11-26-2008, 04:30 AM | #101 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-26-2008, 06:36 AM | #102 | |
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Philippines, Makati
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Quote:
Surviving gear usually come in the exceptional kind. Even if surviving examples that give draw weights from 110-190lbs would be the best way to determine the most common performance level. Especially when these artifacts are mostly found in tombs of exceptional persons. The common professional archer would have nothing of him remaining, unless some historian had something to say. If I could use the strategikon to gauge the average 6th century byzantine archer, i'd peg him at around 70lbs. (from the factor of resources, how training is implemented, and who trained in bows). It can't exactly judge the difference between the Byzants and the English when it comes to archery but if we can deduce from their economic status they must have been pretty good since they had a land allowance, assigned servants and over their annual salary. My mistake on the second part. |
|
11-26-2008, 08:38 AM | #103 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Quote:
I just don't think a ST 15 hickory shortbow and a ST 15 yew longbow will achieve the same effect. The latter will be much more efficient than the former. The same goes for a long ST 15 composite recurve, which will be more efficient still. Quote:
High-Tech notes that it's impossible to apply the 'Compound' modifier to Composite Bows. I'm not sure I agree with that, as actual compound bows are made out of very light and stiff materials that allow it superior energy efficiency. I'd actuall say that compound bows were Composite Bows that gave the benefit of +2 ST. Many compound bows let off up to 50% of the draw weight at full draw. This makes aiming much easier. I wouldn't assess a seperate Acc increase for it. I'd just say it's a precondition of the attachment of sighting systems and aiming aids.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||
11-26-2008, 09:24 AM | #104 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Quote:
A man capable of using a warbow of that size would be a remarkable specialist, not a common soldier. All sources agree on the impossibility of training such men and the fact that few other countries were able to field so many of them. It's not that the English bow was fundamentally different from other bows. It's rather that archery became a common pursuit and the strength to draw large bows was especially valued. The culture encouraged the development of a large pool of very accomplished archers that focused on heavier bows than cultures that did not have to face heavy armour on the battlefied. The tactical realities dictated that a bow much under 100lb draw weight would not be useful at typical battlefield ranges. In order to have a chance to penetrate the padded jacks and maille of typical men-at-arms, warbows needed tremendous draw weight. Quote:
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||
11-26-2008, 10:34 AM | #105 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Quote:
I agree that most horse archers used bows well under 100 lbs draw. In GURPS terms, you can buy Fast Draw, Bow skill, and techniques instead of ST to be a different kind of elite archer.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
11-26-2008, 02:30 PM | #106 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Surviving Scandinavian longbows are virtually indistinguishable from later English ones. Strickland argues that any self bow that was intended to be used on the battlefield averaged 100+ lbs regardless of the culture that deployed it. Only civilian bows were lighter. The weapon has seen constant use with minor changes since the Neolithic period. The only real difference is the way the English deployed it on the battlefield. It was the tactics, not the technology, that gave them the advantage.
Last edited by DanHoward; 11-26-2008 at 02:35 PM. |
11-26-2008, 03:17 PM | #107 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Quote:
;P |
|
11-26-2008, 09:00 PM | #108 | |||
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Philippines, Makati
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
An interesting in the strategikon is the mention of using lighter bows to practice accuracy, heavier bows to train strength, and always choosing the bow well suited for the archer's accuracy in battle.
Quote:
On my proposition for the common professional archer, Quote:
Quote:
If 100-150lbs War Bow draw is expected from good quality troops, what would that be in Gurps ST? (I've not made the stat conversion of late). |
|||
11-26-2008, 09:36 PM | #109 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Quote:
__________________
Hydration is key |
|
11-26-2008, 09:41 PM | #110 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
|
Re: Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy
Quote:
but 2* BL gives only 40 LBS for average guy.. 8*BL - two handed lift could be closer. If a standard (min strenght 11) longbow is 100LBS an average guy could barely draw it fully - giving -1 to hit. ST 11 is enough for 150LBS bows with no problem then.. However GURPS bows hit max damage only at thrust+4 so the upper tolerance for longbow would be strenght 17 and for composite bow strength 15.. 15 is BL 45lbs - so let's say pulling a bow to absolute maximum is BL*4 - while the min strenght is BL*8 - so 100 to 150 LBS bows would be usable fors trenght 10 to 14 for composite bows and 10 to 17 for longbows - anyone ower ST 14 is going to need a special (over 150lbs) bow to get full use off strenght with composite bows and for longbows - likely just longer arrows - well ST 18 archer would need special longbow.. So the tolerance of longbows would be pretty big - different arrows could compensate for different users.For quality troops I'd expect ST 13 to 15 with all the bonuses from perks arms strenght lifting strength etc.. Base ST 11 to begin with should not be hard to come by by just selecting big guys, two to 4 points of arm/lifting ST should be trainable pretty easily. (HPs and striking strength part would be much harder to train..) http://www.mrfizzix.com/archery/bow.html Yup - the draw force needed to draw a non compound bow increases the longer the bow is drawn - so people with lover strength simply draw the bows a bit less. For recurve bows the draw curve is mentioned to be pretty much straight - so for straight bows it's upward rising curve. Last edited by JAW; 11-26-2008 at 09:54 PM. |
|
Tags |
bow, crossbow, low-tech, missile weapons |
|
|