Practical missile weapons?
Timothy Pruett
to be somewhat more realistic than the typical RL. One thing I've
definitely decided to do is to make typical RL missile weapons
(bows/crossbows/slings) as useless in combat as they really are.
Bows lack stopping power, and have an incredibly hard time delivering
a lethal blow, and against an armor-clad opponent, well, then you'll
be lucky to do more than lightly wound him. Not to mention the skill
required to accurately fire one. And accuracy is important, because
otherwise you're shot will likely hit one of the body's bigger
targets, which either lacks vital organs, have vital organs protected
by bone, or is protected by standard pieces of armor (breastplate,
helmet, etc). In typical warfare, bows were used in volleys, since
that is the only practical way to use them. Still, warriors would
fight, even with several arrows sticking out from their bodies.
Crossbows are somewhat more practical, but have such a long reload
time as to make them useless unless your first shot is a killing blow
(unlikely).
I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
So, I've been trying to think of practical missile weapons to put in
my game. Molotov cocktails or some similar incendiary seems like a
strong possibility, despite the danger they present to their wielder.
I'm considering spears as a possibility. Once again, I don't think
they could be accurately used to deliver a killing blow, but, they
double as a melee weapon, and can greatly injure an opponent, as well
as interfere with an enemy's abilities to fight.
Anyone else have any practical ideas?
Andrew Hows
What sort of technological era are you working within? Most RLs seem to
go medieval, but molotov cocktails sound like you're considering a
higher level of technology.
One thing that you might want to consider is the effect of range on
ranged weapons. A bow might be impossible to draw at close range, but
fire a crossbow point blank and you'll probably get a decent sized hole,
even against well-armoured targets.
It also depends a bit on your assumptions about the player-character.
Everyday Joes aren't likely to be able to accomplish much with a bow and
arrow, but if the player is playing a hero - like, say, Robin Hood, or a
western gunslinger, or someone who for some reason or other has been
practising throwing knives at other people for a long time, then they
may be quite deadly with ranged weapons. It might be more realistic to
make ranged weapons require some sort of specialization (whether by
class or by skill, depends on your RL's system).
It sounds to me, in the descriptions above, that you probably have a
fairly practical system of trade-offs for ranged weapons, if your game
rules are able to accomodate them. Bows are able to deal damage at
range, but only to poorly armoured targets, while crossbows are able to
deal damage at range against armoured targets, but have a very low rate
of fire.
As for spears, I'd imagine they'd have a very limited range unless the
thrower is of Herculean capacity. Javelin's were used quite often as
thrown weapons, but as you say, it was more often used to slow the enemy
up so you could catch him and chop off his head with your standard edged
weapon of choice.
Martin Read
>Right now I'm working out the kinks in my combat system, which strives
>to be somewhat more realistic than the typical RL. One thing I've
>definitely decided to do is to make typical RL missile weapons
>(bows/crossbows/slings) as useless in combat as they really are.
To be clear: Is the protagonist of your roguelike supposed to be an
ordinary person striving to do extraordinary things, or is he supposed
to be a Hero?
(Both answers are good, but if the latter is the intent, then your "more
realistic" combat system is going to get in the way.)
[bows snipped, since I have no particular comment on them]
>Crossbows are somewhat more practical, but have such a long reload
>time as to make them useless unless your first shot is a killing blow
>(unlikely).
The reload time of a crossbow depends significantly on the draw-weight
of the crossbow and the skill of the operator, surely?
>I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
>
>So, I've been trying to think of practical missile weapons to put in
>my game. Molotov cocktails or some similar incendiary seems like a
>strong possibility, despite the danger they present to their wielder.
And, in the absence of phosphorus matches or naptha/butane lighters, are
probably less practical than a bow for a solitary adventurer. Molotov
cocktails are very heavy compared to arrows. (An arrow weighs tens of
grams, IIRC, and you might even be able to reuse it. A molotov weighs
hundreds of grams, and isn't reusable.)
> I'm considering spears as a possibility. Once again, I don't think
>they could be accurately used to deliver a killing blow, but, they
>double as a melee weapon, and can greatly injure an opponent, as well
>as interfere with an enemy's abilities to fight.
For a specific case of the throwing-spear, consider the pilum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilum
Not terribly long-ranged, though.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\_\/_/ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/dungeonbash/
\ / "tempted white eyes blinded by the night hollow like the towers from the
\/ inside laura's a machine she's burning insane" fields of the nephilim
Timothy Pruett
> Timothy Pruett <drakalor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Right now I'm working out the kinks in my combat system, which strives
>>to be somewhat more realistic than the typical RL. One thing I've
>>definitely decided to do is to make typical RL missile weapons
>>(bows/crossbows/slings) as useless in combat as they really are.
>
>
> To be clear: Is the protagonist of your roguelike supposed to be an
> ordinary person striving to do extraordinary things, or is he supposed
> to be a Hero?
>
> (Both answers are good, but if the latter is the intent, then your "more
> realistic" combat system is going to get in the way.)
More of an in-between sort of chap, I suppose. More skilled than your
average joe, but not some heroic figure, ala Conan or Aragorn.
> [bows snipped, since I have no particular comment on them]
>
>>Crossbows are somewhat more practical, but have such a long reload
>>time as to make them useless unless your first shot is a killing blow
>>(unlikely).
>
>
> The reload time of a crossbow depends significantly on the draw-weight
> of the crossbow and the skill of the operator, surely?
Most definitely. But, nonetheless, when you have a foe charging at
you from, say 10-15 meters away, even an incredibly skilled operator
of the crossbow is unlikely to pull off more than one, maybe two
shots. And if he did get that second shot off, it would likely be to
frantic of a shot, and too close range, to deliver an accurate blow.
Unless, of course, the draw-weight of the crossbow was incredibly
light, in which case the crossbow becomes impractical due to an
extreme lack of killing power.
>>I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
>>
>>So, I've been trying to think of practical missile weapons to put in
>>my game. Molotov cocktails or some similar incendiary seems like a
>>strong possibility, despite the danger they present to their wielder.
>
>
> And, in the absence of phosphorus matches or naptha/butane lighters, are
> probably less practical than a bow for a solitary adventurer. Molotov
> cocktails are very heavy compared to arrows. (An arrow weighs tens of
> grams, IIRC, and you might even be able to reuse it. A molotov weighs
> hundreds of grams, and isn't reusable.)
Lanterns/torches are more than capable of lighting an alcohol soaked
rag, making them practical even in typical medieval/fantasy settings.
And, yes, I agree that molotov cocktails are impractical to lug
around for any great length of time. However, their ingredients are
all readily available, making it possible to carry one or two corked
up bottles, and to restock when fresh supplies become available.
Alcohol used for drinking is found often enough wherever people are
found. This alcohol is also frequently stored in glass bottles, and
is often enough corked up, making transportation easier and less
risky. The only ingredient missing is a strip of clothing, which is
obviously in abundant supply, either from dead combatants or, in
desperate measures, from one's own clothing. Still, I don't find
molotov cocktails to be anything but a desperate measure, best used
for crowd control or to provide an easier escape rout. Nonetheless,
as a warrior, I'd feel more comfortable with a molotov cocktail
prepared when facing half a dozen foes, than I would with a bow and
some arrows.
>> I'm considering spears as a possibility. Once again, I don't think
>>they could be accurately used to deliver a killing blow, but, they
>>double as a melee weapon, and can greatly injure an opponent, as well
>>as interfere with an enemy's abilities to fight.
>
>
> For a specific case of the throwing-spear, consider the pilum:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilum
>
> Not terribly long-ranged, though.
Well, in a dungeon, you never really get a chance to fight really
long-ranged anyway. Missile weapons in RLs are typically employed in
medium to close ranges.
