Ranged combat mechanics

[teknoman2]

certainly the game will not have any army vs army battles, and the shots will be done at closer ranges like 10-15m at most where accuracy is not that much of an issue and the arrows still have most of their speed, but still the fact remains that metal armors are hard to pierce with projectiles, especially if not hit at the right angle. but we are talking about a game here so i dont see the reason for anything than the standard combat rules to apply.

[Osvir]

*skim skim*

2 things I have thought about when it comes to Ranged combat is:

1. Being able to create a firing "arc" akin to how Grenades are used in FPS games nowadays (GUI-wise, you get this arc showing you how the Grenade will be thrown). Perhaps you can manipulate it somehow. A way to avoid "Friendly Fire" or shoot over a tank who is guarding a Wizard or other squishy character.

2. Not kiting, but just having some mobility between shots.

- Shoot
- Move
- Shoot
- Move
- Shoot

A penalty for moving between shots could be longer Aim time (Bows) and longer reload time (Guns).

Additionally, a number 3 I came up with mid-post:
 

3. Aim getting better and better the more you focus on a target (Stationary). First shot might be 25% chance to hit, second shot 35% to hit, third shot 45% to hit etc. etc. a stacking "To Hit" chance. If you switch targets or move it could go down to "0%" again. This could actually work as a Trait or a Perk now that I think about it:

"Focus Aim: The more you shoot towards a single target opponent you gain +5% chance to hit for each shot" or something.

Now that I think about it even further, why isn't that^ a mechanic to begin with? (For both Melee and Ranged) It makes sense to me that you would get better and better as time goes on when actively doing something. For instance, if I play a Dart throwing game I might be horrible the first two throws, but I also get better at it as I feel the weight of the darts and also see the trajectory of the darts I threw (if I stay focused and concentrated). The 3rd Dart might be a 100% hit because I adjust and try to learn.

That goes for bowling, Poi, Staff-play etc. etc. and I believe it would be something that would be realistic in a close-combat as well. I might hit the enemy's shield the first 2 times when I swing my sword, thus when I swing my sword the 3rd time I can adjust my swing to fool my opponent and then get a hit. This is something I actively do on League of Legends, I throw some "false" attacks to fool my opponent that I am horrible at what I am doing, but when it really matters I switch my tactic to "Hit" rather than "Miss" <- If that makes sense.

1. I intentionally miss twice to see how my opponents are moving (I.E I get intelligence on the opponent movements).
2. Thus I heighten my chances To Hit with my 3rd Attack.

Darts:
1st Dart might be a 25% hit. I adjust.
2nd Dart might be a 30%-40% hit. I adjust
3rd Dart might be a 40%-50% hit. I adjust
etc. etc.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Osvir

[Lephys]

That's actually a very interesting idea, Osvir. There'd have to be some ceiling, though, obviously, heh. The amount of stacking bonus would have to decrease at each stage or something. Otherwise, given enough shots, you'd magically attain perfect accuracy.

[Diagoras]

 

 

I asked my expert friend because I wasn't buying it either, but it turns out he's totally right.

 

You asked your expert friend about the early 16th century?

 

I did. His specialisation is ancient greek military history, for which he's working on his PHD, but he's quite knowledgeable about the early renaissance period too.

 

 

And he thinks gunfire had low lethality? Steel prod crossbows? How does he explain the drastic growth in casualties of the 16th century, which is usually attributed to close-range shooting?

 

I can get Ancient Greece, as bows of that era had tremendously low power, but it's a little hard to buy that shot at Cersole or Bicoccia didn't kill anyone.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Diagoras

[JFSOCC]

 

 

 

I asked my expert friend because I wasn't buying it either, but it turns out he's totally right.

 

You asked your expert friend about the early 16th century?

 

I did. His specialisation is ancient greek military history, for which he's working on his PHD, but he's quite knowledgeable about the early renaissance period too.

 

 

And he thinks gunfire had low lethality? Steel prod crossbows? How does he explain the drastic growth in casualties of the 16th century, which is usually attributed to close-range shooting?

