Bow damage

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
Another option, which I am unsure whether it has been considered, is to have damage reduce with range. For example:

I've been considering this actually. First you have base damage, which is considered short range:

Short bows: 1d6

Long bows: 1d8

At medium range, damage goes to 1d4 and 1d6 respectively. At long range, they drop to 1d3 and 1d4.

Conversely though, i might allow a point-blank range, and increase the damage by one die type.

I'm not segregating the composites out though, because their advantage is the improved range through efficiency. Just because it's fired from a composite bow doesn't mean the arrow's speed won't degrade. It either does, or doesn't, the bow is irrelevant.

-Fizz

[Matthew]

Fizz wrote:
Oh, i'm not saying that it wasn't actually deadlier. It depends on the specific weapons we're comparing of course. A longbow at close range could easily drive though plate armor too. I just mean that the primary reason for it being banned was ease of use.

A common misunderstanding, if you are referring to what I think you are. All forms of Archery were banned by the Pope for use against fellow Christians, relative deadliness not withstanding.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Treebore]

Composite bows in my game are by "strength adjusted". Basic ones bought by beginning players are for "normal strength" people, IE no bonus.

I used to have the cost for STR adjust be 200 GP per +1/+1, but I am thinking I need to redo that to fit in with the C&C "Expert Weapons and armor" rules.

Which is making me think I need to rethink those pricings. X10 I can accept, but that x25 can be overly steep in comparison to magic weapons. Unless I steal something else from 3E. The "magic" value of magic weapons is just the value of the magic, then you add in the cost of having it expertly made. That could work, and make magic items even more expensive. Which isn't a bad thing from a CK point of view.

Plus it has come to my attention that some people need the Expert Rules to clearly state that armor can only be multiplied by ten, since it only gets a single +1 bonus, to AC. Only weapons, with a+ to both hit and damage can get the times 25 multiplier.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[gideon_thorne]

Matthew wrote:
A common misunderstanding, if you are referring to what I think you are. All forms of Archery were banned by the Pope for use against fellow Christians, relative deadliness not withstanding.

Made Cupid's job a real bitch, let me tell ya. *snicker*

Anyhow..

Atropos of nothing, I figured I'd mention I have a wide variety of arrow's available in my own game. Garnered from a number of sources. Split end arrows, prongs, blunt heads, flight and sheaf, piton, and a number of others for a whole mess of uses. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Catweazle]

CharlieRock wrote:
I know longbows used different arrows then shortbows. Longbow arrows were ... longer.

They were. Often three feet long, in fact. However, this was not to add to the mass of the arrow, but to increase the length of the pull. Most composite and short huting bows are pulled to the breast. A longbow is pulled to the cheek. Since the string is drawn much farther back than normal, the arrow has to be longer or it'll fall off the bow.

All of this is beside the point, however, The real advantage of a composite bow is simply that it's more compact than a self bow. At least, if it's a recurved bow. Even self longbows were in fact a form of composite. The favoured woods were elm or yew, and they share an important property. The sapwood recovers better from tension, and the heartwood recovers better from compression. Bowstaves were cut so that there was heartwood on the inside of the curve and sapwood on the outside, so that the two surfaces responded the best to the stress of the draw, snapping into recovery quickly and therefore accelerating the arrow much faster than with a true self bow.

So, what's the big advantage in being more compact? Well, for starters it means that you're at an advantage either in a dungeon or on horseback. it allowed Asiatic horse archers to wield more powerful bows than they had in the past. Naturally, a crossbow is even more preferable in this regard, especially in confined spaces, despite its atrocious rate of fire.

That said, Kenyan hunters hunted elephants with incredibly powerful self longbows with no need for all that frippery. Of course, the Kenyan savannah has plenty of elbow room!

I suspect that he damage difference is simply a "just because" mechanism to illustrate a presence of a difference in the types of weapon, since few of us really worry too much in-game about the availability of space and comfort when using a weapon. As has been mentioned earlier, both close and ranged combat is abstracted to a certain degree by the D&D-family combat system, and this will necessarily be reflected in the properties of the weapons themselves.
_________________
History teaches us that men behave wisely once they've exhausted all other alternatives.

