Bow Damage

[Lamaros]

Bows need to do less damage from a short distance.

Currently they're about 30 times better than thrown weapons because you have have bigger stacks, greater range, faster shots, and just as decent damage an accuracy.

I love hitting for 100+ with my axes, but it's just a novelty, I'd be killing more with a bow.

 

[DaLagga]

Am i the only one who thinks that throwing weapons are balanced just fine as is? Lets face it, they're NOT meant to be used as a primary weapon. The fact is, throwing axes, with a decent skill, pretty much always kill with 1 headshot, and usually still with one in the chest...never really more than two. Secondly, it takes more time to fire an arrow, as you have to wait for your crosshairs to center, which no matter what your skill, still takes alot longer than with a throwing weapon. So despite what the weapon speed rating may suggest, throwing weapons can be thrown considerably faster than you could ever hope to fire a bow. Not to mention the face that you have to fire that arrow shortly after pressing the button, or your accuracy goes to crap. I play with a unmounted character, and love fighting hordes of mountain/forest bandits solo. They usually have a good 6-8 cavalry at the start, and all i do is stand there, and pick them off with throwing axes when they get close. Thats nearly impossible on foot with a bow because of its slower rate of fire and the fact that you have to wait for shield-bearers to get VERY close before you can fire effectively and then won't have a new arrow in your bow in time to kill the guy behind him quickly enough. Also, you can have a shield out when using them. Put simply, throwing weapons make better sidearms than bows, and especially better than crossbows AND do the most damage over time. I love them!

 

[Skelly]

an arrow from a decent bow from point blank is going to hurt...In fact most people are going to go into shock if you put an arrow into their torso. The fact that I can get hit two or three times with arrow and still function shows that bows are underpowered if anything...

By the way, I don't use bows - like axes though...

 

[JohnathanStrange]

Bows need to do less damage from a short distance.

Currently they're about 30 times better than thrown weapons because you have have bigger stacks, greater range, faster shots, and just as decent damage an accuracy.

I love hitting for 100+ with my axes, but it's just a novelty, I'd be killing more with a bow.

Are you arguing that bows are unrealistically inflicting too much damage at short ranges? Shouldn't a bow have more effectiveness at short range because it loses velocity as it travels and therefore hits with less force the longer its flight? I think bow damage "feels" right as it is now (not being a medieval weapons expert or archer, I have to rely mostly on that) being neither a super weapon nor a useless toy.

Or do you mean that bows inflict unrealistically too much damage in comparison to axes at a short ranges? So should axe damage be increased? Isn't that "100+ damage" you've seen axes do enough?

Or are you arguing the that since bows are better than thrown weapons in general - because of the reasons you cite - bows should have reduced effectiveness? How would that be different from saying that because a mail hauberk provides more protection than a leather vest, the mail hauberk should have reduced effectiveness to be fair?

I'm trying to understand. I use both weapons often and what you say about the limited ammo for axe users and the limited axe range is true, but why that would mean "bows need to do less damage" is not clear.

I play with a unmounted character, and love fighting hordes of mountain/forest bandits solo. They usually have a good 6-8 cavalry at the start, and all i do is stand there, and pick them off with throwing axes when they get close. Thats nearly impossible on foot with a bow because of its slower rate of fire and the fact that you have to wait for shield-bearers to get VERY close before you can fire effectively and then won't have a new arrow in your bow in time to kill the guy behind him quickly enough. Also, you can have a shield out when using them. Put simply, throwing weapons make better sidearms than bows, and especially better than crossbows AND do the most damage over time. I love them!

Yeah, I too find it a bit easier for a solo, unmounted hero to use throwing axes rather than a bow because the hero can use both axes and shield simultaneously. You can deal with the incoming horsemen easier whether they close for the kill or whether they slash 'n move. Generally, I prefer the bow much more if on horseback because the increased mobility offsets the lack of shield.

Bottomline: I find both throwing axes and bows fine as is. They allow very different styles of play and create unique challenges since their shortcomings mean you have to adapt. Do many people say Man! Only 100+ damage with my throwing axe?

 

[Lamaros]

Are you arguing that bows are unrealistically inflicting too much damage at short ranges? Shouldn't a bow have more effectiveness at short range because it loses velocity as it travels and therefore hits with less force the longer its flight? I think bow damage "feels" right as it is now (not being a medieval weapons expert or archer, I have to rely mostly on that) being neither a super weapon nor a useless toy.

