Archery/Crossbow/Sling

[Marauder Moe]

From the text cited by wikipedia on the matter:

We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of stingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics.

So not crossbows in particular.  That pope just thought ranged weapons in general were unfair.

EDIT:

CANON 29

Summary. Slingers and archers directing their art against Christians, are anathematized.

Text. We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of stingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics.

Comment. The reference seems to be to a sort of tournament, the nature of which was the shooting of arrows and other projectiles on a wager. The practice had already been condemned by Urban II in canon 7 of the Lateran Synod of 1097, no doubt because of the it involved. [[41]]

Note 41. Hefele-Leclercq, V, 455-

So even then it may have been a ban on shooting Christians for sport/gambling rather than warfare.

[Miradus]

Pope Innocent II. Got it. That sort of underscores my argument. There were three, maybe four, other popes at the time and multiple wars going on.

So basically his canon statement would have been no more than "stop using your crossbows against us, you asshats, or you're going to hell."

[Shoka Windrunner]

Pope Innocent II. Got it. That sort of underscores my argument. There were three, maybe four, other popes at the time and multiple wars going on.

So basically his canon statement would have been no more than "stop using your crossbows against us, you asshats, or you're going to hell."

That was basically it.  Stop using them in your wars with each other.  I believe the Pope was ignored often enough.  Here:

IN THE 12th CENTURY, the crossbow was considered by many to be a weapon of mass destruction. Not only was it was remarkably accurate and deadly at vast distances, but shockingly, the bolts it fired could penetrate a knight's armour. Crossbows meant that no breast-plated nobleman, prince or king was safe on the battlefield. Any low-born peasant with just a bit of training could kill a lord or sovereign with simple squeeze of a trigger — a platoon of crossbowmen could wipe out a kingdom's aristocracy with just a few volleys.

And that was something Medieval elites feared might shatter the natural order of society.

Not surprisingly, the highest European authority of the day, the Roman Catholic Church, called for an outright ban on the weapon. And the Vatican wasn't messing around — violating its decree could lead to excommunication, or worse: damnation of the soul. Strong language, to be sure. In fact, for much of the Middle Ages, the crossbow was considered to be one of the most destabilizing weapons in existence, not unlike today's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Also:

But while the church frowned on Christian-on-Christian use of the crossbow, religious authorities of the day had no problem when the weapons were being pointed at non-believers, heretics and heathens. As such, the weapons featured prominently in Crusader armies. Yet back in Europe, they were controversial. Both the Holy Roman Emperor Conrad III and the Kingdom of Flanders abided by the holy ban in European wars and sent their own crossbow men packing; other continental powers skirted the rules when they could. But even with their prohibition, crossbows continued to be widely used.

There is more there to look at if you are interested.

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/23/the-crossbow-a-medieval-wmd/

Now just take crossbow/crossbows and replace with gicker/gickers and you kind of get Arm.   

I digress though.

[Shoka Windrunner]

And here is the big arguing point people refer to as to why the English Longbow was superior to the Crossbow:

The weapons did have their drawbacks (pardon the pun). Aside from being painfully slow to reload, unless well protected by spearmen and cavalry, crossbowmen were sitting ducks in close combat, particularly once their lethal volley of bolts was released.

Then there was the problem that moisture posed to the weapons.

During the Battle of Crecy in 1346, a rainstorm rendered the bowstrings of the 5,000 Genoese crossbows soggy and useless. Too bad for the French. The English long bowmen on the other hand simply removed their bowstrings and tucked them beneath their caps to keep them dry. Unlike bows, crossbows can't be easily unstrung. Later, the English restrung their weapons and rained volley after volley of arrows down on the helpless Italian mercenaries. The Genoese broke and fled and ironically were cut down as they retreated by their own French employers who thought them cowards.

Despite setbacks like these, crossbows, when employed properly, continued to dominate the battlefield until they were gradually replaced in the 1500s by ball and power weapons.

[Miradus]

It ultimately did screw up the "natural order" of things.

In which you can't take peasants from England, ship them to France and teach them how to kill knights (nobility), and then when it's done bring them home and expect to have these now highly-skilled veterans who are good at killing knights ... not kill YOUR knights when you try to oppress them.

Which is the nature of all weapon bans. Governments don't worry about subjects killing other subjects. They worry about subjects killing those people in charge, or the enforcers who KEEP them in charge.

You can just about draw a straight line from the Battle of Hastings in 1066 to the forced signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. The protections granted in that document pretty much covered only the middle-tier elite, but it wouldn't be long until those protections started trickling down until you get to Rights of Man in 1791.

[nessalin]

This is rapidly shifting to a Non-Armageddon Discussion.  Please keep it relevant to the game or take it there.

[Miradus]

Am I geeking out on medieval weaponry? I feel like I'm geeking out on medieval weaponry.

Carry on.

[Riev]

Back on topic, I think that there should be, IF THERE ISN'T ALREADY, a coded reason to use one type over another.

I don't think its out of place to say that with some armor changes recently, some damage types do better or worse against certain armors, so already picking a bludgeoning sling might bet better than an arrow IN SOME CASES.

