>game has bows
>they require dexterity instead of strength
>they are presented as weapons for women and physically weak men
Almost every fricking time.
>game has bows. >they require dexterity instead of strength
>game has bows
>they require dexterity instead of strength
>they are presented as weapons for women and physically weak men
Almost every fricking time.
>they are presented as weapons for women and physically weak men
just like in real life, then
Archers especially longbow archers were huge mfs though
The French won the 100 Years War. Soon after the longbow was replaced by muskets. No idea why anglos meme their longbows so much.
frenchoids seethed and raged for centuries about the english bowmen
We're not the ones making a Agincourt movie every decade
Funny how nations that lost wars keep making movies in which they won afterwards
Imagine taking 100 years to win a war
> fat wienered chad peasant BTFO's French inbred royal nonce with a longbow
> *whoosh*
> "OUI OUI SACRE BLEU ARRRRGHHH MY THROAT!"
> Sir Noncealot of the bent table falls off his horse into the mud where he dies
> Fat wienered peasant shags half the local women before going back home to Jolly England
>*dies of dysentery*
>ACK!
that's not what happened though was it? the lightly armored bri'ish simply clubbed the the heavily armored french nobles over the head while they were drowning in the mud
After they ran out of arrows, yes
And at Agincourt the French knights mostly advanced on foot (at Crécy 50 years earlier they did these failed cav charges)
Also fun fact, the English got the idea of portable sharpened stakes from the Turks at Nicopolis.
haha yeah somebody else also was inspired by turks and portable sharpened stakes around 50 years later
100 years war was half the English winning ridiculous battles against the French with incompetent leadership, and half the English having incompetent leadership and just giving up on holding France due to being more concerned with what was happening in England.
As far as military prowess goes, the English did far better. The triumph of the yeoman (middle class) over the knights (upper class) is also a big theme in England where Anglos and Welsh hate the Normans, and this carried over into the US with Anglos seeing it as the revival of an Anglo-Saxon ruled nation (until the union took away state sovereignty and the Irish brought in swarthies due to being used as urban voting weapons by israelites). Thats why it is popular in the minds of so many.
France didnt really win any impressive battles. There were some bloody slogs where both performed well, and some where the French with every advantage won. Poitiers, Crecy and Agincourt stand out because the French had every advantage and lost.
Is this the history revisionism they serve you in mandatory indoctrina- I mean, education nowadays? Lol.
they don't even care to teach this in america
that's how little you matter
They don't teach anything in america.
holocaust class and apologize to blacks is still mandated
>some where the French with every advantage won
Not French nor English but iirc at Agincourt the English King was actually present on the field unlike the French one and the French were disunited
So the advantage was on the English side despite raw numbers
>unlike the French one
Uh yeah he was literally insane
>And the French were disunited
Something people seem to ignore despite the english constantly playing the french against each other
I don't think the english would have been able to hold french lands for so long without burgundian support
> ass mad froggy in the thread
Lmao you had a king who literally believed he was made of glass and ordered peasant boys to be drowned in rivers for not fufilling divine prophecies do you expect to win?
You're half right, but the Union was actually comprised of the yeomen and the lower classes. In the wake of the English Civil War, most of the South was made up of Royalists, and the North were the Cromwellians. There was even the Battle of the Severn, part of the English Civil War, that was fought on American soil. The South was largely aristocratic, taking the bulk of its population from the Scots and Royalists that fled after the war went south.
>the french
>winning a war
>No idea why anglos meme their longbows so much
Because they caused the French incredible amounts of seethe. To this day making a V with your index and middle fingers can still constitute an insult in Britain. This is because it was used as a taunt against the French centuries ago since those are the fingers you draw a bow string back with. British prisoners would have those fingers cut off by the French so they couldn't fire a bow again.
>french show mercy to PoWs by merely cutting their fingers instead of executing them
>anglos interpret this as a sign of butthurt and take pride in it
lmao
maybe they should have given you the basil treatment then
Mutilating PoWs is not showing mercy you froggy bastard.
>This is because it was used as a taunt against the French centuries ago since those are the fingers you draw a bow string back with. British prisoners would have those fingers cut off by the French so they couldn't fire a bow again.
Sounds fun, but also like a bullshit myth.
That's a myth
We don't even know what archers of that time exactly wore or how they fired their arrows (in volleys like in films or individually) etc.
And the oldest bows found were from Tudor times
Its because of Agincourt, its the longbow that is attributed to the English defeating the French in the battle there despite being greatly outnumbered.
In reality, it was one part of it, the battlefield being muddy and bogging down horses was a big factor, the French couldn't do what they did at Patay and Pontvallain and neutralize the longbowmen with cavalry charges.
As to early firearms replacing the longbow, that is easy enough to explain too, it takes significantly smaller amount of time to teach someone to use a musket vs the years of training needed to be viable with a longbow.
>french
>chad
Pick one
And yet at Agincourt the French got dabbed on by longbow Chads
Archers were jacked and had to be able to draw a 200lb bow with one arm
>Anon doesn't know powerful bows required immense upper body strength
Is that a fish person?
Bows require strength, specially traditional ones.
Why would any moron sincerely take sides in French/English wars? It was always just poncy aristocrats dick measuring in the weakest bloodline feuding ever known.
Based Patay enjoyer
Imagine watching these battles from the sidelines in horror that you might remain fr*nch if the good guys lose
Funnily enough, the fact that the Angloid lost is the exact reason as to why they're not considering French, since the hundred years war happened because the most of the "English" nobility were from French decent and therefore saw themselves as the right heirs of the French Crown but historylet don't know that.
The English switched the dominant court language to English before the end of the 100 years war. Also, the English court was the rightful heir to most of France due to diplomatic marriages. The English owned more of France than the French did.
In fairness though its because the israelites and knights templar/masons murdered the entire Capetian dynasty because Philip IV kicked the israelites out and suppressed the templars (and the first thing his successor did was let the israelites back in, though they killed him shortly after anyway). England kicked the israelites out at around the same time, but its possible that a likely bastard (John of Gaunt, who famously looked nothing like Edward III, and who Edward III basically ignored, letting him grow up in Belgium [Gaunt is Anglicised Ghent]). This probable bastard born of adultery then had a israeliteess mistress from Spain, and modern "British" yids like Alan Sugar and Danny Dyer claim lineage to him. John of Gaunt's son Henry IV would inherit the English throne half way through the 100 years war after Richard II died heirless.
