Crossbows vs. Arbalasters

[Knight of the Rose]

Dear all,

In the vanilla MTW:VI I never seem to progress from, both Crossbows and Arbalasters come into play at high. And I just never seem to use anything but the arbs. I know that you need a higher level building, but besides that the cost of arbs vs. cbws is pretty much the same.

Once, somewhere, I read that arbs was considered to only come online in late. That would definately make me use the cbws, but now they just seem a foolish invenstment.

Have I missed some points on crossbow usage? And are the arbs just overpowered? :inquisitive:

/KotR

[Raz]

There was a debate on this before a while back... I don't think I was even registered then. But it ended with arbs not being powerful enough compared to crossbows. I think the difference in lethality (projectile_stats.txt) is only very slight in vanilla...

All I can remember is that the MedMod made missile troops much more balanced compared to vanilla's... and thanks for waking up these forums... they've had a bit of a nap recently. :smug2:

[DaVega]

Well I use the xbows and the arbs next to each-other, and I can't find much differences between them! ;) So for me, it doesn't matter which one I use, as long as the unit is available to me in a particular province!

[CBR]

Arbalesters have slightly better accuracy, penetrate armour a bit better, 20% higher range and 25% higher lethality and does 50% more HP damage (meaning killing generals faster)while having the same reload rate as crossbows.

So they have some clear improvements over crossbows while not having any disadvantages except costing slightly more to buy but still having same upkeep.


CBR

[I of the Storm]

Sounds like a tricky decision then...

tbh, I didn't know they were that much better. I always thought their main advantage was their longer range.

[Vladimir]

Arbalesters have slightly better accuracy, penetrate armour a bit better, 20% higher range and 25% higher lethality and does 50% more HP damage (meaning killing generals faster)while having the same reload rate as crossbows.

So they have some clear improvements over crossbows while not having any disadvantages except costing slightly more to buy but still having same upkeep.


CBR

Exactly. How can you not use them? Do you want to be outranged by your enemy?

[OmarPacha]

Arbs are obviously the best choice either for range as for armour piercing rate and there aren't valuable differences in hiring and maintenance cost with crossbows.
The point is that to be able to train arbalesters from the start, we should remember to build a castle and a bowyer's guild before the High period comes and many of us might find not so convenient to allocate money for buidings that should be of no use for years. Much better is, in my advice too, training further units to strenghten weak (sea or land) positions.
No doubt that this kind of choice depends much from how many opposite factions we have at the moment and how difficult is the campaign we are playing, but mainly speaking, we approach High period by replacing archers with Xbows.
So, the real question is if the cost to replace crossbows with arbs (disband + train new unit) is worth the progress we make in terms of killing chances.
I say, maybe not; I find that in battle Xbows can easily shorten the distance from enemy lines and that in a frontal fight with arbs, the lesser rate of armour piercing should not make a great difference; but that's only my humble opinion.

[macsen rufus]

Quite agree with CBR - Arbs FTW :2thumbsup:

The only advantage Xbows have is lower tech requirements, to my mind. I generally try to have at least one bowyer's guild ready before High, but generally also have a handful of workshops too, at least to get Xbows out there in a pinch.

One final detail is the Arbs have a very slightly longer range than Pav Arbs - maybe a few yards, that's all - just enough to make a difference on a particularly wide river. I've had occasions where my pav arbs couldn't reach the enemy even when they were getting their feet wet, but moving plain arbs into the same position made them reachable. :bow:

[drone]

Arbalests have longer range (120 vs 100 meters), better accuracy (0.75 vs 0.7), better lethality (1.25 vs 1), more damage (power, 3 vs 2), and better armor penetration (0.3 multiplier vs 0.4).

I vaguely remember reading something about arbalests not being affected as much by rain (steel strings), but I don't see anything about that in the projectilestats.txt file. Not sure if this is true in the game.


One final detail is the Arbs have a very slightly longer range than Pav Arbs - maybe a few yards, that's all - just enough to make a difference on a particularly wide river. I've had occasions where my pav arbs couldn't reach the enemy even when they were getting their feet wet, but moving plain arbs into the same position made them reachable.Not really sure why that would matter, they use the same weapon. Maybe it's the physical positioning of the men with the pavise that keeps the model back a little.

