Third slot overhaul

[Gustav Kuriga]

I never spoke of removing existing horse archers, whom are in the vein of Mongol and Turk horse archers. I argued against creating a system within the the combat engine for dismounting of infantry or archers within the field of battle.

Why? Even Pre-Marian Rome had mounted infantry. Mounted infantry has existed since the beginning of warfare, before dragoons were formed.

[De-Legro]

Why? Even Pre-Marian Rome had mounted infantry. Mounted infantry has existed since the beginning of warfare, before dragoons were formed.

Whom just as I mentioned rode to battle, but did not as dragoons do remount during battle for tactical purposes. Hell the Roman infantry you refer to didn't even ride the horse, they clung to the saddle of cavalry units.

I am all for equipment that speeds marching timrs of non cab units, I argue against specific changes to the battle engine to simulate rapid redeployment of said forces during the battle.

[silvershot]

I never spoke of removing existing horse archers, whom are in the vein of Mongol and Turk horse archers. I argued against creating a system within the the combat engine for dismounting of infantry or archers within the field of battle.

My apologies, I think I just misunderstood you. Yes, I agree. But I didn't expect that sort of change anyway; more just modifying the effectiveness of a longbow + horse to simulate any of the following:

1) It's a long bow specifically designed for use on Horseback (like Japan) where it loses draw power
2) It's a european longbow style, which is just damn hard to use on horseback (though not technically impossible, just not all that useful)
3) They act as dragoons; so they don't really get as much of a defensive benefit versus a short bow who can stay mounted, or cavalry who can stay mounted. In the current system, I imagine that's like reducing the defensive bonus. With the proposed changes that may factor in range, they could just get into range sooner -- maybe not a good use of horses, because they're more likely to be lost and don't provide much of a defense boost for the longbowmen, who are going to be the first to get into range anyway. I wasn't expecting ACTUAL mechanics for mounting and dismounting... That'd be super difficult to implement. Just something loosely abstracting it.

Appropriately weakening mounted longbowmen really could fit into abstracting any of these cases. I'd definitely like to see mounted longbowmen generally inferior than most other options, but maybe someone will find a place for them.

I hope that clarifies my view, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.

[De-Legro]

My apologies, I think I just misunderstood you. Yes, I agree. But I didn't expect that sort of change anyway; more just modifying the effectiveness of a longbow + horse to simulate any of the following:

1) It's a long bow specifically designed for use on Horseback (like Japan) where it loses draw power
2) It's a european longbow style, which is just damn hard to use on horseback (though not technically impossible, just not all that useful)
3) They act as dragoons; so they don't really get as much of a defensive benefit versus a short bow who can stay mounted, or cavalry who can stay mounted. In the current system, I imagine that's like reducing the defensive bonus. With the proposed changes that may factor in range, they could just get into range sooner -- maybe not a good use of horses, because they're more likely to be lost and don't provide much of a defense boost for the longbowmen, who are going to be the first to get into range anyway. I wasn't expecting ACTUAL mechanics for mounting and dismounting... That'd be super difficult to implement. Just something loosely abstracting it.

Appropriately weakening mounted longbowmen really could fit into abstracting any of these cases. I'd definitely like to see mounted longbowmen generally inferior than most other options, but maybe someone will find a place for them.

I hope that clarifies my view, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.

Hmm I have previously spent hours and days trying to find any comparison of draw strength for Japanese longbows vs English, so far as I can work out no real evidence exists to support either side of the argument, and runs into various topics like just how important is draw strength, what type of arrow is being used, velocity vs impulse etc. It would seem the question of comparisons of range and killing/penetration power is really an unknown.

If I was to consider implementing your list, I would also want to add things like recursive vows and compound bows so that you have a far more effective "short bow" option. Then again we need to rename short bow anyway since it is a D&D designation that has little correlation to real world weapons.

[Constantine]

Do we really need to overcomplicate though? I don't think we need half a dozen bow types, each with distinctive stats. Two types would be more than enough: a very strong bow that can't be used on horseback and a weaker versatile bow. Doesn't matter if they have D&D names or not.

[De-Legro]

Do we really need to overcomplicate though? I don't think we need half a dozen bow types, each with distinctive stats. Two types would be more than enough: a very strong bow that can't be used on horseback and a weaker versatile bow. Doesn't matter if they have D&D names or not.

Why? Why can we not have powerful bows on horse back?

[Andre]

Well if we go by what De-Legro said then we would only have four bow types, with one being the crossbow. Longbow, Compound Bow, Recurve Bow and Crossbow. Though I don't think compound bows would really fit though right? Seems more logical to have Longbows, Recurve bows and Crossbows.

[De-Legro]

Well if we go by what De-Legro said then we would only have four bow types, with one being the crossbow. Longbow, Compound Bow, Recurve Bow and Crossbow. Though I don't think compound bows would really fit though right? Seems more logical to have Longbows, Recurve bows and Crossbows.

I probably mean composite bows not compound bows. My list currently is

Self Bow
Long self bow (or just longbow)
recurve bow
composite bow (my understanding is almost all composite bows are recurve bows, but not all recurve bows where composite)

Also wondering if there is any benefit to having multiple sized crossbows.

[Andre]

Why not just go with the recurve bow then and skip the composite bow if almost all composites were also recuverves?


And I don't think adding different crossbow sizes will do much. Beyond maybe a ballista that could either be some kind of construction that you can build several off once that is implemented, and which can then be used by archers. Or maybe a weapon that makes the user a permanent militia unit which can't be mobilised maybe. What you can add however would be the repeating crossbow, that might be worthwhile.

[De-Legro]

Why not just go with the recurve bow then and skip the composite bow if almost all composites were also recuverves?


And I don't think adding different crossbow sizes will do much. Beyond maybe a ballista that could either be some kind of construction that you can build several off once that is implemented, and which can then be used by archers. Or maybe a weapon that makes the user a permanent militia unit which can't be mobilised maybe. What you can add however would be the repeating crossbow, that might be worthwhile.

At the moment size doesn't matter, but if/when factors like range and fire rate are added it well might. Also light crossbows can be armed using arm strength alone, and thus are suitable for use on horse back, while heavy crossbows are not.

[silvershot]

Hmm I have previously spent hours and days trying to find any comparison of draw strength for Japanese longbows vs English, so far as I can work out no real evidence exists to support either side of the argument, and runs into various topics like just how important is draw strength, what type of arrow is being used, velocity vs impulse etc. It would seem the question of comparisons of range and killing/penetration power is really an unknown.

If I was to consider implementing your list, I would also want to add things like recursive vows and compound bows so that you have a far more effective "short bow" option. Then again we need to rename short bow anyway since it is a D&D designation that has little correlation to real world weapons.

Excellent point... I don't know enough about the Japanese bows, other than some conjecture that they've slightly less penetration power. I'll try to see if there's any merit for it. (Could just be justification for tradeoffs between mounting and foot, or in reality I'm just curious now).