Why does the cross bow do more damage than the m4?

[pale1776 375]

so whats your point ?

If an item is useless in real life it should be in game.

A crossbow while not completely useless in real life would be pretty crappy against players armed with guns and the damage the arrows and bolts do would be minimal compared to the rifle bullets.

Balance should not even be considered in dayz. It just ends up screwing the game up.

If its useless in real life, how do.people hunt with it so well? How did people.fight wars?

Seriously, its a piece of metal with about 4 razor blades on it. Guess what its shaped like? The mosin m91/30 bayonette I have. Guess whats banned by the Geneva Convention for making a wound that cannot be sewed up and doesnt heal properly? The m91/30 bayonette.

[gibonez 3633]

If its useless in real life, how do.people hunt with it so well? How did people.fight wars?

Seriously, its a piece of metal with about 4 razor blades on it. Guess what its shaped like? The mosin m91/30 bayonette I have. Guess whats banned by the Geneva Convention for making a wound that cannot be sewed up and doesnt heal properly? The m91/30 bayonette.

 

Used to hunt defenseless animals that cannot fight back or usually are too stupid to and just run away and slowly bleed to death.

 

Used to fight wars yes hundreds of years ago by ancient people.

 

Not sure what your bayonet comment is for.

[akafugitive 244]

lmao

Sorry but I am a Navy Seal so I think I know better. Guns should do more damage than crossbows. Xbows are already silent so that is a huge plus.

I wasn't trying to say you are not, I don't know you. However i can also not qualify what you say to be true, nor can you qualify me aside from beleaving what is said.

I was making a general statement, a lot of people have these opinions on "realism" but know nothing about what is realistic. The purpose of my original post is; I do not want to see M4's become a 1-2 shot kill unless you are precision shooting killzone(brain, heart, upper spinal), as a navy seal I don't have to explain beyond why I don't want to see this.

I have studied; history of war, battle tactics, science and psychology of modern war, battlefield leadership, and other things I don't need to go into detail about. I'm experienced in field leadership, long, medium and close range combat environments, small unit operations as well as investigations, tracking and apprehension. You have no clue how qualified I am.

For the record I would trust the opinions of a man who hunts with a Crossbow or some midevil war reenactor over an SF trained guy about crossbow/arrow lethality any day, some of the guys I know are experienced in both.

You are right, Some firearms are more lethal for a range load of reasons but arrows are still very lethal, if I was to describe how I would like to see it handled by comparing just the 2 it would be like this:

Crossbow

- Damage is caused by momentum of the weight, not force, and piercing the target with a cutting edge

Pros

-Quiet

-Pierces the target with less deflection(more resistant to armor)

-less chance to pass through the target

Cons

-Slow to reload

-Less accurate

-Short range(unless volleyed)

-When deflected they do very little to no damage

-Superficial wounds are easier to clean and treat

M4

- Damage is caused by high velocity energy transfer to the target causing tearing, and bullet fragmentation causing wound canals to open up.

Pros

- Accurate

- Rapid followup shots

- Effective over longer ranges

- When deflected can still cause impairing damage

- Superficial wounds can still cause massive complication over a period of time

Cons

- Loud

- Close range pass through round poorly placed on the target may have little instantaneous effects

- Gas expulsion and muzzle flash are visual identifiers

- Easier to deflect with body armor

For the record, I don't think the game is perfect in its current state, that should be apparent by my massive suggestion threads lol. I just don't want to see these casual gamers or misinformed views on "Realism" become a direction development goes. There are enough games like battlefield and COD out there, I enjoy this game and Arma 3 because it is not like the mainstream scene.

I used to just sit in the shadows and watch these discussions like most of the informed people I know, shaking my head and not wanting to pull my life into it. I have just seen a trend in video games lately that I don't like, because I, and a lot of the guys I know enjoy them still. I speak up at this point because I don't want that trend to hit this game.

Dean was a soldier and is a game designer, he know more about balancing both aspects then most, period.

Edited April 22, 2014 by akafugitive

[-Gews- 7443]

Guess whats banned by the Geneva Convention for making a wound that cannot be sewed up and doesnt heal properly? The m91/30 bayonette.

 

False.

[pale1776 375]

False.

Triangular bayonettes ARE banned. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17033

[pale1776 375]

Used to hunt defenseless animals that cannot fight back or usually are too stupid to and just run away and slowly bleed to death.

Used to fight wars yes hundreds of years ago by ancient people.

Not sure what your bayonet comment is for.

