Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy

[SuedodeuS]

Arrow Weight	Impact Velocity	Arrow Diameter	Damage (pts)	KE
50		50		8		3.0		62.5
50		50		12		2.7		62.5
75		50		8		3.7		93.8
75		50		12		3.3		93.8
100		50		8		4.3		125.0
100		50		12		3.8		125.0
50		75		8		4.6		140.6
50		75		12		4.1		140.6
75		75		8		5.7		210.9
75		75		12		5		210.9
50		100		8		6.2		250.0
50		100		12		5.5		250.0
100		75		8		6.6		281.3
100		75		12		5.8		281.3
75		100		8		7.7		375.0
75		100		12		6.8		375.0
100		100		8		8.9		500.0
100		100		12		7.9		500.0

Actually Douglas Cole's table did have the "missing" values, he just didn't use enough tabs. This should be a bit more readable (I hope you don't mind me hijacking your table...)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Composite bows are far more efficient that self bows. More of tthe energy is transferred to the arrow. It is likely that they are more accurate too since the hand and arm suffers less vibration. A composite bow archer would be able to pull a heavier bow than a longbow archer of a similar ST. I would allow a +1 ST for a composite construction compared to a self bow.

I stipulate this is true, and all the reading I did agrees - composite bows are much more efficient than self-bows. But unless there is evidence that the bows were actually higher absolute draw (rather than the archer simply being weaker for the draw he uses) I think that an upper limit for hand-drawn bows on the order of 180-200lbs seems historically accurate regardless of bow construction.

This obviously excludes crossbows, for which 700-1500# draw (but horrible efficiency) seems common, foot-bows which I've only seen in that Jet Li movie (Hero?), and modern composite and compound bows, which leverage pulleys and aluminum/carbon fiber arrows and stuff to get tremendous velocity out of much lower poundage bows relatively speaking.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Nothing is missing. The five columns are, from left to right:

1. Arrow Weight
2. Impact Velocity
3. Arrow Diameter
4. Damage (pts)
5. KE

Units would be good, though.

Guilty. Wound channel mod for an arrow is a function of diameter, KE, and momentum in a fairly complicated relationship (it's a geometric average of a wounding factor related to momentum and cross section, and a penetration factor related to KE divided by cross section, both to funky powers). The high mass and momentum of the arrows increases it relative to bullets of equal diameter. For the 8mm case, it's about 1.6; for the 12mm case, it's about 2.6. Note that GURPS rules as written would just call this pi+ and pi++, or perhaps even imp for both. Also, if you do the math on some of these arrows, it doesn't work out in the neighborhood of 1.0 for density (wood), but heavier. a 1m arrow massing 100g and a diameter of 8mm is basically solid aluminum.

Arrow Weight (g)	Impact V (m/s)	Arrow Diam (mm)	Damage (pts)	KE (J)
50			50		8		3.0		62.5
50			50		12		2.7		62.5
75			50	        8		3.7		93.8
75			50		12		3.3		93.8
100			50		8		4.3		125.0
100			50		12		3.8		125.0
50			75		8		4.6		140.6
50			75		12		4.1		140.6
75			75		8		5.7		210.9
75			75		12		5		210.9
100			75		8		6.6		281.3
100			75		12		5.8		281.3
50			100		8		6.2		250.0
50			100		12		5.5		250.0
75			100		8		7.7		375.0
75			100		12		6.8		375.0
100			100		8		8.9		500.0
100			100		12		7.9		500.0

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I stipulate this is true, and all the reading I did agrees - composite bows are much more efficient than self-bows. But unless there is evidence that the bows were actually higher absolute draw (rather than the archer simply being weaker for the draw he uses) I think that an upper limit for hand-drawn bows on the order of 180-200lbs seems historically accurate regardless of bow construction.

If the bow is more efficient, it is probably possible to build a composite with a higher absolute draw. Whether it was often done historically or not is beside the point.

