Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DonerKebab]

It seems rate of fire and hit probability are unrealistic, not damage.  Terrain could be used to modify chance to hit much more.  Also, what about making moving targets much harder to hit?

As far as over powered x/bows hurting gameplay: the gobs have been sufficiently nerfed that their bowman are pretty rare.  Often just a single bow guy with a squad of melee-ers.  If you think dwarf xbows are too powerful, just don't use them.

[Derakon]

quote:Originally posted by Temetrix - Nilkôn Måmgoz:
<STRONG>

But nobody (hopefully) wants DF with some fantasy game -hit point system with each critter having healtbar. Like: no matter when the bold goes through your lungs it only does 54 dmg. and you having 234 hp. Or something like that. (I know, in some way there are health and damage values in the game but they are well hidden. Since you cannot see the actual hp amount of your dwarves)

DF is simulator... as much as you can simulate the communal living of imaginary creatures in imaginary world. This means realism.</STRONG>

I don't deny that the bows are realistic (in certain aspects, anyway; as noted, reload rate on crossbows is ridiculous); I'm just saying that they're sufficiently overpowered to make combat not fun. Even if they're rarely used by goblins, a single goblin archer can really mess you up. And a squad is pretty much instant death unless you can trap them to death or have a bunch of legendary shield users.

I'm not convinced that reducing the odds of a bolt causing instant death (without removing its capability to do so) would be a help, but it might.

[Temetrix - Nilk]

Ah the rate of fire... I forgot it completely. Thanks for mentioning it. It truly is insanely fast... I've read from somewhere that crossbow is 6 times slover vhen compared to normal bow. This should be implemented in DF aslo. Thoug also crossbow has quite much longer range than normal bow has.

When speakin about speed... about 1 shot per minute with 50 fps would be ralistic enough... but lets remember that also one day in DF with 50 fps does not take so long... (I cant say now how long accurately)

[Areyar]

the benefit of crossbows over bows is that strength (and skill) of the user is largely irrelevant. They are however quite inacurate.
Hence for bows the range should depent on strength,
for x-bows strength may influence firerate.

as for moving targets harder to hit...I think this is already so, if travelling  transversely, but not if running toward the marksman. Very realistic.
The arrow travels towards the spot the target was when fired, if the target remains inside the line of fire: hit(%), if the target moves sideways fast enough it misses.
At least I never saw an arrow tracking a target.

[Deon]

The arrow do not track, it just flies between the target's movements so the victim has no chance to move from the spot before the arrow arrives. Only dodging/blocking can save from arrows.

[pancho]

quote:Originally posted by RogerN:
<STRONG>Next, be sure to dig a channel at the very end up your firing range.  Instead of smashing against the wall, all of your rocks will just fall down to the next Z-level.  When you run out of ammunition (i.e. your fortress is clear of loose stone) then just dig a tunnel to this channel, and all of the stone is back into circulation.  Nothing gets wasted!</STRONG>

Launched stones appear to enter the stratosphere and do not land on my map, even though I am on the right edge firing to the left.  How far do those things hurl stones?

[BurnedToast]

Xbows actually make fairly decent weapons even after they run out of ammo, not as good as a real hammer of course but a masterwork steel (or adamantine) crossbow is still stupidly deadly if you give it to a trained hammerdwarf/shield user. In theory there is no reason to use any other weapon at all, just train them with silver/wooden hammers then switch them to xbows.

That said, I don't usually use xbows anymore simply because once they hit legendary/perfectly agile they shoot way too fast - it takes maybe 1 - 3 bolts to kill a goblin but they have 10+ in the air before he bleeds to death so they run out too fast, it's a waste of metal to make more and annoying to try and manage them so they actually get more instead of charging in. Might as well give them an axe or something and save the trouble.

[Lyrax]

quote:Originally posted by Derakon:
<STRONG>Bows are rather stupidly overpowered right now, no matter how realistic they are.</STRONG>

They're really not that realistic.  If this were how the real world worked, we never would have developed armor (not effective anyway, why use it?) and all our battles would have been between armies with bows.  Swords would NEVER have made it to the iron age, let alone the medieval or renaissance.

What is unrealistic?  The rate of fire, for one, and what little effect armor has on their power for another.

[Khosan]

quote:Originally posted by Lyrax:
<STRONG>
They're really not that realistic.  If this were how the real world worked, we never would have developed armor (not effective anyway, why use it?) and all our battles would have been between armies with bows.  Swords would NEVER have made it to the iron age, let alone the medieval or renaissance.

