Feature request for the much maligned short bow

[andrewdoull]

Hi,

I've seen comments in a number of threads that a short bow is pretty much a throwaway item.

I would like to request that it be modified so that it gets +1 shots.

This means a short bow (or recurved bow, if you want to change the name at the same time) does more damage per turn than a long bow, but uses up ammunition far faster.

Thoughts?

[Donald Jonker]

Seconded, with the reservation that it may unbalance things quite a bit. I don't know off-hand the range of the shortbow, but this may be adjusted as a balancing factor.

Slings also ought to be considered... then again maybe they should remain a "starter's" shooter." Another method would be to make their ammo very potent, but multiplier very low, so they become less and less effective the further you progress.

My first thought had been to de-trivialize these two by way of class-aptitudes, but your approach seems more elegant and better suited for Vanilla.

[Atarlost]

Seconded, with the reservation that it may unbalance things quite a bit. I don't know off-hand the range of the shortbow, but this may be adjusted as a balancing factor.

Slings also ought to be considered... then again maybe they should remain a "starter's" shooter." Another method would be to make their ammo very potent, but multiplier very low, so they become less and less effective the further you progress.

My first thought had been to de-trivialize these two by way of class-aptitudes, but your approach seems more elegant and better suited for Vanilla.

I'm not sure about longbows at all. I'm not entirely convinced they are used in Middle Earth.

Wood elves would tend to use short or composite bows because longbows are difficult to use when sitting in a tree. The Numenoreans are known to use "steelbows" and the only steel bows I know of are arbalests which would be heavy crossbows. If the Rohirrim use bows, and I don't recall if they do or not, they would use short or composite bows because longbows cannot be used from horseback. Hobbits are known to use bows, but are too short to use longbows. The Noldor are presumed to use composite bows because of a reference to horse archers in relation to the first Glaurung sighting. No definate longbows.

Replacing longbows with composite bows allows you to reasonably STR limit them. Longbows have similar draw weight to shortbows, but composite bows can have much higher draw weights. Short bows and slings would then be the low strength ranged niche weapon, crossbows simply being outright heavy.

[Pete Mack]

I'm not sure that absence of evidence is evidence of absence here.

Middle Earth is based on medieval Europe and England in particular. Longbows have been in use for hunting in Britain since at least 2000BCE, and in massed warfare since the 12th century. (see wikipedia article) The only significant use of composite bows in medieval Europe were by enemy cavalry from The East. (Saracen, Mongols, etc.)

Further, I'm of the impression that Bard and Legolas used longbows, though the latter may just be Peter Jackson's influence.

[Daniel Fishman]

I don't have a copy of the text with me, but Wikipedia claims Legolas was given a new longbow in Lothlorien (which could be easily verified by someone who does have the text).

[Faust]

To Legolas she gave a bow such as the Galadhrim used, longer and stouter than the bows of Mirkwood, strung with a string of elf-hair.

Sounds like a longbow but Tolkien doesn't name it a longbow directly.

[Atarlost]

Sounds like a longbow but Tolkien doesn't name it a longbow directly.

I don't think the Galadrim can reasonably be using longbows. They need a bow that can be fired from a treetop, which a longbow isn't. Tolkein was a linguist, not an archer, and can be expected to make mistakes, but the need of an archer hiding in a tree to not tangle his bow in the branches isn't something you can write around.

[PowerDiver]

Missile attacks are unbalanced. If you make them noticeably different, then whichever one is best becomes a necessary choice to anyone playing strategically. If you change it so that shortbows are better, then everyone will want shortbows.

If you want to stop everyone from using longbows, you need to give them attacks that are better than a longbow, as light and replenishable as arrows, and that improve in damage as fast as a longbow when you read ?+dam on them. E.g., you could start by giving everyone 3 melee attacks with a light weapon. You might get most of the way there by linearizing the stat tables. That's the sort of change that would be needed. That's still not enough, since phase and shoot is so effective, but at least it would be in the ballpark.

Most items are pointless without a suitable ego. When's the last time you cared about a good beaked axe? Shortbows are just one more example. An early shortbow with +5 damage can be interesting, but it better be really early.

[zaimoni]

I'm not sure about longbows at all. I'm not entirely convinced they are used in Middle Earth.

Wood elves would tend to use short or composite bows because longbows are difficult to use when sitting in a tree. ....

As composite bows are much higher-tech than longbows, I would think the Elves would be the only race capable of maintaining them.

[Pete Mack]

As composite bows are much higher-tech than longbows, I would think the Elves would be the only race capable of maintaining them.

Composite bows have been around for a long, long time--at least 2000 years. The Mongols didn't have a lot of technology, but they did have bows.

[Atarlost]

Try 4400 years. I've got an article on the development of the bow in my lap. (From the June 1991 Scientific American) A wood-horn-sinew composite bow called the "western Asian angular bow" was in use in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Assyria from 2400-600 B.C.

[andrewdoull]

Missile attacks are unbalanced. If you make them noticeably different, then whichever one is best becomes a necessary choice to anyone playing strategically. If you change it so that shortbows are better, then everyone will want shortbows.

