Are arrows prices too low?

[Sam Baughn]

I've been reading Richard Wadge's Arrowstorm and he includes quite a lot of information about the economics of supplying English bowmen with their equipment during the Hundred Years War, including a great deal of data on the surviving records of prices paid for bows and arrows.

Obviously there was considerable variation in prices, but it seems that on average you could expect to get about thirty arrows for the cost of a bow in England during this period. Given that these were bows intended for military use in a nation which favoured longbows, these were almost certainly longbows.

However, by the prices given in the Basic set and Low-Tech, you can get a hundred arrows for the cost of a longbow. The fact that prices for bows and arrows weren't changed between the Basic Set and Low-Tech makes me think that nobody actually thought to review the prices of these items. Of course, I could be entirely wrong; it's quite possible that in other times and other places the relative cost of arrows was significantly lower.

However, if the numbers in Arrowstorm are actually typical, I think that it would be more accurate to charge at least $6 per arrow.

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

I've been reading Richard Wadge's Arrowstorm and he includes quite a lot of information about the economics of supplying English bowmen with their equipment during the Hundred Years War, including a great deal of data on the surviving records of prices paid for bows and arrows.

Obviously there was considerable variation in prices, but it seems that on average you could expect to get about thirty arrows for the cost of a bow in England during this period. Given that these were bows intended for military use in a nation which favoured longbows, these were almost certainly longbows.

However, by the prices given in the Basic set and Low-Tech, you can get a hundred arrows for the cost of a longbow. The fact that prices for bows and arrows weren't changed between the Basic Set and Low-Tech makes me think that nobody actually thought to review the prices of these items. Of course, I could be entirely wrong; it's quite possible that in other times and other places the relative cost of arrows was significantly lower.

However, if the numbers in Arrowstorm are actually typical, I think that it would be more accurate to charge at least $6 per arrow.

Maybe they thought that in a game system based on a universal concept they should not limit their arrow prices to a specific time period in medieval England. You are of course free to set whatever prices you want in your world. Beauty of the system.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Pagan

Maybe they thought that in a game system based on a universal concept they should not limit their arrow prices to a specific time period in medieval England.

I really doubt that. Perhaps the $2 price is right, perhaps it's wrong, but I am quite sure it wasn't chosen for some supposed "universality".
My guess would be that they set the prices for arrows in the late eighties when GURPS was first published, they decided it was $2 because for no particular reason, and nobody ever considered checking or changing it...

You are of course free to set whatever prices you want in your world. Beauty of the system.

As much as I love GURPS, I have to say that you can set whatever prices you want in ANY game system. That's hardly a feature of GURPS.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

However, if the numbers in Arrowstorm are actually typical, I think that it would be more accurate to charge at least $6 per arrow.

Then you should do so. Reality testing is one of the great meta-rules of GURPS.

I have to say that prices were not a significant focus of the Low-Tech playtest. There aren't really good historical data on prices for a lot of things; what there are aren't always easy to find; and in any case GURPS $ are a pretty much notional unit. As long as the price ratios aren't hopelessly unrealistic (say, gold being cheaper than fired clay, or meat costing a third as much as potatoes), the results will probably be closed enough for typical non-economic-modeling games. If you actually want to do economic modeling, you should research the particular period you want to know about.

Bill

[Dustin]

One of the secrets of English success -- they were issuing Fine arrows to the troops! +1 damage, $6 per arrow.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I have to say that prices were not a significant focus of the Low-Tech playtest.

For good reason, the price of weapons found in LT is the price for that weapon at any TL (in Gurps $). Prices only for LT would be a violation of basic 4e principles. The price stays the same, it'ss tartign wealth that chnges by the TL.

On the other hand, if we do our research for a time and place where the Gurps $ is relatively close to the the US dollar (i.e here and now) we get this....

http://www.tollgatearchery.com/arrow_price_list.htm

......which has what looks like basic, non-feature-added hunting arrows for 70 US dollars a dozen.

[gjc8]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

For good reason, the price of weapons found in LT is the price for that weapon at any TL (in Gurps $). Prices only for LT would be a violation of basic 4e principles. The price stays the same, it'ss tartign wealth that chnges by the TL.

This doesn't fix problems of relative pricing. The OP is complaining that arrows cost too much relative to bows. Changing starting wealth would not change that.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by gjc8

This doesn't fix problems of relative pricing. The OP is complaining that arrows cost too much relative to bows. Changing starting wealth would not change that.

In principle, we could have fixed that. We would have had to define the "arrows" in the Basic Set as some sort of low end arrows that aren't as expensive as the good arrows used in a military setting, but that's been done for other things.

In practice, it just wasn't a big priority for us. Painstaking accuracy about the price of one commodity when huge numbers of other commodities are at "close enough" prices seems pointless. And trying to acquire the data for a roughly correct set of prices good in any historical era would be a huge undertaking.

Bill Stoddard

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by gjc8

This doesn't fix problems of relative pricing. The OP is complaining that arrows cost too much relative to bows. Changing starting wealth would not change that.

Um, the OP was complaining that arrows cost too little relative to bows, not too much.

It makes sense that hunting arrows could cost $2 and war arrows would cost $6, use current stats for war arrows and giving hunting arrows a (0.5) armor divisor and we're good to go.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Dustin

One of the secrets of English success -- they were issuing Fine arrows to the troops! +1 damage, $6 per arrow.

That is not necessarily wrong.

Also, note that typical longbow arrows are longer and heavier than the arrows GURPS assumes.

It's not unreasonable to say that arrows that weigh three times as much would cost three times as much, after all.