Haven't the Chinese had a whole slew of specialized silenced pistols and rifles for fifty years or so?
I stick to the assumption he's firing a Batman like bolt into the wall for the rest of the Chinese super-team commandoes to climb up (although the press would actually just turn the camera sideways and make it look like they were Bat-climbing up the terrorists' nest).
Sigh. Silly communists.
Full Version: Chinese military using crossbows?
i was actually going to suggest the use of poisons and other agents. but i suppose that's still better suited to a dart gun or something....
If you want nonlethal there are gases, tasers, rubber bullets, and clubs.
| QUOTE (Dancer) |
| 2070s crossbows might have magazines of bolts, but you've still got to bend the arms back. I'd say at least a simple action, probably a complex action to reload a latch. Several complex actions for an arbalest, depending on your Strength. |
They have an auto-load feature (SR4 p. 306), too, and it even implies that if they didn't it would only take a Ready Weapon action to do so. Actually, the implication I get from the text is that it would be SA to fire one even though SS still makes the most sense to me (Simple Action to fire, "free" Simple Action for it to reload itself).
Why couldn't the errata address this issue? It's not going to affect game-balance or take much skull sweat to figure out.
| QUOTE (Kyrn) |
| Why couldn't the errata address this issue? It's not going to affect game-balance or take much skull sweat to figure out. |
My guess is that we don't pay for errata. So they'd rather have their guys working on the next book than keeping up with errata or the FAQ.
they've been pretty decent at keeping up with errata and FAQ stuff. honestly, this particular doesn't exactly come up very often... certainly i wouldn't define it as a *frequently* asked question. as far as errata, they're already up to the 4th or 5th time with errata for the main book. i expect there will be more... why not send this off to the appropriate people?
Actually to be fair errata often isn't the best way to tweak things. I kind of like not having my book be rewritten. There is something to be said for putting stuff like that in Arsenal.
| QUOTE (Kyrn) |
| Good question. The bow is easy to make, just a piece of aged wood properly shaped. The problem was that it required years and years of practice to be able to handle properly. |
Which was pretty much my point.
The fact that there were elite units that trained for years with the crossbow should not be taken to imply that it took years of training for someone to handle the crossbow properly.
In the past, I've read several sources that state that it was quite possible to take a random dude and train him to use a crossbow in a week. Would this guy be a veteran soldier? Heck no. But he'd be a sight more effective with the crossbow after a week's training with any other weapon, and certainly effective enough to kill a heavily armored knight, given a little luck. And if you put the guy on a battlement or behind some other fortification, all that training about formations is less important, yes?
And the fact that crossbows were fairly expensive might suggest that it wasn't done very often, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
Fact is, the crossbows were a pretty good equalizer. You didn't have to train for years and years like with the longbow or with other weaponry in order to stand a good chance against the heavily armored mounted cavalry.
But this was supposedly an anti-terror exercise. Maybe the Chinese really don't like showing off their actual military doctrine. Additionally, I've read that those bullup 5.8mm rifles their using actually don't function very well.
| QUOTE (Vaevictis) | ||
Which was pretty much my point. The fact that there were elite units that trained for years with the crossbow should not be taken to imply that it took years of training for someone to handle the crossbow properly. In the past, I've read several sources that state that it was quite possible to take a random dude and train him to use a crossbow in a week. Would this guy be a veteran soldier? Heck no. But he'd be a sight more effective with the crossbow after a week's training with any other weapon, and certainly effective enough to kill a heavily armored knight, given a little luck. And if you put the guy on a battlement or behind some other fortification, all that training about formations is less important, yes? And the fact that crossbows were fairly expensive might suggest that it wasn't done very often, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Fact is, the crossbows were a pretty good equalizer. You didn't have to train for years and years like with the longbow or with other weaponry in order to stand a good chance against the heavily armored mounted cavalry. |
The crossbow was certainly easier to aim and fire, it was maintaining it that was the problem. Thus the week-trained dude probably wouldn't fare too well as his infernal contraption of a weapon would be quite literally falling apart.
The fact that the elite mercenary units were pretty much the only crossbow troops on the planet is a pretty good indication that using a crossbow involved more than aiming the pointy bit at the knight's horse.
I'm sure price had a small bit to do with that, too. Not to mention the whole Pope Innocent II condemning them as an affront to God thing.
| QUOTE (Kyrn) |
| The crossbow was certainly easier to aim and fire, it was maintaining it that was the problem. Thus the week-trained dude probably wouldn't fare too well as his infernal contraption of a weapon would be quite literally falling apart. |
It probably wouldn't be falling apart in that first week, and if you assigned a few veterans to a group, I bet you could have them continue training after the first week; fact remains that they'd be ready to fight very rapidly.
| QUOTE (Kyrn) |
| The fact that the elite mercenary units were pretty much the only crossbow troops on the planet is a pretty good indication that using a crossbow involved more than aiming the pointy bit at the knight's horse. |
On the planet? Uh, no.
