Reality once again, is SO unrealistic. (Archery edition) [Archive]

nyjastul69

2014-07-20, 01:08 PM

Man uses new archery technique - Can shoot three arrows in less than two seconds. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g)

Think we need the revise the archery rules....

Seems like he's more of an exception than a rule. Interesting stuff though. I don't know what program that was from but the automated narrator was terrible. It sounds like voice prompts from telephonic banking.

Slipperychicken

2014-07-20, 01:11 PM

Nine shots per round?? Freaking reality power-creep. Next thing you know, they'll start abusing the custom Machine rules to make auto-reset bows which fire hundreds of 5 millimeter arrowheads per round.

AMFV

2014-07-20, 01:16 PM

Man uses new archery technique - Can shoot three arrows in less than two seconds. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g)

Think we need the revise the archery rules....

It's worth noting that he didn't really penetrate that far and was at a fairly close range, which explains why that technique would be used for hunting but not so much for armored opponents.

GraySeaJones

2014-07-20, 01:42 PM

As I have heard it explained, the man is using a flashy technique that's useless in combat. The man is using a bow with a 30-35 lb draw weight, and isn't even drawing it back all the way. The mail doesn't have padding, and is laid on a flat surface (making penetration altogether too easy). The quality of the mail/arrows is not explained in the video or in the credits, making its useability in combat unverified at best.

So - at least from what I have heard - the technique is dubious at best, fraudulent at worst. I can't pretend to be an expert on bows, though, so believe what you will.

toapat

2014-07-20, 02:05 PM

So - at least from what I have heard - the technique is dubious at best, fraudulent at worst. I can't pretend to be an expert on bows, though, so believe what you will.

As he is performing it, the technique is useless in combat, but that doesnt mean that it couldnt be adapted into a combat viable technique with higher rate of fire and stronger draw strenght arrows. The arrows also definitely would need sharper tips, as the short penetration stub that those arrows had rapidly increases drag.

In other words, Imagine Ferrari having to design and build tanks. They have most of the equipment and they could probably access the theories and material sciences needed to design one, but it would take them a long time and a long RnD cycle to build an effective tank

tomandtish

2014-07-20, 02:12 PM

AMFV

2014-07-20, 02:14 PM

As he is performing it, the technique is useless in combat, but that doesnt mean that it couldnt be adapted into a combat viable technique with higher rate of fire and stronger draw strenght arrows. The arrows also definitely would need sharper tips, as the short penetration stub that those arrows had rapidly increases drag.

In other words, Imagine Ferrari having to design and build tanks. They have most of the equipment and they could probably access the theories and material sciences needed to design one, but it would take them a long time and a long RnD cycle to build an effective tank

But the Ferrari tanks would look a lot regular tanks in the end, not like Ferraris. Some things are just not as good in a combat situation, and not being able to penetrate any armor, even stiff leather, that's just a bad deal for an offensive force. It's simply too easy to have less trained archers in rows and have them volley, that's actually got force and you don't have to have training on that scale.

toapat

2014-07-20, 02:30 PM

But the Ferrari tanks would look a lot regular tanks in the end, not like Ferraris. Some things are just not as good in a combat situation, and not being able to penetrate any armor, even stiff leather, that's just a bad deal for an offensive force. It's simply too easy to have less trained archers in rows and have them volley, that's actually got force and you don't have to have training on that scale.

again, its not so much that the technique is bad so much as what we have of one is a showman's technique, not a combat adapted one

Like, if Ferrari made a tank, id expect it to have a shaped hull, and be made very light compared to other tanks while having a higher top speed and better mileage.

AMFV

2014-07-20, 02:35 PM

again, its not so much that the technique is bad so much as what we have of one is a showman's technique, not a combat adapted one

Like, if Ferrari made a tank, id expect it to have a shaped hull, and be made very light compared to other tanks while having a higher top speed and better mileage.

Well that'd depend on what they're being designed for. R&D people tend to design things for a specific purpose. If Ferrari made a tank killing tank, I guarantee it'd be ugly and heavily armored and slow, because those are typical attributes of those type of tanks. You design a technique to be useful with what you have as useful as possible. Adopting showy things is usually not a great way to go about it. Now you could steal certain fundamentals of this and use them, but it's not going to ever be better than many other combat tactics, if it would have been, people would have adopted it widely.

Anlashok

2014-07-20, 02:39 PM

Do note for the people complaining about lack of penetration that competition archery doesn't use real arrowheads, the tips they use have higher drag and terrible penetration (by design).

It's simply too easy to have less trained archers in rows and have them volley, that's actually got force and you don't have to have training on that scale.

Not a good analogy though because we're not talking about regular mooks in an army. It might be infeasible for a regular army to be trained in such a way, but when discussing superhumanly skilled demigods of marital combat (a high level PC), the numbers change.

jaydubs

2014-07-20, 02:48 PM

What the video shows is that holding the arrows in your drawing hand is faster than retrieving arrows from your quiver or from the hand holding the bow. The fact that he is shooting with low power doesn't prove either that the technique will or won't work with a more powerful bow.

