archery

[UBIK]

ok in most games i've played, being an archer sucked ass, now with arcanity, will an archer be just as good as a warrior like in real life how one well placed arrow will kill or almoust kill someone?

[UBIK]

im still waiting......

[Slitherrr]

Archers are cool, that's all there is to it, being able to pick off enemies from a distance without taking damage yourself is always fun. I think that the archer should be king in open areas, when he has plenty of time to knock off the guys before they get to him, but should not be so cool in the cramped quarters of a cave, dungeon, castle, whatever. And make the range realistic... I remember in AC the range was limited by your targetting, so even if you had more than a certain skill, you couldn't shoot to your potential because you couldn't target it, and since the targetting range was rather close...

[Wrentia]

There are no classes in Arcanity. I would imagine archery is part of the melee skills....of course the skill should be affected by your dex/agil/int/wis (dex and agil are obvious, int for determining angle of release, and wisdom for knowing how to play the winds).

Although arrows work well against unarmored and lightly armored creatures, arrows bounce off plate armor with anything weaker than a crossbow (which have awful reload times, and sometimes takes 2 people to load...)

To very large cratures, arrows are nothing more than a accupuncture session.

-Wrentia

[Uncle Dukey]

One shot kills as an archer in heavily PvP game is not a good idea. I personally don't know how exactly the combat system works in this game, but getting sniped and killed in one shot by people you can or can't see is obviously bad for gameplay :D

[toray]

I must agree with Dukey. No matter how much we all harp on realism in combat, it's not possible in a game like this. One blow from virtually any weapon will end a real fight between unarmored people. But it's hard to have an epic struggle with a dragon if that dragon simply steps on you and ends the fight.

So we bow to gameplay, and decide that in this world, for whatever reason, it takes a lot to drop a hero. We are protected by magic, which throws realism out the window to begin with. After that, all we can hope for is internal consistency.

I do hope that the various skills will cost a various amount to train, and that the benefit from each skill is directly related to the cost of that skill. Asheron's Call is having some huge balance issues (in part because their magic system is incompatible with their melee system, having been designed later and seperately), in part because the most expensive weapon (Sword) is less useful than many of the far less expensive weapons (such as unarmed combat). Internal consistency, and careful attention to such balance issues can make or break a game for me. I enjoy AC and will continue to play it - up until the game that I really want to play comes out. And at that point I won't look back. I don't know what that game will be, yet, but gameplay issues are going to be crucial for me. I will try Arcanity, I will try DAoC, I will try UO2, I will try Horizons... and we'll see where things go.

[UBIK]

well, to get back to realism... arrows dont fly nearly as fast as bullets, you can see arrows flying at you, you can see where they are comming from, therefor, a "camper" could get 1 pick before he is persued, arrows in medievel time easy peirced threw heavy armour, the british or whatever they were called, took on france with about 10th or less percent of the french's army and still beat the crap out of them. all because of the long bows


back to "fake-ism".... ok its easly figured out that a person is gonna die with an arrow stuck in his head, now maybe 3 or more arrow shots to certain parts of the body will kill someone, if someone got shot in the chest with an arrow he might live, but 3 shots in the chest he's out of there, so a system like that would make it harder to pick off people from "camping" spots,

[UBIK]

rich? rolfe?.... lamont?

[Cynycal]

i do think that archers should be better than in most games i've played...(an archer being somebody that uses a bow)...and i'm sure that you guys can handle it..

[KirosBlade]

personally, i love bows/crossbows in games and think that an insanely skilled person with a bow should be able enough to, for example, hit someone in the throat with an arrow at a decent distance, but of course you couldnt do that EVERY time you try to. marksmanship would rock, but it shouldnt be too powerful

[Wrentia]

That we are roleplaying some kind of hero. Hero's just don't die from an arrow to the throat....They are way to lucky/skillful/friendly with their diety/protected...for that kind of thing. However in non-PVP situations when shooting an arror at something easily killed, then perhaps that 1 shot kill could fire off....just a thought

-Wrentia

[UBIK]

wrentia, how many hero's have you met that have been shot in the kneck with a firey arrow and lived......not to many, eh?

[Slitherrr]

Well, Ubik, how many heroes do you know who have been shot in the neck at all? It's a rare occasion, because it's too quick a death for a heroic character. Heroic characters die heroically, and causing them to die in such an ignominous fashion usually doesn't make the readers too happy.