 

I can get Ancient Greece, as bows of that era had tremendously low power, but it's a little hard to buy that shot at Cersole or Bicoccia didn't kill anyone.

 

not talking about guns, just archery units.

 

And he's arguing that it was actually that the bow units were so powerful that they tended to be the first to be engaged to get them out of combat quickly.

[Jarmo]

My understanding is that the norm was for troops in formation with shields, helmets and stuff, to be pretty much safe from arrows. Low, low casualties.

Most bows would be low power and inefficient against any armor.

Cretan archers were one exception, no doubt there were others. But even then, they'd be only marginally more effective, not a war winning ace card.

 

Arrow fire could break formation (through just being unnerving?), leaving the enemy open to infantry attack, not so much vulnerable to further archery.

 

Early exception would be Romans against Parthians, or were they persians or what at the time.

There was something about their bows (early composite bows?), that enabled them to cause casualties to armored troops in formation.

 

But even then, it was a combination effect. Stay far enough, shoot your arrows, retreat.

They were mowing romans down, but it was a long process that took days, not minutes or hours.

 

Same with Mongols.

Against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, they could just slay the enemy.

Against armored targets even mongol archers were largely ineffective, causing very slight casualties,

but tiring the enemy down and leading knights away from the main troop.

It was more likely than not for mongols to decide the fight by charge, after the opponents were dead tired, bleeding and in disarray.

 

English longbowmen could likewise disrupt the enemy charge, cause wounds and kill some mounts.

Enough to dullen the effect of the charge and cause the ensuing melee to be won, but not enough to cause massive damage by itself.

[Diagoras]

not talking about guns, just archery units.

 

 

Shot was a combination of crossbowmen with arbalests and arquebusiers, in the period.

 

And he's arguing that it was actually that the bow units were so powerful that they tended to be the first to be engaged to get them out of combat quickly.

 

 

I can't quite parse this. Is he talking about skirmishers, or what?

[JFSOCC]

I love the internet. of course it holds the answer. Nerds worldwide must have been having this discussion on many forums before.

 

that's 10 hits out of 57, almost no hits early on and with significantly more hits as the plate gets damaged.

Maybe durability makes sense after all...

Edited July 10, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Sensuki]

That plate is very thin, 1.5mm - throw in some 5mm plate and see how much gets through

Edited July 10, 2013 by Sensuki

[JFSOCC]

oh don't get me wrong, it looks pretty much like myth busted to me. Plate can't be pierced with arrows unless you have an arrow storm and worn down plate. clearly.

[Sensuki]

Crude thick plate is pretty good against rifled musket bullets too

 

 

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

[Diagoras]

oh don't get me wrong, it looks pretty much like myth busted to me. Plate can't be pierced with arrows unless you have an arrow storm and worn down plate. clearly.

 

 

The Knight and the Blast Furnace uses a combination of experimental, historical, and theoretical approaches to formulate the joules of energy to defeat armor. By its reckoning, the low quality padded jack and munitions plate of the late 15th and early 16th centuries could be defeated by a steel prod crossbow firing at up to 30m away - well within the distance that shot discharged their weapons, especially 15th century shot. This is consistent with what see in, say, the Battle of Morat where the Burgundian shot managed to maim advancing Swiss pikemen. The Battle of Visby is also a decent example, although it was transitional plate armor that was being used.

 

But this is outside the general questions of casualties caused by shot, which includes many periods before the development of munitions plate.

[tajerio]

I think the experience of top-grade projectile weapons against top-grade armor, in the periods about which we're talking at least, has generally been that shooting directly at the armor is doing it wrong.  Optimal results required trying to shoot the enemy at his joints or neck, instead of right on the point of his concave breastplate (because placing force at the point of maximum resistance is wasteful).  Now, for most ranged combatants, in battle settings, the weaponry and training weren't really there to establish the accuracy necessary for all of them to be drilling armored men in the shoulder all day long.  So they used massed fire harassment tactics, trusting to the weight of probability rather than skill.  And depending on how the Renaissance period is defined (geographically and temporally), firearms in P:E could still be very much at that standard of needing to hit joints, or could be capable of punching through plate. 