[CharlieRock]

Matthew wrote:
If you can point to a source where Noblemen were freaked out by the power of the Cross Bow, I would be interested to read it. The one that usually gets cited is the Papal condemnation of the the use of the Cross Bow against other Christians and their sale to Non Christians. What people usually leave out is that the same condemnation is made of Bows in general and that war materials are often forbidden for sale to enemies (For instance, Charlemagne forbid the sale of swords to foreigners).

Well, say you grew up knowing that you were born better then 99% of yuor fellow man. They toil and labor so you can practice swordplay all day. They grow extra food just to feed you and your horse. When you go to battle you take the lead. It's only natural since you have the best armor.

Pow! Some unarmored peasant popped you off your horse with a crossbow. The bolt pierced the breastplate and all your training leaves you laid out from a single blow.

At least if it was a bow I could tell myself that the guy had to practice for a while. This guy that shot the crossbow just picked it up yesterday after washing the hogs. That can't be right.

I'm trying to find the book that had what the papacy actually said when it tried to outlaw the crossbow. I got the distinct impression when I read that they were basically just crying because poorman farmers were taking out Sir Lord Knight too easily.

It's not really hard evidence. Just the way they put it in the edict.

Edit: Actually now that I have reread it, it sounds like they banned ALL archers (and slingers).
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Fizz]

CharlieRock wrote:
Edit: Actually now that I have reread it, it sounds like they banned ALL archers (and slingers).

Guess not everyone listened to them though. Archery was certainly popular in England across many class lines. Heck, the yeoman class is almost synonomous with longbow proficiency. I've read that this was actually a check on the power of the nobles- don't want incite the archers into revolt- that most of the rest of Europe did not have.

-Fizz

[Matthew]

Indeed, they no more listened to the Pope about Bows, Cross Bows and Slings than they did about tournaments and not making war on certain prohibited days, which is to say some probably made an effort, but that expediency won out in the overwhelming number of cases.

The best evidence for the significance of the Cross Bow is the tight grip that the English Monarchy kept on its production. That doesn't really translate to it being a an 'equaliser', but it certainly says something about how it was regarded in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. As far as I am aware there is no direct evidence of the Cross Bow or Long Bow creating fear of uprisings or freaking any Noblemen out. On the contrary, it seems that Noblemen took up the art. Anecdotally, Godfrey de Boullion, Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus all shot Cross Bows during sieges (though, of course, Richard was himself reputedly killed by a Cross Bow Man).
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[CharlieRock]

Personally if I had to swing a hundred times in their gauntlets, I wouldn't like crossbows. Or any bows. I would regard them with the same contempt as most police officers would those metal jacketed rounds back in the eighties.

It does appear that the ban against bows (and jousting) was ignored. On many occasions.

My name is Charlie, and I have a brain problem. Almost every book I checked regarding pierce effectiveness of a crossbow was referring to larger versions (as compared by weight since none outright calls them a "Heavy Crossbow"). These are already listed as doing 1d10 damage in the equipment section for our convenience.

Edit: Somebody else might be able to explain why, but I've always read that piercing damage types are most likely to go thruogh plated armor. Something about all the force concentrated on one area. As opposed to slashing or smashing damage.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Fizz]

Matthew wrote:
As far as I am aware there is no direct evidence of the Cross Bow or Long Bow creating fear of uprisings or freaking any Noblemen out. On the contrary, it seems that Noblemen took up the art.

Yeah, i may have read that on Wikipedia or something, so who knows if it's accurate. Certainly archery was promoted and encouraged across all levels of English society for much of the medieval period.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

CharlieRock wrote:
My name is Charlie, and I have a brain problem. Almost every book I checked regarding pierce effectiveness of a crossbow was referring to larger versions (as compared by weight since none outright calls them a "Heavy Crossbow"). These are already listed as doing 1d10 damage in the equipment section for our convenience.

