EB's reflection of archery [Archive]

jerby

04-15-2005, 21:32

i've heard that in the current RTW archery cannot be reflected properly, since it can't realy hold back and disrupt.
so how will EB handle archery, since it is way to deadly in RTW. please dont make accounts as: archery won the battle of agincourt or carrhae. both weren't.

agincourt was won due to the weather. the knights of france had much better armour as th emetal on the arrows: the bodkin point could not penatarte! the mud at the battle was so stickey that fallen knight couldn't get up, ut the lighter archers ( switching to knives) could easily run circels around teh knights...

Carrchae was technically won by arrows, but was messed up by the romans.
the commander ( i believe crassus) was very confident in the testudo fomration ( almost as much as hollywood) and thought they copuld easily withstand the fire. but due to teh constant supply of arrows the steppe troops won. carrhae might have taken up an entire day to detroy many units before the catapracts came ( if they did, i'm not sure) in rtw carrhae should take about 10 min...

so archery is uselessly overpowerd, probably hollywood influence. even black skies of arrows didn;t do much damages, it just gave good shade.. ~:handball:

Steppe Merc

04-15-2005, 21:44

Sorry, archery was extremely important. You are thinking about Romans and their contempariaries. But the easterners used archery, and it was a key compenent.
And no, it wasn't just because of Crassus' stupidity. Carhae was won due to the Parthians, not the because the Roman's stupidity. Without the steppe tactics, the Romans still would have won. And guess what? Steppe tactics are based on archery. And their bows certaintly did kill. But the Parthians didn't only use horse archers, as the cataphracts and other heavy and medium cavalry played some role, though probably not that big.
But composite bows, as were used by the people of the steppe, and other Easterners, were deadly. Even the Greeks had decent archery (at least the Cretians). So don't make blanket statements that archery had no use. It was key to many cultures, and it did play a major role.
Just not with Rome, and it's neighbors. What you are saying is like saying that cavalry is to important in the game. While it may be true for the Romans, not for all cultures.

jerby

04-15-2005, 21:55

so it was important, ok. sorry about that. but than again was it effective? did it kill or distrupt?

ok. it always seemed weird that teh forrester warband with its strait bow was one of teh best archers..looked weir. were they so good? was the curved bow so much better? will this be implemented?

Steppe Merc

04-15-2005, 22:10

Yes, the composite bow was far superior to any self bow, including the longbow. They had greater range, and required less force, and were smaller.
And yes it will be in EB. We will represent the different sorts of bows different people had.

As for effective, it depends what you mean, and how the people you're talking about used it. A lot of cultures just used it for pre skirmishing, to kill off a few, and bother the rest. But others had archers in a lot more important role, and those tended to be the ones with the superior bows. The were still used in a harrasing fashion, but it was a lot more prolonged and deadly than say the Romans, or Celts. And they were far better archers. The Eastern nomads, and even the more settled Easteners were excellent archers. Instead of the bow being a backup weapon, it was a main weapon for the nomadic cavalry and many settled nation's cavalry.
But even the steppe horse archers couldn't win a battle on there own. They needed back up of some kind. All had some sort of heavier cavalry, and most had some sort of infantry. Even the Parthians, who were very horse oriented tended to have a 2 to 1 ratio of infantry to horsemen.

So archery was important, and deadly, but it can't really win a battle on it's own. Unless you are playing an infantry faction, and don't have any cavalry to chase off the archers. Then you deserve to suffer the fate that Crassus and other settled people did against horse archers. ~;)

jerby

04-15-2005, 22:18

i'm really talking to teh right person for this...thxn for the info.
ok so how will the archery of the 'barbarians' be handled? if they were inferior they won't kill much and will thus be pretty much junk. becuase (to me) archers can only kill, the disruption would be difficult to implement.
and the ancient question: will (the best) archers be better than (the best) peltast in EBTW? noton a 1 vs 1 basis but on kills vs infantry ( including melee when empty or not..)

DemonArchangel

04-15-2005, 22:29

Steppe Merc, will foot archers outperfom HAs in terms of shooting power?

A foot archer generally carries a larger bow and heavier arrows than an HA would.