ST 20 men probably weren't common historically. But if one did exist and he had 20 years of experience shooting bows, he could probably draw a pretty heavy composite bow that would yield a pretty good damage score.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

This obviously excludes crossbows, for which 700-1500# draw (but horrible efficiency) seems common, foot-bows which I've only seen in that Jet Li movie (Hero?), and modern composite and compound bows, which leverage pulleys and aluminum/carbon fiber arrows and stuff to get tremendous velocity out of much lower poundage bows relatively speaking.

Footbows weren't uncommon historically. Used for archery competitions in Europe as well as wuxia action in China.

The highest crossbow draw weight I've seen quoted was just above #3000. The highest I've seen quoted for one nocked by a goat's foot is around #550-#600.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Icelander

If the bow is more efficient, it is probably possible to build a composite with a higher absolute draw. Whether it was often done historically or not is beside the point.

In a way I disagree. If ST20 bows (rather than the roughly ST17 that is given by your 3xBL suggestion) were commonly found, that means that (again, assuming 4-6pts of "bonus ST" from exercises, skill, and efficiency) ST14-16 archers were common.

A ST17 bow being common but upper end, and St15-16 (135-150lbs) a fairly typical warbow, then that's doable on ST9-12 overall (with the aforementioned 4-6pts of effective ST increase from various means), which is totally doable. You can be moderately strong (ST12), but have good training in archery (DX+2) and special exercises (Arm ST+2) and draw and shoot a 150# bow. That's on the order of 40pts, which seems quite reasonable to me. Toss in being low status and poor, and you're hovering at less than 25pts for conscript but skilled archers.

I think we're both correct here...you could potentially create a ST20 bow (like Ulysses bow, probably...only he could draw it) with some divine help (there are tech level based materials limits, likely), and that's fully appropriate for a ST14-16 Hero with lots of training, as above. But for Joe Average, it's important to note that you can do this guy on 25pts or so, and not even be skimping on ability (Bow-12, ST12, Arm exercises for +2 ST, Strongbow for +2ST, Poor, Status 0 or -1). This is important for worldbuilding, when you need to postulate a commander who can call to the field 5000 archers (as at Agincourt). If such a man is ST16 and must draw a ST20 bow to be useful...that's 5000 80-100pt dudes. Not necessarily likely? Of course, there are about 2500 Navy SEALS, and we peg them at 250pts or more...so perhaps it's not unreasonable.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I think we're both correct here...you could potentially create a ST20 bow (like Ulysses bow, probably...only he could draw it)

Others could draw it. Only Ulysses could STRING it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

In a way I disagree. If ST20 bows (rather than the roughly ST17 that is given by your 3xBL suggestion) were commonly found, that means that (again, assuming 4-6pts of "bonus ST" from exercises, skill, and efficiency) ST14-16 archers were common.

I'm absolutely not saying that ST 20 bows were common. And I acknowledge that 3xBL is optimistic. I think that people can draw a bow of that weight with training, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that historical archers often used bows that were closer to 2.75 x their Basic Lift. For one thing, I doubt that they had enough time and prime yew to make a new bow when their old one started to give a little.

Today, some reenactors can draw #190 bows and shoot them for research purposes, but since operating that close to their maximum capacity is a little too much work and not enough fun, the same men usually like to shoot a bow of #130-#150 when they're having fun. I suspect that Mark Stratton would also shoot a lighter bow for fun.

Apropos of nothing, I think that if some of the competitors for World's Strongest Man would spend years training period arhcery, we could see some heavy bows being shot. The #200 max is the maximum achieved by a very small community of mostly normally proportioned men. I don't think we can assume that in a society that had plentiful protein and good health care (like many fantasy worlds), but still valued archery as much as medieval England would have the same limit.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

A ST17 bow being common but upper end, and St15-16 (135-150lbs) a fairly typical warbow, then that's doable on ST9-12 overall (with the aforementioned 4-6pts of effective ST increase from various means), which is totally doable. You can be moderately strong (ST12), but have good training in archery (DX+2) and special exercises (Arm ST+2) and draw and shoot a 150# bow. That's on the order of 40pts, which seems quite reasonable to me. Toss in being low status and poor, and you're hovering at less than 25pts for conscript but skilled archers.

