|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 6, 2015 0:44:38 GMT -6
The Man-to-Man rules feature four types of bows, including a "composite" bow and a "horsebow".
As far as I'm aware (from limited reading) historic bows are generally straight or recurved in design; made of a single piece of wood or several pieces (self or composite); and generally short or long depending on whether they're intended to be quick/handy or to have maximum power/range.
So in theory it might be plausible to discuss a "short/compound/recurve" bow, or a "short/self/straight" bow, etc. etc. which would make for eight general design combinations. Some combinations may not have occurred or been successful so, from what I can surmise, game rules at the Chainmail/D&D level of abstraction could get reasonable coverage with just two types of bow: a "short/recurve bow" and a "long/self bow".
But Chainmail ascribes different performance to four types... so what kinds of bows are these intended to represent?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 6, 2015 4:58:31 GMT -6
I just read EGG's article on missile weapons in SR 2.2, in which he postulates historic bows can be classified as either of four types:
Simple short
Simple long
Composite short
Composite long
Possibly, then, EGG positioned CM's "horsebow" as the composite/short bow types, and CM's "composite" bow as the composite/long bow types.
The regulation short and long bow types would then appear to be the lesser cousins of these...?
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 6, 2015 5:24:28 GMT -6
You have the general gist of it, but I think Chainmail may also be distinguishing bows based on historical characteristics of the troops. There are some differences on p.10 and man-to-man table on p.41 to ponder.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 7, 2015 16:45:35 GMT -6
One of the differences found on p.10 is the Turk Archers. I think this is likely where the composite bow category comes from. The oddity is that p.10 gives a range of 21", where the M2M table gives a range of 24". It might be one of them is a typo.
The other apparent difference is the Horse Categories given on p.10. It lists missile ranges for LH at 18" and MH at 15".
Generally, I consider mounted archers as Light and using (self) short bows. Yet, the listing suggests that Light Horse are using horsebows (composite short) or possibly light crossbows and the troops that would be carrying short (self) bows would be armored. This becomes relevant when reading the Historical Characteristics found on p.20 where cavalry types are given but bow types are not always stated.
It's worth mentioning that the earlier LGTSA version of the rules only contained three categories: medium bow, longbow, and crossbow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 8, 2015 6:45:34 GMT -6
I find it highly unlikely that functioning bows could be made out of chainmail.  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 8, 2015 7:11:46 GMT -6
One of the differences found on p.10 is the Turk Archers. I think this is likely where the composite bow category comes from. The oddity is that p.10 gives a range of 21", where the M2M table gives a range of 24". It might be one of them is a typo. The other apparent difference is the Horse Categories given on p.10. It lists missile ranges for LH at 18" and MH at 15". I noticed these differences too; that's part of the mystery. I guess it's simply a curiosity that while most weapon-types are treated very broadly, bows and pole-arms appear to get "special treatment"  |
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Apr 8, 2015 22:29:25 GMT -6
Might I suggest the Mongol bow over that of the Turk? As for the range differences, it could merely be a gameism in effect to discourage the tankier cavalry from hiding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Apr 9, 2015 10:58:12 GMT -6
Might I suggest the Mongol bow over that of the Turk? Same thing. The Ottoman empire (which Chainmail is refers to as the "Turks") was founded ~1300, directly after Turkey and Arabia were conquered by the mongols. Post-renaissance Turkish archery was derivative of (read identical to) Mongolian archery. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 21:13:20 GMT -6
21" for Turkish archers on p 10 is a misprint.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 26, 2015 0:41:27 GMT -6
21" for Turkish archers on p 10 is a misprint. What then is the correct range for Turkish-type archers? I.e., should we assume Turkish-type archers implies use of composite bow as derv suggests? Or is it possible the "Turkish" carried horsebows, as (possibly?) implied by Red Baron? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 14:49:17 GMT -6
Long composite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Apr 26, 2015 19:16:59 GMT -6
Turk foot archers would use longer composite bows and turk horse archers would use shorter composite bows.
Use ranges given in chainmail for each troop type.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 3, 2015 3:45:36 GMT -6
Possibly, then, EGG positioned CM's "horsebow" as the composite/short bow types, and CM's "composite" bow as the composite/long bow types. I also just noticed that Holmes (p20) lists: Short Bow Horse Bow (Short Composite Bow) Long Bow Composite Bow which adds weight to the above. |
|
