Exactly, and the fact that adrenaline and biological reactions do not apply is not realistic. I don't consider it not being realistic a problem, I just accept it for what it is.
You also keep trying to use rifles and machine guns in place of what is an archery combat. They are not the same thing. There is no roll for initiative in real life. So trying to say "combat" in real life is utterly pointless and meaningless. Most game combat lasts.. about a minute if that?
And by that time you generally are damaged in HP, which is a representative of not only physical damage, but physical and mental strain of combat.
Aiming a firearm is easier as faster than aiming a bow, so the comparison is pretty generous to the archer.
As for what HP is representative of, that varies at every single game table, so let's no argue about that. We will never come to agreement.
No, its not generous to the archer. Rifles make noise and have recoil. Then depending on the rifle you have bursts, single shot, or full auto.
Using a rifle, you are also then creating a situation in which everyone is using a rifle, and everyone is in bodyarmor/helmets cover and the like.
You completely end up cutting out the large number of factors of medieval combat. Arrow slits for archers who are on defense, shooting from trees and cover.. You are not painting a situation of archery combat, but of modern warfare, and using that to say that archery combat is not realistic.
You are also not factoring in the that adrenalin is a chemical process that effects they human body. A normal civilian would be nearly paralyzed in combat yes. A war vet less so, and someone who is warborn even less. Individuals who are not of sane mind even less so. Experience of combat is an important factor. Simply acquiring the title of Veteran isn't the same as being heavily experienced in combat.
In real life combat isn't just BOOM, and it happens, and suddenly everyone is now effected by adrenalin to the extreme.
Adrenalin has its peaks and valleys. If i'm going to ambush people, I might be affected with a surge of adrenalin just before I attack, then I calm down, and strike. The suprise attack may or may not invoke a surge in them. Much of it depends on factors.
Factors like distance from danger, faith in protections, current moral. All of these play a heavy factor in how fast a chemical process could take over. If I'm stone out of my mind, there is very little capability of the adrinalin affecting me. OF course I probally wouldn't be fighting either if that was the case.
Other chemicals can be used to fight a chemical reaction of the body. Alcohol for example, can be used as a depresent in order to reduce the effectiveness of adrenalin, when of course used in moderation.
None of that demonstrates that an archer can hit several people in as many seconds.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed any of that. Show me where I said that adrenaline is instant or always at full potency. In fact, I wasn't even the one who brought up guns. Someone else did, and I responded. It is, however, a fair enough comparison as far as ease of aiming at a target quickly is concerned.
I've simply been in too many fights, when I get adrenaline pumping through my veins, I know how to direct it, that doesn't make me perfect (last time it started up with my right calf flexing for some reason) at controlling it, but it didn't make me worse in the ensuing fight. I was able to function just fine, despite being all hyped up on the stuff. Maybe it's because I've gotten into more fights than I can count, but I don't think it would affect how I aim that badly.
Especially considering the sight they gave us, back when I was in the Army, was basically cheating. I wouldn't say adrenaline allows you to theoretically shoot that many people, in that short of time, if I didn't have firsthand experience.
Six people in six seconds while being shot at. You could seriously do that?
Six people in six seconds while being shot at. You could seriously do that?
Potentially, I'd have to get back in shape first, and then I'd probably need pretty good conditions. I'd also need a damn good reason to do it, I try to avoid fighting of any sort if I can.
The last fight I had, I was controlled enough to notice holes in my opponent's defenses, that allowed me to grab him by the throat, and bring him to the ground about 3 seconds into the fight. Yes, I might be able to do that. This was while the guy was attacking me. I bloody well wouldn't rely on it, even at my best I struggled against 3 (probably untrained) opponents, much less 6.
I'm not trying to boast my abilities, I just know what I can do, and what I can't. There are people with a lot more talent at combat in general than me and if I think I can do it, they can almost certainly do it. Besides, don't you watch the fastest gunslinger videos? Those guys are nuts, they could totally pull something like that off.
Watch Stan Lee's Superhuman, those guys have some serious talent. There's a guy out there who calculates the time between his shots in the hundredths of a second, how is it so hard to believe a person can fire 6 shots accurately in 6 seconds?
This discussion is irrelephant. Katana is superior to any weapon in existence.
The Katana is nothing compared to the hand that wields it.
Flesh is stronger than steel. What is the sword without the hand that wields it?
A robot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, Alienfreak, here is what we need to do. You go to charge these archers, and they will try to shoot a bunch of arrows at you. We'll then see how many arrows they hit you with per six seconds.
It also like the point out that for many of the reasons you said archery isn't "realistic" that melee combat is either. Cause now you are in melee with the thing that wants to eat you, still trying to go for those tiny openings in his armor, while he is now completely and actively trying to hit you. PF takes in no account for weapon parries unless he is using two weapons.
Again thats wrong.
The thing we would be simulating here would not be hitting someone. Merely connecting the arrow.
Lets say I have an Dex of probably 12 plus I have no deflection magic or any dodge skills. That means hitting me would mean rolling a 11 on the attack roll.
HITTING someone and DEALING DAMAGE (what is the thing we are talking about with archers) is bypassing my Armour.
The best way to simulate that would be like the US Military started doing. You have to use moving targets (Segways or such) and then put a doll on them with Armour equipped. Then we place that in an Enviroment that isn't a clean hall for example putting there friendly segways and enemy segways that go against each other and cross each others moving paths. And finnaly we put some pressure on the archer with maybe shooting on him with paintball guns (not constantly but every now and then) and he is supposed not to get hit.
Let this commence for about a minute and then look how many arrows have been able to penetrate INTO the doll material.
.
.
.
Archers weren't the battlefield killers people make them to be. Archers were never used alone until they had rifles which had enough punching power to allow them to operate alone and be successful.
Bows were made obsolete even by pipes with sticks at the end (not sure how to call it). Those were akwardly looking and firing slow but the point is that anybody could use them and they had enough power to penetrate armour even at medium distances.
If Bows would have been so awesome why were there so many other rather questionable ranged weapon systems that came up after the bow and even replaced them. It would be stupid to replace a killer bow with something more complicated, more expensive and slower firing...
There is a point why the Brits won no wars after Agincourt. And contrary to what people believe those two victories did not end the era of heavy cavalry but started it.
They were the end to the glory hogging "swordlords" (dunno the name for it in english) Knights that disliked having the Infantry taking the victory and thus lead to major tactical errors which gave those two battles the grave results they had.
|
No combat. I was military, but didn't do much.
Here. This explains the factors involved.
You CANNOT, repeat CANNOT, aim well enough to take down several people in as many seconds in a real fight. There isn't one account of it ever being done. You can shoot that fast, but you can't hit the target. Ask your military buddies whether you can take out four to six guys with a rifle in only six seconds while they are shooting back at you. The answer is no. Better yet, read up on accounts of battle from veterans. There is very little accurate shooting in war aside from snipers and marksmen.
