View Full Version : Is the longbowman the best archer of the game ?
Is the longbowman the best archer of the game ?
One thing is sure : it is not the only one ... but how good it is really ?
------------------
http://membres.lycos.fr/heratlas/a_gaso/regions/gnormand.gif
Duché de Normandie (http://membres.lycos.fr/heratlas/normandi/chro_nor.htm)[b]
[b]"De gueules aux deux léopards d'or, armés et lampassés d'azur, passant l'un sur l'autre."
If we are talking pure effectiveness I would say so.
But if we are talking costeffectiveness I'm not so sure anymore, I'm pretty sure some of the skirmishers are better than the Longbows in the long run.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I guess it has a better maximum range, no ?
or fire rate ?
------------------
http://membres.lycos.fr/heratlas/a_gaso/regions/gnormand.gif
Duché de Normandie (http://membres.lycos.fr/heratlas/normandi/chro_nor.htm)
"De gueules aux deux léopards d'or, armés et lampassés d'azur, passant l'un sur l'autre."
Vlad The Impaler
09-23-2002, 16:18
well they finish their missiles too quickly i think ; but they are good http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif in combination with billmen are great ; being well protected ..
i didnt played much with the brits but thats what i observe till now
------------------
One sword to behead the white ruler sitting on the white throne in the Vatican.
One sword for the ruler who will come and unite us under the sign of the cross
with broken arms. Eleven swords to behead eleven lords and rulers of the land
united under the blue banner. A hundred swords to defend our southern
boundaries against black plague and half moon.
And one axe for me to defend my stronghold, and may I call this axe, "Bane of
Christendom" soon.
The Pavise Arbalester has my vote.
Excellent range, hitting power and it even has half a chance of staying alive for a while if attacked.
Of course if you play with unlimited ammo (gits) then Longbowmen are probably better, but what fun is that?
We are talking bows here, not crossbows (which includes Arbs).
Longbows advantages over normal archers are:
-Better range (quite a good deal better)
-AP capability (0.5 modifier to enemy armour)
-High rate of fire. Can be a double edged sword though.
-Lastly they are better in melee.
But of course there are skirmishers that are better in melee than the Longbows.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Rosacrux
09-23-2002, 16:35
So, we compare longbows to plain archers or what? I don't think that's a very fair comparison, given the difference in cost and the uniqueness of the longbows... Dunno, but I've had mediocre results with them longbows... maybe I am not using them right, I dunno.
Pav. Arbalesters, on the other hand... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
[This message has been edited by Rosacrux (edited 09-23-2002).]
Yeah longbows are the best BOW-unit, but not nescessarily the best missile unit.
It depends on the battle. In a long battle I prefer arbalesters (pavise or not) for their durability. In a shorter battle archers can deal damage faster and over friendly units.
As England I used to go 50/50. Then the spent longbows could retreat while the arbs kept pounding.
Longbows are more expensive than arbs - that has to go into the equation too.
Well Rosa, when you fire your bows they will fire at the spot where the unit was when they fired. So if you fire at a small fast unit they will most likely not hit.
Target the unit that walks in front of other units (but closely) then the units behind them will begin to drop.
When the enemy gets closer just target what you want.
Longbows are also good for firing into melee, just make sure yor men are of strong morale, at least better than the enemy's.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I like longbows the best. They have the same number of ammo as any arbalest or crossbow unit and I guess around the same strength too. They also fire faster.
Horse archers get my vote, or camel archers, Berber archers, y'know.
Soapyfrog
09-24-2002, 01:28
Boyars... they rock!!
Quote Originally posted by andrewt:
I like longbows the best. They have the same number of ammo as any arbalest or crossbow unit and I guess around the same strength too. They also fire faster.[/QUOTE]
Yeah same ammo - but they spend it a lot faster. I like to keep my tactical options open. With a longbow-only army I basically have to charge after 2 minutes since I'm out of ammo by then.
LittleGrizzly
09-24-2002, 13:45
but the enemy will be weaker than you as they will still be firing arrows but there is the morale side also i spose.
and if were talking cost effectivness morale also has to be counted not howning the game whats longbow morale compared to bows
btw cav arcs were great in shogun i hope thier as good or better here !
LittleGrizzly, they are a lot faster, but hardly as effective because of their numbers. Also their melee stats are bad, they can barely beat normal archers in melee, and certainly not better archers (longbows or Trebizond Archers).
Real good Horse Archers are the Byzantine Cavalry, Boyars and Sipahi of Porte. But the last two only have 20 men in their units. The Byzantine Cavalry is equivalent to medium cavalry with bows, great for fighting infantry without spears.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
The best combo is Longbows AND Pavise Arbs, use the longbows to quickly devastate the enemies elite armoured units while the arbs with the good missile protection can slug it out with the enemies archers and wont run out of ammo so quickly.
