Why short bow instead of long bow?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Yes. And the game master is free to give any appropriate penalty to any roll...

So, there are times where longbows are more crippling than effective.

True, but I was wondering if Gurps, or other posters with experience in using bow in the field, has such rules/suggestions.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Usually they'd be used because you just don't need the power of a longer bow (hunting), or because the materials you have (horn, for example) might not be available super-long, or because you want to use it on horseback.

Using your spreadsheet I could squeeze out the same damage for a short bow as a man tall long bow... well for my SM+1 "men" at least.

But cost is always important, I agree.

[Flyndaran]

In all, I just thought there might be an advantage to sneaking/running around with a less cumbersome bow.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Bulk penalty occurs when using a move and attack.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

In all, I just thought there might be an advantage to sneaking/running around with a less cumbersome bow.

By RAW, Bulk only applies when making a Move & Attack or trying to hide a weapon, but it would make logical sense to apply it (or some value derived from it) in other situations where a bulky weapon is a disadvantage.

[Polydamas]

Usually, short self bows are used by people who mostly shoot small or medium game, or use poison, and don't have a plentiful supply of good bow wood handy. If you have lots of ash and yew around, and you often hunt deer and bear, then a long self bow looks attractive. If good wood isn't available, or you mostly hunt rabbits, then something shorter looks better.

In the real world, what type of weapon to use wasn't an abstract consideration of all options, but "of the two types of bow available locally, which will best meet my needs?" Having a good idea of what kit is available where can be a useful flavour tool for a GM.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Using your spreadsheet I could squeeze out the same damage for a short bow as a man tall long bow... well for my SM+1 "men" at least.

But cost is always important, I agree.

One thing you might want to watch out for is that a shorter bow will have to be somewhat thicker, and there comes a point where a thick bow is difficult to grasp. At that point, you need a non-working handle so you can comfortably wrap fingers around it, which effectively lengthens the bow.

That's likely "well into GURPS resolution" type stuff, though.

One thing that should be true is that the short, fat limbs will need to deflect more to achieve full draw, therefore a short bow should be less efficient than a longer one.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

One thing you might want to watch out for is that a shorter bow will have to be somewhat thicker, and there comes a point where a thick bow is difficult to grasp. At that point, you need a non-working handle so you can comfortably wrap fingers around it, which effectively lengthens the bow.

That's likely "well into GURPS resolution" type stuff, though.

One thing that should be true is that the short, fat limbs will need to deflect more to achieve full draw, therefore a short bow should be less efficient than a longer one.

You couldn't just wrap a bottomless cup shape around the handle part to hold if too thick?
Either way, if the spreadsheet covers it then I got it. Does any of what you said require adjusting of the sheet's output?

While I have you here, I notice that the sheet put's pi instead of pi+ even though the arrow shaft is greater than the required 0.4" thickness from the article on target/flight arrows.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You couldn't just wrap a bottomless cup shape around the handle part to hold if too thick?
Either way, if the spreadsheet covers it then I got it. Does any of what you said require adjusting of the sheet's output?

While I have you here, I notice that the sheet put's pi instead of pi+ even though the arrow shaft is greater than the required 0.4" thickness from the article on target/flight arrows.

Point. I didn't put that into the sheet, so you'll have to keep it in mind for yourself.

Nothing I said before requires adjusting the sheet's output, although if you had an 8" non-working handle on (say) an 80" bow, you'd need to change the working percentage to 90%.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Usually they'd be used because you just don't need the power of a longer bow (hunting), or because the materials you have (horn, for example) might not be available super-long, or because you want to use it on horseback.

Didn't samurai bows (which are used from horseback) count as Long Bows for stats? (Edit: it isn't; it's actually Composite by stats, which is better but more expensive; see below.)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Didn't samurai bows (which are used from horseback) count as Long Bows for stats?

Have you seen one? It's an asymmetric bow, which is long on top and short on the bottom, just so it can be used in the open on horseback. it's very much the defining feature of the bow.

So yeah, they get longbow stats, and reduced bulk when used on horseback, but full bulk when used anywhere vertical clearance matters.