Recruitable Unit Rebalance Version 7.51 Released.

[The_Tauren13]

I think gameplay should be way more important than realism. This is a fantasy game, after all.

[wombatsSAR]

Old question re: age of longbows
From Hardy's book, Longbow - arrow heads date back to 50,000 yo. However, bows don't preserve well. Cave drawings show "longbows" in scale but can the artists' sense of scale be trusted??? There are two Mesolithic fragments that have right proportions and geometries to be from a longbow. Various other Stone Age sites have uncovered bows ~175 cm in length, others between 177 and 200 cm. These are ~2,500 BC to 1,600 BC. Hardy goes on at some length about the "pre" history of the bow. Basically, a bow of some length has been around for quite some time, although the date of _the_ longbow's use in England has an unclear lineage.

Important note re: crossbow range - I'm using STEEL bows. If you count only composite bow xbows, then yeah, range is less than the xbow but greater than the lesser selfbow. Steel bows were fairly common about 50 yr after Crecy and available by Agincourt but the rate of fire of a crossbow is VERY poor, the moreso for the stronger pulls. The rate of fire is about 1/2-1/6 that of the bow. They were great for defense or other fortifide positions. Additional note, when used in the field, they often had either mantlets or pavisses to hide behind, or even had ~kite shields strapped on their backs. (Payne-Gallway and Hardy)

re: numbers of longbowmen and are they elite?
I admit that this is based more on peripheral arguments than on % numbers. Firstly, the strength required for using the bow was outside the casual norm and that this str requirement was unique enough to leave its marks in the skeleton. This implies that they had the time to practice their art enough to make a consuming activity. Secondly, ~20% of the English archers were mounted - this implies wealth and decent amount of it, hence, again, enough free time to make training possible. Third, there is at least one example of a longbowmen (probably one of the Black Prince's guard archers) getting his own coat of arms, and other honors (the family name is noted as part of Jodrell Bank in Cheshire). Fourth, longbowmen received higher pay than regular footmen. It was not as high as mounted knights, though. Fifth, "by 1590 Sir Roger Williams was complaining that 'out of 5,000 archers not 500 will make any strong shootes', and 'few or none do anie great hurte 12 or 14 score off'." Lastly, since this is long and circumstantial, Henry V left England with 2,000 knights and men-at-arms, 65 gunners, and 8,000 longbowmen. The army of conquest that Henry could muster had only 8,000 archers out of how many that were in England? It was his choice and I doubt he picked weenie ones.

re: range
From Hardy: (velocity and range, 70 lb bow)
Lozenge Bodkin 46.5 m/sec 180 yd max (sigh, let's mix units)
Long Bodkin 43.6 m/sec 170 yd
Broadhead 38.7 m/sec 150 yd

extrapolation to 150 lbs, still Hardy, ranges should be ~300 yds

re: blowguns
I found the refs in Steven Vogel's "Prime Mover". He _calculates_ a maximum range of 28 m with an impact speed of ~13 m/s, and thus an impact momentum of only 2% that of an arrow. Actual reports from his anthropological colleagues gave measures of 17 m to 30 m. Gotta have the poison.

re: ballistic fire
I think that's just a bias. In both cases (bow and xbow), you train with it and get to see the projectile in flight, hence learning its flight characteristics. I venture that the xbow is easier since loosing an arrow is a non-subtle art all its own whereas firing the xbow is much more easily mastered - it's a trigger! One usually doesn't fire a handgun "ballistically" because there's no need to learn (use a rifle or call in uncle arty) and it's difficult to learn since the bullet is smaller and travels too darn fast, hence you can't see what you're doing.

re: balsa and piano wire
mmm, bad choices. Balsa has low compression and tensile strengths. Piano wire easily cuts fingers when being drawn. However, since it is very light, geek-like muscles can heft it without sweating, and the piano wire could be tuned to play a one-note song.

re: combat sim fix
Cool!!! Maybe I'll find the ambition now to balance out my ... uh ... mod.
if you can call it that. ... I have no sense of propriety. I'll leave it at that.

