Printable View
I propose that Slinger range be lowered, there is no way in hell that a sling, any sling, is going to out range a composite bow, if Xenophon thinks that they can go 400m, he is taking crack and even if they do Composite bows have been recorded at ranges of over 500m .
I could not care less about them out ranging weak Self bows, because that is pretty sensible to me .
Discuss .
I Veto this. Please close the topic.
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=sling-ranges
Seems that the quality of the projectile makes quite a large difference. Rhodians were using lead bullets so their range is justifiable. Levy slingers might have their range cut. If anything, slings should be slightly more effective against archers than they currently are.
Of all those ranges, only one estimate ranges them in 500m mark, and that is a 19th century test, so invalid, Composite bow still wins .
Done. LazyO reported for nonsensicalist tendencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Just playing with ya playah. Seriously though, I had no idea bows and slings could match or surpass some rifles in range. That's pretty wicked.
not true the top one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Jerzy Gasperowicz 2006 Bipointed, lead Sidearm 505m
That makes 2, and still below the composite bow range .
Your composite bow ranges are from 500-1000 years after our time frame and several thousand miles to the east. FAIL :wall:
We could just look at the Olympics and say bows are a godsent, they fire so lonnggggggg... but people, context is important. Check your historical context!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
That range is on a relatively light (I use a word "relative") bow designed for use on Horseback, if you pick a heavy bow for use on foot,100-120#, and STILL assumethat it would be weaker, at most how many metres can you cut out from the range? 10 or 100?
A larger bow requires a larger arrow which weighs more and has more surface area.
People use all kinds of arrows for different purposes , irrelevant . And sorry Larger is not correct, Heavier is more appropriate .
Iirc persian slingers were outranging hellenic self bows, while later on lead ammo outranged them all by a lot...
Also I think that most of your ranges for the composite bows are related to the Hunnic and Turkic ones, which were far superior to the Persian and Scythian versions...
http://www.spartakus.pl/images/torok5.jpg
http://classic-bow.com/catalog/image...tian_bows2.jpg
Spot the difference . As I said before, draw weight is going to be the key factor .
The siyahs were lengthened and stiffened giving an higher initial draw thus propelling heavier arrows and gaining armour piercing power, not to mention a better accuracy...
True, but enough to give a difference of more than 100m range? I doubt it, and again, bows would vary from person to person .
And the foot archer units are composed by the poorer people, who wouldn't train daily...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
These Skythian archers often carry a slightly larger version of the composite bow that their fellow cavalrymen employ. This fact, together with the advantage of shooting from a more stable platform than a moving horse, tends to give their missiles somewhat longer range and more power than those typically shot by horse archers. To some extent, they compensate in this way for their comparative lack of mobility. Certainly, substantial numbers of foot bowmen can make sure that horse archers stay away from the area of the battlefield where they are deployed or inflict substantial damage on them, should they be foolish enough to engage in a protracted missile exchange. Of course, they will not be able to catch and destroy the elusive riders if the latter decide to avoid the arrow duel. In that regard, it is important that these archers are not lured too far away from supporting heavier infantry or cavalry whether in the pursuit of horse archers or for any other reason. They are not well outfitted for hand to hand combat, as all they carry is a short sword or small pickaxe and no armor but their thick jackets and bashlyk felt caps. If unsupported, they will be easy prey for cavalry, or aggressive infantry fast enough to catch them.
Along their history, the Skythians of the northern coast of the Black Sea underwent a process of settlement and sedentarization. The phenomenon had started quite early, as Herodotos already spoke of farming Skythian groups, but it seems to have picked up pace as Sarmatian pressure pushed the Skythians out from much of their former lands and restricted them to a much reduced territory (the western part of the Crimea and the lower Dniepr) that could not have supported a large nomadic population. This process resulted in Skythian armies fielding increasing numbers of foot troops. A good portion of those seem to have been bowmen, as many settled Skythians still favored their traditional weapon.
Sounds like dismounted cavalry to me . The units in question are not self bow weilding levy archers, rather dismounted steppe archers .
That's solely about the Scythians (they fell out of power, trading and living with hellenic settlers was the only way to survive: it's not dismounted cavalry, is financially broke former cavalry), not the scythian bow wielding units...
I made the thread with Skythians in mind ...
The Madian archers are an elite force too, though. The equation foot=levy is not really solid. Still I've no problem with slinger ranges...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
You sure?Quote:
It seems likely that at least some of these infantry were those of the Parthians too impoverished to afford to fight mounted, or those whose mounted skills had declined as a result of settled life to such an extent that it was no longer possible for them to serve in their traditional role.
And I don't really know about the mardians being elite, in the 6th-4th centuries BC np, in the hellenistic era? I don't think so...
BTW never said levy, just "poorer"...
I support Lazy statement but only becouse he promised me cookies...:D
I did not .
Then I dont support it anymore...
LazyO, you scoundrel!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
<s>Muss man eigentlich diese komischen Sterne an den Threads sehen oder kann man das abstellen?</s>
Do I have to watch this strange stars by the threads or can I deactivate them somehow?
Should we not be talking about "effective range" rather than maximum range. It's quite irrelevant if a sling can project a lead shot 500m if when it reaches it's target it can not kill or incapacitate an enemy. The same applies to the bow. I severly doubt that any war arrow is capable of travelling 400m.
We already have reduced the ranges , see the max range I have seen of any foot archer unit in the game is 209 (?) of the Saka foot archers . In reality, there is no single type of arrow which is going to be used and you cannot translate that into statistics, the killing range is 20-30/40/50 (take your pick) metres . Even then, the chances of piercing good mail armour is non existant, a solid piece like Bronze Cuirass or soft linen (comparatively) will not really stand much chance against a heavy bow .
EDIT
Whatever the case, it is largely irrelevant since most armies did not rely on Skirmishers, most of the casualties occur during the rout, with arrows accounting for very few of them , the exceptions to this are of course the guerilla warfare ( Sweboz and Lusotanna ) and Steppe factions , both of which rely on skirmishing , which cannot be properly represented in our symmetrical battles .
I wouldn't consider Sweboz under assymetrical warfare. Yes, Germans ambushed the Romans in the Teutoberg but they had been presented with a perfect opportunity to do so and this wasn't really low-grade warfare. It was an all out assault by an army in hiding. The Lusitanians however were famed for bands of skirmishers who would harass Roman columns then retreat and fight off isolated cavalry contingents which were dispatched to deal with them.
Lazy is correct in the sense that these ancient battles as a general (violable) rule of thumb would not see large numbers of deaths during the fighting. The victory, of course, came not in any form of massacre, but in the form of a routing enemy. What you did with that routing enemy is a different matter. As you can tell in Total War, you get a mere second or two once the enemy routs until the victory scroll appears. Your objective has been achieved. Unfortunately, Total War seems to encourage higher numbers of deaths for either side (winning or losing) than you would normally expect between initial engagement and the final point of routing. However, onsidering this series is a video game rendition of various periods of warfare, I do not think it would be wise to accurately emulate the ancient trends in battle deaths, since it would mean quite lengthy and rather uninteresting battles for our players. Players want action, reward, and satisfaction.
#ThingsEBNOMwillFix
No, but seriously; the EBNOM stat system features generally lower morale levels but higher defense stats relative to attack, to encourage attrition and mass routs as the main ways to decide a battle.
Sounds promising. When will we see this EBNOM?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2