[bondovic]

I vaguely remember reading something about arbalests not being affected as much by rain (steel strings), but I don't see anything about that in the projectilestats.txt file. Not sure if this is true in the game.

It's true in game. Which means it's hardcoded.

[Ironsword]

I never really used arbalests before coming to this forum, crossbows a little, longbowmen all the time. (back then I usually played as the English) Now no army of mine is complete without a couple of units of these bad boys.

Still, I like using both; longbowmen for the quick punch and arbalests for the longer epic battles. Crossbowmen make a decent stop-gap until arbalests are available.

BTW does anyone use the 'pavise' types, I rarely do unless they are, ahem, 'inherited'?

[Jxrc]

Small question.

Has anyone considered the impact of the possibility to get both a pavise and a +1 valour bonus with the masterlevel workshop ?

You cannot get it with pavise arbs but you can with the x-bows version so what would the difference of accuracy be between a valor 0 arb and valour 1 x-bow ?

[bondovic]

Small question.

Has anyone considered the impact of the possibility to get both a pavise and a +1 valour bonus with the masterlevel workshop ?

You cannot get it with pavise arbs but you can with the x-bows version so what would the difference of accuracy be between a valor 0 arb and valour 1 x-bow ?

Supposedly, the accuracy increase per valour level is very small. And even with that 1 valour advantage the arbs are far superior to x-bows concerning range and killing power, which of course doesn't increase with valour. Probably even so regarding the accuracy too, since the arb is inherently more accurate than the x-bow. .7 for x-bow vs .75 for arbs. I doubt the accuracy increase is 5%/valour. But I don't know for sure. :no:

[The Unknown Guy]

Imho arbalesters are far superior. In fact, I never found much use for crossbowmen, beyond them being far cheaper than the more effective (even against armor) vanilla archers.

[bondovic]

Imho arbalesters are far superior. In fact, I never found much use for crossbowmen, beyond them being far cheaper than the more effective (even against armor) vanilla archers.

You didn't mean that vanilla archers are more effective than x-bows against armour, right?

[The Unknown Guy]

I didnt find them to be particularily less effective, due to the high volume of fire.

[bondovic]

I didnt find them to be particularily less effective, due to the high volume of fire.

Ok. I feel you. Not much for the reload time myself. But then again, I'm a Turk-freak. 'We don't need no stinkin' x-bows...' :no:

[Ravencroft]

The way xbows are set up, it doesn't take a genius to tell that they're nearly useless.

So, what i d to make 'em useful? Put them in early, that's right.

[Empirate]

Ok. I feel you. Not much for the reload time myself. But then again, I'm a Turk-freak. 'We don't need no stinkin' x-bows...' :no:

Don't the Turks actually get Crossbowmen? Just plain Crossbowmen, no Arbalesters? That would make the Turks the only faction with a real use for Crossbowmen!

I have to agree with most people here that Arbalesters are superior. As Frogbeastegg put it: Everything XBows can do, Arbs can do better!
Still, in a pinch, XBows can do quite well.

I don't really understand the people who advocate massive archer use over Arbalesters, even Longbows. So you only get a volley of Arb fire every x seconds, while archers can put three volleys in the air in that time. But that Arb volley kills three times as many (armored) enemies as each of the archer volleys. So over time, their kill rates don't diverge significantly - always depending on the kind of armor on your target, of course (try to whittle down Halberdiers with archer fire!).
The Arb is still better than the archer if both kill the same number of targets in the same time (and that isn't the case vs. high-armor targets) because:
a. more men killed per volley = greater immediate morale penalty = better chance for the unit to flee.
b. Arbs only use a third of the ammo the archers are using. Even in short battles, my archer units frequently run out of arrows while the fight is still going. The arbs don't.
c. Arbs are less vulnerable to counterfire, due to better armor.
d. Arbs are cheaper to maintain.
e. Arbs have flat trajectories, meaning better enfilade, which helps in some situations, though not in all.
f. Arbs perform much better in rain.
g. Arbs bring down generals very easily.
h. Arbs have greater range, meaning they can begin firing while the archers must still march around. In many situations, there's no chance archers could ever open fire without exposing themselves too much, while arbs are more easily protected from countercharges.