The pilum does look like an interesting possibility, though. It's
design makes it valid against armored opponents, as well. Not to
mention that it seems to fit in well with my orignal idea of it's
practical use. According to the wikipedia article, legionnaires would
throw it at their enemies before engaging in close combat with their
swords.
Timothy Pruett
Medieval-ish era. Ingredients for molotov cocktail: glass bottle,
alcohol (or other flammable liquid), rag. Not exactly high
technology. ;-)
> One thing that you might want to consider is the effect of range on
> ranged weapons. A bow might be impossible to draw at close range, but
> fire a crossbow point blank and you'll probably get a decent sized hole,
> even against well-armoured targets.
True, but unless you hit them in a vital organ, nothing is going to
stop them from hacking away at you. Adrenaline can make people ignore
injuries a lot worse than anything a crossbow can deliver. Perhaps a
crossbow bolt to the face might do it, but not much else. Granted, a
shot in any limb will effect their effectiveness with that limb.
Something to keep in mind, anyway.
> It also depends a bit on your assumptions about the player-character.
> Everyday Joes aren't likely to be able to accomplish much with a bow and
> arrow, but if the player is playing a hero - like, say, Robin Hood, or a
> western gunslinger, or someone who for some reason or other has been
> practising throwing knives at other people for a long time, then they
> may be quite deadly with ranged weapons. It might be more realistic to
> make ranged weapons require some sort of specialization (whether by
> class or by skill, depends on your RL's system).
The PC is more skilled than your average joe, but he's not some
incredibly skilled hero. I suppose intense specialization would
increase the practicality of it, but it'd be useless to anyone except
gluttons for pain, or people playing some sort of self-imposed
challenge game, since an equal level of specialization in a melee
weapon would always yield *much* better results.
> It sounds to me, in the descriptions above, that you probably have a
> fairly practical system of trade-offs for ranged weapons, if your game
> rules are able to accomodate them. Bows are able to deal damage at
> range, but only to poorly armoured targets, while crossbows are able to
> deal damage at range against armoured targets, but have a very low rate
> of fire.
>
> As for spears, I'd imagine they'd have a very limited range unless the
> thrower is of Herculean capacity. Javelin's were used quite often as
> thrown weapons, but as you say, it was more often used to slow the enemy
> up so you could catch him and chop off his head with your standard edged
> weapon of choice.
>
In all RLs, every missile weapon has a very limited range. Hell, the
player's LOS rarely extends beyond 20 or so meters, at the most.
J.M. Joensuu
> Right now I'm working out the kinks in my combat system, which strives
> to be somewhat more realistic than the typical RL. One thing I've
> definitely decided to do is to make typical RL missile weapons
> (bows/crossbows/slings) as useless in combat as they really are.
>
> SNIP bows, crossbows
>
> I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
>
> Anyone else have any practical ideas?
I'd like to clarify few things. Slings are useless in the tunnels of
dungeons, as you need lots of space to whirl one around. However, they
can be devastating against unarmored foes, including almost all animals
and many fantastic beasts (most non-scaled ones).
1 Samuel, 49:
"And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang
it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the *stone sunk into
his forehead*; and he fell upon his face to the earth."
And from very informative, albeit slightly onesided, site:
http://www.slinging.org/35.html
"We have no reason, therefore, to doubt the testimony of the ancient
medical writer Celsus, who writes (7.5):
There is a third type of weapon that sometimes needs to be removed, a
leaden bullet or rock or something similar, which breaking through the
skin lodges inside in one piece. In all of these cases, the wound needs
to be opened a bit wider, and what is inside must be extracted with
pincers along the same pathway by which it entered."
I'm not sure how realistic you want your system to be. One way to limit
usefulness of missile weapons would be to limit the number of missiles.
This was one of the big weaknesses of missile weapons. Of course, if
missile weapons are weak, and missiles rare, it isn't worth using
missile weapons at all (they will only help little against weak or
mediocre monsters, and are of no use against tougher ones). That would
take one big part of the tactical decision-making out of the game.
The other big way to limit missile weapons would be to give the
character a chance of missing. Not in the way of arrow magically going
through the tiles of dozen enemies without hitting none of them, but
hitting the wall of a tunnel. I don't think it would be too hard to add
an angle of deviation for the missile.
Although realistically speaking, I doubt anything else than crossbows
would be really useful in cramped space of dungeons or caverns. Arrows
were most often fired in high arcs, and those are quite hard to do
underground... And as I mentioned before, slingers need space around
them.
Janne )`'´( Joensuu,
Endoperez
Chris Morris
> So, I've been trying to think of practical missile weapons to put in
> my game. Molotov cocktails or some similar incendiary seems like a
> strong possibility, despite the danger they present to their
> wielder. I'm considering spears as a possibility. Once again, I don't
> think they could be accurately used to deliver a killing blow, but,
> they double as a melee weapon, and can greatly injure an opponent, as
> well as interfere with an enemy's abilities to fight.
>
> Anyone else have any practical ideas?
Rockets? Inaccurate (at least with medieval technology levels) but
potentially very powerful. The Chinese of that era made a modified
rocket that could be used as a personal flamethrower, too (short range
a potential disadvantage in a roguelike).
Nets and similar? An incapacitated and entangled enemy is as good as
dead if you can get close and finish them off, and slowed if
not. Again, a bit short ranged.
--
Chris
Timothy Pruett
> Timothy Pruett <drakalor...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>So, I've been trying to think of practical missile weapons to put in
>>my game. Molotov cocktails or some similar incendiary seems like a
>>strong possibility, despite the danger they present to their
>>wielder. I'm considering spears as a possibility. Once again, I don't
>>think they could be accurately used to deliver a killing blow, but,
>>they double as a melee weapon, and can greatly injure an opponent, as
>>well as interfere with an enemy's abilities to fight.
>>
>>Anyone else have any practical ideas?
>
>
> Rockets? Inaccurate (at least with medieval technology levels) but
> potentially very powerful. The Chinese of that era made a modified
> rocket that could be used as a personal flamethrower, too (short range
> a potential disadvantage in a roguelike).
It's a possibility, but I'd imagine it'd feel out of place in my
setting (more westernized). To my knowledge, the Chinese were pretty
much the only civilization to possess real knowledge of rockets and
fireworks, at least in medieval times. Granted, the inclusion in the
game could reasonably be explained away. After all, people traveled
and traded in the Orient long, long ago, so it's not totally
unbelievable that the PC could have encountered this exotic
technology, perhaps from a traveler in a tavern, or a merchant selling
silks, spices, and other imported goods.
> Nets and similar? An incapacitated and entangled enemy is as good as
> dead if you can get close and finish them off, and slowed if
> not. Again, a bit short ranged.
Nets, you say? I like that idea. Benefits of carrying a net could
include not only the ability to entangle foes, but also to set traps.
And, in outdoor settings (which my game isn't), it could be used
for hunting/fishing purposes, giving it enhanced survival value. The
benefits of carrying a net would, in my opinion, outweigh the
disadvantages (weight and bulk). Also, to my knowledge, no other RL
has included nets as possible weapons, which would make my game the
first. Always nice to be the first game to do something, even if it's
something small. :-)
CCD
> disadvantages (weight and bulk). Also, to my knowledge, no other RL has
> included nets as possible weapons, which would make my game the first.
UnReal World has nets. I don't know if they have a use beyond fishing,
though.
> Always nice to be the first game to do something, even if it's something
> small. :-)
Well, I bet you will have something else that is new. :>
Gamer_2k4
I'm playing on having nets in my games, along with the ability to
capture (or carry?) incapacitated opponants. Also, there will be
fighting styles that involve knocking out an opponant. The idea is
that unconcious monsters become items (at least until they wake up.)