[Jarmo]

In PE or in most any game in general, you're almost guaranteed to be able to strike through plate with a sword.

It's just going to be damage reduction of some amount. So you'll also be able to shoot (some damage) through plate.

 

Almost certainly you can do some damage with a shortbow, some more with crossbow.

Can't see it'd be 5 points with shortbow and 50 with a heavy arbalest, games just don't work that way.

[Sensuki]

That wasn't the discussion though.

[kgambit]

That plate is very thin, 1.5mm - throw in some 5mm plate and see how much gets through

 

5mm?  I doubt it seriously if for no other reason than weight.   (If you have links to support the 5mm figure I would love to see them)

 

Most plate armor is comparable to modern 18 gauge (0.0516") galvanized steel which is ~1.3 mm or possibly 16 gauge (0.0635 ") which is 25% thicker or ~1.6 mm. 

18 gauge galvanized steel weighs 2.156 pounds per square foot, 16 gauge @ 2.656 pounds and the human body averages about 1.9 sq m surface area (or ~20.5 sq ft).  

Most period pieces of full plate weight around 45 pounds which is pretty well in line with a 16 / 18 gauge galvanized steel suit.  (Check out the SCA forums and you'll see that is what they recommend as an analog).   

 

At 5 mm maximum thickness, your armor would weigh ~ 135 pounds or more.   That's unmanageable for use in combat.

 

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/07/15/rspb.2011.0816

 

Armor was not uniformly thick either.  The helm  had some the thickest armor typically up to 3mm, closely followed by the centre-line of the breastplate, which could be of similar thickness.  The breastplate would often then be thinned off towards the sides of the plate, where it was less likely to be hit hard, so would be perhaps 1mm thick on the side.

the knee and elbow cups (called poleyn and couters respectively) would be next thickest, at about 1.5 - 2mm thick.  Lastly, shoulder, arm, leg and foot defenses would be made of thin metal, from 1.5mm thick down as thin as 0.75mm thick. 

 

Actual breastplates from the 1470s had armor about 2.03 mm thick at their thickest point, with greaves etc, being correspondingly thinner.    Some sources quote the weight of a full suit of plate at field armour at closer to 30 kg by the end of the 17th century.  Specialized jousting combat armor may have weighed as much as 50 kilos but it was a specialized set of armor not intended for normal combat.  

 

 

As for armor penetration, I'll simply post this link:

 

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

 

Edit: 

 

There is no consensus on the penetrating power of longbow arrows versus armor.  Here's another article that questions some of Bane's conclusions.

 

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/12/arrows-vs-armor-ca-1400.html  

 

Part of the problem is that the metallurgy of the period was highly variable.    The amount of energy needed to penetrate even 1.5 mm of steel could vary anywhere from 40 to 120 joules simply depending on the quallty of the steel.  And in The Knight and the Blast Furnace, Alan Williams found that almost 30% of the armor he studied from the 14th was simply wrought iron which lies on the low end of that 40 to 120 joule range.

 

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/12/14th-c-armor-metallurgy.html

Edited July 12, 2013 by kgambit

[Diagoras]

There is no consensus on the penetrating power of longbow arrows versus armor.  Here's another article that questions some of Bane's conclusions.

 

 

Can I see academic sources supporting this? Because everyone from Hall to Eltis I read is pretty firm on longbows inability to function effectively against even coat-of-plate in battlefield conditions, and that's at least twenty years of historical consensus right there.

[Jarmo]

 

As for armor penetration, I'll simply post this link:

 

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

 

 

 

A very interesting read, thank you.

 

A second testing I've seen where Armor jack is surprisingly effective. I've sort of wrapped my head around the fact it could be very effective against piercing arrows, since fiber resistance is much the thing allowing kevlar to stop bullets. But being that good against cutting arrows is a surprise indeed. As is the relative weakness of mail.