They're also known as arbalests. So what's the problem with your brain?

Quote:
Edit: Somebody else might be able to explain why, but I've always read that piercing damage types are most likely to go thruogh plated armor. Something about all the force concentrated on one area. As opposed to slashing or smashing damage.

Yup, it's the same principle that can be seen in many examples. You want to put all that kinetic energy into a small a point as possible, to give you the best chance of overcoming the metals structural integrity, and letting the arrow pass through the hole to the target.

Actually, newer shaped charges for modern warfare use a similar principle. The shaped charge doesn't just explode randomly, it directs a thin jet of incredibly hot fire to punch a hole through the enemy armor.

Now, if you're not facing heavy or metallic armor, then you'd probably want a broadhead arrow. While a bodkin would leave only a hole in your skin, a broadhead could embed it's entire width into flesh, essentially slashing as it enters, creating a substantial gash.

-Fizz

[Nelzie]

This whole thread is just "thinking to hard" about the game.

Personally, I have no problem with the way it is written, because it is simple, easy and just works.

Personally, I feel that if you want to add additional complexities and elements to track and consider such as the premise of this thread. You are more than welcome to do so.

I only have issue with claiming that the whole premise of how bows/arrows work is just wrong. The game isn't about modeling the real world, it isn't about modeling all the various variables that can alter the performance of a given arrow and bow combination.

If you really wanted to, there's many dozens of variables to take into account, including the following:

Direction of Wind and speed of wind?

Is it raining?

Is it sleeting?

Is it a blizzard?

Age of the bow and the drawstring?

Shape of arrowhead, diameter of shaft, type and design of feathers.

How far back did/can a particular archer draw back the bowstring? (You need to measure arm length couple that with strength, yadda-yadda.)

If you want to do all of that, to be as accurate as possible, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to join in one of your games as I believe that realism and complexity go against the narrative, which is far more important to me in a game.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Fizz]

Nelzie wrote:
This whole thread is just "thinking to hard" about the game.

The game isn't about modeling the real world, it isn't about modeling all the various variables that can alter the performance of a given arrow and bow combination.

I agree and disagree. I agree in that i don't want to bog down my game with a ridiculous number of variables.

But a certain amount of real-world modelling is necessary. We do this all the time when we assign damage and EVs to various weapons.

I see a fundamental mistake with the listed bow damage. Saying one bow has longer range but does less damage makes as much sense to me as saying a dagger does more damage than a broadsword.

To me, that's a flaw. So i'm changing my game to be 1d8 for longbows, 1d6 for shortbows, composite or otherwise. Everything else is just details.

-Fizz

[CharlieRock]

Nelzie wrote:
This whole thread is just "thinking to hard" about the game.

Look. I can't even get started in the Star Trek thread on the general page so I need a discussion I can keep up at least a little bit in. Even if it's only talking about pointy sticks.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Matthew]

CharlieRock wrote:
Personally if I had to swing a hundred times in their gauntlets, I wouldn't like crossbows. Or any bows. I would regard them with the same contempt as most police officers would those metal jacketed rounds back in the eighties.

Heh, ranged weapons are often treated with contempt. The Spartans are perhaps the earliest documented as complaining about the randomness of ranged combat during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC). If I recall correctly, the nineteenth century British Cavalry voiced the same complaint. There is certainly a trend in western society of viewing ranged combat as more effeminate than close combat.

Fizz wrote:
Yup, it's the same principle that can be seen in many examples. You want to put all that kinetic energy into a small a point as possible, to give you the best chance of overcoming the metals structural integrity, and letting the arrow pass through the hole to the target.

Actually, newer shaped charges for modern warfare use a similar principle. The shaped charge doesn't just explode randomly, it directs a thin jet of incredibly hot fire to punch a hole through the enemy armor.

Now, if you're not facing heavy or metallic armor, then you'd probably want a broadhead arrow. While a bodkin would leave only a hole in your skin, a broadhead could embed it's entire width into flesh, essentially slashing as it enters, creating a substantial gash.