In China, they were practically standard issue equipment for the rank and file, specifically because they were so easy to train on. Much of the Chinese tactical doctrine required the extensive use of footmen with crossbows. Hell, the Chinese even had repeating crossbows during the Han dynasty (200BC-200AD), and were still using them during the Chinese/Japanese war in the 1800s.
(To be fair, the Chinese didn't need to have as much power as the Europeans did; being supremely practical, they weren't above poisoning the bolts, so that even a scratch would be fatal.)
To repeat: Just because crossbows were primarily used by elites (... in Europe...) doesn't mean that they needed elites to be used.
EDIT: Oh, and speaking of China, I guess the fact that Chinese military doctrine greatly involved the use of crossbows for literally a couple thousand years might explain the original picture.
Yes, China did have crossbows. But my God man, they were made of...wood! Blech! Yes, the repeating models were fairly spiffy, but they were plinkers compared to the (two thousand years down the road) European models. And you're wrong about the whole not falling apart thing. European crossbows required a lot of maintenance, being composed of complicated mechanics constructed in a variety of materials. Having a few veterans per unit to try to help with the maintenance would be like having four thirteen year olds trying to teach a platoon of great-grandpappy's how to use the internet to look for porn. I mean email. Yeah...email.
Now if you want to try to take a peasant with a Chinese crossbow and put him up against a knight...have fun with that. Bounce off, bounce off, hey, why isn't this thing working...skewer.
Really, comparing Chinese and European crossbows is like comparing a ball peen hammer to a pneumatic air hammer.
To repeat: as European crossbows were only used by professional soldiers, your comment about equalizing a peasant with a knight is erroneous.
Hell, put ten or twenty professionals with a crossbow up against a charging knight and I'd still lay even money on either side.
Now if you want to try to take a peasant with a Chinese crossbow and put him up against a knight...have fun with that. Bounce off, bounce off, hey, why isn't this thing working...skewer.
Really, comparing Chinese and European crossbows is like comparing a ball peen hammer to a pneumatic air hammer.
To repeat: as European crossbows were only used by professional soldiers, your comment about equalizing a peasant with a knight is erroneous.
Hell, put ten or twenty professionals with a crossbow up against a charging knight and I'd still lay even money on either side.
| QUOTE (Kyrn) |
| Hell, put ten or twenty professionals with a crossbow up against a charging knight and I'd still lay even money on either side. |
I most certainly wouldn't. (Providing they were heavy crossbows. Latch bolts might not penetrate.)
Even most heavy crossbow bolts wouldn't have a certainty of penetrating deeply enough to stop the big scary metal thing from carving up a bunch of lowly ground pounders. It's kind of like modern deer hunting with bows, an arrow or bolt hit kills by bleeding, not by shock, and most deer aren't wearing armor. Most strikes against the helm would be deflected unless they hit an eyeslot or exceptionally large or weakened breathing hole, most of the torso would be covered by a shield (or later plate armor that stood up fairly well against bolts), and the head, neck and chest of the horse would be heavily protected as well. The most reliable ways of bringing down heavy cavalry was to hit the horse's leg or slip enough shots into the man's legs or arms that he'd eventually bleed out. Plus you have to keep in mind that just as in every other war with every other type of weapon, most of the crossbowmen are going to miss. Completely.
Any further news on what the hell the Chinese are doing with this crossbow? Anybody seen Raygun around recently?
| QUOTE (Kyrn) |
| Hell, put ten or twenty professionals with a crossbow up against a charging knight and I'd still lay even money on either side. |
Surely you're kidding.
Put up ten or twenty unarmed professionals against a charging knight, and I'll put money on the ten or twenty unarmed dudes.
Damn. I suddenly wish knights were a Vegas thing so I could make some cash off this. The advantages of heavy armor, high ground and high speed would be fairly hard to overcome unarmed without some highly specialized -fu. Wasn't there a kung fu technique for dismounting an assailant by grabbing his queue in some sort of weird backflip maneuver?
Regardless, I think you're discounting the overwhelming advantages heavy cavalry enjoyed for so many years, at least until massed rapid-fire volley tactics could put enough pointy bits in the air to slow down the charge and grind them down.
Regardless, I think you're discounting the overwhelming advantages heavy cavalry enjoyed for so many years, at least until massed rapid-fire volley tactics could put enough pointy bits in the air to slow down the charge and grind them down.
I think you're discounting the fact that we're talking about 20 professional soldiers here and exactly one dude (professional though he may be) on a horse.