[UBIK]

hehehe, i think that guy i just shot in Theif was supposed to be a heroic dude.... just one more reason to some sort of neck armour

[Thirty]

Real world bows:
Shortbow- All wood bow made by more primitave bow makers, all wood construction, not terribly powerfull or long ranged, cheap and easy to make, easy to use (relativly speaking) in that it doenst need great practice to at least point and shoot (hitting anything is another matter). Could also include larger but not well made bows. Middling range.
Longbow- All wood bow, rather large, power rather dependant on the quality of wood used to make it (spanish yew is best, one reason the longbowman dissapeared is the Spanish cut off their yew suppy and English yew was inferior). About 70 pounds pull, and it takes a lot of practice to pull that and thus even use one of these using the European 3 finger draw. Range 240 effective, 360 with special flight arrows and method of shooting (thats max by the best archers and bows). Takes good skill to use because you can only hold it at full draw for a second.
Japanese yumi- Another longbow of semi composite construction, and thus a little more efficient in the way it turns pounds pulled to arrow velocity (so it hits a little harder, pound for pound, although many were a bit less than longbows on the poundage side). Used with a special glove with the string behind the thumb and a finger to lock down the thumb. This method allows somewhat stronger bows to be used, but takes more skill to hit anything. Used with a special draw that goes behind the head, rather than the usual to the face type of draw. This allows eceptionally long, heavy arrows, but takes a lot more skill to actually hit anything (only the Japanese used this long draw method). Designed to fire eceptionally long, heavy arrows a medium distance with a flat trejactory. Good for use against armor, if you have worked at it enough to actually hit anything.
Composite bow- Made of very little wood and a lot of horn and sinew supplying the main power. Quality and power entirely dependant on the skill used to make it, veries from average to the best made bows on earth (Turkish bows of maybe 2-400 years ago, this skill has largly or completly died out). Usually found all over oriental cultures, of varying quality. Uses a thumb ring, same as the glove method of the Japanese but a little more efficient and a bit harder to use. Power is higher than longbows, 100 pounders are common, 150 is seen, even a few 200 around. They are the most efficeint bows around, turning poundage into arrow velocity, although this depends entirly on the quality of construction. Ranges depend on the bow, but the longest bowshot in history is a Turkish Sultan to over 800 yards (legendary bow and archer, special super light flight arrow and method). The thumbring method allows smaller bows to be fired, thus they tend to be smaller, though some were large, this allowed them to be used from horsback. Note that the size of the bow does not determine the size of arrow, or the power of the bow, at least not for well made composite bows (real well made ones are quite rare though, thus larger bows might be needed to fire large arrows if you cant score a really good bow). Size of bows and arrows was highly variable, the smallest being the Turkish, because they made the best ones, with their arrows being slightly shorter because the bowman were smaller. These bows take a lot of skill to use, especially the more powerfull ones. The one thing that is hardest is stringing them, the very powerfull ones take strength and great skill just to string them, because no bow can always be carried around strung and ready to use without going bad on you (we are not talking modern fiberglass bows with modern string here, which can stay strung forever). Getting a really well made composite bow isnt easy, unlike say longbows, which are comparitivly easy to make (if you can get the proper wood). The best composite bows could take a year or more to make, requiring a very skilled craftsman and carefully selected components. These bows are more suseptable to damp than wooden bows or yumis. Being a bit more powerfull than longbows these may be better at penatrating than longbows, though crossbows are still better. One big advantage is, composite bows are usually shorter, lighter, and handier than longbows.
Crossbows, simple- Primitive crossbows, all wood usually, very easy to use, not very hard hitting, a bit slow, and not long ranged. Most crossbows can stay strung forever, due to their very thick strings, unlike bows which must be strung before battle.
Crossbow, composite- Usually use some form of composite bowstock, not as efficient as the bow types but thick and powerfull (although a rather long wood one might be seen). Hard hitting, long range (say 300 yards effective) Usually 150-say 500 pounds pull), very easy to use, quite heavy (much heavier than a bow). Speed depending on the method used to draw it, usually 3-4 shots a minute. Some used a sturrup for the foot and you pull it up with both hands, some a pulley type thing, the best is the goats foot lever, an arrown stirrup that slides over some nocks on the bow to pull back the string. Speed is maybe 4 shots a minute, compared to bows 6-12 shots per minute (15 aimed shots for a very well trained Turkish archer using a special method).
Crossbow, steel- Bow made of spring steel, even heavier than the composite above. Pounds pull maybe 600, usually using the goats foot lever. Same speed as above, greater range and power (mostly power) than above. Easy to use, expensive to make. Can penatrate chain and heavy padding easily at short range, and plate if they hit square.
Crossbow, steel, windlass- A very powerfull crossbow with steel bow, using a windlass device to pull the string, taking 1 whole minute to load and shoot one bolt. About 1000-1200 pounds pull, and so heavy that it was only used in seiges (too slow for the field anyway). Range of max 380 yards at 45 degrees elevation using a war bolt. defiatly penatrates plate at short range, and probably even medium range.
Cranequin steel crossbow- A small steel bowed crossbow wound up by a cranequin that took 1 1/2 minutes to load and shoot one bolt. Maybe about the same power as the composite crossbow above, but much smaller and lighter, and used only by horse mounted crosobowman (rather rarely).A very expensive toy.
Repeating crossbow- Oriental (chinese mostly), shoots light bolts with low power, usefull on unarmored enemy (usually used for riot control, often poisoned). Shoots 10 arrows in 15 seconds, but then must be reloaded.

