Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy

[AstralRunner]

I was under the impression that late steel crossbows really were extraordinarily accurate, with effective direct-fire ranges in the area of 500m. Hmm, though my memory of those sorts of crossbows also includes having to load them with a windlass, with even skilled operators being able to fire about 2 per minute, which I guess means the stats are still overpowered.

This does make me wonder what the official damage would be for such crossbows as do take 25+ seconds and a windlass to load, had they been included.

[SimonAce]

Originally Posted by AstralRunner

I was under the impression that late steel crossbows really were extraordinarily accurate, with effective direct-fire ranges in the area of 500m. Hmm, though my memory of those sorts of crossbows also includes having to load them with a windlass, with even skilled operators being able to fire about 2 per minute, which I guess means the stats are still overpowered.

This does make me wonder what the official damage would be for such crossbows as do take 25+ seconds and a windlass to load, had they been included.

They were included.

Thats a ST +4 crossbow in GURPS terms -- make it a fine version and youa re good to go.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Probably so, but since presence/absence of iron sights appears to have no bearing on Acc in High-Tech, such sighting systems are probably below the level of GURPS resolution. Using the tip and fletchings of the arrow/bolt could approximate sights closely enough that the effect can be effectively hand-waived, and any type of sights that would increase base Acc for a crossbow would likely be available for muskets/rifles as well. All else being equal, I suspect crossbows and early rifles would have the same accuracy - rifles just shoot further and pack a bigger punch.
Or at least they should.

The few weapons without sights in High-Tech are not, that I can see, higher than Acc 2. One could argue that in order to qualify for Acc 3+, weapons need mechanical accuracy as well as some method to allow a human user to benefit from that accuracy.

I also note that the MP5KA1 has Acc 1, reduced from the Acc 2 of the normal MP5K, precisely because it has only rudimentary sights.

On the other hand, a crossbow is easier to aim than a longbow. Perhaps some of it is accounted for in the fact that Crossbow is an Easy skill whereas Bow is Average, but that's not enough of a difference. We might be getting somewhere in that crossbows, unlike bows, can be braced for an extra +1 and that Precision Aiming can be used with them.

I'm wavering on whether to give powerful crossbows Acc 2 or Acc 3. Acc 3 has the benefit of making crossbows into a more viable choice, but I'm not sure it's historically warranted.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by AstralRunner

I was under the impression that late steel crossbows really were extraordinarily accurate, with effective direct-fire ranges in the area of 500m. Hmm, though my memory of those sorts of crossbows also includes having to load them with a windlass, with even skilled operators being able to fire about 2 per minute, which I guess means the stats are still overpowered.

This does make me wonder what the official damage would be for such crossbows as do take 25+ seconds and a windlass to load, had they been included.

I've seen testing of a 1200lb Genoese crossbow. It weighted 18 pounds and was therefore probably a siege weapon more than a field bow. Testing with a 3 oz bolt yielded only approximately 200J of initial energy. That's just a little more than most bows and it's actually in the class of the heavier longbows with heavy war arrows.

The key thing to keep in mind here is that the short lanth and draw length of the crossbow sharply limited efficiency. The robust design of the lanth and the thick bowstring also contributed to that effect.

That means that increases in draw weight translate into a very limited increase in performance. Testing for a 740lb medieval crossbow found it delivered its quarrel at approximately the same speed as a 80lb longbow. Granted, it would have been possible to use a much heavier quarrel than arrow, but the one used in the test was actually lighter.

I believe that if heavier quarrels would have been used, the crossbow would have achieved a higher initial energy. But I still don't think that this energy gain would have been huge. The fact is that bows are much more efficient than crossbows.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by nik1979

Isn't the 1/2 range modifier based on Yards/M per Second?

edit. didnt see it was already up
edit 2. it seems everything has been concluded. Will we see a summary of stats?

Hmmm...

Most low-tech ranged weapons simply have their Acc halved, round up. This is the same as was done for firearms in the change from 3e to 4e and should make reasonably sure that these weapons retain the relative effectiveness that they historically had.

The damage for bows is optimistic, but I can't say that it is wrong. For the normal human range of 9-12, it's not far off. And since the slightly exaggerated results above that are the fault of the ST scale being off, that's not really something that a treatment of missile weaons should attempt to correct. That means that bows retain their damage.

Crossbows, now. Crossbows are different. I'm writing up a system that measures the draw weight and figures performance from that. A character can use a crossbow below his own ST and load it by hand at the fast rate given in the Basic Set. Or he can choose a heavier bow and use various methods for loading it.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Hmmm...

Most low-tech ranged weapons simply have their Acc halved, round up.

The damage for bows is optimistic, but I can't say that it is wrong.

I came to the conclusion that any type of bow should probably be rated as thr+1 damage based on the bow's absolute ST. Historically bows have not been found with a draw weight of much more than ST17.

The big deal about composite bows is that due to efficiency, they can be very strong for their size, as well as being a mite easier to draw.

For bows, then, the "MinST" column should be replaced by a number that's either zero or negative. A composite bow might be a -1, most other self-bows are zero. This is the number of points below the bow's ST that the user has to be to use it properly.

The optional rules for reducing MinST further for Skill (Strongbow Perk) and Special Exercises (Perk: up to 2 levels of ArmST) are A Good Idea when you want realistic archers who can do stuff.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I came to the conclusion that any type of bow should probably be rated as thr+1 damage based on the bow's absolute ST. Historically bows have not been found with a draw weight of much more than ST17.

Draw length has an enormous effect on the energy imparted. A very short selfbow is not going to allow the same efficiency as a 7' long one.

I think that the best way of simulating this is with a different base damage for bows of different lengths.