Alvin York. With a bolt-action rifle and a .45 pistol. If he wasn't shooting a man a second, it was still damn close. Look up how SGT Alvin C. York earned the Medal of Honor in World War I, and you'll have a real world, in combat example. Wikipedia doesn't have the whole story... Basically, while out on patrol between the lines, York's squad got shot up by machine gun fire, leaving then CPL York in charge. He crept a bit farther forward, then, using extremely accurate fire, started picking off German machine gunners in the trench.
German squads tried to charge York's position several times. Each time a group of Germans came out of the trench at them, York used his rifle and a .45 pistol to pick off the line of Germans, from back to front (so that the ones leading the charge would keep on coming, not realizing they had no-one behind them-- if he did it the other way, the guys following probably would have dropped when they saw the leaders get knocked off) in very rapid succession before they could reach his position. He was pretty damn close to the enemy trench-- as noted above, if York wasn't picking off a man a second (or faster) each time the Germans tried to charge his position, it was damn close.
In that situation, eventually the Germans, thinking they were facing a much larger unit, surrendered to York and the other 7 survivors of his squad. York and his men marched somewhere around 125 German prisoners back to allied lines. York was almost immediately promoted to Sergeant and given the Distinguished Service Cross. After the Army had finished investigating the circumstances, York was awarded the Medal of Honor for this action.
Now-- York is an extremely remarkable soldier. But, a shot a second, all hits on live targets in combat with semi-automatic weapons-- has probably happened again since, more than a few times... it takes a really good shot, who also has cold-steel nerves, and a group of enemy soldiers close together AND in the open-- but it's possible.
|
|
Archery in PF is nowhere near realistic.
1. Damage:
1.1 Armour:
No 100lb bow has a realistic chance to pierce a medium armour on above 5 meters.
1.2 Distance:
Arrows lose energy fast. In PF it does not matter what range you are at.2. Speed:
You cannot fire 7 Arrows in 6 seconds in the heat of battle while aiming at moving targets.
You wil be by far too busy moving/evading and aiming for the other guy that is also moving.3. Fighting Endurance:
People keep up their firing rate no matter how many rounds they fire. Pulling heavy bows for a long time will strain you. Just look at those guys in the old armies who were professional archers and had majorly deformed spines and even those could not keep up their firing rate for 100 arrows.
Armor penetration-- actually I'd give an English Longbow (usually between 100-150 lbs pull) pretty good odds on punching through even the heaviest battlefield (not jousting) armor of the 13th-14th centuries, out to about 20 meters, maybe a little farther-- about as far out as you're still making 'flat-trajectory' shots. I've seen the tests done on what kind of penetrating force arrows from those bows impact with, particularly with the bodkin points archers used, that were intended for punching through armor.
Speed: I've watched the best archers of the SCA and Ren. Faire circuits manage an arrow every 2 seconds, with aimed accurate fire, from 50-75 lb longbows, sustained until they ran out of arrows (or for at least a minute, for the guys who did have stands of 50-60 arrows next to them while shooting). These are hobbyists.
I've been thinking about it, and considering the differences one is likely to see between the trained longbowmen of the Middle Ages, who'd been training all their life to shoot those bows in battle and our modern day hobbyists-- my answer is, the English Archers at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, probably were shooting an arrow a second (each) while laying out those massive clouds of arrows in volley fire. I doubt they could sustain that rate for longer than a minute at most though (so, I agree with your point about not being able to sustain full speed for 100 arrows-- not by a wide margin).
One of these really highly trained archers probably could manage (for a short period) to fire an arrow a second, aimed and accurate, at close targets in battle-- the method isn't going to involve ducking and dodging though, but rather, planting your feet and hoping you can shoot down that cavalryman's horse before he gets to you. Also, since the usual target for that for an archer is a charging horseman (knight, squire, whatever) and the horse was a more vulnerable target-- it is true that while I say "aimed fire" the usual description for this probably does assume the larger-than-man-size target in the open/no cover, coming at you-- probably not able to do a whole lot of complicated ducking and weaving en route to your position.
And yeah, all the skeletons found thus far of these guys who shot the English longbows and spent a lifetime developing those skills, have deformed skeletons from the life-long strain on their bodies that shooting those bows produced.
My comments above are on the realistic side of archery.
Not sure why we're chomping through realistic combat in PF though-- when PF (and D&D combat before it) is inherently unrealistic (not that that's a bad thing for the game).
|
|
Does that same adreniline rush prevent swat team members from accurately shooting thier pistols in the heat of a raid? The danger is real but thier training keeps them accurate.SWAT officers don't fire well aimed shots unless they are snipers. They shoot at the center of mass until the target drops. They don't have time to aim aside from pointing their gun at a general region of the target unless they are in a standoff. SWAT accuracy is to do the extreme close range of the fighting, and, in the case of a standoff, large amount of time available to aim, not do to sheer skill. Are they skilled shooters with very good aim? Yes. They practice a whole hell of a lot on the range. Are they accurate enough to pull off well aimed shots in combat against multiple targets with only a second to aim each round? No. Nobody in the world is that accurate. SWAT training focuses on instant shoot/don't shoot decisions (which are incredibly difficult to make), not pinpoint accuracy. They rely on close range and volume of fire to take targets down, because that's what works and gets the officers home alive. You'll see that in special forces and general military training, too. Being reflexive enough to point your gun at the center of mass and pull the trigger several times is much more valuable a skill than being able to shoot several people with unerring accuracy in only a few seconds.
110' is not that far for a bow, I've hit targets consistently at 80yards with my compound bow. I'm sure others can do it with other styles of bows.No, it isn't that far. That is, until you have to hit several targets with only a second to aim and fire each shot while people are trying to kill you. THAT'S when it starts to become a rather long distance.
Given the proper training, I see it as completely realistic to rapidshot in combat given we have the: bird archer / rapid shot girl / swat team members; as our proof of concept. It seems reasonable a properly trained warrior could pull this...
Most Police SWAT units, and cops in general, are truly piss-poor shots in real-live shooting situations compared with even a green Infantry squad. I'm not so sure I'd want to use police shooting incidents as evidence for good fire discipline and accuracy (though they're good for demonstrating the lack thereof in people who train on the range but seem to be lacking something in combat preparation).
|
|
Archers weren't the battlefield killers people make them to be. Archers were never used alone until they had rifles which had enough punching power to allow them to operate alone and be successful.
Bows were made obsolete even by pipes with sticks at the end (not sure how to call it). Those were akwardly looking and firing slow but the point is that anybody could use them and they had enough power to penetrate armour even at medium distances.
If Bows would have been so awesome why were there so many other rather questionable ranged weapon systems that came up after the bow and even replaced them. It would be stupid to replace a killer bow with something more complicated, more expensive and slower firing...There is a point why the Brits won no wars after Agincourt. And contrary to what people believe those two victories did not end the era of heavy cavalry but started it.