So basically the israelites killed the French monarchy and then quite possibly became the English monarchy.
>In fairness though its because the israelites
>The English owned more of France than the French did.
It's also worth remembering that the Plantagenet/Angevin (aka the most powerful "English" familly) are all originating from From Anjou in France and basically were on the throne of England from the Norman invasion up until the
end of the War of the Roses.
My favourite part about the Battle of Agincourt is that the English and French royal heralds watched the battle from a nearby hill and agreed that the English won. They then set about deciding what to call the battle. You just don’t get that kind of civility in warfare anymore.
it's even more civil these days as they have decided who is going to die in advance and in what cinematic circumstances
I promise that your pussy ass would not even be able to draw a 60lb bow, much less a 100+lb bow.
>be french
>drown in mud
tale as old as time
could women have used smaller bows? i get they couldn't have used a longbow, but surely they could handle a smaller one, right?
women arent exactly build for archery but sure you could give them short bows that dont have a high draw weight
wow some random roastie at a renfest who has clearly never even held a bow before. good example.
>> random roastie
>> he doesnt know his pornstars
You gay arent you?
b***h is lucky she didn't tear her tit off and flay her arm.
wasn't that strong of a bow by the looks of it, maybe 20 lb
you can get a tit guard
alternatively, we must selectively breed women to be perfectly flat so they can use bows better
holy shit she's fricking perfect
or you just amputate a tit Amazon style
No one did that.
Bows are for women/the weak because it was seen as a cowardly weapon. Same with poison. Thats why paris killing achilles using a bow with a poison arrow was seen as a really cowardly way to kill someone.
>dex instead of str
because it make sense for game design. If STR affected bows you could have full armor bow users. Sure, you could have some more complicated system to balance it, but making it scale of DEX makes it easier.
because amazons didnt exist
>shittiest class in Disgaea
Making their damage output an average of ATK and HIT was a mistake. Rangers / Gun users have it simply better with pure HIT stack.
Follow up attack evility more than makes up for that starting in 5.
Never bothered playing past the second one, it was just more of the same shit. I only bothered doing the post game content for Hour of Darkness, anyway.
Dex bros we can't draw!
Is he doing it wrong on purpose
You'd be surprised how much strength is required to draw a bow
Sure but with proper technique he could get it half way
he's a ricecel
It looks extremely hard
no, that's actually how you draw those types of bows, they're extremely difficult, iirc that guy in the video has lots of bow videos
literally wrong
I think he is trying to pull a European bow with their gay jap over the head technique.
Longbowmen do a similar thing
No they don't. That guy's right, he's doing it the wrong way.
?t=13
?t=126
Joe Gibbs starts over his head and draws down.
You're not doing yourself any favors by posting this. You're only proving my point.
Im not the other person you were talking too, my only point with that video was that English archers drew overhead and down. The asian guy is using bows that are far too heavy for him so his technique is exaggerated, its also likely he's used to more asian styles of archery where they start with both hands above their head.
There is no such thing as a "shot bow", only recurve bows and those have similar draw weights as regular bows. The point of them is just to be smaller so they can be used on horseback, not to be weaker.
no one who has ever picked up a bow in their life is going to know how to use it, let alone hit the target, moron.
t. did archery as a teen
We did it in highschool gym class and most of us were hitting the targets pretty quickly. Our instructor was good though and it was grade 12 gym class so only the athletic kids were still taking it.
Seconding
i've used a bow exactly once in my life and i hit the target immediately
bows are extremely simple to use
coincidentally there were a bunch of girls there too and none of them could hit the target
and by girls i mean adult women, not little girls
They’re pretty fricking intuitive anon. Draw arrow, pull back string, shoot. It’s not rocket science.
Archery is one of the few sports where women are very close to men.
Yes, thanks to easy to draw compound bows. In a medieval battle scenario, you are required to pull over hundred pounds several hundred times - a task that only men who were specifically trained could accomplish.
>easy to draw compound bows.
compound bows are easy to hold drawn, the draw itself is still hard.
What's the draw weight used by female sport archers? It's gotta be quite low.
35-45lbs for women, 45-55lbs for men.
>typical draw weight for small cavalry bows in the steppe was 70lbs
>longbow around 100lbs
>multiply that with a few hundred times in a battle
yeah, I don't see women and dexgays using bows
Also
>The draw weight of an ordinary medieval war bow is estimated to have been max 80-110 pounds, but the draw weight of few individual surviving bows has been as high as whopping 185 pounds.
If anything they have it backwards on those. Dexgays should be swords because they require reflexes and coordination. Strengthgays would be bows because of the draw weight and endurance required to steady your aim and repeatedly draw
>steady your aim
Not required for bowgays
Aparently the archers were rotated but in dire cincumstances they were expected to give all their had and keep shooting until they had no arrows left. This happened mostly on sieges. On battlefields a few arrow volleys was enough to cripple the enemy or for the enemy to get into meele range of your meele troops, so no shooting allies in the crossfire.
>On battlefields a few arrow volleys was enough
[citation needed]
Sounds pretty fricking stupid
>ah, the enemy formation!
>shoot a few arrows at them!
>alright chaps, that's enough, I'm sure they are crippled now, engage in melee combat!
>moron can't differentiate a volley and an arrow
The absolute state.
>did you just assume that every archer was firing a few arrows, when I said "volley", implying that they all fire just one arrow together?
>heh... looks like I won this argument...
Thanks for trying to participate in a discussion. You may try again when you grow up.
So this... is the power... of american education... woah!
The power to assume that women and dexgays can draw a bow often enough in a battle scenario. Probably played too much American D&D and started to believe in shit like "leather armor" or "mail is better against blunt weapons than plate" too.
>moron unable to realize that you wouldn't just shoot a few volleys, but would keep shooting until there is nothing left
Where did you learn about medieval battles? American school system? Third worlder?
>0 reading skills
Anon, what I was saying that they fired volleys until the enemy was in range of the meele units. Archer formations usually were not at range with each other so they couldn't just shoot each other. If the battle closes to a meele stance, then archers wouldn't have much to do except harass any formation trying to flank. They were made to soften and harass formations. A few docen volleys would be the most what they would shot during an open battle and they had time to recover from each shot.
