Joined

·
6 Posts

**woof**. I am 23 years old and have always loved the idea of archery and though I've never had enough resources and time to really get into it I've taken whatever chance I could get at local medieval festivals that take part annually to shoot with real bows, and with a friend I made two makeshift survival-style bows out of bamboo sticks and some rope (using shop-bought arrows). I favor traditional archery and longbows, and have always dreamed about crafting my own bow and arrows following the example set by Primitive Pathways' channel on Youtube. I hope someday soon I manage to get into it, but with my work right now things are looking pretty bleak. All I can do is daydream even though I live on the edge of town and would have relatively little trouble finding materials I guess (plenty of oak and hazel around here).

But to get on point, I am also really into forum role-playing and am currently working on a combat system and need some help with my ranged weapons mechanics. Specifically bows. I am going to present my case and ask for opinions on people here because for all my effort I don't really have a feel for archery and this system is supposed to be realistic - not so much like Dungeons and Dragons etc. so if you know nothing of tabletop RPs it doesn't matter (doesn't hurt either if you do). I really need some expert opinions. The system is supposed to be simplistic and based on percentage chance boosted by one's Ranged Warfare rank, relative to distance. Here goes and thank you in advance

**howl**

Finally decided the formula to be default chance + 1/2 warfare rank, dropping per 5% after passing the 0% mark for default chance. It seems close to realistic I think. Professional marksmen were able to hit targets up to 200 meters far I think. There were longer shots, but those were just shooting into approaching armies and hoping for a random hit based on the sheer mass of soldiers.

I was asking to look at it from a logical point of view. The comparisons looks alright... btw I'll talk in meters now. Dunno why I used feet for the game. I guess the imperial system has some sentimental value, and makes things sound authentic because it's old. But I have to keep using a ft to m calculator to even think straight lol *woof* (next RP definitely using meters)

Right now a

**complete amateur**has 100% chance to hit targets that are up to 5 meters away, which seems legit. Even an idiot couldn't miss that. At 15 meters he has fifty-fifty chance, which also sounds, well sound. And he absolutely can't hit anything farther than 120 meters, and even that's with practically no chance. So he probably shouldn't shoot at anything farther than 90 m, where he still has a usable 30% or so.

A trained yet

**ordinary/average soldier**or city guard archer can 100% hit things up t0 22 meters, has fifty-fifty at 80 m and can't hit anything beyond 140 m. Effectively his shots pay off up to about 110 m (roughly 30%).

On the other hand, elite units such as

**veteran sharpshooters**and the like have 100% chance to hit targets up to 40 m away and fifty-fifty chance at 100 meters. Their maximum hittable range is 155 m, making their payoff threshold around 125 m (30%).

And finally,

**true masters**of the bow can't miss anything closer than the 60 meters mark and have a fifty-fifty chance as far as 120 m. With a maximum hittable range of 175 m, their 30% distance is at 145 m.

Personally I wouldn't fire at anything that I have less than 20-30% chance of hitting, so that's why the above logic. What bothers me is the far side of the field. Supposedly archers in medieval times were expected to hit things as far as 200 meters (or am I wrong?). But according to this table even the greatest archers here can't hit someone more than 150 meters away. Not to mention that even so, a 5% chance sounds very low. Too low. It would take Warfare of over a hundred to even reach 200 m with a 5% chance... that would be 650 ft, so it would take 150 Warfare (aka max) just to have 5% chance to hit someone at 200 meters yeah. Wow. Shouldn't a legendary archer get like, 15% at least on that range? And then there's the fact that this person would have 50% chance to hit at 155 m, which in turn sounds a bit OP. But if he has 15% at 200 m somehow, that would increase his chance further at 155 m.

This last bit feels weird to me. How do I give more chance on the far side without increasing the short values, especially the 100% threshold which seems far enough as it is. A logarithmic scale would mean having to make a huge table to write down values for every possible Warfare lvl, whereas now you can easily and quickly calculate those just looking at the reference points. You apply your 1/2 Warfare rank at 400-415 where the default has 0% for the first time, and from there it falls off by 5%. Things were improved when I changed the falloff from 10% to 5%, maybe I should decrease it further? Like 2 or 3? This would just slightly reduce the maximum 100% chance mark and slightly increase the maximum overall range, so maybe it wouldn't help after all.

Of course, this table is for longbows and assuming you are trying to hit one specific target the size of a human being. If you wanted to fire beyond your chance to hit, but you were firing into an oncoming group of enemies then the chance would surely need to be significant. I mean that's large scale warfare 101. No one's aiming at individual angry barbarians in a horde, unless they really have a score to settle with one. You fire in their general direction... So assuming I accept the table as it is, I need to somehow provide for this other possibility. Maybe boost the chance by 5% for each additional target?

So let's say you are a veteran marksman with 60 Warfare firing into a group of 10 enemy infantry soldiers that are about 160 meters away. This gives you exactly 0% chance to hit (being right outside your range). But for each of them (not counting the first one) you get a +5% bonus, totalling 45% chance to hit someone (or should we count the first one too if we are already at 0% and aiming at a group? so 50%).

Then, let's say one of them is the leader... You would also technically have a 10% chance to hit him. One out of ten. Of course, all of that assumes they are moving close enough together to count as a group. We could say that this math applies for as long as they are not more than 10 ft from each other, represented by 2 squares on a map. Then for each 10 ft we could reduce the value of the 5% bonus per each down by 1%, giving you only a 1% bonus if they are walking 40 ft apart which would be a very wide formation (12 m). So a 9% (or 10% if we count them all) bonus to hit someone. Anything more and they can't be considered a group. You'd have to pick one target and at that range they'd probably sidestep lol.

Oh and it's a fantasy medieval game. The longbow is supposed to be the average english longbow I guess. And for shortbows I reckon it would probably do to reduce maximum range by... 30% or 50% even? And the just adjust the math from the longbow. I know this is probably one of the weirdest threads you've ever gotten here, and I apologize if this is out of place. I am just so unsure :/