Peter:
>>> Given that the Rathori have the better bows, this is hardly going
>>> to make them quake in their bearskins.
Wesley:
>>Who says they are better?
Peter:
> Player's Book: Genertela Book gives the Rathori the Longbow
> whereas the Pentans and CharUn only have a composite bow.
I use bows for various kinds of target archery, and I want to testify thatwhile the longbow has a lot of good things to say about it, it is by no means the "better" bow.
In RQ, a longbow may have a slightly larger range than a composite bow _as per RQ rules_, but that is a perfectly arbitrary decision of the rules designer. The range and accuracy of any individual bow used by any individual archer with a given type of arrow (not to say individual arrow, but it may come to that in extremis) in a given technique will vary. These things react to climatic conditions as well, so any values researched by the rules designers will be some generalisation.
Composite bows with even only a slight recurve do have advantages over longbows of the same draw weight ("spring force"). By giving a different acceleration curve, the arrow's velocity leaving the string usually is higher for the recurved bow, resulting in a larger range or lower degree of distribution.
As an additional effect, a good recurve will reduce the recoil of the bow into the archer's shoulder. If you ever have shot a quiver's worth of arrows with a decent strength longbow you will know what I mean.
The longbow does offer some advantages over the composite bow. I won't say ease of manufacture, because it takes a lot of know-how to get a stick to act as a bow. A longbow usually is less vulnerable to humidity than a composite bow using water-based glues. Its limbs will react more homogeneously to temperature changes as well.
If your bow has long limbs, the angle of the string at your release fingers will be less acute, and as a result the inevitable clawing during release will have less influence.
The bad news about long-limbed bows becomes evident when you want to shoot from an overhung position. I have seen longbows shot from a lying position, but this takes about "a level of mastery" to do at a similar performance as standing up. It is possible to shoot a longbow from a saddle (at least a saddle on a horse-shaped support), but only to the left side. Penalties for a moving saddle are quite independent of the type of bow used.
If you want to shoot from a canoe, the longbow is awkward, too. I've done so.
The usefulness of a longbow in a forest depends greatly on the amount and height of the undergrowth. Scandinavian pine forest is fairly pleasant to shoot in, middle-European fir forest is troublesome. Thick undergrowth in deciduous forests reduces sight and headroom.
>>The Turkish (and Mongol) composite bows were nearly as
>>good, if not as good, as the longbow.
The best of these were superior to the best longbows in terms of penetration and range.
> But the CharUn are neither Turkish nor Mongols.
Every Asian horse nomad invasion, e.g. the Huns, used bows not too different from these. It takes a lot less effort to produce a uniform quality of composite recurved bows than to produce longbows of uniform quality, unless you have treeshaper elves to influence the growth.
I fail to see why the Char Un should use vastly inferior composite bows compared to the real world.
>>And there is a hell of a difference between a mounted archer
>>and a foot archer.
> The relevance as to how this affects who has the better bow is what?
Try shooting a Parthian shot from the saddle with a longbow, and you'll change your mind about "better".
The horse archers will likely lose badly against well-positioned foot archers, but foot archers on the march are as likely little more than target praxis for horse archers.
Really, arguing which is the better bow is like arguing which is the better style of roleplaying, and belongs to some advocacy newsgroup.
Powered by hypermail