Some of these points are mitigated or even eliminated with Longbows being the point of comparison. For example:
a. Longbows are armor-piercing, too.
b. Longbows have long range, too.
c. Longbows have higher lethality/accuracy, too.
d. Longbows have better melee capability, allowing them to work like a hybrid unit. Strong plus in my book, I like to use them like Turks!
e. Longbows can make better use of their long range due to shorter reload time.
f. Wales gives a bonus to Longbows' valor, while Arbs don't receive this bonus anywhere.

Only the latter three are marked improvements over the Arbalester. You might not even want to count d., since this is a comparison of MISSILE units. Still, these are weighty points in favor of the Longbow. However, some problems crop up with these, too:
a. Longbows are as high tech as Arbs...
b. ...and are English only...
c. ...and run out of ammo as fast or even faster than regular archers (at least in vanilla M:TW)...
d. ...and their AP ability isn't that great, actually, when compared to the Arbs'...
e. ...and perform as bad in rain as other archers. Even regular XBows are better...
f. ...and the Arbs' lethality/accuracy is better still. And then there's the trajectory thing...
g. ...and Longbows are still vulnerable to missile counterfire.


So that's that. Hope this helps!

[bondovic]

Don't the Turks actually get Crossbowmen? Just plain Crossbowmen, no Arbalesters? That would make the Turks the only faction with a real use for Crossbowmen!

Fielding x-bows is at the expense of hybrids, an exchange I'm not enthusiastic about. Perhaps the odd unit in bridge defenses, but that's the limit for me.

[Ciaran]

[...]

BTW does anyone use the 'pavise' types, I rarely do unless they are, ahem, 'inherited'?

Yes, of course. The pavise is a massive help in the missile duel (+3 shield against missiles). Have a pavise unit and one without shoot it out and you´ll notice the difference.


e. Arbs have flat trajectories, meaning better enfilade, which helps in some situations, though not in all.

Actually, I wouldn´t consider that as a pro argument. Basically it means that in most situations youßll have to place your Arbalests in the first line to get them to shoot at all, only when you´re fighting on rather steep slopes you´ll be able to put them in the rear. Placing the missiles in the first lines, however, means that the number of shots they´ll take will be limited before they have to be retreated behind your melee troops (where they can´t shoot) or moved to the flanks (which is risky, as they´ll be unprotected, especially from cavalry attacks). Archers, on the other hand, can shoot overhead your melee troops even on flat ground, although they lose some accuracy due to being unable to see their targets.

[m52nickerson]

Yes, of course. The pavise is a massive help in the missile duel (+3 shield against missiles). Have a pavise unit and one without shoot it out and you´ll notice the difference.

Actually, I wouldn´t consider that as a pro argument. Basically it means that in most situations youßll have to place your Arbalests in the first line to get them to shoot at all, only when you´re fighting on rather steep slopes you´ll be able to put them in the rear. Placing the missiles in the first lines, however, means that the number of shots they´ll take will be limited before they have to be retreated behind your melee troops (where they can´t shoot) or moved to the flanks (which is risky, as they´ll be unprotected, especially from cavalry attacks). Archers, on the other hand, can shoot overhead your melee troops even on flat ground, although they lose some accuracy due to being unable to see their targets.

I just leave my Arbs out front and then have my CMAA move up to engage and charging forces.

[Empirate]

Even a few volleys killing many enemies right before the melee starts will give you an edge in said melee. I usually don't like my archers firing into the melee, anyway: You create as many friendly fire casualties as enemy, and you're not particularly accurate on the whole. The question of flat vs. high trajectories isn't even a question in my tactical book: flat is always superior, as the only situations in which high trajectories could be a help are also situations in which I don't want my missile troops to fire at all.