Horse Archers are BROKEN in 1.2 patch!

[Orda Khan]

Can you provide a source that confirms your theories Sam?

......Orda

[Sinner]

the fact that "it happened" isnt a very good argument when dealing with simulating massed combat. Marines have shot and killed iraqis beyond 1000 yards. Would you make the effective range of modern simulation of a company of US marine infantry 1000 yards? uh no. It would be more like 100.

likewise, you cannot effectively attack from a gallop. It just hasnt happened in history. At carhae, for example, the romans were pinned down and relatively immobile. The horse archers had them surrounded and clearly would not have been firing from a gallop. napoleonic cavalry werent even issued muskets. US federal cavalry durring the indian wars and civil war dismounted to shoot. the light brigade carried swords, not guns. There is a reason for all this.

Sam, the historical accounts refer to the Parthians, for example, as a whole, they don't say "Oh, and there was one really good Parthian warrior who could... etc, etc, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda."

Since you weren't present at these historical events how can you possibly say "It just hasnt happened in history." given that you have no proof? The people opposing your viewpoint at least have the proof of eyewitness accounts.

And why would horse archers 'clearly' not shoot on the gallop against an immobile foe? If the Romans had even one missile-armed soldier left, no horseman in his right mind is going to want to do anything other than gallop to reduce the chance of being hit by return fire.

And certain Napoleonic cavalry were issued with dragoon muskets or carbines, as well as long-barreled pistols. The problem wasn't so much the accuracy - which muskets are bad at anyway - but that it's very difficult to reload a muzzle-loader on horseback.

US cavalry often fought from foot due to a tactical doctrine that recognized the accuracy of rifled firearms plus until the end of the war the ability to reload on horseback was still hampered.

The Light Brigade followed the same pattern as the US cavalry and were in any case attempting to take the guns, which required them to charge home - in such circumstances any cavalryman of the era would be likely favor the sword over their one-shot firearms.

There're your reasons.

Could you please possibly consider - especially given some of the personalities who are disagreeing with you - that your opinion might just be wrong, that history and even personal experience in one case might just be right.

[Red Harvest]

Sam,

Your analogy falls apart for one simple reason: In the Civil War both sides carried ranged weapons for their main forces, infantry and cavalry. A rifle is not particularly well set up for mounted fighting, and far less so until metallic cartridges with enclosed primers became available. Many early rifled muskets had a reload sequence that largely precluded use from the saddle. Dismounting was done primarily because a man on horseback was a rather big target. Cavalry alone could not beat infantry at the time because they were cut down too rapidly by rifle fire. Much early Civil War cavalry fighting was done in the saddle with saber and pistol, and proved rather ineffective. Napoleonic cavalry tactics were clearly out of date with the improved weaponry. This changed to mounted infantry where the cavalry was used to move into key positions and fight like infantry, and even dig in to hold briefly until infantry support arrived to relieve them. Cavalry charges became rare except when catching the enemy by surprise or other mitigating circumstances.

The horse archer cultures had to win tribal warfare and hunt game. This they did mounted, and they could shoot at the gallop. This makes them tougher defensively, and offensively. If you couldn't shoot while moving, you were at a disadvantage. At long range, arrows can be dodged. Bullets on the other hand...

[EGO]

I have to agree. I can't get horse archers to shoot arrows very often and I can't get elephant archers to shoot at all!!!!!

[Doug-Thompson]

After there's been enough testing to show that Qwerty's fix doesn't have any bad side effects on non-skirmishing combat, such as firing from a distance, that needs to be put in a fix and posted somewhere.

At the very least, it appears to be a big step in the right direction. Thanks, QwertyMIDX.

[Sam Adams]

I would like to see some historical reports of horse archers firing en masse while galloping durring battle. No, carrhae isnt one of them.

[Orda Khan]

Ammianus........'of incredible swiftness they ride, returning to battle to unleash their arrows'

Zosimus......'they wrought immense slaughter by wheeling, charging, retreating in good time and all the while firing from their horses'

Sidonius.......'Shapely bows and arrows are their delight, sure and terrible are their hands; firm is their confidence that their missiles will bring death and their frenzy is trained to do wrongful deeds with swift blows that never go wrong'

......Orda

[Proletariat]

the fact that "it happened" isnt a very good argument when dealing with simulating massed combat. Marines have shot and killed iraqis beyond 1000 yards. Would you make the effective range of modern simulation of a company of US marine infantry 1000 yards? uh no. It would be more like 100.

When I qualified for the Army on my M16 two years ago I hit 39 out of 40 targets ranging from 50 meters to 300. The one I missed was due to getting sand in my weapon.

I have never shot anything else in my life. (Hey, I'm a female who just does occupational therapy for the Army.)

Marines from what I remember qualify on ranges that are 500 meters.

Aside from being wrong, how is this relevant? Did you watch the video CBR provided?

