Print

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

[Kagus]

And then Henry V tucking his tail between his legs and running back to England...  Glorious victory that.

Anyways, I think that the point he was trying to get across was that the mud played the biggest part in the battle of Agincourt.  Certainly, the predominantly longbowman force defeated the French, but they had a very big bonus on their side.  If things had been under different circumstances, the English archers wouldn't have made much of an impression on the French forces before getting slaughtered.

The English got pretty damn lucky.  An "Act of God", some might even say.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

Not to interrupt the medieval knowledge hair-pulling contest you've got going on here, but I think we've already touched on the root of crossbow imghaxness: rate of fire.

Let's imagine a bloodthirsty, axe-wielding maniac is charging straight at an crossbowman.  The crossbowman begins firing at a distance where he stands a good chance of hitting a heart-sized target; i.e. current archery range in DF.  In real life, how many well-aimed shots can he get off before the barbarian reaches him and starts making him scream like a little girl?   What effect does skill have on this?  How about crossbow/short bow/long bow?

In DF as it currently stands the answer is "pincushion," so a nerf for realism is assured.  It may mean that no further nerf to penetration is necessary - I'm just fine with crossbow bolts being incredibly damaging if the marksdwarf can only get a single shot off before engaging in melee.

[Qmarx]

So, a question for all these "medieval experts":
What fraction of soldiers actually had armor?  I was under the impression that a large portion of armies were essentially disposable conscripts.

[Fedor]

quote:Originally posted by InquisitiveIdiot:
<STRONG>(snip) I think we've already touched on the root of crossbow imghaxness: rate of fire.

Let's imagine a bloodthirsty, axe-wielding maniac is charging straight at an crossbowman.  The crossbowman begins firing at a distance where he stands a good chance of hitting a heart-sized target; i.e. current archery range in DF.  In real life, how many well-aimed shots can he get off before the barbarian reaches him and starts making him scream like a little girl?   What effect does skill have on this?  How about crossbow/short bow/long bow?

In DF as it currently stands the answer is "pincushion," so a nerf for realism is assured.  It may mean that no further nerf to penetration is necessary - I'm just fine with crossbow bolts being incredibly damaging if the marksdwarf can only get a single shot off before engaging in melee.</STRONG>

Agreed by many, probably most, participants in this thread, but well worth stating nevertheless.  It is precisely the unbalance between killing speed and running speed that drives the lack of combat realism in Dwarf Fortress.

Accuracy, penetrating power, damage, etc. are side-issues.  Bodkin versus bloadblade projectiles, or ringmail, or the details about Crecy or Whatevercourt, are side-issues of a side-issue.

[Sunday]

Yeah, here's an interesting article on modern day knife-wielders vs. armed police officers.

"The 21-Foot Rule was formulated by timing subjects beginning their headlong run from a dead stop on a flat surface offering good traction and officers standing stationary on the same plane, sidearm holstered and snapped in. The FSRC has extensively measured action and reaction times under these same conditions. Among other things, the Center has documented the time it takes officers to make 20 different actions that are common in deadly force encounters. Here are some of the relevant findings that the FSRC applied in reevaluating the 21-Foot Rule:

   Once he perceives a signal to do so, the AVERAGE officer requires 1.5 seconds to draw from a snapped Level II holster and fire one unsighted round at center mass. Add 1/4 of a second for firing a second round, and another 1/10 of a second for obtaining a flash sight picture for the average officer.

   The fastest officer tested required 1.31 seconds to draw from a Level II holster and get off his first unsighted round.The slowest officer tested required 2.25 seconds.
   For the average officer to draw and fire an unsighted round from a snapped Level III holster, which is becoming increasingly popular in LE because of its extra security features, takes 1.7 seconds.

   Meanwhile, the AVERAGE suspect with an edged weapon raised in the traditional "ice-pick" position can go from a dead stop to level, unobstructed surface offering good traction in 1.5-1.7 seconds.