Which is why te worlds largest grizzky was killed by one? And wgats the difference in a "poor defensless animal" and an unsuspecting person?

And the m91 bayonette is triangular and banned due to brutality. Guess ehats truangular? Arrowheads (broadheads)

[gibonez 3633]

Which is why te worlds largest grizzky was killed by one? And wgats the difference in a "poor defensless animal" and an unsuspecting person?

And the m91 bayonette is triangular and banned due to brutality. Guess ehats truangular? Arrowheads (broadheads)

 

Whats your point I can kill a grizzly bear with a pellet rifle or a .22lr too .

 

Anything can get killed by anything else the point is a crossbow does not in any way do more damage than a single 5.56 round regardless of location.

[-Gews- 7443]

Which is why te worlds largest grizzky was killed by one?

 

Boone & Crockett has the record brown bear as taken in Alaska in 1952 by Roy Lindsley. He used a .30-06.

A bolt can kill someone in one shot... so will a bullet.

 

Triangular bayonettes ARE banned. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17033

 

False.

 

Your link shows no useful information, merely some random forumers casually chatting. Please find an actual source that supports your claim.

[pale1776 375]

Have you studied the Geneva Convention and the US ROEs? Do you spend your nights studying warfare to try to gain an edge when yougo to basic training? From my guess yes, cause you seem to be the most logical person here. But the Geneva banned triangular spike bayonettes.

[Rick1633 136]

Does the bow aggro zeds like the broken silencers and Amphibian S?  Or is the crossbow actually silent to zeds?

[-Gews- 7443]

Have you studied the Geneva Convention and the US ROEs? Do you spend your nights studying warfare to try to gain an edge when yougo to basic training? From my guess yes, cause you seem to be the most logical person here. But the Geneva banned triangular spike bayonettes.

 

 

Geneva did not ban triangular bayonets... I remember looking this up since I had heard the same thing... as well about rusty bayonets, sharp bayonets, and .50 caliber bullets (ie: "shoot at the enemy's clothing since that is considered equipment"). The Hague convention banned certain weapons including:

 

 

"rt. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited

(a) To employ poison or poisoned arms;

(‎b‎) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

© To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag or military ensigns and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."

 

but nothing specific about triangular bayonets.

 

 

 

 

 

Also I found that people, even at the time these were still in common use, seemed to be of mixed opinion of what caused more severe wounds...

 

 

Lessons on Hygiene and Surgery from the Franco-Prussian War, 1873

 

Edited April 22, 2014 by Gews

[Daemonkid 493]

So some guy posted saying he was a Navy Seal? First things first, you're not allowed to do that as a Seal. Secondly I am not an American myself, but that's incredibly disrespectful to say you're apart of something like that when you're not. 

 

Bullets and Arrows kill from different kinds of trauma. You'll bleed to death from an arrow wound, while a bullet wound causes a more aggressive wound(Fragmentation is possible, shock from getting shot, hitting a vital organ ect.)

[Powell (DayZ) 734]

If bullets are gonna be more powerful then there needs to be less ammo

Actually there needs to be less ammo regardless

[Valadain 270]

If bullets are gonna be more powerful then there needs to be less ammo

Actually there needs to be less ammo regardless

 

Why? I thought this was a game of brutal reality with no hand-holding. Where the environment is what the players make of it. Why artificially temper that with unrealistic mechanics?

[Valadain 270]

I really can't imagine why this whole topic made it past a few posts. Crossbows are not comparable to guns. They were dropped in favor of guns that had little to no advantage, other than sheer power. Early muskets were not faster to reload than a cross bow, yet they replaced the crossbow entirely. There were no quick follow up shots or incredible precision. Just a controlled explosion sending a projectile out with incredible force, penetrating armor with greater efficiency.

 

A modern firearm is orders of magnitude better than those early muskets.

 

Put bluntly, having a crossbow is better than having nothing at all, but that's about it.

[noother10 6]

I think the damage is fine purely with in game balance. One weapon you can empty an entire clip in short time accurately in to a target at long range, the other you get one shot with a long reload time and short range. You can argue realism all you guys want, but in a game while it does inform, it normally takes a back seat to what is fun and balanced. Like others have said, maybe a dice roll mechanic where there is more chance for critical injury like breaking bones in limbs and faster bleeding out, where the crossbow gets higher chance due to its larger size.

