Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => General Discussion => Topic started by: JohnK on January 24, 2015, 04:16:40 AM
-
Something similar had been posted, about this guy, years ago on the forum. He does some impressive things with the bow. What do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
-
Wow, I see Lars Anderson has progressed even further into the absurd! Amazing feats.
So I actually got a lesson into his basic technique last year. When the video talks about shooting from the right side of the bow and not the left, what's really going on is a switch from a finger release (traditional in much of Europe including Britain) to a thumb release (traditional in many other parts of the world). The finger release is not well suited to holding your arrows (because three of your fingers are engaged leaving on the thumb and pinky free), whereas it can work in the thumb release (optimally only your thumb and forefinger are engaged, leaving three free fingers). I can not do it fast, but starting with four arrows in hand and moving what feels slowly and deliberately is on par with my speed-shooting finger release speeds. I've tried seven arrows as well, and ten is the same principle. After that you run out of space between your fingers. The person who showed me said that 7 or 10 arrows slows him down a bit, but we're talking fractions of seconds here.
It does take some time to "load your hand" when you do this. When Lars is grabbing arrows and shooting, at most it's 2-3 arrows at a time. I don't think you could do the max speed 10-arrow trick and quickly get back to it. It's something you could start a battle ready for, but then when you exhaust those 10, your speed would drop. Obviously if you are trained to absurd levels, it doesn't drop as much as for the rest of us.
My problem is that my accuracy is terrible with a thumb release. Need more practice! And my thumb doesn't tolerate it very well. But those aren't problems for people who have trained that way rather than finger release. As I noted, in many parts of the world it is standard. In some areas where finger release is standard, it quite possibly became that way because modern archery in many areas was essentially re-introduced as a sport starting in England, so they wrote the books and trained the teachers. Thumb release may have been even more common historically.
The English longbow is a bit of an outlier among combat bows. The typical bow used for war was 50-60 lbs draw everywhere else, and 90+ for longbows. (Though in fairness, note that a recurve bow has more power than a longbow of equal draw weight, and recurves were common in many arrows, so the functional gap is probably less than that makes it sound.) Although in the video he says his technique works with heavy bows, the one he is using does not look like a 90 lbs bow to me. Is finger release used with longbows by chance or because it's needed for strength? I'm not sure. I've never drawn a 90 lbs bow either way....
-
Really amazing!
-
I think they are pretty cool videos and you've got to respect the guys skill, however these videos are largely irrelevant to RPG's. Because...
1) It would be horribly unbalancing in game terms.
2) He's not shooting at an intelligent, evasive, target.
3) He is simulating a (nearly?) complete mastery of the skill (Rank 50 plus 'Talents' anyone?).
There are probably more reasons, but they are enough.
-
So new magic items, gloves of 3, 7 10 arrows. ;D But as was pointed out missile weapons can be somewhat unbalancing in some RPG's and especially if you take lab results over RL examples.
[/size][size=78%]MDC [/size][/size][size=78%] [/size]
-
With the RMU rules, you can shoot in as little as 30% plus 20% to draw an arrow which can be eliminated by talents. So, 30% per shot minimum. Adrenal Speed -- which I think is a good match for these things where the archer has time to prepare before taking their very fast actions -- can get you 100% additional activity. So at high levels, with no special rules, you could be shooting 6 arrows per round and have 20% action to spare... Switch to a 5 second round (which I think is better for a variety of reasons) and that is on the order of what the fastest archers are doing -- a bit slower, but we are looking at combat and not target/trick shooting. To me, making this comparison is like comparing running and jumping speeds to Olympic records. It's good if we're in the same ballpark.
-
There were/are many times I considered splitting the Adrenal Speed skill into more skills in RMSS/FRP as it seemed a bit to catch all, ie one skill for a specific type of melee weapon, one for thrown, one for a specific type of missile weapon and one for movement.
Note: House Rules Observation
Also I played a round with different round durations and found if I kept the missile attack portion about the same but let most melee attacks take .8 of the same time it worked the best. But then as I stated it was a non official combat system more focused on melee and IMHO pointing out some of the flaws of missile/thrown combat I would expect to arise.
Like in RL why did not more conflicts involve missile fire into melee? To hard to hit your target? Was the chance you hit your friend and kill them enough for most to not try it? etc.
MDC
-
I suspect that missile fire into melee is not viable at the ranges you want to keep your unit of archers at. In the game we are talking maybe 30-100' away. I think on the battlefield, if your archers are that close to the enemy, you've got a real chance of having them overrun and slaughtered.
Also, even if your archers reliably kill more of the enemy than of your own guys, killing any of your own guys is terrible for morale, and morale is incredibly important for period battles. That's the sort of thing that makes the troops think the commanders consider them disposable, which is what makes them desert.
-
To jdales point, this is one of the reasons I do not like some of the other RM rounds that do not limit the number of actions you can take. For example, in RMSS no matter how much action % you had you were still only able to take three actions (i.e. fire, load, fire... then... load, fire, reload, etc). This way you don't become the (unbalancing) Tasmanian devil of RM.