Steppe Merc

04-15-2005, 22:45

Yes, they will Demon. A composite bow carrying footman will shoot better than a composite bow wielding horseman.

ok so how will the archery of the 'barbarians' be handled? if they were inferior they won't kill much and will thus be pretty much junk. becuase (to me) archers can only kill, the disruption would be difficult to implement.
Well I don't know much about the Celts, Germans and Iberian archery types, and how effective they were.

and the ancient question: will (the best) archers be better than (the best) peltast in EBTW? noton a 1 vs 1 basis but on kills vs infantry ( including melee when empty or not..)
Haha, the archer vrs. javilen. Well, it depends. The weakest horse archer can still trample a peltlast. But a foot archer compared against a peltlast? Hmm. Again, it all depends on where each one is from. But I think that they serve different purposes. Javileneers throw, then either run away and let the others finish the fight, or charge themselves if they can fight. Archers can continue to from far away to pepper the enemies, but generally tend to be less tough in melee than javilen chuckers. Again, this is generalization, and I'm not reall sure. But a javilen will kill a man far easier than the best of arrows. But you need to get a lot closer and you can only carry so many of them.

Simetrical

04-15-2005, 22:51

Carrchae was technically won by arrows, but was messed up by the romans.On the strategic level, yes, Crassus acted foolishly, and the small matter of being betrayed by a Parthian-employed infiltrator didn't help. Once the battle started, however, the Romans had no chance of winning.

the commander ( i believe crassus) was very confident in the testudo fomration ( almost as much as hollywood) and thought they copuld easily withstand the fire.I've read both of the ancient accounts of the battle (AFAIK, there are only two), and neither ventures a guess as to what Crassus thought he could do. He hadn't, if I remember correctly, ever faced the Parthians before.

but due to teh constant supply of arrows the steppe troops won. carrhae might have taken up an entire day to detroy many units before the catapracts came ( if they did, i'm not sure)Testudo didn't work in part because the arrows punched straight through Roman shields, pinning their hands to them and forcing them to lower them. The cataphracts were there from the very start, and they also stopped the Romans from using testudo effectively, as they would charge if the Romans tried closing up, and testudo gave the Romans no room to fight.

Yes, the composite bow was far superior to any self bow, including the longbow.The English longbow was a composite bow, although made somewhat differently from the ancient Eastern composite bows. That is, it was made out of one piece of yew, but the heartwood and sapwood formed a natural composite.

Steppe Merc, will foot archers outperfom HAs in terms of shooting power?I can't speak for EB, but I'd guess that Eastern foot archers will be somewhat better than Eastern horse archers, but Eastern horse archers may still be superior to Western horse archers.

-Simetrical

Ranika

04-15-2005, 23:20

Celtic archery varies heavily depedent on region, even within a single culture. Celts covered such wide areas, local archers were skilled in forms of archery most useful to them. Such as Rhaetic and Noricene archers, who were mountain folk. They fought in relatively confined spaces, so they didn't worry about great range. Rather, their archery was more favored for wounding, cutting, piercing, and killing infantry, in close quarters. They would be more prone to fire hails of arrows, and probably not really aim. That's a far cry from Lemovices and Aquitannes archers, who fired at longer ranges, and very far from the archers of the 'Welsh' Britons, who focused on the length of the shot (culminating later in the yew longbow), because the terrain, while hilly, did offer flats, and plenty of options for long range bows to come into play. Celtic archers, if you want to generalize though, generally focused on somewhat longer range than average bows, but the real focus was on the quality of arrow heads, which were specialized into many different shapes, to be used against different forms of armor, against cavalry, unarmored infantry, and so on. Goidils, on the other hand, hardly ever used archers. At range, they preferred slings, but most battles in Ireland (and Mann, and the parts of Britain and Gaul they'd invade/raid) offer little chance for range. The sling is good in close, and far away, and doesn't make it awkward to carry a decent backup weapon, as bows are significantly clunkier to carry about. When they did use archers, they were either essentially hunters levied together, 'native', non-Celtic archers according to a lot of stories (which would be pretty much wiped out by this point anyway), or extremely specialized elites who were mainly used for ambushing small parties (like a travelling diplomat and his entourage, not a large army). Belgae were much like Gauls, but they sometimes mounted archers up (not by our period though, I don't think). These horse archers would be sub-standard at best, absolute shit at worst. They weren't trained to fight that way, they'd essentially be just archers made a bit more mobile, probably just irritants. The kind of specialization and regional concerns make archers for the Celts a bit tough to pin down, the variety is so great, so they'll be using a fair quality, somewhat generic archer, that should be pretty straight forward. Celts will also have slingers as a ranged compliment, as Celts were very fond of sling combat at all social levels. Archers/slingers should be able of playing a large role in a Celtic army, but not necessarily NEED to play a large role, specifically for the Gauls. Their archers are outclassed by others, but they should be of fair enough quality to be a decent irritation in small numbers, and a very real threat in somewhat large numbers. The historic role, generally, is that of irritation. Occupiers, annoyances, they would draw attention away from the main force.

