I have trust that they are going to treat all weapon types equal and try to make them all realistic.
I wouldnāt be surprised if they managed to create a realistic bow and arrow gameplay mechanic, they seem to be doing so well for all of the other gameplay features so far. Extremely looking forward to getting my hands on this game!
I hope that someone from WH will react to this topic.
As I read this topic I realize that there should be
something like mix of three clases (Warrior, Thief, Bard)
but we just know little bit about fencing.
What about narrating, spying, stealing and others?
Release date is December 2015 I know,
I apologize but Iām really excited after watching live stream.
1 Like
I am also the same way about archery, if it is in a game, I will play it! At the moment iām hoping the same for Deliverance, realistic archery is hard to come by. I currently play the game Chivalry:Medieval warfare, where iām one of the best archers in NA. The game itself is amazing and the archery is by far the most realistic Iāve seen. So iām hoping for the same kinda feel, except a bit more RPG like. 
I would absolutely use archery. I havenāt had the chance to try it much in real life but we did have it as an activity in high school and I enjoyed it, so Iād like to see it programmed well if possible.
Most of the time in games I play a sneaky ranged type character.
So yes, I really hope archery is going to be good in this game AND challenging, to make it feel as though youāre really mastering a skill.
Would love to go look for my arrows and not carry 99 of themā¦ also regarding huntingā¦could Incorporate some kind of system where hunting makes you better at archery? Like xp based on where you shot , distance of kill etc
1 Like
I am a Archer/Hunter and hope that much care is taken with both aspects of the game. Knowledge should trump any stat that can be applied to any weapon or play style. I want it to be as real as possible. You should have to have the right equipment for the job, AND the skill set to complete said job. I feel that stats should be applied per weapon and character as well as the situation in which its used. A system in which you canāt spend all day shooting at a target to get your stats up enough on a bow to be able to kill anything that moves with said bow from whatever range you want. It should be progression through doing, as in: shooting targets gets you only to a certain point of progress, then you have to move on, hunting gives different skills and stats but only to a certain point, then its on to the ultimate game people, will give you different skills. But just because you can do any ONE of these doesnāt automatically good at the other just because it involves the same projectile weapon. and as long as they get the mechanics and physics right it should be one of the most rewarding things in the game to robin hood some arrows into an enemy guard who fell asleep on the job.
basically this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1yILWMqFA is what i want.
So 1 to 2 years to of training to be able to shoot about 5-6 aimed shots per minute and traps like iron girders.
At least if you expect the character to be proficient.
And my point with quip is that ārealisticā does not equal good gameplay in practice, but I agree with the sentiment - that archery in the game could or should reflect both how incredibly difficult it was to use a self-bow or even more so a longbow and how effective it was in trained hands.
1 Like
No not the time frame, the application is what iām talking about. i donāt care how fast you advance within the game. I want HOW you use the bow to effect how good you are with it. Not just THAT you use the bowā¦
only for unimaginative people who arenāt able to reconcile the two. if programmers stopped trying to make things realistic, and just went for gameplay, weād be stuck with wolfenstein 3d type games to this very day.
An incredible book (The Archerās Tale, by Bernard Cornwell) I read once gave me a huge insight into the field of archery and corrected a ton of wrong beliefs I had seen in almost all media to date.
Warfare archers were bred to shoot. It took years (10+) to become proficient at what they did.
Crossbows are not even remotely close to how powerful an english yew longbow was. A longbowman armed with a bodkin arrow could pierce plate mail up to 200 yards, accurately. (Granted these details are hazy, and subject to correction) The only thing that made crossbows better than longbows is that crossbows are easy as hell to learn how to shoot.
Longbowmen of the age did not look down the shaft of the arrow. They would pull it back to about their ear. Youāre missing out on a good 4 inches of pull by looking down the sight, which translates to much longer range and power.
Shooting a bow of this type is not something you learn in a few years. It is a lifetime commitment, which is what made the English so terrifying with their archers.
Quivers are stupid for warfare. Would you put your bullets in a box and sling it over your back as you march, run, and form battle lines? No. Many archers of the time had an arrow bag, basically a canvas sack that the archers placed their sheaf (24) of arrows into, point up, so as to not tear the bag. As well, these bags were placed either on the hip or ties to the leg, and once a large battle was initiated, the archers would have placed a number (or all) arrows into the ground for quick acquisition.
When I see all of these in a game or movie, I feel sad, because archers get so little credit being called cowards and bastards. Many of the longbowmen of the time were badasses. The average archer was as strong as other fighters, because he had to pull up to 185 pounds force, hit a knight fully in the chest through plate mail, over 100-200 yards. And he could do it at about 5 times a minute. Pulling 100lbs is hard, 185 is incredible. They would pull until the callouses on their finger had ripped off and were slinging blood with each arrow until they ran out, basically the only limiting factor to their badassery. To which then they continued into the battle to fight alongside the men-at-arms.
