Print

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

[Tamren]

true, but armour really does ward off arrows quite well.

There was one famous battle with english bowmen vs french knights. The vast majority of knights that were killed then did not die to arrows. Rather the horses they were riding on bit the dirt after a few hits and running across a muddy field in 60+ pounds of platemail maks you vulnerable and tired when you get to the actual fight.

Anyway, the wound mechanics do need some serious work. Arrows affect a very small area. With a strong enough bow its easily imaginable that an arrow could go right through you. But there is only ONE specific angle where the arrow could possibly take out both eyes at the same time.

[BurnedToast]

The damage for ranged weapons is realistic... vs unarmored opponents. Full steel plate armor and a shield should make one virtually immune to arrows - it was tested (I can probably dig the report up if anyone cares) and even the mighty longbow is unlikely to have caused critical wounds to someone wearing plate armor and in fact likely would not have hurt someone wearing high quality armor at all. Add a shield and someone who knows how to use it and 1 archer is not taking you down.

Crossbows are a different story, but the kind that can punch through plate armor should fire very, very slow. The rate of fire for bows is too high (well, assuming the archer aims) but the rate of fire for crossbows is through the roof.

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by BurnedToast:
<STRONG>The damage for ranged weapons is realistic... vs unarmored opponents. Full steel plate armor and a shield should make one virtually immune to arrows - it was tested (I can probably dig the report up if anyone cares) and even the mighty longbow is unlikely to have caused critical wounds to someone wearing plate armor and in fact likely would not have hurt someone wearing high quality armor at all. Add a shield and someone who knows how to use it and 1 archer is not taking you down.

Crossbows are a different story, but the kind that can punch through plate armor should fire very, very slow. The rate of fire for bows is too high (well, assuming the archer aims) but the rate of fire for crossbows is through the roof.</STRONG>

Yes that is the problem. 1 arrow or xbow shot can be lethal vs. unarmored oppoments, but even scalemail can offer enough protection vs bows, and chainmail vs. xbows..not to mention plate and shields. Entities wearing shields and/or plate should be almost invulnerable vs. bow/xbow damage.
As for creatures like elephants, trolls etc [large creatures]..I think we gotta consider their hitpoints and that where the arrow/bolt gonna hit those creatures. Perhaps 1 lethal headshot would be enough to kill an elephant [I am not sure maybe it wouldnt be enough], but surely 5+ arrows/bolts would be needed to kill one if you hit the body [or even more].
So basically ranged weapons should work like:
- check the armors of the target
- check the bodyparts
- check creature size

THIS would be realistic.

[ September 22, 2007: Message edited by: Tormy ]

[kuro_suna]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>Anyways what is the chance for a critical with a ranged weapon? Imho even the most skilled ranged units should have max 10% crit chance...and the rate of fire must be much much slower also! I dont think that its good to have machinegunner ranged units in DF.</STRONG>

I thing my champion marks dwarf could have single handedly taken down all the demons or a goblin sieges if a stack of bolts[25] lasted him more than 2 seconds

[Eagle of Fire]

It is not true that Xbows bolts should be completely uneffective against plate armoured targets. Most Xbows were specially designed to pierce thru chainmail (small bolt point) and especially plate armor (just pierce and hit inside). That's why they were created in the first place, otherwise everybody would have been happy to use composite longbows all the time, or pulleys bows for that matter (later on).

The problem, right now. is that dwarves only have one kind of ranged weapon available (other than throwing rocks) and it's the xbow. That, and the fact they fire way, way too fast and are way too accurate to be realistic...

[Tamren]

The thing is, crossbows vary a lot in power. In general they are far and away, loads more powerful than bows. Old english longbows can top 160lbs in draw weight easily. Some authentic samples that were tested to destruction topped out at around 175. The problem is you have to be ridiculously strong to use a bow like that, and even then it causes your skeleton to deform and these bony spurs start to form because your body is trying to support such strong weights.

Most modern hunting crossbows top out at 150lbs draw weight, they use advanced compound pulley systems to achieve that instead of raw spring power. Despite the strength of the xbow limbs most are cocked by pulling a lever or other such device.

In ancient times most crossbows were used for hunting. They had varying weights and that was reflected in the method used to cock the string. Most, if not all of them had a loop on the front of the crossbow. You stand in the loop and pull the string back by hand. Another method was the same thing only instead of by hand, you use a belt mounted hook to pull the string back. When sieges started happening regularily, they started making much more powerful crossbows. These were impossible to cock by hand and most used some sort of pulley or ratchet system.