On sieges they were expected to shot continuely if they lacked the numbers to rotate. Sieges were prolonged so this was also unlikely and mostly done when the enemy was making an advance and tried to climb the walls with siege towers, ladders or trying to open break the gates. At some point just throwing rocks is more viable than shooting arrows though.
>Anon, what I was saying that they fired volleys until the enemy was in range of the meele units
And how many volleys do you think they would fire?
>A few docen volleys
Exactly. Not just a few, but a few dozen. Do you have any idea what a tiring task it is to draw a 100lbs bow 50 times?
The point I made was about how women lack the strength to accomplish this. You need well-trained, strong men. What the hell are you even arguing against?
I don't think he was arguing against you, just adding some to it, but
>In a medieval battle scenario, you are required to pull over hundred pounds several hundred times
>several hundred times
>Do you have any idea what a tiring task it is to draw a 100lbs bow 50 times?
>50 times
come on.
I merely adopted his viewpoint. Even if the amount of arrows shot depended on scenario and battle, you still require strong men to wield bows, that was the entire point. This is an argument about required strength.
I was telling you that archers were rotated or had some time to recover, I was telling you that archers were not expected to shoot a hundred arrows without stop. Somehow, along the line, you saw this as an argument against you instead of adding to yours with a small correction.
Well then I misunderstood what you were trying to say, because I don't care about semantics. My point still stands - wielding a bow in battle requires massive strength.
arrow volleys are a hollywood product. they were rarely used on european battlefields (the chinese did it with crossbows). volley firing wasn't a widespread technique until the musket. the reason for doing it is that powder creates a blinding smoke, so it was necessary for everyone to fire at once and reload while the smoke was clearing. it was the reason why "drilling" was instituted, to train troops to move and act in unison, which was a stricter standard than the simple formations of medieval warfare. after smokeless gunpowder was invented, drilling became a largely ceremonial and psychological method of instruction rather than for actual combat.
Whats the deal with the sock hood? Why is it so long?
It's to trap/preserve heat
that's a Gugel, which much later became the Chaperon by putting it on backwards. it was basically the baseball cap in medieval times
for comparison, wearing the Gugel inside out and making it a Chaperon
Of course they could, but the problems with women in war are worse in ye olden times than they are today. Their draw power would be exceptionally lower and the odds of piercing mail would be tiny. Plus they likely wouldn't be living lives where they maintained the strength needed to keep drawing over and over until they got fatigued.
>women arent exactly build for archery
>could women have used smaller bows? i get they couldn't have used a longbow, but surely they could handle a smaller one, right?
why can't chuds into history?
The irony is so thick it could be cut with a knife
It's insane how little force you get out of jap bows vs european ones
t. hemagay
They use 25 pound bows for kyuudou.
>30 pound meme japaweeb bow
>frogBlack person
>weeb Black person
and what is the draw weight on those bows?
longbows were up to 180 lbs with the lowest recovered from the english ship Mary Rose estimated to be about 100lbs
Fricking moron.
Women would be more effective with crossbows with a cranking mechanism for loading.
Even then they'll be slow to crank compared to men.
Holding a crossbow would be too much for them
Nah, but they won't be doing that all day.
>never drew her sword in anger
>zero evidence of her doing anything other than holding a banner
She was a mascot, and there is no proof to suggest otherwise.
Women would be more effective with guns, yet they're still useless
The hussites actually used women and children in their war wagons with primitive firearms to great effect
even small kids can use bows.
source: was small kid once and used bows
Yeah a thirty pound bow training bow. Women can't use war bows with 120 pound draws.
Are most bows in video games war bows or just short bows?
Short bows are war bows, and even harder to draw
The only usable short bows are recurves which are lower draw weights
LOL, lmao.
Recurved bow are 100 pounds. You are probably mistaken them with modern bows made for sport.
They are the same draw as an English longbow.
>drawing 100 lb bow on horseback 600 times
Based moron
Anon, the army most well know for their recurved bows were the Mongols, their horse archer's bows were at least 70 pounds of draw and some specimens of over 100 pounds were found. No matter how you put it, 70 pounds are not "easy" to draw, let alone 100. There is no wonder why their horse archers were a bane to anyone they were used on.
>was small kid once
moron. Pick a more believable story next time
Many games have strength requirements for their bows, but dexterity to hit and/or do damage, and that's the sensible solution. Bows have a maximum draw length, that's what you need strength for. When you can draw the bow reliable, then all there is to actually hitting and hitting better to do more damage is dexterity, hand-eye-coordination, perception or whatever stat that game uses. Adding more strength does nothing except potentially breaking the bow. You cannot put more strength into your shot. That's not how they work.
These threads are just bait and nonsense anyway.
More strenght allows you to keep the bow drawn longer, giving you more time to aim an accurate shot.
You are not supposed to draw the bow for a long time. It tires you out incredibly fast. It's also such a small part of accurately aligning your shot with your vision and instincts that it hardly matters when it comes to conceptualizing it into video game stats.
None of you homosexuals ever did any archery.
>It tires you out incredibly fast
Unless you have high STR
Point proven, thanks moron lmao
Do some archery, it's a fun hobby. Maybe picking up another hobby results in you making less stupid pointless threads.
No, I'm not an effeminate man or a woman. My hobby is HEMA because I'm a man.
Then make a HEMA thread instead of something that you have no idea about how it works.
I didn't make the thread. If I did, I would've said MY point was proven. I'm just rustlin ur jimjims bud
>not supposed to draw the bow for a long time
unless you're japanese
Using weak bows for penetrating paper is not comparable to men fighting steel titans
I know, I agree with you
The Samurai's knock-off lamellar armor was actually very durable. Not for nothing, the Samurai defeated the vastly superior Mongolian army twice in hand to hand combat.
Mongols didn't even get to Japan
The Japanese have always attributed their victory to storms that wrecked the Mongol fleets during both attempted invasions in 1274 and 1281.
>prepare to sail to Japan to invade
>Ships get blown off course by kamikaze tsunami
>this counts as the Samurai defeating the Mongols
We literally had a game about the history of that a few years ago. Minus the Korean involvement, but you can't sell that in a modern game. It would be like making ol funny mustache a good guy.