HO pointing out some of the flaws of missile/thrown combat I would expect to arise.
Like in RL why did not more conflicts involve missile fire into melee? To hard to hit your target? Was the chance you hit your friend and kill them enough for most to not try it? etc.
Because...
People like the guy in the video would be rare.
Once it became a standard tactic it would (attempt to) be defended against in varying manners (shielding, overrunning them, etc).
The people he would be firing at would be trying to avoid getting hit (partially resulting in...)
Missing an enemy could mean hitting an ally.
Etc...
-
It's just an example of ludicrous skill isn't it?
I've always been an advocate of faster, more *realistic* use of bows... this just seems to emphasise the point that, many of the feats deemed very, very, impractical by some GM's ARE possible IF the user is exceptionally well trained.
The practicalities of such apparent "over-the-top" effects cannot easily be translated into game-rule terms unless you are willing to accept that the RM combat system is an abstract and adapt your way of thinking to match. Perhaps your archer character really DOES fire that many arrows in a round.. it's just that, perhaps, the damage is consolidated into a single roll, not because of realism, but game time practicality... does anyone want the complication of making ten attack rolls each round? Would the other players want to wait while you do? How long would the character survive, with multiple chances of fumbles and weapon breakage?
In the end, RM combat is abstract, just add options for multiple fire to be represented by a single roll. i.e. splitting damage evenly between two-three targets equally. -20 to -30. If the targets have differing AC/DB, some arrows might miss, do no damage, that proportion of damage is lost. A critical roll is still caused, to those that would be hit but perhaps reduced in some fashion..
-
lol... you'd need to carry 50 arrows for a five round combat. ;)
Seriously though (not that that wasn't), how would you deal with Deflections? One shot attack bonuses? Different types of arrows?
Again, the man in the video is shooting at predicatably moving, non-evasive, non-intelligent targets. If you were shooting at a person, particularly one who knew you were shooting at them, how long do you think you'd need to aim before firing? Even then, you'd be guessing which way they are going to dodge. I say, since you already need to accept the round isn't 100% perfectly realistically represented, you simply accept the one shot in 10 seconds (or, within the rules however many you can get up to) as realistic and make adjustments for alternate situations from there.
I think those videos are cool, but they do not prove one iota of anything what-so-ever when it comes to combat archery.
-
I think those videos are cool, but they do not prove one iota of anything what-so-ever when it comes to combat archery.
It goes quite some way to proving what is possible. Far enough to make me think that even a person who knows that they are being shot at would have a difficult time dodging incoming shots fired at that rate and that distance (most of which are almost point-blank).
After all, it's not just the firer who has to predict the possibly random motion of a target, it's the target that has to second-guess the firer.
-
It goes quite some way to proving what is possible. Far enough to make me think that even a person who knows that they are being shot at would have a difficult time dodging incoming shots fired at that rate and that distance (most of which are almost point-blank).
After all, it's not just the firer who has to predict the possibly random motion of a target, it's the target that has to second-guess the firer.
Let's assume your bowman is cool as a cucumber and doesn't get rattled by someone headed towards him to split his head open. I can't imagine your odds would be as good as this guys considering the smart target wouldn't be moving predictably, might have shield, will actively try to dodge, and might even throw something at you. Now let's talk melee: It's a pretty commonly pointed out scenario that, in general, within ten feet a man with a knife is more dangerous than a man with a gun... and a bullet even faster than a bolt or arrow. You're also not considering another very important factor. Most combats aren't one on one. If the archer is in melee range you probably aren't the only two people fighting, resulting in the archers attention needing to also be on it's surroundings since, if they are this deadly, they would be a primary target for engagement.
Sorry but, as impressive as those videos are, I have yet to see how they translate directly into actual combat... let alone be realistically portrayed in an RPG... let alone balanced for an RPG. And, again, you're talking about someone pretty much at the top of the potential skill level. Now, could you simulate this in an RPG? Possibly. With 50 Ranks, 100 Ag, 100 St, Prof Bonus, Talents, Magic Items, etc, etc. It is by no means normal... which means it shouldn't be considered as a justification to improve missile fire overall (even if it was balanced, which it's not).
-
I think that all the points you make against a bowman, are valid, though are also equally applicable to all melee participants and in the confusion of close-quarters battle. It's not the difficulties of performing actions (which are great), similar to those in the videos, that I question... just the possibility of duplication those actions within the rules. It's fantasy. So let fantastic feats be possible even though apparently difficult. It's the skill and experience of the character that allows them.
I've read enough rubbish written about the artificial rules restrictions put upon archery & bowmanship that I know (even with my limited skill) that certain things are EASILY achievable... such as running whilst holding a partially-drawn bow and holding something in the other hand... or reducing loading time by preparing ammunition or holding them against the bow.
-
Oh yeah, you could easily duplicate what he's doing given the same situation and a darned good skill level. That is, a master shooting at predictably moving, non-evasive targets. Not really arguing that. But too often people look at these videos and think they justify being able to do it at an actual foe without a fairly massive investment (DP's, Talents, high Stats, etc) in developing the skill. They think it's 'proof' that missile weapons should be more deadly than they are in a RPG system. That's where I have a problem with it. Even if you could justify someone being this effective against a real live target, which obviously they would not, the imbalance of it would be system breaking.