Think of it like this. A man develops a new speed shooting technique for handguns. He demonstrates its effectiveness by shattering the current world record for speed shooting, using a .22 pistol. We don't know it will work with higher caliber pistols, but it would be silly to assume it wouldn't just because the video didn't use a higher caliber.

Yes, I'm arguing for archery agnosticism. Sue me. :smalltongue:

As for the "if this worked, someone would be using it already" argument:

1) The video argues that some people probably developed it before, and it's simply a lost method. Considering we've lost the techniques surrounding a lot of other weapons in the last few centuries, it's a possibility.

2) There have been numerous innovations in the last century for things mankind has been practicing for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Swimming, martial arts, cooking, and alcohol production all come to mind immediately.

AMFV

2014-07-20, 02:49 PM

Do note for the people complaining about lack of penetration that competition archery doesn't use real arrowheads, the tips they use have higher drag and terrible penetration (by design).

Not a good analogy though because we're not talking about regular mooks in an army. It might be infeasible for a regular army to be trained in such a way, but when discussing superhumanly skilled demigods of marital combat (a high level PC), the numbers change.

I've met Special Operations Marines, they simply have a different skillset, but they're still people, if you're going for that sort of realism, then nobody is the special commando.

http://terminallance.com/2012/06/19/terminal-lance-207-theyll-never-get-it-right/

Everybody is the stooge. Now I'm not saying that we should do that, but I'm saying that realism is a bad thing to use for what would be fun in a roleplaying game. I realize that the arrowheads may not be designed for penetration, but even if you look at the arc those are making you can see that they don't have a lot of force, I assume that there are reasons this was not used tactically, because it didn't work, things that work tactically tend to have widespread adoption. Formations, specific tactics. Suppressing fire. Those things are rapidly spread.

Anlashok

2014-07-20, 03:02 PM

I've met Special Operations Marines, they simply have a different skillset, but they're still people.

We're not talking about a special operations guy. He's level 5 or 6 on a good day. We're talking about a max level bow specialist who regularly drops small armies with a volley of arrows and uses dragons as target practice.

Segev

2014-07-20, 03:03 PM

I assume that there are reasons this was not used tactically, because it didn't work, things that work tactically tend to have widespread adoption. Formations, specific tactics. Suppressing fire. Those things are rapidly spread.

The video makes the claim that this was used tactically in the past, and cites some examples of things that modern-day archers agree were written down as being fact, but which modern-day archers generally have been saying were impossible. The video then demonstrates the specific things mentioned in those historical records are, in fact, possible. Those records refer to them as being used for military purposes. Thus, assuming the modern-day archers' claims of impossibility are incorrect - which this video demonstrates at least under certain circumstances - it is plausible that this WAS used tactically in the past, and we just forgot how to do it because military use of archery is long obsolete.

Therefore, claiming "it wasn't used tactically, therefore it wasn't viable" fails because it seems plausible that it WAS used tactically, according to historical records.

AMFV

2014-07-20, 03:10 PM

The video makes the claim that this was used tactically in the past, and cites some examples of things that modern-day archers agree were written down as being fact, but which modern-day archers generally have been saying were impossible. The video then demonstrates the specific things mentioned in those historical records are, in fact, possible. Those records refer to them as being used for military purposes. Thus, assuming the modern-day archers' claims of impossibility are incorrect - which this video demonstrates at least under certain circumstances - it is plausible that this WAS used tactically in the past, and we just forgot how to do it because military use of archery is long obsolete.

Therefore, claiming "it wasn't used tactically, therefore it wasn't viable" fails because it seems plausible that it WAS used tactically, according to historical records.

I'm saying that for whatever reason it didn't have widespread tactical applicability, whether that's because it didn't have sufficient penetrative power to hit an armored opponent, or because it was only accurate at a much shorter range. I'm not saying that it was likely completely without merit. I'm saying that assuming that it was the go-to tactic is probably not exactly the best bet. Again we don't know what it was used for, I in fact, initially pointed out that it could be useful, for hunting, and that I thought that it might not be as useful for combat due to armor. Which is why bows often were large and had high draw force, because they were made to beat armor.

Furthermore the Archery rules actually account for this, with rapid shot, and manyshot and such. An archer could presumably launch multiple attacks in under six seconds. Which is pretty impressive.

Vaz

2014-07-20, 03:17 PM

AMFV

2014-07-20, 03:20 PM

It might be unrealistic, but at 7th level, you are among superhuman levels. You are nearing the pinacle of human capabilities. For mundanes to match, being able to fire off nearly twice as fast as any other human seems like a decent base.

And they already have that ability. As I pointed out.

Edit: And again realism is generally unpleasant in terms of warfare stuff. Unless you want the majority of character death to result from infected wounds, realism is probably a bad goal.