They were the end to the glory hogging "swordlords" (dunno the name for it in english) Knights that disliked having the Infantry taking the victory and thus lead to major tactical errors which gave those two battles the grave results they had.
The longbow was a very effective battlefield weapon-- in the hands of a trained archer-- but it did have it's limitations. The Brits didn't win a major victory on the continent because the French started using much better tactics and capitalizing on their strengths and English weaknesses, instead of playing to the Englishmen's strengths (as they did at the three famous defeats), and eventually the Hundred Years' War came to a close. The Brits did use the longbow very effectively on the Scots as late as 1513 (Flodden Field), and on each other multiple times during the Wars of the Roses before that (covering the period from 1450 approx to 1485).
Nobody other than the English and Welsh (among Europeans) used the longbow. The problem with it, and the reason why it was rapidly replaced by the gun-- which was also not used by itself without pikemen for a long time past the end of the longbow's use on the battlefield-- was that it literally took a lifetime to train a good longbowman. You said it yourself-- anyone could be trained to pick up and fire a gun, fairly quickly. It took 10-20 years of shooting the bow as you grew up from a boy to a man among the English yeomanry, just to develop the musculature to shoot the damn bow they used on the battlefield. You could teach someone to be a half-assed decent musketeer in a couple weeks. And yes, armor was getting better, and the guns did hit harder and punch through armor better, than even the longbow did.
It is, as you noted above, the ease of use of the gun (compared with the bow) that really spelled the bow's death-knell, and the end of the heavy cavalry as a decisive battlefield weapon. For all the posturing of knights and noble-men, the gun really spelled an end to their domination of the battlefield. But all of that is realism, not 'heroic fantasy'.
|
|
I don't know why I'm bothering to weigh in on this, but-- some other comments on the "realism" of melee weapons in Pathfinder:
Yes, if you're quite well-trained, you can swing a sword a whole lot of times-- at an unmoving, target-post dummy.
I'm inclined to say that there are so many variables involved, in trying to figure out some kind of mechanism for how many effective 'swings' a good warrior is going to get in close combat-- that I'm not sure how to rate the system at all. Each attack probably represents a flurry of blows and feints and jockeying for position and everything else rolled into one. There is also the point (as someone else I believe has already pointed out) that if you do successfully strike and drive your weapon into your enemy-- at the least, that's going to break the rhythm of your strikes while you pull your weapon back out of him.
There's also questions of reach... and considerations like the fact that you can stab/pull/stab/repeat-repeat-repeat with a knife to someone's guts a lot faster than you can swing a broadsword. How do you figure that? There's questions of reach, and movement... I do know a bit about the use of medieval and renaissance weaponry, but the problem is, there are so many different things involved that no functional game system is going to be able to realistically depict them all-- and a game system that does realistically capture close, sword-to-sword combat, is going to be so hideously complex, intricate, and detailed that it will be functionally unplayable (without a really high-speed computer simulation engine anyway).
You have to decide on how much abstraction do you want in your combat system, and where... there are more realistic systems, and less realistic ones, but in this area, the quest for an exact duplication of real fights (which something like the question of 'how many swings should I really get in a round?' is approaching) is IMO not something you're going to get a satisfactory solution for, as far as 'realism' is concerned. When you roll in hit points, the way PF (and D&D before it) treats armor, all this stuff about levels and such... I don't expect any realism from Pathfinder in combat-- I just expect it to reasonably duplicate heroic fantasy tales and myths and legends.
Armor penetration-- actually I'd give an English Longbow (usually between 100-150 lbs pull) pretty good odds on punching through even the heaviest battlefield (not jousting) armor of the 13th-14th centuries, out to about 20 meters, maybe a little farther-- about as far out as you're still making 'flat-trajectory' shots. I've seen the tests done on what kind of penetrating force arrows from those bows impact with, particularly with the bodkin points archers used, that were intended for punching through armor.
150 lb pull for an average english Longbow?
Surely you must mean non portable used longbows in use on ships like on the Mary Rose.Normal field longbows were 90-110lb (according to the british longbow society).
The best and most realistic results I've seen up to date were made by math bane.
He used a 75lb draw bow on 10 meters against different kinds of armour with different kind of arrowheads.
For the Plate he used a 1.2mm thick piece (the minimum thickness found on such armour) and put 3 layers of linen behind it and shot at it 90° to the surface (so directly head on).
Out of the arrows tested the broadhead and the needle botkin did penetrate for 0.5" and 0.25".
So on 10 meters distance against the thinnest part of an armour (which probably is even thicker at its thinnest place) in a direct head on shot you had the chance of delivering a needle botkin 1.25cm into the person. Try sticking a knife 1.25cm into you and twist it and see if you die. If you are not REALLY lucky and just did hit a major ateria or such it will hurt but except for that it will not hamper you seriously.
For reference this is such a arrowhead used http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d76/ginobrancazio/7Type7.jpg
Imagine only the very tip penetrating something.
Resume:
Under combat circumstances at point blank range if you fire at a target the arrow will not strike at a 90° angle to the surface (the armor is bent outwards so that you do not hit in 90° angles even if you shoot a straight shot frontal into him) plus you will most likely not hit the thinnest part (which will be not at his front or rear parts where armour is most needed) and thus will not penetrate the armour even with specialized Type 7 Bodkin Arrowheads.
No matter how many scientist prove the myth of knight slaughtering false there will always be some guys who don't believe it or make an own video with a food tin in the general shape of an old armour which gets owned by a 25lb bow on 20 meters.
So believe what you want ;)
Flesh is stronger than steel. What is the sword without the hand that wields it?A robot.
And robots have no fear.
And robots have no fear.Flesh is stronger than steel. What is the sword without the hand that wields it?A robot.
I've seen a robot that experiences fear.
|
|
150 lb pull for an average english Longbow?
Surely you must mean non portable used longbows in use on ships like on the Mary Rose.Normal field longbows were 90-110lb (according to the british longbow society).
The best and most realistic results I've seen up to date were made by math bane.
He used a 75lb draw bow on 10 meters against different kinds of armour with different kind of arrowheads.
For the Plate he used a 1.2mm thick piece (the minimum thickness found on such armour) and put 3 layers of linen behind it and shot at it 90° to the surface (so directly head on).Out of the arrows tested the broadhead and the needle botkin did penetrate for 0.5" and 0.25".
So on 10 meters distance against the thinnest part of an armour (which probably is even thicker at its thinnest place) in a direct head on shot you had the chance of delivering a needle botkin 1.25cm into the person. Try sticking a knife 1.25cm into you and twist it and see if you die. If you are not REALLY lucky and just did hit a major ateria or such it will hurt but except for that it will not hamper you seriously.
For reference this is such a arrowhead used http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d76/ginobrancazio/7Type7.jpg
Imagine only the very tip penetrating something.Resume:
Under combat circumstances at point blank range if you fire at a target the arrow will not strike at a 90° angle to the surface (the armor is bent outwards so that you do not hit in 90° angles even if you shoot a straight shot frontal...
