That is good to know. So let us not pretend that recreational archery, or even Olympic archery are martial arts.
Because they are not. They are merely toys, that would do little to no damage in a medieval battlefield.
When trying to pierce armour, even if it's just chainmail over a gamberson, every pound of force is important.
That us why hunting bows had lower draw weights and thinner arrows. Because animal don't use armour.
For an Ashigaru, the lowest range for draw weight is 70 pounds, which is still a lot. And this is for a movement of opening the arms. Not a mere dead weight lift.
For any person, to use a war bow, it would require years of intense training. Not only to develop the proper technique, but also to develop the muscles in the proper areas of the body.
Modern man are overall stronger than men in medieval times. And taller and healthier. But modern men don't train for years, to develop the technique and the required muscles for a war bow.
War bows have become obsolete for centuries, even in Japan. So no one trains with them, except for history enthusiasts.
And distance means nothing for a war bow. What matters is foot-pounds on impact.
Now you can show me where exactly I wrote olympic recurve is part of martial arts. Did I even mentioned olympic recurve? I personally am not interested in this part of archery. I shoot traditional.
The fact that these bows do little damage has nothing to do with the bows per se but with the tips of the arrows. There is a reason why broadheads are used for hunting. In target archery, the purpose is not to kill something, but to hit a target. Broadheads would only shorten the life of the target. Today, archery is mainly practised as target archery.
Recurve with sights, barebow and compound are nevertheless still used for hunting today. Even for larger animals such as bears. Where it's still permitted.
As you say, war bows are shot by some enthusiasts. And they usually use field points too. Whether war bow or other bow ... the more draw weight, the more damage the bow can do, even with a field point. You don't need many pounds to easily shoot into wood and the like even with a field point. And even for hunting, there are primarily ethical reasons why the minimum limit is often around 50 pounds.
If you don't want to shoot a bear, less pounds will do. A bow with less draw weight will also shoot smaller animals and also something like deer. The bow is not just a question of strength but of technique. A good hunter would also shoot many animals with 30 pounds. The problem with bowhunting is more human arrogance, people who think a headshot is better than aiming for the larger lungs and the like.
No bow is an effective weapon today. A firearm is simply superior to a bow. Bows are slow in comparison and even if you were shooting with 120 pounds it wouldn't matter. Against a firearm that can fire quickly, it's just a toy. You won't even find bows in our weapon laws. They are considered to be toys and sports equipment and are freely available for sale.
But the starting point was the post by OP, who posted a video of the actress playing the new protagonist. And I only reacted to that and pointed out that there was nothing wrong with it. There are some women who train martial arts and the like, compete in competitions etc. Even in conservative countries like Japan. There is nothing wrong with the actress (or them, what does the person identify as?) training with a weapon.
About the game: I'm not so interested in whether it's a woman or a man. Would I have needed a woman? No. Does it have to be a drama? No. Much more interesting is how they present her story. I would assume something like an onna-musha served as a reference.
It will be interesting to see whether they rework the gameplay for the new protagonist and give her a typical weapon like the naginata. Or increase the focus on stealth. I don't disagree with you that women are simply physically weaker per se. It's simply biology. But it's also a fact that we know almost nothing about the new game and whether they will perhaps rework the gameplay accordingly.
What we do know is that the game is set in the Edo period. At that time, the Onna-musha no longer played such a big role, but perhaps it is one of the few that remain? There is a lot of discussion here about samurai, a woman's physical strength and the like. In the Edo period, however, the focus of the samurai was no longer so much on warfare. So who says they let the woman fight against an army of samurai?
There were at least women among the Onna-musha who practised kenjutsu during this period. So far, there is nothing completely wrong with the depiction in the game. According to the announcement for the game, the new region is also far away from organised samurai clans. The first part was historically solid, although there was also enough pure fiction. And the female characters in the predecessor weren't badly realised or overrepresented either. So we can hope that they can a) create a believable female protagonist here and b) once again create a good mix of fiction and a believable game world. A woman per se doesn't have to be a problem if they portray her appropriately.
The Edo period is considered a peaceful era. We had a major war as the basis for the plot of the predecessor. Perhaps it will be more intrigue on a smaller scale here? After all, we are starting at the beginning of the Edo period and are in a state of change. Maybe they're use Christianity in Japan for the background, which was banned shortly after the start of the Edo period in Japan. Who knows, maybe even the Shogun book series served as inspiration.
We currently have no idea whether we will simply get a sword-wielding super pseudo-samurai girlboss. So let´s see.
