Composite bows

[Jon von]

I'm going to mod the ninjastar proj stat line and assign it to units with composite bows. So what are the differences between simple bows and composite bows? I mean - not the technical difference- the performance differences: comp bows have longer range? how much? 25% 50% 75%? Are they more accurate?
please suggest

[econ21]

If you search the totalwar.org forums for composite bows, you'll find out the parameters others have used to mod the composite bow. I am not sure anyone really knows for sure how they performed - not many bows survived from that long ago. I would be inclined to give them a range similar to the longbow, but make them a little less powerful as they don't seem to have had been emphasised as much in discussions of Medieval warfare as that weapon is.

[Whitey]

this has been discussed endlessly (almost...anyway)

as far as I have learned from this org debate, the Composite Bow is simply a better technology than the longbow and accordingly performed better...

depending on your sources - I think the longbow could shoot from 80-250 yards and the composite bow about 100-300...(big boundries eh?).

I would say, just from my reading that the longbow could be minimally effective en-masse at around 150-200 yards and the composite bow at about 175-225 yards, at least that would probably be the best way to model them in an MTW sense...give the composite bow the same stats as the longbow, increase the range (by 500-1000?) and accuracy (but not much), but decrease the penetration power (they carried lighter heads I seem to remember...)

Do not forget to change the velocity if you increase the range...

that is, if you want to use the current stats as a base...of course you could completely re-interpret the use of archers in the game - I've tried that once or twice and it is very interesting, but I've not balanced that right yet - although I have tried it for the LOTR mod and am still working on it.

[Jon von]

If composite bows were so effective, why their use in battle had not the great consequences that longbows had in 100 years war?
Every ancient chronicle about 100 years war describes the longbow as the weapon that defeated and humbled the french knights; this didn't happen in the crusades; maybe because the great advantage of the longbow was the high shoot frequency, other than its range?

[econ21]

What little I've read so far about the crusades suggests that bows were very important in the conflict. There seems to have been a lot of skirmishes where the Islamic forces used their forces to try hit and run tactics against the Crusaders. For this, I presume they relied on archery. The Crusaders defence against this for most of the period was primarily the crossbow. I don't think there were many "Agincourt" style battles where Crusaders charged and were shot down by arrows, perhaps because the hit and run tactics meant the Islamic forces often would not stand to receive the charge but would prefer to evade it, relying on their greater mobility and ability to surrender terrain (they were on home ground and could afford to retreat - the Crusaders had to maintain communications and their foothold in the Middle East). That's my guess. Pitched battles were risky in Medieval times and it probably made more sense for the Islamic forces to wear down the Crusaders than confront them head-on.

However, it is a puzzle David Nicolls poses and never fully answers in his Osprey book on the Crusades. He wonders why the Islamic forces were unable to drive off the first Crusade with their composite bows when they had driven out the Byzantines who were similarly armoured in mail and indeed used horse armour. He speculates that maybe the archery tradition had declined among Islamic forces by the end of the 11th century.

I guess the composite bow was a big factor in the success of the Mongols, a success dwarfing the questionable impact of the English longbow (which was not widely emulated and seemed soon to become obsolete; and the English did lose the Hundred Years War).

In game terms, I would answer your question by representing this by making the composite bow less effective than the longbow, at least against armoured opponents. However, some modders have made the Mongol bow equal to the longbow in its AP ability.

[Jon von]

thanx lord appleton finally I gave 8000 range to longbow and 7500 to composite; left composite lethality equal to a normal bow, but made it more accurated.

[DBS]

I do not claim to be an archery expert, but I think the problem - as has been said elsewhere - is people thinking in terms of composite bows being more powerful than longbows, as opposed to being a more efficient design.

There is a human limit to the draw strength an archer can apply to a bow of whatever design. As I have always understood it, the longbow goes for the practical maximum by, oversimplifying I know, sheer size. Because of its size, you do not have the option of using it on horseback.

The composite bow is a smarter design, which allows any given draw strength to be applied to a smaller weapon. It is still limited in terms of draw strength by the physical capabilities of the archer. Being shorter, you can use it on horseback.

Now, I do not know whether, say, the Mongols pushed the draw strength of their composites up to those of the longbow. Did they need to? After all, their traditions of warfare did not involve too many heavily armoured opponents. They only encountered these when they got all the way to the west. Even with the Turks, they may have favoured a general purpose weapon useable by all, on foot or on horse, rather than a specialised knight killing machine. As Simon says, most of the actual warfare seems to have been skirmishing rather than full-on field actions. And for those, you can always aim at the horse (and they did).