In theory, someone strong enough could carry unconscious or sleeping
monsters and throw them at people :).
Ok, the last part was a little strange. But the general idea is cool
anyway.
smar...@yahoo.com
Timothy Pruett wrote:
The thing about using a bow, crossbow, or sling in combat is that light
infantry has greater mobility than heavy infantry. I don't know if
you're going to include cavalry. Anyway, the light infantry will attack
with missiles, move, attack, move, etc. and thereby wear down heavy
infantry. I think the book to see on this would be "The Art of War in
the Western World" by Archer Jones. Unfortunately, I no longer own a
copy so I can't give a page reference. So, anyway, if lightly-armored
characters move more quickly than heavily-armored ones in your game--
as they really should, IMO-- and provided room to move, bows and slings
would be viable weapons in some circumstances.
Crawl has a pretty good bow model, IMO. They're considered underpowered
by a lot of players but not terrible. Several species have good
aptitude for using bows but most lack the strength to use them to best
effect. Darts and slings are OK early on but nearly useless later.
Crossbows are fair. I think they might still be a bit too powerful
considering they're being used in an underground setting but if
missiles were any weaker they'd hardly ever be used.
ADOM is a good example of an overpowered missile model, IMO.
I don't know how "realistic" you're going here. Molotov cocktails are a
twentieth century thing, I believe, but firepowder grenades have been
around since the 15th century. The game Darklands (which should be of
interest to players and designers of roguelikes) had an alchemical
missile model, where potions were thrown as explosives or gas weapons.
Holy water is a familiar fantasy game thrown weapon, too. The Roman
pilum was interesting, you could look that up. However, that makes a
lot more sense used by a soldier on a battlefield than in the hands of
an adventurer fighting battle after battle. I think that's an important
distinction-- the pike was a good weapon system in its day but is a bit
useless if there's just one guy using it.
Gamer_2k4
> be lucky to do more than lightly wound him.
The English longbow was incredible powerful and could punch through
plate mail. It focused about 100 punds of force into and area of about
a half an inch. Keep in mind that speed magnifies force. If you were
hit anywhere with a longbow arrow, it would incapacitate that area (and
possibly you).
> I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
Slings are incredibly useful, if you recall a certain Bible story ;).
Remember, most of your opponants in a roguelike will have little or no
armor. Any creature will have no armor. Orcs, ogres, trolls, and the
like generally wear only furs or other light armor (if they have any at
all). Elves prefer to not use armor. The only trouble you'll have is
against golems, humans, dwarves, and dragons. And all of those have
weaknesses in their armor (Smaug had a soft spot, and armor is weak at
the neck - a vital spot.) A skilled archer (which anyone wielding a
bow should be) would be able to exploit these weakness.
I suggest you keep the medieval ranged weapons in your game.
the ru
> Right now I'm working out the kinks in my combat system, which strives
> to be somewhat more realistic than the typical RL. One thing I've
> definitely decided to do is to make typical RL missile weapons
> (bows/crossbows/slings) as useless in combat as they really are.
The question that comes to mind at this point: Do you really *need*
missile weapons? If you plan to make them useless anyway, why waste the
time to implement them at all?
I usually don't care to use missile weapons in games myself, especially
not in RLs. They are slower to play (you have to [f]ire, then select a
direction - *each turn*) than standard melee, and since the range of
sight is so limited, there's usually not enough time once an enemy
appears to kill it before it gets up close. And then you usually
(depending on whether missile and melee weapons occupy the same slot in
WhateverRL) have to change to a melee weapon, etc.
Also, if you're heading for a realistic approach, it isn't very
realistic to bring a bow into a dark and narrow dungeon (and none of
monsters therein would either, not even kobolds are *that* stupid after
all).
Of course, *thrown* weapons are different from *fired* weapons, and are
easier to add and make useful. In Nethack, I find it useful to throw a
few daggers at enemies as they advance (not to mention the enemies one
specifically wants to take out at a distance, such as floating eyes).
Having to specifically [t]hrow an item isn't that much of a
disadvantage here - the majority of the combat actions is still just
regular melee.
I've never written a ranged (fired) weapon system myself (and I don't
intend to, for the reasons listed above), but it seems to me like a lot
of work with very little improvement to actual gameplay. But then of
course, it all depends on what kind of game you want to make.
-the ru
Krice
> I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
You should read the Bible:)
No, slings are not useless. It also depends on what type of
enemy you are shooting.
> Anyone else have any practical ideas?
I'm planning to have a portable cannon in my game.
Gamer_2k4
I'm playing on having nets in my games, along with the ability to
capture (or carry?) incapacitated opponants. Also, there will be
fighting styles that involve knocking out an opponant. The idea is
that unconscious monsters become items (at least until they wake up.)
the ru
> Right now I'm working out the kinks in my combat system, which strives
> to be somewhat more realistic than the typical RL. One thing I've
> definitely decided to do is to make typical RL missile weapons
> (bows/crossbows/slings) as useless in combat as they really are.
The question that comes to mind at this point: Do you really *need*
Antoine
the ru wrote:
> I usually don't care to use missile weapons in games myself, especially
> not in RLs. They are slower to play (you have to [f]ire, then select a
> direction - *each turn*) than standard melee, and since the range of
> sight is so limited, there's usually not enough time once an enemy
> appears to kill it before it gets up close. And then you usually
> (depending on whether missile and melee weapons occupy the same slot in
> WhateverRL) have to change to a melee weapon, etc.
I feel the same way. In Guild this sort of thing is mitigated a bit -
in that you can get one of your other characters to carry the bow -
they pick their own targets so you don't have to do extra keystrokes.
They'll swap between melee and missile weapons as needed, too. (This in
fact is the main reason for giving them a knife as a weapon - they can
change to or from it quickly - a Legolas kind of kit).
A.
smar...@yahoo.com
Antoine wrote:
> I feel the same way. In Guild this sort of thing is mitigated a bit -
> in that you can get one of your other characters to carry the bow -
> they pick their own targets so you don't have to do extra keystrokes.
> They'll swap between melee and missile weapons as needed, too. (This in
> fact is the main reason for giving them a knife as a weapon - they can
> change to or from it quickly - a Legolas kind of kit).
In a D&D party-type fight, bows sorta made sense. Put dwarves in the
front and archers in back, so you can get in more attacks per round. In
your game, as I understand it, everybody's split up.
However, I wouldn't be in a bigass hurry to eliminate bows or make them
entirely useless. People seem to be offended if elves suck with bows or
halflings suck with slings. And it does offend fantasy cliche or
mainstream.
Also, some games make use of outdoor adventures and the bow should be
pretty handy then. Not to mention that it makes an excellent ambush
weapon.
But in an underground setting-- itself a fantasy cliche-- yes, I think
a bow or sling would be more of a hinderance than a help. A crossbow,
though, if used right, might be worth carrying.
Oh, and if you're going to get all realistic, I beg you to set
reasonable encumberance levels. Personally, carrying more than about 25
kilos in an awkward form (like, in a box or bag, even) tires me quickly
and I'm no wuss of a halfling. Oh, and running speed vs. walking speed
and quick march. IMO, if you open the door to realism, you gotta open
it all the way.
ga...@dsdata.it
Timothy Pruett wrote:
> Andrew Hows wrote:
[...]
> > What sort of technological era are you working within? Most RLs seem to
> > go medieval, but molotov cocktails sound like you're considering a
> > higher level of technology.
>
> Medieval-ish era. Ingredients for molotov cocktail: glass bottle,
> alcohol (or other flammable liquid), rag. Not exactly high
> technology. ;-)
It's not high technology, but the glass bottle, and maybe the fuel,
would be rather expensive in a medieval setting: the bottle would be
blown glass made by a skilled artisan, not the apparently disposable
bottles of our age, and the fuel would be hand-distilled spirit or
imported oil.
