Longbowmen vs Pavise

[Kristaps]

I was just wondering why do people like longbowmen so much... I will try to lay out the reasons why I am not so impressed with them. Hopefully someone can counter with good arguments why this unit should be considered an English advantage rather than a redundant unit in the period it appears.

The main reason why I am not impressed with this unit is that, after the patch, it becomes available only starting in the High period (come on, longbows are just 'larger bows' - not much more: I don't see a reason why they should not be available to English in the Early period). In the High period, longowmen as missile units have to compete against pavise arbalesters that have much better range, accuracy and lethality (my longbows would average 30-50 missile kills per battle {their kill rate is a bit better than that of 'normal' archers but not by a lot} while a unit of well placed pavise scores anywhere from 100-350 per a full set of bolts: these stats come from fighting 'average' armor AI armies rather than peasant armies; when fighting the latter - pavise still 'outkill' longbows by a huge margin).

As a melee unit, the longbows have nice armor piercing attack, but at the time English have better melee units with similar or better attack and higher defense (billmen and gallowglasses). Speaking about melee, the high lethality of pavise arbalesters ensures rapid valor gains for these units and due to their high defense they do live to tell about it... Combining these two factors (high valor and excellent defense) results in a truly deadly High period unit: I have had success killing heavy cavalry with pavise arbalesters in melee... (without any weapon upgrades) At times I use them to 'hold my line'...

I guess, my point is that longbowmen should be an early period unit rather than a high period one it is now. In the high - I would take pavise arbalesters any time unless someone here persuades me otherwise.

Cheers

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[econ21]

Kristaps,

You make some good points. But I would not put the longbow in early, as it would be ahistorical (I would even get rid of the 3 Welsh rebel longbowmen in early). Part of the solution in my opinion is to make arbalesters in late, which AFAIK, would be more in line with the history. (I would also put the crossbow in early to match history).

The other part of the solution is to give the longbows more arrows. The arbalesters are great against heavy armour, but they can't match the longbows rate of fire. With ammo at 28, this high rate of fire can actually be to the cost of longbows. At Crecy, however, the longbows were resupplied and some estimate they fired around four sheafs of arrows per archer. When you mod the game to give archers this kind of supply, they are not quite so useless when compared to the arbs. The arbs are still arguably better, partly because of their ahistorical all weather capabilities and historical superior AP capability. But to kill a lot of less armoured opponents quickly, the longbow is best.

Simon

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]You make some good points. But I would not put the longbow in early, as it would be ahistorical (I would even get rid of the 3 Welsh rebel longbowmen in early). Part of the solution in my opinion is to make arbalesters in late, which AFAIK, would be more in line with the history. (I would also put the crossbow in early to match history).

I second that thought. However, I would also make both pavise units only available in the Late era as I find it difficult to locate sources that mention widespread usage of these shields by missile troops prior to the 14th and 15th centuries. However, with Arbalesters only available in the Late era I would prefer to prolong the availability of Crossbows until the High era. I like the transition effect and think it scales well with the high value, high armor troops that become available in each era.

Kristaps, with regard to the Longbowmen vs. Arbalester argument keep in mind that the former has a decent melee rating and actually can fight well, especially on the attack (and with an armor piercing bonus to boot) whereas the latter are essentially well armored peasants when it comes to melee. Pavise Arbalesters may be well protected but those damn shield make them slow as hell and very vulnerable in the face of a cavalry charge. In SP I find a balance of both to be preferable with a bias towards Longbowmen. However, in MP it seems that Pavise Arbalesters are the only way to go.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Kristaps,

In the game, longbow can't compare to pav arb so I see no reason for ppl to love longbow beside brainwashing in the UK school system.

Stat wise, the only advantage of longbow is faster rate of fire. And better morale (but missile unit morale is secondary...)

Longbow are also more expensive.

In terms of gameplay, overall, pav arb is too good for other missile troops to compete. Cost difference is not big, but missile effectiveness is, and other factors (morale, speed, ...) are not different enought to make a difference with pav arb (turk hybrid being maybe the exception).

Historically speaking I would not mind arb and pav arb being only a late unit.

Louis,

Edited; note on longbow being AP... Come on... longbow with axe?

[Kraxis]

Arbs have another advantage... flat trajectory.
The Longbows continually overshoot their targets while the Arbs hit every time.