Whatever.
Yes, I mean "150 lbs" for the average draw weight bow used by the English Army at places like Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, and Halidon Hill. What makes you think the Mary Rose bows were for 'static use', as if an archer could use such a bow on a ship, but not use such a bow on dry land?
Check John Keegan's "Face of Battle" book. Watch the couple of programs I was just watching on the History Channel on weapons. Check quite a few other sources out there... also add, that it doesn't take the 10-20 years of practice and building up your strength from an early age to shoot a 90-110 lb pull bow, nor is such a bow powerful enough to produce such stress and strain on your body (even life-long) to result in the skeletal deformities we were talking about in the first couple of exchanges on this.
Now, I've never heard of math bane-- but his results sound about right, since he was using a bow of about half the pull-weight as the longbows actually used in battle. Consider that, and consider how much harder the impact is going to be from the bows used by trained longbowmen in battle. Also consider that the quality and durability of steel used for armor in the 14th century is nowhere near as good (and consistent) as steel is now-- and consider that we aren't talking about gothic full plate armor (that wasn't on the scene by the time of Agincourt-- 1415, btw).
Now, under combat circumstances is the arrow often going to get a glancing hit? Yes, that's why not every arrow at point-blank is going to penetrate, and why most arrows fired at range (arcing trajectories) won't penetrate the man's armor. That's why a cavalryman charging down on an archer has a pretty good chance-- so long as the archer doesn't just shoot his horse out from under him and waits to see if he gets up after he and his horse hit the ground.
You may believe whatever you want, but I am not convinced by your "evidence".
Weren't the Saracens big fans of horse archers, too?Yes. It was a thorn in the ass for the Crusaders.
That's what I thought. Like I said before, this 'fast archery' thing seems to always pop up in cultures that favor the mounted archer, and in that context it can be practical. Rush in, get off a flurry of shots and dash away. Not quite like in the game, though.
Are we doing arrows vs. armor now? Yeah, Pathfinder never pretend to be realistic about armor.
Although I don't get what you're getting at about the Mary Rose bows, I generally side with Alienfreak on this one. The Royal Armouries in Leeds have done testing with 150-lb. warbows, and it backs up Bane's testing quite well.
From what I've seen, Keegan's book is about attitudes in warfare, not weapons testing. (though I haven't read it) Also, most history buffs consider the history channel a poor source, to be kind.
For a view on the testing done by the Royal Armouries, here's a link to a post on swordforum by Dan Howard (a rather respected member of the community), which includes a link to the study itself. I'll give you the short version here.
1. They used a 150-lb. bow at a range of 10m.
2. They shot flat 1.15mm, 2mm, and 3mm plates of charcoal-rolled iron.
3. The impact was at 90 degrees.
4. All arrows penetrated the 1.15mm, 2 arrows penetrated the 2mm, none the 3mm.
5. The maximum penetration was 16mm.
6. The arrows were far harder than the norm, and the armor was on the low end of hardness for munitions-grade armor.
What does that all mean? It means that decent armor was virtually arrow-proof. You would need a exceptionally strong bow, a lucky shot, or extreme close range. Or maybe all of the above. That doesn't mean that longbows weren't effective, just not as deadly as most people think.
There's more to it than simple lethality, though. Showers of arrows disrupt formations, demoralize, and distract as well. And they don't have to kill the armored man to be effective either- lightly armored men and horses are fair game.
I think it is rather telling that the wound we hear about the most often when speaking of arrows vs. armored knights is the arrow to the face, though. Armor gets hot, and when knights would open their visor they were suddenly a target again. This was a problem in the Battle of Flodden Field, if I remember correctly. (Though I may be thinking of the wrong battle at the moment.)
|
|
Although I don't get what you're getting at about the Mary Rose bows, I generally side with Alienfreak on this one. The Royal Armouries in Leeds have done testing with 150-lb. warbows, and it backs up Bane's testing quite well.
What I'm getting at, with regard to the 'Mary Rose' bows, is that those were the usual battle-field weight (approx 150 lbs), not special bows for static positions that were only used on ships but not carried in the field.
From what I've seen, Keegan's book is about attitudes in warfare, not weapons testing. (though I haven't read it) Also, most history buffs consider the history channel a poor source, to be kind.
Keegan's book is much more about attitudes, but the chapter on Agincourt does also cover tactics and weaponry. Regarding the History Channel... hmmm, I am a history buff, and a history major in college right now. I find some of their programs are pretty damn good, and the research done is convincing, some of their stuff is so-so, some of it is pretty weak. But I don't dismiss everything there as poor. Specifically on the subject of bows-- The Warriors program (hosted by Terry Schappert) has been pretty good so far, and they just ran an episode on the weaponry and tactics used at Agincourt, which quoted the same range of draw weights for the longbow that I was already familiar with-- which is why I tossed that in while writing up the earlier post I made (although that was on the 'Military History Channel' not the plain old History Channel.
For a view on the testing done by the Royal Armouries, here's a link to a post on swordforum by Dan Howard (a rather respected member of the community), which includes a link to the study itself. I'll give you the short version here.1. They used a 150-lb. bow at a range of 10m.
2. They shot flat 1.15mm, 2mm, and 3mm plates of charcoal-rolled iron.
3. The impact was at 90 degrees.
4. All arrows penetrated the 1.15mm, 2 arrows penetrated the 2mm, none the 3mm.
5. The maximum penetration was 16mm.
6. The arrows were far harder than the norm, and the armor was on the low end of hardness for munitions-grade armor.What does that all mean? It means that decent armor was virtually arrow-proof. You would need a exceptionally strong bow, a lucky shot, or extreme close range. Or maybe all of the above. That doesn't mean that longbows weren't effective, just not as deadly as most people think.
I'll look for that study. I recall studies showing the longbow being more effective than that-- but only at close range (which I'd already indicated). No, they weren't super-weapons though. Didn't think I left the impression that they were.
There's more to it than simple lethality, though. Showers of arrows disrupt formations, demoralize, and distract as well. And they don't have to kill the armored man to be effective either- lightly armored men and horses are fair game.I think it is rather telling that the wound we hear about the most often when speaking of arrows vs. armored knights is the arrow to the face, though. Armor gets hot, and when knights would open their visor they were suddenly a target again. This was a problem in the Battle of Flodden Field, if I remember correctly. (Though I may be thinking of the wrong battle at the moment.)
Yep. What the longbow did to really screw up the French at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, was killing off their horses more than directly killing the men on the horses (something I also thought I'd already mentioned-- if I left that out, my apologies). At Flodden Field (1513), doesn't surprise me that much that those are the reports-- by 1513, armor was a lot better than it was at Agincourt(1415), and the armor in use at Agincourt was much better than the armor in use at Crecy (1346).
