a friend of mine threw this info at me and asked for my opinion, and I in turn ask for yours
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/bp/20040309a
important bits
Question: I have used both bows and .22-caliber handguns, and I want to know if the creators of this system have ever shot either one. You've given the bow a range increment of 40 feet, when a .22 has only a 20-foot range increment. Are you people crazy?
Response (in part): If we were to model just how a given weapon's accuracy falls off throughout its maximum range, the mechanics would not only be much more complicated, but also probably different for each type of weapon.
The result of this abstraction is that sometimes a game effect doesn't precisely match your expectations of reality. For example, a .22-caliber pistol may be more accurate than a bow at 30 feet in real life, but in the game the pistol has taken its first range penalty while the bow hasn't. In both real life and the game, however, the bow turns out to be much more accurate at 200 feet.
All that said, I'm somewhat surprised that you find a standard, non-match-grade .22-caliber pistol more accurate than a compound bow beyond a very short range. We each have our different experiences in life, I guess.
It was the italiced part I was asked about, as an owner of both a compound bow and .22 pistols
Ill go into my thinking, but woudl appreciate any thoughts you all ahve on the subject
My first thought is, no, i'd count on the 22 pistol delivering more hits at all ranges. Take a look at olympic level archery, the target is not terribly far away nor terribly small (expecially when compared to say, biathalon targets) but the accuracy of pistols and bows at shorter range is somewhat comparable.
However, simply due to the law of gravity, and an arrow's much slower speed, you don't have to get very far out in terms of yardage to have relatively long flight time, so you have to correct much sooner and much more for distance. The fact is when you talk about midevil armies slinging arrows and xbow bolts at eachother from around 100 yards, they weren't selecting individual targets, they were firing en-mass at the general vicinity of a group of enemies.
For one, the flight time is such that these archers were aiming there weapons twenty feet above the target area, if not more. It is pretty hard to target the head of your opponent, when to do so you have to 'hold over' 20 feet, it makes it hard to tell if you are holding over exactly 20 feet, or 22 (a clean miss) or 18 (a wounding shot, maybe a miss) and that is if you do everything else perferct.
Two, to further complicate issues, a target at 80 yards and a target at 90 yards are going to require as different a holdover, due to the pull of gravity, as a faster bullet is going to require at 300 vs 400 yards. Hence, a small mistake in your range estimation is gonig to result in your shot hititng a lot different spot than expected.
Third, and relatively minor, a longer flight time is going to allow for wind to have longer to push the projectile around, and as an arrow is less dense than a lead bullet, you ahve more surface area per unit of weight, so the wind will be able to move it farther.
That's why except for relatively close range shots, bows were used to rain arrows down on a specific area, best described as trying to hit a 10 ft x 10ft square anywhere from 50-150 yards out...It's also why being on a castle wall really increased your range.
Bows did have two things going for them, reusable ammo made it much less expensive to have troops train, and second, you can get your own visual feedback from where your shots are going with a bow. With a rifle, if you miss the target, you get no data on where or how you missed.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/bp/20040309a
important bits
Question: I have used both bows and .22-caliber handguns, and I want to know if the creators of this system have ever shot either one. You've given the bow a range increment of 40 feet, when a .22 has only a 20-foot range increment. Are you people crazy?
Response (in part): If we were to model just how a given weapon's accuracy falls off throughout its maximum range, the mechanics would not only be much more complicated, but also probably different for each type of weapon.
The result of this abstraction is that sometimes a game effect doesn't precisely match your expectations of reality. For example, a .22-caliber pistol may be more accurate than a bow at 30 feet in real life, but in the game the pistol has taken its first range penalty while the bow hasn't. In both real life and the game, however, the bow turns out to be much more accurate at 200 feet.
All that said, I'm somewhat surprised that you find a standard, non-match-grade .22-caliber pistol more accurate than a compound bow beyond a very short range. We each have our different experiences in life, I guess.
It was the italiced part I was asked about, as an owner of both a compound bow and .22 pistols
Ill go into my thinking, but woudl appreciate any thoughts you all ahve on the subject
My first thought is, no, i'd count on the 22 pistol delivering more hits at all ranges. Take a look at olympic level archery, the target is not terribly far away nor terribly small (expecially when compared to say, biathalon targets) but the accuracy of pistols and bows at shorter range is somewhat comparable.
However, simply due to the law of gravity, and an arrow's much slower speed, you don't have to get very far out in terms of yardage to have relatively long flight time, so you have to correct much sooner and much more for distance. The fact is when you talk about midevil armies slinging arrows and xbow bolts at eachother from around 100 yards, they weren't selecting individual targets, they were firing en-mass at the general vicinity of a group of enemies.
For one, the flight time is such that these archers were aiming there weapons twenty feet above the target area, if not more. It is pretty hard to target the head of your opponent, when to do so you have to 'hold over' 20 feet, it makes it hard to tell if you are holding over exactly 20 feet, or 22 (a clean miss) or 18 (a wounding shot, maybe a miss) and that is if you do everything else perferct.
Two, to further complicate issues, a target at 80 yards and a target at 90 yards are going to require as different a holdover, due to the pull of gravity, as a faster bullet is going to require at 300 vs 400 yards. Hence, a small mistake in your range estimation is gonig to result in your shot hititng a lot different spot than expected.
Third, and relatively minor, a longer flight time is going to allow for wind to have longer to push the projectile around, and as an arrow is less dense than a lead bullet, you ahve more surface area per unit of weight, so the wind will be able to move it farther.
That's why except for relatively close range shots, bows were used to rain arrows down on a specific area, best described as trying to hit a 10 ft x 10ft square anywhere from 50-150 yards out...It's also why being on a castle wall really increased your range.
Bows did have two things going for them, reusable ammo made it much less expensive to have troops train, and second, you can get your own visual feedback from where your shots are going with a bow. With a rifle, if you miss the target, you get no data on where or how you missed.