-
No one is actually making that argument, though, so I think you are safe -- unless you feel that the rules make archery too fast already? I don't, because melee can achieve a similar rate of attacks. As long as they are on par, I think it's ok.
-
No, I don't think archery is too fast. It has it's advantages and drawbacks. Not being able to fire (or, really, draw/load) a missile weapon when someone is attacking you in melee and having to track ammo (although some don't bother) balance out the ranged attack and ability to easily changing targets. Personally I think some of RMSS's reload times are even a bit long.
I will actually let someone fire an already loaded crossbow in melee if they win initiative. If they don't it kinda depends on what kind of attack result is made against them. I just won't let them load it again.
-
The current structure may work for archery, but it breaks down as soon as firearms enter a game.
-
I'm sure it's fine for muskets and other slow-loading black powder weapons.
But modern firearms, sure, they overwhelm all other weapons in importance and the pace of the round is totally different. You need a shorter round and abstract multiple shots into bursts because the rates of fire are so fast and the ability to respond to fast movement is also improved. I don't think it's in any way useful to contemplate modern firearms in designing a fantasy game, or to use the combat rounds from a fantasy game for a modern game with guns.
-
I'm sure it's fine for muskets and other slow-loading black powder weapons.
But modern firearms, sure, they overwhelm all other weapons in importance and the pace of the round is totally different. You need a shorter round and abstract multiple shots into bursts because the rates of fire are so fast and the ability to respond to fast movement is also improved. I don't think it's in any way useful to contemplate modern firearms in designing a fantasy game, or to use the combat rounds from a fantasy game for a modern game with guns.
I agree. I bring them up more as a reminder that one thing Rolemaster can be is a core system for other genres, and that we need to be mindful that what works for one setting/genre may not work for another. It can also factor into fantasy games that involve time-traveling aspects and have modern weapons making an appearance. Brian Daley's Coramonde books spring most immediately to mind, although there are other examples.
-
If you're talking modern firearm types, yeah it doesn't quite work out well logically. Although single shot, three round burst, and auto-fire can work well enough. Again, the length of a round is irreverent from a broader perspective, it's just there to separate and limit actions and if you make it shorter people will start to ask how you can perform other actions in such a short round.
However, if you're talking historical firearm types I don't think there's really an issue. As a matter of fact 10 seconds might even be a little short to get a shot off.
-
The current structure may work for archery, but it breaks down as soon as firearms enter a game.
I have found the rule set in Weapons Law: Firearms works very nicely for integrating firearms into RM 10 second melee rounds.
Lots of multiple shots results in lots of missing.
-
The current structure may work for archery, but it breaks down as soon as firearms enter a game.
I have found the rule set in Weapons Law: Firearms works very nicely for integrating firearms into RM 10 second melee rounds.
Lots of multiple shots results in lots of missing.
I actually wasn't especially happy with those rules for a number of reasons. Doesn't mean they're bad, but simply that for my groups they never worked very well...especially the damage component. I've also always felt that ten seconds is far too much time for a split-second shootout-type combat round.
-
Personally I think the 10 second round is too long for anything. Being able to move 250' in a round exceeds the entire span of the typical combat environment. I like 5 seconds for fantasy and 2 seconds for modern. 5 seconds is still a long time for a gunfight, but 2 seconds means that reloading a crossbow basically makes you sit out the rest of the battle....
-
I've had really good results with two seconds for modern as well.
-
Very short rounds are great for realism. The 10 second round is great for story telling.
I recall 1st edition DnD had a 1 minute melee round. RM 10 seconds seemed very fast indeed.
-
The video is nice, and the guy shoots quite fast, but imho that's it.
Doesn't really show a "new level" of archery, nor is more historically accurate than hollywood movies.
Most of what he shows is the result of cheap trick shots and video editing.
Here's a nice article about it: http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/ (http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/)
-
Thanks for the article, it was very interesting. I was especially interested in the comments that others had posted and as I was expecting ranged the gamut of fandom to critical.
MDC
-
The video is nice, and the guy shoots quite fast, but imho that's it.
Doesn't really show a "new level" of archery, nor is more historically accurate than hollywood movies.
Most of what he shows is the result of cheap trick shots and video editing.
Here's a nice article about it: http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/ (http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/)
The narration in the video is pretty hyperbolic, but I thought the criticism in that article was equally so. E.g. neither of them properly explains why you switch the arrow to the other side of the bow, GeekDad spends a lot of time explaining why you don't do that but still mentions that some people do. As the reason is the switch to a thumb release, I think it's fair for Lars to say he had to "unlearn" and relearn techniques. You really do need to do so when switching from finger release to thumb release, it's quite awkward. I know I'm having trouble with it....
Is Lars' shooting real? I'm sure there are multiple takes but I also know I couldn't afford enough camera time and targets to pick and choose shots that look as good as his. The speed is real, the accuracy is impressive even if it's not as perfect as depicted.