The "fastest, most skillful, most powerful" subject FSRC tested "easily" covered that distance in 1.27 seconds. Intense rage, high agitation and/or the influence of stimulants may even shorten that time, Lewinski observes.

Even the slowest subject "lumbered" through this distance in just 2.5 seconds.

Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them. "Certainly it is not safe to have your gun in your holster at this distance," Lewinski says, and firing in hopes of stopping an activated attack within this range may well be justified."

got it from: http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/ForceScience/articles/102828/
if you want to read the rest of the article.  I think it's interesting, and I'm sure it takes longer for even a well-trained crossbow user to reload than it does for a well-trainer office to unsnap his holster, take out his gun and fire two shots.

[Kagus]

Just goes to show you that most police officers aren't Bob Munden.  

I don't know of very many people who can close 21 feet in 0.02 seconds...

[Gladi]

Bright day
Before you folks start slaughtering each other, how about asking atARMA?

[Quift]

quote:Originally posted by InquisitiveIdiot:
<STRONG>Not to interrupt the medieval knowledge hair-pulling contest you've got going on here, but I think we've already touched on the root of crossbow imghaxness: rate of fire.

Let's imagine a bloodthirsty, axe-wielding maniac is charging straight at an crossbowman.  The crossbowman begins firing at a distance where he stands a good chance of hitting a heart-sized target; i.e. current archery range in DF.  In real life, how many well-aimed shots can he get off before the barbarian reaches him and starts making him scream like a little girl?   What effect does skill have on this?  How about crossbow/short bow/long bow?

In DF as it currently stands the answer is "pincushion," so a nerf for realism is assured.  It may mean that no further nerf to penetration is necessary - I'm just fine with crossbow bolts being incredibly damaging if the marksdwarf can only get a single shot off before engaging in melee.</STRONG>

I think most people here would agree that the correct answer would be once with a crossbow (if already loaded), and twice with a bow.

Being a high master marksdwarf who has done nothing but shooting about 1200 bolts for a full 2 years, once should be enough.

I fully agree on the point being that speed and damage relation being the problem though. Not only on pin-cushion marksmanship, but also on the issue of one legendary hammerdwarf with an adamantium hammer tossing goblin across several map squares simultaniously.

Even a champion should take some time fighting an opponent. Specially an iron-clad opponent wielding a two handed axe. No matter if you are a champion, the risk of getting decapitated should be higher, and I would take my time to assess the situation before running in. Its also not completly unheard of that champions have fallen to higher numbers, instead of being completly certain that my ûber-warriors are going to bring home victory  I might worry that these, my highly trained and very expensive top units might be injured.

(normally I send out 3 dwaves to repell a siege, one in each direction)

The biggest problem with combat is still skill, Dwarves have it, and goblins don't.

[Quift]

Also, on a different note.

The training times for melee and marksmanship are not broken.

Its not by handing out sword to peasants that you get an army. On the contrary medieval swordsmen trained their entire life with the sword to use it well. The normal weapon for peasant levies woud have been the pike. And pikemen with decent training is what changed the nature of early modern battlefields, not gunpowder. Wallace campaing and the battle at XXX bridge, aswell as the dutch independance wars and the sucesses of the Swiss all serve as an example of higly trained and diciplined infanrty routing cavalry.

Hence one can conclude that cavalry was not dominant on the battlefields because of the huge advantage of the Knightly charges, but because there was no sociaty to bear the dicpline required of heavy infantry. peasant levies were easily routed and trampled due to a lack of morale, and once the bourgois communities in northen italy, switzerland and netherlands had formed their own militias, the core role of the cavalry component of the armies vanquished and cavarly was reduced to the supporting role it has had ever since.