So...anyway. Barbarian archers in general should be useful. Nothing too grand, I don't think, but Celtic archers, I know, should be a tad above average, but not really great at all.

Colovion

04-16-2005, 09:30

Steppe Merc, will foot archers outperfom HAs in terms of shooting power?

A foot archer generally carries a larger bow and heavier arrows than an HA would.

The Tatars under Tamerlane were known for carrying two different bows. One which was used during shooting from the saddle at speed or within combat itself. They were devoted to the bow, and was their favourite weapon so would only abandon their bows during battle if they absolutely had to enter melee. However, there was a second bow that was known to be rather heavy and be around 5 feet tall. It was to be used when dismounted, but they did use them from the saddle on occaision. Most steppe warriors implimented multiple kinds of arrows. Some for range, some for piercing armour, some for close range - the Mongols were renound for their whistling arrows for signals during battle. The Tatars even affixed Naphta to their arrows and procured small arrow grenades.

Though this is all a millenia after the timeframe we're discussing, there were still different kinds of bows and arrows used from horseback.

cunctator

04-16-2005, 11:34

Starting in late republic/early imperial times even the romans increasingly used archers and horse archers. Probably because they had seen the usefullness of such units fighting for their new enemys like the parthians.
Most of the roman archer units were stationed in the east, northwest africa and the at the eastern danube frontier to counter their mobile enemys their. But horse archers were also a part of Germanicus army in the 14ad-16ad campaign against the germans.
The greater part of the 46 known archer units of the auxilia around 100ad were horse archer or mixed units. A part of the equites singulares augusti was also equipped with bows.
11 alae quingenariae sagittarii ( out of ~75)
8 cohortes equitatae millariae sagittarii( out of ~22)
9 cohortes equitatae quingenariae sagittarii( out of ~77)
18 corhortes sigitarii ( out of ~18 cohortes millariae and 132 quingenariae)
The roman archers were mostly recruited in the east and so they also used the composite bow. This era was the only time period when composite bows were in widespread use in central europe.

The Wizard

04-16-2005, 14:52

The English longbow was a composite bow, although made somewhat differently from the ancient Eastern composite bows. That is, it was made out of one piece of yew, but the heartwood and sapwood formed a natural composite.

-Simetrical

Yes, but unlike the composite bow of 'the East' and of India, it was not recurved, making it a lot less effective.

Longbow penetration power, which is a good topic here since Germanic tribes used it extensively as well, depended not on the power of the bow, but on the arrow used. The English/Welsh longbow was used together with the bodkin arrow, an arrow with a heavy, barbed head which apparently (for reasons I do not personally know) was quite effective at penetrating contemporary armor.

What that means for Germanic factions? Their bows may have range, but a lot less power than the composite, recurved bows of the Eastern factions.

~Wiz

Rodion Romanovich

04-16-2005, 17:22

DemonArchangel

04-16-2005, 17:26

Well, all I know is that the Romans utilized the composite bow, but did not use the thumb ring.

jerby

04-16-2005, 20:09

How will roman-trained bows be? Effective or ineffective? Range long, medium or short? Afaik the roman archery started using composite bows so late that it's halfway out of the time scope of EB, so I'm curious whether roman archers will be good, average or bad in the EB mod?

i may have read that pre-marius rome did not use archer but funditores who where slingers.

btw, isn't teh english longbow out of our timeframe? is there anybodt who knows the comparision?

BDC

04-16-2005, 22:51

btw, isn't teh english longbow out of our timeframe? is there anybodt who knows the comparision?

Yeah, I believe it wasn't used until medieval times really, although apparently (according to some chap on some forums), it was used for long long before then, just not on the same scale or in the same way. The reason it was used over composite bows in medieval times was that composite bows tend to fall apart if it gets cold or damp, which is pretty much how it is in Britain all the time, making composite bows pretty useless.

Actually maybe that should be added in to the mod, that composite-armed units get penalties in wet places?

Ranika

04-16-2005, 23:14

Not to interject too much, but it's not an English longbow. The longbow in question is of Welsh origin. Calling it English is a misnomer; the English used Welsh bowmen, and eventually trained many English longbowmen, but the weapon is appropriately called the Welsh longbow, regardless of the nationality of the archer, because it is of Welsh design (like the gladius is a gladius hispanicus). And yes, it's out of period (for the most part), but that isn't the point. It can still be used as an example of a form of archery. Welsh longbow practices weren't meant to disrupt, they were used to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers, and with the adaptations of heads to varying forms of armor, they were also later used to kill heavily armored knights and footmen. The point made here is that archery need not simply be a disruptive tactic, regardless of the bow or heads employed. A proper type of arrow, with enough velocity, and enough of them in the air, can do great damage to a force. It all depends on how a culture employs archers, and the role they intended archers to play. If you can employ sizable numbers of archers who can fire great distances with decent accuracy, they quickly become much more important than disrupting, they can soften an enemy up significantly and make a serious difference. If your archers are shorter range, have poorer quality arrows, etc., then, of course, you won't be cutting apart enemies with them, but they're still good for disruption.