 

One thing coming to mind, is a 200 lb pull bow would probably be as high as could be pulled by anyone, but would likely go through a thin plate and just about any armor. Well within reason for an RPG anyways.

 

A second thing is, I just can't believe that mail penetration. There has to be something.

 

Third thing, any of the tested armors would give a solid protection from a "normal" bow.

[Lephys]

Well, I mean, mail, and even plate, are so beneficial mainly because they eliminate the range of angles/forces that can cause horrible damage to you, right? I mean, you knock a guy in the heaviest full-plate down on the ground and go all Link Kneel-Drop on him with a sword, and I would think even a 10-year-old lad could easily pierce the plate with a durable enough sharp projectile. The point is that, during active combat, with stances and shields and formal combat movement going on, and barrages of arrows coming at you from an entire archery unit, you have a MUCH higher statistical chance of deflecting and/or otherwise shrugging off the actual damaging effects of those arrows or sword blows, etc.

 

The edge of a weapon or arrow/bolt gently carressing your arm or striking you across the abdomen isn't going to result in damage to your actual flesh, since armor is much less slice-able. However, a good thrust to your abdomen, or an arrow/bolt fired square at your breastplate that strikes head-on (with enough force, sure, but not a CRAZY amount of force) is going to penetrate the armor. Even if the armor still absorbs some of its force before as it penetrates.

 

It's still surprising to see in action, I suppose, especially blatantly pointed out like that. But, I'm not really surprised that it's not actually that difficult (in terms of sheer capability) to pierce all manner of armor. It's just that you're limited to piercing it (or mauling it... or maybe giant-axing it enough times), and it's significantly harder to successfully deliver the appropriate blows (because of angles and movements and turning and the shape of armor, etc.).

[kgambit]

 

Can I see academic sources supporting this? Because everyone from Hall to Eltis I read is pretty firm on longbows inability to function effectively against even coat-of-plate in battlefield conditions, and that's at least twenty years of historical consensus right there.

 

 

I had several links in my previous post but I've included one more source.   (Apologies for the ensuing wall of text)

 

Read "A Report of the Findings of  the Defence Academy Warbow Trials, part 1 2005" by Paul Bourke and David Whetham

 (google the title and you should be able to find a downloadable pdf version) 

 

Plus there was the  Bane paper I previously linked and Williams and Jones tests referenced in that and the Bourke and Whetham paper.  Hall and Eltis predate that work so I hardly consider their views contemporary.

Hall and Kelly deVries co-authored at least one book and deVries is a rabid unyielding advocate that medieval long bow draw weights are much lower than most modern researchers think.   

 

At the end of Paul Bourke and David Whetham's paper. there is an exchange between the authors and deVries.  DeVries questions the longbow draw weights used by Bourke and Whetham and this is their reply:

 

 

The ‘contemporary opinion’ [for the heavier bow] includes Strickland & Hardy (2005), Soar (2004) and Holmes (2002), as well as the team of experienced practitioners involved in these tests. It is difficult to see what evidence the thesis of a lighter bow actually enjoys in its favour.

 

All of the authors mentioned (Strickland, Hardy, Soar and Holmes) and Williams and Jones are repeatedly referenced in all of the sources I can find including Banes paper. 

And Bourke et al had one final reply to deVries comments on the article : 

 

 

We are confident that, alas, the eminent Kelly DeVries will remain unconvinced of the heavier bow thesis no matter how compelling the evidence presented. We will, however, continue to try.

 

ouch .........

In fact, it's far more enlightening to read the back and forth discourse at the end of the paper.  DeVries and Bourke et all simply do not see eye to eye on the validity of the previous testing or in each others assumptions let alone the conclusions that are drawn.   I don't know who is right but it certainly doesn't sound like the issue is closed to me, and I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the consensus that you claim exists.