The other part of my point (that I notice has not been disputed since I commented on it), is that the reason the longbow was phased out as a weapon of war even by the English, was the time and effort required to train and develop decent archers-- compared with how simple it was to teach people to fire guns, combined with the fact that (regardless of how effective or ineffective the bow was) the guns still definitely hit harder, and hit distinctively harder over greater ranges (something even the best crossbows did not have over the bow, but that guns did, was the steadily extending ranges that guns had as the technologies involved kept advancing).
|
|
Huh.
I gave Kelsey the example of a real-life Soldier taking down several people in (approximately) several seconds, with a semi-automatic weapon, and we haven't heard from her since.
Interesting... :D
('course I gave Ashiel several replies last week on some other threads-- and never got a response either. 'spose I'm disappointed-- I'd really like to have gotten responses from those two)
Exactly, and the fact that adrenaline and biological reactions do not apply is not realistic. I don't consider it not being realistic a problem, I just accept it for what it is.
The issue of adrenaline and it's effects on what can be done in the heat of combat compared to 'on the range' seems a valid point until one looks at real world martial arts of history.
In all the effective ones - including archery, the true masters (and PC's MUST belong to this group considering their lifestyles) all used techniques for reducing and smoothing out the delivery of the initial mind-scrambling adrenaline dump during the opening moments of threat situations. There is a reason focus and meditation techniques are taught exhaustively by martial arts masters!
The trouble is today - health and safety fluffiness means training VERY rarely includes the harsh and often dangerous combat simulation training necessary to develop this response and learn how to find the internal 'eye of the storm' in a battle.
I can assure you, the likes of Miramoto Musashi mastered their adrenaline and learned to keep a calm mind focussed on the job long before he was travelling the Japanese countryside embarrassing fully armoured katana-wielding samurai whilst wearing travelling clothes and a pair of sticks....
Add to this the following fact. As a physical skill becomes truly honed, control of the neural pattern created to use it is passed from the complex brain into the far less complex spinal cord. This is the point at which you can 'do it without thinking'. The spinal cord is not effected by adrenaline nearly as significantly as the brain - meaning the master of a skill at this level does not suffer the hestitancy or breakdown of fine motor skill characteristic of the 'fight or flight' response in the brain.
Thus if a feat could be pulled off on the range, a veteran with the above characteristics could pull it off in the middle of complete chaos and high stress. Moreover, as they would be relatively calm through the adrenaline rush they would retain greater situational awareness and be able to identify and react to sudden threats more quickly - bring their skill to bear the vital seconds, or fractions of seconds quicker than their foes.
This is what made such masters so feared and respected, and of course, so successful.
150 lb pull for an average english Longbow?
Surely you must mean non portable used longbows in use on ships like on the Mary Rose.Normal field longbows were 90-110lb (according to the british longbow society).
The best and most realistic results I've seen up to date were made by math bane.
He used a 75lb draw bow on 10 meters against different kinds of armour with different kind of arrowheads.
For the Plate he used a 1.2mm thick piece (the minimum thickness found on such armour) and put 3 layers of linen behind it and shot at it 90° to the surface (so directly head on).Out of the arrows tested the broadhead and the needle botkin did penetrate for 0.5" and 0.25".
So on 10 meters distance against the thinnest part of an armour (which probably is even thicker at its thinnest place) in a direct head on shot you had the chance of delivering a needle botkin 1.25cm into the person. Try sticking a knife 1.25cm into you and twist it and see if you die. If you are not REALLY lucky and just did hit a major ateria or such it will hurt but except for that it will not hamper you seriously.
For reference this is such a arrowhead used http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d76/ginobrancazio/7Type7.jpg
Imagine only the very tip penetrating something.Resume:
Under combat circumstances at point blank range if you fire at a target the arrow will not strike at a 90° angle to the surface (the armor is bent outwards so that you do not hit in 90° angles even if you shoot a straight shot frontal...Whatever.
Yes, I mean "150 lbs" for the average draw weight bow used by the English Army at places like Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, and Halidon Hill. What makes you think the Mary Rose bows were for 'static use', as if an archer could use such a bow on a ship, but not use such a bow on dry land?
Check John Keegan's "Face of Battle" book. Watch the couple of programs I was just watching on the History Channel on weapons. Check quite a few other sources out there... also add, that it...
Just because a ship of the line had Bows onboard that had a draw of 150lb doesn't mean field bows also had it.
The higher the draw the lower the rate of fire the longer the arrows, the heavier the arrows etc pp, the heavier the strain put on the soldier... So just increasing the Draw will not make it a better weapon per se but on the naval battles you had to be able to shoot about as far as the cannons could fire so you were useful. On the battlefield on land it is quite different.Even the British Long Bow Society says they had a draw of 90-110lb. Who to believe if not them!?
And the other sources of researchers mostly speak about even less draw.
.
.
.
And still all info I have seen concludes that an Arrow cannot pierce armour.
All the tests are made under the assumption of 90° impacts which are simply not realistic. Even scale Armour does not have straight surfaces which are facing 90° to the engager. And Breastplates also feature and additional "pointyness" towards the front out of a reason.
Also Arrows do not fly straight. You will have drop and nobody fires an Arrow on 10 meters because that means that he is dead in the next 2 seconds. So you will see engagements on higher distances which, even if you don't measure in the drastic energy loss an arrow has, lead to additional angle for the impact created by the arrow itself.
... not to mention that most tests I have seen were made against inferior armour with superior arrows.
Yes you forget though that the bulk of medieval armies are peasant levies who can't afford the armor that the nobles could have made for themselves. What drives the armored types to extinction is not the bow, but massed pikemen. Who pretty much stick the knights off their high horses and swarm over them in battles such as Agincourt.And still all info I have seen concludes that an Arrow cannot pierce armour.
All the tests are made under the assumption of 90° impacts which are simply not realistic. Even scale Armour does not have straight surfaces which are facing 90° to the engager. And Breastplates also feature and additional "pointyness" towards the front out of a reason.
Also Arrows do not fly straight. You will have drop and nobody fires an Arrow on 10 meters because that means that he is dead in the next 2 seconds. So you will see engagements on higher distances which, even if you don't measure in the drastic energy loss an arrow has, lead to additional angle for the impact created by the arrow itself.... not to mention that most tests I have seen were made against inferior armour with superior arrows.
Agincourt was not the end of heavy cavalry but the beginning of its age. I, and others, already pointed that one out but some seem resistant to the thought to a degree I cannot understand.
People should read more about why the battle was lost. And its not because of the cavalry of that time was inferior to the infantry of that time.In 1361 in the battle of Visby a majority of all combatants wore a coat of plates.
Its not like that one is extraordinarily expensive.
End especially the first lines were the best equipped and those are the ones you can shoot at at 10 meters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agincourt was not the end of heavy cavalry but the beginning of its age. I, and others, already pointed that one out but some seem resistant to the thought to a degree I cannot understand.