I have modded the Longbows to carry more arrows (56), have better range (7500 compared to the modded arbs' 7000), better accuracy and lethality and finally I upped their rate of fire (I'm sure it was higher than normal archers pre-patch so I set it to 3 compared to the 4 of all archers, arbs 16). And naturally the price has gone up. In MP battles the Longbows defeated the Pav Arbs in ranged combat and proceeded to kill my knights... so I toned them down a little (removed my upgrade of their AP), now they seem to be equally good in ranged combat but with the Longbows more expensive.

[Kongamato]

They have been brainwashed by the British Imperial Educational System. I swear some of these people only know of Agincourt and think that the Longbowmen are invincible.

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

When both are available, I use a mix of longbows & pavise missle troops. On offense, I tend to use use a higher ratio of longbows to pavise; on defense, just the opposite. Pavise are too slow, both in movement & in firing rate, to depend exclusively on them on offense. Their flat trajectory means that they can't fire into a melee if I really need them to do so, while longbows can fire over my troops resulting in fewer friendly-fire losses.

Typically, I unleash my missles, & then withdraw the longbows when they run out. The pavise almost never run out of bolts before the battle is over. & longbows can melee better than pavise.

I wouldn't be without either of them when I play the English. & since I'm American, I have not been "brainwashed" by the English comprehensive education system. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Puzz3D]

Well the pav arb has been moved to late era in VI. The longbow can probably compete fairly well against the regular arb, but moving all arbs to late era would give a nice progression of ranged weapon technology to the game, and it would make the longbow the best ranged weapon in high era which it possibly was historically, although, the compound bow is completely absent from the game. More arrows for archers would also help make up for what I think is rather low total kill potential except under ideal conditions, but I would be conservative with that because it's easy to unbalance the game the other way and end up with archers that are too effective.


Kraxis,

Recent testing by me indicates that archers have an equal number of undershoots in a vollay as they do overshoots. The undershoots are not as visible as the overshoots because the undershot arrows dissapear when they get near the ground while the overshot arrows stay visible since they are still in the air. It could be that the flatter trajectory weapons do get more hits for a given accuracy than archers. I think this would definitely be true for thin line targets because the arrow coming down at a steep angle can more readily miss front to back and the path length of the arrows is greater which produces more positional error at the target not to mention that the target profile from a steep angle may be smaller than for a flatter angle.

[DemonArchangel]

hmmm..... longbows should actually be simply cheaper considering they're just peasants with a large bent stick and lots of arrows.

[USMCNJ]

in my opinion the missle troops in TW, are not given the credet they deserve. If you put the loggbows vs. peasants about 10-15 peasants will die before reaching the longbow possition. And if you put regular archers agains peasants archers will lose most of the time. That's why i like the projectile.txt file. I mad my missle troops more deadly. Now logbows will kill about 20-30% of a unit before it reaches it. For me this has made the game a lot more interesting, archers are no longer killing practice for the cavelry. NOw when i face the english in high, 30-40 percent of their armies are logbow, and they take a big chung out of my armies.
And to stay true to the post pavise are better then longbow.
ps. Longbows are alot more then just peasants with big bows. In order to be a desent logbows you had to train for years. Some of the bows were like 100lb +. You know in what kind of shape you have to be to fire 4 arrows in a minute using a 100lb bow? and do this with 24 arrows.

[Kraxis]

Puzz
The overshoot/undershoot scenario you present was one I hadn't even considered... At the time, I have though of it at other times.
What I meant was that when units advance, even walking, then archers overshoot badly, while the x-bows won't do that unless you mod them greatly in range. The lack of leading the target is very limiting for the archers, it is not that often an enemy will stand still.

*Public announcement*
When firing into the back of the enemy marching away seems to be so effective it is because they don't have their shields to protect them anymore.

[Kongamato]

Excuse me, I have been reading some STW missile war threads, and does anybody know if 3 Pavs + 1 Longbowman can beat 4 Pavs?

[Kristaps]

Mori Gabriel Sime wrote:
Quote[/b] ]Pavise are too slow, both in movement & in firing rate, to depend exclusively on them on offense. Their flat trajectory means that they can't fire into a melee if I really need them to do so, while longbows can fire over my troops resulting in fewer friendly-fire losses.

Typically, I unleash my missles, & then withdraw the longbows when they run out. The pavise almost never run out of bolts before the battle is over. & longbows can melee better than pavise.


In my experience exactly the opposite is true about friendly fire and pavise: I get way more friendly fire kills with archers (any type) firing into melee than with arbalesters firing into melee. I guess, it's the higher accuracy of arbalesters that come into play here. I have noticed it several times with a group of chivalric knights charging peasant rebels in Livonia while pavise arbalesters continue firing into the crowd: I usually face no casualties whatsovever while pavise arbalesters rackin an insane amount of kills (the highest one I've seen: 350 per unit).

