Missile-Weapons Question

[The Badger]

which is : DOES the M2TW Engine differentiate between short-range DIRECT fire and long-range ARCING FIRE?

...I just noticed a bunch of XBOWmen fire ARCING shots at my longbowmen.
(with a pretty impressive reload time; but thats another point altogether)

I'm sorry; to the best of knowledge; Crossbows were for DIRECT fire; just as a gun.

And a longbow at short range
(incidentally - the original WELSH longows were ELM and were primarily used in short-range guerilla ambush in woods.. sound Sherwood? - but true nonetheless - the welsh liked using them up close)

Longbow armor penetration at SHORT range is COMPLETELY different from arcing (trajectory) fire...

(not to mention accuracy)

I've been noticing that longbows AREN'T all that effective in this game and I'm wondering if a lack of distinction might be why?

anyone help me with that?

[Miracle]

DOES the M2TW Engine differentiate between short-range DIRECT fire and long-range ARCING FIRE?
The damage done by a projectile is the same regardless of its trajectory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory_of_a_projectile), but volleys at shorter ranges have a higher chance to hit, based purely on physical kinematic equations.

As of 1.02 arrows aren't very effective at long range due to their inaccuracy and low initial velocity. Patch 1.03/Kingdoms will improve their accuracy. This is the state of projectiles now:

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Missile_Weapons
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Artillery_(M2TW))

[The Badger]

Thanks Miracle...

I would have thought that accuracy (ESPECIALLY AT SHORT RANGE) would be based on the skill of the firer...

Impressively slow reload time for those bows; too... huh. (google arbalest for comparison)

Now; at long range; I have no problem with lack of accuracy (thus volley fire)

but frankly; in 1.2 my longbows don't seem to be particularly effective at SHORT range either...(even against chainmail targets)

from what i understood of your links - thanks again -
I am not sure if the velocity is decreasing after apex...

and while i am aware of longbows vs plate (google it), nonetheless I am afraid that longbows firing directly is a FAR different case than after-apex "gliding" arrows...

bolts on the other hand; are called that for a reason. They aren't meant for trajectory firing...

I'm not getting that from what i just read either.

I'm not clear on if accuracy is factoring in the shooters skill-

but not factoring in the shooter's skill in RELOAD is a tremendous mistake...

anyway; from what I got out of it; its not just trajectory fire vs direct fire thats overlooked; it seems the weapons operate outside of skill consideration altogether...

Please tell me I am mistaken.

[Chaos Cornelius lucius]

There were some tests done fairly recently on penetration depths on plate armour at varying distances using a longbow. The heads used were varying types of bodkin heads, and the bow used was a 144lb yew warbow.
IIRC the penetration depths were fairly uniform close up (up to around 60 yards), after this the penetration depth dropped off quite quickly. However when the range got up past around 120 yards or so the penetration depth increased markedly due to the extra gravity effect of the falling arrow.
With the mass of a cloth yard shaft with a heavy point these arrows are definitly not 'gliding' down, they hit with a hell of a thump.
Not much to do with the question you asked, but there you go, you can't have everything.:laugh4:

[ForgotMyOldNick]

There's a post somewhere here about modding the files to reduce the 'arcing' or parabolic effect of missile weapons by Lusted and others.

Just search Lusted + missile fire + parabolic maybe...and you should find it soon enough.

I'd do it myself but still trying to get a grip on file unpacking :( Sigh* why didn't they leave the files like RTW :(

[Miracle]

Net accuracy depends on the weapon, the experience of the user, weather conditions and, in the case of cavalry, the movement of the user.

The chance to hit depends on net accuracy, the range to target, initial and final projectile velocity, target velocity, target size, target density, special projectile properties (body-piercing, bouncing, area effect) and the presence of obstacles.

The lethality depends on chance to hit, attack power, target missile defence and whether the projectile is armour piercing, flaming, launching and/or exploding.

Air resistance is not modelled in M2TW so projectile speed does not decrease.

It's true that projectile properties are largely independent of the shooter. In fact, with some simple modding you can create Vardariotai that shoot cannonballs or musketeers that shoot naphtha bombs at 200 m/s.

[Zenicetus]

I'm sorry; to the best of knowledge; Crossbows were for DIRECT fire; just as a gun.

Not entirely (just picking historical nits here). That's certainly the way to get good penetration vs. armor at short range. But flat fire apparently wasn't the only way they were used. There's a Medieval tapestry illustration in "The Great Warbow" by Matthew Strickland that clearly shows crossbowmen firing up at a 45 degree angle, and bolts raining down vertically on the enemy. It might have been artistic license, but the same book mentions skulls found with bolts in the top of the head. I think there's at least some evidence for arcing fire with crossbows.