The typhoons never actually destroyed the entire fleet. The Japanese still had to fight a massive amount of Mongols and managed to fight them off. They were outnumbered and still won.
>rest of the world
>make big and strong bows for range and power
>make short but very strong bows for horse riding
>Japan
>make long and weak bow for both horse riding and infantry
Why most of the thing they do make no sense!?
Being stuck on a tiny island does that to mothafricka. Look at Britain - they weren't even particularly isolated and they still came out moronic and evil.
Britain went full on villain because the men were stuck on an island full of British women
Lel, true I guess.
I've heard those weird ass weeb bows shot stronger than their weight class but I doubt they would be that strong compared to western bows. Most of Japan's soldiers had no real armor to speak off, no shields also, so I guess they didn't need to be stronger to kill rice farmers.
The British (English in particular) were the historical good guys, though. They invented Empiricism and Conservatism. Meanwhile the continentals created Rationalism and Leftism.
What have British conservatives ever conserved though?
John Money was Anglo.
John Money was from New Zealand
The British Conservative Party is not conservative.
>John Money was from New Zealand
Now, who populates New Zealand? I mean, he looks nothing like Maori nor a tiny flightless bird to me.
John Money was an acolyte of German and French philosophers. There would be no trannies if not for Descartes, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, or Kant. German/French Rationalism is what's destroying our society. We gave up our Empiricist roots because muh racism muh sexism. Communism and Fascism are both descended from the same rotten French tree.
If the English were allowed to genocide the French (and/or the Germans), we would be living in a utopia right now.
at least Germany also had based Nietzsche dabbing on christjews
England wouldn't exist without the French
Au contraire, English history for the past 900 years has been the steady struggle of the English trying to wrest back control of their lands from the Norman invaders.
>Wrestle back control from the vikings
>Normans conquer you
>Wrestle back control from the normans
>(now)
Please put us out of our misery
>France
>schools
>democracy
>human rights
>humanism
>enlightement
>beautiful chicks
>England
>acid attacks
>ppl are ugly AF and get burnt by the sun if they leave their house, cursed by god to roam at night and suck the blood out of humans
thou mad twat?
>France
>democracy
>human rights
wtf i hate france now
>France
Democracy
>England
Republicanism
>France
Guilty until proven innocent
>England
Innocent until proven guilty
>France
I think therefore I am
>England
It is what it is
>France
Cringe
>England
Based
All the things you listed for France are fricking horrible except for "beautiful women," and I think French chicks are overrated.
What people dont realise is that the British Empire was half English and half israelite-Norman-Scot-Gael.
The English went around ending slavery, building railways, liberating Christian nations, building churches, schools and hospitals, and digging up, cataloguing and preserving essentially every historical artifact of note.
The israelite-Normans-Gaels went around enslaving, extorting, peddling drugs and creating international banks that utilised criminal muscle which still exist today.
The Scots were involved in both the good and the bad.
... The English, as in actual Anglo-Saxons really do come off as the lawful/good eccentric of history. The Norman/Jew/Gael however? The polar opposite.
longer
> keeping the bow drawn longer
I take it you have never fired a bow in your life
Skipping around the fact that you don't want to keep your bow drawn longer, you'd be looking more at Stamina than Strength anyway.
this moron doesnt even know the difference between traditional and modern archery. why the frick did you even comment? just to be made fun of?
>Modern archery
lmao
yes. ever seen somebody shoot a traditional recurve vs a modern compound? it isnt the same in the least.
STR requirement, DEX scalling
Easy solution.
>Literally not even touching the arrow
>These threads are just bait and nonsense anyway.
then why do you even enter and post in it you no-fun re-
>random unrelated manly elf pic
ah, okay, I understand now
yeah its good old trope
bow is for the weak
a sword/axe in each hand is somehow fast
two handed weapon is somehow slow
would be cool if that changed a little bit but it's so ingrained in video games and movies that its become an evidence for everyone
Reminds me of player in my game who was confused why a greatsword is heavier than a great axe in the equipment stats. One is mostly a wooden handle and the other is mostly metal. Literal skyrim tier logic, just because they are balanced to handle differently doesn't mean the axe isn't lighter.
The great axe head is definitively heavier than the great swords' blade and the large wood handle would be hefty as well
you know actual greatswords aren't like heckin based guts right?
The balance of a greatsword would make it feel lighter than the greataxe though. If you translate it to game terms the greatsword would recover from swings faster and the greataxe would do more damage.
It should be both
Composite bows are easily used.
The game assumes the fricking character is already strong enough to draw it back, the dex stat is required for better aim you fricking absolute moron. If your understanding levels are so low, you're better off playing fall guys and fortnite, mouthbreather.
If the game assumes you're already trained and strong enough for a warbow, why doesn't it assume that you can also aim with it?
Bows should have a STR requirement based on size but damage should scale with DEX and LCK
Damage scales with str to a maximum limit, accuracy scales with dex
You cannot put more strength into the same bow. It does nothing. That's not how they work.
You don't need to fully draw it 100% of the time
Sure, but you cannot put more strength into either than the maximum draw length. Everyone trains with their bow drawing it to its full extent. That's the strength requirement. Everything else is dexterity.
That is what Angband (1992) and most latter Angband variants do. Bow damage is based on STR, but accuracy is based on DEX. DEX is still more relevant for melee characters than ranged characters since it can give free attacks with light melee weapons.
Have you played Sil? I've heard it's good but haven't tried it yet.
Not him but sil is too much of a mess. It's like the <insert bird here>'s eye of nethack. Plus *bands suck in the first place.
I like Sil-Q fork. It doesn't solve all of Angband's inherent problems that make me understand people like
but it does enough to feel less tedious than most of *bands.
what do you think about the portrayal of archery in Kingdom Come Deliverance?
Not OP but it's pretty shit. Archery is far easier in real life even with 0 experience. Also a lot more deadly (though useless against good armor) but that's another issue.
useless? tell that to the dead french knights at the fields of agincourt
More of them died to their own horses than the bows
I've definitely seen worse portrayals of archery.
I think my favorite is Mount & Blade. I used to do traditional archery and there was a certain zen aspect to it where if you try too hard to hit the target you wind up doing worse than if you let your muscle memory handle things. The way the reticle narrows down and then expands after a little bit simulates this a bit since you can think about it representing the character fidgeting around and hurting their accuracy.