People should read more about why the battle was lost. And its not because of the cavalry of that time was inferior to the infantry of that time.In 1361 in the battle of Visby a majority of all combatants wore a coat of plates.
Its not like that one is extraordinarily expensive.
What you don't understand, apparently, is that you may point all this out as much as you like-- but your say-so doesn't make it so in fact. I'm not wasting my time considering something true solely because someone I know nothing about comes around spouting off things like they're gospel-truth, particularly when I've read up on information that contradicts what that person is saying. This is the internet, chum-- don't believe what you read or hear from anyone pertaining to alleged real-world facts until you can verify it from reliable sources. Now, if you have any reliable sources, start listing them.
Especially-- go ahead and start listing all of the battles since 1415 that were primarily cavalry battles and/or that were primarily won by the action of heavy cavalry. Then maybe you'll have established your point that Agincourt was the beginning, not the beginning of the end, of knights on horseback/heavy cavalry as a major factor on the battlefield. Oh, and do note how many battles were fought since 1415 where heavy cavalry wasn't the deciding factor.
I did read about why Agincourt was lost. Most of all, because the French used excessively stupid tactics and apparently relied on the idea that Henry was going to face them in grand chivalrous fashion on horseback, and Henry decided to do things differently. Just as Edward III did at Crecy, and the Black Prince did at Poitiers, Henry chose to fight on foot at Agincourt-- among other non-chivalric tactical decisions made. Henry's archers did a really good job of killing French horses, French ground troops, disrupted French attacks... and then those same archers (and other foot-troops), along with Henry's dismounted knights and men-at-arms did an excellent job of out-fighting and slaughtering all of the French troops that made it to the English lines.
Visby I'm going to have to check on. Coats of plates-- not all that expensive, so yeah, it's possible... though I doubt it at least a bit, since the Gotland side appears to have mostly been local peasants picking up weapons to defend their hometown. Although-- battle in Gotland-- no English archers, not really a cavalry battle at all either.
Huh.
I gave Kelsey the example of a real-life Soldier taking down several people in (approximately) several seconds, with a semi-automatic weapon, and we haven't heard from her since.Interesting... :D
('course I gave Ashiel several replies last week on some other threads-- and never got a response either. 'spose I'm disappointed-- I'd really like to have gotten responses from those two)
The debate's gotten to the point where nobody is convincing anyone of anything.
The debate's gotten to the point where nobody is convincing anyone or anything.Huh.
I gave Kelsey the example of a real-life Soldier taking down several people in (approximately) several seconds, with a semi-automatic weapon, and we haven't heard from her since.Interesting... :D
('course I gave Ashiel several replies last week on some other threads-- and never got a response either. 'spose I'm disappointed-- I'd really like to have gotten responses from those two)
"gotten to the point?"
It was well past that point when I pointed out that it was either your comments or my lying eyes that I had to rely on.
:)
The debate's gotten to the point where nobody is convincing anyone or anything.Huh.
I gave Kelsey the example of a real-life Soldier taking down several people in (approximately) several seconds, with a semi-automatic weapon, and we haven't heard from her since.Interesting... :D
('course I gave Ashiel several replies last week on some other threads-- and never got a response either. 'spose I'm disappointed-- I'd really like to have gotten responses from those two)
"gotten to the point?"
It was well past that point when I pointed out that it was either your comments or my lying eyes that I had to rely on.
:)
You should have read the response to that statement I DIDN'T post.
To be honest, I don't even think we're debating about the same things here.
"gotten to the point?"
It was well past that point when I pointed out that it was either your comments or my lying eyes that I had to rely on.
:)
You should have read the response to that statement I DIDN'T post.
To be honest, I don't even think we're debating about the same things here.
You are so much more right than you realize...
|
|
You should have read the response to that statement I DIDN'T post.
To be honest, I don't even think we're debating about the same things here.
I wasn't trying to be rude.
If you checked quite a few posts up, I did find a real-world example, that actually happened-- wherein a soldier, in combat, with semi-automatic and bolt-action weapons, did kill at the rate of about one enemy per second while being charged by groups of enemy troops during the engagement. I was interested in your thoughts on that, since you were the one arguing that such a feat wasn't even possible.
Alvin C. York, during a combat action on October 8th, 1918, shot down a small group of Germans charging his position (during a much longer, very heroic action against a whole German machine gun company), at least that quickly, with a .45 pistol. Seems, when I go through all the different accounts, the group that charged him was about 6 Germans (makes sense, since the .45 holds 7 bullets + 1 in the chamber, and York lived to tell about the incident and didn't run out of bullets when charged)-- starting distance, 25 yards-- shooting from the last man in the group to the front, got all 6 of them before they could reach his position.
The whole incident, includes a lot more remarkable shooting and courage on York's part-- but that's the piece that specifically points out the rapid shooting example. Since York received the Medal of Honor for that incident, it's not too hard to find lots of different accounts of it.
This assumes that firearms are even a good example to be using here. I only talked about them because someone else brought up the Old West. Alvin York was badass (though we will never know whether or not he did in fact do that in 6 seconds, and it wasn't done at the 100 feet I mandated :) ), but you have to admit that as a general rule that is not how gunfights go down. York's aim was downright epic for a handgun.
Really, there seem to be multiple debates going on here. I'm arguing from the point of view of the average soldier and arguing against one very specific deed (the 6 accurate shots against 6 targets at 100 feet). Others are debating how quickly one can shoot and how easy it is to aim in combat, but not a specific feat of shooting. Then there is the whole biology and combat/range debates, plus guns somehow got dragged into it. Honestly, I can't even remember all the positions I've been taking here, much less everyone else's.
To top it off, six arrows in as many seconds generally requires a character much, much higher than 5th level, which is the generally accepted cutoff for realistic individuals in Pathfinder, so we are arguing realism with an admittedly unrealistic character.
The best part is that, aside from some videos of range shooting that may or may not be feats that can be performed in a real fight, anecdotes, and a couple medal citations from feats that don't even involve archery, nobody can really prove anything being said here, including myself. The whole discussion is one giant "UH HUH!" "NUH UH" about something none of us has ever done or will do. It's pretty dumb, and I'm embarrassed about my part in it.
What I'm getting at, with regard to the 'Mary Rose' bows, is that those were the usual battle-field weight (approx 150 lbs), not special bows for static positions that were only used on ships but not carried in the field.
Sorry, Finn, that was just terrible phrasing on my part. I meant that I agreed with Alienfreak's general point, but didn't understand what HE was talking about with the Mary Rose bows.
Keegan's book is much more about attitudes, but the chapter on Agincourt does also cover tactics and weaponry. Regarding the History Channel... hmmm, I am a history buff, and a history major in college right now. I find some of their programs are pretty damn good, and the research done is convincing, some of their stuff is so-so, some of it is pretty weak. But I don't dismiss everything there as poor. Specifically on the subject of bows-- The Warriors program (hosted by Terry Schappert) has been pretty good so far, and they just ran an episode on the weaponry and tactics used at Agincourt, which quoted the same range of draw weights for the longbow that I was already familiar with-- which is why I tossed that in while writing up the earlier post I made (although that was on the 'Military History Channel' not the plain old History Channel.