I guess I saw a justifiable trade off between higher shots and a requirement for more ammunition that meant that short bows were not automatically a preferred choice to long bows. It's arguable whether this is actually the case though.

Andrew

[Narvius]

Entroband gives different shooting speeds for different launchers.

[Donald Jonker]

Missile attacks are unbalanced. If you make them noticeably different, then whichever one is best becomes a necessary choice to anyone playing strategically. If you change it so that shortbows are better, then everyone will want shortbows.

If you want to stop everyone from using longbows, you need to give them attacks that are better than a longbow, as light and replenishable as arrows, and that improve in damage as fast as a longbow when you read ?+dam on them. E.g., you could start by giving everyone 3 melee attacks with a light weapon. You might get most of the way there by linearizing the stat tables. That's the sort of change that would be needed. That's still not enough, since phase and shoot is so effective, but at least it would be in the ballpark.

Most items are pointless without a suitable ego. When's the last time you cared about a good beaked axe? Shortbows are just one more example. An early shortbow with +5 damage can be interesting, but it better be really early.

This is a very good representation of how Angband equipment functions in general. With very few exceptions, there is always a *best* choice. Sure, you might carry Gurthang as a swap for dragon pits in the late game, or carry something with ESP and swap it out when it's time to fight, but in general your equipment choice is never contextual. The home is too small, and the encounters are too random to make any tactical plans when outfitting a character.

A few variants deal with this. NPP's quests let you anticipate your enemies, although the home is still too small to make many provisions. Heng, Entro, and ToME have expanded homes and themed dungeons that allow you to amass anti-dragon kits for the dragon caves and so forth. But even then, the roster of artifacts and ego items usually compels the player towards a single optimized outfit. In any case, Vanilla isn't likely to adopt a model where one can anticipate one's fights that predictably, so maybe I should pass that over.

For melee weapons, a couple patterns may be observed:
a) normal light weapons are best in the early game; ego/artifact light weapons are best in the mid-game; all light weapons are useless in the late game.
b) all heavy weapons are useless (as weapons) in the early game; all heavy weapons are dubious in the mid-game; ego/artifact heavy weapons are best in the late game.
So: light artifact weapons are briefly and rarely useful; normal heavy weapons never are.

For shooters:
a) the only useful sling is an ego sling: non-buckland is acceptable for early and middle game, buckland will take you to the late game.
b) same story for shortbows, but even shortbows of lothlorian are somewhat crappy, only marginally useful as shortbows in the late mid-game. The only acceptable shortbows are the artifacts which are decent out into the late game.
c) longbows are king throughout the game, its normal, ego and artifact forms trumping all other types, save perhaps a sling of buckland.
d) light xbows are useful only lacking a longbow (unless it's an artifact) and heavy xbows are only good in ego form in the endgame.
So: Longbows surpass other shooters in all stages of the game, excepting maybe slings of buckland.

We're left with:
1. Do we want shooters to follow the same model as melee weapons, with light classes eventually being eclipsed by heavy ones as the player makes his way down the dungeon?
-One way of effecting this would be (to repeat myself) to increase the damage dice of sling ammo, and decrease the launcher multiplier, and so on for the other shooters. Similar things have been done in variants - UnAndrew, Nick and others can probably speak better to this.


or

2. Do we want a different model, where different shooters are suited to different styles of play?
-Slings could be low-damage but stealthy, good for drawing out individual members of a group without waking its compatriots.
-Shortbows could be fast but short-ranged, giving more opportunity for damage output, but limiting chances of escape.
-Longbows could be the middle-ground: good range, good damage, good stealth.
-Light xbows could be decently ranged, powerful, but noisy.
-Heavy xbows could be the max range, powerful, and noisy.

Option one seems the most conservative course for Vanilla, but things would still need to be tweaked from its current state. This of course neglects to mention:

3. The status quo.

Which is fine by me.

[Atarlost]

For shooters:
a) the only useful sling is an ego sling: non-buckland is acceptable for early and middle game, buckland will take you to the late game.
b) same story for shortbows, but even shortbows of lothlorian are somewhat crappy, only marginally useful as shortbows in the late mid-game. The only acceptable shortbows are the artifacts which are decent out into the late game.
c) longbows are king throughout the game, its normal, ego and artifact forms trumping all other types, save perhaps a sling of buckland.
d) light xbows are useful only lacking a longbow (unless it's an artifact) and heavy xbows are only good in ego form in the endgame.
So: Longbows surpass other shooters in all stages of the game, excepting maybe slings of buckland.

What about eliminating the Lothlorien ego from Longbows on the grounds that longbows are not suited to firing from treetops as the Galadrim are wont to do? That would remove the top endgame bow, making a relative improvement to shortbows, which would retain the ego, slings, crossbows, magic, and melee, all of which are overshadowed by longbows of lothlorien. Bard would still be king, but as an artifact it can have its rarity increased until it's a lucky find, not something to wait for.