Mounted Slingers

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

As has already been said, slings are good at penetrating flesh but useless against any kind of armour.

That would probably be some sort of piercing, since it can injure proportionally more than it penetrates (starting with pi+ and ending with a Vitals hit), as opposed to Crushing, which generally injures as well as it penetrates (with the optional ×1½ for kidney/vitals/etc. hits that I seem to be remembering from either old MA or a houserule).

[Ji ji]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

(with the optional ×1½ for kidney/vitals/etc. hits).

Interesting. I have several GURPS books (3ed. too) but didn't know this optional rule. x1.5 sounds a good solution for crushing vitals hits, but equally I wonder if a vital hit is as easy as with an impaling weapon, with the same -3 modifier. -5 suites better to me.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

Interesting. I have several GURPS books (3ed. too) but didn't know this optional rule. x1.5 sounds a good solution for crushing vitals hits, but equally I wonder if a vital hit is as easy as with an impaling weapon, with the same -3 modifier. -5 suites better to me.

Oh wait, the ×1½ seems to be a memory of some 3e rule (likely either MA, or a houserule). MA for G4e on p.137 allows vital hits at the usual -3 (kidneys from back, solar plexus from the front), but with the usual vital HT rolls.

[vierasmarius]

I've argued in the past for a damage threshold for at least piercing attacks that target the Vitals. Weak attacks that are canonically treated as piercing (BB guns and dart guns, in particular, but also slings) should need to deal some minimum amount of damage to penetrate deep enough for the more favorable Wound modifier. The same may also be true of Impaling attacks, but I'd give those a lower threshold; stabbing blades penetrate through sharpness, bullets penetrate more through brute force. If piercing attacks need to exceed 1/4 HP damage, a ST 10 man would need to roll 3 or better with a Sling (1d pi) to reach the vitals of an average unarmored man, while a Red Ryder BB Gun (1d-4 pi-) would only be able to do so on a Critical Hit. Throw on a fractional Armor Divisor (as was already suggested for slings, I believe) if you think that's still too high a chance, or just raise the threshold.

Another point that was raised is that Sling damage may be unrealistically high. We've got Douglas Cole's excellent Deadly Spring article to revamp bow damage, but no equivalent for other muscle-powered missile weapons. Tamer sling damage combined with a threshold for injuring the Vitals could shift their damage spectrum towards realism.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Another point that was raised is that Sling damage may be unrealistically high. We've got Douglas Cole's excellent Deadly Spring article to revamp bow damage, but no equivalent for other muscle-powered missile weapons. Tamer sling damage combined with a threshold for injuring the Vitals could shift their damage spectrum towards realism.

I think it is best to revamp the whole damage system, because partial fixes result in increasing imbalances between modified and unmodified weapons - like the slings vs. (cross)bows example.

[Ji ji]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I've argued in the past for a damage threshold for at least piercing attacks that target the Vitals. Weak attacks that are canonically treated as piercing (BB guns and dart guns, in particular, but also slings) should need to deal some minimum amount of damage to penetrate deep enough for the more favorable Wound modifier. The same may also be true of Impaling attacks, but I'd give those a lower threshold; stabbing blades penetrate through sharpness, bullets penetrate more through brute force. If piercing attacks need to exceed 1/4 HP damage, a ST 10 man would need to roll 3 or better with a Sling (1d pi) to reach the vitals of an average unarmored man, while a Red Ryder BB Gun (1d-4 pi-) would only be able to do so on a Critical Hit. Throw on a fractional Armor Divisor (as was already suggested for slings, I believe) if you think that's still too high a chance, or just raise the threshold.

Wonderful idea. I will apply it, only with an higher threshold.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I think it is best to revamp the whole damage system, because partial fixes result in increasing imbalances between modified and unmodified weapons - like the slings vs. (cross)bows example.

That's true. I didn't want to suggest such a radical change, but we're getting to the point where those desiring greater verisimilitude may find it necessary.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In the real world, the evidence that slings were ever used from horseback is, at best, spotty. To be charitable, that is. Another view is that there is no such evidence and that any mention of slings among mounted warriors refers to tertiary weapons that they might have used while dismounted.

