Anything Forums

theindigothief wrote:I still feel that archers should stay about how they were before and bump up melee. Given that melee actually has to be next to their oponent and all.

Well that's a given. Melee should be quicker than archery in that respect and do more damage (Having a blade run through you hurts a hell of a lot more than an arrow)

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15669

Seer Death wrote:

theindigothief wrote:I still feel that archers should stay about how they were before and bump up melee. Given that melee actually has to be next to their oponent and all.

Well that's a given. Melee should be quicker than archery in that respect and do more damage (Having a blade run through you hurts a hell of a lot more than an arrow)

IIRC, the crossbow could penetrate armor unlike a blade. Which changed military tactics and along with the firearm made all armor obsolete for about 3 centuries.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15675

Death apparently you haven't studied medevil weapons as extensively as i thought (I've actually studied fairly extinsivly and was at one point an apprentice metal worker and almost made journey man studing medevil forge techniques, IE Blacksmithing).

Barbed Heads, used in wartime combat were dehibilitating, and often as painful as any wound that can be inflicted in melee if not more so. Not to mention the damage that could be inflicted when the arrow it removed because of the fishhook style barbs and blades. And such peicing injuries are just as wounding as any blade and often time's MORE Painful, It was very common for many people to die from bloodloss related to an arrow wound because without proper training and tools it was nigh impossible to remove said arrows from a wound without cutting arteries (And still hard to do so WITH trainign and tools at the time).

Now that said, a no daichi in a strong mans hands and with proper technique can cleave a man in two if you are so lucky to get such an opening. But I wouldn't argue that melee damage in more painful and faster. The man who did all the shots in the original robin hood is the nearest thing to a modern legendary archer, and he could shoot 29 aimed shots in under a minute hitting 4 inch discs that were 15-70 feet away. And as for more damaging, Cross Bows are still used in the modern day special forces because they actually have more shear penatrating power than most man portable firearms (Peircing power not overall force).

But in terms of game balance I agree that meleers shoudl do more damage because they do have to chase their foes down. But in terms of reality, crossbows (and firearms later becasue they required less trainign for the masses) supplanted melee weapons of all varietys in overall usage in war.

The Real drawbacks to cross bows and why firearms truly did replace melee weapons is that it takes far more training to use a cross bow that a gun (As much in the maintence as in teaching the weilders to range) and crossbows were more expensive to mass produce than firearms (More moving parts and complicated gears). Even though cross bows were more deadly, longer range, and far more accurate than early firearms.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15681

Plastic Man wrote: Cross Bows are still used in the modern day special forces because they actually have more shear penatrating power than most man portable firearms (Peircing power not overall force).

You forgot that: they wont jam and are quiet. Dunno if used but i'd imaginate you could also put some nasty stuff to the arrows.


Anyways, i liked your post

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15684

Plastic Man wrote:Death apparently you haven't studied medevil weapons as extensively as i thought (I've actually studied fairly extinsivly and was at one point an apprentice metal worker and almost made journey man studing medevil forge techniques, IE Blacksmithing).

Barbed Heads, used in wartime combat were dehibilitating, and often as painful as any wound that can be inflicted in melee if not more so. Not to mention the damage that could be inflicted when the arrow it removed because of the fishhook style barbs and blades. And such peicing injuries are just as wounding as any blade and often time's MORE Painful, It was very common for many people to die from bloodloss related to an arrow wound because without proper training and tools it was nigh impossible to remove said arrows from a wound without cutting arteries (And still hard to do so WITH trainign and tools at the time).

Now that said, a no daichi in a strong mans hands and with proper technique can cleave a man in two if you are so lucky to get such an opening. But I wouldn't argue that melee damage in more painful and faster. The man who did all the shots in the original robin hood is the nearest thing to a modern legendary archer, and he could shoot 29 aimed shots in under a minute hitting 4 inch discs that were 15-70 feet away. And as for more damaging, Cross Bows are still used in the modern day special forces because they actually have more shear penatrating power than most man portable firearms (Peircing power not overall force).

But in terms of game balance I agree that meleers shoudl do more damage because they do have to chase their foes down. But in terms of reality, crossbows (and firearms later becasue they required less trainign for the masses) supplanted melee weapons of all varietys in overall usage in war.

The Real drawbacks to cross bows and why firearms truly did replace melee weapons is that it takes far more training to use a cross bow that a gun (As much in the maintence as in teaching the weilders to range) and crossbows were more expensive to mass produce than firearms (More moving parts and complicated gears). Even though cross bows were more deadly, longer range, and far more accurate than early firearms.

lol touchee. As I can see your point, I meant that getting cleaved in two or sliced by a sword would cause quite a hefty sum of damage in comparison to an arrow (Area wise, not pain wise. I agree that a well placed arrow would hurt like a mofo).

In respect to ultima, I was saying that as you need to reach your target, the damage should be larger as incentive to use a close range melee skill.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15685

Oh I agree in terms of ultima for balance it should do more damage to balance out the system, just felt like disputing the pain factor more, because imagine being chopped in half might hurt a bit, but you wouldn't care much in aboout 5 mins, whereas a barbed arrow in your gut could take hours of excruciating pain for you to die from, and it you survive its prolly gunna have longterm side effects XD.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15689

lol reminds me of the movie version of Macbeth when Seyton gets the silver crossbow bolt right in the forehead, that would SUCK.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15690

lol macbeth I remember we had to do a movie of the last act. man that was fun. The fight at the end was near the janitorial closet, and we used brooms and plungers as weapons.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15691

Red Squirrel wrote:lol macbeth I remember we had to do a movie of the last act. man that was fun. The fight at the end was near the janitorial closet, and we used brooms and plungers as weapons.

lol just like in the movie. Was there also a naked broad muttering nonsense about a dagger?

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15693

No but we did have the "my hands! my hands! I can't clean the stains!" in it. That crazy lady that got a dream or something, can't remember now.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:2343, old post ID:15696