 

For what it's worth I decided to dig a little bit on what various people claim are the actual draw weights of the English longbow and in particular the draw weights for the Mary Rose longbows.  This is a sampling of what I found:

 

 

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/11/2012/archers-of-the-mary-rose-tudor-warship

 “Archers had specialist techniques for making and using very powerful longbows. Some bows required a lifetime of training and immense strength as the archers had to pull weights up to 200lbs (about 90kg).”

 

 

http://www.toxophilus.org/articles/anglais/mary_rose_en.html

According to Professor B. Kooi's estimations, the Mary Rose longbows varied in draw weight from 100 to 180 pounds. The biggest group of draw weights being in the 150 to 160 pound range

 

 

from"The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose" Matthew Strickland / Robert Hardy

"Bows recovered from the Tudor warship "Mary Rose" show a draw-weight of up to 180lb, and skeletons retrieved from the wreck show spinal distortions, indicating just what it took to be a proper archer."

 

 

http://www.dougmccoy.us/ELB.html

Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 N (80 lbf) and possibly more than 650 N (143 lbf) with some high-end estimates at 900N (202 lbf).

 

I believe that deVries et al argue for a 65 to 75 # draw weight.  The draw weight of a long bow is  one of the primary factors in determining the energy of impact.  If authors can't agree on that, then the issue is clearly not settled. 

 

and I'll finish with this quote

 

Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron." [strickland M, Hardy R. The Great Warbow. Sutton Publishing 2005.]

 

 

and one video just for fun:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c

Edited July 14, 2013 by kgambit

[kgambit]

A very interesting read, thank you.

 

A second testing I've seen where Armor jack is surprisingly effective. I've sort of wrapped my head around the fact it could be very effective against piercing arrows, since fiber resistance is much the thing allowing kevlar to stop bullets. But being that good against cutting arrows is a surprise indeed. As is the relative weakness of mail.

 

One thing coming to mind, is a 200 lb pull bow would probably be as high as could be pulled by anyone, but would likely go through a thin plate and just about any armor. Well within reason for an RPG anyways.

 

A second thing is, I just can't believe that mail penetration. There has to be something.

 

Third thing, any of the tested armors would give a solid protection from a "normal" bow.

 

 

 

You're welcome. 

 

1) I'm skeptical of a 200# draw weight longbow as a routine occurrence, especially since that's the current world record.  Mark Stretton (UK) drew a longbow weighing 90 kg (200 lb) to the maximum draw on an arrow of 82.5 cm (32 ½ in) at the shooting grounds of The Bath Archers, Somerset, UK on 15 August 2004.

 

2) Not sure if I understand your point.  Can you elaborate?

 

3) Ah and there is the rub!  What is a "normal" longbow?  Is a 75# draw weight normal?  110#?  150#?    Are the longbows of the Mary Rose typical or they the best of the best?  

 

just for grins, ere's a summary of everything that impacts the physics of the problem:

 

a) draw weight of the bow

b) efficiency of the bow

c) length of the arrow and draw length

d) mass of the arrow and mass of the bow

e) type of arrow head - different arrow heads had vastly different penetrating power

f) type of fletching - affects accuracy and flight characteristics

g) hardness of arrow head (medieval metallurgy 101) - surprisingly important since unhardened metal heads could deform instead of penetrating

h) type of armor

i) hardness of armor (medieval metallurgy 101)   - is the armor uniform in quality, or not?  how was it forged and tempered

j) construction of armor (interior padding etc)

k) thickness of armor at point of impact

l) angle of impact (relative to the target)

m) range to the target - energy loss due to drag

n) target speed and direction of motion (relative velocity is important and can increase the effective impact energy by 60%+)

o) wind velocity and direction - can increase or reduce drag

p) construction of the arrow (how is the head fastened to the shaft?  yeah the type of glue matters - who knew?

q) construction of the bowstring (!)  seriously this one floored me

 

and probably a couple of other things that I missed.