Turin

04-17-2005, 18:59

One REALLY important thing about horse archers in EB...

As you all know, 1.2 has the nerfed HAs. I believe that someone managed to unnerf them with a new skeleton or something.

This actually presents an interesting opportunity:

Parthians, Scythians, and Armenians should have HA that can shoot while galloping.

All other factions have the standard 1.2 HA, that is ones that cannot shoot while moving.

Shambles

04-17-2005, 19:20

I really thought The welsh had short bows,
They used to use em for Ambush attacks and stuff.

they were really powerfull and its been recorded that an arrow shot from 1 of these bows went through a 4 inch oak door,

Also reports of ambushes of welsh bandits attacking people on horse back,

1 account states that an arrow fired from a welsh bow went through the riders leg
killed the horse then partialy exited the horse on the other side Piercing the knight "or whatever it was" Through the other leg.

i really think the welsh used short bows and thats why They used em in close combat.

So is that Stong Bow but bad range?

how ever I seem to recall something about biows being prety usless for the english untill the made long bows,

Ranika

04-17-2005, 19:34

Orda Khan

04-17-2005, 19:37

We should not be thinking of Longbows and bodkin arrows as these were developed much later.

Longbows are not composite, no matter how this statement is justified, they were made from a single piece of wood regardless of heartwood and sapwood. Longbows are self bows.

Bodkins were manufactured in two types, the needle point and short point. They were forged in a square shape that tapered to a point, long in the needle point and short in the other. The needle point was intended for use against mail, the narrow point would the pierce the mail link and as it entered, the four edges would cut/force open and allow the arrow to enter. The short bodkin worked in a similar principle to a punch tool. The sharp point was intended to make the initial piercinging of plate, the four edges would then cut and pop a hole into which the arrow could enter. Against plate, the needle point would have bent.

Even if bows used at this time were 'long', they can not and should not be compared with a weapon that rose to prominence during late mediaeval times.

Arrows of this period would also be nowhere near as developed as mediaeval arrows, even the Huns were still using bone arrow tips in many cases in 4th C AD

.......Orda

The Wizard

04-17-2005, 20:04

Exactly Orda, and that is why Germanic archers may have the range, but not the power of Eastern and Indian archers.

~Wiz

jerby

04-17-2005, 20:06

keep it in the timeframe. the (welsh) english longbow is out of the period.

soembodt staded that composite bows could kill from afar. is this true? can composite bow arrows really kill much? how mcuh will it be on avarage?

like this: 40 fired 5 killed 5-40 this is common on rtw. how much will the be in ebtw? how much will peltasts be?

again: wich one will kill most infantrymen on a flat land? not vs each other but vs inf.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

04-17-2005, 20:32

The Welsh did use shortbows, but it didn't mean they couldn't also use longbows. The English didn't invent the longbow, the widespread usage of a yew longbow was POPULARIZED by the English, but the Welsh were the progenators of the bow originally. After England conquered Wales, they adopted the bow, because Welsh longbows, not shortbows, had utterly maimed huge portions of their infantry during the war.Correct. The introduction of the Welsh longbow to the world, in a way that would became the mainstay of English tactics in the 100 Years War was due to Eduard I of England (aka "Longshanks"). This occurred after the conquest of Wales, in which his troops suffered himmenselly to the hands of the Welsh yeomen wielding yew longbows. He was so impressed by their habilities and the bow's capacity that, immediatelly after conquest, hired and/or conscripted these longbowmen to fight with him in France and in the wars against the Scots. After Eduard I, the longbow and the longbowmen became a strategic resourse for England. But the technology and the technique was fully invented and developed by the Welsh.

jerby

04-17-2005, 20:34

longshanks is 1400AD, this is 200 BC, please man!