All Iāve ever wanted out of any game was some recognition to how incredible longbowmen are, and now Iām so damn close, since this game doesnāt have any stupid goblins or trolls or what have you. Thereās a balance between true homage and playability, and I hope WH finds it with everything, especially the longbow.
TL;DR: Longbowmen aināt nobody to screw with.
6 Likes
The armor-piercing qualities of longbows are overstated. Piercing plate, especially the breastplate, at 100+ yards is untrue. Here are some things to read.
1 Like
I agree with others on here having multiple arrow heads and types of arrows and bows/crossbows would be awesome
those arrow bags are just another form of quiver, so your distinction is pointless. it was also more of an english thing. loose arrow bags would have been worthless for tartar horse archers for example. most medieval cultures used a quiver hung from the belt, so i expect that to be the most common representation.
But the crossbow was still superior ( in that in a weapon ease of use and time required to learn is essential ). You could master it in months not years, a novice crossbow user was much more effective for an army to use - in terms of resources required to train and outfit one. True a master archer with 4 years of experience and delts like oaken lintels would be an asset of considerable value, but that is the thing. It takes + 2 years to train them to be proficient, 2 years just for that. Just for being able to draw and loose consistently for longer durations - say a whole battle. Then you pray they donāt get killed.
Give a peasant a crossbow and drill him for a few weeks and voila, a moderately effective soldier under the right Captain. Of course this kind of peasant wont be nearly as formidable when he runs out of bolts. A trained archer had impressive physical strength and was no pussy when it came to hand to hand.
Anyway this is all beside the point of the thread ( just entertaining ). My significant point in terms of gameplay is that I would like it to be reflected somehow - that is the level of difficulty of drawing and loosing many shafts in the moment of battle. You just cannot pick up a bow and shoot someone in the noggen, crossbows are for that. ( if they donāt snap a string, are iāll maintained and have little to no torsion power, miss-fire due to improper bolt slotting or just break in any other manner - push/pull lever if it had one, crank or any other bit. )
Watch this Korean movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2025526/. Its have only one unreal/unhistorical thing, sometimes āheroā twist the bowstring to give arrow path a horizontal curve. AFAIK this gimmick is based on Korean legends about very talented archers.
1 Like
Gimmick it is. but still a good and enjoyable film, when I lent my copy out at the archery club it took a long while to get it back!
The Korean bows are quite efficient as well, giving a higher arrow speed per pound of draw weight compared with the likes of a self wood longbow.
Un-strung the Korean bows came more than full circle and occupied quite a small space. They are quite nice to shoot too.
Korean Archery has been growing in the west over the past few years as well, and have not the Korean Archers done well at the Olympics.
Youāre right, I misspoke. It can pierce at those ranges. Alot of comparison videos showing people trying to pierce armor with a āperiod strengthā longbow are at 20 or so paces, with little regard to the trajectory and momentum from an arrow being launched a hundred yards into the air. I wish I could see what a 150lb-f bow could do.
Or not, I wasnāt there.
The first is the actual drawing of the longbow (or warbow) and the stance longbowmen used to shoot the arrows so far. The second is a video showing the piercing capability, however theyāre only doing it from 20 or so yards, yet it did go through the plate some. I tried to find a video where somebody was accurate enough to hit plate while arching the bow and putting full force into it, but alas the internet hath run dry for me.
And @Quatermain, I agree, thatās why crossbows won out over the longbow. Yet I still think crossbows suck. Totally personal preference.
At least there we are in agreement 
Crossbowmen didnāt need the same amount of training as bowmen. It was better suited to penetrate thick armor. It was well suited for placing crossbowmen at castle walls using the technique of taking turns in reloading while taking cover and shooting out of cover.
The downside to Crossbows were of course the slow shooting and slightly more expensive to produce compared to a longbow as little to none metal is required.
Now what can be argued is its ability to penetrate armor compared to a longbow, but here is what Iād like to mention about this.
Field crossbow/light crossbow, cocked by hand: This crossbow was the fastest crossbow but also the weakest. Probably able to penetrate plate, but not as much as much as the longbow. Used by militia, army crossbowmen, cavalry crossbowmen (technique invented later).
The heavy crossbow with winding mechanism. slower than any of the previous mentioned but an absolute monster, able to penetrate almost any armor, mostly used for siege defense or deployed with pavise shields to be deployed and cover while reloading. Assigned to prioritize shooting heavy troops such as knights.
I wouldnāt say any of them are ābetterā than the other. It just depends on what they are used for.