Generally reffered to as "arbalests" siege crossbows made with steel bows had draw weights in the area of 5000lbs! Those crossbows would be able to pierce any armour of the day, and even some fortifications.

So the question is, what kind do we have in DF? Imo, the selection should be expanded to include all types. The method and speed you can re-cock the bowstring should also be very important.

[Lightning4]

Well, you also have to take into consideration that what we're dealing with are dwarves. Doubtful that they would be capable of wielding an arbalest to an effective degree, let alone any other crossbow that's massive even to a human.

Same with goblins, since they're not only the same size as dwarves, but narrower as well. Makes me wonder how they're even capable of using pikes, considering they're size 6, and pike minimum size is 7.

[Tamren]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning4:
<STRONG>Well, you also have to take into consideration that what we're dealing with are dwarves. Doubtful that they would be capable of wielding an arbalest to an effective degree, let alone any other crossbow that's massive even to a human.</STRONG>

Ive seen a 10 year old girl fire an 50 cal machine gun that was mounted on a tripod. If the dwarves get arbalests they would only be usable stationary and mounted turret style.

Come to think of it, would crossbow bipods/tripods work? Accuracy would be improved a bit but then its nearly impossible to load a crossbow while prone.

[Savok]

What is a ballista but a giant crossbow?

What is a crossbow but a tiny siege engine?

(note: This post was written, but not posted, before the above post)

[Name Lips]

The main problem with the current crossbows is that they're semiautomatic. They should take several game-time seconds to reload.

They're very deadly, but crossbows are supposed to be deadly. A single, accurate shot is quite capable of killing a person in full armor, no matter how "tough" he might be. That's why, when fighting a contingent of crossbowmen, you did something other than charging straight towards them, swords drawn. Sure, you'll probably break through and kill them - but at what cost? It's not really "winning" if you lost 2 or 3 of your dudes for every one of theirs.

The only problem I see with the elephant example above is that elephants should be tougher, not that crossbows should be weaker. The bolts should do little more than anger a full-grown elephant. Even guns aren't that effective. They have thick skin, and you have to get through a lot of very thick muscle and bone to reach any vital organs.

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by kuro_suna:
<STRONG>

I thing my champion marks dwarf could have single handedly taken down all the demons or a goblin sieges if a stack of bolts[25] lasted him more than 2 seconds</STRONG>

LMAO.

 

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by Eagle of Fire:
<STRONG>It is not true that Xbows bolts should be completely uneffective against plate armoured targets. Most Xbows were specially designed to pierce thru chainmail (small bolt point) and especially plate armor (just pierce and hit inside). That's why they were created in the first place, otherwise everybody would have been happy to use composite longbows all the time, or pulleys bows for that matter (later on).

The problem, right now. is that dwarves only have one kind of ranged weapon available (other than throwing rocks) and it's the xbow. That, and the fact they fire way, way too fast and are way too accurate to be realistic...</STRONG>

Crossbows would pierce thru plate only very rarely. [Depends on the plate also]

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by Name Lips:
<STRONG>The main problem with the current crossbows is that they're semiautomatic. They should take several game-time seconds to reload.

.</STRONG>

This is the first problem.
The second problem is: ranged weapons are ignoring all armors as it is now, and they are also ignoring the size of the targets. How could 1 marksdwarf kill a goblin and a troll within the same amount of time?
Basically what we have now is totally unrealistic and imbalanced.

[martinuzz]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>

How could 1 marksdwarf kill a goblin and a troll within the same amount of time?
</STRONG>

They both have only 1 heart.

[Bluefire]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>

Crossbows would pierce thru plate only very rarely. [Depends on the plate also]</STRONG>

That's not completely true, altough like someone has already mentioned, it depends on the crossbow. The smallest ones were indeed relitavley weak, and although capable of pirecing most chainmail suits, they were only effective against plate armor from a distance you don't want to get to. The larger ones could pierce all but the best plates(I'm talking about late Gothic and Italian) from a reasonable distance, and the siege crossbows that someone has already mentioned could pierce through them like paper, though their avarge rate of fire is one bolt per minute.
Still the question that remains is what kind of crossbow toady intends the dwarves to have. In any case, I believe we all agree that their rate of fire should be drastically reduced.