What is unrealistic?  The rate of fire, for one, and what little effect armor has on their power for another.</STRONG>

Well, technically, that's true.  Archers were very effective in wars, it just took a lot more training for someone to become effective with a longbow than it did to hand some peasant a sword and telling him to go nuts.  Crossbows were kind of the answer to that, since they were simple to operate and didn't require anything special, the problem with them was that they were slow and much less accurate than someone with a longbow.

The currently unrealistic part is the speed with which the crossbows fire.  If the speed didn't change much but the chance to pierce an organ changed with skill it would probably be a more accurate representation.  Kind of true to life, as a master Bowman would be more accurate with his shots, while still getting the most out of a single shot.

[Neonivek]

For bows these are the points of unrealism

1) Binocular Vision
-The fact of the matter is, Bowmen/Crossbowmen seem to have a greater Line of Sight then you do... Just assuming you justify it by them being able to see further... GOOD LUCK ever hitting anything that far.
2) Incredable accuracy relative to real bows Coupled with
3) Insane Criticle hit chance... 1 out of 2 shots on me do wounds that quickly or instantly... 2/5 Seem to cripple limbs... and 1/5 do normal damage... The fact that this happens at insane ranges where he is lucky to just hit you adds to this.
4) Armor is uttarly useless at all ranges... Despite the fact JUST full Chainmail in real life can almost entirely negate Bows anyhow... Given that you can get Platemail this says something.
-Chainmail makes serious wounds unlikely even when fired upon by a group (REAL Chainmail... not wimpy chainshirts), Platemail (Which is always coupled with Chainmail) just makes this rediculous
5) Rapid Fire compared to real bows.
6) Block chance is off especially when expecting the arrow (for example it is the only thing there)... People have been known to be able to Grab arrows at full range, yet your block chance is still rather poor.
7) Cover be Damned... Arrows can go through whatever it needs to to my knowledge... (it can also accidently hit enemy targets to my knowledge too). You would think you could hide behind enemy units to dodge arrows.

The fact of the matter is that Arrows do insane damage while everything else seems to be rather poor kinda breaks realism... you can kill 100 soldiers without getting tired or hurt (due to Superdwarvenly endurance) but if one of them has a Bow your dead. Dodging and blocking Shortswords at point blank is a lot harder then a 80 yard Bow attack.

As for Crossbows... The issue is still somewhat the accuracy and strength... but less so then the bow... but the Rapid Fire for the Crossbow more then makes them as unrealistic as the Bows.

While the game should balance things so your Adventurer/Dwarf is actually killable... it shouldn't do so simply by overpowering a weapon to unrealistic degrees...

"Archers were very effective in wars"

In terms of Kills... No they weren't in most cases. Their goal was actually to cause fear in the enemy and force them to run away, the somewhat stupid part was that they most likely could have survived if they just stood there and took the arrows until the enemy ran out. Any troop with metal armor completely negated archers in terms being able to kill anything (People did die but still it was minimal to everything else). Though Skirmishers were by far the most effective archer units in terms of kills

-Mind you that some Archer units have completely dominated enemy forces... but mostly due to a HUGE SIZE.

-In Dwarf Fort though, Archers and traps seem to do most of the kills

-Lastly: Because Arrows had such a small (You heard me) chance to actually kill someone... this actually worked better since you now have a incapacitated unit.

"the problem with them was that they were slow and much less accurate than someone with a longbow"

Not exactly true... Their accuracy was actually on par with the Longbow after one week of training by their standards (not ours)... mind you that long range the Crossbow Arc plays in this accuracy. Though the Longbow was much more flexable in certain areas such as being able to hit over targets with some consistancy (A Crossbow almost has to shoot straight up to realistically get a arc shot). Crossbow bolt were also easier to make and lighter. They also caused less injuries. Despite what you would think... They are Less effective during Seiges (Attacker's side) then they look (I used to think they dominate... but Arrows do seem better... but then again it does make sense due to the Arrow Arc)

[Derakon]

Um, Neonivek, a lot of your statements are simply not true. In order:

1) A highly trained bowman has pretty fantastic range. It's difficult to judge Dwarf Fortress ranges, as a square can hold anything from a single seed to a colossus, but I'd say that bow ranges are, if anything, on the short side. The fact that adventurers can't see much beyond their toes is a separate issue.

2) Again, training helps a ton with accuracy. Modern competitive archers can regularly hit a target outdoors at 200 yards, and the extra gadgets and pulleys don't help that much over what a trained longbow user could do.