One of the primary reasons why it is unlikely that any military would field mounted slingers is the obvious fact that horses are usually a fairly expensive piece of military gear. Slings, on the other hand, are generally used by those too poor to afford better weapons. So someone who can afford a horse can also afford a bow. While it is true that horses were not, comparatively speaking, as expensive among, for example, Amerinds after European contact as they were in the medieval world, they were still more expensive than a simple bow.

In addition to that economic reality, many authorities, ranging from airmchair experts to historians and hoplologists, have also pointed out that the sling requires more stability than other missile weapons to use. Accurate shooting on the move would be even harder with a sling than with bows or crossbows.

Some commentators also speculate that the position of a mounted man, seated behind the head of the horse, makes is difficult to use a sling effectively. Many common methods of use for the sling are precluded or made harder by the need to avoid hitting your mount in the head, which I understand is frowned upon by cavalrymen.

Generally, in GURPS, any condition which constrains the usages of a weapon and restricts the user to a limited subset of moves is represented mechanically by a penalty. Examples of such is the penalty to attack while using a shield or the effective penalty of defaulting a Sport skill to a Combat skill.

That's the real world, though. In GURPS, slings are hardly inferior to bows at all. In fact, for strong characters, they are superior to most firearms before TL6 and still competative with many common pistols at TL8. And it is no harder to use a sling while mounted than it is to use a carbine or pistol.

So there exists an incentive for players to have their characters use slings from horseback. Even, should they be so inclined, to learn Techniques that facilitate mounted slinging. Such characters can be explained as simply idiosyncratic or perhaps as coming from a culture where horses, perhaps captured from the wild, are plentiful whereas bows are unknown or at least somewhat rare.

At any rate, I am of the opion that if something is mechanically feasible, it works in the game world. So if something should not be done in the game, I'd like to have the rules back up the contention that it is a bad idea.

Intuitively, it seems right that it would be difficult to use a sling while seated on a horse. Granted, it is difficult to use any ranged weapon while on a moving horse, but it seems as if the position of a mounted man makes it particularly awkward to swing around a sling with any effect. At least bows don't hit your horse or yourself on the head if the slightest thing goes wrong.

I'll admit that I have little experience of riding, none at all of cavalry service and less than that of using real slings. I might, therefore, be wrong.

I appeal, therefore, to the forumites.

First of all, is it really harder to use a sling from horseback than it is to use other missile weapons?

Second, if so, how would one represent it mechanically? How much harder is it?

Third, can anyone recall if slings were used on horseback by any culture? For hunting or for war, doesn't matter.

Edit: I can't find an explicit reference that says so, but I've always assumed that the penalties for using handheld missile weapons from ground vehicles also applied to using them from mounts. This means a -1 on a good road, -3 on a bad one and -4 on rough terrain. Furthermore, I apply speed penalties whenever the attacker is moving anywhere else but directly at or from his target.

Neither of these penalties is mentioned in the section on mounted shooting in Basic (p. 397) or in MA, but if I didn't apply them, there would essentially be no penalty in using any kind of missile weapon from a galloping horse, except the minor one of not being allowed to Aim for more than one turn and being limited to your Riding skill.

So a character with skill 12 in both Riding and his chosen missile weapon would be equally effective shooting from a stationary horse, while standing on the ground or while galloping over broken ground. In all cases, he'd be shooting at a rate of 15 arrows or sling stones per minute and his effective skill would be (12+Acc-Range).

There would thus be no need to learn the techniques Horse Archery or Mounted Shooting, because there were no penalties to reduce with it. No penalties, that is, unless you planned to turn in the saddle and shoot or hang from the side of your mount, neither of which is standard for all cultures using missile weapons from mounts. Not applying these penalties means that any character with the Riding and Bow skills would be as effective in normal service in the role of a mounted archer as a specialist who has learned how from childhood how to shoot from horseback. And that's bollocks.