Aymar de Bois Mauri

04-17-2005, 20:37

longshanks is 1400AD, this is 200 BC, please man!I was just removing any doubts about the origins of the longbow that the English popularized during the 100 Years War.

soembodt staded that composite bows could kill from afar. is this true? can composite bow arrows really kill much? how mcuh will it be on avarage?

like this: 40 fired 5 killed 5-40 this is common on rtw. how much will the be in ebtw? how much will peltasts be?

again: wich one will kill most infantrymen on a flat land? not vs each other but vs inf.I could tell you all, but then I would have to kill you... :wink:

jerby

04-17-2005, 20:39

you really have much time on your hands don't you?

Simetrical

04-18-2005, 03:35

Longbows are not composite, no matter how this statement is justified, they were made from a single piece of wood regardless of heartwood and sapwood. Longbows are self bows.They were made from a single multilayered piece of wood, and therefore were functionally composite. They may, however, have more closely resembled self bows than Eastern composite bows in terms of construction. Either way is reasonable, neither is particularly better than the other, but if you use a definition of self bow that includes the longbow, the statement that "the composite bow was far superior to any self bow" is entirely unjustifiable.

-Simetrical

Aymar de Bois Mauri

04-18-2005, 12:41

you really have much time on your hands don't you?Well, if you really think that, then you're quite clueless...

jerby

04-18-2005, 12:51

i didn't mean to flame. i just thought the 'then i will have to kill you' comment was very lame.
but with all the EB members going around. why can't i just get the answer without everybody changig the fucking subject?

Aymar de Bois Mauri

04-18-2005, 13:30

soembodt staded that composite bows could kill from afar. is this true? Yes. Very much so. Specially dismounted versions. Range would variate from type of construction (many different types over the eras) as well as string tension and bow size. Penetration power would depend on arrow type.

can composite bow arrows really kill much? Well, you could try asking Crassus but he is dead...

How muh will it be on avarage?That is an impossible question to answer specifically. Much more than western self bows for sure.

like this: 40 fired 5 killed 5-40 this is common on rtw. how much will the be in ebtw? how much will peltasts be?For the most powerfull and elite archers in the game it will be something smaller than that ratio. As for peltasts, their killing power as been very much reinforced. We are still working on both of these.

again: wich one will kill most infantrymen on a flat land? not vs each other but vs inf.That depends on so many things that I cannot reply. Altitude, speed of enemy infantry unit, type of archer or javelliner. To vague...

Orda Khan

04-18-2005, 16:51

They were made from a single multilayered piece of wood, and therefore were functionally composite. They may, however, have more closely resembled self bows than Eastern composite bows in terms of construction. Either way is reasonable, neither is particularly better than the other, but if you use a definition of self bow that includes the longbow, the statement that "the composite bow was far superior to any self bow" is entirely unjustifiable.

-Simetrical

They were actually cut from the lowermost bough of the Yew tree and were not multi layered [ unless you refer to natural layering of the branch fibre? ] The rough bow stave was fashioned by the bowyer into the finished bow, which had the dark heartwood as the belly and the light sapwood as the back. Nonetheless it was constructed from a single piece of wood which is a world away from the Asiatic compsite constructions of wood, horn and sinew.

We could enter into a lengthy discussion about the performance of the Longbow v Asiatic but it really would be off topic due to the time scale. I am an archer myself and I can tell you that the Longbow performance has been blown out of all proportion

.......Orda

Simetrical

04-18-2005, 20:29

Well, you could try asking Crassus but he is dead...Be fair, he wasn't killed by the bows. It was his army that was. He was killed the next day when negotiations turned ugly.

They were actually cut from the lowermost bough of the Yew tree and were not multi layered [ unless you refer to natural layering of the branch fibre? ]Yes, I was.

We could enter into a lengthy discussion about the performance of the Longbow v Asiatic but it really would be off topic due to the time scale. I am an archer myself and I can tell you that the Longbow performance has been blown out of all proportionYou're right, this is off-topic, and I'll stop my part of this conversation here. I just think that it's more useful to consider the longbow as composite than as self, since it functionally is composite.

-Simetrical

DemonArchangel

04-18-2005, 21:07

DemonArchangel

04-18-2005, 21:09

note: Sorry can't edit.

Even if archery did break the Romans, it took the Parthians ALL DAY to do so.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

04-18-2005, 21:25

Be fair, he wasn't killed by the bows. It was his army that was. He was killed the next day when negotiations turned ugly.Yes, indeed. But, nevertheless, he would be a good storyteller to tell us of the effectiveness of the parthian bows, if he was still alive. That is what I meant, not that he had been killed by the bow's use itself.

Steppe Merc

04-18-2005, 23:42

I think it's actually fairly hard to break organized infantry formations with archery alone.

Think about Thermopylae.