It is an interesting one this. Bodkin Arrows only really became popular as the frequency of Body Armour increased on the battlefield and plate became more common, yet Bodkins are often said to be rather good against Mail, the premier armour for over a thousand years. One rather appealing explanation has to do with the composite nature of Mail and Padding. A Bodkin might go through the Mail well, but it has little cutting power and so doesn't penetrate Padding as well as a Broad Head. That may even go some way towards explaining the trend in the later medieval period of wearing padding over mail over padding.

Fizz wrote:
I agree and disagree. I agree in that i don't want to bog down my game with a ridiculous number of variables.

But a certain amount of real-world modelling is necessary. We do this all the time when we assign damage and EVs to various weapons.

I see a fundamental mistake with the listed bow damage. Saying one bow has longer range but does less damage makes as much sense to me as saying a dagger does more damage than a broadsword.

To me, that's a flaw. So i'm changing my game to be 1d8 for longbows, 1d6 for shortbows, composite or otherwise. Everything else is just details.

Indeed. There is no reason not to adjust the game to account for the preferences of tthe players. If verisimilitude is being disrupted by something that is easily fixed, then it would be silly not to fix it. Short Bows, Long Bows and Great Bows all do 1D6 Damage in my games, the only difference being that stronger characters get a greater benefit out of Bows with a heavier pull. For the same reason, I give Cross Bows a 'Strength Rating'. Also, it's fun to tinker with the rules!
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Robocoastie]

Bow's are always underpowered in fantasy games anyway (except perhaps GURPS which actually applies math and physics to create its damage and hit point system). The games underpower them for the same reason that MMORGS like Everquest do: to balance them from spell power. If bows actually did the damage they did in real life most encounters would be over in one shot, two at a maximum. And you'd have an unlimited amount of shots almost. IOW: it would be like magic without mana cost. The invention of different steel arrow points for the longbow even brought about an end to the armored knight because they could puncture right through them.

That is why non-magic games tend to be far more deadly (except for d20Modern which manages to goof that up too) and require much more strategy and teamwork than fantasy ones.

So, blame the mage. LOL.
_________________
thank you,

Rob
Visit Robbie's Hobbies

[imweasel]

I don't understand the damage difference either.

However, the range difference may have something to do with two things:

1) Game Balance.

2) Accuracy inherent in different weapon designs.

The longbow may have a more longer effective range over a composite bow simply due to the fact it was more accurate (for whatever reason) than a composite bow.

So while a composite bow could fire an arrow faster/harder than a longbow, it simply could not be aimed as accurate as a long bow over a given distance. So the composite bow could launch an arrow farther than a longbow, it just couldn't hit anything.
_________________
Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!

[Matthew]

Robocoastie wrote:
Bow's are always underpowered in fantasy games anyway (except perhaps GURPS which actually applies math and physics to create its damage and hit point system). The games underpower them for the same reason that MMORGS like Everquest do: to balance them from spell power. If bows actually did the damage they did in real life most encounters would be over in one shot, two at a maximum. And you'd have an unlimited amount of shots almost. IOW: it would be like magic without mana cost. The invention of different steel arrow points for the longbow even brought about an end to the armored knight because they could puncture right through them.

That is why non-magic games tend to be far more deadly (except for d20Modern which manages to goof that up too) and require much more strategy and teamwork than fantasy ones.

You could say the very same thing about Swords [i.e. RPGs don't represent their true power]. As far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence that the Bow brought about the end of the armoured knight, let alone evidence of technically advanced arrow heads capable of puncturing plate with ease. The effectiveness of medieval weapons and armour is a highly contested subject area.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[serleran]

Well, yeah, seeing as I have witnessed, in person, Maximillian ribbed plate withstanding multiple shots from a submachine gun using armor-piercing rounds, and took only light scratches. Now, maybe if a rifle had been used... maybe.

Of course, that same stuff was fairly useless against an axe; I'd say the axe, as a whole, is greatly underestimated in RPGs.