Its between an arrow, and a bolt, that I would just like to see the effects. A crossbow at close range should nearly incapacitate someone, or at the very least disregard any armor on the location being hit. If you shoot a shortbow at someone while close to them, its still going to hurt, but I'd think chitin would shrug off much of the impact.

[Shoka Windrunner]

Sorry to bring back on topic:

So history shows longer range but easier to learn and better armor penetration.

But that is with steel or iron being part of the bow not bone and wood or what have you.

So Z's crossbows being shorter range works for me from gameplay/justifiable sense stand point then make the bolts determine how much armor penetration. But a bow being more accurate (don't know if it's true but it feels good and 'right') and longer range with less penetration/damage.  Again with arrows determining accuracy damage.

Like bone is heavier but it would be hard in my imagination to get those "perfectly" straight. A rudimentary pedal lathe could help but I don't know. Wood is a lot easier to work with and keep straight though would be lighter. Of course arrowheads would have some effect based on head type vs armor/damage.

Edit: typed wrong

[Armaddict]

I actually watched a documentary last night that said crossbows had longer range than the english longbow at the battle of agincourt.  The problem was accuracy over said distance and rate of fire (The demonstration showed 8 arrows shot in the time it took to reload the crossbow).  Combine that with the new innovation of the bodkin point, and it made the longbow a complete underdog that just surprised the hell out of everyone.

In-game, I'd like to see loaded crossbows receive the long-talked about mechanic of if people attack you while you have it, you get your shot off first.  Make it preferable to use for those who only want to shoot one shot and are otherwise close-in-type-fighters.

[nauta]

While we're on historical speculation, you might say that the use of bows by desert elves might encourage a dim view of them on Zalanthas.

That said, I would like to see elvish removed from sdescs on bows -- I've never quite figured out what that meant as an adjective.  Does it steal your arrows?  Proposal: slender.

[Marauder Moe]

Well another big difference is that any peasant or footsoldier can learn the basic operations of a crossbow and practice enough to be battle-ready in like a day.

A longbowman takes years of practice just to develop the musculature to properly draw the bow.  They were often mandated to practice all afternoon every Sunday after church.

[Riev]

Oh my everything, do I not care about what peasants did 500 years ago with their crossbows.

If we need to cite Earth History to convince staff to do something that they haven't done or considered by this point in the thread, they're not doing it.

The pope isn't going to convince Nessalin and Nath to code new crossbow mechanics.

[Armaddict]

...even if I wear the cool hat?

[Hauwke]

Especially not with the cool hat.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Yeah there is a reason the church tried to ban crossbows but failed.  Anyone could gather up a bunch of farmers, train them for a couple days on crossbows and have a devastating support force. 

If I recall crossbows were outlawed in warfare, except against muslims.

There's so much latent 'Murica in this post. I think I just heard an eagle somewhere pop a boner.

[Shoka Windrunner]

Yeah there is a reason the church tried to ban crossbows but failed.  Anyone could gather up a bunch of farmers, train them for a couple days on crossbows and have a devastating support force. 

If I recall crossbows were outlawed in warfare, except against muslims.

There's so much latent 'Murica in this post. I think I just heard an eagle somewhere pop a boner.

Off topic but it was just don't use them on "Christians."

[Hauwke]

+1 for eagle boner.

On topic:
I would love to see the damage for crossbows ramped up. Its bigger, thicker and heavier than an arrow. Maybe not as long sure but certainly packing more punch.
I would also love it if you could actually use a sling to knock a fool out before killing it but then again it is a rock/bullet.

[Jihelu]

+1 for eagle boner.

On topic:
I would love to see the damage for crossbows ramped up. Its bigger, thicker and heavier than an arrow. Maybe not as long sure but certainly packing more punch.
I would also love it if you could actually use a sling to knock a fool out before killing it but then again it is a rock/bullet.

I thought slings did more stun damagethan hp.

Then again I also hate slings so idk.

[Hauwke]

Ive never used slings on things enough to get it to that point myself so I could be wrong.

[Riev]

Slings could be powerful, with the bludgeoning damage, against things with thicker shells. I've certainly felt like my clubs do more damage to scrabs than my swords, though that's probably just anecdotal.

So a sling, against scrabs or like... even a silt horror or something? At least probably better than an arrow.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I also don't use slings much, but I'm pretty sure they can randomly cause knockdown. If not it would be nice to see them cause knockdowns or some kind of stun type code. You just pelted someone with a rock travelling at 100 miles per hour; they're not going to be very spry and alert.

As far as bludgeoning vs armored baddies, I'm pretty sure that, from a historical perspective, bludgeoning weapons (maces, hammers, weighted pommels, etc.) were used to dent and damage plated armor on the battlefield. I could get behind them causing more damage to armor or, in the case of shelled creatures, temporarily lowering armor value or DR or whatever metric exists. Idk if I'd want it to translate to extra damage directly, but successive shots would have higher damage values by dint of having less armor to get through...

[Hauwke]

Its not so much the armor is damaged and cant protect, it was more the armor was doing the damage to your body because of the whole being shoved into your side thing.