Soapyfrog
09-24-2002, 20:52
Boyars are 40 man units.
Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
Boyars are 40 man units.[/QUOTE]
DAMN!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif That makes it a lot different, perhaps Sipahi of Porte are too. That really makes Boyars great...
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Technical (game) issues aside, if not already, the english longbowmen SHOULD have a fearsome range (those longbows DID have it) AND very high accuracy (this was not due to the bow itself, but the men who fired them had trained the art for many yars. As a matter of fact, the medieval britons were required BY LAW! to attend archery lessons. Thus, the quality of british archers would be ensured). The very high trajectory the arrows traversed combined with the arrow-points (designed specifically to pierce the armor of frenc heavy cav.) made for some nasty surprises for those french nobles who got slaughtered at Agincourt. In all honesty, if MTW was to accurately reflect the impact of briths Longbowmen, this game would be in SERIOUS trouble, balancing-wise....
Crossbow-bolt may not be fired effectively at a trajectory, by the way. The high power and the high escape-velocity of the bolt makes it nigh-on-impossible to lob them at an advancing enemy with any kind og meanigful accuracy.
sodoff, the Longbows have a better range than normal archers, and I believe it is comparably as good as it should be.
The longbows also have AP capabilities, not perfect but good, fair enough I think.
The reason crossbows can't be fired at an angle is because they are short and heavy. They leave the crossbow with a great velocity but it quickly loses speed and would even tually be ineffective as well as impossible to aim.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I can't think of a "best" archer/missile unit because they all suck unless you fill half your unit slots with missile units. Taking just one or two is almost pointless in most multiplayer games. Only if you have a whole bunch is there any real effectiveness to them and then you're wasting a lot of money for them.
JRock, while you are right, you are only half right as archers are far more important in SP (where they can kill again and again and again) than in MP (where they don't have enough time to make an impact).
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Zacharat Hennataga
09-25-2002, 06:09
what about the jannissarys and trebozind archers, from what i read, the furthist a "english" longbow has ever fired a arrow, was 300 yards, while if u look at the compasite bows of the turks, byzantines, mongols, and egyptians, the turks have recoreded bows firing arrows a distance off up to 800 yards, at the firing grounds in istanbul(constantinople) all im tryig to do is to introduce the eats into this convo, this is what i read, if anyone can show me any tother stats or sources, id me more then glad to look them over, (i LOVE history)
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
JRock, while you are right, you are only half right as archers are far more important in SP (where they can kill again and again and again) than in MP (where they don't have enough time to make an impact).
[/QUOTE]
And why is that? Because the AI is stupid and lets you pound away at them as no real player would allow.
This is why SP concerns are a separate issue than the MP concerns which are vital for clan and ladder matches - if missile troops stay in their current fairly-weak state, they will just be bypassed entirely in tournaments.
If CA is okay with that then fine, but if they are at all interested in seeing all units get at least SOME use in tournaments, they might consider tweaking the missile units a little.
deejayvee
09-25-2002, 07:22
If anyone doubts the power of longbows, try defending a bridge with 5 units of longbows, 2 units of billmen, 1 unit of dismounted royal nights against 800 Swiss Armoured Pikemen!
I did last night and the Swiss packed onto the bridge and were held by the billmen/knights while the longbowmen calmly fired volley after volley into them, killing 700 for the loss of 80!
Billmen/longbowmen are the best combo for fighting swiss pikemen.
smoothdragon
09-25-2002, 08:26
The best bow unit is definately the byzantine cavalry. They can fire arrows and harass units from afar (with decent accuracy and power), and then close in for melee with swords. They can even hold their own against Royal Knights! Only caveat with the unit is a fairly high support cost, but you get the speed and melee effeciency of a knight with the bow skill of a foot archer. Well worth it!
Well since most multiplayer games tend to be High period, there are no swiss pikement to worry about.
Plus if it's a 5k florin per player game, no one bothers with expensive wastes of money like those.
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
And why is that? Because the AI is stupid and lets you pound away at them as no real player would allow.
[/QUOTE]
That is not the whole deal, in SP you carry your Archers on to the next battle, and that makes them much more valuable than in MP.
It is not so much that the AI let you fire at it, it doesn't actually if your position is not great, a good improvement over STW.
I have not gotten much more than 40 kills with archers (not including certain quite good ones) per battle against the AI most of the time. Why? It charges in fast if it is outgunned... Basically what people do in MP, but I agree that it is a far cry from a person playing in general ability.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Belasarius
09-26-2002, 00:02
The East had great bows as evidenced by the Trezbond archers. But generally all those arrow flight records were not with war arrows but specially made flimsy flight arrows.