Even at Carrhae, what won the battle was that the Romans were demoralized because they had no way of hitting back, not because the HAs were killing a lot of people.

Even if archery did break the Romans, it took the Parthians ALL DAY to do so.
Well that's what the horse archers do. Kill and demoralize, and they are made to drag out a fight. It's not a weakness, it's part of their strategy. Darius couldn't beat the Scythians because they were perfectly willing to drag on his chasing them, demoralizing them without commiting to one big, quick battle.
As for Thermopylae, there wasn't room for a prolonged shower of arrows. I think that that is a bad example, do to extremely questionable tactics by Xerxes. A good general would have gone around, and not even bother fighting the Spartans.

DemonArchangel

04-19-2005, 00:10

The problem: Thermopylae was the ONLY pass.

Steppe Merc

04-19-2005, 00:12

But they had a huge navy! Couldn't they just sail around them?

DemonArchangel

04-19-2005, 00:29

The concept of naval landing and amphibious assault probably wasn't too developed back then.

khelvan

04-19-2005, 04:56

The naval battle played a key role in the ultimate results of the battle of Thermopylae, as did the other pass. However, that is a very long discussion, and not really on topic.

Rodion Romanovich

04-19-2005, 11:37

But they had a huge navy! Couldn't they just sail around them?

There was a naval battle just outside Thermopylae (Artemision) which ended in both the greek and persians fleets retreating. The persians eventually got a detachment around through the mountains far inland but that took time and Xerxes was probably impatient. Besides, the spartans only showed their front with all the armor to the persians, so bows could hardly be an effective way of dealing with them (but perhaps skirmishers sent to one end of the line and throwing their javelins diagonally into the phalanx, then retreating if attacked, would have been a little more effective, as they would then maybe be able to hit the unarmored parts of the hoplites - but that would also be tricky because the pass was so narrow that you wouldn't get a good angle for that).

jerby

04-19-2005, 14:35

Even at Carrhae, what won the battle was that the Romans were demoralized because they had no way of hitting back, not because the HAs were killing a lot of people.

demoralizing doesn't kill, arrows do ~;)
im still very intressersted in arrows. after the launch does it just fall on ints targets? do arrows, shot from distance, more damage than short ranged or opposite? so many variables...

how many 'types' of arrows will EB implement?

Orda Khan

04-19-2005, 16:41

GoreBag

04-19-2005, 17:04

However, a shot from a longer range with a high arc may be able to regain some of its initial power, due to the force of gravity acting upon the arrows, hence why arrows shot from the top of a hill do more damage to troops below the hill. Of course, the more arc you want in the shot, the longer the shot will be (generally) and the less accurate it is. The most damage an arrow can do is from much closer, though, like Orda said. I once saw a reenactor fire an English (Welsh) longbow through a dummy from a few yards away. The arrow penetrated the breastplate and protruded almost completely from the dummy's back.

Steppe Merc

04-19-2005, 22:04

Exactly Orda. And the horse archers could and did gallop up close, fire and kill, then gallop out of range. They didn't just sit back and fire from far away, though of course they could do that.

Sarcasm

04-20-2005, 02:10

Their main ability was to close in, kill some and remain out of reach of the enemy. By doing this, they forced less mobile armies to either stay and die slowly, (because their cavalry can´t stand up to theirs) or break formation and be picked off one unit at a time, not necessarily defeat them head on.

Simetrical

04-20-2005, 03:32

A close range shot will be more accurate, armour piercing and deadly. An arrow once loosed is always slowing down due to resistance and therefore an arrow at the end of its flight has more or less lost its energy. It can still do damage but not nearly the damage it would at close rangeAs far as I know, though, nobody's thought of a way to implement this in RTW.

However, a shot from a longer range with a high arc may be able to regain some of its initial power, due to the force of gravity acting upon the arrows . . .
The force of gravity isn't nearly enough to meaningfully counteract air resistance of an arrow under typical circumstances, I don't think. I expect that the velocity of the arrow will pretty much be inversely proportional to the distance it's shot, given all the other independent variables as constant.

-Simetrical

cunctator

04-20-2005, 10:14

I have read some figures from trials with a reconstructed ancient composite bow. An arrow with a lenght of 0,9m and an amour piercing pyramid shaped iron head was used.

An arrow with a mass of 50g had an initial velocity of ca.~ 51 m/s. So the kinetic Energy of the arrow was (Ek=0,5*m*v²) ~ 63 Joule directly after it was fired.
The arrow was fired in an arc of 40° in a plain. The range was 188m, and the remaining kinetic energy on impact was still nearly ~ 50 Joule.