I should be delighted for any practising archer to tear the above to bits. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Mr Frost]

A true longbow IS a composite bow

The correct method involves first obtaining a stave of suitable Spanish Yew containing both heart and sap wood . The strenght of the bow comes from not merely size {which helps http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif} but from one side being resistant to tension/streching {the heartwood} and the other resistant to compression/squashing {the sapwood} .
When a bow is draw the inner side gets "squished" and the outside streatched thus sapwood is the inner part of the bow when strung and sapwood the outer and between them there is created dynamic tension
The reason that composite bows gained so much more apparant popularity in so many cultures is that it is much easier to make a bow from more mundane staves of wood and reinforce it with bone and sinues of metal etc that to find wood that only grows properly {for the needs of a longbow stave} in certain areas and only in limited quantity at that {you can only use a very small quantity of the tree as the stave must be long and straight AND have heart wood down the full length of one side and sapwood down the other in fairly even proportion AND as few inperfection such as knots etc as possible} .
Though it is possible to make a composite bow {a bow made of more than one distinct component} of greater draw weight than a longbow , the lenght of the longbow imparts greater mechanical efficiency than any shorter bow thus is going to impart longer range .

[Mr Frost]

Don't forget to increase the velocity of the bows if your ranges are increased that much , otherwise the archers will have to walk forward a ways to get in their weapons range .

You see , "range" simply refers to how far away the archers will begin to serch for targets , it is velocity that determins the actual range of the weapon it's self {this is why Arbalasts often can be seen killing troopsbehind the ones they're aiming at yet who are well our of the range at wich they will open fire directly {when the arrow cursor goes from red to green} .

I have heard the formula is velocity squared divided by four thus you should increase velocity to 180 for the ranges you stated {7500 and 8000} .

I kept longbows at 6000 {the shorter range than is historic is due to the limited size of the MTW battlefeilds} and gave composite bows {ninjastars} 5500 , improved armour perircing modifyer to .75 for composite bows and made both a lethality of .75 {they were harder hitting apparantly than mundane self bows .

[Whitey]

where is Maggy and the Mongol propaganda when you need him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I still say the Composite Bow would be best modelled with a longer range / accuracy but a lower impact than the longbow, the strength required to draw a longbow of say 6-lbs is larger than to draw a composite bow of equal poundage - the composite bow (as a technology, and this is also related to the designs of eastern composite bows) is simply more efficent in the way in which it stores energy than the longbow. The net result of this is that the composite bow can send an arrow further with the same effort. The Eastern bowmen used lighter arrows than the English, which also helped - This gave the composite bow a longer range but less lethality than the English longbow, which was a shorter range killing monster compared to the agile longer-range composite bow.

Hence both the longbows effectiveness as a slaughterer of troops at medium range and the composites longer maximum range but overall less effect when used en-masse...


...at least that is the speil given to me by an archer-friend of mine...seemed pretty convincing to me...

[Puzz3D]

Mr Frost,

You're right range = (speed/2)^2, and you'll need speed = 180 to cover a range of 8000. You'll notice there is a mistake in the v1.1 speed parameter for the longbow because it's 150 which only allows a range of 5625.

[Orda Khan]

The Longbow is not a composite bow as it is made from one material, wood. It is actually a 'self' bow. The heartwood forms the belly of the bow (facing the archer) and the sapwood which is lighter in colour is the back (facing away)
Though this is a natural spring , the heartwood resisting compression and the sapwood resisting extension, it is restricted to the capabilities of the said bough it is manufactured from. In comparison the Composite bow was made up of different materials. Fashioned initially from wood, the bow was extremely reflex in shape, so unstrung it curves away from the archer. Horn strip was then attached to the belly and limb tips. Frayed tendon was then glued in layers to the back of the bow and the whole limb covered by protective hide or laquered birch bark. When it is strung, the composite takes on the beautiful double recurve shape we are all familiar with. The limbs already storeing this tension 'let down' close to full draw ( that is it feels easier ) something reminiscent of the modern Compound bow. The mechanics of the bow provide a much faster release with a more direct arrow cast. The recurve design was introduced to 'Rennaisance Longbows' with the limb tips turning forwards but by this time it was out dated. The Composite was still in action as late as the Crimean War.
Length of the bow does not increase its strength though it does make the bow more stable but the old Mongol bows were longer than we see today anyway. To increase the arrows velocity requires lighter, faster limbs; even a thicker string can slow the arrow. Due to the fact that the Longbow was just wood it had to have a large draw weight in order to cast its arrows efficiently. A Composite bow with a lighter draw could cast arrows faster. This is a fact that I can confirm. This being said, some of the bows carried by the Mongols were as much as 160 pounds draw weight. I believe the bough staves recovered from the Mary Rose were around 170 pounds. These are are very large poundages by today's archery standards but they had to be greater to fire war arrows. Some guy shot an arrow 418 metres from a Longbow in a Flight Championship, his bow was 88 pounds draw. How far and how deadly would he shoot an arrow 1/2 inch in diameter, fitted with a bodkin head? I have seen a 66 pound Longbow fail to pierce thin armour plate from as close as 15 metres.
In all this Composite versus Longbow debate we must remember the different style of warfare adopted by these countries. In open steppe I don't think that Longbows would be so effective, whereas forests and hills would no doubt hamper the Horse Archer.
When discussing Mongol tactics I see too many people forget or ignore the fact that though mounted archery was their natural method, they had to adapt in both the East in Chinese cities and in the West when seige warfare was required.
In closing I would suggest slightly better range for Longbows but definitely better accuracy for Composite.

.....Orda