Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Why not crossbows?  (Read 20896 times)

Jetman123

  • Bay Watcher
  • !!Bauxite Turbojet!!
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2008, 05:56:57 am »

I actually want to see those in the game as a really advanced, possibly mounted crossbow. The regular crossbow should have atrocious reload times.
Logged
When dwarves want to commit suicide, then by Armok, they _will_ commit suicide, even if they have to spend the rest of their lives working at it!

pushy

  • Bay Watcher
  • [MEANDERER]
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2008, 06:53:58 am »

The ability to adjust reload times for ranged weapons in the raws would be very handy. That way you could have shortbows which are quicker to reload than longbows, which are quicker still than crossbows...and for moddy people they'd have the option to create 'rapid-fire' crossbows, guns and so on.
Logged
Quote from: Tim Edwards, PC Gamer UK
There are three things I know about dwarves:
1. They've got beards. Even the women.
2. They're short. Especially the women.
3. They're Scottish.

sneakey pete

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2008, 07:35:18 am »

Sure, the iron arrows/bolts from the inexperienced goblins bounce off/get deflected by my legendary shield/Armour used champions in steel plate, but that's a pretty ideal circumstance.

On the unideal: a bolt fly's 400 meters, hits a legendary unarmored dwarf and he dies. Instantly.

They need a fix, dammit!
Logged
Magma is overrated.

dresdor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.vgtheory.blogspot.com
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2008, 03:10:00 pm »

I use a mixture because it feels more real to me and less like cheating.

That and my dwarves are tough enough that they can charge a unit of marskgoblins and survive.  The worst trained "civilian" in my forts can take four bolts to the chest before dying outright, and I've had a couple that have survived with pierced lungs (never heals though :( )

That is also why ever dwarf I have goes through wrestling, weapon, shield, and armor training even if they're destined to be potash makers for the rest of their lives.

(name here)

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2008, 03:20:26 pm »

marksgoblins can be brutal on non-legendaries. my first elite marksdwarf was lost in an archery duel.
Logged
Only in Dwarf Fortress would you try to catch a mermaid to butcher her and make trophies out of her bones 

Tormy

  • Bay Watcher
  • I shall not pass?
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2008, 05:50:31 pm »

The ability to adjust reload times for ranged weapons in the raws would be very handy. That way you could have shortbows which are quicker to reload than longbows, which are quicker still than crossbows...and for moddy people they'd have the option to create 'rapid-fire' crossbows, guns and so on.

Yep, I absolutely agree. [This has been suggested many times already btw..]
I am pretty sure that Toady will make RoF modifiable in the future.
Logged

Koji

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kobold
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2008, 06:04:17 pm »

Actually, medieval (european or otherwise) crossbows were extremely inaccurate, and couldn't go very far. Their main advantage was that they hit so damn hard that it didn't matter, and you didn't need much training to use one.

They were most effective at mid to close range, where infantry with no armor could cut down scores of heavily armored opponents without breaking a sweat.

They were also extremely popular among criminals, because when you're committing highway robbery, it's pretty easy to get close to your target.
Logged
Dwarvenrealms
ASCII | Graphical
Over 220 new creatures, new civs, new industries, and a fully customized tileset!

BurnedToast

  • Bay Watcher
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2008, 09:37:35 pm »

The reason you use melee troops instead of crossbows is that melee troops with legendary+ shield use and wrestling are damn near invulnerable (even to goblins/elf archers), kill just as fast (faster, once they get up to the enemy) don't require special rooms set up so they can stand on a stockpile of bolts (otherwise they charge in after the first load is gone) and don't waste eleventy billion bolts on a single enemy when all it takes is 2 or 3 usually.

I don't bother with marksdwarves anymore, too much effort when you get the same (better, really) effect from 2 or 3 axemen.
Logged
An ambush! curse all friends of nature!

shadow_archmagi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2008, 05:55:30 am »

Don't forget the insane speed and lack of injuries produced from training wrestlers; I produced like twelve champions before my pop broke 50; and only THEN did I tell them to start using weapons.
Logged
invention is every dwarf's middle name
that means that somewhere out there theres a dwarf named Urist Invention Mcinvention.