In the bomb family, the Molotov cocktail could be joined by rough
gunpowder grenades (a sealed wooden box or glass bottle full of powder,
with a short fuse) and maybe rockets, without neglecting bomb
enhancements like adding nails, pebbles etc. or protecting fuses.
Nitroglycerine, nitrocellulose and similar explosives could be
accidental alchemist discoveries, but actually using them requires
significant development.
Other effective, very expensive and easy to use short range weapons
include blowguns with poisoned needles or also powders and liquids
(irritating, corrosive or poisonous).
Did you consider AI reactions to bombs? Monsters have rather unusual
choices:
- running madly
- running madly after picking up something important
- taking cover behind sturdy walls
- use water or something against the fuse
- use devastating suicide attacks because they won't get out alive in
any case
It could be a very interesting game.
Lorenzo Gatti
Christophe
> Timothy Pruett wrote:
>
>>Andrew Hows wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>What sort of technological era are you working within? Most RLs seem to
>>>go medieval, but molotov cocktails sound like you're considering a
>>>higher level of technology.
>>
>>Medieval-ish era. Ingredients for molotov cocktail: glass bottle,
>>alcohol (or other flammable liquid), rag. Not exactly high
>>technology. ;-)
>
>
> It's not high technology, but the glass bottle, and maybe the fuel,
> would be rather expensive in a medieval setting: the bottle would be
> blown glass made by a skilled artisan, not the apparently disposable
> bottles of our age, and the fuel would be hand-distilled spirit or
> imported oil.
You could use clay pots instead of glass. It's in *our* age that glass
is cheaper/easier to find than clay :)
the ru
> In the bomb family, the Molotov cocktail could be joined by rough
> gunpowder grenades (a sealed wooden box or glass bottle full of powder,
> with a short fuse) and maybe rockets, without neglecting bomb
> enhancements like adding nails, pebbles etc. or protecting fuses.
The gunpowder bombs could have a random "time until detonation" after
being lit and thrown (3-5 turns sound resonable). This would represent
the difficulty in determining beforehand exactly how long time it will
take for the burning fuse to reach the gunpowder. It could explode
exactly when an enemy is over it, or a few seconds afterwards, or it
might not explode at all, etc.
-the ru
Jeff Lait
>
> I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
I certainly hope someone else has provided this before I have. In case
not, I shall now provide you your required reading assignment:
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/weapons/sling.html
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Brendan Guild
news:1136761559....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> especially not in RLs. They are slower to play (you have to
> [f]ire, then select a direction - *each turn*) than standard
> melee, and since the range of sight is so limited, there's usually
> not enough time once an enemy appears to kill it before it gets up
> close.
I plan on having one-touch missiles as a feature of my roguelike. By
that I mean, firing an arrow would require exactly as many keypresses
as any other form of attacking most of the time. It would work by
having a cursor on the screen that would move around in a useful
manner, highlighting monsters as they appear and following them as they
move. If you want to fire at a monster other than the currently
selected one, that will require a few keypresses, but to just shoot the
highlighted monster until dead would be a simple matter of smashing a
single key.
R. Dan Henry
<spam_wan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 23:28:48 -0600, Timothy Pruett wrote:
>
>> Right now I'm working out the kinks in my combat system, which strives
>> to be somewhat more realistic than the typical RL. One thing I've
>> definitely decided to do is to make typical RL missile weapons
>> (bows/crossbows/slings) as useless in combat as they really are.
>>
>> SNIP bows, crossbows
>>
>> I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
>>
>> Anyone else have any practical ideas?
>
>I'd like to clarify few things. Slings are useless in the tunnels of
>dungeons, as you need lots of space to whirl one around.
No more than needed for long melee weapons. It's the time it takes to
whirl it up to speed that's the problem. You can't keep a sling at the
ready to launch as you wander around. And bows have a problem with the
short ranges -- early in flight an arrow is flexing as it comes off the
bow and until it straightens out, it is likely to deflect off a target
with little damage, almost certainly so if the target is armored. If you
can spot the target down a modestly long corridor, however, both sling
and bow should serve. Unless the ceilings are too low -- however, in
that case, you'll have the luck of not meeting anything large like a
giant or elephant.
>However, they
>can be devastating against unarmored foes, including almost all animals
>and many fantastic beasts (most non-scaled ones).
Or even armored foes, especially if using metal shot. Slings have been
military weapons for some very successful armies.
>I'm not sure how realistic you want your system to be. One way to limit
>usefulness of missile weapons would be to limit the number of missiles.
Most roguelikes already do this.
>The other big way to limit missile weapons would be to give the
>character a chance of missing.
And they *all* do that, but you have to hit in melee, too.
>Although realistically speaking, I doubt anything else than crossbows
>would be really useful in cramped space of dungeons or caverns. Arrows
>were most often fired in high arcs, and those are quite hard to do
>underground... And as I mentioned before, slingers need space around
>them.
Slings also have high arcs -- for longer ranges. At shorter ranges,
archery doesn't achieve so much height. If an ogre can swing a club
around, there really should be room enough for slings and bows. A
crossbow has the advantage of being useful even if the target is in your
face, and can be carried ready to use at a moment's notice -- which is
nigh-impossible with a sling and somewhat tiring with a bow.
Thrown weapons also arc -- and at the shorter ranges we're considering,
they'd likely have more problems.
--
R. Dan Henry = danh...@inreach.com
R. Dan Henry
>Right now I'm working out the kinks in my combat system, which strives
>to be somewhat more realistic than the typical RL.
By which you mean what, exactly?
>One thing I've
>definitely decided to do is to make typical RL missile weapons
>(bows/crossbows/slings) as useless in combat as they really are.
So, pretty darned effective, then. Or do you fancy that virtually every
army has had missile troops simply because they look good on parade?
>Bows lack stopping power
Compared with what? A high-powered firearm? Yes. But a powerful bow will
tend to slow a target down, if not down it.
>and have an incredibly hard time delivering a lethal blow,
Not really. If you mean they have a hard time killing instantly a target
that isn't already defeated, that's true of melee weapons as well. You
don't win a fight by killing the enemy. You win a fight by rendering him
unable or unwilling to continue. Bleeding from multiple gut wounds tends
to take the fight out of a man, even if he does have a few days of life
left if you don't finish him off.
If a man doesn't get out of the battle, any serious wound is a fatal
injury, because the next combatant he meets will finish him (unless he
reads a ?teleport and quaffs a !heal-much, but that's not "realistic").
>and against an armor-clad opponent, well, then you'll
>be lucky to do more than lightly wound him.
Be sure to tell the French they imagined their massive casualties at
Agincourt.
>Not to mention the skill required to accurately fire one.
Well, a long bow does take a lot of skill. Short bows take less. But
hand-to-hand combat takes a lot of skill, too, if you want to be good
enough at it to make your fortune at it. In fact, even modern firearms
reward skill pretty substantially. That's a trait of weapons in general.
So, yes, it is more of a factor for long bows, but it is a matter of
degree.
>In typical warfare, bows were used in volleys, since
>that is the only practical way to use them. Still, warriors would
>fight, even with several arrows sticking out from their bodies.
Some would. Others would go down after the first shot. Most warriors
didn't drop the first time hit in melee, either. And bows used in combat
against mass targets weren't aimed because they didn't need to be -- but
even aimed shots can be taken fairly quickly. Armor isn't that big an
obstacle, either. Shields are a better defense.
>Crossbows are somewhat more practical, but have such a long reload
>time as to make them useless unless your first shot is a killing blow
>(unlikely).
You're probably overestimating the time it takes to reload a crossbow.
