Dear List Me,bers:
I am planning to design two scenarios for DSII set in The
Fading Suns setting. Fadings Suns has a very background it is a
mixture of low and high tech forces. I am looking for a few
suggestions for creating low tech forces. I have gone through the
Fading Suns Players Companion and found their description of the type of troop
type interesting.
Here are some low tech troop type that I have created and would like to get
other list members comments:
Melee Militia Troops:
These troops are armed with spears or axes and engage in close
combat. They took two hits and draw two chits in close combat.
Cost 5 points.
Archer/ Crossbow men Troops.
Troops equipped with bows or crossbowns,light armor and melee
weapons for self-defense. They have a range of 3" for bows and 4"
for crossbows. They take two hits, cannot initiate close combat and
draw two chits for ranged combat. Chits effects as per regular
ranged combat for infantry. Cost for bowmen 10 points, Crossbow men 12 points.
These are just a few of the units that I am working on.
> During WWII I think british SF had a few guys who could and did use
Well, this may be myth, but I read once that a US SF-type (MACV-SOG I
think) used a bow in Vietnam.
> MR DAVID E PETERS wrote:
> I am planning to design two scenarios for DSII set in The
Hm. If low-tech forces are effective against high-tech ones, something
is badly wrong...
> Here are some low tech troop type that I have created and would
I'd say "draw 1 chit in close combat per 2 elements, AFTER the high-tech
force has fired". These guys are trying to get within spear or sword
reach of enemies armed with assault rifles/SMGs, hand grenades etc.
Since DSII assaults are fought out at ranges up to 200 meters, there's no way
they'd be as effective as normal high-tech line infantry. Cost? Not
sure, but I don't think I'd want to pay more than 1 point.
Read some battle descriptions from the Zulu war, for example - the Zulus
were pretty much like how you describe the low-tech Melee Militia, but
the British were far, far inferior of even a DSII militia unit - and
they still slaughtered the Zulus in most of the fights. (When the Brits didn't
do something terminally stupid, that is... <g>)
> Archer/ Crossbow men Troops.
In DSII, 1" = 100 meters. Unless the bows and crossbows you're talking about
have modern composite bows and very advanced sights, there is no
way an archer or crossbowman can hit and do any real damage at 3-400
meters. Within DSII close assault range (2", ie 200 meters in real life)
their weapons can have some effect - but even a trained archer can't do
much better than 12 arrows per minute; a crossbowman with a light crossbow
might manage 3. How much lead can an assault rifle fire in that time?
I realise this sounds as slamming down on your ideas. I don't mean to sound
that harsh, but... unless the background gives some very good
explanations as to how the low-tech forces can be even a remote
challenge
for the high-tech ones, the low-tech ones should be slaughtered in
droves
while inflicting very little damage on the high-tech troops. The
exception is when a small high-tech detachment gets ambushed or attacked
while sleeping.
Later,
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, MR DAVID E PETERS wrote:
ee by gum, formal. must be new :-)
right, firstly let me say i've not seen this system myself, so i don't have
any info besides what's here.
> Melee Militia Troops:
i think the trouble is that, unless your hi-tech forces have WW1 vintage
rifles, or a spear team is actually 30 men, any low-tech fellas are
going to get mashed before they get anywhere near spear range. i mean, even
john
atkinsons's turks don't use spears :-).
i'd never heard of using ds2 in a fantasy / historical setting before.
anyone?
> Archer/ Crossbow men Troops.
i don't think that bows and crossbows are really even on a comparable
scale to modern weapons. just how hi-tech is hi-tech? i remind you of
much of british history in africa during the rhodes era - ten men and an
mg versus vast low-tech armies. of course, the august british legions
didn't always win. instinct tells me that arrows are just going to bounce
off a kevlar vest, but i could well be wrong - they go through knight's
plate well enough at close range.
what does 'light armour' mean in this context? scale mail or kevlar?
i think this is a pretty interesting idea you have here!
Tom
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, MR DAVID E PETERS wrote:
> > combat. They took two hits and draw two chits in close combat.
> > 12 points.
"Whatever happens, we have got/The Maxim gun, and they have not..."
Probably Kipling, probably misqupted...I have doubts about any
xbow/longbow/melee troops doing much to SciFic troops - as follows:
"Sarg, got a readout on sensors, primitives
approaching, coords 110-231-100." ***BOOM BOOM BOOM*** "God, those heaps
of dead primitives stink...You think they even know we were here before we hit
them? Private, take that arrow out of your flak
armour, it looks stupid hanging out...What, there's another 300+
incoming? Prepare to fire...."