4) Chainmaille is crappy armor. I know this; I make it. Chainmaille armor was made because Dark Ages smiths lost the technology needed to make high-quality sheets of metal; the metal wire used for chain was much more forgiving. But a high-speed arrow has some serious force behind it and could easily split rings open. Chainmaille is only really useful against slashing attacks, where a sharp sword edge is basically turned into a thwack with a blunt stick. Even then, the rings would become creased and would have to be replaced. As for plate armor, I know less about it, but a high-speed arrow applies a lot of pressure to a very small point, much like a warhammer or battle pick would, and those were the ideal weapons for puncturing plate armor (whereas a foil would be used to slip through the chinks).

5) Skilled bowmen were pretty fast. Again, it's hard to say how quickly time passes in Dwarf Fortress, but an archer standing his ground against a charging foe on a horse had plenty of time to shoot him down. See also the battles of Crécy and Agincourt (and note that the French knights wore armor of chain and plate).

6) There was a Mythbuster's episode about grabbing arrows; suffice it to say it's not gonna happen outside of fantasy. Blocking arrows you know are coming is a good point, though. Assuming you tried to deflect the arrow instead of block it head-on (so to speak), you should be able to defend yourself fairly well, though you wouldn't have much time to attack.

7) Arrows stop at any solid obstacle or creature. This includes hitting trees, though since the arrow has to hit the precise square the tree is in, this is unlikely outside of heavily-forested maps.

As far as overall effectiveness of archery, Dark/Middle Ages archers tore armies to shreds when they were well-trained. There's really not a lot you can do to an enemy who can kill you before you get close, except to hope you get close before he knows you're there (or get close so quickly that he can't kill all of you before you're in melee range). Armor was not universally effective. Look up the meaning of "clothyard shaft" sometime - arrows were big, as big as you could make them while still shooting accurately and with range. While armor did eventually start to have moderate effectiveness against archers, shortly thereafter, archery was replaced by muskets, making armor largely moot anyway. For the time period we're looking at, you shouldn't expect your armor to protect you unless it's actually a solid wall you're hiding behind.

[Neonivek]

"1) A highly trained bowman has pretty fantastic range. It's difficult to judge Dwarf Fortress ranges, as a square can hold anything from a single seed to a colossus, but I'd say that bow ranges are, if anything, on the short side. The fact that adventurers can't see much beyond their toes is a separate issue."
-I assume for the SAKE OF SANITY... That anything at the edge of someone's vision is the limit of their eyesight rather then try to calculate each square (which Id put at 5-15 feet square).

"2) Again, training helps a ton with accuracy. Modern competitive archers can regularly hit a target outdoors at 200 yards, and the extra gadgets and pulleys don't help that much over what a trained longbow user could do"
-The REAL power of the Crossbow is that its Arc is vastly different then most Archer units... The Crossbow can shoot right through enemy lines making is very likely to hit a large unit. Archer units arc quite a bit and I don't know why (I guess they are more effective raining then doing for straight shots)
-Well Ok that and it is so easy to use that in a week you are as effective as a "Master Archer" by their standards

"4) Chainmaille is crappy armor."
-I said REAL CHAINMAIL!!!... Real Chainmail in just the Crusades ALONE was enough to block 20 arrows with no real injury from highly Skilled archers... No one knows what real chainmail is anymore in modern times... Take whatever chainmale you make... increase its thickness 5 times (more like 15) and its quality by 10... then you get the idea what real Chainmail is. Chainmail isn't light armor or medium armor... it is HEAVY ARMOR!!! I blame Tolkien for turning the modern idea of Chainmail into the "Chainshirt" we picture today.
-Chainmail YES would get hit by arrows a lot... but most of the time they become stuck without harming the wearer... Allowing them to survive many a volly.
-Platemail would otherwise completely ignore Arrows and you would be pretty unlucky to be killed while wearing it... But Platemail was rarely if ever used since it was expencive. Interestingly often what would happen when people with Platemail would fight is that they would just beat eachother down with their weapons since that can't actually injure the person.
-I can understand why you think Chainmail sucks... Fake Chainmail (or rather misnamed) DOES suck and would barely stop a knife

"5) Skilled bowmen were pretty fast"
-A good archer lowered his speed so he doesn't make mistakes and aim... Otherwise he could cut himself (which interesting happened a lot, despite braces), break the string, or have to restart... They were pretty fast... But not so much as in Dwarf Fort where they are almost using a Revolver or Shotgun.