It makes sense if you think about it. Given the slow reload time, you don't have many chances to fire at an advancing army. So unless ammo is limited, why not start your first volleys at a distance with arcing fire, even if it won't be as effective as it will be when the enemy is closer? If nothing else, it's a great way to reduce morale, and you might get a few lucky penetrations from the weight of the falling bolt.

At any rate, things like different impact damage at different points of the trajectory aren't modeled in the game (AFAIK). It's just a simplified presentation... like the way crossbowmen can shoot through a front line of your men at enemy in close range without causing friendly fire damage. Not very realistic, but it's how the game is designed.


Impressively slow reload time for those bows; too... huh. (google arbalest for comparison)

Yeah, that's been discussed a lot here. It's probably the way it is for game balance reasons. I think it can also be rationalized by the way archers fire in synchronized volleys. It doesn't matter how skilled an individual archer is at reload time, because he never fires on his own initiative. He has to wait for the command to volley fire with the others. I can sorta buy that, as a reason for the slow reloads.

[The Badger]

At any rate, things like different impact damage at different points of the trajectory aren't modeled in the game (AFAIK). It's just a simplified presentation... like the way crossbowmen can shoot through a front line of your men at enemy in close range without causing friendly fire damage. Not very realistic, but it's how the game is designed.

I did NOT know you could do that... unless I am seriously mistaken you couldn't do that (safely) in the original MTW- friendly fire was dangerous...

And individual skill was a good point- but i was thinking of the improved archer steps - whole units - and experienced units.

Actually; loading the old handguns with ANY speed required quite a bit of training, also...

As to XBOWS; I cant argue that specific incidence; but i think you can agree its mostly an exception rather than the rule... bolts could still fall... but most bolts weren't even SHARP - many in fact had multiple prongs so they didn't "skip" - glance off- armor...

HOWEVER
i guess now my question would be; is it feasible to mod if not a skill consideration; at least lower fire times for the "better" bowmen?
or is that completely dependent on the weapon selection..?

[ReiseReise]

I had always assumed missiles were deadlier at closer range due to increased penetration but I guess its just due to increased accuracy.

Just reading up on the physics of longbows, I saw a claim that it could shoot an arrow a mile. Pretty ridiculous considering the absolute maximum range of a rifle bullet is only about 2 miles. A much more enlightened website quoted a historical source complaining that only 1/10th of his archers could shoot farther than '12-14 score' = 240-280 yards.

[John_Longarrow]

The Badger

I believe they won't be increasing the fire rate for missile units based on skill. As I understand it, the reload rate is set as much by how quickly the reload animation plays as anything else. To increase the rate, they would have to add additional animations, then have a way of selecting the animation based on the unit skill.

I don't think this will be added as the amount of time it would take to program it in (and create extra animations for every missile unit) would not be seen as worth while compared to the benefit in game.

Likewise I don't think there is an advantage using missile weapons against chain armor (even though historically their was for ANY piercing weapon) as this would likewise require extra attributes for all weapons for a rather small percieved effect. Programatically this would be easier than different reload times based on skill as it would be an attribute for units.

[Guru]

Not entirely (just picking historical nits here). That's certainly the way to get good penetration vs. armor at short range. But flat fire apparently wasn't the only way they were used. There's a Medieval tapestry illustration in "The Great Warbow" by Matthew Strickland that clearly shows crossbowmen firing up at a 45 degree angle, and bolts raining down vertically on the enemy. It might have been artistic license, but the same book mentions skulls found with bolts in the top of the head. I think there's at least some evidence for arcing fire with crossbows.

I've heard this is the "finnish way" of firing a crossbow. Firing the crossbow from the hip at about 45 degree angle. I believe this way the crossbow had a longer range although it was very hard to learn. Aiming had to be done "naturally" -in the lack of a better term- a bit like a longbow is fired. Of course I cannot confirm any sources for this information since I've only heard it somewhere but nevertheless it supports the idea of arching fire for crossbows.