Zacharat Hennataga
09-26-2002, 07:42
well when i was reading, it stated that longbows were desgiend for a diffrent purpose then eastern bows, longbows were made to launch "heavy" armor piercing arrows, while eastern bows were made to fire ligth arrows long distacnes at high speeds, so i guess u could say the eastern bows are more effective at long ranges, while the longobws are completly brutel at a closer range, just a thought
I had a very nice battle last night (sp).
I am the french and defending Bavaria(...) with 2500 troops against 3000 germans (lotsa spearmen, militia and peasants).
In the end my 4 arbalest units had between 180 and 200 kills each (with a total of 7 casualties). They were only outdone by my mounted sergants.
I had a cool battle using the alamoheads last night. I started the battle as DEF on a nice mountain with a steep slope. I had 6 archer groups made up of standard and desert types with various foot soldiers and a bit of cav. The first wave of Knights and light cav were nearly wiped out before I ran out of arrows. I cleared up the rest with my foot/cav. So I think the point is if you get the right terrain archers of any type are lethal in mass numbers. I think if I had English longbow men in the same numbers it would have been a total slaughter.
Cheers,
Heggs.
Mori Gabriel Syme
09-27-2002, 18:58
I really like my longbowmen. The armor-piercing capapbility is invaluable to me. Their melee rating of 4, which is as good or better than many infantry units, means I don't have to withdraw them when they run out of ammo.
They are possibly a bit underpowered compared to history, but that is certainly a game-balancing issue. At Crecy, the French cavalry was decimated by longbows. At Agincourt, the English were tired, starved, depleted from beseiging a French castle, & outnumbered three (some sources say as much as six) to one. I have read that the longbow in the hands of a trained bowman was superior even to the muskets of Napoleon's time; of course, it took years to train a bowman, but less than two months to train a peasant to use a firearm en masse.
Certain archers may be better for certain things, but I think as a total package the longbowmen are the best of the game.
------------------
Once more into the breach, dear friends; once more consign their parts most private to a Rutland tree! & men in London, still a-bed, shall think themselves accursed they were not here & hold their manhood cheap while others speak who fought with us on Ralph the Liar's Day!
--Richard III
The Black Adder: Ep. 1-The Foretelling
NinjaKilla
09-27-2002, 23:18
Any stats out yet on missile units?
------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)
Crusader Lord
09-28-2002, 00:07
JRock wrote:
Quote
I can't think of a "best" archer/missile unit because they all suck unless you fill half your unit slots with missile units. Taking just one or two is almost pointless in most multiplayer games. Only if you have a whole bunch is there any real effectiveness to them and then you're wasting a lot of money for them.
[/QUOTE]
I must disagree. The more shooters you have, the LESS damage they do per unit. This is because the more shooters the more ranks do they stand in, hampering each others' line of sight. Consider the following by Kraxis:
Quote
I have not gotten much more than 40 kills with archers (not including certain quite good ones) per battle against the AI most of the time. Why? It charges in fast if it is outgunned... Basically what people do in MP, but I agree that it is a far cry from a person playing in general ability.
[/QUOTE]
I once reckon that I once fought as defender without any archers at all. That seriously hampered my tactical options. Instead of being forced to charge my position, the AI could circle around with cavalry and just wait for that certain chance to wreak havoc in my flanks and rear, and what could I do other than rather desperately try to keep up a formation that both allowed me to counter any cavalry attacks as well as put up a fight against approaching infantry?
As Kraxis stated, superior firepower forces the opponent to attack your position, giving you the advantage of a more ordered troop ready to meet the attack as well as the possibility to send out cavalry for outflanks.
"This is because the more shooters the more ranks do they stand in, hampering each others' line of sight."
Isn't it standard procedure to drag those archer formations out to just two ranks, i.e. they make up two lines? I know they won't defend as well in this formation, but if your archers are defending in hand to hand combat, you may be losing.....
Jannisary Archers are frightning in SP. They have a high rate of fire, and they are also armor piercing.
Apparently, they actually fire arrows with the same capabilities as the Cross Bow bold, but as arrows. So, imagine if you could lay out some xbows, that fired as fast and the same way as regular foot archers.
I was playing a campaign as Turks, the Sicilians had rampaged and taken all of central europe, the Almos had most of Northern Africa and Spain. I attacked the Sicilians with an all Jann army they retreated and next turn attacked with something like 6000 troops. I think I had 2 heavies, 6 regular inf and 6 archers. I was on a broad shallow sloping hill, the Sicilians came at me, and not a single unit made it up the hill of his initial force. He had units of Chivalric Knights routing after a couple volleys.
It was very impressive to say the least, the most success ive ever had using archers.
FacelessClock
10-02-2002, 06:18
Longbowmen are so-so. The best archery units in the game right now are the hybrids with the ability to attack in melee and hold up decently. Take the Janassary...they are useful because they serve as good archers, and also can serve just as well as shock flankers as FMAA and CMAA.