"There's really not a lot you can do to an enemy who can kill you before you get close"
-I can't argue this without getting into circular logic...

I have to ask you... What Long Bow are you refering to?

The English Long Bow that was HUGE that practically required you to stand on it? (that one was impressive)

Or just a large bow?

The Medieval Ages was interesting with the fact that most names for weapons were actually ranges of weapons... We in Modern times often make the mistake of saying "Alright THIS was a Longsword" when in fact there were probably 20 kinds all called the Longsword.

[ May 11, 2008: Message edited by: Neonivek ]

[ May 11, 2008: Message edited by: Neonivek ]

[Derakon]

Um...mate, look. I know maille. I've been making it for years. I'm working on a book on the stuff. Dark Ages-type maille was made from pretty cruddy iron (lost ironworking technology, remember?) drawn through a draw plate. The resulting wire was anywhere from around 14 to 18 gauge using modern measurements, and made from iron, not steel, so it was pretty weak. To get it to hold together, the iron rings had an overlap which was flattened and then riveted closed. This ensured that the iron links would stay connected.

I don't know where you sourced your "a crusader could take 20 arrows without even blinking" statement but it's complete and utter fabrication. You should tell whoever you learned that from that they should be ashamed to be propagating such falsehoods. When an arrow hits a chain link, it naturally slides towards the center of the link, and then imparts all of its considerable force into trying to push through the link. This deforms the link, possibly breaks it, and certainly causes extensive and interestingly-patterned bruises. With enough power, which a longbow with a solid arrow could easily achieve, the rivet would break, the link would split entirely, and the arrow would go on its merry way, admittedly with rather less force but now with nothing between it and the meaty insides of whoever was wearing that armor.

"Platemail" isn't an accepted term for armor, as it'd imply plates linked with chains, which you didn't really see barring a few exceptions in Asia. You did see plate armor with chains to cover the gaps, but that's different. Anyway, plate armor wasn't avoided because of expense, but because they couldn't make it. The ability to make large sheets of high-quality metal was lost, and as soon as they learned to make it again, everyone shifted over as quickly as they could manage. There would have been only a brief transitionary period during which both were available as full-on suits of armor.

As for speed vs. accuracy, obviously there's a tradeoff there. Check out this site for a nice breakdown of range, accuracy, and speed for the English longbow, which was the one I was talking about in the previous post. Hence the references to Crécy and Agincourt, which were battles won almost entirely because of the longbow (though admittedly, bad decisions by the French helped).

[Devath]

1)This is an irrelevant point based on the subjective facts, as the size of a tile is indeterminate. (And thus infinite)
5)Umm... revolvers and shotguns shoot slower than a skilled bowman could... But anyways, also a subjective point, as timescale in DF is indeterminate... Unless you feel like measuring the length of a day in timesteps.

EDIT: Derakon made many of my points irrelevant

[ May 11, 2008: Message edited by: Devath ]

EDIT: I think he was asking about the power of lesser bows, Derakon.

[ May 11, 2008: Message edited by: Devath ]

[Samyotix]

a) Chain mail was, and has always been, mainly protection from slashing weapons. It offers little protection against blunt weapons, arrows, or even stabbing provided the tip of the weapon is small (and there were specialist eapons for this).

b) The Graz Armoury (Landeszeughaus) has a steel breast plate with a square hole in it, where a crossbow bolt penetrated the roughly finger-thick sheet of metal.
The hole's roughly where the heart of the wearer was; the plate was reused without being repaired.
The ability to penetrate steel armor was one of the main reasons to use crossbows AFAIK, despite them taking ages to load.
(Bow-and-Arrow troops had a huge rate of fire AFAIK, shooting around an arrow a second without bothering to aim much - the aim was to hail down a "rain of arrows" on the enemy. With Xbows, that doesn't work due to low firing rate, so these would've been used in a much more targeted way.)

c) Chain mail can actually be a liability, as arrows, bolts, and especially bullets will rip the chain links apart, causing small bits of metal shrapnel in the wound.

d) Arrows ...
I had friends in the Aussie SCA, Societa for creative anachronisms ... apparently they took a modern composite bow, chain mail someone from SCA had made, and built a target out of wood. Put the Chainmail over the wooden target, padded it with straw, and fired an arrow at it.
The arrow went through the first layer of chain mail, the wooden board, the rear layer of chain mail, a barn door, and embedded itself in the rear tyre of a tractor. Farmer wasn't happy