Prev: Re: Full Thrust : Electronic Warfare Next: Re: Low-Tech Forces in DSII

Re: Low-Tech Forces in DSII

From: Chen-Song Qin <cqin@e...>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:24:28 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Low-Tech Forces in DSII

On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> But why are you comparing maximum *effective* range for longbows with
> maximum *absolute* range for crossbows? Their recorded *effective*
> seem to have been pretty much the same - 200 meters at most. 

Crossbows do have a lower max flight range than bows.  Although this is
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
> 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

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
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
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
> rifle IMO (not that I've fired neither SMGs nor assault rifles <g>) -
> shorter range, far worse penetration, somewhat better rate of fire
> the magazine runs out.

It's more like comparing a sawed-off shotgun to a rifle in terms of
accuracy and penetration.


Even the engineers are not *this* depraved.  This must be the work of
Med. students.

						- A friend of mine

Prev: Re: Full Thrust : Electronic Warfare Next: Re: Low-Tech Forces in DSII