[CharlieRock]

serleran wrote:
Well, yeah, seeing as I have witnessed, in person, Maximillian ribbed plate withstanding multiple shots from a submachine gun using armor-piercing rounds, and took only light scratches. Now, maybe if a rifle had been used... maybe.

Of course, that same stuff was fairly useless against an axe; I'd say the axe, as a whole, is greatly underestimated in RPGs.

I would say the most underestimated weapon in Fantasy RPGs is the warhammer. Fulcrum powered swinging motion concetrating it's force onto a small area for piercing effect. An axe was pure mayhem to flesh, too.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Robocoastie]

Matthew wrote:
You could say the very same thing about Swords [i.e. RPGs don't represent their true power]. As far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence that the Bow brought about the end of the armoured knight, let alone evidence of technically advanced arrow heads capable of puncturing plate with ease. The effectiveness of medieval weapons and armour is a highly contested subject area.

Oh good grief, historically speaking nothing happens overnight of course and you know that. I'm talking about the progression of projectile weapons for crying out loud. I'm not going to spell it all out, you can take a medieval history college class as I have instead if you want all the details. then But it was a progression and forced them to change their tactics so that even by the time the first effective firearms were created heavy armor had been ditched already. And you're correct about swords that RPG's don't represent their true power but the topic isn't about the sword which in reality was one of the weakest weapons on the battlefield anyway especially against armor - the mace and morningstar was the better weapon and was another achille's heel for plate armor. And no it is not a "highly contested" subject at all; those who've dedicated their lives on the subject - history and archeology professors are lockstep on it. But to find that out requires more than internet or even public library searches because those are filled with nonsense and fans rather than peer reviewed documents and evidence. It takes at a minimum a college library search.

The real point, which you've avoided, is that RPG's have the element of magic. In order to balance magic melee weapons were, to use a MMORG term, nerfed unfortunately things have gotten out of hand (especially in WoTC games) and magic has gotten overpowered and carried away with in most games. I don't see that problem in CnC because it encourages the CK to alter anything they'd like. Some people call this the differences between Gritty Fantasy or Conan like and High Fantasy.
_________________
thank you,

Rob
Visit Robbie's Hobbies

[Matthew]

Robocoastie wrote:
Oh good grief, historically speaking nothing happens overnight of course and you know that. I'm talking about the progression of projectile weapons for crying out loud. I'm not going to spell it all out, you can take a medieval history college class as I have instead if you want all the details. then But it was a progression and forced them to change their tactics so that even by the time the first effective firearms were created heavy armor had been ditched already. And you're correct about swords that RPG's don't represent their true power but the topic isn't about the sword which in reality was one of the weakest weapons on the battlefield anyway especially against armor - the mace and morningstar was the better weapon and was another achille's heel for plate armor. And no it is not a "highly contested" subject at all; those who've dedicated their lives on the subject - history and archeology professors are lockstep on it. But to find that out requires more than internet or even public library searches because those are filled with nonsense and fans rather than peer reviewed documents and evidence. It takes at a minimum a college library search.

I assure you I am well acquainted with medieval history and the effectiveness of medieval arms and armour relative to one another is a highly contested subject area with a great corpus of material devoted to it. Effective firearms are a world away from Long Bows and Cross Bows, neither of which directly caused the disappearance of the heavily armoured knight from the battlefield. If you're interested in pursuing the subject and have access to Jstor or a University Library of some sort, I could probably direct you to some worthwhile resources.

Robocoastie wrote:
The real point, which you've avoided, is that RPG's have the element of magic. In order to balance magic melee weapons were, to use a MMORG term, nerfed unfortunately things have gotten out of hand (especially in WoTC games) and magic has gotten overpowered and carried away with in most games. I don't see that problem in CnC because it encourages the CK to alter anything they'd like. Some people call this the differences between Gritty Fantasy or Conan like and High Fantasy.

That might be your real point, but it's not what I take issue with, which is why I didn't comment on it. RPGs may or may not have magic in them and they almost certainly will not present a realistic simulation of historical combat, but that is neither here nor there. To be clear, what I take issue with is your statement...