I don't think Keegan was doing historical arms research though, right?
I don't totally dismiss the history channel, either, but when it comes to historical arms testing most of what I've seen from them is horrible. They often do much better on the people, places, and events part of the equation.
I seem to remember seeing the first episode of The Warriors- it seemed like a pretty decent show from what I remember. I cut off my cable shortly after the show came out, so I never saw more of it.
I'll look for that study. I recall studies showing the longbow being more effective than that-- but only at close range (which I'd already indicated). No, they weren't super-weapons though. Didn't think I left the impression that they were.
If you follow the link I posted, you can find a link there to the downloadable .pdf of the study. One of the points of the study was that the bows and targets used in previous test was not as accurate, thus the reason for a new study with more accurate equipment. (still wasn't super accurate, but better than before.)
If I came across as implying you thought the longbow was a super-weapon, I didn't mean to. My point is simply that armor was very effective. I may simply be to used to the 'super-weapon' claim coming from gamers...
Yep. What the longbow did to really screw up the French at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, was killing off their horses more than directly killing the men on the horses (something I also thought I'd already mentioned-- if I left that out, my apologies). At Flodden Field (1513), doesn't surprise me that much that those are the reports-- by 1513, armor was a lot better than it was at Agincourt(1415), and the armor in use at Agincourt was much better than the armor in use at Crecy (1346).
You did mention fire directed toward the horses- I was adding that point for the sake of completeness. Some of the things I say are for the sake of the boards more than a specific individual. It's a personal obsession with trying to spread more accurate information on the subject among gamers, where myths and misrepresentations abound. (I once had a friend claim that a 2-handed sword was so slow that it could be dodged by casually stepping out of the way. This was based on 2e weapon speeds. :facepalm:)
I was using Flodden as a specific example, but there are others, as well. The same thing happened to Henry V, and supposedly Harold II died from a arrow through the eye at Hastings. (They didn't have visors at the time, but that just means the face was always the weak-point in their armor.) It seems to be pretty common throughout the period.
I remember reading a piece written in-period which endorsed 'double-mail' as 'proof against all arrows'. I would think the later coat of plates would fair even better. There's no such thing as fool-proof armor, but they seem to have done quite well.
The other part of my point (that I notice has not been disputed since I commented on it), is that the reason the longbow was phased out as a weapon of war even by the English, was the time and effort required to train and develop decent archers-- compared with how simple it was to teach people to fire guns, combined with the fact that (regardless of how effective or ineffective the bow was) the guns still definitely hit harder, and hit distinctively harder over greater ranges (something even the best crossbows did not have over the bow, but that guns did, was the steadily extending ranges that guns had as the technologies involved kept advancing).
I wouldn't dispute that point- you're right. ;)
As a whole, my take on the subject of the longbow is this- If it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it. Especially not so extensively. I just think that most of the 'high-end' armors of the period would have been quite effective against it. But not everybody could afford those. (Not by a long shot.)
My take on armor is the same- it had to be good, or why wear it? That doesn't mean it had to be 100% arrow-proof, but it did need to provide reliable protection to make it worth the expense and difficulty.
The best part is that, aside from some videos of range shooting that may or may not be feats that can be performed in a real fight, anecdotes, and a couple medal citations from feats that don't even involve archery, nobody can really prove anything being said here, including myself. The whole discussion is one giant "UH HUH!" "NUH UH" about something none of us has ever done or will do. It's pretty dumb, and I'm embarrassed about my part in it.
But... but... we're gamers... on messageboards... it's what we do! :)
The best part is that, aside from some videos of range shooting that may or may not be feats that can be performed in a real fight, anecdotes, and a couple medal citations from feats that don't even involve archery, nobody can really prove anything being said here, including myself. The whole discussion is one giant "UH HUH!" "NUH UH" about something none of us has ever done or will do. It's pretty dumb, and I'm embarrassed about my part in it.
Kelsey, the thing you seemed to be missing this entire discussion was this was never about proof to most of the participants.
It was about "plausibility."
The videos, for me, and for many others on this thread, demonstrate that shooting as fast and as accurately as PF characters is "plausible." Not "proven."
There's a difference.
And it's an important one.
The best part is that, aside from some videos of range shooting that may or may not be feats that can be performed in a real fight, anecdotes, and a couple medal citations from feats that don't even involve archery, nobody can really prove anything being said here, including myself. The whole discussion is one giant "UH HUH!" "NUH UH" about something none of us has ever done or will do. It's pretty dumb, and I'm embarrassed about my part in it.Kelsey, the thing you seemed to be missing this entire discussion was this was never about proof to most of the participants.
It was about "plausibility."
The videos, for me, and for many others on this thread, demonstrate that shooting as fast and as accurately as PF characters is "plausible." Not "proven."
There's a difference.
And it's an important one.
Plus, we can't prove squa-doo about what happens in combat, because no one who records combat, actually posts it where everyone can see it, because it's brutal, ugly, and no one in their right mind is going to carry a freaking camera into combat. Not until the Land Warrior system, or whatever they use, is brought to the line.
|
|
This assumes that firearms are even a good example to be using here. I only talked about them because someone else brought up the Old West. Alvin York was badass (though we will never know whether or not he did in fact do that in 6 seconds, and it wasn't done at the 100 feet I mandated :) ), but you have to admit that as a general rule that is not how gunfights go down. York's aim was downright epic for a handgun.
Yep, can't disagree with anything that you say above. Except, 6 guys with only 25 yards to cover, and they didn't get closer than a few yards to him (shooting the leading guy last)-- not that it applies to archery-- but I'd bet that York took all 6 German soldiers down in less than 6 seconds. But, as you say-- York's aim was epic, with any weapon (there's a lot on his rifle marksmanship covered in the MoH citation and evidence too); his cold-steel nerve in the face of overwhelming odds was epic; his ability to think and make the right decisions, not let it affect his aim, etc-- epic. His dead calm, "nothing special" kind of reaction to superiors afterwards was epic (in contrast to what everyone else-- Americans and Germans-- were saying about what he did). Yeah, Alvin York was unique-- a genuine hero.
Though I'm not Christian, I also have to respect his very deeply felt and sincere faith-- he almost decided to avoid combat service altogether on "conscientious objector" grounds, before (after a lot of soul-searching and conversations with other 'men of faith) he became convinced that it was his duty to go, in order to help bring the war to a close sooner. You could easily use this guy as inspiration for a Paladin-- he was that honest, that humble, genuinely said by everyone who knew him to be that good a guy. He could have killed a lot more Germans the day he earned the MoH-- went out of his way to take prisoners rather than kill anyone he didn't have to kill.