Honestly I suspect they just didn't get around to it. Several perfectly feasible technical arrangements just didn't get noticed. I often wondered why some prince didn't think,"Hey those peasants from Bayonne had a great idea! Why do my musketers always have to have have so many great big guys holding giant sticks as backup when I could double their firepower and make sure they don't run from every stupid fool on a horse at the same time. Why not just fasten a knife to the end of everyone's musket?" But of course it took, what, two hundred years for that?

For myself what I wondered is why no one used slings as a sidearm? Or as a ranged weapon to suppliment heavy infantry, in a role similar to a Pilum. Slings are lightweight and easily carried; they don't make a bother of themselves on the march like a Pilum does. You can just wrap it around your belt and fasten it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Honestly I suspect they just didn't get around to it. Several perfectly feasible technical arrangements just didn't get noticed. I often wondered why some prince didn't think,"Hey those peasants from Bayonne had a great idea! Why do my musketers always have to have have so many great big guys holding giant sticks as backup when I could double their firepower and make sure they don't run from every stupid fool on a horse at the same time. Why not just fasten a knife to the end of everyone's musket?" But of course it took, what, two hundred years for that?

While there have been instances in history of inexplicable bloody-minded resistance to innovation, in the long run, if something works well enough so that people with it have a much easier time killing people without it, it gets adopted by every military power capable of fielding it.

Slings weren't used for war just two hundred years. Horses and slings have some thousands of years of coexistence as weapons of war. If combining them was practical and effective in combat, the overwhelming odds are that it would have been done.

My guess for why it wasn't done is that it's partly that slings aren't as effective as bows in reality, as opposed to GURPS rules. And if you can afford a horse, you can afford a better ranged weapon than sling. But I also think it would take much more training and experience to get good at using a sling from a horse than it would for a bow.*

But as evidenced by this thread, not everyone shares this view. GURPS authors who have chimed in have encouraged me to simply use the normal mounted shooting rules. While that would be simple, I'm still not convinced that accurate slinging from a galloping horse ought to be that easy. At the very least, an extra penalty that could be partially bought off with Perks and/or Techniques would help explain why no culture seems to have had any kind of mounted sling tradition.**

*Which is hard enough, though. Mounted archery is frightfully hard to do well and you really need to recruit people from a culture of horsemanship and archery, unless you have almost unlimited time and resources for training.
**Well, Hannes did point out the intriguing example he saw on BBC, on which I'm still looking for more detail. If I could find evidence that using slings from horseback has been done successfully somewhere (meaning with any kind of accuracy, particularly while the horse is mobile), I'd feel much easier about allowing it without obscene penalties.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

For myself what I wondered is why no one used slings as a sidearm? Or as a ranged weapon to suppliment heavy infantry, in a role similar to a Pilum. Slings are lightweight and easily carried; they don't make a bother of themselves on the march like a Pilum does. You can just wrap it around your belt and fasten it.

The Romans did both, on occasion. Legionaries and later East Roman soldiers would sometimes get some training with the sling as a back-up, sidearm and general-purpose skirmish weapon. Those of them who hadn't grown up playing with one probably couldn't hit much, but then again, it wasn't as if ranged combat was their primary purpose.

Granted, this was much less common than thrown weapons like the pila and plumbatae, but that's because of what I was maintaining earlier in this thread, i.e. that training men to become effective with thrown weapons is much easier and cheaper than teaching them to become slingers and archers.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

While there have been instances in history of inexplicable bloody-minded resistance to innovation, in the long run, if something works well enough so that people with it have a much easier time killing people without it, it gets adopted by every military power capable of fielding it.

Slings weren't used for war just two hundred years. Horses and slings have some thousands of years of coexistence as weapons of war. If combining them was practical and effective in combat, the overwhelming odds are that it would have been done.

Not sure coexistence necessarily means proper use. Domesticated horses and warfare coexisted since, what, 4500 BC? And they [stirrups] became seriously used in Europe around, what, 600 CE?