Segev

2014-07-20, 03:25 PM

I'm saying that assuming that it was the go-to tactic is probably not exactly the best bet.You're still making claims that contradict historical records cited in the video with no contravening evidence.

toapat

2014-07-20, 03:27 PM

I'm saying that for whatever reason it didn't have widespread tactical applicability, whether that's because it didn't have sufficient penetrative power to hit an armored opponent, or because it was only accurate at a much shorter range. I'm not saying that it was likely completely without merit. I'm saying that assuming that it was the go-to tactic is probably not exactly the best bet. Again we don't know what it was used for, I in fact, initially pointed out that it could be useful, for hunting, and that I thought that it might not be as useful for combat due to armor. Which is why bows often were large and had high draw force, because they were made to beat armor.

Furthermore the Archery rules actually account for this, with rapid shot, and manyshot and such. An archer could presumably launch multiple attacks in under six seconds. Which is pretty impressive.

Penetration:

If the video is to be believed, he was using low penetration arrowheads. As has been noted earlier, he was also using a low draw strength bow.

Accuracy: Wasnt trained from a young age.

He also isnt using a compound bow or targeting aperture.

AMFV

2014-07-20, 03:32 PM

You're still making claims that contradict historical records cited in the video with no contravening evidence.

I'm making claims based on my personal experience with military tactics. Shooting fast is very rarely as useful as shooting accurately and penetrating defenses. For a wide variety of reasons, none of which change if you're using a bow as opposed to a rifle. You have a limited amount of ammunition (significantly more limited with a bow than with a rifle), accuracy is key and those shots were made in what would be considered today extreme close range, definitely within the range that a sprinting melee fighter would likely be able to reach you before you were able to aim successfully, particularly if there were several such fighters. If they're armored this is likely to have glancing blows, not penetrative ones, as can be seen in the video.

I did say that I could see a use for it, it's an intimidation tactic it's useful against unarmored foes or in hunting. But I cannot see it being useful tactically when compared to having a longer range and being more penetrative, the only tactics that typically involved short range archery and speed archery involved being mounted, which solves both of the problems I presented, you run out of ammo you can go get more, and you can run away. For example the Saracens used mounted archers, which is when this sort of thing is useful. I'm not saying that there is no use to it, I'm saying that in widespread use, I can't see it being more viable than increased range and penetration.

Edit: Hell for shooting fast you'd get out-paced very rapidly by volleys from rank and file archers. Which is a tactic that works amazingly, you can do much more with three guys in line than you could ever do as a single archer.

Vaz

2014-07-20, 03:40 PM

Baseline. Baseline. A fighter 7 with manyshot is going to be the most capable person in the world at it. Being able to perform 3 kill shots in the time it takes a normal person to fire a single one.

Average human Warrior 1 has 8HP, requring a perfect roll on a composite +2 Str bonus bow (soStr14+). Elite Array NPC Warriors in enough numbers can put out enough.

Said Fighter shpuld be dealing KILL shots, each and every time.

An average human has a stat array of 63, or PB of 15. A 32pb is around 80, and allows for up to an 18 in one score, which is nearly double what an average human is capable of. That is just at l1,and irespective of his class or feats.

AMFV

2014-07-20, 03:43 PM

Additionally we have no idea why the Saracens had that training requirement. Because it's a training requirement. It could just be that they think that's how fast you have to be able to fire outside of combat to be able to fire adequately in combat. Training tactics are as a rule not the same as real tactics, they're designed to improve performance in real situations but not always in the way people expect, and that's a common issue I have with a lot of historians is that they assume that things done in training are done in regular practice, and my experience tells me that this is not the case.

Edit: It's as if a historian found a fitness Maradmin from 2006, and made assumptions that Marines during that period frequently ran distances of three miles while wearing barely anything, which is not a combat reality but a training one.

toapat

2014-07-20, 03:53 PM

An average human has a stat array of 63, or PB of 15. A 32pb is around 80, and allows for up to an 18 in one score, which is nearly double what an average human is capable of. That is just at l1,and irespective of his class or feats.

32 PB is 2 18s, not 1. or more likely, 4 15s

Void Bovine

2014-07-20, 08:31 PM

don't composite bows typically allow for a higher draw? not sure to similar sized bow not sure that matter as much against plate armors but yeah 40 lbs is pretty light as far as bows go in general but I guess in theory if you had the strength to do so a composite bow with high draw could do some damage but then your getting into modern bows even then shooting at that speed may be impractical that higher draw

Kennisiou

2014-07-21, 01:10 PM

Hahahha. Poison Archer factotum is sitting there with his cunning surge saying "only 9 shots per round? That's cute."

Tohsaka Rin

2014-07-21, 01:28 PM

The higher the strength of a character, the easier/faster it is to haul back those high weight draws.

Not trying to down on the guy in the vid, but he clearly didn't have natural 20 STR, and Gauntlets of Ogre Power.

Zombimode

2014-07-21, 02:39 PM

Number of "uses" of a weapon != number of attacks.

Most people can swing a sword much more often then once per 6 seconds. They still get only one attack.

So if those 1st level archer want to be all fancy and shoot 10 arrows within a round, by all means, they can do it. They still get only one attack however fluffed as they like.

Dr.Gara

2014-07-21, 02:49 PM