Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RaspK_FOG View Post
    Tidbit: isn't it interesting that the German and Japanese invented similar words for their higher caste? Knecht and samurai both mean "servant."
    In the case of German (and the English cognate, "knight"), Knecht is derived from the word for boy, and its meaning was like what we would recognize later as the function of a squire. A young man or boy who goes to battle with an adult warrior and serves him. The person he serves is a carl, which is now a proper name, which means both "man" and "warrior", as if the two words have the same meaning.

  2. #22
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,130
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Yes, and we also have huscarls.

    And, yes, as I mentioned earlier, it's true that the Karamul would have a preference for the crossbow. The daikyu also is, truly, asymmetrical - it would not be usable on horseback otherwise (the reason other relied on recurving their bows for that extra bit of strength).

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    81
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    My point was (due to its asymmetrical shape) a dwarf would be able to use the daikyu ( thanks) - A Longbow size and power weapon without needing to be close to 6 foot tall. (Another advantage of a crossbow for caverns is that it can be carried loaded for longer without much strain or need or as much concentration by the user - although eventually reducing the power of the crossbow by causing it to flex out of shape and loose its elasticity) and flat trajectory of fire (this might be partly irrelevant as often 30 foot would be a pretty big range underground). Daikyu would still be slightlybetter than an longbow in a more restricted space.

    My understanding of the crossbow is that it is a good flat trajectory weapon - thus also easier to aim but that its range suffers.(unless you want to have a really big crank and spend 5 minutes winding it) When firing from a hilltop the arcing fire of the Longbow boosts its already better range - Thus when the English fought crossbow troops (If they were properly situated and prepared) they got had such a substantial range and ROF advantage that on several occassions crossbow troops were decimated before getting into range.

    Hmmm Elite Dwarvish Strength Daikyu Specialist Unit. Drool... Ok ok sometimes I live in a fantasy world.

  4. #24
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,130
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Actually, I don't think any dwarf or korobokuru or whatever would be able to stretch a daikyu; I will check up on my old 2e material to see what they thought of this out of curiosity, but some daikyu need more than one man to string them, for one part, and you raise it above your head, bring it down with an outstretched left arm, stretching the string so that the right arm is close to your ear. I find it quite unlikely that dwarves and korobokuru would be able to open their arms that wide. :confused:

    The irony is that the daikyu is nearly as long as 6 feet, too.

  5. #25
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Whammydill View Post
    Stationary missile attacks can attack an adjacent area (non-diagonal.) In the case of archers, this seems to be seriously understimate the point and utility of these ranged weapons. The purpose of missile weaponry was to wither and weaken the enemy before melee engagement. With only one area of range, archers are fodder for every other unit type, with a paltry last shot before getting ganked.
    If we assume that a unit is roughly 18 people across and 12 people deep (a reasonable medievial box formation) then a unit (and the minimum size of a unit square is around 36 feet deep. At the battlemat scale we could understand that as walking speed for lightly armored units (or anyone with a move of 30 ft) or a hustle speed for heavily armored units (or anyone with a move of 20 ft).

    And given the range of archers, two squares is a single range increment for shortbows, and three squares would be a range increment for longbows. So without penalty (unless we assume the feats Point Blank Shot or Far Shot) a unit of archers can hit something two or three squares away as easily as they can hit one square.

    So a range increment does a 10% penalty to hit (-2 on d20), but using the warcard system you got something where a +1 or -1 was worth about 11% to hit, and many people simply added a null result and used a d10 table of results. Either way, going out a range increment is like imposing a -1 penalty to the warcard's attack.

    That's archers, but other units have some range increments. I think its safe to assume that scouts are archers and assume they have shortbows to aid their primary purpose as a swift unit. Other units I think we can generally assume a javelin, and so their range increment is one. If someone had a unit of slingers, they would pose a problem, so the easy fix there is to insist that such a unit be trained sufficiently to have Far Shot, thereby extending their range to two on the assumption that just mustering folks and handing them slings won't get the full effectiveness with this uncommon weapon.

    Since I've mentioned Far Shot, the warcard effect would seem to add a single square to the range increment. This would make shortbows a 3 square range, and longbows a 4 square range. Aside from slings, no other weapon should benefit from far shot.

    Acknowledging the archery ranges also strongly suggests we look at rapid movement across a battlefield. As I said earlier, normal units should be able to move one square, though heavy units may actually have to hustle to move a full square. Given normal unit run speeds, a heavy armored unit should be able to cross two squares at a run, and a light armored unit four squares. Closing that final distance on a battlefield at a run was very common, so requiring units to walk slowly toward their enemy while being shot by archers out to two or three squares without penalty seems inappropraite. I would only allow one run per battle for a given unit however. I also would not allow units to run up hill. If you place your archers on a hill, as Henry did at Agincourt, units without terrain bonuses should have to slog up toward the archers.

    This brings up the issue of the scout, who has a fast movement, but pays normal terrain bonuses. The scout class (along with the barbarian class) has fast movement, and has a standard movement of 40 ft. Of course its only reasonable to assume that a scout unit is a mixure of scouts, rangers, and warriors. So a movement of 2 and a freedom from most terrain restrictions would probabaly be the best way to handle the scout.

  6. #26
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,383
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RaspK_FOG View Post
    Actually, I don't think any dwarf or korobokuru or whatever would be able to stretch a daikyu <snip> The irony is that the daikyu is nearly as long as 6 feet, too.
    Dwarves should be able to strong the bows in pairs, as long as one is strong enough - one bends the bow held diagonally against the ground, the other strings it. Otherwise they'd need a brace of some sort to hold one end still while they bent the other, either way would be impractical in most places though (if mildly comical) so I'd still go for crossbows, which have the added advantage of being able to be used lying down for sniping (one of the two reasons, along with armour penetration for them being banned I think).

    I'd expect serious dwarves to go for a geared crossbow (not just fulcrum and lever, certainly not hand pulled) with an autoloading topbox myself. The dwarves should have the technology to make these - in most campaigns they have a reasonable technological advantage over other races indicating both interest in innovation and the high crafts skills necessary to make gears and layered bow arms. They are still going to have RoF issues - its endemic in the crossbow design and the shorter bolts will likely lead to shorter range even if the dwarves can improve fletching and straightness of the bolts.

    A ratcheted crossbow has the advantage of being able to be carried partly bent and readied to fire rapidly to lessen the strain slightly - although any bow held bent for a prolonged time will lose strength and I don't see the inherent waste of carrying the bow ready to fire at all times as very dwarven.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. dream attacks
    By kgauck in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2003, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.