Consistency amongst bows?

Started by Salt Merchant, March 27, 2008, 07:27:43 AM

March 27, 2008, 07:27:43 AM Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 07:31:11 AM by Salt Merchant
Once upon a time, shortbows had less of a range than bows, which had less of a range than longbows.

Does this no longer hold true? Apparently it doesn't, for at least one "longbow" in the game.
Lunch makes me happy.

Does Str change that? Agi? Skill LvL?
A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.  Zalanthas is Armageddon.

March 27, 2008, 06:08:09 PM #2 Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 06:15:50 PM by Salt Merchant
Quote from: Dakkon Black on March 27, 2008, 04:21:19 PM
Does Str change that? Agi? Skill LvL?

If a character is strong enough to draw a bow, then she should be strong enough to use it at its maximum range. The tension on the string and its sweep (defined by strength and the bow's structure) and the angle at which it is lifted will determine range, along with the mass of the arrow and its flight characteristics and other factors that have nothing to do with skill or agility.

Agility and skill level would reasonably only affect chance of a hit. Frankly, at the longest range, the chance of a hit should be very low, regardless of skill. Longbowmen counted on firing in waves at massed targets to score their hits on a chance basis.

But this longbow doesn't fire that far to begin with.
Lunch makes me happy.

Quite frankly, Legolas could fire at long range and take out two orcs at once.

It's a fantasy game afterall.

March 27, 2008, 06:12:18 PM #4 Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 06:14:13 PM by Salt Merchant
Quote from: veryalien on March 27, 2008, 06:09:29 PM
Quite frankly, Legolas could fire at long range and take out two orcs at once.

It's a fantasy game afterall.


I realize that. I don't care if highly skilled characters can one-shot skeet from the furthest possible distance without fail.

I just don't want to have to go through the arbitrary process of buying every bow in the game in turn, which is necessary if the range isn't a part of information one can discern at the shop. if a bow is called a longbow, it should in the same class as the other longbows.
Lunch makes me happy.

Though I'm not 100% certain, I think weather may also have an effect on how far you're able to shoot. Logically, it would.
And I vanish into the dark
And rise above my station

Quote from: Fathi on March 27, 2008, 07:15:59 PM
Though I'm not 100% certain, I think weather may also have an effect on how far you're able to shoot. Logically, it would.

does not

weather affects if you can shoot or not, that's all

every bow shoots a certain distance, and you have no idea how far until you try, and it doesn't matter what the name is - a brittle shortbow could shoot 3 squares and a mastercraft elven longbow might shoot 1 square

considering the above responses, i think you should bug it if you think it's out of line. take this to the imms.

Quote from: Tuluki RoleplayWith the somewhat recent struggles of the Tuluki people, the prevalent custom of bowing to nobles and templars has declined. During the occupation, many citizens of Gol Krathu were forced to bow to their oppressors. Most of these people only did so out of fear, rather than respect. Now that Tuluk is ruled by the servants of the Sun King, most Tuluki nobles and templars, while knowing full well that they are better than commoners, wouldn't usually feel the need to make people bow to them. They would consider it more respectful for a commoner to show their respect in a more productive manner, such as service to them or their respective house. While bowing isn't expected, it isn't necessarily considered a disrespectful act, either. But if a noble or templar feels that a person is insincere while bowing to them, trying only to curry favor with them, they may take offense (but may or not show it). The people that are usually bowing are servants or someone that is already serving that noble or templar in some capacity, these people are usually not total strangers.

This is why bows are incosistent amongst both Allanak and Tuluk--it is a societal thing.
Quote from: LauraMars on December 15, 2016, 08:17:36 PMPaint on a mustache and be a dude for a day. Stuff some melons down my shirt, cinch up a corset and pass as a girl.

With appropriate roleplay of course.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on March 27, 2008, 06:08:09 PM
Quote from: Dakkon Black on March 27, 2008, 04:21:19 PM
Does Str change that? Agi? Skill LvL?
Longbowmen counted on firing in waves at massed targets to score their hits on a chance basis.


