Yes, the big thing that is needed is the difference between loading and shooting. Especialy for crossbows. Bows need to be made to be able to shoot faster, but be somewhat weaker and harder to learn, while crossbows need to be much slower to load, but have stronger shots and be much faster to learn to be accurate with.
The other big thing still needed with ranged combat is the ability to aim at a specific body part, and for the chance to hit be dependant on the location and size of the part, and random factors. This could bring ranged to about on par with melee.
Physically, the power of tension based ranged weapons is largely based on design; a large battlefield crossbow, using a "goat's foot", or a windlass, could be tremendously powerful, but could take up to a minute to load. A longbow for hunting took a decently built man to use effectively, while a war bow took peak athletic ability (of the middle ages) to use effectively. The fact DF bows don't tire their wielders, or suffer from weak wielders makes them behave more similarly to a gun, where the fire rate, and strength is determined entirely by how fast you can reload it, and strength is constant (skills affect the power of a bow AFAIK, but that's more of a stopgap to make bows' usefulness scale with skill).
A squad of dwarves could run at a goblin party, shoot 10 high-powered, long range shots, then close to melee to finish them off. Or bowmen could shoot their high power shots a long way, and when the enemy closes, or their arms get tired, retreat and let melee carry on. The lack of friendly fire, while helpful, allows you currently to send in an army of melee troops, an in the midst of the fight, have marksdwarves ping shots into the crowd, only ever wounding the enemy.
Author
Topic: Melee vs Ranged (Read 4319 times)