Crossbows should be early; arbalests late?

[econ21]

I've been doing a bit of reading around medieval military history - initially the idea was to tweak the units stats to make them more historical, I mooted this in the dungeon:

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=6350 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=5;t=6350)

However, the more I read, the more I can rationalise the units in MTW. One early point I'd like to throw out is about the appropriate time period for crossbows and arbalests (steel crossbows).

It seems crossbows were in general use in England by the mid-1100s (Richard 1 favoured them and ironically he was killed by one; as was Rufus, son of William the Conqueror much earlier in 1100). They were common earlier in the South/East of Europe.

Steel crossbows I haven't definitively tracked down but it looks like they became common in the later 14th century with the development of steel manufacturing.

I think this makes crossbows early (1078-1204) and arbalests late (1321+) in game terms. Any views?

For gameplay and perhaps historical reasons, I'd probably put in some stiffer build requirements for crossbows to delay them a little (rather like those for feudal knights). It might be ok to keep them high period, but history and gameplay (the crossbowmen are redundant as is) imply the arbalest should definitely be late.

[Kongamato]

Well, crossbowmen SHOULD be Early, as their mounted versions already are available in the Early period.

In VI, at least in MP, Pavise Arbalesters are being moved to the Late period. No word about their non-pav counterparts, which I would have moved to the late period, too. Strange, as Pav Crossbows seem to be kept in High, how long does it take to re-invent a big shield? Maybe its the training...

[Nobunaga0611]

The thing I noticed about Arbs is their shields have those....hmm...I don't know what they're called, but the raised portions, which are kind of in the shape of an X. I remember seeing that that was used in armour in order to make it stronger, so the armour didn't have to get thicker and heavier, rather the armour was strengthened by its shape, so to speak. Well if this was the case, and it was an armour improvement later in the medieval time period, and Pav. Arbs have this, then they should be in late, correct? I'm happy anyways that they're being moved to late.

[econ21]

Um, didn't think about the pavise. From what I have read it was used particularly in sieges. I doubt it would have been used much in the early period on the battlefield. I would suggest crossbow early; pavise crossbow high; arbalester and pavise arbalester late. Where did you hear about pavise arbablesters being late in VI? Are there some good links you know of?

[Nobunaga0611]

LongJohn posted about some of the changes in the Jousting Fields here

Jousting Fields (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=5757)

Some changes include both Pavise Arbs and Lancers moving to Late period only. And higher prices for Byz Infantry and Handgunners.

[Spino]

I agree, Arbalesters should only be available in the Late era as heavy crossbows did not see widespread use until the 14th century. The same goes for both Pavise Crossbows and Pavise Arbalesters because the Pavise didn't see widespread use until the 14th and 15th century.

Although crossbows became increasingly popular in the West after 1000-1100 for the sake of game balance I feel it would be best to not make Crossbows available in the Early era.

[econ21]

I don't know about play-balance. I am reading stuff about crossbowmen suggesting they WERE overpowered in the period. Hence the Pope's banning them. I think I remember King John of England was said to have released all soldiers from the baronial revolts, except the crossbowmen who he had put to death, on account of the latter having killed so many knights? I've also read some authors claim that the crossbow was the decisive weapon of the crusaders (to counter the hit and run tactics of their opponents) and that the mounted crossbowmen was amongst the most feared troop types around 1200.

My general impression in the game is that missile weapons are not overpowered, so I don't think crossbows would cause big problems available in early (they didn't in my pre-patch games). The only balancing issue might be whether they dominate archers and make them redundant (in the way that arbs now make crossbows and maybe even longbows redundant). Here, I'd test out the projectile stats, as I think the bow should probably still be more effective than the crossbow against unarmoured troops due to the higher rate of fire whereas the crossbow would be superior against mailed or plated opponents.

I am also wondering about increasing the tech requirements for crossbows, rather than shifting them to high. So they would appear with the castle after a keep (forget the name) and hence come on stream in the mid-early period.

Another factor to adjust the play balance might be upping the cost - I'm reading that crossbowmen actually were paid more than many melee types whereas in the game, their maintainence costs are dirt cheap. My general idea is that unit availability and effectiveness should reflect history, with costing being used to balance units rather than necessarily match history (so no units are too cheap or expensive for their effectiveness).

These are thoughts for a possible "enhanced realism" mod I may attempt, not for CA.

PS: thanks for the point about pavisses, my research has not turned up much there. I did see reference to pavise French spearmen in the 100 years war which were interesting (and apparently almost immune to archery in at least one engagement wtih longbowmen). In one of the famous 100 year war battles (Crecy?), the crossbowmen fighting for the French were said to have "left" their shields in their leader's haste to engage the English and hence been roughly handled by the longbowmen. Early references so far are to their use in sieges only.

[ShadesWolf]

Yes I totally agree and I think they should be restricted in number also.

I have a question.... Were they used much anyway ?

[DBS]

Crossbows seem to really start featuring in medieval warfare (as opposed, say, to hunting) in the early twelfth century, when they start appearing as specialist troops, usually professional mercenaries.

Don't forget, by this stage, knights apart, the critical factors for a general putting together an army is its siege capabilities, rather than battlefield capabilities. Field actions are extremely rare, sieges the main military activity on a campaign. For these purposes, the crossbow starts appearing a very good idea. Rate of fire is not important, but flat trajectory, accuracy and armour-piercing capabilities are, for what is essentially sniping from both sides in a siege.

I think Simon's idea of linking availability to fortifications is admirable - the crossbow did not feature in the motte and bailey period, because it simply was not needed. They should be mid-early.