive. For that reason I am going to offer a sponsored prize for the best archers at the next NAMMA ( if that is all right with the organisers ?)

[Stuart]

opps !, should have typed NAAMA.

Not happy about speed blunts. If archers can`t hit the target with flus at 50 meters, then they sure as hell will be no good with speed blunts at 100 meters. In any case they fly three times as fast as flus and can`t be tracked.

If the SCA wants to try them in a demo contest, then ok. But not for general battlefield combat.
Be a human target with flus verses speed blunts and note the difference in bruses !

[Joel of Old]

Time for my 2 pence... I'm English. You'll remember us, we came 2nd.

I though the combat archery was the single greatest thing I've ever experienced whilst on the field of battle. Aside from using Ninja skills to scale the walls of the fort and clear two walls of combatants... but that ended poorly (forever apologetic, Les )

In response, and sometimes agreeance, with Stuart...