Crossbows?

[AslanC]

I know that Tolkien never uses them, but still... Does anyone have stats for them in the game?

[Phantom]

I seem to remember there being mention that rules for (orc) cross-bows would be out in a future supplment. Perhaps the Warriors sourcebook?

[AslanC]

Well a regular Crossbow in Coda Trek does 2d6+3 and has the following range increments...

5/20/50/100/+20

Now a longbow is

5/30/60/150/+30

A short bow

5/25/50/100/+25

Steel Bow

5/40/80/200/+40

So if the damage of the arrow remains 2d6, the crossbow has shorter range but more stopping power.

Given that Crossbows were designed as "armour punchers" IIRC shouldn't they reduce the bonus of a shield?

Thoughts from those who may no more about this topic?

[Sarge]

Just remember that the main disadvantage of the crossbow is that it takes longer to shoot. With a light crossbow, you might just yank the string back or pull a cocking lever and be able to shoot almost as fast as a longbow. But if you want to launch an armour piercing round, you ought to use a heavy crossbow which requires a winching mechanism to prepare it. I'd consider something like that a fire-and-forget weapon; fire it once and forget it until the next battle.

I don't know how to represent it in CODA, but a crossbow should be easier to learn to shoot than a longbow or shortbow. The old saying was, "To make a good longbowman, start by training his grandfather." IOW, you need to get a whole lot more practice to be accurate with a longbow than with a crossbow.

JRRT never mentioned crossbows specifically, but he did say orcs liked inventing new devices for hurting people. And PJ showed orcs with crossbows in the movie, so I don't think crossbows would be out of place in ME.

[AslanC]

Originally posted by Sarge
Just remember that the main disadvantage of the crossbow is that it takes longer to shoot. With a light crossbow, you might just yank the string back or pull a cocking lever and be able to shoot almost as fast as a longbow. But if you want to launch an armour piercing round, you ought to use a heavy crossbow which requires a winching mechanism to prepare it. I'd consider something like that a fire-and-forget weapon; fire it once and forget it until the next battle.

I don't know how to represent it in CODA, but a crossbow should be easier to learn to shoot than a longbow or shortbow. The old saying was, "To make a good longbowman, start by training his grandfather." IOW, you need to get a whole lot more practice to be accurate with a longbow than with a crossbow.

JRRT never mentioned crossbows specifically, but he did say orcs liked inventing new devices for hurting people. And PJ showed orcs with crossbows in the movie, so I don't think crossbows would be out of place in ME.

Cool stuff man So a light cross-bow would still have the punch of a regular bow or do you think it would be less? I can't see Arendan using the winch variety.

I'm looking for the kind where you put your foot in the stirrup and pull back the string(?) to cock it.

Would that be a medium Crossbow?

[Phantom]

A person I know that runs an Archery Pro Shop told me that after about 30-40 reloads on even a light cross bow, you're lucky to be able to bring to the aim postion. If you try to keep pace with a long bowman you probably cut that in half down 10-20 shots before you have to rest.

It is not a fast fire weapon.

[ben hur]

I believe that one of the main advantages of the crossbow were that soldiers could be trained to use it much easier than longbowmen. If you had a very good longbowman and a very good crossbowman I'd say the differences might be the longbow was faster while the crossbow did more damage or shot farther or pierced armor better or something.

So I guess it just dawned on me why PJ had the Uruks use crossbows in the movie; in the books, the Orcs of Saruman were around for longer, and had time to train with the longbows that they used, but in the movies they had just been bred by Saruman, so needed quick training with an easy weapon to use (and since Orcs are mechanically minded, as Sarge pointed out, it fit nicely).

Also, one more thing; crossbows were despised by Knights. The reason being that crossbows were too effective, and said they were dishonourable. I really don't think that Arendan, being the knight that he is (if not in the elite order, at least having the stats of one), would use a crossbow.

Hope this helps! Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Grimbeorn]

Right main differences between an equally good Crossbowmen and a Longbowman. (Talking from some experience here after using both weapons and having an uncle who is very good with modern day bow and seeing him use the older style longbows as well as watching him compete against a crossbow).

Range wise the Longbow wins by some way, well if u don't mine slightly less accurates at the extreme range, the english longbows were fear by most sane people during the medival age due to its range, rate of fire and also a good longbowman could punch though plate armour with only slightly less success than a crossbow. But it took an long time to learn how to use a longbow well, the english spent a lot of time with they bows.

The crossbows biggest advantage was that you could teach someone how to use it in a couple of days and have a reasonable accuracy on it, within months a good accuracy. But it was slow to fire, but it did produce armour piercing ability at short to med range, but it lost a lot of that at longer ranges.

[AslanC]

Originally posted by ben hur
Also, one more thing; crossbows were despised by Knights. The reason being that crossbows were too effective, and said they were dishonourable. I really don't think that Arendan, being the knight that he is (if not in the elite order, at least having the stats of one), would use a crossbow.