Also, the idea of shooting moving logs in a river makes me uncomfortable. Arrows are expensive and and you're basically losing every single arrow you fire.
Look Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that the dex requirement is because of the fact that you have to use proper technique and aim the bow. Shot placement would be considered dexterity too.
Unga bunga str can swing a club around with little dex, but when it comes to a bow, its a little different.
With no dex, the user would be slow to ready and miss the target. Thats my argument for why bows are dex weapons. Its the same thing with firearms.
Shot placement is clearly driven by Perception, how fast can you knock and loose an arrow by Dexterity and the stamina cost to do so lessened with higher Strength and better skill/training (if the strength is too low it simply requires too much stamina to operate to the point where you can't use it).
So bow damage should be hard-capped and the only thing that should be uncapped is fire rate?
>assume that the dex requirement is because of the fact that you have to use proper technique and aim the bow. Shot placement would be considered dexterity too.
Nah, it's because Hollywood wanted to make women warriors a thing but having them use melee weapons would suspend even the normalgays' disbelief, so they picked the bow as the "girl weapon" because most people don't have any idea about how much strength they require to use. That made the bow the "counterpart" to melee weapons in most media, creating the idea that you can pick one or the other depending on whether you specialized in strength or "skill".
It's weird, normally I fricking despise realism gays and realism in general but this is the one thing over the years that since it was brought to my attention bothers me. Like one of, if not the only one that drives me kinda nuts.
This isn't realistic either but I like how Skyrim Redone (an overhaul mod) kinda did it. Its been a while but the idea it gave me;
>Short bows are dex
>Large bows are str
>crossbows are int
Don't care for realism as fighting in real life isn't really fun. But it would be neat for fantasy settings to have a diverse set of bow users.
Balancing is more important than realism.
>longbows
>strongest bow type with broken stats
>they have armor piercing capability
>in reality they were mogged by almost every type of recurve/composite bow
fricking angloids you ruined medieval 2
Any of you gays actually use bows. I broke my collarbone when I was 20 and it never healed right but I have always been fascinated with them but I am worried that I won’t be able to pull back the drawstring. Do they have anything to help with my arm?
Why is Ganker always obsessed with realism in vidya? Is this a westacuck thing?
It's a faux realism and strength-homosexualry thing (any of these threads are always aimed at baiting dexgays). Strength-gays are the most thin-skinned and petty homosexuals on this website.
>1 thread
>oH My goD wHy aRe yOu sO oBssEseD
Nobody is obssesed, it's literally just an observation about a video game trope
>>1 thread
newbie.
>women
>bows
Women weren't fighting wars dipshit
>underage moron has never heard of Joan of Arc
one murdersexual does not equate to all women
Hope you're not being serious zoom zoom
She would be helping with artillery at most. I like Joan as much as the next man, but no one will take her tale seriously if you exaggerate it.
>liking a completely fabricated fantasy cheerleader figure
But enough about King Arthur.
Let's talk about Jeanne Chadark
Looking a little lighter than she should be there.
We call them stacy around here, dear guest of reddit.
The real Jeadde D'Arc was probably sitting in a tent during the battles.
>Reddit
Go back
Jeanice De'Arc, actually.
Almost every fricking time.
Almost.
Bows certainly have a strength minimum to use, but effectiveness with a bow is absolutely a dex thing. Ideally, strength affects how many shots you can take in a turn, while dex affects how accurate you are and your ability to hit moving targets.
I practice archery from time to time. No a woman isn't going to be good with a 45lbs+ hunting bow, and hardly any modern men can use a long bow as originally intended.
But some classic bows like Hungarian horse archery ones could be used by a woman.
It's more with bows it's easier to suspend belief. It's hard to picture a woman using raw strength to swing a giant sword, but bows even the 150lbs draw one's still look dainty.
>It's hard to picture a woman using raw strength to swing a giant sword
this is another thing historical media keep getting wrong: overestimating the mass of swords
zweihanders, among the heaviest practical swords you would ever find, were rarely above 2kg in mass
a standard longsword would be 1kg and a roman era gladius would be 0.7kg
Another thing they all get wrong is armor weight and mobility.
Armour in general really
Historical fiction overrates swords in general. Spears and pikes were fricking OP in warfare from dawn on man until the 17th century.
What weapons should women use in a fantasy setting?
Spears, just like the incels
charisma, stealth and trickery
crossbows can be used by anyone
women wouldnt be able to reload
windlasses for lasses
>20 lb bow for noodle arms
They'll also have 1/3 the fire rate of a diseased starved peasant male
poison
magic
breasts
magic, unless it's INT based
otherwise just having sex with the enemy to keep them busy / get information or whatever
Realistically: daggers, poisons, bowstaff, tonfa...pretty much anything that required no strength but can still hurt.
Bo already means staff. Saying bo staff is like saying staff staff.
ATM machine is the correct name
Magic just like they do irl
Daggers, magic, and guns if applicable (but only if they're white tomboys)
None, they are support characters.
longsword and spears
good reach and can be used with both hands
Archery is a meme.
women cant even beat men in video games and you morons think they could do it in a physical fight
No. The argument is to what maintains immersion as to women using high strength weaponry in fantasy settings.
Is there a single thing women can beat men at? I would have said destroying society and being prostitutes, but troons and gays have them beat there too
Childbearing, that's literally and unironically it.
It's the Greater Male Variability Theory. Women (except in physicality) tend to cluster around the middle of competency when it comes to something. Men make up both extremes in larger proportion.
Put more simply, women are more likely to cluster around 90 - 100 IQ while men cluster around 75 - 90 and 110 - 130 IQ. You're far less likely to find a moronic woman than a moronic man, but you're also far less likely to find a competent woman than a competent man.
>Men make up both extremes in larger proportion.
This is actually wrong when it comes to IQ, where the theory is usually applied. Adult men are on average smarter than adult women. The hypothesis is a made up cope to try to justify gender equality, when in reality the average woman is worse than the average man at everything not directly related to having babies.
And israeli scientists are working very hard to make men better at birth then women as we speak
Tried posting this with the source image twice but it keeps deleting my post somehow. The strongest females (elite level athletes) have weaker grip strength than the average male. The weakest male is at the level of the average female. So even those stick predditors using a machine to open their onions for them are about the same as the average woman.