As to longbows having better melee stats than pavise: I disagree. Longbow attack is +3 and defense -3 resulting in 0 melee points in aggregate (before AP is taken into consideration); Pavise Arbalesters have a base defense of +5 and attack of -1 which gives them base melee of 4 points. On top of that one should factor in the fact that the high number of kills a pavise unit scores in the High and Late eras gives them fast (and safe) valor gains which means these units soon become darned good in melee...

My most active armies in the High era usually have 4-6 units of pavise arbalesters with 6 basis valor (before General's stars kick in). As I mentioned before: I have successfully used such high valor pavise units against knights in melee...

Longbows stand no chance to score such rapid valor gains since in order for them to get the same number of kills they would have to melee (and melee a lot...). The sad part is, the brave longbows would not live to boast about their heroic melee adventures due to their low defense rating... Another way of saying: longbows would not have as high a valor rating as pavises in general.

Someone in the topic also mentioned that pavise would lose to a cavalry charge. Well, so would longbows and with even more gruesome outcome than pavises... On another note, read my comment on valor gains: high valor pavises are able to take on vanilla knights in melee and quite successfully.

[econ21]

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe: it is well documented that longbowmen did carry axes (and mallets and other such things). They were partly for hammering stakes as anti-cav protection but were also used them to great effect on unhorsed heavily armoured knights at Agincourt. You might be interested to read John Keegan's book "Face of Battle" where he tackles that curious aspect of that battle.

DemonArchangel: longbowmen were not "peasants". From what I've read, those campaigning in France in the Hundred Years War were essentially professional soldiers of an English army and, as USMCNJ says, had to be pretty beefy and well-practiced to wield such weapons with any effect. A big advantage of the crossbow and the gun was that they could be wielded by the masses and not a warrior elite.

[Kristaps]

I rememer reading somewhere that the deltoid muscles of the right shoulder of longbowmen were so well developed that they could be recognized from far. The source (don't ask me what it was: I read it 10 years ago) said the longbows had to wear puffy outfits to mask this distinct feature from the French.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (DemonArchangel @ Mar. 05 2003,14:49)]hmmm..... longbows should actually be simply cheaper considering they're just peasants with a large bent stick and lots of arrows.
You're quite wrong here. A long bow was, in fact, a rather expensive instrument, as it required specific kinds of wood and a substantial outlay of time from a bowyer to produce. From what I have read, it is in fact related in design to the composite bow, with the exception that it is all wood and glue, with no sinew or horn.

As for the 'peasant' status of the Longbowmen, it's quite the opposite. To be effective with the longbow required years of training and practice.

Strictly speaking, it's the crossbowman and arbalesters who are peasants. The crossbow was reviled by knights, in part, because it was so easy to use. A minimally trained peasant could slaughter a man who had trained his whole life for war with a single aimed shot. Rather like a firearm in that respect...

[desdichado]

Quote[/b] (Pablo Sanchez @ Mar. 06 2003,11:03)]Strictly speaking, it's the crossbowman and arbalesters who are peasants. The crossbow was reviled by knights, in part, because it was so easy to use. A minimally trained peasant could slaughter a man who had trained his whole life for war with a single aimed shot. Rather like a firearm in that respect...
longbowmen weren't real popular with the French nobility either.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (desdichado @ Mar. 05 2003,21:02)]longbowmen weren't real popular with the French nobility either.
Well, nobody likes being dead.

[LordKhaine]

I think the high trajectory of the longbow is an advantage. Means you can stick several longbows behind the front lines and still shoot. With crossbows you'd need to be on a hill to be able to fire fully. And the fast rate of fire means the longbow kills very fast, compared to the arbs. If you're defending close to the edge, its an easy matter of withdrawing them and replacing with more missle troops.

The only problem is you can't order re-enforcements to replace the longbows... but VI will change that I believe.

[ShadesWolf]

Longbows in this game suck, which is a pity.

Historically they were the most powerful weapon on the battlefield, and didnot become obsolete until the invension of the mass market gun.

A better way to play would be to restrict the use of Pavise weapons, or throw a random element into the game, ie the crossbows are availalbe for the battle however, the pavises are stuck somewhere between Crecy and Paris, as in most battles they would have arrived at a differnt timescale than the weapon.

Therefore people would be less likely to use this weapons if they didnt know what they were going to get. Also historically more arrows could be released via the longbow in the same time frame, yet this seems to have been ignored when balancing the units...... This is also a pity.