[SpencerH]

If you can consistently hit a man-size target at 300m with an M16 then I'd say you're a good shot (male or female) and I've fired many more weapons than the M16. I'm not a good shot myself without a scope and prefered closer ranges and an AK-47 or longer ranges and a .50cal.

[Proletariat]

If you can consistently hit a man-size target at 300m with an M16 then I'd say you're a good shot (male or female) and I've fired many more weapons than the M16.

I think I might've benefited from never having shot before. Alot of the soldiers there who came from more rural areas who had experiance 'back home' with 22s and such might've picked up bad habits learning on their own and such.

[Simetrical]

Maybe focusing on one weapon helps, too. It also doesn't hurt that the targets are stationary, they contrast well with their background, and you don't have to worry about having to shoot the second you see the target or about missing a few of the targets.

Incidentally, Proletariat, how did you clean the sand from your gun quickly enough to hit the next target? I'd've thought you'd have missed at least two or three. I mean, I know they must have trained you to clean your gun quickly, and you presumably didn't have to take the thing apart to get out the sand, but still.

Wait, what was the topic again?

-Simetrical

[Nelson]

Sam, there are and have been since the earliest days of Shogun, a vociferous group of Mongolphiles here in the org. They believe that the mounted archer was the greatest weapon system of the pre-gunpowder era. By suggesting that steppe warriors were not gods of war to a man you have essentially peed in their Wheaties. I see where you're coming from. We used to discuss the skills of a typical samurai in the same way. Some people thought they were all magicians with a sword and others considered that the average guy was more pedestrian than mystical with a blade. How good was the typical horse archer? Who knows?

In combat all they had to do was fire into a teeming mass of men/horses, as Ziu has pointed out. Clearly they were good enough to cause untold havoc with compound bows doing just that. So the efficacy of the weapon system as such is not really debatable. They were not likely all Zen marksmen nor did they need to be. I suspect that some were pretty damn good though. If this was their life’s work they would have mastered it.

Setting the stat_pri_attr attribute to “throw” did indeed enable HA to skirmish nicely without being in a circle. I have always used the cantabrian circle a lot because it seemed to work the best. Maybe now I won't need it as often.

Hats off to QwertyMIDX.

[Doug-Thompson]

Sam, there are and have been since the earliest days of Shogun, a vociferous group of Mongolphiles here in the org. They believe that the mounted archer was the greatest weapon system of the pre-gunpowder era. By suggesting that steppe warriors were not gods of war to a man you have essentially peed in their Wheaties.

Yes, I forgot to mention that. A typical Mongol horse archer could empty his bladder into a bowl of Wheaties on the ground while riding by at a full gallop. Thanks for reminding me, Nelson.

(Everybody does realize that's a joke, right?)

Seriously, this silly little argument has lead me to some great stuff. Check out this and this. I'm going to buy this guy's book. His name is Lajos Kassai, he's from Hungary, and he's apparently the Guinness Book of World Records holder for most shot fired accurately from a galloping horse.

[Xiahou Liao]

I hate Horse Archers...

[Proletariat]

Incidentally, Proletariat, how did you clean the sand from your gun quickly enough to hit the next target? I'd've thought you'd have missed at least two or three.

The army uses the acronym SPORTS

Slap (tap the magazine upwards)
Pull (pull the charge back to open the chamber and release the stuck round)
Observe (look in the chamber to see what's stuck/jammed/sandy)
Release (let the charge slam back forward)
Squeeze (pull the trigger and see if you got it going)

I'm almost positive that's how it went, but it has been a little while.

I could probably do this in 20-30 seconds, it sounds harder than it is. I had a Filipino drill sergeant who could do this whole process and actually catch the round as it flew out. It was astonishing to watch.


Oh yeah! The thread! Thank you very much, Qwerty!

[The Storyteller]

Darn, the fact that horse archers could fire on the move was my fav. bit of RTW. I always thought horse archers of the steppes ought to be able to do it.

With regards to the historical accuracy of this, James Chambers states that the trick to keep arrows relatively accurate was to loose the arrow when all four of the horse's legs were in the air. That minimises shaking and bouncing. As someone pointed out, it's easier to shoot at a gallop than at a trot. I don't think this is specific to the Mongolians, or even to the inhabitants of the Asian Steppes. I believe the Native Americans used mounted archers as well.

I think it's quite clear that shooting from a moving horse is, if nothing else, possible for a significant number of people. I think it's also clear that it's possible to be reasonably accurate at it (witness modern day horseback archery demonstrations). And I do think that if people can do it now, then surely those who grew up in that kind of culture could do it then.

Accuracy probably didn't matter that much. When you have 60 foot archers firing into a blob of enemy, you don't need pinpoint accuracy. Likewise for mounted archers.

What I think is the crux of this argument is whether or not shooting from a moving horse is reasonably possible. Giving examples where this didn't happen doesn't work, because all that's needed is one example to show that it did to prove that it's possible and probable that it did happen.

