Ammo

[SekoETC]

I think it would be realistic and cool if there were arrows, since many people are making bows because they don't use metals and are in a way supposed to be cheaper than steel weapons (though steel gets cheap once you have all the machinery and know where to get the resources). So anyway, if there were arrows then they should be manufactured in large quantities, several per hour. I don't know if that's possible with current encoding. One arrow would weight like 5 grams so you could make 60 arrows on one day of wood gathering. That shouldn't be too expensive.

Arrows missing the target would end up on the ground and could be picked up. Arrows hitting the target would be like clothing (except without a limit of how many you can "wear"). If the target would die then others could remove the arrows in the same way as clothing, but while the person is alive, only they could remove arrows from themselves. (If you are in the middle of a battle, you won't walk up to the person you just wounded and pull the arrow out, that would only taunt them to hit back.) Maybe you could stick arrows into yourself to stage an attack but it would deal some damage based on your strength.

If a person has no arrows left then a bow could also be used as a melee weapon. (You begin bashing monsters with your bow.) Also in my opinion it shouldn't be possible to shoot yourself with a bow because how on earth would you hold it backwards? But that would require the option of using the bow as a (weaker) melee weapon to balance it out.

[w.w.g.d.w]

It's a good idea.I like it.Implemented this,please.

[Leo Luncid]

Yes, this would definitely settle the debate of whether you're actually literally crushing someone with a crossbow or not.


You see a man in his twenties hit a man in his thirties with a crossbow.

A man in his thirties says:"Stop swinging that around! You know how much I hate suicidal newspawns!"


Who knows; someone will say something like that sooner or later...

[Sicofonte]

I wouldn't bother about arrows until range attack (among ships, in the paths, from inside/outside of buildings...) were introduced in game.

Currently, bows are hand-to-hand weapons (in spite of its non-sense), and do not need arrows.

[shapukas]

Arrows, bolts. It would be very nice. But then bow as melea weapon? Its not very good idea. Those things can brake. If you'll run out of arrows then you'll not be able to use bows. And arrows can sometimes brake too. Especialy when you miss the target. And allso it shoudnt be cheap.

[Yömyssy]

I'm not in favor of this idea... But if this would be implemented I'd like them to be made like
"prjoect - manufacture X-amount of arrows"
and they should be relatively cheap.. because to those of you who are always speaking about the game balancing between the rich towns and the poor ones and the battle balancing, and the battle system balancing... this would mean that the rich towns could make the best arrows available and a crossbor and the poor ones would barely make five iron arrows and a longbow? and what happens when the rich town next to the poor one decides that "lets kick some arse" and attack the poor town with their crossbows etc and the poor town tries to fight back with their five iron arrows and wooden arrows and the one longbow.....

of course that makes me like this idea, because I've been waiting for conflicts.. But still... I've just gotten my hands over my very first crossbow (because my friend died and he had one so it was given to me) i could probably not afford a crossbow even after a month.. I have no iron on any of my 5 characters so how on earth could i benefit from my crossbow..? i would need to get back to swinging my bone spear and gathering limestone etc.. that makes me hate the idea. but this is just and example of this implemention screwing my characters life up, but i know that i'm not the only one.

[haggismcbean]

It seems a bit like one of those pointless implimentations designed to make the game harder and less fun, to me.

I don't see any advantage from a roleplaying perspective. People without arrows can pretend they have them if they need to (before they are coded into the game) whereas once they are coded the majority of people, until they find the wood and stone to make some basic arrows, will have to actively roleplay using thier bow as a seemingly weaker version of a club. Basically, once arrows are implimented you'll get more scenarios of people saying:

You see a man in his twenties hit a man in his thirties with a crossbow.

A man in his thirties says:"Stop swinging that around! You know how much I hate suicidal newspawns!"

rather than less.

[SekoETC]

Yeah, maybe it would just make the game more difficult. Especially because wood cannot be found in every location.

[Piscator]

But if you have no access to wood you shouldn't be having a bow either. And it's the same for crossbows and bolts. If a society is advanced enough to have crossbows they should be able to manufacture bolts, too.

And you should consider that ammunition wouldn't make live difficult for everyone, but only for the people who can afford advanced weaponry. If advanced towns have to spend their wealth to keep their standard of living, it would possibly give less advanced towns a chance to catch up.

[wichita]

A lack of ammo is the last logical argument against adding guns. That's right. I said guns.

[shapukas]

I'm not in favor of this idea... But if this would be implemented I'd like them to be made like
"prjoect - manufacture X-amount of arrows"
and they should be relatively cheap.. because to those of you who are always speaking about the game balancing between the rich towns and the poor ones and the battle balancing, and the battle system balancing... this would mean that the rich towns could make the best arrows available and a crossbor and the poor ones would barely make five iron arrows and a longbow? and what happens when the rich town next to the poor one decides that "lets kick some arse" and attack the poor town with their crossbows etc and the poor town tries to fight back with their five iron arrows and wooden arrows and the one longbow.....

of course that makes me like this idea, because I've been waiting for conflicts.. But still... I've just gotten my hands over my very first crossbow (because my friend died and he had one so it was given to me) i could probably not afford a crossbow even after a month.. I have no iron on any of my 5 characters so how on earth could i benefit from my crossbow..? i would need to get back to swinging my bone spear and gathering limestone etc.. that makes me hate the idea. but this is just and example of this implemention screwing my characters life up, but i know that i'm not the only one.

yes, rich towns are the true rulers. That is a good balance. It is much more logical that rich town anihilates small and poor viladge then other way. Allso ranged weapons should difer in amount of damadge depending on what tipe of arrows you're using. Like arows whith bone head, iron head, bronse head, steel head. Ofcourse if arows will be implemented or eaven accepted.

[Yömyssy]

i've been wondering.. how does a steel arrow make any more damage than an iron one would, if they have the same typed heads... i can't find out any way.. steel and iron are both hard metals, with differences of course, but penetrating an animal or a person, i dont think those differences do much.. same with bone: since there are no ranged combat yet, you cant say the distance matters, so i think, i personally wouldn't see the difference, if i was shot in the leg with a bone, iron or a steel arrow.. a wooden one wouldn't of course penetrate my bones, but surely a well manufactured bone arrow, shot with enough velocity would break a bone..

[Piscator]

I'm not sure if we need different damages for every ammo type. I agree with Yömyssy that there should be no difference between a iron, steel, obsidian or whatever tipped arrow.

A problem with arrows could be the need for feathers. That could be really problematic in regions with few animals (respectively birds). We'd definitely need an alternative for feathers. And I'm not talking about unfeathered arrows. As far as I know they have really crappy ballistics.

[shapukas]

And whay not? Bronz and steel weapons do have differences in damadge. Steel arows coud penetrate shields easyer then iron or bone arow.

[Yömyssy]

alright, i agree with the shield-thing that a bone arrow would have real troubles getting thru an iron shield, but still can't see the difference between an iron or a steel arrow...