[econ21]

Shadeswolf: have you ever tried longbows with unlimited ammo? I don't know about MP, but in SP they are very effective. They do fire more rapidly than arbs in the game. The main problem in SP, IMO, is they fire too rapidly and expend their ammo very quickly. MP may be a whole other kettle of fish.

[A.Saturnus]

Out of sympathy with the longbow, I`ll give them more ammo and restrict arbs to late today. (Although it`ll hurt)

[ShadesWolf]

Over at OOOO we alter the stats to give a more realistic results ie increase the range etc....

One thing i dislike about this game is the limited amount of ammo available

I have quite reg played with an 8-8 split on MP, and as far as I am concerned they are just not powerful enough.

It should be totally impossible to charge into a front line of men with longbow support in 1v1, but you can. Any player stupid enough to give a full frontal charge should just be cut to pieces, but it just does not happen.

I dont have a problem when ammo runs out, or if you are outnumbered then a charge would result in some success, but on a 16v16 units, IMHO the longbows should win every time.....

I must admit in SP playing on early, they are always a unit I take great care of, as they can be awesome, when used correctly.

Myself, Tarrak and Flanders have tested a number on battles England V France (1v2) with modified stats and the long bows always rule, as i believe they should do.

You only have to read about Crecy or Agincourt, or any other victory to undertstand what I mean http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ShadesWolf]

A few useful notes from history

Some highlights of the battle of Crécy - referenced from the works of Jean Froissant, The Longbow by Robert Hardy and The Medieval Archer by Jim Bradbury:


- French forces numbered approximately 36,000.
- English forces numbered approximately 12,000 of which 7,000 were archers.
- The battle line was approximately 2,000 yards wide
- The English army, occupying the top of a gentle ridge near the town, consisted of three groups of men-at-arms and spearmen, with archers placed on their sides. The archers formed ranks resembling an outward V.
- Each English archer carried 2 sheaves of arrows (48) into battle. Resupply was accomplished by going back thru the lines or having more brought forward.
- The bow draw weights were normally from 80 to 120 lbs.
- Arrows, depending on type and weight, could be shot 250 to 300 yards.
- The English archers could shoot an average of 10 arrows per minute.
- The total number of arrows shot during the battle is estimated at a half million.
- There were 14 to 16 charges made against the English lines from the start of the battle at 4:00 PM until the completion at midnight.
- Casulties were estimated from 5,000 (low) to 10,000 or more (high) for the French Knights and Genoese crossbowmen. - English casulties were several hundred.






Some useful and interesting links

English longbowmen on SHADESMTW.COM web site (http://www.shadesmtw.com/engbow.htm)

Questions and answers (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/longbow/longbowmen.html)

Longbow links (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/longbow/longbow.html)



100 years war - battle of agincourt (http://www.100yearswar.co.uk/agincampp1.htm)

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Mar. 06 2003,02:59)]Historically they were the most powerful weapon on the battlefield, and did not become obsolete until the invension of the mass market gun.
I'm glad to hear someone say that who knows more than I. I remember reading that, considered simply as a single weapon, the English longbow was superior in power & accuracy to the firearms used in the Napoleonic era. The difference was training required, of course. A competent longbowman took years to develop & required such constant training to maintain skill & fitness that it was mandated by law. Through use of mass drills & picture-books, a mass of commoners could be taught to use a firearm competently enough to avoid blowing themselves up; then it was simply a matter of assembling them in a large block & saying "fire."

Then there was the matter that late-medieval/early Renaissance firearms were new & expensive, therefore prestigious for a nation to field. It didn't matter so much that they didn't work so well, especially since nations couldn't afford many. The expression of power in owning them made up for the lack of power in using them.

As a side note, it would be interesting to find out how state-of-the-art bows now compare with current firearms.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Mar. 05 2003,17:07)]Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe: it is well documented that longbowmen did carry axes (and mallets and other such things). They were partly for hammering stakes as anti-cav protection but were also used them to great effect on unhorsed heavily armoured knights at Agincourt. You might be interested to read John Keegan's book "Face of Battle" where he tackles that curious aspect of that battle.
Always found it strange but I was not aware that axes were actually used in melee vs infantry.
Usage for stakes building is another matter.

Thanks for the precision,

Louis,

[Cousin Zoidfarb]

The longbows in the hundred yers war were protected by stakes, caltrops and potholes, which probably contributed significantly to their success by breaking the charge of the knights. I think field fortifications/obstacles should be included in the game.

I also think the composite bow has been represented much weaker than it should be in the game. The composite bow was just as powerful as the longbow, and the first defeat of heavily armoured knights by archery was at the hands of the Mongols and Seljuks, not the English.