I have that image
>That one dot way the frick up there
>that one ~35yo guy who is barely stronger than kids and grandmas
Get a grip, man
>Leave 'em to me bro, you focus on pumping those IQ scores!
>what do you mean I have to let go of the past?
Thanks fren
So what you're saying is that getting a handjob from a dude is better.
Deathgrips ruin faps
Why trust another person to jack you off when you can do it yourself?
Blowjobs -absolutely. Handjobs - mostly.
Sounds like you speak from experience.
Another thing stemming from those kinds of fudged statistics is the myth that women are "better multitaskers" when the truth was simply that women were dogshit at focusing on one thing for any period of time. They were better off moving between multiple tasks, not better at it; the average man is both more capable at switching between tasks AND being able to laser focus on a single task for a long amount of time.
That's cool anon, got a source for it so I can own the ebin libs.
women have inflated IQ scores since they have higher field of vision, which helps with some tests
peripheral vision*
That's a new one, can I see the study please.
sry, can't find it. I've heard about it on Edward Dutton's livestream once and he had some studies to back his claims. Maybe it's in one of his videos on IQ.
>It's the Greater Male Variability Theory. Women (except in physicality) tend to cluster around the middle of competency when it comes to something. Men make up both extremes in larger proportion.
this is a false meme made up by feminists to make it seem like women are the reasonable sex
the truth is that men and women have the exact same IQ curve, the average for women is just 5-10 points lower
the curve is exactly the same shape
has anyone actually used an english longbow here? Ive only used cuckpound bows in college to impress girls
Thoughts on archery in his game?
It's dogshit. Aiming this shit on PC without a crosshair is more difficult than shooting something irl
They probably removed the crosshair for balance reasons, not for historical accuracy
Longbows are broken in KC:D and shouldn't be present in Bohemia in the first place.
Correct, in early versions there was a crosshair (still enableable in configs, which I recommend), and bows used to be very strong but were nerfed to being basically useless.
Took some time getting used to but I figured it eventually. Shame I could only take out one or two guys before the entire group was on my ass.
They require and level strength as well as agility, horse archery also good + hunting
The englishmen were lucky that every great Khan died before they could reach Western Europe and teach those anglo gays how to be a real archer
>implying the longbow at Agincourt didn't spell the end for cavalry being the be all and end all in late medieval warfare
A muddy hill did that
regular bows suck
now crossbows, those are based
BASED AND THIS
>game has bows but not crossbows
SHIT
>game has bows
>game has crossbows
>game doesn't have handgonnes or bombs
Fake history
>you will never be a hand crank chad
sad
Ranged players are pussies, cowards, and dare I say it? Bakas. So yes, bows are portrayed exactly how they should be.
>women in combat
i can't come up with anything reliable
>bows
hard to maintain a decent fire rate, plus they would have to use low draw weight bows with reduced damage, range and penetration
>crossbows
hard to reload, heavy crossbows would be impossible to reload
>spear+shield walls
would fail to stand their ground against the momentum and mass of an enemy charge
i suppose you could train them as horserider scouts, or in times of crisis use them in siege defense assistance (there's a one-time precedent of spartan women doing this)
Just send them to the enemy side so they can sow chaos. There is a chance they betray your secrets to the enemy however, so it's still a risk
Horseriding, especailly for speed, is very demanding and isn't something you want women to do. Not only do you need strength and stamina to keep going, you also need to be able to ride for days on end without sleep and with little to no food and water.
>muh supah longbow made from yew folded a thousand times
literally worse than weebs at this point
>appears a million years earlier than bows
>only falls into disuse a 100 years earlier than the bow
nothing personnel, kid
Modern bows don't require a lot of strength so our perspective of them now has bled into the past
>chud gets impaled on a sword by a woman
"Heh, nice try but I don't feel anything because you don't have a peni-ACK"
and then everyone clapped
>woman struggles to lift sword off ground, let alone swing it
>Chad decapitates her in one swift motion
Ftfy
I’m always impressed with how technology improves. Like the ways man has developed technology to fight in various civilizations is amazing.
I wonder if they made jokes to archers back in the day about having a deformed arm from jacking off
>Game has horse archer
>Devs have to reduce their combat abilities so they are not OP
>Blatantly overpowered strategy is balanced due to an extremely hard counter
Mongol weaknesses can't really be simulated by most games.
Plus the Mongol Empire couldn't have gotten much bigger. Not enough food for the giant horse armies in Central and Western Europe.
The biggest strength the Mongols had was the Feigned Retreat and how everyone kept falling for it until people who managed to escape battles alive wrote about it. Everyone learned how to deal with the Feigned Retreat and the Mongols started losing left and right. That's how the Christians and the Mamluks dealt with them easily.
Got a source on that? Because the source I'm looking at mentions multiple tactics used by the Mongols. Also the Mongol empire lasted more than a century and a half and some people actually fought them more than once so they knew about some Mongol tactics but lost again nevertheless.
>game has fire arrows
females cannot even participate in modern combat due to physical limitations
they cannot carry the necessary weight and/or maintain the march speed that is expected of them
the entrance prerequisites had to be massively reduced for females for "inclusion" or whatever and they are almost exclusively sent into non-combat roles
and that's not even touching the subject of their mental and psychological impotence
so if females cannot function as soldiers in an era where war has never ever been less physically demanding, why are we even humoring the possibility of them functioning in periods when combat actually demanded physical strength?
Dex is usually presented in RPG games as a different kind of strength, typically used for complicated weapons, like spears and shit (yes, the spear is literally the most simple weapon ever devised, so the irony is not lost on me)
It's mostly more of a weapon handling stat, which is why in good RPGs, dex weapons also scale in strength with dex.
Agility is usually separate from dexterity
If you want to make shit truer to life, all weapons would be strength weapons, and agility would affect technique, and skill (speed, critical hits)
What. I don't think I'ver ever seen a game where Spears specifically have dex based damage unlike other melee weapons.
Dark Souls does this. Spears, bows, daggers, and curved swords are considered DEX while clubs, axes, hammers, and most swords are STR.
