|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 12:39:17 GMT -5
Seriously, a bow and a longbow aren't different enough to deserve two profiles in a sci-fi game. I'm not going to discuss this any further, but I think your idea is unnecessary and over-developed.
Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, I'm just slightly tired of arguing with people that doesn't seem to know much at all about medieval warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 12:44:41 GMT -5
Makarova, are you always this abrasive? This is a forum of ideas and opinions. And again, you misunderstand: I'm not trying to have the lasgun replace a futuristic laser assault rifle. I'm trying to make a fluffy, unique and fun weapon that suits a feral/medieval Imperial Guard regiment. Secondly, I'm not arguing with you. I'm having a discussion with you. I don't honestly believe that a Heavy 3 heavy machine gun only fires three rounds in one turn of combat.The Assault 2 represents the archer's well placed and timed arrows he's putting into the air, where the Sniper profile represents the archer's well aimed, more impressive shots. You have to use your imagination in this game, and not take things quite so literally. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, I'm just slightly tired of arguing with people that doesn't seem to know much at all about medieval warfare. Pardon me. I didn't know I was having a tactical discussion with Charlemagne Joan d'Arc  |
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Jul 31, 2009 12:47:04 GMT -5
You could also have it fluff-wised.
If I remember right, quite a few archers were trained in firing on signal, which could mean that the shots you roll for, are the ONLY shots they're making.
Remember, in the Core book, it explains the rolling to hit as the careful, aimed shots made. It is assumed that the rifle toting soldiers are firing QUITE a bit more rounds, but those are just hitting cover/plain missing/etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 12:48:30 GMT -5
That might be viable for a fantasy game, but a bow isn't by any means better than a lasgun, autogun. Yours have the same stats as an Eldar lasrifle. It's just impossible to have it that detailed when it comes to a sci-fi game, in that case any soldier with a ranged weapon should be able to take a Sniper shot.
I apologise for being rude, I'll leave this thread from now on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Jul 31, 2009 12:50:47 GMT -5
Well, I was thinking more of "Looking down the sights and then firing" kinda thing........
|
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 12:52:48 GMT -5
There's no need to withdraw from the discussion =(
|
|
|
|
Post by knight (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 12:55:11 GMT -5
As being an Archer I can say that if you want to shoot fast you can with a bow.
I myself shoot recurve bow with a lot of techincal goodies like stabilisators, carbon aiming device and so on. When practicing to shoot fast and being able to shoot without visor you can do it really fast. Sure not as fast as with an autogun. But 6 aimed! arrows should be possible per minute
|
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 12:59:23 GMT -5
There's no need to withdraw from the discussion =( Well, alright then. I'm all ears for a proper discussion, but I'm not going to get in silly arguments. In my opinion this book is already quite bland because Gaunt didn't take some of my advices. Yes, I can be a self-righteous prick, but I DO know a fair bit about what I'm talking about. And have written several homemade codexes myself. |
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 13:00:06 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly, considering longbowmen trained extensively their entire lives. Who will be more effective? A green private soldier, with 6 weeks of combat training, or an archer trained since he could wield the bow?
Hmm, a longbowman unit...
Longbowman Rangers
WS: 3, BS: 5, S: 3, T: 3, I: 4, Ld 7, Sv 6 - ?? points.
Unit: Between 3 and 20 Rangers. Maybe purchase 17 more additional Rangers for ?? points per model.
Special Rules: Infiltrate (if the number of models is below 10), Scouts
Bit of a fluffy description...
Longbowmen Rangers are excellent marksmen. They have a fearsome reputation in the feral and medieval kingdoms of the Imperium's such-classified worlds. Their longbows are dreaded even by heavily armoured knights and noble infantry, and can skewer a man at over 350 paces in the hands of a deadly Ranger.
Grizzled woodsmen, Rangers travel light enough and quickly enough to know the layout of the land, and have even been useful to modernized Imperial Guard regiments for their scouting ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Jul 31, 2009 13:12:31 GMT -5
Well, considering the Green private soldier has an automatic laser weapon that is MUCH easier to learn how to use correctly than a bow (Use mind you, not maintain) and the fact that during the course of history, it has been proven that said green private soldier with an automatic rifle is superior to an archer....
|
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 13:29:06 GMT -5
I'm not so sure, you know. Medieval weapons and tactics must still be effective. Look at Rough Riders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Jul 31, 2009 13:42:26 GMT -5
Not really.