It's not even "specialized-fu" here, it's simply "accept that some of us are going to die, so all grab on to his ass and drag him off his fucking horse -- he can't kill even most of us in one go."
(EDIT: It should be noted that I am talking a lancer or some such here, not a mounted bowman
)
It's not even "specialized-fu" here, it's simply "accept that some of us are going to die, so all grab on to his ass and drag him off his fucking horse -- he can't kill even most of us in one go."
(EDIT: It should be noted that I am talking a lancer or some such here, not a mounted bowman
)
I think the hang-up is on the "accept tha some of us are goin to die" bit. A lot of people would just break ranks and hope to get away, rather than standing square in the center and being relatively sure he's going to die.
That's my take on the situation. I think most soldiers only willingly sacrifice their lives like that in strategy games. Of course they don't really know that they're dying...at least I hope not.
Before the dickering starts up again, and people go tit-for-tat stating cases where professional soldiers have broken and ran off, or where untrained civilians have cowboy'ed up and charged... I think we can all agree that both things happen, from time to time, and that trained fighting men are more likely to work together towards a common goal, even in the face of imminent danger, than untrained.
...even if we're kind of off topic by this point, as concerns the filthy Reds and their crossbows.
...even if we're kind of off topic by this point, as concerns the filthy Reds and their crossbows.
Crit, you're totally right.
In a situation where you might survive, even if it means some of your friends don't, most people are inclined (inclined, not garunteed) to take the path of greatest chance of personal survival. On the other hand, where survival chances are all but nonexistant unless people coyboy up and charge, most people will go for the heroics.
Interestingly, this can extend, too. In situations where your own survival is almost impossible, but by acting in a certain way, you can ensure others' survival, most people will still coyboy up. Like the passengers who stormed that 9/11 plane's cockpit. They may have failed to survive, but not only were their chances nil if they didn't try, but if they did try, fail, but succeeded in preventing the terrorists from reaching their objective, they could still save a lot of others.
In a situation where you might survive, even if it means some of your friends don't, most people are inclined (inclined, not garunteed) to take the path of greatest chance of personal survival. On the other hand, where survival chances are all but nonexistant unless people coyboy up and charge, most people will go for the heroics.
Interestingly, this can extend, too. In situations where your own survival is almost impossible, but by acting in a certain way, you can ensure others' survival, most people will still coyboy up. Like the passengers who stormed that 9/11 plane's cockpit. They may have failed to survive, but not only were their chances nil if they didn't try, but if they did try, fail, but succeeded in preventing the terrorists from reaching their objective, they could still save a lot of others.
Of course a lot of that depends on what people's perceptions are.
http://www.armor.com/custom935.html
And historically fighting men have been known to do suicidal stuff even when retreat was a valid option. Espirit de corps and so on.
And to try for a SR4 tie in that's why the "leadership" skill is useful if you're using NPCs.
I'm thinking that while they probably have something the crossbow does, the actual reason is that it's a traditional Chinese weapon and so they wanted to have one in the group.
http://www.armor.com/custom935.html
And historically fighting men have been known to do suicidal stuff even when retreat was a valid option. Espirit de corps and so on.
And to try for a SR4 tie in that's why the "leadership" skill is useful if you're using NPCs.
I'm thinking that while they probably have something the crossbow does, the actual reason is that it's a traditional Chinese weapon and so they wanted to have one in the group.
One knight would get pwned. Heavy cavalry worked in formations against multiple opponents. An armored and mounted soldier was WAY too valuable to simply let get dragged down, and they were trained to hold rank with other knights so the mob they charge into only gets the business end of the horse. It's hard to surround and drag a guy down when there's two other knights on each side of him kicking your ass. I'd go so far as to say I'd give much better odds on 20 vs. 400 than I would on 1 vs. 20.
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) | ||||
Share? |
...was living in a flat below a bunch of teenagers who's parents decided to let them have their own place. [edited for more clarification]
[ Spoiler ]
Fear the pissed-off person with no sleep and a bowgun. 
...part of where my character Hurricane Hannah's personality is based on. She's usually pretty easy going (as I usually am) but, piss her off one too many times & she throws her Edge of 4 into her 13 D, 8DV, -2AP killing hands punch.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) | ||||||
...was living in a flat below a bunch of teenagers who's parents decided to let them have their own place. [edited for more clarification] [ Spoiler ] |
Dayam! Now that's style! *claps*
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) | ||||||
...was living in a flat below a bunch of teenagers who's parents decided to let them have their own place. [edited for more clarification] [ Spoiler ] |
seriously, sometimes you scare me silly...
...in all my years, that is the only time I ever went to such an extreme. Considering that I was losing quite a bit of time from work (thus impacting the paycheque) and at the time, was trapped in the agreement with nobody in authority seeming to care about the situation, something had to be done.