Actually that second statement isnt really true, it was muskets that werent accurate, not longbows.  Muskets were fired in waves.  Longbowmen were actually extremely accurate.  The reasoning behind that is that to be strong enough to pull a longbow, you had to have practiced it for most of your life, it was almost the same as being able to pull up your body weight with 1 arm.  And people who practiced something most of their life were extremely skilled at it.   In everyway but one, longbows were better then muskets, even then rifles.  They had double the fire rate, they were extremely accurate, and an arrow going through you, generally impairs your fighting ability more then a bullet.  The sole downside is that it took years, even decades to train a longbowmen to be an expert, a musketeer, on the other hand, took months, and anyone could do it, so if it came down to having 1000 skilled men, or 20,000 musketeers, the numbers won out, especially in training costs.

Anyway, just throwing that out there, but dont underestimate how deadly longbows were in the hands of a skilled person, if you were within its possible range he would be able to hit you.
May God have mercy on my foes, because I wont.

Taken from Wikipedia, under the "English Longbow" page. Although I admit Wikipedia isn't an ultimate authority.

The longbow had a long range and high accuracy, but not both at the same time. Modern champion archers maintain that a hit cannot be guaranteed on an individual target at more than 75 m (80 yards) with any bow whatsoever. Most of the longer range shooting mentioned in stories was not marksmanship, but rather thousands of archers launching volleys of arrows at an entire army. Longbowmen armies would aim at an area and shoot a rain of arrows hitting indiscriminately at anyone in the area, a decidedly un-chivalrous but highly effective means of combat. Standards for accuracy have changed dramatically in the modern age. An archer could hit a person at 165 m (180 yards) "part of the time" and could always hit an army.

Lunch makes me happy.

July 05, 2008, 08:25:09 PM #11 Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 08:36:32 PM by Kill4Free
75-80 meters is long range, muskets were accurate to maybe 20 meters.

Also though if you go from the rest of what wikipedia says,

"Although longbows were much faster and more accurate than any black powder weapons, longbowmen were always difficult to produce, because of the years of practice necessary before a war longbow could be used effectively."

"An experienced military longbowman was expected to shoot twenty aimed shots per minute."

"Ranged volleys at the beginning of the battle would differ markedly from the closer, aimed shots as the battle progressed and the enemy neared."

From that last point I posted, is what my main point I was trying to make.  That yes, any battle with ranged weapons, any shots fired at maximum range werent very accurate, and I will readily admit that volley was effective at that range, though I shouldnt say he would hit you at max range, but he can hit you.
Anyway, most of the battle isnt fought at maximum range, in fact only the initial 30 seconds or so was, most of it was the relatively close up fighting, within 50 meters or so, and the shots were aimed for most of that.  And that was where the longbow stood out the most.
May God have mercy on my foes, because I wont.

I think what you folks are confusing is accuracy with precision.  Precision, being the ability to produce a consistent result, and accuracy being the ability to produce a useful result (hit a target).

Longbows probably were far more precise than we give them credit for, especially when the user had years of training.  However, when used on a moving target, arrows have the disadvantage of long flight time.  So, a bowman might be able to hit an apple at fifty meters, but even a flight time of a second drastically reduces the bowman's ability to hit a moving target.  It comes down to a matter of the bowman's judgment in leading the target.
Any questions, comments, or condemnations to an eternity of fiery torment?

Waving a hammer, the irate, seething crafter says, in rage-accented sirihish :
"Be impressed.  Now!"

I say the bow in question should work close to the same as the other ones of its type... unless it was meant to be an item that was coded as a "poorly crafted" item or something like that.  Sounds more like a mistype in entering its stats to me, though.

I agree with Nyr.
Talia said: Notice to all: Do not mess with Lizzie's GDB. She will cut you.
Delirium said: Notice to all: do not mess with Lizzie's soap. She will cut you.

Moving targets arent that hard to hit, its targets that are moving erratically, and their path cant be predicted with any accuracy.  Though I think bows are fine the way they are in the game, I think the main thing that decides flight distance is pull strength in zalanthas, though I could easily be mistaken (Havent used a bow in the game for 4 years).  But yes it would be nice if one could estimate its flight distance before one purchased the bow.
May God have mercy on my foes, because I wont.