Tormy

  • Bay Watcher
  • I shall not pass?
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2008, 03:45:25 pm »

The reason you use melee troops instead of crossbows is that melee troops with legendary+ shield use and wrestling are damn near invulnerable (even to goblins/elf archers), kill just as fast (faster, once they get up to the enemy) don't require special rooms set up so they can stand on a stockpile of bolts (otherwise they charge in after the first load is gone) and don't waste eleventy billion bolts on a single enemy when all it takes is 2 or 3 usually.

I don't bother with marksdwarves anymore, too much effort when you get the same (better, really) effect from 2 or 3 axemen.

Yeah champions are very imbalanced, but only in the vanilla game. One of the reasons, why I am using a modded version. [Goblins/Elves/Humans/semi megas/megabeasts are all stronger in my games, and it's much more fun to play like this to be honest..  :)]
However uberskilled marksdwarves are also very imbalanced, mainly because of the insane RoF.
Logged

Quiller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2008, 04:07:34 pm »

Actually, medieval (european or otherwise) crossbows were extremely inaccurate, and couldn't go very far. Their main advantage was that they hit so damn hard that it didn't matter, and you didn't need much training to use one.

They were most effective at mid to close range, where infantry with no armor could cut down scores of heavily armored opponents without breaking a sweat.
Where are you getting this information from?  Sure, crossbows in general are less accurate at longer distances than bows since you lose sight of your target when you have to point the crossbow up at an angle to get arc, but they are easier to be accurate with than bows against targets that can be aimed at clearly.  I seriously doubt that medieval crossbows were extremely inaccurate considering that most reproductions I've seen have been very accurate, and back then life or death could depend on hitting your target. 

If you think about the typical dwarven crossbow user as firing from behind fortification from above the enemy as they approach the fortress, the crossbow is pretty much the best possible weapon in that situation.
Logged

Tormy

  • Bay Watcher
  • I shall not pass?
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2008, 04:11:18 pm »

Actually, medieval (european or otherwise) crossbows were extremely inaccurate, and couldn't go very far. Their main advantage was that they hit so damn hard that it didn't matter, and you didn't need much training to use one.

They were most effective at mid to close range, where infantry with no armor could cut down scores of heavily armored opponents without breaking a sweat.
Where are you getting this information from?  Sure, crossbows in general are less accurate at longer distances than bows since you lose sight of your target when you have to point the crossbow up at an angle to get arc, but they are easier to be accurate with than bows against targets that can be aimed at clearly.  I seriously doubt that medieval crossbows were extremely inaccurate considering that most reproductions I've seen have been very accurate, and back then life or death could depend on hitting your target. 

That is a good question. Where is that information from? I thought that X-Bows are more accurate than normal bows at medium range at least.
Logged

Marlowe

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2008, 08:25:04 pm »

In any given discussion about medieval warfare and weapons there will be somebody willing to demonstrate how little he knows. At the top of his voice.
Logged

Time Kitten

  • Bay Watcher
  • Evil Spirit
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2008, 10:07:20 pm »

In any given discussion about medieval warfare and weapons there will be somebody willing to demonstrate how little he knows. At the top of his voice.
Nah, too late for that.  You get the body into the garbage bags, and I'll go get some shovels.
Logged

Foa

  • Bay Watcher
  • And I thought foxfire was stylish in winter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why not crossbows?
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2008, 10:26:09 pm »

I actually want to see those in the game as a really advanced, possibly mounted crossbow. The regular crossbow should have atrocious reload times.
Cough Ballistae Cough.

And how about that fancy Repeating Crossbow thing, it has speed, a slight spread, and sucky pierce damage, it only killed because of the use of use of poison.

Then the Heavy Crossbows, only the big guys can launch volleys of this thing ( you need to be prone... nerfa-nerf ) .
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4