[akafugitive 244]

I really can't imagine why this whole topic made it past a few posts. Crossbows are not comparable to guns. They were dropped in favor of guns that had little to no advantage, other than sheer power. Early muskets were not faster to reload than a cross bow, yet they replaced the crossbow entirely. There were no quick follow up shots or incredible precision. Just a controlled explosion sending a projectile out with incredible force, penetrating armor with greater efficiency.

 

A modern firearm is orders of magnitude better than those early muskets.

 

Put bluntly, having a crossbow is better than having nothing at all, but that's about it.

That's because armor back in those days was still made of tempered steel, not kevlar. Carrying 100 musket balls to the battlefield was still easier then carrying 100 arrows, muskets were still easier to point and click then ranging out a volley of arrows on advancing troops, and the sheer fear a line of firing muskets caused elevated them to taking over as the weapon on choice. This is why we saw an era of armor being removed from the battlefield for a short time, once firearms advanced so did we see armor to defeat them be redeveloped

Kevlar is still designed to deflect bullets, steel was designed to deflect swords and arrows. Arrows cut through kevlar because they are an edged weapon. So yes in the right circumstances an arrow can be more deadly.

You cannot generalise everything, firearms are not more effective then bows and bows are not more effective then firearms, some bows are better then some firearms, some firearms are better then bows, and some circumstances change the outcome also (range, ammo/tip used, armor, etc.)

[DedicateDdos 50]

I still believe the entire guns vs crossbows is silly tbh, knives are still used in modern day combat.

 

Why? they have shorter range, require you to get close, yet it's still part of the equipment of your modern day soldier (I know knives can be used for more then just killing but even in WW2 when guns were prevalent knife kills were being made cause they were stealthy and didn't require ammunition, a solid thrust in the throat and your enemy wouldn't be screaming)

 

it's like people are shouting axes are useless anyone would pick a gun over an axe amirite?

 

While that's true you'll still find a reason for your axe, for that knife and if you want for that crossbow, no one is forcing it upon you, but it has its uses.

 

We all know crossbows DO damage that point should've been made clear, what kind of damage and how much is similar to a gun: -it depends- both have their pro's and cons.

Comparing this game to modern day combat doesn't really go that well as we're talking about a.) civilians not trained combatants b.) zombies zombies zombies c.) hunting is going to be implemented, hence eh?

 

It's never been said the crossbow will be used for efficient pvp combat but for hunting it should do just fine, without giving away your position to every bandit in a 10 mile radius, and if it can take down a deer/bear/boar it will take down a person. Just not as clean as a gun would.

Edited April 22, 2014 by DedicateDdos

[pale1776 375]

Dont forget, the Geneva is revised about once a year. Im gointo town, but Ill have it when I get back.

[Dr.Burd 107]

One to stop them, one to drop them, and one between the eyes to confirm the kill.

 

M4 bullet is small, but painful, that is what it is meant for, to maim, and kill, guns are not humane. M4 bullet will enter the body, go through bones, bounce around, break more bones. The pain is amplified by number of shots, as so. One to stop One to drop One to confirm the kill. The human body can be stabbed more than 73 times and keep going, do you think an adrenilin pumped human being will stop after 1 shot to the lung? No, human will have to be shot more. One bullet will stop, one will drop, one will kill. One bullet through the lung will incapacitate after less than 5 minutes, and will stop them, another will kick away the adrenilin and drop them, and while they are in pain, one between the eyes will finish them. Bullets are small, bolts are big. Bolt will not move. Bullet bounces, breaks bones, doesn't kill instantly. One bolt stops, and drops, and 90% chance the kill will be confirmed by the time the human hits the ground.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Dr.Burd

[hombrecz 832]

Funnily enough, once I found quiver and some stacks of arrows, I can't find bloody crossbow anymore.

Damn you Murphy!

 

No matter what, crossbow is good addition to DayZ arsenal, no matter what some folks think.

Nobody is forced to even pickup crossbow and if it ain't crazily OP, then nobody should have problem with it being in SA.

 

edit: M4 should be made stronger, but a lot more rare, same for ammo. But then again we are not yet in balancing phase (beta?).

Edited April 22, 2014 by Hombre

[Valadain 270]

That's because armor back in those days was still made of tempered steel, not kevlar. Carrying 100 musket balls to the battlefield was still easier then carrying 100 arrows, muskets were still easier to point and click then ranging out a volley of arrows on advancing troops, and the sheer fear a line of firing muskets caused elevated them to taking over as the weapon on choice. This is why we saw an era of armor being removed from the battlefield for a short time, once firearms advanced so did we see armor to defeat them be redeveloped

Kevlar is still designed to deflect bullets, steel was designed to deflect swords and arrows. Arrows cut through kevlar because they are an edged weapon. So yes in the right circumstances an arrow can be more deadly.