(repeat until out of ammo, or from lack of targets)
Ambush, _maybe_ - one or two trooper sprout spears from their chests,
the rest of the group hits dirt and blows hell out of the opposition.
Think Vietnam, only with an even more massive tech difference between the two
forces. The primitives might kill some troops with ambush or
human-wave bullshit, but massive firepower renders anyone who stays in
the open into dogfood in short order.(As an aside, the Yanks never lost,
AFAIK, a serious engagement in Vietnam. It was politics and the steady trickle
of bodybags from the smaller engagements...)
If your primitive forces weren't thinking geurilla war, but were forming
up for an open field fight, it'd be even more one-sided...Agincourt with
IFVs and assault rifles instead of longbows...
> what does 'light armour' mean in this context? scale mail or kevlar?
If scale mail, I think they'd be pretty useless vs. firearms. If Kevlar, why
didn't the person who gave the primitives that give them real guns as well?
Severly primitive troops vs regular DS2 troops would have to be on a
scenario basis - the primitives ambush, and a 'victory' for them is
killing a couple of elements before they're wiped out, or human-wave
type
things - whole legions of sword-waving fanatics berzerking toward a very
small force of regular troops. Unless you _like_ gaming one-sided
slaughterfests...
> At 08:21 PM 11/2/98 +0000, you wrote:
I don't think that a kevlar vest is much protection against arrows, knives or
armour piercing ammo. This year an ROTC cadet was killed by his friend when he
bet him that his kevlar vest would easily stop a knife thrust. Pretty stupid
to not take it off for the purposes of the experiment...
> what does 'light armour' mean in this context? scale mail or kevlar?
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> i don't think that bows and crossbows are really even on a comparable
As someone pointed out, hi-tech casualties are more of a problem as
it is a greater percentage of the force.
of course, the august british legions
> didn't always win. instinct tells me that arrows are just going to
They'll punch through Kevlar like butter. So will stilletos, sharp spears, ice
picks, teflon bullets, and a few other things. Kevlar weave is exceptionally
permeable to sharp objects which force themselves between the fibers. Teflon
is even better still because it is slippery too. A bullet proof vest means you
won't even feel a hit with a club or mace, but a stilleto will puncture you
like a stuck
pig (unless you have steel or plastic/ceramic inserts). Now, OTOH,
this is the reverse of plate armour - pointed weapons are moderately
effective against it if driven by crossbow power, but bows are only
intermittently effective and swords much less so. Hence the rise of maces,
flails, hammers. lucern hammers. picks, and the like. Stuff to either let
someone punch through a very small area or to let one deal impact. Such
tactics were deadly against early chain mail because no one used much
underpadding until later. This underpadding sucks up damage from blunt weapons
but is permeable to sharp ones. Think of kevlar that way.
Tom.
/************************************************
In a message dated 11/2/98 4:42:10 PM EST, Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca
writes:
<< ween the fibers. Teflon is even better still because it is slippery too. A
bullet proof vest means you won't even feel a hit with a club or mace, but a
stilleto will puncture you like a stuck
pig (unless you have steel or plastic/ceramic inserts). Now, OTOH, >>
You will feel the club or the mace just fine, might even break ribs, should,
etc. Blunt trauma damage is inflicted on the sufferer of a gunshot wound and
can take him down or totally debilitate him without ever penetrating the vest.
> At 04:37 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think that's the _joints_ in the armor.
Seems like a certain tribe of furry aborigines did the same thing to a legion
of a certain empire's finest.
A flint-tipped spear in the armpit will ruin your whole day...
> They'll punch through Kevlar like butter. So will stilletos, sharp
If I remember my lectures from military history class correctly, a silk tunic
is actually a pretty good protection against arrows. It didn't actually
prevent them from penetrating the flesh, but it did sheath the barbed head so
that removal was much easier. It was also a lot more sanitary than most other
woven materials. For that reason, the silk could actually serve as a bandage
of sorts rather than leaving bits of unwashed clothing in the wound.
Advanced body armor would probably incorporate a number of synthetic
materials with different characteristics to provide a multi-layered
defense against all sorts of violent mayhem.
Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Hm. If low-tech forces are effective against high-tech ones, something
AGreed (prefaces my other comments)
> I'd say "draw 1 chit in close combat per 2 elements, AFTER the
Since
> DSII assaults are fought out at ranges up to 200 meters, there's no
Note: Range (Max Effective) of Longbow - 200+ yards. Range of some
crossbows - as 525 meters. And I have heard tell of crossbows passing
a shot through a greave, the leg of the target, through the greave again,
through the horse, through the other greave, and into the other leg..... which
admittedly is unlikely. A lot depends on the
weapons/time period. I agree that they should fire after taking
casualties. But they could have an effective range of 1" for bows and
2-3" for crossbows.
> Read some battle descriptions from the Zulu war, for example - the
Of course, if instead of fighting the brits on the savannah, the bow armed
enemy faded into the jungles in skirmish formation 1. You wouldn't kill many
at once as you'd have no large taget to put your superior FP on 2. They'd
retreat before you, then ambush you, kill a guy or two, then fall back, (maybe
lose that ambush, but they can spare it)
There are situations where old tech troops can be nasty, but stand up fights
is a good recipe for mass death.
> In DSII, 1" = 100 meters. Unless the bows and crossbows you're talking
If using heaviest crossbows, they can. But more likely a 2" range is called
for.
Within DSII close assault range (2", ie 200 meters in real life)
> their weapons can have some effect - but even a trained archer can't
12+ if using a Chokyuno repeating crossbow. (Chinese)
How much lead can an assault rifle fire in that
> time?
A lot.:)
> I realise this sounds as slamming down on your ideas. I don't mean to
Not that I'd want to be in that situ, but I think I could bleed the high tech
forces and I'd certainly never take them to a set piece pitched battle. Hit,
run, hide, hit, run, hide. And dispersed units!
Or air and arty kill you. But you could hurt the small high-tech
force. But it might not make a fun DS2 battle (turns of doing nothing as your
troopies looked for the elusive enemy.... then a one squad
attack on one squad...some casualties....a retreat/death for the
low-tech ambusher....repeat ad naseum...)
The
> exception is when a small high-tech detachment gets ambushed or
That's good. Or captures vehicles in bearpits....:) Greek fire down the engine
intakes and breathing funnels would be bad for a tank.
Tom.
/************************************************
> They'll punch through Kevlar like butter. So will stilletos, sharp
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but people die from blunt trauma damage
wearing "bullet proof" jackets (ie Kevlar vest) - the vest stops the
bullet from penetrating but not the kinetic energy applied to a small spot...
which can break ribs, cause all kinds of nasty soft tissue damage, etc etc.
That's why they put trauma plates into kevlar battle armour - to stop
blunt trauma damage.
I imagine that someone wearing a kevlar vest would be plenty hurt if you
whacked him in the chest with a mace. Hard enough, and you'll still break ribs
at least...
> MR DAVID E PETERS <HRAZ71A@prodigy.com> wrote:
Because they haven't got any ranged weapon, attackers armed with ranged
weapons should draw chits against these troops first. If the Melee Militia
troops survive, then they can draw chits against their opponent. I would
suggest no effect against Powered Armour (PA) troops, as the PA armour would
be impenetrable to spears and axes.
> Archer/ Crossbow men Troops.
I would also suggest no effect against Powered Armour (PA) troops, as the PA
armour would be impenetrable to bows and crossbows.
For both types, they are usually drawn up into big lines, as perfect shooting
targets. So, make the chit validity to kill them, say, RED instead of YELLOW.
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >They'll punch through Kevlar like butter. So will stilletos, sharp
> >is slippery too. A bullet proof vest means you won't even feel a hit
Yes and no. The point of the Kevlar vest is distribution. Whereas you might
not be able to take the impact of a bullet on an area about.38 of an inch in
diameter, you may well take that same force applied across an area 2' in
diameter (your sternum). The weave distributes the force over the area. Do you
still get hit with the force? Well, one of the laws of conservation of energy
says "yeah, mostly." but a bruise with a chance of a broken rib is better than
a bullet wound. I imagine (was it in one of the lethal weapon movies that Mel
Gibson took a shot in the chest and it looked like it hurt and burned a bit)
that getting whacked with a shotgun would hurt. I've worn a Vietnam era vest
and taken a crack in the ribs from a 4 battery mag light and it stung but
didn't break ribs. Swung harder, it might have, but I doubt it. The area the
force is distributed over was enough to hurt, but with the vest, that is about
it. Now, put points on your Mace and I'm singing another tune.