I'm quitting for a bit. Thanks for reading, all.

[Evil Dave]

The_Tauren13 said:
I think gameplay should be way more important than realism. This is a fantasy game, after all.

yup. it's mighty hard to realistically model gods on the battlefield.

the main reason for bringing up realism is folks were asking how weapons "should" work. but another reason is that it provides justification for changing game balance. for example, if you agree with wombats' idea that many pointy weapons should be armor piercing, SCs become relatively less powerful and some regular units become relatively more powerful.

[wombatsSAR]

Sabercherry: "arrowdynamics"

Thanks, great pun
I used to have:

"Incorrigable punster.
Please do not incorrige."

as my sig.

[wombatsSAR]

One last post before my brain explodes.

Arralen, you might be confusing the aerodynamic efficiency of the arrow with the energetic efficiency of the bow. Hardy's book has values of around 80%+ for the longbow. Iirc, modern, compound composite bows are closer to 90%+, while the crossbow is much lower but I can't find any relavent numbers right now. One rather biased source put it at 10% but that's too low considering extent numbers for ranges and projectiles. Xbows may have been capable of storing lots of energy but they really didn't deliver any where near all of it to the projectile.

[Arralen]

energetic efficiency of the bow
I'm not confusing it with the aerodynamic efficiency of the arrow. In fact, I thought to leave it out of the discussion, but I found a nice comparison which should make it easy to understand: "Barrel Length" .. the distance over which the missile is accelerated by propelling forces.
With a X-/bow, it roughly equates to the length of the arrow minus some "overhead", which is 80cm with the Longbow and 25cm with the X-bow. Equations are most likely non-linear ...

examples: (from Payne-Gallway, actually) 85 g bolt shot 420 m from a 550 kg pull medieval crossbow. Longbows attained lengths of ~275 m. Article authors cite another historian claiming 2x pull weight xbows were common, fwiw.

That's shurely a 55kg-Xbow. And 110kg-Xbows where shurely not common before 1475.(Steel Xbows in general date from 1350 and later).
And think about the reloading time: I would rate such a Xbow as a last try to keep up with a)the very heavy armors and b)firearms. And it shurely would have been used in siege warfare only - much to heavy to use it in the field...


aerodynamic efficiency
Can you scan & email me that wind tunnel results? Or give me a link? Think there's some fault in those numbers or the interpretation ...
E.g. using 80 instead of 60 m/s may have greater impact on the results than one would estimate because of special aerodynimc effects (boundary transition etc.)
Because of the differences in energetic efficiency of Long- vs. Xbow, I doubt both sorts of missiles start with the same "muzzle velocity".
=> Normally, something long&slender has always less drag than something thick&short, as long as it points into the direction of flight.

Furthermore, there's a mixup:
A longbow's efficient range is roughly equal to it's maximum range, because of the energy-storing effect of the ballistic trajectory and the lift-generating effect of the long arrow. (Similar to the lift effects on modern olympic throwing spears)
A X-bow bolt, because of the higher drag at high velocities, loses too much energy before it can store as potential energy, respc. loses much more of it's velocity within the first meters of flight.


volume/mass fire
You can fire a X-bow ballistically. But
load time is way to high for volume fire. A longbowmen can fire his 12 arrows within a minute. It takes a minute to fire a heavy crossbow and reload it...
So apart from the initial volley, there wouldn't be any volume to speak of. But without volume, you'll actually have to aim for a target ...

pre-historic "longbows"
Where long bows, but not longbows in a strict sense:
"At least two Neolithic longbows have been found in Britain. One was found in Somerset. It was identified as Neolithic by radiocarbon dating in the 1950s, much to the consternation of some archaeologists at the time. A second was found in southern Scotland at Rotten Bottom. It was made of yew and dates to between 4040 and 3640 BC. A reconstructed bow had a draw-weight of about 23 kg (50 lbf, 220 N) and a range of 50 to 55 metres.


