Funny stuff.
Yes, yes it is (that was the poster for whom I have now quoted Bane a couple of times-- not because Bane did a full academically rigorous test, but because even Bane's tests and conclusions do not support the poster's positions).
BTW, Caliburn-- Since you've studied some of these battles more than I have-- anything you can see that I got wrong in my comments on Agincourt in the most recent reply, or on the utility of heavy cavalry in the centuries after Agincourt?
Not particularly - it is just useful for everyone to understand that bowmen of any type are pretty crap against cavalry when the cavalry have room to charge and the bowmen are not on good defensive ground.
I wouldn't stand in front of a charging knight & warhorse if I was dressed in titanium plated bomb disposal kit - never mind a yeoman's jerkin. However, if I was behind rows of stakes I might think differently.
Bowmen go down fast to good melee if they get engaged that way - they are massacred vs. good cavalry when it closes. Give them the opportunity to focus-fire on a target (expecially slow foot troops or mud-mired cavalry) and it's fish in a barrel.
When studying the battles in question - any analysis of the effectiveness of weapons or armour has to be addressed with a weather eye on the circumstances of use - not just the alleged mechanical properties.
However, if something is indeed 'useless' mechanically, then a good tactical position or strategic situation doesn't really help. Ask the Zulus at Rorkes Drift about how useful their spears were against the rifle, or the Greeks when using the Hoplon in Phalanx formation against the Roman soft-shafted javelin.
The English were not idiots. The English continued to use the longbow for many decades after Knight's routinely had steel plate. It's clear that it was still battlefield-effective because there was a cheap and widely available alternative that they never switched to.... the crossbow.
Additionally, the Mongol Khanates managed to last until the very early 16th century using bows no more powerful than the longbow as their signature weapon. I don't remember them being described as 'ineffective' either....
Win some battles, lose some battles - it doesn't make the weapons you use 'ineffective', nor does it mean you abandon a proven weapon which still works.
The proof was in a pudding no modern person ever ate, and therefore can't really conclude on the taste of....
Tell your realism to go shove it, coz if (already provably possible) archery has to go home, so do dragons, undead, angels, demons, fey, magical beasts, and IN has to come penalties to
The post is whether archery is realistic or not, if you didn't like the topic, you didn't have to read any farther than that.
Realism aside, the problem is that it isn't even balanced against melee currently.
Tell your realism to go shove it, coz if (already provably possible) archery has to go home, so do dragons, undead, angels, demons, fey, magical beasts, and IN has to come penalties toThe post is whether archery is realistic or not, if you didn't like the topic, you didn't have to read any farther than that.
Realism aside, the problem is that it isn't even balanced against melee currently.
Yes - range penalties are a joke - range increments should be halved for this purpose AT LEAST.
Also, if the target has taken a move action during the turn before you fire there should be a further penalty of -2.
Size modifiers for larger than medium creatures should be doubled however.
I need intense levels of historical realism in my gamere where I slay dragons and cause the heavens to rain fire down upon my enemies.
So you must have clicked the wrong thread.
Happens to the best of us. Those letters are really small in this forum.
Didn't armour, bows, and guns all coexist over a fairly long period, where each was being developed in an 'arms race' to compete?
D&D makes no mention of what "era" it is with respect to armour and bows (and even really guns, when comparing to those two).
Considering we are looking at bows not penetrating armours, and guns doing so.. it feels like it's in that sweet spot of "Armour has been developed to be an adequate defense against bows, but since guns are new, "bullet proofing" hasn't caught up yet".
Arguing that armour was or wasn't effective against bows in some general sense seems silly... the only answer to such a general question is "it depends".
If you are going to argue (ahem, sorry.. "debate"), then at least pick a common ground to adequately compare. For all I can tell, you are all correct, depending on the era we look at.
It looks about 1450s or so.
@Kaisoku:Yes, guns did coexist with bows, they were first made ~500AD and it's not exactly like bows stopped being used anywhere near that time.
|
historically in a army setting archers were support, but there are ALOT of fighting styles that do emfacise achery from samuri to native american. What does this tell us is the game archery unrealistic ... well a game where you turn into dragons and shoot fireballs from your hands well ... yeah! Still the piont is to have fun and play the game and remeber that with time and proper training anything can happen in fantasy or real life.
|
1.
Well... your opinion ;)
It's all just opinion being discussed around here-- your posts too.
Beyond that-- you're rude, insulting, and ignorant. Your battlefield interpretations are devoid of facts and supporting evidence, and contain unbelievable analysis and conclusions. You have no professional expertise in the subject matter under discussion, and you're clearly not a trained historian. When you, a civilian, then want to bring up modern weapons that at best, you may have seen in some books, TV shows, and computer games-- to try to demonstrate your knowledge as part of more belittlements and insults-- dude, I've fired the RPG 7 before. Really, there's no point to even pretending to take you seriously.