-
I was curious about the whole "which side of the bow" the arrow goes on. I always shot with the arrow on the right side of the bow... it just seemed the obvious way to do it.
-
I don't think anyone posted this link but this is a great discussion of many of the things in the video:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the-video-thank-you-for-posting-it-/10152769003622585?pnref=story (https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the-video-thank-you-for-posting-it-/10152769003622585?pnref=story)
Also, there's a snopes article that also includes additional explanation by Lars:
http://www.snopes.com/info/news/larsandersen.asp (http://www.snopes.com/info/news/larsandersen.asp)
-
The narration in the video is pretty hyperbolic, but I thought the criticism in that article was equally so.
Yes, imho the video's major fault lays in its presentation. I think it would have been much more interesting (and informative) without the "everything you know is WRONG" attitude.
The article is pretty caustic, but I guess the author is playing on the video sensationalism.
Is Lars' shooting real? I'm sure there are multiple takes but I also know I couldn't afford enough camera time and targets to pick and choose shots that look as good as his. The speed is real, the accuracy is impressive even if it's not as perfect as depicted.
I'm sure he's actually quite good. I mean, even doing just trick shots require a certain degree of skill, it isn't something a newbie would be able to accomplish.
-
I can't read the post on Facebook (are there material parts worth quoting here?) but the Snopes article seems reasonable. Confirms highly rehearsed, multiple takes. I would expect that, it doesn't detract in my opinion.
-
I think the whole thing is worth a read. I tried finding it other than a facebook post. It's by Anna Maltese, who I guess is a pretty famous archer. Here's the article:
So, guys, first of all, thank you for posting the video/tagging me in it. That's wonderfully thoughtful of you all. At last count, it's up to nine (Edit: thirteen) times I've either been tagged or had it posted on my wall, and that's a lot of times for one post, and effort on the part of my friends. To emphasize this point - I am quite chuffed that my friends thought of me so much when they saw it, much less ask me what I think about it. And since it's a lot of posts to go through, instead of repeating several times what I did in one, I'll just respond here.
The video raises a lot of questions. Not that the guy isn't good at what he does, because he is - though he's not the best - but it's sloppy about what it asserts as "historically accurate" and "best."
First off, this is what we call 'trick shooting.' Not in the sense of an illusion or fakery, but like stunts. So, keep that in mind.
* Now to the first point: judging what was "historically accurate" by what ancient images show isn't actually the best method by which to judge historical accuracy. There are countless representations of archery today - in photos, in comic books, and in film *cough*JeremyRenner*cough* - which depict what would be incredibly poor skill IRL...even, in the case of Renner, completely impossible, physics-wise, for the arrow to get to where he wants it to. And it's simply because the artist wasn't involved in archery. So even with all of our modern ability to analyze form and technique, artists still get it wrong and actors can still be terrible at it.
* Second, the 'catching the arrow' in midair isn't going to hew to historical accuracy, either. It's what we call a 'trick shot.' Mythbusters tackled that one, and to catch an arrow the bow has to be very, very light and it can't be drawn back to a normal anchor point. If it's close by, if the shot is practiced, if the bow is very light, if it's drawn shallowly, and *if* everything lines up, then it can be done. But it's not "historically accurate" or possible with a normal draw because at full draw the arrow will rip/burn the skin of the catcher's hand clean away from friction due to it's speed. The person shooting the arrow that Lars catches isn't shown in the video, so we don't know how they were doing it.
Keep in mind that if people are going to be doing this trick, regardless of how far or little they draw back, it's the sort of thing that needs to be rehearsed with a partner in order to get it right, as Mythbusters demonstrated. It's definitely not reliable in a chaotic battle as arrows are going to be flying in from many different directions at speeds too high - and completely unrehearsed with a trusted partner - to catch.
* Third, the narration asserts a lot about the placement of the arrow on the bow shelf. The reason the arrow is usually shot by the opposite hand from the side of the bow it's resting on is that the physics of the Archer's Paradox make sure that the arrow is going to fly in a straight trajectory after bending around the riser. Now, it's true that there are many traditions of same-side shooting - notably, the Mongolian style with thumb ring. Lars incorporates this into his style on account of wanting to speed up the shot sequence. But whether it's necessary for speed is up for debate. In many other types of archery, same-side shooting is going to make the arrow fly off to the side at longer distances, but up close - like from the distances Lars is shooting - it's probably not going to be that much of a problem. However, archery - especially in warfare - wasn't always up close. Also, the archers don't shoot "on the right" or "on the left." They shoot with the draw hand of their dominant eye, whichever that eye is. However, since Lars isn't drawing back to any anchor, that's not an issue.
* Fourth, he's using a 35# (35 - pound draw weight) bow; that'll give him an easy pull. This would not have done much damage to an armored fighter. He's also not even drawing it back fully, so the weight is going to be even less than 35#. (This will also help him with the 'catching the arrow in midair trick shot - the weight might be as little as 25#, depending on how far back the other bow is drawn.) Most archers these days who hunt with traditional, non-compound bows shoot with at least a 35# for some (unarmored) game, but more likely with at least a #40 and more likely a 50#. British archers in warfare often pulled as much as 100# because they relied on distance shooting in warfare. So, historical accuracy is out the window for this aspect, because war bows have a heavier pull.