Note also that #60-#70 longbows achieve very good performance. Enough to rate a damage of 1d in GURPS, at least, and I've seen some tests of a 75lb longbow that would merit 1d+1.

That argues for thr+2 for 6' long bows. It's shaky, yes, and the ideal damage would be thr+1.5, but I think that from a gamist point of view a longer bow ought to give concrete benefits over a shorter one. After all, a longer bow is harder to carry around and use in confined spaces. Since it was historically used in warfare in preference to shorter, handier bows, there must have been some reason.

Recurves and reflex bows are effectively technologies to allow a shorter bow a greater draw length, i.e. to act as a longer bow.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

The big deal about composite bows is that due to efficiency, they can be very strong for their size, as well as being a mite easier to draw.

For bows, then, the "MinST" column should be replaced by a number that's either zero or negative. A composite bow might be a -1, most other self-bows are zero. This is the number of points below the bow's ST that the user has to be to use it properly.

The optional rules for reducing MinST further for Skill (Strongbow Perk) and Special Exercises (Perk: up to 2 levels of ArmST) are A Good Idea when you want realistic archers who can do stuff.

The difference between giving composite bows one more point of thrust damage and a -1 on MinST isn't all that great.

I do think that a good composite bow justifies the increased range and +1 damage relative to a hickory bow of the same size and shape. When we get into yew vs. composites, however, the differences might be closer to +1 ST.

It's a judgment call and as I said, GURPS chose a 'heroic average'. We can choose to be extra harsh to compensate, but there are sound game-design reasons for keeping the simpler method of listing an extra weapon instead of introducing a new way to deal with MinST.

[mcv]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Soldiers in combat never have a high hit probability. That's a human limitation, not a limitation of the weapon.

That's true. Even in modern gunfights with accurate weapons, the vast majority of bullets never hits anything meaningful. It's only the specialist marksmen that actually hit stuff.

The main reasons why gunpowder weapons eventually replaced bows and crossbows is economic: any idiot can point a musket at a target, and muskets can be mass produced. And they scare horses. Crossbows are easier to use than bows, but at battles like Crecy, they lost because the longbow had a far higher rate of fire.

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

So, Longbow man, 6-12 years training, for a weapon of no use against heavy armour v's crossbow/musket, 4 weeks training, for battlefield clearance...

Historically, longbows did very well against plate armour.

So are GURPS stats wrong? I get the impression that crossbow stats definitely are. Light crossbows may be able to fire every couple of seconds, but they lack the range, damage or armour penetration of longbows or muskets. Heavier crossbows may rival or surpass longbows and muskets in range, damage and armour penetration, but they're very slow to reload.

Even so, it took a long time for firearms to really replace bows and crossbows. Arquebuses already existed during the late middle ages, but as far as I know, bows and crossbows remained in use well into the 17th century.

Also interesting to note is that the average Napoleonic musketeer didn't really shoot all that much. Reloading took too much time, so often they marched forward with loaded guns, fired a single volley, and then charged with bayonets. Muskets may have been more effective as spears than as firearms.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by mcv

Historically, longbows did very well against plate armour.

I'd be careful with a claim like that.

Can a powerful longbow using a high-carbon steel arrowhead penetrate a flat plate of steel at point blank range? Sure.

Can a period longbow with a wrought iron arrowhead penetrate a breastplate that's neither flat nor stationary at typical battlefield ranges? Very rarely, if at all.

Originally Posted by mcv

Also interesting to note is that the average Napoleonic musketeer didn't really shoot all that much. Reloading took too much time, so often they marched forward with loaded guns, fired a single volley, and then charged with bayonets. Muskets may have been more effective as spears than as firearms.

While it is true that many soldiers of the age did not receive much training or experience in accurate shooting and that there was a persistent meme in the French military that stereotypically resulted in weapons that were designed as better bayonet platform than missile weapons, we need to be careful about one myth here.

Actual hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets appear to have been exceptionally rare during the period in question. Some authors even believe it only happened, if at all, by accident or mismanagment.

In general, engagements were decided prior to the charge and the charge broke the spirits of the losing side. The bayonet charge almost never pressed home.

[SimonAce]

Originally Posted by mcv

That's true. Even in modern gunfights with accurate weapons, the vast majority of bullets never hits anything meaningful. It's only the specialist marksmen that actually hit stuff.

Its about 25% in police gunfights actually

Originally Posted by mcv

The main reasons why gunpowder weapons eventually replaced bows and crossbows is economic: any idiot can point a musket at a target, and muskets can be mass produced. And they scare horses. Crossbows are easier to use than bows, but at battles like Crecy, they lost because the longbow had a far higher rate of fire.

partially true. Crossbows are pricey -- and Crecy was lost because of tactics not weapons

Originally Posted by mcv

Historically, longbows did very well against plate armour.

Actually this is a myth

current test suggest that it was virtually impossible to penetrate plate even with a bodkin point and a 150LB war bow -- maybe at close range occasionally.

here is one test. There are many more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

GURPS does armor DR a disservice in the name of game balance

Originally Posted by mcv

So are GURPS stats wrong? I get the impression that crossbow stats definitely are. Light crossbows may be able to fire every couple of seconds, but they lack the range, damage or armour penetration of longbows or muskets. Heavier crossbows may rival or surpass longbows and muskets in range, damage and armour penetration, but they're very slow to reload.

Even so, it took a long time for firearms to really replace bows and crossbows. Arquebuses already existed during the late middle ages, but as far as I know, bows and crossbows remained in use well into the 17th century.

The musket was pretty universal after the 16th century -- only England used longbows (and only in small numbers)

Now there were a very few bows in use in in the early 17th century (they had a few at Jamestown) but as soon as the matchlock was made bows went away -- its cheap, easy to train, effective, reliable and as fast to shoot as a matchlock and you can carry lots more ammunition