>Based
England
Poland
Sweden (prior to Bernadotte)
Finland
Italy
Greece
America
Australia
Japan
Mongolia
Thailand
>Cringe
Germany
France
Sweden (post-Bernadotte)
Russia
Israel
New Zealand
China
Korea
Vietnam
>thailand
The Thai were the SEAsian equivalent of the Romans. They made everyone around them seethe even after they fractured apart. Modern Thailand is like modern Italy, except instead of becoming more incompetent at war they became more degenerate.
This but other way around and remove Sweden and specify North Korea.
Lots of irrelevant countries in that list.
A sword is more of a DEX weapon than a bow.
here's the muscles of Santa Claus as an archer
Welcome to the 21st century, peasant.
>game has bows
>it works like any other weapon, instead of having high critical hit damage (organ getting hit) and having low damage otherwise
Nobody cares
L+ratio+fpbp+ /thread + get + sage
>game has a woman protagonist
>actually has a skillset a woman could use
>focus on acrobatics, negating damage through trickery, poison and sneak attacks
>go to archery club one day for first time
>they fit you with a bow and choose a bow with a draw weight that would fit you
>outfitter take one look at me and gives me a 16lb bow
>feel insulted but it turns out later that was heavy for me
Am I just weak?
Yes and also the muscles used for a bow aren't trained by regular exercise
Is why the middle of my back was sore after? It was weird.
Anyways I stopped going because clubs apparently aren’t like my animes and I didn’t make friends.
>Anyways I stopped going because clubs apparently aren’t like my animes and I didn’t make friends.
they're exactly like that, just takes more than 5 minutes and maybe you shoudn't be a homosexual
Yes, your rotator cuff and lower trapezius are worked heavily with bow drawing. Most people never use these. The rotator cuff is for external rotation of your arms (bend your arms 90 degrees out in front of you, palms facing the ground, then rotate only at the elbow up to feel this) the trapezius is for scapular rotation (think squeezing a book between your shoulder blades or shrugging your shoulders)
Both these muscles are also extremely conducive to good posture, so if you need an excuse, bow training is a good one.
>bend your arms 90 degrees out in front of you, palms facing the ground, then rotate only at the elbow up to feel this
WTF DON'T DO THIS
Huh?
That's literally arm rotation, and you can directly work it with the facepull. The job of your rotator cuff is to stabilize the shoulder and allow the deltoid to shift into a better position. If it feels unnatural, it's because in modern life you rarely have a reason to use it. Image to clarify. This is a very important muscle for weightlifters who have to lock out weight overhead, and fighters. You might have seen someone using a cable machine across their body to train this as well. I know in the rocky movie it's shown in one of the training montages. You can see why it might be important for an archer when you realize the majority of the pull is external rotation.
Yes. If you want to improve, do these exercises
>chin ups, palms facing towards you
>barbell shoulder press
>facepulls at the end of every workout as a finisher. Look these up so you get the form correct. Athleanx has a video about it
depends, how old were you?
At the time 24
Hey man I’m really skinny
Do you guys even go to the gym
No, never been, I am skinny too. Was around 188 cm and 60kg when 20 yrs old and started with a 24 lb bow. Not much stronger, but had no issue with it and could easily switch to 37 lb later without much training.
>16lb draw strength at age 24
you now realize that this was prime warrior age for medieval soldiers and they would routinely draw 70-150lbs bows
And they started at 6 years old
If you can't draw a bow at age 24 as a man, you are exceptionally weak. I'm not saying you are weak for a man, I'm saying your body might be broken beyond repair. You have to actively work against your body to make it this weak.
I have this urge to train. I liked to work out at home with what I got, never went to a gym before 25, and when I first went, I was deadlifting 120kg on my first day. Nowadays, I do 180kg for reps and I'm still fricking weak compared to the people I meet there.
He likely could draw a much heavier bow however he gets a lighter one as his stamina is not built up and he likely wants to use it more than 3 times that day
He literally admitted that it was heavy for him tho
>feel insulted but it turns out later that was heavy for me
I mean, come the frick on. My 90lbs sisters could beat him up.
Yeah, and they knew their lot in life from a young age and trained at it from that age.
I doubt anon was planning on using a bow from age 7.
Shortbows
>Dex
Recurve bows
>Dex/Str
Longbow
>Str
Everyone in this thread is a misogynist
You too?
Ye, I’m a woman and I hate myself and other women too.
>I’m a woman
Not until you post breasts
You're the fattie from yesterday's thread.
>can't play video games
>can't play tabletop
>craves male attention, still refuses to simply make the first move
>can't fire a bow
What exactly can you do?
avatargayging is against the rules, newbie
If it's realistic they shouldn't be drafted, if she needed to kill someone she would stab them in the back or poison them, in fantasy weapon size doesn't matter
>Play game
>Woman archer is obsessed with muscles
That's because bows are a coward's weapon.
Imagine not carrying a spear/sword along with bow and arrows and fighting on horseback
Steppe-chads win again
>is that a heckin long stick, like that will stop m- ACK
What about rifles and sabers ?
I went under the assumption that we were rolling with the times when riflemen weren't used.
But if we go with riflemen being a thing, yes they mog everyone after.
>>they are presented as weapons for women and physically weak men
they are
very simple https://youtu.be/V93oxThgWd0
A much more in-depth explanation of the draw need for heavy weight bows.
redpill me on the war of the roses
>French king tried to take English lands (land in France, mind you)
>English king said bollocks to that and sailed a small army over
>Massively outnumbered English forces with a bunch of Norf FC gents turned the French knights into pincushions
>French suffer humiliating defeats at Crecy, Agincourt, etc
>War gets put on hold because of the arrival of the Black Plague (the first one, not the current one)
>War resumes later, the French have produced a tomboy and mange to retake their lost land from the English
>The Lancaster/York split widens because of the loss of the 100 years war
>Henry VI (Lancaster) is an actual babbling moron, basically the English version of Charles II of Spain
>Gets kidnapped and defeated
>His wife and her male """friend""" help restore Henry VI to the throne
>Edward IV (York) wins the first war, rules for until he dies at 40
>His young son, Edward V, is killed by his brother, Richard III, who was an incompetent who gets fricking heemed by Henry VII
>Henry VII fuses the two houses, York and Lancaster, and creates a new house - Tudor
>His son Henry VIII killed like 100k people in a reign of terror but is remembered fondly because he was anti-feminist and anti-Pope
>England : "I have bowmen, what do you have ?"