I was under the impression the trauma plating was added to stop the
rounds too hot for the Kevlar alone - assault rifle rounds, some SMG
rounds (not all 9mms come from short barrells), and (if you have the heaviest
armour) heavier things. Note that shotguns hurt but that is about it. Small
pistols hurt, large pistols may give you a bruised or broken rib. I imagine an
assault rifle round would hurt a lot. But a darn site better than being
perforated. Especially with a round tumbling about (once, as they tend to)
inside your body.
I recall a Grenada story about a US Marine taking a 5.45 or 7.62 mm Soviet
slug from an AK series weapon IN THE FOREHEAD. He had his Kevlar helmet on. It
gave him wicked whiplash (so he was 'casualtied' for weeks) but he survived
without injury otherwise. And he still has the bullet. (Or maybe this is urban
myth...)
I have an excellent book by osprey entirely on body armour which I will
reference if I can find it to anyone who mails me. Also, several RPGs
(Cyberpunk and the later edition of Traveller (TNE)) have done some excellent
research in ballistics, bullet damage, and the nature of firefights.
Tom.
/************************************************
A few notes about Kevlar, etc.
Blunt trauma. I have heard rumors about people being killed by it for years,
but have not found confirmation. However, serrious internal injuries have been
documented. Still it is much better then being penetrated...
Teflon coated bullets. The teflon is there to protect the rifling of the
barrel the bullet comes out of, not to penetrate kevlar. This is because the
bullet is composed soley of very dense and tough metal, typically tungston
carbide. If the barrel is not protected, after a few rounds, the gun firing it
would be a smoothbore. This means both stabilization and accuracy would be
severly affected. A jacket on AP rounds is not ideal. The jacket deforms on
impact. This absorbs energy that would be better used penetrating the target.
Teflon coated bullets penetrate more kevlar then traditional bullets because
of the following
reasons. 1. Higher velocity, these rounds are typically loaded to +P
or +P+ levels. 2. No energy absorption due to bullet deformation when
it impacts; the smaller area impacted, the less energy required to penetrate.
3. Bullet design; the tip of these bullets are considerably smaller then the
base, this allows them to focus all of the energy at that smaller diameter
when they impact a target.
The Soviet 5.45 mm pistol round. This round has been maligned for years by
western defense experts. It is a small bottle neck round about equal in power
to a.22 Long Rifle. A couple of years ago the Britts finally tested it (or the
data of previous tests was released) and that little round will penetrate more
kevlar then a 9mm teflon coated AP bullet. They also found out that it was
much more lethal then they thought, the projectile tumbles after impact...
> I imagine that someone wearing a kevlar vest would be plenty hurt if
Whack him in the head instead. Or on the hip--shattering his pelvic
girdle will dampen his enthusiasm.
Low tech is not going to beat high tech in a stand up battle unless the Highs
have a supply problem or are vastly outnumbered by Lows who aren't afraid of
casualties. Lows who realize this are likely to adopt the "sneak up and slit
his throat" approach. If the Highs have sufficient sensors that they can't be
snuck up on, the Lows have to wait till they get careless, or use the Gandhi
method.
I recall a Grenada story about a US Marine taking a 5.45 or 7.62 mm Soviet
slug from an AK series weapon IN THE FOREHEAD. He had his Kevlar helmet on. It
gave him wicked whiplash (so he was 'casualtied' for weeks) but he survived
without injury otherwise. And he still has the bullet. (Or maybe this is urban
myth...)
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes
it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
-Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/
I've talked to people that handled the helmet.
<<LURKER MODE OFF>>
Okay, one think to consider before we continue to malign the poor list member
that posed the low-tech forces question. He's asking for info with an
eye towards recreating games in the Fading Suns setting. This is one of those
"Great Falls in Tech and Civilization from a Long Night" -settings where
many high tech items are looked on with superstious awe and are frowned on or
even considered heretical by The Church. Some allowances are made for Feudal
Nobles and the Emperor to maintain some high-tech gear. Research is
stictly scrutinzed. Thus most forces of the noble house and the Empire are at
WWII
-level (though by no means extensive and thus the levy of serfs with
whatever
they can hand them) with a scattering of higher-tech forces such as
mag-rep
tanks, and power armor troops. You also see some mixing of tech with something
equal to a Panzer IV with a laser rangefinder.
