Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hh26 t1_ixrusxl wrote

Forget video game logic where one man has to kill a hundred enemies while they keep swarming. In a "fair" fight where both sides have the same number of troops, each soldier only has to kill one enemy, ever, to "pay" for himself in efficiency terms. If you shoot 20 arrows with a 5% accuracy rate, that's fine, you've done your job. If you shoot more arrows or have higher accuracy then you profit.

Further, you don't even have to wipe out all the enemies. If they lose morale and flee after half their troops are dead then you only need half the accuracy or fire amount to pay for yourself.

A human life is kind of a big deal, firing a couple dozen arrows to kill one man can easily be efficient regardless of accuracy.

7

TheAndyMac83 t1_ixsign6 wrote

On the scale of a full army, half is extremely heavy even; my understanding is that somewhere around a quarter or so is what it takes to defeat an army.

Imagine being in a group of say 10 men, marching towards an enemy position. You get halfway there, but two of your friends are hit by arrows and go down screaming. Sure, you might reason that by the time you make it all the way you'll only lose another two men, but one of those two might be you. At what point do you think "Well heck, the next one arrow's going to hit me!" and decide that you're not walking into that?

7