Yes, the heavier bows could be a bear, but a field crossbow is an
effective weapon and can be fired reasonably quickly.
>I won't even bother describing how useless slings are.
They aren't. They're a serious battle-field weapon, used by Romans and
Incans alike. They have a number of advantages -- they do not require
any special materials or skill to make, they are light, you can pick up
improvised ammunition almost anywhere -- although prepared metal shots
are more effective, they are concealable (not significant in a military
context normally, but useful to the adventurer), they are not vulnerable
to weather like the stringed weapons, they can go from carried in a
pocket to ready to use in very little time (a bow needs to be strung).
>So, I've been trying to think of practical missile weapons to put in
>my game. Molotov cocktails or some similar incendiary seems like a
>strong possibility, despite the danger they present to their wielder.
Pre-gunpowder incendiaries are forms of flaming pitch, which an arrow
will deliver as well as any other means. Molotov cocktails are
gasoline-based and I don't think you want refined petrochemicals. And I
wouldn't try using early gunpowder devices if it is a dungeon setting.
Cave system + boom boom = bad idea.
> I'm considering spears as a possibility. Once again, I don't think
>they could be accurately used to deliver a killing blow, but, they
>double as a melee weapon, and can greatly injure an opponent, as well
>as interfere with an enemy's abilities to fight.
Daggers and axes also make effective thrown weapons. Axes and spears
were often used as a opening intended to imbed the weapon in target's
shield, weighing it down to make it ineffective. A poorly-made shield
would likely split if hit with a thrown axe. And a hurled spear or axe
is as deadly as hand-held one.
R. Dan Henry
<drakalor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lanterns/torches are more than capable of lighting an alcohol soaked
>rag, making them practical even in typical medieval/fantasy settings.
You really don't want to try to light an alcohol soaked rag with a torch
while holding both unless you're a serious pyromaniac. And lanterns are
made for lighting things with -- either way you're talking about a prep
time that's at least as long as for a light crossbow.
R. Dan Henry
>The question that comes to mind at this point: Do you really *need*
>missile weapons? If you plan to make them useless anyway, why waste the
>time to implement them at all?
Amen.
Make it meaningful or leave it out.
R. Dan Henry
<drakalor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Medieval-ish era. Ingredients for molotov cocktail: glass bottle,
>alcohol (or other flammable liquid), rag. Not exactly high
>technology. ;-)
Alcohol *plus gasoline*. Alcohol on its own burns far too cool to be an
effective weapon. Until you have refined petrochemicals, the Molotov
cocktail isn't practical. Pitch-coated flaming arrows are the best you
can hope for.
>True, but unless you hit them in a vital organ, nothing is going to
>stop them from hacking away at you. Adrenaline can make people ignore
>injuries a lot worse than anything a crossbow can deliver.
Not for long. Not with any consistency. And unlike a bullet, a crossbow
quarrel or arrow leaves a rigid object of considerable size inside the
body that can interfere with movement.
Just as likely as a positive adrenaline surge (which has its own
downsides -- loss of fine motor control and wider awareness to focus on
a particular object of interest and gross movements) is going into
shock. Non-lethal by no means is the same as non-incapacitating.
>Perhaps a crossbow bolt to the face might do it, but not much else.
Right... people with punctured lungs aren't at any disadvantage in
combat.
>> As for spears, I'd imagine they'd have a very limited range unless the
>> thrower is of Herculean capacity. Javelin's were used quite often as
>> thrown weapons, but as you say, it was more often used to slow the enemy
>> up so you could catch him and chop off his head with your standard edged
>> weapon of choice.
A thrown spear or axe generally wasn't expected to kill the opponent
because of his *shield*, which would protect him, at the cost of the
weapon (hopefully) wreaking his shield.
>In all RLs, every missile weapon has a very limited range. Hell, the
>player's LOS rarely extends beyond 20 or so meters, at the most.
If a RL square is a standard RPG 10'x10' mapping square, that'd be a LOS
of 6 squares. I see beyond that quite often.
Erik Järlemyr
"R. Dan Henry" wrote:
> [snip]
> >and against an armor-clad opponent, well, then you'll
> >be lucky to do more than lightly wound him.
>
> Be sure to tell the French they imagined their massive casualties at
> Agincourt.
It is a shame that the battle of Agincourt is the only battle that is ever
mentioned when discussing the merit of archers in combat. Not only Agincourt
is a bad example for a myriad of reasons, it is also a likely candidate for
your typical "patriotic myth" (the English may have been outnumbered only by
2-3 to one, for example).
Also, it isn't really applicable when discussing ranged weapons in
roguelikes, unless of course you want to do simulations of battles with
5000+ archers on one of the sides. What I'm trying to say is that weapons
work differently under different conditions. On the battlefield the longbow
is very useful. In a dark cave, I think that it is less useful. Not useless,
but you better have a melee weapon ready to switch to when the bad guys get
close.
> [snip]
> >In typical warfare, bows were used in volleys, since
> >that is the only practical way to use them. Still, warriors would
> >fight, even with several arrows sticking out from their bodies.
>
> Some would. Others would go down after the first shot. Most warriors
> didn't drop the first time hit in melee, either. And bows used in combat
> against mass targets weren't aimed because they didn't need to be -- but
> even aimed shots can be taken fairly quickly. Armor isn't that big an
> obstacle, either. Shields are a better defense.
I'm curious as to the source of this information - how could a wooden shield
be more protective than a metal armor (granted, a lot of armour was made
from iron before the 15th-century, so armour might have been semi-useless
against arrows anyway).
Now, if you by "better" mean "more cost-effective," then I'm with you.
> >Crossbows are somewhat more practical, but have such a long reload
> >time as to make them useless unless your first shot is a killing blow
> >(unlikely).
>
> You're probably overestimating the time it takes to reload a crossbow.
> Yes, the heavier bows could be a bear, but a field crossbow is an
> effective weapon and can be fired reasonably quickly.
Indeed, but compared to a longbow it was considered painfully slow. But as
long as you don't miss, getting one shot should be worth fiddeling with your
equipment a bit. Note though that for this to be practical in a roguelike
you should be able to unequip your crossbow without reloading it.
Implementing a [R]eload-command similair to DoomRL would be easiest.
> >So, I've been trying to think of practical missile weapons to put in
> >my game. Molotov cocktails or some similar incendiary seems like a
> >strong possibility, despite the danger they present to their wielder.
>
> Pre-gunpowder incendiaries are forms of flaming pitch, which an arrow
> will deliver as well as any other means. Molotov cocktails are
> gasoline-based and I don't think you want refined petrochemicals. And I
> wouldn't try using early gunpowder devices if it is a dungeon setting.
> Cave system + boom boom = bad idea.
Well, he could claim that it is the same thing as "Greek Fire" was. Not that
anyone knows what Greek Fire was made of, and whatever the ingredients I
doubt it is something you can find lying around your average dungeon. But it
could be done...
David Damerell
>Oh, and if you're going to get all realistic, I beg you to set
>reasonable encumberance levels. Personally, carrying more than about 25
>kilos in an awkward form (like, in a box or bag, even) tires me quickly
>and I'm no wuss of a halfling.
But you do have to consider "awkward form". Any reenactor can tell you
it's a lot easier to wear armour than to carry it around.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Teleute, January.
Lochok
"Erik Järlemyr" <ar...@df.lth.se> wrote
<SNIP>
> Also, it isn't really applicable when discussing ranged weapons in
> roguelikes, unless of course you want to do simulations of battles with
> 5000+ archers on one of the sides. What I'm trying to say is that weapons
> work differently under different conditions. On the battlefield the
> longbow
> is very useful. In a dark cave, I think that it is less useful. Not
> useless,
> but you better have a melee weapon ready to switch to when the bad guys
> get
> close.