Yes, low-tech serfs carrying spears and leather armor are going to be
fertilizer before an ESU Shock Regiment to NAC Air Mobile Group. But in a
setting were hi-tech is scarce and spotty they do crop up. So let's see
if we can provide some help for a fellow list member trying to construct a
setting instead of indulging in "idea bashing"
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > I'd say "draw 1 chit in close combat per 2 elements, AFTER the
Since
> > DSII assaults are fought out at ranges up to 200 meters, there's no
But why are you comparing maximum *effective* range for longbows with maximum
*absolute* range for crossbows? Their recorded *effective* ranges
seem to have been pretty much the same - 200 meters at most.
(The longest recorded *bow* shot is over 700 meters, using a very light
arrow and a Turkish composite bow. This occured in a range-shooting
contest in the 17th or 18th century, with lots of European diplomats
present, so the range was probably accurately measured :-/)
> And I have heard tell of crossbows passing
This is the first time I've heard about this being done by a crossbow.
Giraldus Cambrensis tells this about an early Welsh bow (not a true longbow,
this being in the early 12th century), though the Norman rider hit had mail
leg protection instead of greaves.
[On Zulus]
> Of course, if instead of fighting the brits on the savannah, the bow
Which is when the Brits probably start hitting villages instead of enemy
troops :-/
> 2. They'd retreat before you, then ambush you, kill a guy or two,
Of course. But then you wouldn't have a DSII battle at all - it'd be far
better suited for a SGII fight, or an FMA skirmish.
> > In DSII, 1" = 100 meters. Unless the bows and crossbows you're
The heavies crossbows are siege weapons, usually requiring supports to be
fired at all and averaging one shot per minute at the very best... You might
be able to get one shot off from a prepared ambush site, but not much more
than that.
> Within DSII close assault range (2", ie 200 meters in real life)
The repeating crossbow bolts are *very* light, relying more on poison than on
penetration. It is also an utter bitch to reload after you've emptied the
magazine (or at least the one I tried was). Comparing a
cho-ku-no with a longbow is similar to comparing an SMG to an assault
rifle IMO (not that I've fired neither SMGs nor assault rifles <g>) -
shorter range, far worse penetration, somewhat better rate of fire until the
magazine runs out.
Later,
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> > Melee Militia Troops:
Hey! I havn't put together my OPFOR pages yet. Actually, if some dingbat wants
to use these troops, I'd have no problem. They'll just
look rather funny after the tanks run over them. I'd give the high-tech
troops one free 'round' in close combat before the spearmen get into it. Plus
all the shots they'll be taking as they charge up to the Kraal.
> i'd never heard of using ds2 in a fantasy / historical setting before.
I've used it as far back as WWII, and I like the way it plays for modern
troops. Any further back would be pushing it.
> Tony Christney wrote:
> I don't think that a kevlar vest is much protection against arrows,
This apparently happens once a year. I heard about it three years ago. Chalk
it up to Darwin making an appearance in the officer selection process.
Something I'm all in favor of and should happen more often. The more stupid
future officers killed in training, the less chance there is to get killed
under circumstances where they take real troops with them.
But at any rate, my understanding of most of the DSII/SGII body armor is
light polymer plates to cover most of the body, with flexible fabric covering
the joint. And the whole ensemble is much lighter than kevler.
> Jeff Lyon wrote:
> >> didn't always win. instinct tells me that arrows are just going to
You are wrong. A 80 lb longbow (and even more so a crossbow) shooting an
armour-piercing arrow is capable of penetrating a 2 mm steel plate if it
hits at right angles, at least at closer ranges (the test I saw shot at a
range of 50 meters). The big problem is, of course, to hit at right
angles :-/
> Seems like a certain tribe of furry aborigines did the same thing to a
<chuckle> And that was in very close terrain, from ambush, and with said
legion initially occupied with chasing the Rebels... *and* with the
script-writers fully on the side of the furries <g>
> A flint-tipped spear in the armpit will ruin your whole day...
And just how, when you have IR goggles or similar, did you manage to let
the abo get that close to you? Hm? :-)
Later,
> Chris Ruhl wrote:
> He's asking for info with an eye
Thanks! This is *exactly* the kind of background info I asked for earlier
- a background which explains why low-tech warriors would be pitted
against high-tech ones.