You cannot generalise everything, firearms are not more effective then bows and bows are not more effective then firearms, some bows are better then some firearms, some firearms are better then bows, and some circumstances change the outcome also (range, ammo/tip used, armor, etc.)

 

Kevlar isn't intended to deflect bullets. Kevlar spreads the impact over a greater area, retarding its ability to penetrate. It also tends not to work well against rifle rounds, without being filled with ceramic plates, which would likely have a much greater effect on crossbow bolts as well.

 

So no, you put an arrow and a 5.56 in the same spot, the arrow will not be more deadly. Yes, arrows and bolts and knives can kill. Bullets can kill. Bullets kill more often. The question is not whether arrows or bolts can kill, the question is how effective they are at killing. The answer is that they are less effective, given the same conditions as a bullet.

[akafugitive 244]

Kevlar isn't intended to deflect bullets. Kevlar spreads the impact over a greater area, retarding its ability to penetrate. It also tends not to work well against rifle rounds, without being filled with ceramic plates, which would likely have a much greater effect on crossbow bolts as well.

So no, you put an arrow and a 5.56 in the same spot, the arrow will not be more deadly. Yes, arrows and bolts and knives can kill. Bullets can kill. Bullets kill more often. The question is not whether arrows or bolts can kill, the question is how effective they are at killing. The answer is that they are less effective, given the same conditions as a bullet.

In my world we call that deflection; to move away or reduce the effect by spreading over a larger surface area. Even ceramics can have a hard time deflecting the piercing power of an arrow, that's why armor piercing rounds are heavier and/or pointed and coated to defeat armor.

I've given my reasons, I know my position on this. If you want to keep regurgitating the same argument so be it. My intention isn't to change your mind but to put real information out there for those who want to learn, some people may be sold on your viewpoint but others will agree with mine.

Using words like "likely" proves you are going off of your level of understanding, clearly you have educated yourself a bit on the topic. I don't hold my position on likely, I have seen these effects first hand, I know how ballistics and arrows work on modern body armor, I've tested it.

 

Even my crew, a very educated bunch, knows that they don't always need to have the answer or question things they don't understand, just follow my damn order, let me handle the why.

Edited April 22, 2014 by akafugitive

[Valadain 270]

In my world we call that deflection; to move away or reduce the effect by spreading over a larger surface area. Even ceramics can have a hard time deflecting the piercing power of an arrow, that's why armor piercing rounds are heavier and/or pointed and coated to defeat armor.

I've given my reasons, I know my position on this. If you want to keep regurgitating the same argument so be it. My intention isn't to change your mind but to put real information out there for those who want to learn, some people may be sold on your viewpoint but others will agree with mine.

Using words like "likely" proves you are going off of your level of understanding, clearly you have educated yourself a bit on the topic. I don't hold my position on likely, I have seen these effects first hand, I know how ballistics and arrows work on modern body armor, I've tested it.

 

Even my crew, a very educated bunch, knows that they don't always need to have the answer or question things they don't understand, just follow my damn order, let me handle the why.

 

Deflection is changing the course of a projectile so that the greater part of the force is expended to keep the projectile travelling on a slightly altered trajectory.

 

As for armor piercing arrows, I'm sure they exist, though I doubt you'd find them in common hunting use. We need to drop the fringe cases when talking about this stuff. Yes, there is a crazy AR15 platform crossbow that shoots arrows over bolts and does some serious damage, edge case. Yes there are specific armor piercing arrows out there somewhere. Edge case. There are types of ammo that will shred through body armor. They aren't in common use, so I've left them out of the discussion.

[gibonez 3633]

My biggest problem with the m4 doing so little damage is that eventually when the game gets a bolt action rifle in .223/5.56  it will be completely useless if it does the same damage as the m4 as it should since its the same caliber.

 

The 5.56 should incapacitate people with 1 solid chest shot. It should severely hurt people with a single stomach shot.

 

People really under estimate how nasty and damaging the round is.

 

The 5.56 is a flat shooting super fast cartridge that has excellent ballistics even out to 1000m.

 

The only area that the 5.56 kinda lacks in is how easily the wind is able to push the bullet in flight this is the sole reason why long range shots are hard with a 5.56 rifle, thankfully newer high grain boat tail bullets such as the 77 grain sierra match king fix this allowing for much easier shots at 1000m or more.