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (Beavis @ Mar. 06 2003,10:44)]I also think the composite bow has been represented much weaker than it should be in the game. The composite bow was just as powerful as the longbow, and the first defeat of heavily armoured knights by archery was at the hands of the Mongols and Seljuks, not the English.
If one looks in the file "ProjectileStats.txt": there is no composite bows mentioned there. It appears game only uses longbows, shortbows (used by all vanilla archers) and mounted longbows. In the "crusader*-unit.txt" file all units that are supposed to use composite bows are listed as using shortbows (the same ones used by the "dreaded" archers). I guess the developers didn't care about making the distinction between composite bows and shortbows.

[Orda Khan]

For the difference between Longbow and Composite I posted in 'Composite Bows' in the Dungeon..( too long to repeat )

A bit of information about the Longbowmen is needed as it seems there are a few who think of them as mere peasants. They were in fact so important to the English cause that they needed to be kept 'sweet' and because of this were a bit of a headache. Many returned as very wealthy men and most were 'freemen' of some place. About 3 miles from me is a place called Llantrisant, where the common was given to the Longbowmen of the area. It is still in the care of the 'Freemen of Lantrisant'

As h2h troops they were not well armoured (usually a padded tunic, leather, or a bit of ring mail) but they were very adept. They were armed with small axes and/or mallets a small 'buckler' shields (which doubled as a weapon) and their evil B*****k knives....Use your imagination here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif This was plunged into the exposed regions of armoured foes, such as the armpit or its usual target, up into the groin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Longbows in Early..Historically this would be correct as it was the Welsh Longbow that was introduced to the English army. The weapon went through modifications until its demise but during the early period it would not have been an 'English' unit choice. Because of that I would not include it.

Pet hate.......Pavise Arbalesters
I Hope VI makes them fire poorly in the rain and I'm happy they are moved to Late.
Oh and most of them were mercenaries so perhaps their upgrades should be more expensive.

No Composite bow in the game....I must have been asleep until now. Is this true? If so it's a crime as the bows of the Turks, Mameluks, Avars, Bulgars etc; the peoples of Asia Minor and the Steppes, were Composite bows.

Puzz, Mongol Horse Archers, Mameluk Horse Archers...Don't these have Composite bows? They should.

.......Orda

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Mar. 06 2003,11:56)]Puzz, Mongol Horse Archers, Mameluk Horse Archers...Don't these have Composite bows? They should.

.......Orda
According to "crusaders*units*.txt" Mameluk hore-archers have the following entry for their weapon type:

PROJECTILE_TYPE( MTLG )

in my book, this stands for "mounted longbow" which according to the stats layed out in "ProjectileStats.txt" is inferior (less accuracy) to shortbow used by vanilla archers.

As to the list of missile weapons used in MTW, here is the list from the same "ProjectileStats.txt": it does not mention "composite bow" anywhere:

longbow
shortbow
mountedlongbow
arquebus
handgun
ninjastar
javelin
grenade
crossbow
arbalest
ballista
catapult
trebuchet
mangonel
bombard
culverin
demi-culverin
siege-cannon
demi-cannon
mortar
serpentine
torch
arrow_from_model
bolt_from_model
bullet_from_mode

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Mar. 06 2003,06:59)]Out of sympathy with the longbow, I`ll give them more ammo and restrict arbs to late today. (Although it`ll hurt)
This would create an obvious game disbalance... Pavise arbalesters could be successfully used by muslim factions against Chivalric knights in the High. If arbalesters are restricted to Late, Almohads, for example, will have a really hard time as soon as chivalric knights appear. Just IMHO...

[Hakonarson]

Axes weer not a common h-h weapon type for longbowmen for very long.

Apart from daggers and swords at Agincourt they used mauls - large wood-headed hammers still seen in building yards for hammering stakes into the ground.

Axes weer used a little later for a few decades before they mainly switched to sword and buckler for the later stages of the HYW and the Wars of the Roses.

But as far as archers go they were generally quite well equipped to do some sort of hand-to-hand combat.


they

[Puzz3D]

ShadeWolf,

I'm not at all convinced that the longbow was as dominant as you claim. Wrong tactics must have had a role in these large French armies loosing. From Patay in 1429 onwards, the French did very well against the longbow. At Patay they killed around 2000 English and only lost 3 men. If you make the longbow so effective that it always wins in 16 v 16, then doesn't that unbalance the game?

[Spino]

What's to prevent someone from modding the unused "ninjastar" weapon slot to a proper compound bow or a more historical mounted compound bow used by cavalry?