Even so, people armed with spears or bows are *dead* against WWII
weaponry in a set-piece battle - in a guerilla war, OTOH, they can do
reasonably well. I really don't think DSII is the rule system to use here
- and if the background says the serfs are sent against high-tech forces
(rather than the high-tech forces being used to attack and massacre the
serfs), then we're bashing the background's authors rather than the player who
tries to use DSII in this setting.
Regards,
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:
'to win a hundred battles is not the acme of skill. to subdue the enemy
without fighting is the acme of skill' - sun tzu, roughly. the Lows in
this scenario could win, but not by facing the Highs in open battle.
experience shows that Lows are more than capable of winning these wars,
especially if they have a few Highs behind them (think nam, afghanistan,
algeria, india).
> > what does 'light armour' mean in this context? scale mail or kevlar?
i think body armour has lower maintenance needs than an assault rifle.
> > i think this is a pretty interesting idea you have here!
silences speak louder than words :-).
Tom
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
actually, it was meant as a slight on your so-called romans :-). my
historical geography is pretty hazy.
> Actually, if some
and slightly more funny after you've noticed that their spears are in fact
one-shot DFFG rams which have juat kebabbed your tanks ...
Tom
Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> And just how, when you have IR goggles or similar, did you manage to
Maybe the natives of Tau Eridani 56 don't emit heat.....
And maybe they hid behind rocks. Or covered themselves in River Mud. (A la
Arnold in Predator).
/************************************************
> At 10:45 AM 11/3/98 -0500, you wrote:
And maybe with all that fur, they radiated about the same amount as the
ambient temperature of the forest?
Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > Note: Range (Max Effective) of Longbow - 200+ yards. Range of some
Depends on the bow, depends on the crossbow. I've seen quite a few
crossbows effective 225-325 meters. Many bows aren't effective past
150m.
> (The longest recorded *bow* shot is over 700 meters, using a very
Wow. I wonder what the longest recorded crossbow shot is? (Or ballista... that
would probably hit even PA).
> > And I have heard tell of crossbows passing
This was for some late Medeival or early Renaissance battle. It was a
statistical improbability I am quite sure.
> > 2. They'd retreat before you, then ambush you, kill a guy or two,
Agreed. DS2 is not the venue. Even SG2 is questionable in this role.
> The heavies crossbows are siege weapons, usually requiring supports to
I'd agree. But some goats foot models could do good damage to 200m. Sure your
siege arbalests require a rest, and the others that don't
are still heavy (14+ pounds - like a heavy rifle). But in the context
of a DS2 turn, they may get off multiple shots (which of course wouldn't be
represented that way in DS2 any more than individual rifle shots are). Ambush
would be the better deployment, or static defence.
> > 12+ if using a Chokyuno repeating crossbow. (Chinese)
I didn't know they used poison. But I do acknowledge they were a light bolt.
Similar to some very light bows (some of the very early ones) in penetration.
It is also an utter bitch to reload after you've
> emptied the magazine (or at least the one I tried was).
I don't know. I haven't touched one, but it didn't look that hard.... maybe
its much harder than it seems on paper (wouldn't be the first
time...)
Comparing a
> cho-ku-no with a longbow is similar to comparing an SMG to an assault
That is a good comparison.
/************************************************
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> But why are you comparing maximum *effective* range for longbows with
Crossbows do have a lower max flight range than bows. Although this is an
unfair comparison since bows are shot at optimum ballistic curves while
crossbows are usually not even tilted.
> The repeating crossbow bolts are *very* light, relying more on poison
There's different versions of this weapon. There were heavier ones for use in
sieges from city walls, where the height added to their effectiveness a bit.
There were also smaller ones that fired two bolts at
a time for close-in protection. These were excavated from Chou dynasty
tombs. Heh, even though this thing is called the Chu-Ko-nu it was
around
long before Chu-Ko Liang. I wouldn't consider this as an effectived
ranged weapon at all, since it'll probably have an effective range of about
half an inch on the DSII board.