Well since that is more of a Chivalric Knightly thing I don't think it applies to a Wall Walker like Arendan

Here is something interesting, from this article by JP Fowler

At its simplest level, the crossbow was a small, very stiff bow on a wooden stock or handle. Its main advantage was its ability to remain drawn with no effort from the archer. The drawing process was another matter. The archer put his foot into a stirrup at the end of the stock and pulled the string to a catch. Because of the stiffness of a crossbow the archer had to be a rather strong man. After drawing, the bolt (as the arrow was called) was placed in a shallow groove that ran the length of the stock. It was intended to keep the bolt on a straight path as it fired. When the catch was released by one of various methods (the most common being a trigger mechanism) the bolt was shot with considerable power. Its effective range was rather short, but it was a very accurate weapon within its usable range. The crossbow’s ability to retain a draw was what made it much easier to use than a longbow. As a result, it became a much more popular weapon.

Even though the crossbow was a very effective weapon, it had several major weaknesses. It was a slow and heavy weapon with a firing rate of about one sixth of the longbow. Its short range also made it awkward to use, as the archers had to get relatively close to fire. Another disadvantage was its strings. Because their stiffness, the crossbow was incredibly hard to string. Consequently, most soldiers left their weapons strung at all times. Crossbow strings, however, became useless in wet weather; therefore, armies heavily dependent on crossbow support were defenseless in the rain.

The crossbow also needed powerful arms to draw. The attrition of war lowered the availability of strong men for the military. Also, newer composite bows made from sinew, wood and bone were appearing and were nearly impossible to draw with bare hands. To solve both of these problems, a new way to draw the bow was needed. The belt claw filled this need. It was basically what its name implies — a two-pronged hook that was hung on the belt. Bending down, the archer would hook the claw onto the string and with his foot in the stirrup stand up straight and the string would engage itself. This allowed men to use their leg muscles to draw crossbows, therefore allowing weaker men to use them. As even more rigid bows appeared, the belt claw was not enough. In time, an improved version of the belt claw appeared. It used the same concept, but the claw had a thin rope holding it to the user’s belt. The rope went through a pulley system to make it easier to draw the bow. Now, weak men could draw the composite bows, while strong soldiers were able to draw even the stiffest ones available.

Because a crossbow bolt could rip through chain mail with ease and still cause a grievous wound, new plate armour was invented, heralding the need for more powerful crossbows. Armies turned to steel bows the most common kind being the arbalest, because neither wood nor composite bows were stiff enough. No matter how strong the archer was, not even the pulley system could draw a steel bow so new methods were again invented. The method that could draw even the hardest of bows was already in use on siege weapons. It was a double pulley and windlass and was a very cumbersome and clumsy system. The ropes often got tangled and it took time to draw.

The other system used gears where a notched bar was drawn along by a gear wheel, called the gaffle. A handle turned the wheel and, before firing, the whole system was taken off the crossbow. Although it was just a cumbersome as the windlass, it was faster and had no ropes. In most versions (but not all), the main gear wheel turned a smaller one that in turn moved the bar. This method was not nearly as popular as the windlass but was still used fairly often.

The arbalest’s maximum range in dry weather was around one hundred and twenty yards; it had to be tilted at roughly a forty-five degree angle to achieve this. A point blank (level) shot would go no more than around sixty yards. As with all crossbows, the arbalest was not effective in damp or wet weather. The crossbowmen were placed in the front ranks, to mow down opposing cavalry, as an arbalest could pierce even plate armour and still wound. At the very end of the Middle Ages, the arbalest was at its prime but was slowly being pushed over by early guns.

Interesting stuff, though I might not go so real as to impose the rain penalty, that would be just too mean.

[Sarge]

Ben hur, not all knights despised crossbows. IIRC, the Teutonic Knights in particular used crossbows on horseback during their crusades in eastern Europe.

[mcb]

Ah but this was the crusades and the knight were not fighting each other. I bet those same knights would not have used their crossbow if they had been fighting other western European knights. They however were fighting the "heathens" (or Muslims a slightly more PC name) and the same rules did not apply.

Matt

[AslanC]

So does anyone think 2d6+3 with a rate of fire of 1/2, using the above ranges is fair?

Or should it be an action to load, that way they can fire once every round, unlike the archer who can fire twice?

[Phantom]

Originally posted by AslanC
So does anyone think 2d6+3 with a rate of fire of 1/2, using the above ranges is fair?

Or should it be an action to load, that way they can fire once every round, unlike the archer who can fire twice?

I think the dam is ok. I'd have them fire once a round. The heavier Orc models I might even venture to say every other rd.

[Sarge]

Those seem like reasonable numbers to me. But for the heavy crossbow shooting every other round, I'd increase the range a bit and allow the bolts to ignore a point or two of the target's armor damage resistance.

[Beryl]

Being a bit of a history buff, I have just finished a recent book on the Hundred Years War.
It appears that to be true to medieval history that the English longbows were always a superior weapon to the French crossbows. The longbow had a much higher rate of fire, longer range, and same penetrating power when compared to the crossbow. Indeed, it was usually due to these archers that the English invaders were able to kick French butt for most of the Hundred Years War.