I don't care what your opinion is anymore. The battles under discussion are far in the past, engagements that no-one living was at and that aren't ever likely to be re-fought, because the technology and tactics supporting the fine art of killing have really improved over the last several centuries. A lot of the facts on these battles aren't known for certain, and won't be-- because none of us were there, and the accurate information merely talks about outcomes rather than every last little casualty and minute of the battle (so yes, some of my comments on 1683 Vienna were conjecture rather than certainty). All this, on a board meant for discussing a fantasy game which is fun but without a whole lot of basis in reality anyway...
The horse is dead, battered beyond paste... and it does not matter. Let it go, or keep talking to yourself, if you like.
Beyond that-- you're rude, insulting, and ignorant. Your battlefield interpretations are devoid of facts and supporting evidence, and contain unbelievable analysis and conclusions. You have no professional expertise in the subject matter under discussion, and you're clearly not a trained historian. When you, a civilian, then want to bring up modern weapons that at best, you may have seen in some books, TV shows, and computer games-- to try to demonstrate your knowledge as part of more belittlements and insults-- dude, I've fired the RPG 7 before. Really, there's no point to even pretending to take you seriously.
1. My battlefield interpretations are straight to the facts and are according to reports of eye witnesses and not some fancy historicians having their own agendas, like the british always trying to glorify their few victories in history and feed upon them.
2. I may be rude but not insulting.3. You are ignorant to scientific facts. Maybe you should stop trying to be the professional historician and get used more to scientific working? You even fail to read the proper results into Bane's work. Which is really poor for someone trying to pose as the real professional here.
4. I know a lot of archeologists and historicians and they can't even remember a freaking trigonometric function but pretend to be the pros when it comes to penetration and capabilities of alloys and materials. And yet they often fail alot.
5. So you fired a RPG 7V? Great! Whats the point here?
6. We know the alloys and techniques used for the construction of the Armor and the Arrows. So what keeps us from looking at it and saying what has been possible and what wasn't?
7. You even refuse to use COMMON SENSE.
Stick an Arrow in front of you into the ground. Then try to pull it out, ready it in your bow, lean back, draw, aim, wait for the command and then fire.
You even say that is doable in 2 seconds or even less. What the hell? This is just that far from reality I wonder what you do for a living. Are you a historician? Would be fitting. They are often so engulved into their field of work that they can't see anything that lies beyond their nose.
Stick an Arrow in front of you into the ground. Then try to pull it out, ready it in your bow, lean back, draw, aim, wait for the command and then fire.
You even say that is doable in 2 seconds or even less.
To be fair, I don't think that D&D is trying to emulate that kind of archery style. The dagger style in the girl video was more along what D&D's rapid shot was emulating.
I mean, if you are waiting for a command for firing, it sounds more like volley fire for mass combat, rather than personal combat with a PC party. Which would likely have a different set of mass combat rules instead of the rules presented in normal D&D combat.
I knew, clicking the link blindly, that by page 5 of this thread it would have degenerated into an argument about Anglo-Saxon yeomen.
It's like a very specialized archery Godwin.
It's also kind of amazing to imagine that any of it has anything to do with the Pathfinder rule balance. All I can offer is: rapid reload.
The "longbow" of Pathfinder (and 3.5 and even 4e) is not generally viewed or presented as the "longbow" of the English and Welsh.
Most people playing PF think of a "longbow" as being probably four feet long, you sling it on your back and you can quickly draw back the string.
A REAL longbow was as tall as the person using it, frequently up to six feet long, and had a very long draw as well as a very hard one.
The bow used by the girl in the video was not a longbow.
Most PF characters take the "longbow" because it does more damage than the "shortbow". But virtually all of this discussion about shooting speeds and rapid shot and all that stuff is really only "realistic" when applied to a shortbow.
Now, for a bow in the size and pull range of a "flatbow" or "selfbow" or other bow similar in size to what people think a "longbow" is in PF, well, you really can shoot those awfully quickly.
|
|
2. I may be rude but not insulting.
You with your opinions and attitude are the exact reason why the french failed. Because they though like you.
Example 1, above-- there's more interspersed in your condescension and ignorance.
As for me: I've already told you what I do a few times. Right now, I'm a student. Yes, one of the things I'm studying is history.
Up until a year and a half ago (when I retired from the military), I was a Soldier. United States Army. For over 20 years.
Regarding the archery part-- because I'm not a very good archer, and yet I can shoot an arrow every 5 seconds, aimed-- a little faster if I'm just shooting at an area. I've watched a few people who can fire an arrow every 2 seconds (especially if they're just trying to unleash volleys at a general area-- you know, the way longbowmen actually do it), with traditional, high-draw weight, longbows... and they don't do it for a living or train at it all the time. Stands to reason that NOT ONLY could the English Longbowmen do at least that much-- since their lives depended on it and they trained for it much more diligently than modern hobbyists, they should be able to do better. The problem for them is going to be the same as it is for people trying to do it now-- after a minute or so, at that rate-- you're not going to keep it up much longer than that. Unfortunately, they didn't have stop-watches in the 15th century, so I don't think they timed them back then.... but with descriptions stating that they could have several more volleys in the air before the first one had impacted (when firing at range)-- implies about the same rate of fire.