Actually I am rather peaceful in RL save for the occasional insult (usually containing massive amounts of sarcasm) at the idiot driver who nearly kills me while I am biking to/from work.
Even when I play armed to the teeth sammies, they tend to have a soft side to their personality (Gracie, my lead hosing merc for example, had a soft spot for kids and donated a fair percentage of her gains to helping orphans). For all the comments I have made followed by the
emoticon, I actually find it difficult playing the sinister or bloodthirsty character, which makes being the GM quite a challenge at times.
Actually I am rather peaceful in RL save for the occasional insult (usually containing massive amounts of sarcasm) at the idiot driver who nearly kills me while I am biking to/from work.
Even when I play armed to the teeth sammies, they tend to have a soft side to their personality (Gracie, my lead hosing merc for example, had a soft spot for kids and donated a fair percentage of her gains to helping orphans). For all the comments I have made followed by the
emoticon, I actually find it difficult playing the sinister or bloodthirsty character, which makes being the GM quite a challenge at times.
Training people to maintain a single peice of reasonably complex machinery is not that freaking hard. Or were mideval crossbows considerably more complex than, say, a modern assault rifle?
Because, to be honest, the average military man (soldier, marine, whatever) only starts out with about two weeks of training with his weapon, maintenance included.
Everything else is 'militarization'. You know, formations, identifying ranks, learning to march... even general physical fitness.
Never mind that I could teach a ten year old to break down, clean and reassemble an assault rifle in a single day. Retention comes from repitition.
'but only elite mercenaries carried them' is not evidence of anything in particular. there could be a thousand and one reasons why only elite mercenaries used them. Cost, papal bulls, and culture have all been mentioned.
Let us not forget too that just because someone did (or did not) do something doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense. A napoleonic soldier could see a cannon ball coming at him pretty clearly, but the rules of the day said ducking or stepping aside was an act of cowardice, so actually doing so was very very rare.
Because, to be honest, the average military man (soldier, marine, whatever) only starts out with about two weeks of training with his weapon, maintenance included.
Everything else is 'militarization'. You know, formations, identifying ranks, learning to march... even general physical fitness.
Never mind that I could teach a ten year old to break down, clean and reassemble an assault rifle in a single day. Retention comes from repitition.
'but only elite mercenaries carried them' is not evidence of anything in particular. there could be a thousand and one reasons why only elite mercenaries used them. Cost, papal bulls, and culture have all been mentioned.
Let us not forget too that just because someone did (or did not) do something doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense. A napoleonic soldier could see a cannon ball coming at him pretty clearly, but the rules of the day said ducking or stepping aside was an act of cowardice, so actually doing so was very very rare.
But can you teach your grandfather how to use the internet? To a medieval farmer, yes, crossbows were far more complicated than a modern assault rifle is to a modern ten year old.
But I'm now convinced that the Chinese crossbow user in the picture is actually more nefarious than I originally believed. They're up to something sneaky, those clever Commies, and it ain't good for capitalism! Somebody call Captain America! (or whoever will wind up playing him in the inevitable movie at least)
But I'm now convinced that the Chinese crossbow user in the picture is actually more nefarious than I originally believed. They're up to something sneaky, those clever Commies, and it ain't good for capitalism! Somebody call Captain America! (or whoever will wind up playing him in the inevitable movie at least)
My old roommate's grandmother has a working knowledge of C++. She's 73. My grandparents live on the far side of nowhere and therefore readily embraced e-mail as a way to keep in touch with family pretty much the second they were introduced to it. I think two factors really played into this:
1. Nobody ever got around to convincing them computers are way too complicated for a senior to learn.
2. Despite ranging in age from 68-83, none of my grandparents on either side have gone senile yet.
Anyway, farmers back then were ignorant, not stupid. Joe farmer couldn't make a cheap and effective crossbow, sure, but that doesn't mean he couldn't learn how to use one with proper demonstration. If Archimedes was smart enough to approximate the value of pi in 200 BC, then I'm willing to bet that the average medieval man could learn to turn the crank and point the thingy. After all, if people were so incapable of learning, then we wouldn't be where we are today.
1. Nobody ever got around to convincing them computers are way too complicated for a senior to learn.
2. Despite ranging in age from 68-83, none of my grandparents on either side have gone senile yet.
Anyway, farmers back then were ignorant, not stupid. Joe farmer couldn't make a cheap and effective crossbow, sure, but that doesn't mean he couldn't learn how to use one with proper demonstration. If Archimedes was smart enough to approximate the value of pi in 200 BC, then I'm willing to bet that the average medieval man could learn to turn the crank and point the thingy. After all, if people were so incapable of learning, then we wouldn't be where we are today.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.