Robocoastie wrote:
If bows actually did the damage they did in real life most encounters would be over in one shot, two at a maximum. And you'd have an unlimited amount of shots almost. IOW: it would be like magic without mana cost. The invention of different steel arrow points for the longbow even brought about an end to the armored knight because they could puncture right through them.

...which appears to me to be unsubstantiated nonesense. As far as I can see, the onus is upon you to provide sources to establish the veracity of your statements (which, I note, you have avoided providing). From what I gather, your reply is "I cannot prove it, as I do not have the resources to hand, but it is what I recall from college", which is fair enough. I don't doubt that such things have been taught somewhere at sometime, but they run counter to what I have been taught and read at university, and that is one of the reasons that I know them to be contested.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Robocoastie]

well it doesn't run counter to my University classes and texts at all. I assure you if you put on a suit of armor and come at me while I shoot you with a bow you will go down like a sack of potatoes.

There is very little difference between an arrow and a bullet so they are not "worlds away" as you claim. Again it was a progression I refer to and you're merely nit picking.
_________________
thank you,

Rob
Visit Robbie's Hobbies

[Matthew]

Robocoastie wrote:
well it doesn't run counter to my University classes and texts at all. I assure you if you put on a suit of armor and come at me while I shoot you with a bow you will go down like a sack of potatoes.

There is very little difference between an arrow and a bullet so they are not "worlds away" as you claim. Again it was a progression I refer to and you're merely nit picking.

Unfortunately, it is precisely this test that we are unable to perform, as I am sure you well know. There is a huge difference between an Arrow and Bullet, in terms of velocity, type of wound inflicted, penetrative power, mode of propellant. They truly are worlds away.

Nonetheless, I don't doubt that arrows can penetrate plate, just as they can penetrate mail, given the right conditions, but they no more rendered the plate clad knight obselete in the late middle ages than they did the mail clad knight in the early middle ages. If you feel it is nit picking to say so, then that's up to you. From my perspective, all I am asking you for is some evidence. I currently have access to several university libraries, so I'm quite willing to track down and look up what you are referring to.

If you're interested, here are a few articles available online through Jstor that I am familiar with and that deal with Long Bows, technological advancements in medieval warfare or our current state of knowledge.
Jack S. Levy, The Offensive and Defensive Balance of Military Technology: A Theoretical and Historical Analysis, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2. (Jun., 1984), pp. 219-238.
George Raudzens, War-Winning Weapons: The Measurement of Technological Determinism in Military History, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 54, No. 4. (Oct., 1990), pp. 403-434.
Clifford J. Rogers, The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years' War, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 57, No. 2. (Apr., 1993), pp. 241-278.
Dennis E. Showalter, Caste, Skill, and Training: The Evolution of Cohesion in European Armies from the Middle Ages to the Sixteenth Century, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 57, No. 3. (Jul., 1993), pp. 407-430.
Clifford J. Rogers, Edward III and the Dialectics of Strategy, 1327-1360: The Alexander Prize Essay, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 4. (1994), pp. 83-102.
John France, Recent Writing on Medieval Warfare: From the Fall of Rome to c. 1300, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 65, No. 2. (Apr., 2001), pp. 441-473.
John Stone, Technology, Society, and the Infantry Revolution of the Fourteenth Century

The Journal of Military History, Vol. 68, No. 2. (Apr., 2004), pp. 361-380.

You can also find a number of articles at De Re Militari. The principle advocate of the Long Bow, though, is Robert Hardy. It's probably also worth reading some of Matthew Bennett's work on the subject.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[mordrene]

You guys really want a weapon that has been overlooked, the sling. Mideval armies had units of slingers as well as bowmen. I saw a history channel special on the slink and how deadly they were.

[Robocoastie]

we bow to your greatness and superior intellect Matthew and desire to continue nitpicking at parts which wasn't even the point relevant to the damn thread.

I bow to your greatness "ooo ahhh" good grief. Does your ego feel better now? I don't care if I'm wrong at all because what I meant and thought was obvious was the progression of projectile weapons.