<SNIP>
You know - that could be really really really cool.... you could actually
end the game like many fantasies in a giant battle with thousands of men (or
whatever monsters) on each side - of course you'd need fairly big maps, and
a fast AI.
Anybody tried anything like this before?
Lochok
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>
>"R. Dan Henry" wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >and against an armor-clad opponent, well, then you'll
>> >be lucky to do more than lightly wound him.
>>
>> Be sure to tell the French they imagined their massive casualties at
>> Agincourt.
>
>It is a shame that the battle of Agincourt is the only battle that is ever
>mentioned when discussing the merit of archers in combat. Not only Agincourt
>is a bad example for a myriad of reasons, it is also a likely candidate for
>your typical "patriotic myth" (the English may have been outnumbered only by
>2-3 to one, for example).
The success was repeated several times during the Hundred Years' War and
there are plenty of other battles where pre-gunpowder missiles were
decisive. It's hard to come up with a battle where missiles weren't in
use, at least as thrown weapons.
>Also, it isn't really applicable when discussing ranged weapons in
>roguelikes, unless of course you want to do simulations of battles with
>5000+ archers on one of the sides.
It is quite relevant to the claim that you can't do serious damage to an
armored opponent. You don't get much more armored than the French
knighthood.
>What I'm trying to say is that weapons
>work differently under different conditions. On the battlefield the longbow
>is very useful. In a dark cave, I think that it is less useful. Not useless,
>but you better have a melee weapon ready to switch to when the bad guys get
>close.
Yes, and I made that point. That's an entirely different point than the
claim this responded to.
>> >In typical warfare, bows were used in volleys, since
>> >that is the only practical way to use them. Still, warriors would
>> >fight, even with several arrows sticking out from their bodies.
>>
>> Some would. Others would go down after the first shot. Most warriors
>> didn't drop the first time hit in melee, either. And bows used in combat
>> against mass targets weren't aimed because they didn't need to be -- but
>> even aimed shots can be taken fairly quickly. Armor isn't that big an
>> obstacle, either. Shields are a better defense.
>
>I'm curious as to the source of this information - how could a wooden shield
>be more protective than a metal armor (granted, a lot of armour was made
>from iron before the 15th-century, so armour might have been semi-useless
>against arrows anyway).
A shield isn't just a slab of wood. If you just slap some wood together,
yes, it isn't much use, but that's not a proper shield. If a missile
penetrates your shield, it generally won't penetrate you, or if it does,
it penetrates your less useful arm. If it penetrates your armor, you're
hit and that's not good. Shields can be discarded fairly easily if they
become too shot-up to move with. Shields have no open or weak spots to
target, unlike most armor. Shields can be easily angled to best meet
incoming fire.
>> >Crossbows are somewhat more practical, but have such a long reload
>> >time as to make them useless unless your first shot is a killing blow
>> >(unlikely).
>>
>> You're probably overestimating the time it takes to reload a crossbow.
>> Yes, the heavier bows could be a bear, but a field crossbow is an
>> effective weapon and can be fired reasonably quickly.
>
>Indeed, but compared to a longbow it was considered painfully slow.
About half speed. But actual practice by modern non-professionals
(non-professional crossbowmen, that is) has shown that 8 shots/minute is
not unreasonable for aimed shots. For genuinely "painfully slow" missile
weapons you need to get early gunpowder. The D&D rates of fire for
missiles are laughably slow.
>But as
>long as you don't miss, getting one shot should be worth fiddeling with your
>equipment a bit. Note though that for this to be practical in a roguelike
>you should be able to unequip your crossbow without reloading it.
>Implementing a [R]eload-command similair to DoomRL would be easiest.
Generally, just slowing the firing rate of crossbows has been the means
of simulation in roguelikes. Making you explicitly load your weapon
would improve "realism", but involves a lot of unnecessary keypresses
that diminish gameplay. Will you be cleaning your sword, too?
>> >So, I've been trying to think of practical missile weapons to put in
>> >my game. Molotov cocktails or some similar incendiary seems like a
>> >strong possibility, despite the danger they present to their wielder.
>>
>> Pre-gunpowder incendiaries are forms of flaming pitch, which an arrow
>> will deliver as well as any other means. Molotov cocktails are
>> gasoline-based and I don't think you want refined petrochemicals. And I
>> wouldn't try using early gunpowder devices if it is a dungeon setting.
>> Cave system + boom boom = bad idea.
>
>Well, he could claim that it is the same thing as "Greek Fire" was. Not that
>anyone knows what Greek Fire was made of, and whatever the ingredients I
>doubt it is something you can find lying around your average dungeon. But it
>could be done...
Nor have I read of it ever being used as a missile. It was more like a
flamethrower. And likely not a man-portable one at that. I doubt it
would serve to make an explosive hand-flung missile. Also, it was
dangerous to the users even on the relatively controlled environment of
shipboard deployment.
However, incendiary weapons were used in areas where suitable materials
were found. They generally would not be exported -- shipping out
military secrets was not smiled upon. Mostly, fire is used to start
fires and for psychological warfare. Often special protective gear was
worn handling the more dangerous stuff. I'm skeptical about the
practicality of any of it to a lone adventurer. At least up until
gunpowder. A few black powder rockets might be easily portable enough,
although they couldn't be deployed rapidly.
Jeff Lait
R. Dan Henry wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:07:58 GMT, "Erik Järlemyr" <ar...@df.lth.se>
> wrote:
>
> >Indeed, but compared to a longbow it was considered painfully slow.
>
> About half speed. But actual practice by modern non-professionals
> (non-professional crossbowmen, that is) has shown that 8 shots/minute is
> not unreasonable for aimed shots. For genuinely "painfully slow" missile
> weapons you need to get early gunpowder. The D&D rates of fire for
> missiles are laughably slow.
I found most illuminating the results of an archery competition in
Sanjusangen-do in Kyoto, Japan. A quote from:
http://www.kyopro.kufs.ac.jp/dp/dp01.nsf/ecfa8fdd6a53a7fc4925700e00303ed8/081385aed819ec1649256f74001956b0!OpenDocument
"An archery competition takes place from the morning of January 15th.
Many good archers gather here to compete. They shoot an arrow from one
end of Sanjusangen-do to the other, a distance of 118 meters. In the
old days, people competed to see who could hit the target with the most
arrows in 24 hours. The highest number is 8,133 arrows by one person!"
That matches what I recall reading from the sign - I don't have my
notes ready to present my own evidence for the numbers.
Reading that, over a continous twenty four hour period *one* person
made over 8 thousand successful aimed shots at a 118 meter distance.
That is 5.6 hits per minute maintained over a twenty-four hour period.
The building itself is very interesting - it is more arrow shafts than
not at the far end :>
Erik Järlemyr
"R. Dan Henry" wrote
> [snip]
> armored opponent. You don't get much more armored than the French
> knighthood.
As far as I know most historians now think that the French armour *wasn't*
penetrated by the English archers. Rather the arrows killed of the horses
and most deaths were caused by the knights being trampled or suffocating in
the mud. As I said, Agincourt is a bad example. The battle of Crécy or the
battle of Poitiers (I assume that these are the battles you are refering to
when you talk about other English victories) are better examples, but still
the English won mostly because the French couldn't tell their arses from
their elbows.
> > [snip]
> >
> >I'm curious as to the source of this information - how could a wooden
shield
> >be more protective than a metal armor (granted, a lot of armour was made
> >from iron before the 15th-century, so armour might have been semi-useless
> >against arrows anyway).