* Fifth: the video asserts that the back quiver was a "myth." Tell that to this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Samurai_on_horseback.png
Neither the back quiver nor the hip quiver was a "myth." Every culture had a place to store their arrows, and that was often a quiver. It makes sense, if you need to have both your hands free. Some bows have the quivers built onto the riser, and some archers didn't use them so much. But it all depended on the time and place and period, and method of battle.
There is and was no universal "right way," because every culture had different needs for archery in war, in battle, and in hunting at different times in their history.
Can you imagine how Agincourt would have turned out if the British had had to rely on this type of archery, instead of their traditional style, which is what saved their bacon? Or can you imagine how the Mongols would have succeeded in their adventures had they adopted the British method of using the longbow?
* The narrator asserts a lot of other vague things about what was historical and even things which are done today, making it sound like these techniques were universal when in fact there were and still are many, many different techniques of archery. There always have been. How the bow is held, how the arrow is nocked, how it's drawn, how it's anchored/not anchored, stringwalking techniques, finger releases, dead releases, how the arrows were stored, whether the bow and technique was designed for infantry or cavalry, whether it was for hunting or warfare...all of these things varied across cultures and periods of history. The narration seems to ignore all of that and just lump all of human archery history together in "this is how it was done" without specifying particularly who, when, and where.
* Yet another assertion the video makes is that archers in one specific time period were required to be able to split an arrow. That in itself is a myth. Most arrows were made of wood at that time (nearly all, in fact) and wood doesn't split evenly down the length due to its grain. It'll shear off pieces, but won't split clean. Mythbusters did that one too. What you can do today is called "Robin-Hooding" or "Maid-Marioning," with a carbon arrow, which is where the second arrow hits the first right on the money and sticks itself partway inside the first.
The second arrow then buys breakfast for the first arrow the next morning.
It also asserts that most archers shoot with only one eye open, and he's revolutionizing the practice by keeping both open. Let me correct that:
Archers don't close the other eye when they shoot. We keep both open always.
* Another problem I have with the video is the QVC-like nature of some of the clips - especially where he's supposedly demonstrating how awful it is to draw arrows from a quiver, or run around with arrows in a quiver on your back getting caught in trees.
If it was this problematic for archers, we wouldn't use a quiver at all. Archery is about what works.
And to quibble over a technicality here on that point...the type of shooting he's demonstrating from representations of the Scythians would have typically done in open-air battles with lots of grassland space (called 'light horse archery' - which I'll get to in a moment) and room to maneuver. There weren't a whole lot of tree branches getting in the way.
Even the way Lars pretends to mess up on the nock and draw when demonstrating how supposedly difficult it is to speed shoot from the other side has to be for comical effect - I can't seriously believe he is trying to convince people that it's that difficult. Pulling from the other side is pretty standard due to the physics of the Archer's Paradox. If it was problematic we'd drop it. Like everything else in archery, practice makes perfect. I'm not a speed shooter, but I've got my draw technique down to a speed that I can complete my shot before other, less-experienced archers have finished nocking their arrow. And there are other traditional archers who can outshoot me like that because they're that much faster than me. And others to them.
I am not discrediting his skill at what he does. It's basically trick shooting, of a style that he created. Historically speaking, aspects of it might be serviceable in light horse archery - basically, engaging in skirmishes like the Scythians or Huns. Coming in fast and then peeling away rapidly. Not in tight military formation or heavy horse archery with tight discipline. Japan had heavy horse archery, for instance, shooting volleys from horseback at a distance and then charging. The Mongols had both light and heavy horse archery and used it depending on their needs. It was not used in medieval British warfare, nor in many other styles which didn't come in close for skirmishes.
The assertions of historical accuracy in the video aren't reliable. The style of trick shooting he does can be entertaining, however. So basically, my objections are with the assertions and sloppy historical broad-brushing rather than the archer's results.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I hope it makes sense.
Thank you, everyone. And please keep posting and tagging me in these videos - I love getting them!
Anna
-
I think the whole thing is worth a read. I tried finding it other than a facebook post. It's by Anna Maltese, who I guess is a pretty famous archer. Here's the article:
Thanks, it was a good read, and very reasonable. There are a bunch of points that are very sensible so I have nothing to say about them.
* Third, the narration asserts a lot about the placement of the arrow on the bow shelf. The reason the arrow is usually shot by the opposite hand from the side of the bow it's resting on is that the physics of the Archer's Paradox make sure that the arrow is going to fly in a straight trajectory after bending around the riser. Now, it's true that there are many traditions of same-side shooting - notably, the Mongolian style with thumb ring. Lars incorporates this into his style on account of wanting to speed up the shot sequence. But whether it's necessary for speed is up for debate. In many other types of archery, same-side shooting is going to make the arrow fly off to the side at longer distances, but up close - like from the distances Lars is shooting - it's probably not going to be that much of a problem. However, archery - especially in warfare - wasn't always up close. Also, the archers don't shoot "on the right" or "on the left." They shoot with the draw hand of their dominant eye, whichever that eye is. However, since Lars isn't drawing back to any anchor, that's not an issue.