Rough Riders would fail HARD in real life.
Concentrated small arms fire DESTROY cavalry. It's why during WWII, Cavalry were slowly phased out in favor of tanks.
Tanks, the descendant of Cavalry, today, are faster, can go longer, and are MUCH more deadly than Cavalry.
There is a reason cavalry isn't used today, it's because it is rendered obsolete by modern technology.
Automatic weapons fire can and will massacre a unit of cavalry. Foot soldiers are now much more deadlier, and can just shoot out the horse, which is quite a big target compared to your average soldier.
Tanks won't even be affected by cavalry, unless said horses are used to move men around with RPGs.
And if you fired an RPG from a horse, you deserve what's coming next.
Also, if you tried to get close enough to a tank to use a grenade....Well...There's a reason they gave medals to men who grenade rushed tanks.
Pretty much ANYTHING on a modern battlefield can destroy cavalry.
The only reason that Rough Riders survive in 40k, in my opinion, is because firearms have been basically nerfed in terms of range, power, and number of shots put out.
As for medieval tactics, go ahead, march your army towards my rifle man in nice formations. Gives me a larger target to mow down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Willem on Jul 31, 2009 14:13:42 GMT -5
i havent sean any tank killing power yet
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Jul 31, 2009 14:23:58 GMT -5
Well, It' IS kinda hard to kill tank if all you have is medieval weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 14:33:48 GMT -5
You can probably penetrate some tanks with an arbalest, or damage them with a trebuchet.
Maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Jul 31, 2009 14:40:16 GMT -5
Depends on how the tank's built.....
Maybe design an early cannon? Although it'd be inaccurate as hell.....
|
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 31, 2009 18:01:42 GMT -5
This List will include Tank-killing weapons including a plethora of cannons and other artillery weapons. Although somewhat Unfluffy some of these weapons will be able to take out AV 14 tanks, simply for list balance and fairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 31, 2009 18:08:08 GMT -5
A new unit for y'all to C&C:
Archer Formation:
40pts
Ws2 Bs4 S3 T3 W1 A1 I3 Ld7 Sv6+
Unit size:
10 Archers
Weapons/wargear:
Bows, close combat weapons, basic armour
Upgrades:
may take an additional 20 archers for 4pts each
All archers may exchange their bows for crossbows at +1pts per model
Special Rules:
Skirmishers:
If a Unit of archers numbers 10 or less and is equipped with bows it has the stealth USR.
|
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 18:24:53 GMT -5
I mean on the tabletop. I'd be fighting a losing battle trying to rationalize the use of a weapon. made redundant 400/500 years ago, on modern battlefields As for anti-tank weapons... how about Chinese-style rockets? It may be wise to base Codex: Feral World's AT capability on Ork technology. |
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 31, 2009 19:26:14 GMT -5
Kaikelx. You are mistaken on the cavalry front, they were not phased out because of automatic weapons they were phased out because tanks entered the field. Cavalry can In fact withstand an Insane amount of fire from a WW1 Vickers heavy machine gun.
The British tested it in a horrific way, they got 20 horses into an enclosure and machine gunned them until they were all dead. It turned out that the horses lived for plenty long enough to get the men on them to an enemy trench. No automatic weapons didn't do for the cavalry entirely. It was one slightly innocuous thing the enemy included in his fortifications in WW1, barbed wire, which generally stopped horses dead in their tracks.
Horses are in fact still viable military tools, although generally more in desert warfare where their smaller heat signature and more biological needs than a tank can help to get your forces from one place to another that much easier. These are however not truly cavalry, simply mounted infantry that dismount to fight.
What you say about Tanks V horses, the polish did it at the start of WW2 the polish horse units did get some minor successes because they could outmaneuver the tanks once they were in amongst them and then disable them with grenades, attacking the crew etc...