This figures are not typical for all kinds of arrows. The max range and the remaining kinetic energy very much depends on the shape and mass of the arrow.

An arrow shot on a scutum style, leather covered plywood shield at a
distance of 5 m penetrated the shield, but remained stuck into it.
The arrowhead was 0,32m behind the shield. So basically a
scutum could beware a legionaire from beeing killed.

buujin

04-20-2005, 13:28

Simetrical

04-20-2005, 23:16

I have read some figures from trials with a reconstructed ancient composite bow. An arrow with a lenght of 0,9m and an amour piercing pyramid shaped iron head was used.

An arrow with a mass of 50g had an initial velocity of ca.~ 51 m/s. So the kinetic Energy of the arrow was (Ek=0,5*m*v²) ~ 63 Joule directly after it was fired.
The arrow was fired in an arc of 40° in a plain. The range was 188m, and the remaining kinetic energy on impact was still nearly ~ 50 Joule.Hmm, very interesting. Do you remember where you saw this?

An arrow shot on a scutum style, leather covered plywood shield at a distance of 5 m penetrated the shield, but remained stuck into it. The arrowhead was 0,32m behind the shield. So basically a scutum could beware a legionaire from beeing killed.I think we knew this already from ancient accounts of Carrhae. The legionaries' hands were said to have gotten pinned to their scuta.

-Simetrical

jerby

04-21-2005, 09:26

Keep your hat on Jerby. Swearing is uncalled for.

Maybe you should do some research of your own .
Its no one's duty to answer your quieries, eccpecially if they are historical rather than game-related.

looking at the titel i'm guessing the question is game related. and even a bit opion related.....

cunctator

04-21-2005, 15:57

It was in the book: "Die Reiter Roms, Teil 3, Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung, Verlag Phillip von Zabern, ISBN 3805312881" written by Marcus Junkelmann. (Roman horsemen, part 3 euqippment, riding, armament) Chapter II 3 "the attack weapons of the cavalry".
Dr. Markus Junkelmann is a german historian and reenactor/experimental aerchaelogian. He focuses on roman military history and uses real life and long time test with reconstructed equippment to examine how the roman army functioned.

http://junkelmann.de/

The bow itself was a "sasanid" late hunic composite bow. The bow and the arrows were reconstructed by Edward McEwen. an archer and bowyer of the society of archer antiquaries in London.

http://www.societyofarcher-antiquaries.org/

Southern Hunter

04-22-2005, 03:24

Just returning to the topic momentarily if I may....

In my R:TR experience, an army of missile armed troops will absolutely carve most enemy armies up, especially those of Macedon (small shields), but including Rome etc. Additionally, it is possible to skirmish with such armies and kill many of them and then leave the field. This is especially so with Slingers (Balearic or Rhodian preferably) which have almost unlimited ammo (I have never exhausted it).

I don't believe that this kind of result was often reproduced in history. Quite the opposite, the HI was considered the most important arm (Hoplites, Phalanx, Legion), and light troops skirmishing was considered a trivial preliminary. I am aware of the few exceptions, but they are still 'few'.

Surely something must be done to either:
- Limit the general effectiveness of the weapons, to prevent 'Agincourt style' tactics that I use often. This could be a lowering of the firing factor, or a greater inaccuracy, or a raising of shield values.
- Increase the cost (or reduce the number of men)
- Reduce the availability (I have whole armies virtually of archers and slingers, and there is no historical precedent for this at the time)

So what's the plan?

Hunter

Rodion Romanovich

04-22-2005, 09:50

Missile troops are never unimportant. If they don't kill much per volley, they can force an enemy into attacking if they only have enough ammo, or even without much ammo force an attack from undisciplined enemies. Armies had plenty of missile troops in battles, and they were certainly cheaper than training of legions. The only way I think missiles could be balanced to keep realism would be to reduce the attack statistics for them slightly, and/or make shields more effective. That's something I also think should be made to onagers with their attack vs men statistic. A reduction of perhaps 50% at least...?

Randal

04-22-2005, 12:11

Yes, onagers. Those are a far bigger problem than archery, especially combined with the brilliant battle AI that makes the enemy phalanx stand immobile whilst you chuck rocks at them.

Historically, siege engines were not used a lot on the field of battle in the period we describe. Dunno why, really. Perhaps they were just too difficult to transport? (Which could be reflected by lowering movement value even more.)

The only incident I can think of involving siege engines in a pitched battle would be Arrian's array against the Alans, which uses artillery pieces to help break up the enemy cavalry charge. But this took place way beyond EB's timeframe.