Bow's need to gain some force behind them to do damage. If someone fires a bow at you at point blank range they will not inflict as much damage as if it was from a distance.

Or do you mean that bows inflict unrealistically too much damage in comparison to axes at a short ranges? So should axe damage be increased? Isn't that "100+ damage" you've seen axes do enough?

Or are you arguing the that since bows are better than thrown weapons in general - because of the reasons you cite - bows should have reduced effectiveness? How would that be different from saying that because a mail hauberk provides more protection than a leather vest, the mail hauberk should have reduced effectiveness to be fair?

I'm saying that bows do too much damage at short distances unrealisticly, and also that because they do so much damage at short distances they have a notable advantage over thrown weapons. Say what you like, but a good archer with a longbow and a high skill does't have a use for thrown weapons.

I'm not saying that bows need to do less damage over all, just in short melee distances.

Generally, I prefer the bow much more if on horseback because the increased mobility offsets the lack of shield.

This is one thing good about axes, but it doesn't count for javelins.

Bottomline: I find both throwing axes and bows fine as is. They allow very different styles of play and create unique challenges since their shortcomings mean you have to adapt. Do many people say Man! Only 100+ damage with my throwing axe?

I'm not saying axe damage isn't fine, it is. It's just not worth it at the moment because bow damage is better; it's longer ranged, near as fast, and has better stacks.

 

[Kelpo]

Bow's need to gain some force behind them to do damage. If someone fires a bow at you at point blank range they will not inflict as much damage as if it was from a distance.

Umm, this I don't understand. Once the arrow leaves the bow, where is it going to gain more force from?

 

[Lamaros]

Gravity!

 

[Kelpo]

It's been a while since I last took a physics course but when an arrow is fired in an arc doesn't it lose roughly the same amount of velocity going upwards than it gains while going downward(s?)?

 

[Lamaros]

To be serious I don't know. I just remember reading somewhere that a bow does less damage from a short ranger than it would from a moderate one. I might be entirely incorrect though.

 

[Kelpo]

To be serious I don't know. I just remember reading somewhere that a bow does less damage from a short ranger than it would from a moderate one. I might be entirely incorrect though.

Yes, that's because short rangers can only use rather short bows which shoot tiny little arrows which just cause very slight wounds. (that's why most of them use guns nowadays)

But to be serious i'm not that confident of my own skills in classic physics so I guess someone who either has ever fired a real bow or has more indepht knowledge of the necessary physics can answer this one better.

 

[Dunga]

I shoot a bow in RL. Wooden recurved bow actually.
Of course arrow has the most speed just after it has been shot, but the speed doesnt lower too dramatically after that either. You probably wouldnt notice a big difference of and arrow shot from 10 meter or 100 meters.

I think bows are pretty realistic in M&B, although they are a bit underpowered. In mediavel times bows were HEAVY. There have been found old longbows up to 200lb and I could say noone could pull a bow like that these days. 50lb is pretty typical hunting bow weight and you could even penetrate a moose with it, unless you hit any big bones. And not everyone would have the strength to pull 50lb bow either.
Bows should be actually more powerfull than most crossbows. Even though crossbow would be heavyer to pull than a bow it could still be less powerfull. Bows have longer arrows since have longer pull. This means that the string pushes the arrow forward for a longer way and this gives the arrow more velocity.

IMO the shooting system in M&B is pretty nice. Actually its the best i have seen. But there are some things that seems pretty funny. In RL archer should allways be able to keep their bow in full draw for attleast 10 seconds without any shaking. In M&B you cant hit anything if you pull the bow more than like 3 seconds. You really cant get tired that soon. Attleast if you have powerdraw hight over the bows powerdraw requirements.

And if you shoot a naked river pirate with a war bow, the arrow really doesnt get stuck in the guys chest. It would go all the way through and it could kill several other river pirates standing behind the first one. I know people who have shot 2 deers with 1 arrow.

 

[Nairagorn]

An arrow will have the most force in the first few feet/meters after firing. After it is fired, gravity and air resistance will drag on it, slowing it down.

There is no way that an arrow will do more damage because it's flown a long distance. If they gained speed/ force/ momentum, arrows would rocket off into the atmosphere... The fact that they fall to the ground eventually is proof that they loose velocity.

 

[Cleitan]

Obviously.... ermmmmm wait....