However once your firearm armed troops get into a CQB with a guy with a sword the Grunt is gonna lose badly, Modern forces hardly ever use bayonets simply because of the brutality needed to use one against another Human, whereas in the middle ages this was the standard way of killing someone. Your clinical Grunts would suffer at Close Quarters, and there are certainly ways of forcing you into a CQB engagement. Like hiding in a city, you can't bomb it because of civilians so your grunts go in and their guns become less useful in the confines of Urban warfare. As do your tanks. Where a Horse is able to pick its way through rubble strewn streets a tank would struggle with small gaps, fires and large piles of rubble.
This is simply to prove that there are situations where certain units and weapons believed to be obsolete can actually become very useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Jul 31, 2009 19:56:34 GMT -5
United States can't bomb the entire cities. If I remember right, there are rather cruel governments that can, and will. (Not saying I would, but others would) If you're talking about Gun Cavalry, then yes, they still have a use, like you said, in desert warfare, or anywhere where they can control where, when, and the range. If said Grunt spots your cavalry at a distance at about, say 20 meters, chances are, that guy is going down, as the emphasis on ranged fire today means well trained soldiers (In terms of fire arms) But then again, to make Cavalry useful (to the point where you WOULD'NT take horrendus casaulties) you'd have to add more modern inventions, such as said grenades or rifles. I was pointing out that Medeival Cavalry are FAR less useful (Lance Cavarly, Sword Cavalry, etc) Plus, Cavalry was VERY effective on charge, which, by itself, would often route the infantry right then and there. However, if your cavarly unit does a charge, quite a few are going to get shot off their horses. If they get stuck in, chances are, the Grunts (Great...Now I'm capatilizing it) are going to be able to shoot them off. If they continue past, that would be asking to be shot in the back  More factors why cavalry isn't used today: Land Mines: Need I say it? Casualties: Countries like the U.S.A are VERY careful about taking casualties, often, it's a tragedy if one squad's worth dies in a day. If you have cavarly, you are going to take HEAVY casualties (Gun Cavalry being an exception if they are well trained to shoot off of their horses. Give them an assault rifle, or a bolt-action, and they can do well) |
|
|
|
Post by knight (M.I.A) on Aug 1, 2009 15:00:46 GMT -5
US doesn't bomb cities? What was Dresden? Afaik that was an American Plan.
Cav got outdated by tanks as tanks can't really get stopped by rubble like it is said in 40k. Horses are damn fragile things. And trust me I doubt any rider would keep sitting on a horse after it got shot once. Even the horse could keep running the rider would most likely get thrown off.
But sorry riders would stand no chance vs automatic weapons as the horses would get crippled and that some stray shots would hit the riders...
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on Aug 1, 2009 15:03:19 GMT -5
But sorry riders would stand no chance vs automatic weapons as the horses would get crippled and that some stray shots would hit the riders... Agreed. The Brits and Russians tried this in WWI, and Poles tried it in WWII. Didn't turn out so well. Reds |
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Aug 1, 2009 15:20:20 GMT -5
US doesn't bomb cities? What was Dresden? Afaik that was an American Plan. Cav got outdated by tanks as tanks can't really get stopped by rubble like it is said in 40k. Horses are damn fragile things. And trust me I doubt any rider would keep sitting on a horse after it got shot once. Even the horse could keep running the rider would most likely get thrown off. But sorry riders would stand no chance vs automatic weapons as the horses would get crippled and that some stray shots would hit the riders... Whoops, poor choice of words. I blame it on the fact that I'm just now entering High School, and have no idea what that event was/is.... What I meant to say is, if the United States bombed the a populated city nowadays, it would probably get torn up by the media.... |
|
|
|
Post by knight (M.I.A) on Aug 1, 2009 15:44:29 GMT -5
The bombing of Dresden happened in the late days of World War II. (13-15. February 1945). With 4 bombing runs the USAAF and RAF destroyed almost everything in the city of Dresden, killing somewhere between 18.000-25.000 people.
But it is true, these days the USA wouldn't do something like that anymore as media and all the other nations would rip them apart in media and diplomacy
|
|