I agree with this. Well, except that those archers mostly had lives before their military career, so 20+ skill points related to their previous occupations, interests and lifestyles wouldn't be out of place.

And the ones who'd be accepted by the reputable mercenary captains would mostly be healthy, fit and not too dumb. So no stats at below 9, HT and DX preferably at 10+. And these are minimums, with many exceeding them.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I think we're both correct here...you could potentially create a ST20 bow (like Ulysses bow, probably...only he could draw it) with some divine help (there are tech level based materials limits, likely), and that's fully appropriate for a ST14-16 Hero with lots of training, as above. But for Joe Average, it's important to note that you can do this guy on 25pts or so, and not even be skimping on ability (Bow-12, ST12, Arm exercises for +2 ST, Strongbow for +2ST, Poor, Status 0 or -1). This is important for worldbuilding, when you need to postulate a commander who can call to the field 5000 archers (as at Agincourt). If such a man is ST16 and must draw a ST20 bow to be useful...that's 5000 80-100pt dudes. Not necessarily likely? Of course, there are about 2500 Navy SEALS, and we peg them at 250pts or more...so perhaps it's not unreasonable.

I quite agree. The archers at Agincourt were not shooting ST 20 bows. They were mostly using ST 15+ bows, as I've noted earlier.

On the other hand, most Navy SEALS, despite their undoubted professionalism and access to much better training, do not have years of constant battlefield experience. I have no trouble with making some ancient and medieval soldiers on much more than 25-50 CPs. This is both because in a medieval world, the average person was a peasant and not a soldier, and because after years of battle, the point value of a survivor who has avoided crippling wounds might well have gone up.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Others could draw it. Only Ulysses could STRING it.

Only Ulysses could string it, so we never knew if anyone else could have drawn it. ;)

[jacobmuller]

At last it begins to philtre through my hyperdense skull:)

Thank you , Icelander, for persevering.

A simple change, for folk such as myself, might be to halve the Acc for muscle powered weapons - such would appear to match the change for guns from 3e to 4e.
Then the Perks allow even a moderately skilled bowman of ST11 to handle a ST15 bow. Strongbow [1], Special Excercises (Arm ST) [1], Arm ST+2 [10], Bow DX/A [8] DX+2. I can see whereof you speak of "bows punching through armor":)

Probably irrelevant but I cheered myself up by checking the contemporary armour from Agincourt period (would you believe they have Henry V on TV as I write?).

Palladium shows Men-At-Arms as better armoured about the limb than the torso; the nobles had all-over plate, DR6 (the Italian mercenaries hadn't arrived yet). In GURPS terms, MATs wore 96lb* of armour for DR5/3* on the Torso, DR from 9 to 12 on the limbs. The low torso armour, if correct, would help explain the slaughter meted out by 5,000 archers loosing into packed troops. *Armour weight is a different issue but they would still be heavily encumbered.

[Icelander]

Jacob Muller is right.

A simple fix is to drop all muscle-powered Acc numbers by half, rounding up. This does not affect Acc 1 or below, drops Acc 2 to 1, Acc 3 to 2 and Acc 4 to 2.

Crossbows thus have the same Acc as longbows and composite bows. I think that's fine. I'd allow a sight to be fitted to a crossbow for +1 Acc, which wouldn't be possible for a normal bow. Depending on TL, that sight might be finicky and only suitable for a crossbow that never suffers rough handling.

There are some individual weapons that I'd want to adjust the Acc for in that scheme.

I think that a Regular Bow should be Acc 2 just like Longbows and Composite bows. The damage and range differences are enough to differentiate them.

The Boomerang and Discus could retain their Acc 2. I think it's important to maintain the distinction that both weapons are considerably more accurate than the throwing stick and chakram respectively.