- Guru

[The Badger]

...I don't think this will be added as the amount of time it would take to program it in (and create extra animations for every missile unit) would not be seen as worth while compared to the benefit in game.

unfortunately this seems to be the case with pretty much everything...

sigh:wall:


Likewise I don't think there is an advantage using missile weapons against chain armor (even though historically their was for ANY piercing weapon) as this would likewise require extra attributes for all weapons for a rather small percieved effect. Programatically this would be easier than different reload times based on skill as it would be an attribute for units.:dizzy2:

I was meaning the longbow doesn't seem too effective EVEN against chainmail ( or lighter) armor types; I meant as in; I don't want to have the DoneToDeath argument of Longbow vs Plate.

So; lets not even discuss penetration (or lack thereof) vs. plate armor -
i think everyone can agree the longbow and composite bows were hell on chainmail-armored and less troops...
yet mine are clearly NOT...

word is thats changing in 1.3; guess we'll see.

Finnish arcing fire crossbows? Interesting...
I also read of chinese 'repeating crossbows' (which I'd thought was something D&D made up until now - to go with its Composite Longbows; lol)...
which to be able to lever were also shot from the hip.
Not quite relatedly; the history channel mentioned a Saracen bow that was fired lying on ones back; bow held by FEET.

However; the bulk of period Bolt-heads I'VE seen both personally and in reference were multiprong or ...
A quarrel or bolt is the term for the ammunition used in a crossbow. The name "quarrel" is derived from the French carré, "square", referring to the fact that they typically have square heads. They are typically shorter than traditional arrows, though some may be longer.



Those types of bolts were clearly for armor-piercing which requires fairly direct fire...

HOWEVER the original point was to ask if the game differentiated between direct fire and arcing fire - meters per second -:dizzy2:

and it looks as though it doesn't.

BUT since I can't do better; I must gracefully bow out...:sweatdrop:

[Guru]

Not quite relatedly; the history channel mentioned a Saracen bow that was fired lying on ones back; bow held by FEET.
I've heard of those. Here you go:

http://www.archeryhistory.com/archers/pics/drake-s.jpgHarry Drake (1983) held foot held flight record 1 mile 268 yards.



Those types of bolts were clearly for armor-piercing which requires fairly direct fire...
I have no idea of what kind of bolts or arrows were used with the "finnish style." In fact there was little need for armour piercing ammunition in Finland. Hunted animals never wore armour and I don't think armour has never been common here in Finland.

- Guru

[The Badger]

Nice pic!
Apparently the History Channel historian advanced those weapons as an explaination for some unexpectedly long-range fire taken by the first Crusade at the battle of... Dorylaeum i believe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dorylaeum

as to the crossbow bolts; I was NOT referring to the Finnish - and if they indeed did not face heavily armored opponents it would tend to argue AGAINST my point - sorry for the confusion - I meant more central european powers.
Merely out of curiousity i wonder if the Finnish crossbows are lower-tension draws too...

But it wasn't me speaking of the Fins - can't; cause i know NOTHING about them in that period.. My understanding is they FOUGHT LIKE DEVILS in WW2 tho':2thumbsup:

ANYWAY this is all 'side the point -
I THINK we can agree that the crossbow's resurgence in "main" Europe -with the frightening draw weights (most needed levels or a crank pulley) and short; armor-defeating bolts; was intended to defeat armored targets and therefore probably USUALLY direct-fire weapons.

I had to add usually because of the bolts in top of heads thing.:oops:

AND i hope we can all agree that being shot by a longbow (or anything else) directly - at short range - is entirely different than being shot by arcing fire (i BELIEVE that even terminal velocity for a falling xbow bolt is less than its "muzzle" velocity- and doubt it could get high enough to generate terminal velocity on fall after apex)...

Maybe someone will alter attack value to represent changes in m/s projectile speed - or maybe its more trouble tahn its worth...

But really I was just curious if the engine differentiated short range from trajectory range in either Accuracy OR force(penetration).

Sorry it was such a long road;:idea2:
and thanks for the great links and feedback.

[John_Longarrow]

The Badger

From a programatic stand point, I think they are looking for results instead of how those results are achieved. As such, I think they use a rather simple bell curve aproach for calculating "Hits" that matches up rather effectively to the much more complex math of "Did it hit, what was its angle of attack, what was its velocity at impact".

Think roll two d6. It takes a 4 or better to hit at 10 meters. Add one to the target number for every 10 meters farther out the target is.

Side note on repeating crossbows in D&D. Their ammo is low but the damage is high compared to what real repeating crossbows could do. The range is far to great also.

In my game I treat them pretty much like hand crossbows that can "Burst". each attack can use either 1, 2, or 3 bolts and does 1d4/1d8/1d12 damage (Medium weapon). Size is the same as a light crossbow. Mag holds 15 bolts.