>
> A shield isn't just a slab of wood. If you just slap some wood together,
> yes, it isn't much use, but that's not a proper shield. If a missile
> penetrates your shield, it generally won't penetrate you, or if it does,
> it penetrates your less useful arm. If it penetrates your armor, you're
> hit and that's not good. Shields can be discarded fairly easily if they
> become too shot-up to move with. Shields have no open or weak spots to
> target, unlike most armor. Shields can be easily angled to best meet
> incoming fire.
True.
> >> >Crossbows are somewhat more practical, but have such a long reload
> >> >time as to make them useless unless your first shot is a killing blow
> >> >(unlikely).
> >>
> >> You're probably overestimating the time it takes to reload a crossbow.
> >> Yes, the heavier bows could be a bear, but a field crossbow is an
> >> effective weapon and can be fired reasonably quickly.
> >
> >Indeed, but compared to a longbow it was considered painfully slow.
>
> About half speed. But actual practice by modern non-professionals
> (non-professional crossbowmen, that is) has shown that 8 shots/minute is
> not unreasonable for aimed shots. For genuinely "painfully slow" missile
> weapons you need to get early gunpowder. The D&D rates of fire for
> missiles are laughably slow.
I don't really play D&D, so I don't know anything about that. I looked it up
in the corresponding Swedish RPG (i.e. a game with horrible unrealistic
rules that is still played by almost everyone for some reason), and it seems
that after you fire your light crossbow it would take the equivalent of 3
normal attacks to reload it. That does sound a tad unrealistic. To let it
take the equivalent of one attack sounds better, unless you want to take
skill into acount (but that would involve obscure calculations and make the
player unsure of just how long a shot with the crossbow would take, so that
sounds stupid).
> >But as
> >long as you don't miss, getting one shot should be worth fiddeling with
your
> >equipment a bit. Note though that for this to be practical in a roguelike
> >you should be able to unequip your crossbow without reloading it.
> >Implementing a [R]eload-command similair to DoomRL would be easiest.
>
> Generally, just slowing the firing rate of crossbows has been the means
> of simulation in roguelikes. Making you explicitly load your weapon
> would improve "realism", but involves a lot of unnecessary keypresses
> that diminish gameplay. Will you be cleaning your sword, too?
Of course not, I just suggested that if you want to improve the usefulness
of crossbows in roguelikes it might be good idea not to force the player to
wait for the long reload time (if it is long enough to make a large impact
on the game).
> [snip]
> >Well, he could claim that it is the same thing as "Greek Fire" was. Not
that
> >anyone knows what Greek Fire was made of, and whatever the ingredients I
> >doubt it is something you can find lying around your average dungeon. But
it
> >could be done...
>
> Nor have I read of it ever being used as a missile. It was more like a
> flamethrower. And likely not a man-portable one at that. I doubt it
> would serve to make an explosive hand-flung missile. Also, it was
> dangerous to the users even on the relatively controlled environment of
> shipboard deployment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire
Under the heading "Manufacture" it says "It could also be used in hand
grenades, made of earthenware vessels."
Another suggestion for more practical ranged weapons would be "the holy hand
grenade of Antioch." Just remember to count to 5, er, 3 (oh, and on the note
of realism, I have found Monty Python's film to be about as anachronistic as
most other "historic" films on that era).
> However, incendiary weapons were used in areas where suitable materials
> were found. They generally would not be exported -- shipping out
> military secrets was not smiled upon. Mostly, fire is used to start
> fires and for psychological warfare. Often special protective gear was
> worn handling the more dangerous stuff. I'm skeptical about the
> practicality of any of it to a lone adventurer. At least up until
> gunpowder. A few black powder rockets might be easily portable enough,
> although they couldn't be deployed rapidly.
That is all true. I'm just giving suggestions on how to justify having hand
grenades in a roguelike (because I think it would be cool :)).
Erik.
R
> Chris Morris wrote:
> >
> > Nets and similar? An incapacitated and entangled enemy is as good as
> > dead if you can get close and finish them off, and slowed if
> > not. Again, a bit short ranged.
>
> Nets, you say? I like that idea. Benefits of carrying a net could
> include not only the ability to entangle foes, but also to set traps.
> And, in outdoor settings (which my game isn't), it could be used
> for hunting/fishing purposes, giving it enhanced survival value. The
> benefits of carrying a net would, in my opinion, outweigh the
> disadvantages (weight and bulk). Also, to my knowledge, no other RL
> has included nets as possible weapons, which would make my game the
> first. Always nice to be the first game to do something, even if it's
> something small. :-)
>
Sorry, to disappoint you, but nets are in Ragnarok/Valhalla. They have
only one use though, they work as throwing weapons which immobilize the
target for some time when thrown. Unfortunately they are very rare, so it
is hard to use them, and even if you have one, the enemy may escape and
you won't have another one to recapture them (when I find one I am
already powerful enough to easily survive all battles without using a
net; I remember using a net when I did not know the power tricks yet).
About other missile weapons, no matter how powerful they are, I think
it is good to have a difference between bows and crossbows. In most
games today crossbows are just a more powerful version of bows which
use a different kind of ammunition. It would be more interesting to
make them a missile weapon that can shoot once, producing huge damage,
but if the enemy survives, or has friends, you usually have to finish
them with another means (e.g. another crossbow which is still loaded),
since reloading the crossbow takes too much time. And you can do this
without much trouble for the player, e.g. have the "fire" key reload
the crossbow instead of firing it if it is unloaded. This way, you
have only one extra keypress per shot.
Martin Read
>About half speed. But actual practice by modern non-professionals
>(non-professional crossbowmen, that is) has shown that 8 shots/minute is
>not unreasonable for aimed shots. For genuinely "painfully slow" missile
>weapons you need to get early gunpowder. The D&D rates of fire for
>missiles are laughably slow.
Not in third edition, where a combat round is six seconds. In
fact, third edition's RoFs with a bow can become superhumanly high.
In third edition, you can achieve an RoF of 10 bolts/min with a
"light" crossbow and 6.6 bolts/min with a "heavy" crossbow". (Loading a
light crossbow is a movement-equivalent action, so you can load it once
and fire it once every round. Loading a heavy crossbow is a full-round
action, so over three rounds (six partial actions), you can fire two
shots. In v3.5, they added a Feat called something like "Rapid Reload",
which allows you to load a light crossbow as a free action and a heavy
crossbow as a partial action, making it possible to fire 20 bolts/min
from the light crossbow and 10/min from the heavy.
A character with a base attack bonus of +16 or greater (which requires
you to have taken at least two levels of fighter, ranger, barbarian, or
paladin, and fewer than 10 levels of wizard or sorcerer) can fire 40
arrows/min. With the Rapid Shot feat, this goes up to 50. However,
over half those shots will only be hitting on '20's if you're facing
opponents of a Challenge Rating comparable to your level.
I'll cheerfully grant the point about RoF in first edition AD&D, though.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\_\/_/ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/dungeonbash/
\ / "tempted white eyes blinded by the night hollow like the towers from the
\/ inside laura's a machine she's burning insane" fields of the nephilim
Ray Dillinger
> In the bomb family, the Molotov cocktail could be joined by rough
> gunpowder grenades (a sealed wooden box or glass bottle full of powder,
> with a short fuse)
Please... A third full, at most. More will simply
burn (and be wasted) rather than adding to the
explosion.
> Other effective, very expensive and easy to use short range weapons
> include blowguns with poisoned needles or also powders and liquids
> (irritating, corrosive or poisonous).
Western Europe (where most of these things seem to be
based culturally) was as far as I know quite poor in
poisons suitable for deadly doses on a blowgun needle.
One of the best available injective poisons I know of
was egg-white, and you'd have to get nearly a half-ounce
of it into a target to be reliably fatal.