If something is falling...... It is constantly gaining velocity therefor Force increases..... I would say this

When you fire a missle weapon depending on the arc a few different things could happen, One is if you shoot it on a long range arc it would loose slight amounts of velocity on its climb upwards and regain its velocity or on the way back down.... Throw a ball up into the sky and see that is slows down as it goes up, ut speeds up rapidly on its way down. And Speed/Velocity is a large factor in determining force.
Now for a point blank shot, say 10 feet? Something close, you wouldnt fire the arrow on an arc, because it will go directly where you point it in such a short range with no time to arc. In this case, of an not so arcing missile it would fire identically to that of a gun. Forward and slowly slightly fall, over time without an arc it would in fact loose velocity and force....

Basically - If you fire it on an arc, it will gain force on its descent.
If you fire it straight forward it will be losing force, slighty.

The reason it gains force when shot on an arc and not when straight is because when the missile is ascending gravity is trying to pull it down and eventually it will get a grip on it and pull it down with the force of gravity therefor increasing its velocity since gravity causes acceleration...

oooooooooooooooooooooooo
o o
o o
Archer oooooooooooooooooooooooooooDead guy

With the straight arrow it has no significant descent to gain velocity from gravity....

But, point blank range.... Well in that case it would not have the time to loose mich if any force either..... Point blank damage should be higher then normal damage.

 

[JohnathanStrange]

Bow's need to gain some force behind them to do damage. If someone fires a bow at you at point blank range they will not inflict as much damage as if it was from a distance.

You didn't write "point blank range" in your original post which may change things because if the arrow doesn't achieve as high a velocity - if it's blocked from leaving the bow - it won't strike as hard (F=MA), though I would add that neither would a thrown axe at point blank range which you point out hits for "over a 100+" damage. It seems to me unless the target is actually preventing the arrow from leaving the bow, the arrow's initial velocity is its highest velocity and the arrow is most deadly at close range.

I'm saying that bows do too much damage at short distances unrealisticly, and also that because they do so much damage at short distances they have a notable advantage over thrown weapons.

I've already answered the "too much damage" part, and I believe DaLagga's given a good reason for preferring axes at short distances.

Say what you like, but a good archer with a longbow and a high skill does't have a use for thrown weapons.

Who said he would?

This is one thing good about axes, but it doesn't count for javelins.

Who said it did?

I'm not saying axe damage isn't fine, it is. It's just not worth it at the moment because bow damage is better; it's longer ranged, near as fast, and has better stacks.

No argument from me on that, it's why I usually use bows in the first place.

I think your original post implied that bows are unrealistically powerful at short ranges but other than making that statement and adding "they need to gain some force" you haven't provided much justification to that.

I'm trying to understand your post. If I weren't I would have written a flippant "So don't use axes" reply and left it at that.

Edit: to correct misspellings & punctuation.

 

[Ilex]

Without "air resistance" an upwards shot arrow will have the same speed when it is lauched and when it hits the height of where it was launched on its way down. No more damage (from gravity), but the speed loss isn't great.

 

[Nairagorn]

If something is falling...... It is constantly gaining velocity therefor Force increases.....

Wrong. Google "terminal velocity". An arrow will be at it greatest speed/velocity right after leaving the bow. If it is fired in an arc, it will loose velocity until it reaches the top of its arc, then it will fall. At no point will it be travelling faster than when it left the bow. 9th grade physics class can teach you this.

 

[Wanderer]

Wrong. Google "terminal velocity". An arrow will be at it greatest speed/velocity right after leaving the bow. If it is fired in an arc, it will loose velocity until it reaches the top of its arc, then it will fall. At no point will it be travelling faster than when it left the bow. 9th grade physics class can teach you this.

Almost right, go back to physics class. You forgot kinetic energy, which occurs when using gravity, ie: firing from atop a hill. You can gain force after launch, depending on resistance. If resistance to the object is higher then initial velocity, then you're correct, you cannot go faster.

 

[Nairagorn]

Ok, got me there

If you were dropping arrows on someones head from on top of a cliff then yes, they will gain speed. However, I'm pretty confident that when you fire an arrow from a bow the fastest speed it will achieve is right after it leaves the bow. Unfortunately, I slept through algebra, so I can't prove it mathematically.

Here ya go
http://www.alumni.ca/~lapidep/index.html

check out the simulator
http://www.alumni.ca/~lapidep/simhigh.html

Velocity drops consistently, it's never faster than when it leaves the bow.