I can't help but get personal here because I see a lot of myself in you. The college classes I take currently have made me be far too picky toward people because in class we have to prove by the letter of the law (rather than the good natured intentions of people) every damn thing we say. It sucks sometimes because we have to completely ignore our own knowledge of topics and experience and instead constantly refer to muckity mucks who usually have never actually gotten their hands dirty in the topic they have written about even. For example I live and work with farmers in a farming community and grew up on a farm. But when writing about farming I have to pretend I'm an idiot in need of quoting others who've never farmed a day in their life! This college mindset over the last year has made me a very irritable person to be around sometimes and its only recently that I realized that and have been trying to remove that nitpicking hat when I'm away from the classroom. Might I suggest you try the same or at least try a different tact because rather than persueing the topic lightly and gently you've assumed a level of arrogance instead and made an enemy rather than an intellectual colleague who ordinarily welcomes friendly discourse. Welcome to ignore.
_________________
thank you,

Rob
Visit Robbie's Hobbies

[Eisenmann]

serleran wrote:
Well, yeah, seeing as I have witnessed, in person, Maximillian ribbed plate withstanding multiple shots from a submachine gun using armor-piercing rounds, and took only light scratches. Now, maybe if a rifle had been used... maybe.

Of course, that same stuff was fairly useless against an axe; I'd say the axe, as a whole, is greatly underestimated in RPGs.

An SMG with AP ammo? Don't know what that would be.

A rifle with ball ammo would blow a hole through it with ease. Rifle bullets travel in the 3000 fps range. Even modest weight bullets have A LOT of foot pounds.

I've been contemplating using C&C for a more "realistic" game and tweaking bow damage is critical for that use so this thread has been a lot of help.

Bows don't really rely on foot pounds of energy to do their business since it's almost all about slicing penetration so different bows doing about the same amount of damage is no big deal to me. It's all about making different bows being able to push an arrow farther and thus doing its damage farther out. That's probably a close enough approximation for me. More damage may equate to more penetration.

Guns on the other hand do almost all of their damage with energy (footpounds) dissipated (hydrostatic shock) into the target where maximum penetration is not always desired.

A quick note: plate armor was done, pushed off the battlefield with advancments to firearms. The minie "ball" will smash its way through armor on anything less than a very oblique shot. Copper jacketed bullets turn plate armor into swiss cheese.

[Eisenmann]

mordrene wrote:
You guys really want a weapon that has been overlooked, the sling. Mideval armies had units of slingers as well as bowmen. I saw a history channel special on the slink and how deadly they were.

The sling is very deadly! I've personally slinged lead shot through plywood. It was amazing. Problem is that I had trouble hitting the plywood.

[serleran]

Quote:
An SMG with AP ammo? Don't know what that would be.

Maybe I misclassified it. It was a weapon that could fire on full auto, however. Somewhat resembled an AK-47.

I don't claim to be an expert on modern weaponry.

[Fizz]

Robocoastie wrote:
we bow to your greatness and superior intellect Matthew and desire to continue nitpicking at parts which wasn't even the point relevant to the damn thread.

I bow to your greatness "ooo ahhh" good grief. Does your ego feel better now? I don't care if I'm wrong at all because what I meant and thought was obvious was the progression of projectile weapons.

I think that's unfair Robo. All he did was ask for some sources to substantiate your claims. He provided some to support his view, and just wanted to see some from yours. That's reasonable discourse.

I'm inclined to agree that the arrow did not lead to the end of armor. The proper use of bows could be decisive factors (ie, longbows at Crecy and Agincourt). But certainly heavy armor lasted for hundreds of years afterwards. Heavy plate armors didn't start going out of style until firearms became common. And even then, armor still stuck around, just in lighter more mobile forms.

Ever see someone swing a sword at a side of beef? Compare that to a single arrow wound. So i think damage levels or arrows in relation to other weapons are fine. I just have issues with range/damage ratios of said arrows.
-Fizz