What may help is looking at the situation and time period. Some cultures never used mounted archers. Anywhere with lots of obstructions, like trees and the like, would never use them. In an era where guns were becoming widely used, but still difficult to load, mounted shooters wouldn't be used. Like all activities, horse archers had their time and place, and you're going to have to look at that time and place to see if it's possible or not.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

i dunno if that is a bug or not. Usually an arrow(or rifle) aimed from horseback was uselessly innacurate.

You must be JOKING. Look at how the Mongols and Native Americans could fire their bows/rifles from horseback! Probably better than most people could standing still! The sport of horse archery still exists, btw.
Check this out:www.horsebows.com/bows

[Sam Adams]

im not debating the usefullness of extremely mobile archers.

Im just saying that when suddenly charged and coming about to quickely fall back, while riding perhaps the bumpiest form of transportation known to man, its not likely that you would be releasing arrows.

[Red Harvest]

Just got some new books today. Interesting things relative to the topic although I haven't had a chance to read much yet:

A Scythian coin showing King Atai firing his bow forward with horse clearly at a gallop. (He died in battle vs. the Macedonians in 339 BC at the age of 90.)

A relief in Ashurnasirpal's palace at Nimrud shows a "Parthian shot" on the run by some horse archer fleeing Assyrian cavalry--probably Median. Interestingly he is depicted early in his draw with vertical aim angle of about 30 degrees. (Assyrian 11th century BC?)

Also an Assyrian relief of fleeing Arab camel nomads (two per camel), with rear archer firing at pursuing Assyrian cavalry who are firing forward at them.

Some sort of illustration showing the battle of Ulai River with forward firing Assyrian horse archer shooting at Elamites and driving them into the river ~655 BC.

A wall painting from Dura Europos 2-3rd century AD showing a forward firing horse archer.

Also graffiti from Dura Europos showing another forward firing horse archer.

All of the horses in the above appear to be moving much faster than a walk. I'll accept these contemporary "movies" over a modern person's conjecture about what is possible to do from a horse.

[Sam Adams]

greek coins have pictures of achilles and zeus on them.

doesnt meen they existed, does it?

[The Storyteller]

im not debating the usefullness of extremely mobile archers.

Im just saying that when suddenly charged and coming about to quickely fall back, while riding perhaps the bumpiest form of transportation known to man, its not likely that you would be releasing arrows.

I kind of agree with this... It depends very much on the circumstances. I know the Mongolians went a lot faster than their European counterparts, so they could withdraw in good order, shooting as they went (while still being on the move, though...) Anyone know if they were able to do the same thing while being pursued by cavalry forces as fast as them?

[HarunTaiwan]

The longest range kill in history was 2,400 meters.

Canadian sniper in Afghanistan.

He could kill your general from the campaign map.

[Sam Adams]

that was with a barrets .50 that regular infantry dont get.

[Sam Adams]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...?Item=28572467

[Trithemius]

however, many of us have played with guns. extensively. 10s of thousands of rounds. And I know 1 thing... you cant shoot(accuratly) while moving, no matter how much skill you think you have. Now granted shooting into a mass of men would take away some of innacuracy problem... but those ancient horse archers certainly would have tried to stop to fire, and if being persued by cavalry, there is no possible way they could have effectively returned fire.

Firearms are not the same as bows. Recoil effects are different and ballistics are different.

Also, I would ask if you have practiced mounted gunfire every day of your life and relied upon it for a large part of your sustenance. The people who used this method of fighting, historically, practiced mounted archery as a way of life - not simply a hobby.

[Trithemius]

napoleonic cavalry werent even issued muskets. US federal cavalry durring the indian wars and civil war dismounted to shoot. the light brigade carried swords, not guns. There is a reason for all this.

What has Napoleonic cavalry got to do with this?
Shall we also discuss the fact that cavalry in the 19th century were issued with firearms?

[HopAlongBunny]

As for firing black powder muskets from horseback, do a little reading about the Metis.

[Red Harvest]

greek coins have pictures of achilles and zeus on them.

doesnt meen they existed, does it?

I guess that means that nothing depicted on coins or in sculpture ever existed.

You remind me of my little brother as a kid, sticking his fingers in his ears and singing or humming loudly if someone tried to tell him something he didn't want to believe or hear. We know that later horse archers did these feats you find so impossible. We know that modern day riders can also do them (I've seen video of several.) We have written historical accounts of this. And we have reliefs going back at least to 1000 BC that regularly show people doing this on both horses and camels.

But I think we should reject all that evidence, and listen to the guy singing with his fingers in his ears.

We really need a horse archer smiley for this topic.

[{Pharaoh}Anubis{Pha}]

God this sucks!! i feel that i been sitting here reading all these posts from start to finish here.....my azz is sore well anyway when is the team gonna fix this major lamer bug for HA? cause now i not wanna play any of the HA factions or even play against them cause the fun has been taken out

[Sam Adams]

legends and sporting events do not make real combat tactics, red harvest. Do you honestly think that horse archers could be effective in that sudden moment when they are required to turn and flee to avoid persuit? no, it just isnt realistic.