Not that I'd mod them to be as effective as Longbows but they should definitely pack more of a punch than Shortbows (and a longer reaching punch at that).

[Kongamato]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Mar. 06 2003,15:47)]If you make the longbow so effective that it always wins in 16 v 16, then doesn't that unbalance the game?
Well why no'? Ev'rybody knows tha' th' Bri'ish Longbowmen were co'pletely envincible, ol' chap.

[Kristaps]

Sounds like a good idea: i.e, use the ninjastar slot to create a compound bow.

As to longbows: I modded them to have twice the normal amount of arrows + decreased their reload time (-25%) + increased their range (+1000) + increased the power of their arrows and lethality a bit. Now, they really seem dreadful: i.e, they even managed to score a few kills against being part of a Livonian rebel army against my knights...

[ShadesWolf]

## Puzz3D

Interesting that you should talk about PATAY in 1429, in my calcualtion that is 90 years after the 100 years war begin.

It seems a little strange that if the longbow was NOT so powerful that it took the French 90 years to work out a successful tactic.

The following is a summary of what appears to have haapened at Patay

- First, there was inadequate time for the English archers to establish their standard tactical defense.
- Second, the English position was not sufficiently protected from flanking, as the French cavalry was able to span-out beyond the English line.

[ShadesWolf]

Some info I found on a web site on Pavise's

source : Shields: Terminology and History (http://projects.prm.ox.ac.uk/kent/shieweap/shgenex3.html)

Pavise: A large oblong shield used mainly by archers and crossbowmen from the 14th century to the beginning of the 16th. It was also widely used by other foot soldiers. A typical feature was the central groove on the inside to hold a stake that was inserted in the ground to act as a prop: this groove was nearly always emphasized on the outside by a raised panel running the full height of the pavise. The purpose of the support was twofold: it freed the bowman's hands to enable him to shoot and provide the crossbowman with temporary shelter while spanning and loading his weapon. There is evidence that the shield, and hence its name, originated in the city of Pavia in northern Italy. Soon thereafter the pavise was extensively used throughout Europe. The shield was generally rounded at the top and sometimes at the bottom too, with straight sides widening slightly towards the base. The central groove was either straight or broadened out toward the bottom. The whole shield tended to be concave on the inside, and two straps, called GUIGES, or chains were fitted there so that the soldier could carry it on his back from place to place. The framework was generally made of wood and faced with cloth, parchment, or cuir-bouilli, although a few were reinforced with iron bands. The pavise was also used as an assault defense, and for this purpose special spikes were fitted along the bottom edge to enable the shield to be thrust into the ground as the attacking force advanced. There was also a metal observation grille at the top. A hand pavise was a smaller version of the pavise, fitted on the inside with the ENARMES. It was customary for the front of the pavise to be decoratively painted in a wide variety of designs, including city or personal armorial bearings.


So my question is how common was the use of the PAvise and does anybody have any info on if introduction etc....
Does anybodt have any web page links ?

[econ21]

Shadeswolf - you seem to have come up with the best web reference yet. It implies pavise should be in the late period for MTW. They, of something similar, may have been used earlier in sieges but in open battle, I doubt they were common before the Hundred Years War. I'd be interested what others can contribute though.

BTW, doesn't it seem that nearly all significant military innovations are adopted on the battlefield in the "late" period rather than in the "high" one? Pavise, metal crossbows, halberds, pikes, handguns, full plate, heavy lance etc. all seem to have been adopted in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. The only battlefield innovations in the thirteenth century seems to have been the longbow (limited to the British Isles) and maybe "transitional" armour (the intermediate type from mail to plate).

[Puzz3D]

ShadesWolf,

No question that the longbows were better than regular bows and that the French had no comparable weapon, but the French could have won at Agincourt, so it seems to me that a mod to MTW should allow for that possibility. Certainly the longbow as modelled in MTW seems too weak, but you would need stakes to give the longbows a chance of defeating a cavalty charge.

At Patay the English were coming off of a whole string of defeats which possibly demoralized them. It seems to me that something happened there or perhaps during the whole Loire Valley campaign which helped the French figure out how to win because, if my understanding is correct, all of the French captains that participated in the Battle of Patay did very well against the English after that. The turnaround was dramatic because as late as Feb 1429, at the Battle of the Herrings, the French were still suffering defeats at the hands of smaller English forces. The Battle of Agincourt in 1415 is 76 years into the Hundred Years War, and the French are still using loosing tactics. So, apparently it did take 90 years before the French figured out how to win. After that it seems to be the English who had a hard time learning from their defeats.