Bear
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>"R. Dan Henry" wrote
>> Nor have I read of it ever being used as a missile. It was more like a
>> flamethrower. And likely not a man-portable one at that. I doubt it
>> would serve to make an explosive hand-flung missile. Also, it was
>> dangerous to the users even on the relatively controlled environment of
>> shipboard deployment.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire
>
>Under the heading "Manufacture" it says "It could also be used in hand
>grenades, made of earthenware vessels."
They may be assuming that "Greek fire" was naphtha; in fact, since we
don't know what Greek fire actually was, even if there is some source
for the grenade idea, there's no way of knowing if it was the same
substance as the Greek fire used famously for naval defense. However,
what we do know is that all known methods for creating fire grenades are
based on petroleum (the wikipedia article even speculates that petroleum
was a Greek fire ingredient). If you create a setting where such is
available, primitive grenades are possible. But they should be both more
dangerous to use and less effective than a modern grenade (and if you
are hit by a fire attack while carrying them, that should just about be
the end of you).
>That is all true. I'm just giving suggestions on how to justify having hand
>grenades in a roguelike (because I think it would be cool :)).
Use a modern/futuristic setting and you're done!
Oh, and don't forget to roll to see if the tunnel collapses after the
explosion.
smar...@yahoo.com
>But you do have to consider "awkward form". Any reenactor can tell you
>it's a lot easier to wear armour than to carry it around.
I was unclear. I didn't mean worn armor. I meant how I carry around 10
scrolls, 3 maces, 2 bows, 40 arrows, a suit of armor or two, 10
potions, 2 rations, 2 apples, 5 wands, 7 rings and amulets, and monster
corpses all while remaining unencumbered in Crawl. Or how I carried
enough gear to stock a Walmart in ADOM. That sort of thing. Sure,
medieval knights were surprisingly agile in full armor, but they
weren't carrying a dead orc.
As for wanting medieval handgrenades in a RL, and I think I mentioned
it before, the old Darklands CRPG had them. They were potions you could
buy or make.
Regarding the bow argument, I really don't think they'd be any less
difficult to use in a dark, cramped, wet dungeon than they would be in,
say, a Volkswagen bus driven off-road by a drunk teen. I've never
actually tried either scenario, though. Of course, the typical RL
dungeon is completely preposterous. Who excavates these things? What do
all the monsters eat? How the heck did 20 giants get down there and why
are they all in one room? Just considering the ventilation problem
alone is enough to make you chuck realism out the window where it
explodes and kills a passing druid. Ha, take that, nature boy.
David Damerell
>Quoting David Damerell
>>But you do have to consider "awkward form". Any reenactor can tell you
>>it's a lot easier to wear armour than to carry it around.
>I was unclear.
If this post didn't have a mangled References line I might be able to
chase up the thread to see what you haven't quoted enough context from. As
it is it References an article by R. Dan Henry.
Google Groups: just say no.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, February.
Ray Dillinger
> Regarding the bow argument, I really don't think they'd be any less
> difficult to use in a dark, cramped, wet dungeon than they would be in,
> say, a Volkswagen bus driven off-road by a drunk teen. I've never
> actually tried either scenario, though. Of course, the typical RL
> dungeon is completely preposterous. Who excavates these things? What do
> all the monsters eat? How the heck did 20 giants get down there and why
> are they all in one room? Just considering the ventilation problem
> alone is enough to make you chuck realism out the window where it
> explodes and kills a passing druid. Ha, take that, nature boy.
Heck, you have magic at your disposal; you can use it to make
some killer plot devices.
Okay, scenario #1: uber-powerful magician put <Mcguffin> down <hole>
long time ago, then spent lots and lots of time working to make sure
no one ever got it. His preferred technique was to summon an entire
population of nasty monsters, all he could imprison on a particular
level, and then timestop the lot, with a seal on the staircase that
breaks the timestop spell when someone descends. Repeat ad nauseam,
level after level. Put the baddest nasties deepest, since you don't
want some random kid releasing them to wreak havoc over the world.
Now you must get <McGuffin>. Good luck!
Scenario #2: <BigBadNasti> was reviewing his troops preparatory to
his final assault on the world of light, and had gathered every
armed orc, dragon, and demon for thousands of miles into one massive
army ready to boil out onto the world of the surface and wreak
havoc, and then <ancient hero> invoked <McGuffin> to place them all
into an enchanted sleep. Afterward, <Mage's council> discovered
what had happened and created a powerful containment spell that would
be triggered if the sleeping enchantment were ever broken. Which
you have just done, you poor sod, by accidentally wandering down
the wrong staircase and stepping on the crystal that held the sleeping
enchantment. Ooops. Now you are sealed in with all these nasties,
including <BigBadNasti> himself, and they are mad at you because they
believe you are responsible for the containment spell that prevents
them from performing their assault and you from performing your
escape. Your only hope is to find <McGuffin> and restore the sleeping
enchantment before they get you.
Scenario #3: A few centuries ago, <BigBadNasti> discovered that
<McGuffin> can be used to produce food & water, and annihilate
wastes, and freed from ordinary logistical concerns, set about
breeding an army with which to overtake the world of light. You
have to stop him.
etc.... mix and match! It's easy and fun!
Bear
smar...@yahoo.com
Ray Dillinger wrote:
> smar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Heck, you have magic at your disposal; you can use it to make
> some killer plot devices.
>
> Okay, scenario #1: uber-powerful magician put <Mcguffin> down <hole>
> long time ago, then spent lots and lots of time working to make sure
> no one ever got it. His preferred technique was to summon an entire
> population of nasty monsters, all he could imprison on a particular
> level, and then timestop the lot, with a seal on the staircase that
> breaks the timestop spell when someone descends. Repeat ad nauseam,
> level after level. Put the baddest nasties deepest, since you don't
> want some random kid releasing them to wreak havoc over the world.
> Now you must get <McGuffin>. Good luck!
Sure, you could say that. Most fantasy works don't bother. Here's a
question: Why didn't the wizard just fill in the hole? It would be as
much trouble to excavate it as it would be to fight the monsters. Why
not bury it a lot less deep with a dungeon that's nothing but
magically-resetting traps so deadly that only the suicidal would
venture in there? Or, if Mr Wizard's so powerful, why not a spell that
kills everybody in the world? Or maybe just those who think about his
treasure?
> Scenario #2: <BigBadNasti> was reviewing his troops preparatory to
> his final assault on the world of light, and had gathered every
> armed orc, dragon, and demon for thousands of miles into one massive
> army ready to boil out onto the world of the surface and wreak
> havoc, and then <ancient hero> invoked <McGuffin> to place them all
> into an enchanted sleep. Afterward, <Mage's council> discovered
> what had happened and created a powerful containment spell that would
> be triggered if the sleeping enchantment were ever broken. Which
> you have just done, you poor sod, by accidentally wandering down
> the wrong staircase and stepping on the crystal that held the sleeping
> enchantment. Ooops. Now you are sealed in with all these nasties,
> including <BigBadNasti> himself, and they are mad at you because they
> believe you are responsible for the containment spell that prevents
> them from performing their assault and you from performing your
> escape. Your only hope is to find <McGuffin> and restore the sleeping
> enchantment before they get you.
I rather like this one but it doesn't explain food. My character has to
eat all the time in these games, or he or she dies. Surely by the time
I get to the bottom most of the inhabitants would've eaten each other.
Also, if they're so mad at my character, why don't they come upstairs?
> Scenario #3: A few centuries ago, <BigBadNasti> discovered that
> <McGuffin> can be used to produce food & water, and annihilate
> wastes, and freed from ordinary logistical concerns, set about
> breeding an army with which to overtake the world of light. You
> have to stop him.
Not bad. Of course, this leads me back to those "if he's so powerful,
why doesn't he..." questions. And, obviously, if you're leaving magic
out, you're out of luck.