The Mongolian style isn't necessarily Mongolian, doesn't necessarily use a thumb ring, and is very widespread. The flying off the side issue is simply not present with the thumb release, bringing that up suggests she is (not surprisingly) trained in western-style finger release and has little exposure to thumb release (which is true of most western archers). There is an argument that thumb release is generally faster, it maybe helps a little that the arrows start on the right side of the bow, but the real advantage Lars is using, I think, is holding multiple arrows in the hand. It does help quite a bit. I haven't seen anything to suggest it's commonly done anywhere in current practice. For regular target shooting there's no point. I don't know whether it's really historically common as Lars claims. Certainly you would also carry a quiver because there's a limit to how many arrows you can hold in your hand at once, and sometimes you need your hands free. The point he should be making, and handles very poorly, is that you wouldn't necessarily be drawing arrows from that quiver one by one with each shot.
She also mentions he isn't drawing back to an anchor point, which others have criticized as sloppy technique, but it's typical of Mongolian archery.
* Fourth, he's using a 35# (35 - pound draw weight) bow; that'll give him an easy pull. This would not have done much damage to an armored fighter. He's also not even drawing it back fully, so the weight is going to be even less than 35#. (This will also help him with the 'catching the arrow in midair trick shot - the weight might be as little as 25#, depending on how far back the other bow is drawn.) Most archers these days who hunt with traditional, non-compound bows shoot with at least a 35# for some (unarmored) game, but more likely with at least a #40 and more likely a 50#. British archers in warfare often pulled as much as 100# because they relied on distance shooting in warfare. So, historical accuracy is out the window for this aspect, because war bows have a heavier pull.
It's definitely true that using a light bow helps the speed as she says.
But the English longbow is the exception when it comes to war bows. 50-60 lbs draw is more typical in other cultures. So, although his bow is light, it shouldn't be read that it's only a third of combat strength.
Can you imagine how Agincourt would have turned out if the British had had to rely on this type of archery, instead of their traditional style, which is what saved their bacon? Or can you imagine how the Mongols would have succeeded in their adventures had they adopted the British method of using the longbow?
This sounds like very western bias to me. Really, although the English longbow is a very heavy draw, the recurve design is more efficient and composite construction provided its own advantages. If the Mongols had all been given English longbows, they would have had to get off their horses and probably would have been slaughtered. After all, they did not lose because of poor military technology, they lost because their leader died and they all had to go home to figure out his successor.
Meanwhile, if the English had Mongol composite bows, they probably would have died too because composite bows don't tolerate rainy (English) weather nearly as well as self bows. In sunny weather... some have argued the longbowmen were more effective against cavalry at Agincourt by shooting the lightly armored horses, more than the mounted knights themselves. Would have worked out the same with Mongol bows. Against the heavily armored infantry, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt describes the battle this way:
The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as "a terrifying hail of arrow shot".... Modern historians are somewhat divided on how effective the longbow fire would have been against plate armour of the time, with some modern texts suggesting that arrows could not penetrate, especially the better quality steel armour, but others suggesting arrows could penetrate, especially the poorer quality wrought iron armour. Rogers suggests that the longbow could penetrate a wrought iron breastplate at short range and penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs even at 220 yards (200 m). He considers a knight in the best quality steel armour would have been more or less invulnerable to an arrow on the breastplate or top of the helmet, but would still have been vulnerable to shots hitting the limbs, particularly at close range.[47] In any case, to protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face—the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour. This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armour weighing 50–60 pounds (23–27 kg). Increasingly they had to walk around or over fallen comrades.[48]
The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line.
Sounds to me like they would have done fine with Mongol bows.
-
jdale: 1) I do not remember but was not weather a factor at Agincourt? If so then the comp bows would have de-laminated like it has been previously said on many occasions.
2) Also as people have said in various articles and discussions target distance, what you are trying to achieve (effect), your skill and other factors (target considerations, weather, materials, arrow composition, etc) is very important.
3) I am not an archer but I can say as a once very good dart thrower that changing your throwing grip can be a huge difference and I often had to take quite a bit of time to adjust from soft tip darts to hard tip darts as I threw a lot heavier hard tip dart. But after sometime having started at steel tip darts I became a much better soft tip darts player as for some reason the doubles and triples just seemed to be bigger on the board to me.
Unfortunately since my two back surgeries I never have been able to get back close to where I once was in terms of accuracy or precision.
All in all I like the new info but I do think the trick shooting has it place in a limited scope of things.
But again I am no expert.
MDC
-
I could be wrong, but I don't think a Mongol bow would fire an arrow that could penetrate armor from up to 300 yards. So they would have potentially been more effective close up, but you'd give up the ability to fire more arrows at the incoming forces, which is a far preferable situation given Euro style combats (i.e. line up and march/run). I think the longbow and the mongol bow are suited to very different situations.