 

Now the colored topics represent at least some of the areas where various researchers disagree - sometimes by a lot, sometimes by a little

 

I saw a quote which I will repeat  here which I think sums up the issue nicely:

 

 

 "The invincible warbow is as much a myth as the invincible armour of the man-at-arms"

 

 

PS:  Apologies for the two posts back to back.  I simply couldn't answer Jarmo and Diagoras in one post. 

Edited July 14, 2013 by kgambit

[Jarmo]

 

1) I'm skeptical of a 200# draw weight longbow as a routine occurrence, especially since that's the current world record.  Mark Stretton (UK) drew a longbow weighing 90 kg (200 lb) to the maximum draw on an arrow of 82.5 cm (32 ½ in) at the shooting grounds of The Bath Archers, Somerset, UK on 15 August 2004.

 

2) Not sure if I understand your point.  Can you elaborate?

 

3) Ah and there is the rub!  What is a "normal" longbow?  Is a 75# draw weight normal?  110#?  150#?    Are the longbows of the Mary Rose typical or they the best of the best?  

 

 

 

1. Not routine and not common, but with a whole nation tasked at practicing a whole lot, there's bound to be some that at least come around the ballpark. But even that is not all that important. 160lb draw would still do quite a bit more than 100lb bow does. 

 

Brings a thought, that if using D&D numbers, the maximum draw could simply be STR score x10, so a STR 16 fighter could use a 160lb bow..

 

The point being, if a 100lb bow makes a hole in some plate, a 200lb bow would likely be devastating.

 

2. With knights and such using mail armor and footmen using padded armor, would they really not have noticed a padded armor actually gives a better protection? The test results seems to indicate this is the case, but I can't believe it.

 

3. Yeah, the normal longbow or warbow is something I doubt there'll ever be true agreement on.

But I said normal bow. As is something you don't need to take forever and ever to be a master of, and don't need to carve out of the trunk of a special tree.

 

I mean a hunting bow you make from a tree branch, or just any of the better made bows that dont have such enormous pulls.

Say.. 10 to 25 lb draw. Quite enough for hunting and making nasty holes in unarmored people.

 

Stuff that was used by american indians or for example, without metal tools you can't easily fell a tree and make your bow from the good stuff inside.

[teknoman2]

in the end, it all depends on the quality of the bow, arrows and the target armor. in the close range combat of the game however the archer will have the means to aim at the armor's weak spots, as much as a melee fighter would. so all that brainstorming, brings us to "standard combat rules apply for the bow"

[anubite]

Changing game mechanics (hit chance for attacks) so that a game's systems imitate "real life" is a poor motivator. Video games are not real life and real life does not make a fun or balanced game system. Ranged weapons are considered by most to be much easier to use (and abuse) than melee; ranged does not need any more inherent advantages than it already does.

Edited July 15, 2013 by anubite

[Lephys]

Changing game mechanics (hit chance for attacks) so that a game's systems imitate "real life" is a poor motivator. Video games are not real life and real life does not make a fun or balanced game system. Ranged weapons are considered by most to be much easier to use (and abuse) than melee; ranged does not need any more inherent advantages than it already does.

What are we changing? The entire game's design already emulates real life. You can't make an RPG not based on real life. "In this game, you play the role of a pure-energy collective hive-mind that doesn't even exist within our physical universe, and has no similarity to a human, whatsoever." Heh. Have fun with THAT game.

 

But really, I agree that getting too nitpicky with things is bad. But that's more a problem of moderation and balanced resource usage in the development of anything than it is a problem founded in the attempt to base your design on reality. Doesn't mean it can't stray, but... why should something like how characters use weapons be based on NOT-reality? That doesn't make any sense.

 

The weapons are from reality. The characters are all realistic humanoids. There's realistic physics and weather and materials in the game. Why should how they aim and how an arrow strikes a target be abstracted from ANYTHING other than real-life person-bow-aiming mechanics?

 

"We shouldn't look at reality" isn't a viable argument at all, since that's literally all we do, in pretty much any game ever, no matter how much fantasy stuff you put in.