[ShadesWolf]

Its funny you should talk about that


Quote[/b] ]No question that the longbows were better than regular bows and that the French had no comparable weapon, but the French could have won at Agincourt, so it seems to me that a mod to MTW should allow for that possibility

I have been doing a little bit of work on creating a new battlefield for agincourt that stopped the flanking move that came happen now..... I will put a link to the map here later, when i get home.

[NateEngle]

It looks like the essentials have been well-covered. The rate of fire is really the longbow's advantage, while the slow foot speed of the pavise arbalester is a substantial disadvantage. Given my choice between a pavise arbalester with 0 valor and a regular arbalester with 1 valor, I almost always take the regular. It may be hard to believe, but it's not that uncommon for me to run my arbalesters out of ammunition, and when that happens I'd rather that they be able to retreat more quickly off the board to make room for the next man in.

Personally I like longbowmen a lot better after having given them extra arrows. I did the mod while playing as English and found it a good change. Since then I've played as Danes, Spanish, and Italians and it doesn't appear that the mod unbalanced anything at all - if anything I've seen the Brits more often beaten like a gong, and I haven't had any particular trouble facing up against them with my own troops.

[ShadesWolf]

Please find below the current version of my new Agincourt map

I can confirm later that this is the last version I created, theis has some water in the sides, as I ran out of tree and stakes, So I need some impassible obsticle, so I had to use water - Have a look and tell me what u think ?

If anybody is interested im trying to recreate the battle over at OOOO, let me know if you are interested, then I might stick a bit in our forum and update the web site a little more.....

SW_agincourt.zip (http://www.shadesmtw.com/oooo/SW_agincourt.zip)

I have also created some web pages on the famous battle, also worth a look if you are interested...

100 years war.co.uk - Agincourt (http://www.100yearswar.co.uk/agincampp1.htm)

[Cousin Zoidfarb]

Field obstacles in the game would reflect the longbow success. As someone pointed out in the thread, at Patay the French attacked before the English could set up defensive positions and won.

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (NateEngle @ Mar. 07 2003,10:38)]Given my choice between a pavise arbalester with 0 valor and a regular arbalester with 1 valor, I almost always take the regular. It may be hard to believe, but it's not that uncommon for me to run my arbalesters out of ammunition, and when that happens I'd rather that they be able to retreat more quickly off the board to make room for the next man in.
IMHO, pavise are ways better than the regular arbalesters due to their pumped up defense and better protection against enemy missiles. I just cannot stress it enough: this quality of pavises results in them fast gaining and KEEPING valor... It is not that uncommon to see valor 6 pavise units in my SP armies. And once you have them at valor 6: even a moderatly decent general can use them as very successful melee troops. As to regular arbalesters: thanks to their lower defense and worse protection against missiles they just have a harder time keeping the valor they have gained due to attrition.

As far as reinforcements go: I have practically abandoned using them in SP {partly due to the fact that in the current version of MTW we cannot plan them}: I send my 16 unit high quality troops to handle any situation and in most cases they do succeed even against tremendous odds (which usually look tremendous on the surface due to large peasant representation in AI's armies). An exception to the no-reinforcement rule is cases when I have artillery in the late. Then, I usually restric myself to a few medium/light cavalry units to replace my withdrawn artillery units.

Longbowmen: even with a doubled arrow stack they still considerably underkill pavise arbalesters in my armies (recently I had a case when my valor 10 {with general's stars}, pavise unit killed 378 rebel peasants and still had a few bolts left in the end...}. This can be explained by poorer accuracy, lethality, armor piercing, and velocity as outlined in projectilestats.txt. I guess, 'shooting poorly' in bad weather doesn't help longbows in the race against arbalesters.

[BDC]

I was always under the impression Longbowman were the 'machine gunners' of their day, only going out of service because they took too long to train up compared to firearms. Even one WW1 general, after realising how inaccurate his rifleman were, said he would rather have archers.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Kristaps @ Mar. 07 2003,11:20)]IMHO, pavise are ways better than the regular arbalesters due to their pumped up defense and better protection against enemy missiles.
The Pavises have no better defence than normal Arbs...

The Pavise shield adds 3 Armour to the front but no defense (can you imagine using the pavise in a melee???). This is info from the devs directly.
So the Pavs have a total power of 2 not 4.

I upped the rate of fire for the Longbows to be 25% faster than normal bows, and a lot of other things. But that rate of fire combined with the greater amount of arrows made them vastly better.