addendum
found it in your post:
From Hardy: (velocity and range, 70 lb bow)
Lozenge Bodkin 46.5 m/sec 180 yd max (sigh, let's mix units)
Long Bodkin 43.6 m/sec 170 yd
Broadhead 38.7 m/sec 150 yd
extrapolation to 150 lbs, still Hardy, ranges should be ~300 yds

But 70lbs = 31,75 kg, which is on the lower range for a longbow, 100lbs (45kg) or even more seemingly where common. Range will not scale linearily, though.
But as you can see from the numbers above, "muzzle velocity" wasn't anywhere near 80 m/s but maybe 55m/s at best. Aerodynamic effects could be quite different ...

[wombatsSAR]

Arralen said:
energetic efficiency of the bow
I'm not confusing it with the aerodynamic efficiency of the arrow. In fact, I thought to leave it out of the discussion, but I found a nice comparison which should make it easy to understand: "Barrel Length" .. the distance over which the missile is accelerated by propelling forces.

Which is only relevant if the applied force is the same. It is much, much higher in the xbow, hence the need for very stout bolts.

With a X-/bow, it roughly equates to the length of the arrow minus some "overhead", which is 80cm with the Longbow and 25cm with the X-bow. Equations are most likely non-linear ...

Yes, they are. Acceleration is a squared term. Friction is as well. Your point?

That's shurely a 55kg-Xbow. And 110kg-Xbows where shurely not common before 1475.(Steel Xbows in general date from 1350 and later).
And think about the reloading time: I would rate such a Xbow as a last try to keep up with a)the very heavy armors and b)firearms. And it shurely would have been used in siege warfare only - much to heavy to use it in the field...

By this logic, a 55 kg draw weight xbow can out shoot a 90 kg draw weight longbow. That's aerodynamic efficiency far beyond what's been measured and makes the longbow much less efficient than the crossbow.

I'm skipping the rest of your comments because they are based upon similar logic.

[wombatsSAR]

The whole reason for me posting was to weigh in was because various comments that desired a sim approach. I felt that some of the suggestions for the sim side were not accurately describing various phenomena and I wanted to add information from various knowledgable sources. I am not an expert on these subjects but I am moderately well-read.

Sim: xbows blow away everything else in terms of sheer hitting power. At least the steel variety. The pre-steel ones score over the traditional bows in being MUCH easier to train peasants to an adequate level of skill. They are cheaper to stock and the bows are more durable than regular bows. Reload rates sucked but then, if you kill them first, you don't have to parry.

Sim: pointy things - all of the pointy weapons are armor piercing in effect. They plant an enormous overpressure on the armor causing a point failure. The longbow and composite bows had enough force to let them pierce plate when using properly designed arrowheads. These bodkin points did a good job at piercing various armors but were inferior to a broadhead for inflicting wounds (we're neglecting sepsis here). The xbow did it by sheer force. Afaict, there were no bodkin point quarrels. One design sufficed for all applications.

Thus, my recommendations for a sim that longbowmen and composite bowmen have higher resource costs to reflect their long training times. Their projectiles should be AP but of low value to simulate the fact that the resulting wounds were of lesser severity. Even short bows should be AP but without the draw weight behind them, they couldn't do all that much. Spears and lances should be AP when used in charges. By precise definition, so should spears in static melee but the impact velocities probably don't make it worth defining that way, at least not for human wielders.

One obvious "flaw", as it were, is that the battlefield is so short that the effective ranges of the various missile weapons are ... modififed. This truncation results in the combatants starting very close together resulting in the effectiveness of bow fire being compromised. This could be hacked but I'm not sure if the game would support that???

[PDF]

Not sure we're going anywhere with this way OT discussions about bolt aerodynamics. What we just need is missile weapons that are tactically different and balanced in the Dom rules frame ...

[Ironhawk]

Yeah I am with PDF here. As interesting as the discussion is in the general, historical sense, this thread is about SC's rebalance mod. So the question to be considered is only:

Is a 9 AP damage bow too powerful within the scope of the Dominions 2 archery system?