[Edited by Thirty on 10-14-2000 at 11:48 PM]

[Thirty]

OK, now that I've got THAT out of the way, what effect did these bows have?
Lets take a generic longbow, against say gothic plate. This armor is designed to ward off lances, so its surface is hardened and it is made to delect pointy stuff away. The areas which are harder to deflect from are made a bit thicker. Under the surface hardened layer is semi soft iron. At medium range, if an arrow hits, it may defelect. If it hits square, it will penatrate, but usually not too far (although it is possible to one shot a knight with luck). So a longbowman can kill a knight, but it will take several shots usually that hit and penatrate. At long range its less likely to penatrate (though not impossible if your very lucky), the usual target here is the horse (which is harder to armor). At short range it is possible to one shot kill, though sometimes only a wound (a bit more serious wound than the medium range shot).
Agianst mail armor, the longbow may kill at medium range, or wound, and will definatly penatrate at short range, long range it will not likely penatrate, especially if the mail is rienforced with padding or felt (which absorbes some of the arrows force) .
Against armor of small plates laced together or rivited to leather (like brigintine, or various oriental armors) it wont glace off, but will have a harder time penatrating than against chain. This is because piercing works good against chain, going through the links, and because the flexability of this kind of armor absobes some of the force of the arrow before it gets to penatrate. This may explain the popularity of this kind of armor in the orient, where good bows are common. This kind of armor might be as good as plate at medium and long ranges against arrows, with the drawback that a lance will have a much easier time penatrating than against plate (since it can push between the plates).
Heavy padded armor works about the same as the above, but padding this thick can only cover the body and maybe upper arms, and tends to wear out.
The more powerfull crossbows will penatrate plate enough to kill at short range, although with their slow speed you may only get one shot, so you better make it a good one.

Now about historically, lets take say Enlish versus French at Crecy. First, the French aristocratic knights had to set up camp, let the servants take care of them, etc, plenty of time for the English to choose and set up their position, plant stakes to stop horses, etc. Then French dont let their crossbowmen soften up the opposing archers (at least use up their arrow supply). Then, they all crowd past the archers to get at the English knights, since it isnt possible to get glory/gold killing peasant archers, thus allowing the archers short range shots sometimes from the back. Thus, the French gave the English archers the best situation possible for their bows, which may be why longbows are now somewhat overrated.
If the French had been smarter, they could have let the crossbowmen deul for a while, and use up English arrows (as it was, the English won just before they ran out), then dismount a group and go after the archers. They would then either have to fight hand to hand (many would have to drop their bows) or run. They could then have fought it out with the Knights and such archers as were still around, and probably won through numbers, although they would have taken some losses in the first charge from bows.
Note that during the time of Joan of Arc, she inspired the French so much that they attacked before the English could choose or prepare a good position (you dont want the enemy horses to be able to ride around a flank and ride down your archers), and to attack any English, even archers, and during that breif time the french won, this despite the longbows.

Now lets try knights against say mounted horse archery, say Mongols (who had powerfull bows and great training). Knights get shot at by bows, take a few losses, charge. Mongols turn and gallop away, turning in their saddles to shoot behind them. The knights, with their heavy horse and man armor, cant catch the Mongols, and will take steady losses from the Mongols who stay just out of range and shoot. Eventually the knights either have their horses tire from charges, get lucky (or smart, or Mongol dumbness) and pin the Mongols on something so they cant run and lance them (not likely), or retreat behind foot soldiers with spears and bows. It then becomes a sort of seige, with mobile horse archers against relatively immobile foot soldiers. If that happens, it depends on how good the Mongol general is, since they have the initiative, to find a way to break down the infantry (often some sort of suprise flank attack, goading the Knights into a charge, or starve them out).
There was one battle with heavy chain armored knights against Mongols, there the flank attack was late and the Momgols had to stand against the charge, they took heavy losses before the flank attack showed up and won the battle, their heavy bows allowing them to break up the attack just enough so they werent destroyed immediatly.
Best way to beat these Mongols is stick to ground bad for horses (forests,rough ground, mountains, passes, etc), to bad weather, (rain, hard on composite bows), or have a good force of armored crossbowmen to shelter behind (this will slow you down to foot speed, and the Mongols will shoot many of your horses which cannot be always armored, and you had better have arraingments for supplies). Horse archer armies tended to dominate wide open plains areas, and drier areas. Also, shooting from a horse took a lot of training, often from a very young age, so horse archer armies tended to come only from certain areas and people, and it was often hard to get them to band together to make a real army, since they tended to be nomads and spread over a very wide area. You also need composite bows and thumbrings, to have shorter bows which can be used on horseback without sacraficing bow power.