-
the real advantage Lars is using, I think, is holding multiple arrows in the hand. It does help quite a bit. I haven't seen anything to suggest it's commonly done anywhere in current practice. For regular target shooting there's no point. I don't know whether it's really historically common as Lars claims. Certainly you would also carry a quiver because there's a limit to how many arrows you can hold in your hand at once, and sometimes you need your hands free. The point he should be making, and handles very poorly, is that you wouldn't necessarily be drawing arrows from that quiver one by one with each shot.
It's a technique used in some part of the world in horseback archery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOpOqgotJZc&list=PLE7EFF668D0C39DEA&index=19 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOpOqgotJZc&list=PLE7EFF668D0C39DEA&index=19)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOWeU9R1vBs&list=PLE7EFF668D0C39DEA&index=2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOWeU9R1vBs&list=PLE7EFF668D0C39DEA&index=2)
I'm no expert, but I think its usage in history varied wildly, depending on period, culture and type of warfare.
About the mongolian bow (again, no expert here, just tangential knowledge coming from my main field of study): yes, one of the main tactics of the mongolian army included closing up to the enemy and shooting a load of arrows point-blank (to open the way for their heavy cavalry).
But they also shot from distance with deadly accuracy.
Also, remember that the Jin, Song and Xia knew and used metal armor (mainly chain and lamellar, but plate wasn't uneard of, even if it probably wasn't as heavy as the european), and still they were defeated by the mongols.
-
Personally I think the 10 second round is too long for anything. Being able to move 250' in a round exceeds the entire span of the typical combat environment. I like 5 seconds for fantasy and 2 seconds for modern. 5 seconds is still a long time for a gunfight, but 2 seconds means that reloading a crossbow basically makes you sit out the rest of the battle....
Very much agree. Running RMC with it's two 50% phases makes for some quite silly situations, where a character can completely run out of range of some ranged weapons before the missile can be thrown/fired. I've said many times in other threads that characters can (quite literally) run rings around an entire melee with little or no repercussions. At least it makes for a good cinematic visual, albeit an amusing one.
PC with spear asks, "Do I really have to wait 5-10 seconds before I can throw my spear at that fleeing Orc?"
GM: "Yes, so don't bother, the Orc is out of range now"
-
This latest discussion is a perfect example of why I do not consider % action a finite length of time within a given round (nor, imo, did the designers of the rounds previous to RMU) and why I like the phased movement restrictions in RMSS better than any of the other RM rounds (i.e. up to 20% movement in snap, 50% in normal, 80% in deliberate).
-
Whether we like it or not, a round is equivalent to a finite amount of time, otherwise it's impossible to calculate how far a character is able to move within a round, or a phase.
Directly quoting from RMC CL p 140, Base Movement rate is:
"... the number of feet the character can move at a “walking pace” in a ten second battle round"
-
Personally, I would allow the PC to throw the spear in Phase 1 at a penalty, albeit that goes against the RAW. And don't ask me how I would work out what the range should be (to calculate range modifier)... does the Orc run 10', 30', 50' by the time the spear is thrown? GM's call I guess.
-
Directly quoting from RMC CL p 140, Base Movement rate is:
"... the number of feet the character can move at a “walking pace” in a ten second battle round"
But that's not the same as saying "X Foe moves 50' in the blink of an eye so X is now out of range of you". The throw of a spear at X is happening while X's running away is taking place. When you have larger amounts of movement allowed in a given portion of the round this problem is magnified (RMC/RMU).
RMSS you have three phases and movement is the only thing that is limited within those phases. Movement is the only part of the RMSS round that is largely non-abstract. Snap is 20% movement, Normal is 50% movement, and deliberate is 80% movement (note: movement, not action). So, if you have a 240' run allowed in a round you can move 48 feet in Snap. Let's assume foe X has a better initiative than his attacker and he runs away. In snap he can only run 20% of his full movement allowance. If his attacker is also in snap then he's not going to be able to run any father before the attack. If the attacker throws in Normal, then foe X would be capable of running 70% total (20% snap + 50% normal) of his full movement allowance before the attack is made. Now, if the attacker had the better initiative he could have attacked before even X's 20% movement in snap, or if the attacker attacked in normal, X would only be 20% of his movement away.
In any case, if that's far enough to get out of range, then you have to assume he fled far enough away to make the attack ineffective. You're going to have to have a line in the sand somewhere. Even if you want to say combat is simultaneous then the line in the sand is simply offset by one round.
Now, you also have to consider that part of the reason for ranges on missile weapons being shorter than they can actually be fired is you're talking about EFFECTIVE range. If you fire a bow at me from 200' away, unless I'm paying no attention, it's going to be pretty easy to sidestep that missile. Really, I don't even need to look and can just dodge and weave and you're going to have a much harder time hitting me. So you could actually argue even the longer ranges already in-game are possibly unrealistic. So the in-game mechanic tries to strike a balance between those things.
Too often people look at game mechanics and say "That's not realistic!" and they are right... because it's really freakin rare you can make completely realistic rules and still have them be fun (i.e. manageable, balanced, etc).
