Dwarf Fortress Bug Tracker - Dwarf Fortress
View Issue Details
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0000510Dwarf FortressProjectilespublic2010-04-05 12:532014-01-29 10:54
ReporterKaelGotRice 
Assigned To 
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilitysometimes
StatusnewResolutionopen 
PlatformOSOS Version
Product Version0.31.01 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0000510: Striking with stacked ammo gives a momentum bonus but no contact area penalty
Descriptionhttp://img638.imageshack.us/img638/6645/arrowstab.png [^]

Fired arrows don't appear to do much damage, especially against an armored attacker. However once the attacker closed the gap, this bowdwarf responded by stabbing the attacker with his entire stack of arrows repeatedly, having no trouble piercing the armor that fired arrows couldn't breach before. Not sure if hitting with an arrow is a bug, if stabbing with the entire stack is, if the stack multiplies damage, something seems a bit odd here.
Steps To ReproduceArena mode: Bowdwarf with grandmaster archer & bow skills and wooden bow w/ 100 iron arrows vs fully iron armored dwarf.
Additional Information
Tagsarrows/bolts, balance, combat, Intentional/Expected?
Relationships
related to 0000808resolved Toady One Processing Raw Turtles only makes one shell per stack, and other stack size issues 
related to 0005516resolved Toady One Absurdly Powerful Bolts/Arrows 
related to 0003677new  Ammunition too large/heavy 
Attached Files
Issue History
Date ModifiedUsernameFieldChange
2010-04-05 12:53KaelGotRiceNew Issue
2010-04-05 13:07FootkerchiefNote Added: 0001178
2010-04-05 13:27QloosTag Attached: balance
2010-04-05 13:27QloosTag Attached: combat
2010-04-05 13:27QloosTag Attached: arrows/bolts
2010-04-05 13:39KaelGotRiceNote Added: 0001196
2010-04-05 13:42KaelGotRiceNote Added: 0001199
2010-04-05 13:49Logical2uNote Added: 0001202
2010-04-30 22:40FootkerchiefTag Attached: Intentional?
2010-06-22 09:06FootkerchiefRelationship addedrelated to 0000808
2010-07-12 12:03FootkerchiefTag RenamedIntentional? => Intentional/Expected?
2010-11-19 13:52Logical2uRelationship addedrelated to 0003677
2012-09-11 21:06FootkerchiefRelationship addedrelated to 0005516
2012-11-20 06:35Jetman123Note Added: 0023734
2012-11-20 07:30PetWolverineNote Added: 0023735
2014-01-29 10:54FootkerchiefSummaryBowdwarf forced into melee; Stabs attacker with stack of [45] iron arrows: super effective => Striking with stacked ammo gives a momentum bonus but no contact area penalty

Notes
(0001178)
Footkerchief   
2010-04-05 13:07   
Stabbing with the arrows isn't a bug in itself, although choosing to stab rather than bow-bash may be a bug. It would be helpful if you tested whether stabbing with 45 arrows is actually more effective than stabbing with 1.
(0001196)
KaelGotRice   
2010-04-05 13:39   
I went back and tested and it does appear to be causing more damage with more bolts/arrows, though I may just be getting lucky rolls. 1 bolt will pierce my skin and extremities when armor is worn, whereas my 100 bolts/arrows will pierce straight through their breastplate and mangle the lungs. Still testing.
(0001199)
KaelGotRice   
2010-04-05 13:42   
Yes, more testing reveals that stabbing with 1 arrow does much less damage/poorer penetration of armor than stabbing with a stack of [100].
(0001202)
Logical2u   
2010-04-05 13:49   
I did some rough tests in arena mode.

Stabbing with multiple arrows is far more effective than stabbing with 1 arrow, although the effects are most present in high differences of arrows and when you're in control of the dwarf.

Using the same skill set and only changing the number of arrows, the less arrows the person had the less likely they were to survive against the alligators I sent at them.

Seems like all the arrows are being used at once, increasing their weight and thus making them more likely to break bones and the skin.
(0023734)
Jetman123   
2012-11-20 06:35   
Fired arrows don't do much damage against an armored attacker? ... Wat? Crossbows and arrows are absurdly powerful in the current version.
(0023735)
PetWolverine   
2012-11-20 07:30   
Jetman123: Look at the date submitted: 2010-04-05 12:53. I don't think that part of the description is pertinent to the current version, but the actual bug may be.