Anyway, thats the basics for archers. You have two choices, foot, or horse. Foot have to be prepared to run or shelter behind someone or fight with hand to hand weapons if well armored enemy gets close. The problem then is, would we get realistic ranges? In say AC, we get 1/3 the normal range, so they compensated by allowing you to use bow toe to toe with a melee type apponent, all while dodging, which isnt really possible. In reality you either switch to a close range weapon, or run away or hehind friends (horse archers being especially good at the run away part). Foot soldiers wont be able to shoot while running, horse archer can but it takes a lot of training, or more usually being raised that way (plus of course, you cant use a horse underground, or indoors, or over castle walls, or on bad ground). Note that it takes a bit of time to switch from a bot to a melee weapon, although with a sheath not much, getting a shield is harder, archers often had to stick to small bucklers hung on the belt or no shield at all, crossbowman often had a shield on their back which they would turn toward an enemy while reloading, it would take a while to get it off their back and use it hand to hand.
If we dont get realistic ranges, we will be limited in how many shots we get before ranges are melee range, so we would either need these ranges or a faster than reality speed of shooting (or maybe more damage). If ranges are short, because of problems rendering (or seeing) stuff at longer ranges, it might be nessissiary to make some fast hotkey or automatic way to drop (or stow) bow and switch weapons. If that can be done, and the problem of ranges fixed or at least compensated for, we could be realistic and not have archers shooting while someone swings at their heads, which is unrealistic.

I posted all this stuff in the hopes that this game at least wont follow either the usual game stereotypes (melee with bow), or the usual European stereotypes (longbows can always beat knights, and horse archers are unknown).

[UBIK]

wow, you sure know yer bows, and to add a little thing to your messege, with longbows, medieval people would keep their arms perfectly horizontal durring the day, for years, therefor, they could hold on to the arrow longer than a sec at full back thingie.

(ok i have just pressed reply, and now anouther really long thing from thirty is there and im not gonna read it, so if this was coverd, sorry about that)

[Thirty]

Actually, the second one is more important than the first, the first one is just the groundwork, or what are we working with here, bow wise. Im just hoping we dont have another melee using bow, longbows are the best and can always kill knights sort of thing. Im hoping with actual real world information like this, we can avoid that.
Iv never seen a MMORG with mounted anything yet, and few know about horse archers and how they fight. Come to think of it, there are very few mass fights in any game yet.
Foot bows we usually see toe to toe dodging while still shooting bowman, Id like to see some alternatives to that.
Id also like to see an alternative to the bigger bows are always better crowd, its true with all wood bows like longbows, but quality of construction makes it unessissary with composite bows.

[UBIK]

this is the only subject i listend to in world history back in my freshman year of highschool

[Slitherrr]

This is some great information, kudos to you Thirty. I agree with the inconsistancies found in most MMORPG's concerning bow combat... It pissed me off most in AC, where the bow had a great range, but could only be used at up to 40-something yards thanks to the targetting system, and thus you had people doing the whole "look, I can shoot while I'm dodging a sword" schtick. And EQ was just pathetic... The arrows would curve in midair to hit targets (even if they missed, gyahh) cause the developers decided it wasn't worth their time to put some lead on the shots in-game, you've got critters like elephants dodging (??) arrows, and you can frickin use a bow underwater with no hindrances save some seeing-to-target issues.

[Thirty]

Underwater?? Heck, in rain, longbowmen have to take off and protect the string from rain (the bow is ok, the string is semi ok only), heavy crossbows are the only ones able to get wet and be ok. With composit bows, the bow itself is quit susceptable to damp, and can be ruined if soaked (the special glues holding horn and sinew to the wood melt away).
As for defense, a bow cant block a blow at all, especially a smaller and also more fragile composite bow. Crossbows might, sorta. In actual battles, the foot bowman usually ran away, retired behind friends, or possibly took out swords or light axes, maybe bucklers (or even medium sized shields if they had very short composite bows so they could carry one). Since they often didnt have big shields, or any at all, the run away was frequent, which is why javilinmen were prefered for some things, cuz you can throw one and still hold a sheild, thus you were much better toe to toe.

[Cynycal]

i must say thirty, you're gonna make me decrease my resolution eventually... either that or have my eye's pop out... hey brickhouse guy's...can we get a double spacing option maybe?