BTW, this is why I like the BattleTech round. Movement, in order of worst to best, then Action, in order of best to worst. It pretty much completely eliminates the problem we're talking about there.
-
Delete. Nothing to see here... move along...
-
Directly quoting from RMC CL p 140, Base Movement rate is:
"... the number of feet the character can move at a “walking pace” in a ten second battle round"
But that's not the same as saying "X Foe moves 50' in the blink of an eye so X is now out of range of you".
In reality, of course not, but using the RMC rules gives precisely the same end result. It's as if they teleported 50'. In RMC rules (I can't talk about RMSS/FRP) during Phase 1 the fleeing Orc is able to move 50% of his Movement rate (at run pace, we rule), while the PC throwing the spear must wait until Phase 2. This means that the Orc will always be out of range at the end of phase 1, before the spear can be thrown in phase 2. I'm just stating the way the RMC rules work. This is why I keep bringing up the topic in various threads, so that any new rules will hopefully deal with this situation in a more realistic way.
BTW, this is why I like the BattleTech round. Movement, in order of worst to best, then Action, in order of best to worst. It pretty much completely eliminates the problem we're talking about there.
Yes I agree. Having played Battletech, movement and actions make much more sense, and I intend to see if our group wants to try the reverse initiative movement. It won't solve the phase 1 movement issue described above, but still a step in the right direction perhaps.
-
I will add that I think the game designers have a very difficult time trying to balance movement, ranged and melee combat. It's not at all easy when melee is simulated as a multitude of thrusts, ripostes, swings, dodges, with an attack simulated by one attack roll during the round. Whereas ranged attacks are generally one (reasonably fluid) aim and throw/fire action. The disparities are very well highlighted by the video at the beginning of this thread.
I can only suggest a shorter round, which while not solving the problems, at least makes the problems less pronounced.
-
A movement phase followed by an action phase works great. That's what we do, I'm quite pleased with it. Super helpful for reducing declarations too.
95% of the time, we don't even worry about sequence. I say, "who is moving?" and they move. Conflicts about positioning (e.g. trying to get into melee with a given target who is evading) are resolved by Running rolls and not by initiative at all. Then when it comes to actions, people already know their circumstance and are more likely to know what they are going to do.
-
Yes jdale, I'm very much leaning towards that too, along with Corey's reverse initiative for movement. We've been using the RMC rules as written for a long time now but there's always been an inescapable "wrong" feeling when using them, evidenced by current examples. I fully understand the intent of RMC (and RMU) phases and action costs in 5% or 10% increments, and the flexibility the designers are attempting to give players when deciding how to alot their 100% activity for the round, but in actual use they have always seemed a little clunky and unrealistic, and quite difficult to account for.
A simple movement phase followed by action phase seems simple and fair, although I understand detractors may say it's leaning towards board-game mechanics rather than rpg. I remember using the old MERP combat sequence which broke down the phases into movement, spells, missile, melee, etc. and I don't recall anyone complaining about it. We all knew exactly where we stood and it was the same for all parties.
jdale, how far are characters allowed to move in your movement phase? And does the amount of movement detract from a character's ability to perform action(s) in the action phase?
Also, all this talk of home-brew combat sequences makes me more concerned for the RMU sequence. If so many long standing players/GMs are ignoring the RAW and using their own combat rules, that's a clear indicator of something amiss. I wonder if RMU could have two sets of combat sequences, basic and advanced; basic being the simple phases, advanced being the % activity method. The designers would no doubt be horrified by the thought, but if many players are already ditching the written rules for their own systems...
-
jdale, how far are characters allowed to move in your movement phase? And does the amount of movement detract from a character's ability to perform action(s) in the action phase?
Movement phase: Full movement for whatever pace they are moving. One round worth of movement. But I use a 5 second round, so BMR is half what it would otherwise be.
Action phase: The pace penalty for that rate of movement applies to all actions for the round. There's no distinction about movement was during this action and not during this action. If movement is half BMR or less ("creep" pace), the pace penalty is -0. Otherwise, pace penalties are as listed. The "Min Move" column of the pace table becomes unnecessary because movement is never for only part of the round.
So far the only exception in which movement occurs as an action and not in the movement phase is the Leaping spell.
-
Elegant simplicity. It sounds brilliant, and I'm particularly thinking about newcomers to the game.
-
95% of the time, we don't even worry about sequence. I say, "who is moving?" and they move. Conflicts about positioning (e.g. trying to get into melee with a given target who is evading) are resolved by Running rolls and not by initiative at all. Then when it comes to actions, people already know their circumstance and are more likely to know what they are going to do.
With the BattleTech round this is really what happens unless there is a conflict that involves movement, such as someone trying to block someone else from reaching a certain point and that kind of thing.
I've been given some guff in the past over stating that I think the RMSS round is the best middle ground for an official RM round, but that I prefer the more extreme ends, those being either full on second-to-second or the BattleTech style round (I'll never do the D&D style round of each person takes their entire rounds action at once in initiative order). My opinion of what is sensible for publication and what I prefer to use will sometimes differ... but I think if someone is unable to see that difference they are in for a hard time of it.