> cho-ku-no with a longbow is similar to comparing an SMG to an assault
It's more like comparing a sawed-off shotgun to a rifle in terms of
accuracy and penetration.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Depends on the bow, depends on the crossbow. I've seen quite a few
Mongol bows were credited with penetrating armor at 200 yards. (chainmail
though)
> Wow. I wonder what the longest recorded crossbow shot is? (Or
Crossbow bolts would have a much shorter range since the bolts are much
heavier. Ballistae did not have much longer ranges than normal crossbows for
pretty much the same reason. They certainly could not penetrate PA as we see
them. (i.e. composite or metal armor that could stop
small-arms
fire) The longest bowshot I heard was actually around 900 meters, shot by the
Turkish Sultan Selim III. This was recorded in an issue of Strategy and
Tactics. Various sources confirm this. (For example, that "Crossbow" book by
that British author whose name I can't remember) But remember that the Turkish
bows in question fired a very light arrow using
an over-draw, and the arrows would probably break apart on contact with
any hard target. Overall though, these ancient ranged weapons could not be
compared to anything with rifled barrels.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> actually, it was meant as a slight on your so-called romans :-). my
Stop teasing poor John. Can't you see how much flak he has taken for liking
the Byzantines?:)
> and slightly more funny after you've noticed that their spears are in
That would be one good way to match low-tech forces against high-tech
ones, with improvised low-tech and high-tech combination weapons. Then
even more so, this type of game (ambush) would be more suited to SGII. Maybe a
game of some natives offing a single Basil II from John's Klibs?
Chen-Song spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
(chainmail
> though)
True, but many asyrian (sp?) and other early bows had effective ranges and
penetrations that were quite low.
> > Wow. I wonder what the longest recorded crossbow shot is? (Or
They can be. And yet I've seen range figures for bows and crossbows that
listed range, force of the shot, etc. and the figures for some
of the heavy crossbows 12-20 lbs were upwards of 275m. One, a siege
arbalest, wound by cranequin, was supposedly effective to 525 meters. I'll
have to check the definition of effective, but for a bow, it
listed 180-200m for English Longbow in the same manner. And the
force exterted by the crossbow was greater by a huge margin so extra
range (even given a shorter, heavier bolt - note that for ballistics,
some measure of weight isn't a bad idea...).
Ballistae did not have much longer ranges than normal crossbows
> for pretty much the same reason.
I've got data that suggests some ballistae fired nearly a quarter mile, which
would be over 400m. And what they fired was a multipound javelin like
projectile.
They certainly could not penetrate PA
> as we see them. (i.e. composite or metal armor that could stop
Okay, not without a good unobtainium steel head. But if they had the right
metals on the head, the force might be sufficient.
As an aside, if I give a hunting rifle a d10 of Impact, I'd certainly give a
ballistae a d8. The weight driving the projectile and the force hurling it add
up to give (I'm sure) as much liberated energy on a target as many lighter
rifles. And if the PA is rolling d12 armour in SG2, it would certainly be a
reasonable chance of a hit (maybe it punched through your powerpack, or a
joint, or your faceplate...). I'd probably give a bow a d4 Impact and a
crossbow a d6 Impact (in general). But their firepower would be on the order
of 0.5 and 0.25 respectively, if not lower.
Overall though, these ancient ranged weapons could not
> be compared to anything with rifled barrels.
True. But, from a guerilla tactics POV, modern weapons with rifled barrels
can't arch (indirect fire) too easily, and they are noisy. The bow would offer
some advantages. Why can I see some SF unit
operating in perhaps a combustible atmosphere using a non-sparking
polymer bow with a polymer-elastomer bowstring that fires a
monofilament edged arrow.... just for the silent sentry kill.....
Don't get me wrong, if given a choice between a.303 and a bow, I'd
take the .303. It's paper-scissors-rock. But don't sell the older
technology short, just stat it reasonably, and let the results speak for
themselves.
In SG2, a squad of 10 men with bows would roll (assume we have
regular quality archers) d8 + d6 to hit. For impact, d4. And maybe we
say there range bands are half normal (so 4"/8"/12"/16"/20"). That
means at any range over 80m, it is unlikely they will even get a hit. And with
even basic ballistic cloth coveralls, not even BA, the target will probably
avoid being casualtied. The odds of a kill are remote. Compare that to a
regular fireteam of four guys with advanced
assault rifles, rolling d8+d8. For Impact, d10 (or d12). Let's assume
we give the primitives the benefit of partial armour (for the steel
plating). Ranges for these guys are 8/16/24/32/40. So they'll be
scoring kills out to 240m routinely. And a good chance of the hits killing,
not just casualty causing. So you tell me..... who will survive the fight?
