I’m sorry, but I really need to see some kind of actual proof that a human can deal more damage with a bow then the same human can deal with an appropriate melee weapon.
(If that was even remotely the case, no one would ever use melee weapons after the invention of a bow.)
1 Like
I don’t think you can find proof for that. Without going into detailed calculations of hypothetical bow shot and spear stab we can simplify everything a bit. Modern ballistics is split into 3 (actually 4) parts:
- internal, which deals with powder ignition, energy storage/release and etc
- external, deals with a flight of projectile
- terminal, what happens when projectile interacts with the “target”
One can fit both bow and a spear into these categories.
Internal:
The main difference between a bow and a spear would be ability to do more work on a bow compared to the spear, but this could be applied only to modern bows that allow to “stretch” arms virtually more than a length of an arm by using pulley. Someone, correct me if I’m wrong on this.
But this could be countered by one or another technique of using a spear where amplitude of motion can be larger.
During the release of the arrow, the energy of the bow is probably released faster than during stabbing motion of a spear but that only converts into higher acceleration which doesn’t necessary mean much. Because of the next part.
External:
Here the spear is superior in all sense as not only it has a larger mass, it has the whole body mass of the person behind it and therefore is less effected by the air drag, albeit the top speed of the arrow is probably higher than of the spear, but practically it can be more of a negative as higher speed leads to higher air drag.
Terminal:
Yes, the arrow can be much more narrow and therefore pierce easier, it’s not the main factor between overall penetration and damage.You have to take into account the whole inertia and resistance from the material of the target which effects back onto projectile. Here spear again wins as it would be typically thicker and heavier, ability to guide the spear before and after initial contact with target is made.
1 Like
Yet people still use melee weapons in modern day time while we have freaking guns. There’s also the fact that bayonets are effectively melee weapons put into a gun and exist for a reason.
That particular argument so blatantly false it hurts. People in modern day time have been killed by freaking pillows rather than guns.
In regards to getting proof, Imma go do that later after I finish up my reading session. I got distracted on the forums here. I’ve gathered this stuff over a multitude of times and places in real life and over the internet in various places, so I’m going to need to search it up a bit.
EDIT: Also, one of the main notable factors of using a bow is the simple idea of ‘kill your foe before your foe can kill you.’
With a bow you have far more distance than any melee weapon, (obviously), and the use of that should be obvious.
Also, sorry if I came off a bit rude at all, didn’t mean to.
Not when using firearm is an option, they don’t. No soldiers is ever expected to be using melee as a primary weapon in modern times.
While non-archers definitely existed as soldiers after the invention and widespread adoption of a bow.
And yet right now in CDDA compound greatbow flat out out-damages a steel spear — instead of simply being a ranged weapon, but with lower damage.
1 Like
Iirc 18 is considered olympian level capabilities.
2 Likes
Fluff can say whatever it does.
As a matter of simple fact any stat value from 4 to 20 is a completely normal stat value a character of any background can start with naturally.
If you start with that stat then you start at olympian level then, it’s that simple. 8 is (again, iirc) considered average.
2 Likes
“olympian level” would imply only career athletes can have it.
As a matter of fact any profession and background can start with it. Including a random hobo or a geeky teenager from local science club.
I used to work with a former olympic athelete, at a delivery company.
I actually just double checked, 14 is considerd “world class”.
1 Like
Again, fluff does not mean anything if the actual rules of the game do not support it.
And since in actuality a random hobo can have 20 in a stat naturally (even if using multi-pool with default amount of stat points), the gameplay reality is that 20 is the max for an average person.
Then that hobo isn’t an “average” person. Also, you can only get 20 in a stat in muti-pool by sacrificing literally ever other stat so definitely not average.
3 Likes
We can argue all day what exactly constitutes “average”, however, the reality of the situation is, that ANY character can have that stat value as a starting stat value.
No training, trait, mutation or CBM’s are required.
Thus, in gameplay terms, values up to 20 are perfectly “human”, even if on the higher end of what people can start with.
Perfectly human doesn’t mean average, I like to think of a 20 str character as something like one of the world strongest man contestents. A 20 intelligence person as an actual genius etc. These aren’t average people.
3 Likes
Also, that design document you linked has little to no connection to how the game is actually played.
Getting your perception to 0 absolutely does NOT prevent you from successfully completing perception related tasks. Having BOTH perception and dexterity at 0 does not prevent you from using firearm with reasonable accuracy. Etc, etc.
Then make a PR and either fix it or hope someone else does.
They might not be “average”, but they are still within what you can potentially expect from literally any human.
So it’s not “superhuman”.
That design document is simply misleading (imho, anyway).
I care about balancing gameplay to be consistent with itself, not with some fluff (as written in some piece of lore composed years ago).
P. S. Btw, from the same design document:
46+ damage weapons - Sci-fi stuff. Diamond katanas, monomolecular blades, lightsabers and chainswords
Guess what? Compound greatbow has base damage of 50 when used with a broadhead arrow.
No not really. Bayonets or knives are (very) backup weapon at most. Many combatants (even infantry) on contemporary battlefield don’t use them a all. If they have them it’s just as a final resort that practically it never comes to.
You might have good points about bows vs any other weapons but this is simply not one of them.
I was replying in how supposedly, after the bow was invented that nobody would ever use a melee weapon if it’s that good. This is a standing point that, in this case, still make sense.
If you are in a situation where you aren’t able to use a gun, which is far better than a bow, and you instead have to use a bayonet or similar, then you are using a melee weapon.
Even if it’s a last resort, it still disproves what he said.
I never said that it was necessarily common to use a bayonet instead of actually shooting, but simply stating that it exists for a reason.
I understand what you’re saying, but in context it is a good point.
And here is where you are wrong, I could study my whole life and I’ll never be a genius. I could train my whole life and I’ll never be the worlds strongest man. These aren’t super human but also aren’t something that “you can potentially expect from literally any human”.
1 Like