Really, there seem to be multiple debates going on here. I'm arguing from the point of view of the average soldier and arguing against one very specific deed (the 6 accurate shots against 6 targets at 100 feet). Others are debating how quickly one can shoot and how easy it is to aim in combat, but not a specific feat of shooting. Then there is the whole biology and combat/range debates, plus guns somehow got dragged into it. Honestly, I can't even remember all the positions I've been taking here, much less everyone else's.
I'm not sure how many different debates are stringing in and out of this thread. What you say elsewhere about "proof" and arguing different, not necessarily relevant points is true. Not that it is relevant, btw-- but I do think the 6 accurate shots against 6 targets at 100 feet is "possible", but extremely unlikely, and in combat it would take someone like Alvin York to do it. You're right-- it's not something that the average soldier can do.
To top it off, six arrows in as many seconds generally requires a character much, much higher than 5th level, which is the generally accepted cutoff for realistic individuals in Pathfinder, so we are arguing realism with an admittedly unrealistic character.
No argument. PF combat isn't realistic anyway. It's not as unrealistic as some systems out there-- but even at low levels, it's not very realistic, and at high levels the disconnect is near-total (still a fun game though). Problem is-- if you try to make a completely realistic game, that accurately simulates combat in its entirety, every move, every option, every possible variable-- it'll be unplayable. Probably take you a week to get through two seconds of game-time. There are more and less realistic systems-- but they are all at least a little bit abstract and none of them are entirely realistic (not even Phoenix Command-- although that comes close, for some types of action).
The best part is that, aside from some videos of range shooting that may or may not be feats that can be performed in a real fight, anecdotes, and a couple medal citations from feats that don't even involve archery, nobody can really prove anything being said here, including myself. The whole discussion is one giant "UH HUH!" "NUH UH" about something none of us has ever done or will do. It's pretty dumb, and I'm embarrassed about my part in it.
I'd be facetious and tell you that I do shoot archery (on archery ranges, with a 60 lb draw longbow-- that part is true)-- but since I'm not that good at it, and I'm definitely not doing it in real combat... it's not really good proof for any of the combat archery discussions here (for the record-- I can accurately fire arrows into a 30 yard target at a rate of 1 arrow/5 seconds; or on timed fire, about 6-7 arrows in 30 seconds-- I do know a lot of people who are faster than I am though). About the something none of us has ever done part-- while it's not medieval weaponry or that type of combat, there are a few veterans who have seen action around here. I got shot at a few times in my military career, nearly got killed by indirect fire several times, saw some IEDs go off (thank whatever none of them were close to me)-- I *can* tell you from personal experience a little bit about how adrenaline (etc.) affected me, and how it affected other people I know in the war zone. Since I was mostly a staff-geek (plus occasional rifleman on convoys) in my Iraq tour, I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple of others who saw more action than I did. So-- there are certain aspects of the debates going on here, where there may be a few people commenting who have done some similar things in their lives-- and more than a few of us who have at least been trained for a lot of different combat situations even if we didn't see the "real thing" down range.
Where I have been sticking my nose into threads allegedly involving "facts" I have tried to stick to things that I actually know and/or have seen some evidence to support the point. I've probably over-stepped that intent a few times at least anyway, in spite of good intentions, so I think I catch what you mean about the pointlessness of a lot of it.
|
|
Sorry, Finn, that was just terrible phrasing on my part. I meant that I agreed with Alienfreak's general point, but didn't understand what HE was talking about with the Mary Rose bows.
Apology accepted. :)
I don't think Keegan was doing historical arms research though, right?
No, Keegan mainly does general military history, and, as far as I can tell, makes intensive studies of strategy, tactics, morale, personalities and their effect on battles, and that sort of thing. He doesn't ignore weapons though.
I was using Flodden as a specific example, but there are others, as well. The same thing happened to Henry V, and supposedly Harold II died from a arrow through the eye at Hastings. (They didn't have visors at the time, but that just means the face was always the weak-point in their armor.) It seems to be pretty common throughout the period.
You're right about that. Plus, Henry V survived the wound to his face -- happened at a battle well before Agincourt.
As a whole, my take on the subject of the longbow is this- If it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it. Especially not so extensively. I just think that most of the 'high-end' armors of the period would have been quite effective against it. But not everybody could afford those. (Not by a long shot.)My take on armor is the same- it had to be good, or why wear it? That doesn't mean it had to be 100% arrow-proof, but it did need to provide reliable protection to make it worth the expense and difficulty.
I appreciate your well-reasoned reply (including the stuff I cut for space). Your end conclusion is one I largely agree with. Through 1415, I don't think armor was totally proof against weapons like the longbow, but it was certainly effective or people wouldn't have worn it-- and if the armor itself hadn't been good at stopping a lot of shots, we'd have the major cause of death for French knights at Agincourt as arrows-- rather than knives slipped through weak-points in the armor and/or blunt force trauma from massive clubbings-- the actual leading causes of death among the French chivalry.
Your point about gamers trying to pass info from game as somehow corresponding to reality is a good one (both the ones whose effectiveness is over-estimated and the ones whose effectiveness is underestimated)-- I remember the apparent slowness of the greatsword in some game's rules; yet I also know a little about how quick the real weapon can be in a skilled user's hands. I think there are very few weapons that could really be considered 'super-weapons' (maybe an atomic bomb...), and also few armors of any age that were proof against anything thrown their way-- but there does seem to be a habit among gamers and fans to try to brand some weapons that way. Thus the longbow is often over-estimated, as is the katana-- neither is as good as their devoted legions claim they are.
Regarding the "6 shot in 6 seconds" thing...
I think we need to find a commom ground on where we feel reality ends in d20. Most people are using the alexandrian article that spawned E6, feeling that 5th level or so is peak normal human capability (although the article was talking about DCs mostly).
Taking 6th level as our "normal" baseline, we are looking at 3 potential attacks in a 6 second period.
Since we have examples of people doing far more than that in the same period in non-combat situations, it isn't that farfetched that in combat they be accurate enough at half that speed.
Once we get outside 6th level, we can only look towards fantastical representations of combat. Action movies or fantasy novels, or comic book heroes. Doing 7 shots with iteratives, feats, and magical haste effects, is not crazy when you consider the person is supposed to be like the Green Arrow here, and not a 14 year old girl in real life.
Pathfinder does "realistic" archery fairly well up to the point that it's considering "realistic". IMO of course.
|
|
Pathfinder does "realistic" archery fairly well up to the point that it's considering "realistic". IMO of course.
Heh.
I don't think it does "realistic" archery at all (or other combat realistically either-- not with hit dice, hit points, AC entirely as deflection-- way too abstracted; speaking of arrows, getting to be a pin-cushion before you finally drop, or just presuming that as your hit points are being whittled away it's that many grazes and glancing blowss). But it's a fun game, so that's good enough for me to play it (and as far as it's abstracted-- it's not abstracted in a bad way that could ruin it for me).