 

[CrushU]

I have shot a real bow. Recurve. 40lb or 30lb pull, I believe. I have shot a 50lb pull crossbow, and a 80lb pull crossbow. (Had to stand on the thing to cock it. Not a fast reload time, heh) ALL missile weapons (guns too!) have their peak velocity the moment they leave the weapon. (Guns, technically, reach their peak velocity inside the barrel.) The ONLY thing you have left going for an arrow doing more damage at short range rather than point blank, is that the arrow takes a little time to start spinning at max speed, drilling through instead of just thunking straight it. Which isn't that much, and a very short period of time as well. (The rotation is actually to improve accuracy of the projectile. I BELIEVE a rotating arrow slows down less than a non-rotating one.) It is very possible to penetrate a fleshy bag of meat (aka, a person) and for the arrow to continue on through, especially using broadheads or the like. (An actual sharp tip, not like a practice tip. Which, come to think of it, I believe most hunting arrowheads are designed to expand once they enter the target... Hmm.) Whoever the archer was here (too lazy to scroll down and look) was right about pointblank being most damaging. Also, the guy that mentioned velocity being equal at start and finish of the arrow is also right, provided the same height. (And the initial velocity being less/equal to terminal velocity.)

The only mistake is the 'bows are more damaging than crossbows, generally'. Crossbows GENERALLY have larger lb pull ratings than bows, because the archer doesnt have to continually pull that much, just hit it once. It's the difference between lifting a 60lb object and carrying one. (That and you can use your entire body, legs+arms, to cock a crossbow, you cant do that to draw a bow.) (Oh, Compound bows follow a rather different principle entirely, but as they aren't in the game... I won't bother.) Crossbows fire their bolts at higher speeds than bows. Generally. A light crossbow compared to a heavy bow is a different story. The reasons you'd use a crossbow instead of a bow are: Fast fire, once it's loaded. Impressive short range/pointblank penetration, comparatively. Easier to conceal. (Not a factor, here... ... Hmm, what if it was...)

The reasons you'd use a bow instead of a crossbow are: Crossbows take a relatively long time to load, they're one-shot weapons. (Like a black powder rifle to a bolt-action rifle. Oh, and ignoring advanced sorts of crossbows, like pump action (they did exist) and repeating (not sure if THEY existed, but I've heard them mentioned alot.)) Bows are more accurate and more effective over long ranges. (Crossbow bolts are shorter, because of the fact that it would just be unwieldy if you hand a bolt as long as an arrow. This means less accuracy and range.) Bows are generally cheaper weapons than a crossbow. (It has no cocking or firing mechanism other than pulling the string.)

In my opinion, this game does quite well with all ranged weapons. Bows are faster firing than crossbows, thrown weapons are faster than bows. Pointblank is best for crossbows, then thrown weapons and bows are about even, and at range, the bow is king. Bows are hard to 'hold' the longer you do, and this doesnt affect crossbows or thrown weapons. Headshots are almost always lethal. Requirements of Power Draw for better bows. I see only two possible 'flaws'. You have no prayer of hitting anything at extreme range (I.e. fire at 45 degree angle.) Shorter bows don't seem to really fire much faster. (And more Power Draw/Strength SHOULD increase your draw speed. More Agility might increase your accuracy... Should be Dexterity, but there is no such stat here. )

Anyway, that's my thoughts. All projectiles do most damage pointblank. Axes and javelins hurt because of the weight of the projectile, bows and crossbows hurt because of the speed of the projectile.

 

[DaLagga]

Well, now that the physics lessons are over, i'd like to state again that bows are not entirely better than throwing weapons. Throwing weapons ARE NOT meant to be primary weapons, just as bows make crappy secondary weapons by comparison. At close range, throwing axes just flat out dominate archers. And if this game were online, i think i could prove my point easily. You'd never be able to hit once since i'd have a shield AND a projectile weapon out. You can usually throw two by the time it takes to fire a single arrow, despite the speed rating. Also, there is less reduction in accuracy from running when compared to a bow. When backing up and firing a bow, you have to stop a second to fire, but with throwing weapons, you don't...and can still maintain a reasonable degree of accuracy. So the point is, each weapon has its place. For a melee warrior(mounted OR unmounted), throwing weapons make the best secondary choice IMO, while a pure archer is best with a bow(and usually doesn't even have a back up weapon, just spare arrows).