During the entire 30 years war the swedish army had the highest tier of pikemen of all the combatants. 70/30 with the advantage to the pike. The Imperial armies often had much less pike, and relied more on musket.
The pike was more prevalent in the Swedish armies because it was better!
It took more training to use the pike effectivly in formation than to use the musket. This is one of the reasons the Swedish won the war. The higher investment in the individual soldier meant that the individual soldiers themselves were more diciplined, and had sufficient morale to hodl ground on the battlefield. Togehter with a mobie use of field artillery this was higly efficient.

On a related note the use of melee warfare was still very significant during the French revolutionary war. Many early battles were won by bayonet after succesful charges. This is unarmoured troops attacking against a ranged opponent, in the early 19th centuary. So the point of sucessful charges against ranged opponents made earlier bears repeating.

[Trollvottel]

[wrong thread. aaagh.]

[ May 13, 2008: Message edited by: Trollvottel ]

[zagibu]

Ranged weapons are not only overpowered because of rate of fire, but also because of their penetration. Good chainmail could withstand many arrows and good platemail was impenetrable for crossbows and even the first blackpowder weapons.
But that's not what's important. We are talking about DWARVEN armor. The stout dwarves should certainly be able to carry much thicker and heavier armor than puny humans.
Now tell me again that a low-tech goblin stick-and-sinew (or bow, if you want to flatter the goblins) can pierce a walking wall of steel. NO WAY!

[Devath]

We already had this argument, read the thread. And BTW, no, armor is not 'xactly made for ranged defense, cause ranged weapons are a bit difficult to block entirely. Thats what the SHIELDS are for.

In other news, just go watch the Two Towers again.

[ May 13, 2008: Message edited by: Devath ]

[zagibu]

I have read the thread, but you are still wrong. Your argument that ranged weapons would have disappeared if armor was that good is bollocks, because armor was very expensive, and the foot soldiers were thus poorly armed. But lords had chainmail that could not be penetrated by arrows, and later platemail that could not be penetrated by crossbows or even the first firearms.

Shields were indeed good protection against arrows and crossbow-bolts, because they were cheap to produce, and even a thick wooden shield could fend off dozenz of arrows.

[MuonDecay]

quote:Originally posted by DonerKebab:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

Are you certain of that?

I seem to recall my last siege including an entire squad of goblin bowmen and crossbowmen. Yes... both of them, each with a full squad. It was a brutal siege and I had to desperately lure them into traps by conscripting a few useless peasants and sending them out to wrestle to draw the others closer.

Many of my dwarves have been pincusions at the hands of those goblins and my marksdwarves up in their fortified towers have taken it way harder than they've been able to give it, thankfully a few of them lived through that brutal battle and made a decent recovery given the fact that I had to have bolts or arrows yanked out of them and thrown away.

[DonerKebab]

quote:Originally posted by MuonDecay:
<STRONG>

Are you certain of that?

I seem to recall my last siege including an entire squad of goblin bowmen and crossbowmen. Yes... both of them, each with a full squad. It was a brutal siege and I had to desperately lure them into traps by conscripting a few useless peasants and sending them out to wrestle to draw the others closer.

Many of my dwarves have been pincusions at the hands of those goblins and my marksdwarves up in their fortified towers have taken it way harder than they've been able to give it, thankfully a few of them lived through that brutal battle and made a decent recovery given the fact that I had to have bolts or arrows yanked out of them and thrown away.</STRONG>

Yes I am certain of that.  I have a 10+ year fort going that has never had a trap built in it.  I got bored and ended up losing 90% of my population to starvation last winter.  The last siege was defended by three novice marksdwarves and three champion melee dwarves.  All in full iron plate kit but still.

I'm not sure why your towers are taking it so hard.  Maybe they are not tall enough?  One nice way to improve your towers is to chain your throw-away animals in the field surrounding.  This will lure in the marksgobs and use up much of their ammo.  This also lets you forbid the door into your tower so the dwarves don't rush the field.  Do you train your dwarves in wrestling to get decent shield and armor skills before training xbows?