Longbowmen are decent, because they can in fact melee-flank. But they really suck at taking damage, causing routs, and they arn't worth it over a FMAA or CMAA in many situations.
The biggest problem with bows right now it that they do not lead their aim in any way. Any charging enemy will be able to evade arrows until they get within white-of-their-eyes distant. And the say, two or three salvos that might hit a charging enemy are not worth their cost.
Stephen Hummell
10-02-2002, 06:25
My vote goes to the trezibond archers. Compound bows and good melee.
[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 10-02-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
DAMN!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif That makes it a lot different, perhaps Sipahi of Porte are too. That really makes Boyars great...
[/QUOTE]
Mongolian horse Archers are an 80 man unit. And its so easy to bribe the horde generals.
------------------
http://ww-underground.com/staff/upload/Elite%20Guard/elitesig.gif
cart6566
10-02-2002, 08:19
Had about 60 kills to 3 or 4 deaths with three longbow units. They definitely earn their keep. Get them high and use them to tire out an enemy by charging uphill. Very effective.
Hakonarson
10-02-2002, 08:30
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
The reason crossbows can't be fired at an angle is because they are short and heavy. They leave the crossbow with a great velocity but it quickly loses speed and would even tually be ineffective as well as impossible to aim.
[/QUOTE]
Err....none of the reasons you mention are relevant.
Crossbows can be and were fired at elevations - especially to achieve range. Modern heavy crossbows use sights like rifles and can be fired to great ranges at high elevations in competitions in Europe - like SMLE's or similar sighted to 2000 yards!!
However firing off the elevation of the guy in front of you is a learned skill - longbowmen were long-time archers who had practiced in groups with their peers, crossbowmen often weren't.
Crossbows excelled in "direct" fire because they could be held liek a rifle to aim (ie you didn't have to keep holding the string back).
Because of hte low rate of fire crossbows would sometimes use only a single rank of "shooters" while rear ranks loaded the bows and passed them fowards. In these cases obviously the rear ranks wouldn't bother shooting at all.
Bob the Insane
10-02-2002, 16:39
A combination of Longbows and Crossbow (perferbly Arb..whatsits)..
Longbow are the machineguns (deadly but quickly spent), Crossbows the snipers (slow but sure, and they could fire all day)... both are needed in my opinion..
Hark... the point of the bolts of the crossbows are so short makes them very unreliable to aim over great distances. You can't even learn it.
Think about the muskets (regulars ones, not custom made ones), no matter how good you were with them, you could never learn how to hit a target at ranges above 200 meters, they were simply not accurate enough. The ball bounced around inside the barrel making sure that the target was an area not an individual.
The same holds true for crossbows, the short distance between the heavy head and the finns made sure it could travel very fast, but it was not as stable as an arrow.
Just because modern crossbows can be fitted with scopes, doesn't mean that medieval crossbows can be fitted with scopes and be relied on to actually hit what you have the sights on.
In that case a good crossbower is a lucky crossbower.
And because of the bigger head of the bolt, it had much greater drag. So if you aim it at an angle it would most likely come down with too little force to kill anything better armoured than light leather.
Yes, it was their ease of use that made them great, but that doen't mean they could be treated as bows.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
well heres something i found out the other day... my gunpowder weaopns are my most cost effective in killing man for man. After shooting at some advancing chiv sergeants i got of two rounds and killed 12 of them all up, once the melee got fighting they killed a whole lot more... well thats my 2 cents
Mr Durian
10-06-2002, 11:30
My vote is for trezbond archers as well. Good at decimating units from long range and disiplined, good morale, and great for melee when your lines start to break.
What stats determine a missle attack's effectiveness? IE. range, damage, armor piercing?, etc. The attack stat listed in the strat guide seems to pertain to melee combat, not missle.
olaf
Olaf - no one outside of CA knows. CA have said they will put these stats in an moddable file with the patch, so that is when these secrets will be revealed!
Hakonarson
10-10-2002, 15:34
Kraxis who's talking about scopes??
Crossbows can be fired "clout" - ie at an area, in EXACTLY the same way as bows. The crossbowmen at Agincourt expected to be able to hit the English at the same range as the English shot at them - some 250 yards.
Of course they were wrong for various reasons, but then longbows had the same problem occasionally due to weather - eg the battle of Towton.
Apaprt from their rate of fire you CAN treat them exactly like bows. Sure their qualrrels are unstable - but hten arrows aren't that accurate beyond 100 yards either.
And Napoleonic musket armed skirmishers would happily plink away at 200 metres into massed targets - generally aiming at centres of importance such as groups of ifficers or the flag bearers, and expect to hit.
Not all muskets had 1/4" windage!! lol They had techniques such as casting closer tolerance balls, wrapping the balls in wadding, and conserving fire to targets of importance so that their weapons weren't fouled so quickly.
Not that I'm sure why that is in the least bit relevant....???
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.