Well, at least onagers themselves won't be making an appearance in the mod, as those too are anachronistic. Probably the replacement catapults will not be as effective.

jerby

04-22-2005, 15:03

could EB implement a cover-animation? when shot at well-traianed men (or all) could raise their shield over their heads( like when climbing ladders)..

what will the stats be like in EB for archers ( just guessing, more less then rtw)

cunctator

04-22-2005, 20:36

Historically, siege engines were not used a lot on the field of battle in the period we describe. Dunno why, really. Perhaps they were just too difficult to transport? (Which could be reflected by lowering movement value even more.)

The only incident I can think of involving siege engines in a pitched battle would be Arrian's array against the Alans, which uses artillery pieces to help break up the enemy cavalry charge. But this took place way beyond EB's timeframe.

Artillery was mostly stationary especially the larger pieces. It was transported disasembled on mules for longer distances.
Reading Tacitus it looks like the romans used their artillery whenever it was possible but the low moblility limited that to stationary fighting. Like the forced crossing of river in Germannicus 15-16ad campaign. The only other pitched battle I know when artillery was used is the second battle near cremona in the 69ad civil war. There even stone throwers were used against the enemy formations like in RTW.

Tacitus Histories Book3 23
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitus/TacitusHistory03.html

Later in arrians times the romans used carro balistae, bolt throwers on mule cars, as mobile field artillery.

http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/med/1.12.m.jpg

Randal

04-25-2005, 00:21

Thanks, that explains quite a few things. I'll make sure to read some more Tacitus.

Anyway, (at the risk of going slightly off-topic) does that mean EB's artillery will be immobile? (and preferably not turnable, that ought to limit effectiveness) I was rather surprised when it turned out my onagers could be moved.

Rodion Romanovich

04-25-2005, 09:28

jerby

04-25-2005, 14:35

most artillery will be smaller than onagers. most will fire bolts, maybe one or two stone-chuckers but thats it (probably) so most artillery will be movable. else you could make artillery useless by positioning your men far away enough and they'll never get close enough

Mr Frost

04-25-2005, 16:20

...

Well, at least onagers themselves won't be making an appearance in the mod, as those too are anachronistic. Probably the replacement catapults will not be as effective.
The heavy stone throwers of the era in question should actually be more effective than the later Onagers presented in the Vanilla RTW .

The actual peices were scaled up balistas which were a far more sophisticated weapon , and were built to very exacting standards using the best mathematics of the day {Archemidies designed some particularly potent monsters for counter battery fire in defense of Syracuse} .

The science was largly lost in late Empire and the less sophisticated {and less efficient} Onager was invented to fill the void . The earlier stone throwing Balistas were the more potent weapons .
From what I've read , Rhodes should be a leading producer of artillery , as should the Ptolemies {they loaned out -for income I imagine- many peices to other nations and still had plenty of units remaining in country to worry Caesar so they likely produced a lot of artillery} .

cunctator

04-25-2005, 20:09

Am I totally wrong when I say I read in a book that roman legions around 100 AD used one ballista per centuria? It sounds strange - 60 per legion - but I thought I read that somewhere. If so, how were the ballistae employed in the line?

Most of the legions artillery where bolt throwers.

I think Vegetius wrote that there was approx. one scorpion/bolt thrower per centuria and one stone thrower per cohort. But I don`t know about what period he is talking.

During the siege of Jotapata Vespasians 3 legion (+auxilia) army has had a total 160 artillery pieces. (Josephus Flavius, De Bello Judaico Book 3/7/9)

Rodion Romanovich

04-26-2005, 17:14

Most of the legions artillery where bolt throwers.

I think Vegetius wrote that there was approx. one scorpion/bolt thrower per centuria and one stone thrower per cohort. But I don`t know about what period he is talking.

During the siege of Jotapata Vespasians 3 legion (+auxilia) army has had a total 160 artillery pieces. (Josephus Flavius, De Bello Judaico Book 3/7/9)

Ok thanks. What I meant with ballistae where bolt throwers. I never seem to remember if it was ballista = bolt, catapult = stone or if it was ballista = stone, catapult = bolt that is the correct one. Usually half the sources claim the first alternative and the other half claims it's the other way around...

Anyway, the book I read was about the Dacian wars and it was quite old but it said the around 100 AD legion had 60 ballistae. As far as I know, it was a quite new discovery that ballista and catapult meant opposite to what people thought before, and it seems more realistic that 60 bolts and not 60 stone throwers were used by a legion so I assume that means that catapult really means bolt weapon and ballista means stone thrower ~:confused: :help: ?