>France : "A big tiddy christian tomboy waif"
made for english longbows
French also started on/off alliances with Ottomans against Austria and Spain around late middle ages and early modern time, so I'd count that as a net loss in based department. French military co-operation with muslim raiders in Italian wars became quite a PR problem for them for a while and it's part to help in building anti-French sentiments in Italy.
Imagine being the Fr*nch
The whole identity of theirs is about being zionist good goys
Its regrettable that the normans defeated the true anglos
In fact its probably a fr*nch conspiracy to make bows seem effeminate
i dont see anyone else willing to decapitate shitty kings.
>In fact its probably a fr*nch conspiracy to make bows seem effeminate
Pretty based, honestly.
People who used bows instead of Crossbows and guns are absolute gays and England is a prime exemple of that.
>t. fr*nchoid
We have cannons though
>In fact its probably a fr*nch conspiracy to make bows seem effeminate
>This is one of England most well-known nationnal hero
>Never even existed and isn't based on any real person
>Still made the gayest looking gay on earth
>Wields a bow
>"M-muh French"
Do Britbongs really ?
Robin Hood was robbing fr*nch n*rman kings to give to the oppressed anglo peoples
just a pissy fr*nch mad that robin cucked him with Maid Marien
your national hero got raped and burned at the stake like a b***h
emblemizes the fr*nch rather well if you think about it
>Robin Hood was robbing fr*nch n*rman kings to give to the oppressed anglo peoples
In Anglo*ds fan-fictions, yes.
The actual Robin Hood never existed, just like King Arthur, because actual heroic bongs don't exist or they are from French Decent like Richard Lionheart, William the conqueror or the entire Plantegenet dynasty.
This is a well-known fact.
Ever played CK2/3 and gave a bunch of duchies to your sons only to get a massive succession war upon your death? That was basically it
So I’m reading into the crusades and basically Christians were btfo by Muslims everytime. And they even took over Spain
I don’t get it though what happened after that? You think Muslims would be too dog right now
So I'm reading into Alexander the great and basically he was BTFOing everybody. He even took over Persia.
I don't get what happened after that? You'd think Macedonians would be top dog right now
Pretty much the entirety of white history is fighting off muslim hordes. The majority of a lot of countries spent time fighting of muslims, actually. India was nearly completely genocided because buddhists refused to kneel.
They weren't nearly wiped out, they still massively outnumbered the Muslims, but they did get culturally oppressed by the Muslims. When the British turned up to India, it was still being ruled by Mughals (Muslim) who were oppressing the native Hindus and Buddhists.
You'd think the Indians would be a bit more grateful that the British saved them from the Muslims. Kinda like how the Egyptians deified Alexander the Great because he saved them from the Persians. But no, the Indians seethe at the English and keep wanting them to pay reparations.
They must be seething that japan gives the english credit for bringing them curry
Did you just miss the part when the Crusaders states were formed after the first crusade and lasted for nearly 2 centuries ?
Every Crusade the English took part in was successful. Bongs and Yanks see the Crusades as glorious because for their ancestors, they were.
>Every Crusade the English took part in was successful.
Not really...
England only really participated in the second, third and ninth crusades.
The second one was a 50/50. It failed on the Eastern front but was successful in Spain.
The Third one was a success
The 9th was, at best, a mixbag and the crusaders ultimately failed to free Jerusalem, their main objective.
Perhaps from some modern homosexuals perspective they didnt achieve all their desired goals. At the time though? England sent men and ships that won a load of battles, secured rights for Christians in the area, and came home with tons of treasure. This happened every time the English went on Crusade.
>securing rights for christjews, a very foreign middle easter judaic cult
>good thing
>The most popular English legendary hero is King Arthur
>Arthur's biggest ennemy are the saxon aka modern Brits
Can somebody explain ?
None-Americans are capable of recognising heroics, even if it's enacted by the enemy.
Americans cannot do this, which is why half their cities are burning and demanding the removal of random statues of people who may have at one time spoken to a black slave.
in the first place this is dumb because English are descended from the britons as well as the anglo saxons
The reason for that is that you don't need a 100 pound bow to kill someone. Even a 30 pound bow with a sharp arrowhead is lethal with good aim. Ranged weapons are the obvious choice for people who only have enough strength to draw a bow but not enough to fight in melee.
Also, the reason longbowmen had to be stupid strong is not just the poundage of the bow but because they had to be able to hold at full draw while waiting for the firing command.
> Even a 30 pound bow with a sharp arrowhead is lethal with good aim.
Not against armor it isn't
>because they had to be able to hold at full draw while waiting for the firing command
TV bullshit that never happened. Volley fire is also very overrepresented, most of the time archers would only start shooting when the enemy was within 50m or so.
>Not against armor it isn't
most armies in history werent wearing full plate
You don't need full plate to stop a 30lb bow.
Nobody ever drew a bow and then waited for the fire command, that's LOTR movie/Game of Thrones tier bullshit, it's impossible.
Archery muscles are highly specialized. Not like the kind you need to proficiently swing an axe, for example. That’s why no army ever had a squad that did both equally well, that would be nonsensical
>Archery muscles are highly specialized. Not like the kind you need to proficiently swing an axe, for example.
It feels like people never, ever talk about the importance of trained muscle memory.
Longbows aren’t the best example. There’s a reason peasants had to be forced to train with them. You’d break your arm trying to use one without years of training.
Brit archers are sissies.
>used to think the 100 years war was england vs france
>later realized it's literally just a civil war between prominent french nobles who rule both nations
OP is one of those powergamer dorks that says stuff like "the heart is a muscle, therefore if I have high STR I should get a health bonus even if my CON is lower" or some stupid shit like that. The stats exist for the sake of the mechanics dummy, the mechanics don't exist for the sake of the stats. If you think STR should apply to bows then your understanding of STR is wrong; you can't reason backward to say what it "should" be. See also: dorks that think INT should relate to anything that involves knowing any kind of information.
tl;dr stats are stats and only loosely correlate to physiology or abilities
There ought to be a hand-eye coordination stat
Perception/dexterity
WHY has there been no discussion of the ultimate missile weapon, the sling, in this thread?
>anon has keyboard and internet
>they require an internet connection and asthma
>makes the same thread every other day like a weak parody of a man with a limited pool of thought