Re: archery commentary

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

> 
> 
> ----------
> > From: Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>
> > To: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>
> > Cc: gmlist@cioe.com
> > Subject: Re: archery commentary
> > Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 9:03 AM
> 
> > 
> > Btw, I'm compiling my research on artillery, let me just say...If you
> > thought missile weapons got a significant boost in ranges to be fairly
> > realistic...you ain't seen nothin yet.  These things measure range
> > in hundreds of yards.
> > 
> > Wright
> > 
> 
> Wright..The only request I have at this stage is please (if possible) try
> to limit your ranges to effective range (i.e. the range a average person
> could expect to hit an non moving target 75% of the time).  My gripes
> about the bow ranges had nothing to do with power or even game balance. 
> I just truly feel that they are not realistic as far as being able to
> accurately hit anything at those distances with pre industrial revolution
> technology.
> 
> -Kris
> 
Been thinking about that.  Artillery is a bit more tricky than standard
missile weapons.  Why? because its easier to hit a boat than it is
a man.  i.e. you can do it at longer ranges.  Further only a few
pieces of artillery are suited for use against people.  Otherwise they
are only useful against large unmoving structures.

A few examples/details:
1) The Various Ballistae, useable against people, boats, buildings, etc..
2) Onagars(what people think of when they think of catapults), useless
	against anything short of a giant sloth on downers(i.e. things
	that don't move).  However you can do area bombardments(lots of
	little stones).
3) Trebuchets. for single ammunition they can only hit things like city
	walls.  However you can also do area bombardments as with
	Onagars.

bleh...anyways...

Wright