Probably the gun firing guys....
Tom.
/************************************************
> True. But, from a guerilla tactics POV, modern weapons with rifled
During WWII I think british SF had a few guys who could and did use them. I
know of one at least for sure, he also died earning the VC.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I've got data that suggests some ballistae fired nearly a quarter
Ahh, I think ballistae would be fired with a nice ballistic curve, unlike
crossbows. But remember that the bow equivalent of this range would be about
900 m.
> > as we see them. (i.e. composite or metal armor that could stop
Probably not if the PA can already stop small arms fire. I don't think it
matters what -ium penetrator you get, the velocity would still be too
low.
> True. But, from a guerilla tactics POV, modern weapons with rifled
Oh, of course these things would be effective in some circumstances (except
maybe the ballista). I'd be the last person to sell old technology short,
especially bows. I can certainly see a bow being used
in a SF type situation for silent kills. Some of those 70-80 pound
modern hunting compounds are *very* nice (or nasty depending on your point of
view:). The ones with the fibreoptic or holographic sights especially. (I'm
not making this up!)
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> I'd like to see 'em try. And if it happened, whoever sent a single
Yes, Klibs without Skoots are dead Klibs:) But still, you never know when this
kind of unlikely situation might happen. Even though your imperial
tagmatic Roman-wannabes are probably taught from birth to cooperate with
the infantry, you never know when a bad or just plain misguided egg might just
fall through the system. The situation may just happen through plain bad
luck... Still this is about the only way to equalize the two sides for a game
though...
> operate in mutually supporting combined-arms teams. But since you
Oh, certainly like I said, the idea is that the low-techers have some
improvized combination weapons. DFFG sachel charges, DFFG
warhead-on-a-stick, etc. Maybe even the odd buzzbomb or two. Remember,
a lot of these weapons are probably going to be pretty rugged,
self-containing, and available to anyone willing to pay. Also to the
super-sensors, it's incredible the kind of loop holes that you can run
into with something that's supposedly perfect on paper, especially when the
word "computer" is involved:)
> Chen-Song Qin wrote:
> That would be one good way to match low-tech forces against high-tech
Then
> even more so, this type of game (ambush) would be more suited to SGII.
I'd like to see 'em try. And if it happened, whoever sent a single
Basil II out by it's lonesome would be court-martialed. Tanks always
operate in mutually supporting combined-arms teams. But since you
mention it, there are a couple of problems with low-techers trying to
knock off tanks. I mean, how would they go about doing it? I'm willing
to risk my life trying to satchel-charge a modern vehicle (and have in
exercises), but a grav tank with an 360 degree coverage with it's thermal
imaging, from sensors imbedded in the skin all over the tank? And an AI to
sort out the resulting flood of information. Then we get
into factors like computor-controlled APFCs and all of a sudden it's not
that much fun anymore.
Once they get buzzbombs from their off-planet supporters, then it's a
whole 'nother ballgame.
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
<snip>
> experience shows that Lows are more than capable of winning these
> and John Atkinson wrote:
<snip>
> Once they get buzzbombs from their off-planet supporters, then it's a
When considering Low-tech vs. High-tech scenarios, if it is supposed to
be a civil war or revolution, IIRC no insurgency in history has succeeded
without support from another country. May want to plan the background to
the scenario/campaign accordingly.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
hang on a tick john; i seem to remember you taking exactly the opposite view
on this a few months back. your main point was that in close terrain,
without adequate infantry support, tanks were easy prey. i think our/my
point was that this was true but that it would take deep incompetence to
let this come to pass. nice to have you on our side this time :-)!
you are right, of course (since you agree with me), but you must admit that if
your Klib officer is thick enough to let a tank go off alone, he might not be
able to keep it out of dangerous ground. what about an armoured troop moving
through a jungle, crossing a bridge, when locals take the bridge down, leaving
the number 3 tank alone in close terrain? then it's Ewok time.
Tom
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> hang on a tick john; i seem to remember you taking exactly the
I was assuming that the light infantry/engineers were properly equipped
and trained to a tech level compatible with the armor. Given savages of a
flintlock or crossbow level, it becomes impossible. I believe I also qualified
it with "in close terrain" or somesuch.
> armoured troop moving through a jungle, crossing a bridge, when locals
Unfortunately for the Ewoks, the Basil II is a grav tank and can crosss the
river anyway.:(