You have no facts. Bane isn't an academic, carefully conducted test in the first place-- and you fail to read his own conclusions. Regarding Bane's conclusions-- no one is arguing that a 75 lb bow penetrates period armor. I don't even think anyone is arguing the results from Bane's premise and results based on it, that a battle-weight bow won't penetrate at 250 yards.
Battlefield interpretations: If you have eyewitness accounts, go ahead and start listing them: You've been asked to do so at least FIVE TIMES, and have produced... jack s***. Between all of that, "refuse to use common sense"-- an accusation that is 'epic fail' on your part.
The point of the 'fired an RPG 7' remark, which is true btw-- is that I'm quite sure, when you start bringing up tanks, RPGs, and other modes of modern combat-- you step farther and farther away from anything you know of in reality, and also closer and closer to the wars I've trained for, and the war I was in. I'm not here to debate modern combat methods, but that you, a civilian who's never been out there, want to bring them up to a war-veteran, in supposed "support" of your knowledge of combat and tactics, is quite far out of line.
This "discussion" is still past the point of dead-horse beating though.
Beyond that-- you're rude, insulting, and ignorant. Your battlefield interpretations are devoid of facts and supporting evidence, and contain unbelievable analysis and conclusions. You have no professional expertise in the subject matter under discussion, and you're clearly not a trained historian. When you, a civilian, then want to bring up modern weapons that at best, you may have seen in some books, TV shows, and computer games-- to try to demonstrate your knowledge as part of more belittlements and insults-- dude, I've fired the RPG 7 before. Really, there's no point to even pretending to take you seriously.1. My battlefield interpretations are straight to the facts and are according to reports of eye witnesses and not some fancy historicians having their own agendas, like the british always trying to glorify their few victories in history and feed upon them.
2. I may be rude but not insulting.
3. You are ignorant to scientific facts. Maybe you should stop trying to be the professional historician and get used more to scientific working? You even fail to read the proper results into Bane's work. Which is really poor for someone trying to pose as the real professional here.
4. I know a lot of archeologists and historicians and they can't even remember a freaking trigonometric function but pretend to be the pros when it comes to penetration and capabilities of alloys and materials. And yet they often fail alot.
5. So you fired a RPG 7V? Great! Whats the point here?
6. We know the alloys and techniques used for the construction of the Armor and the Arrows. So what keeps us from looking at it and saying what has been possible and what wasn't?
7. You even refuse to use COMMON SENSE.
Stick an Arrow in front of you into the ground. Then try to pull it out, ready it in your bow, lean back, draw, aim, wait for the command and then fire.You even say that is doable in 2 seconds or even less. What the hell? This is just that far from reality I wonder what you do for a living. Are you a...
1. The British only had a 'few' victories? As a matter of fact, while building the biggest empire the world has ever seen, the British had more victories than can easily be counted. If you count the period before this, there are plenty of examples of victories on the medieval battlefield. Your first statement is unsupported by even a side reference to established historical fact.
2. "I may be rude but not insulting."
I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'rude' in this context and revise your statement. When critising the statements of others it really does help to understand the meaning of what you are saying. To put it in another way, other statements which are equally non-sensical would be;
"I may be a fool but I am not stupid."
or
"I might be a muppet, but there is no chance I am a puppet."
3. "ignorant of scientific facts". You are ignorant of scientific method, and why Bane's work had been contextually invalidated for years.
4. "I know a lot of archeologists and historicians" Surely you mean "archaeologists" and "historians"? - who if you did know them would surely have politely corrected such errors when you referred to them them by their occupation. I spent almost my entire first year during my BSc explaining the unusual spelling of the word "archaeologist" to the uninitiated, as you clearly appear to be.
5. Your first relevant point.
6. Your second relevant point - but refer back to 3 - this isn't a case you can make with any real validity when you show no rigour in your choice of supporting sources.
7. Proof of the pudding! The archers of that period put their arrows in the ground - are you REALLY saying they did it because it made them LESS effective? An unsupportable and unreasoned conclusion, and one any trip to Warwick Castle and observation of the longbow firing display can show to be incorrect.
Caliburn101- something reminded me of this thread and I felt embarrassed about being a jerk to you. Some RL stuff has been stressing me out lately and I guess I took it out on you. I apologize for my rudeness.
Apology accepted.
She's moving side to side, but slowly compared to Pathfinder movement. Running 20-30 feet in 6 seconds and making a shot is going to be a lot harder.
Most games do ignore the fact that move and shoot is going to make your shots less accurate.
GURPS doesn't - it has got to be the best representation of ranged firing on the RPG market.
As far as speed and accuracy with a compound bow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_bow has the info. I saw a documentary on this and it showed how these archers did what they did. What helps with the speed is where they hold their arrows...in the same hand as the bow. Once they release they reach past the string, grab an arrow and pull back in one fluid motion. Just offering what I know.