When we tested them against Pavises the first time (with Flanders and Shadeswolf, yes I'm Tarrak) the Longbows utterly destroyed them. My Arbs didn't have a chance, they were outgunned and outranged. After that I nerfed the Longbows slightly and they seemed to be much better balanced, but still very potent.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Mar. 07 2003,00:24)]## Puzz3D

Interesting that you should talk about PATAY in 1429, in my calcualtion that is 90 years after the 100 years war begin.

It seems a little strange that if the longbow was NOT so powerful that it took the French 90 years to work out a successful tactic.
I hope it will take me less than 90 years to win my first MP game...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

ShadesWolf,

John Keegan says the Agincourt battlefield was bordered by woods on both sides covering the 1000 yards distance between the two army's initial positions. He gives the width at the French end as 1200 yards tapering down to about 900 to 1000 yards where the English and French lines eventually met which was about 300 yards from the initial French position and then continuing more or less parallel for 700 yards or so. I think if you use the tree textures there would be no problem creating the number of trees required. I'd just fill out to the sides of the map with trees, and not put an impassable obstacle like water on the sides because there wasn't any inpassable obstacle in the actual battle. The French infantry, confident of victory, didn't use the trees for cover, and instead funneled down into three columns and apparently went for the three English banners. The longbows didn't stop either the cavalry or the infantry with their ranged fire. The French lost the hand-to-hand fighting apparently because the front line men got pushed into the English by the men behind them and as a result could not evade spear thrusts and blows from axes and maces. What happened when the front lines of the combatants met at Agincourt cannot be simulated by the MTW game engine. The failed cavalry charges along the flanks allowed the English achers to eventually leave their positions and envelope the French columns and hack away at its sides. This aspect is simulated in the game by the inclusion of a combat bonus bonus when striking at a man's side.

[ShadesWolf]

I tried with the trees and unfortunatley you run out of trees.....

[andy119]

Longbowman are good unit of missile for certain things. They are best used with 3 other longbowman and are good for h2h and probably the best for it on the game. My line was routing in a mp i sent in the 1 unit of longbow i take if im england and they held the line well and routed the gen hey Mo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif hehe. In sp i had a lb army and they beat an all cav and 2 chiv maa. They are a decent missile but they are nowhere neer the best. Pavise arbelasters and arbelasters are the best then pavise crossbows.
The reason why u see alot is because n000bys take them because they have heard about the 100 years war battles when they were very successfull. i believe they are lil less powerfull than they should be. I take 1 if i take any in the hope that the other guy wont have 4 pavs and that i will be able to flank with them. Fuutuwaas are very good h2h aswell.

[Kongamato]

Quote[/b] (andy119 @ Mar. 08 2003,10:03)]The reason why u see alot is because n000bys take them because they have heard about the 100 years war battles when they were very successfull.
The British Imperial Education Campaign

[andy119]

Lol very true i learnt about it in year 9 of school. Infact i did a whole project on the longbow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Puzz3D]

ShadesWolf,

There is a limit on models so individual trees are limited, but if you use the tree textures you won't have any trouble getting all the trees you want.

[Kraxis]

Btw Kristaps...

Longbows have a total power of 1 since they have a buckler that adds 1 Armour and 1 Defense to the front (and you added that to your Arbs). That combined with the AP makes the Longbows better in melee than the Arbs.
Sadly the Longbows are weaker in ranged combat and they are more expensive.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Mar. 07 2003,06:24)]It seems a little strange that if the longbow was NOT so powerful that it took the French 90 years to work out a successful tactic.
It didnt take the French that long to start using other ways of attacking. At Poitiers they used mostly dismounted knights compared to the stupid cavalry charges uphill against prepared defenders at Crecy IIRC.

Their main problem was arrogance and lack of discipline. Gathering a huge army but not a proper command structure is the quick way to disaster.

Lessons learned on earlier battlefields was also soon forgotten by the next generation of nobles as you can see with the Battle of Courtrai 1302 and Cassel 1328. They learned a lesson at Courtrai against prepared infantry and didnt dare attacking a defender on a hill at Cassel..somehow that was just forgotten by arrogant French knights at Crecy.

Maybe because they were fighting an English king and not some Flemish rebels and therefore expecting a "fair" fight..and of course superior numbers...dont know.

But later on we do start to see the French to be a bit more careful.

Yes longbows and bows in general should be better..but better to do what?

Yes they should kill more unarmoured infantry.

Cavalry?..dont know really. Longbows couldnt stop knights from reaching their lines. They might disorder them but as we can see from a few battles, Patay included, longbows dont stand a chance if not covered by terrain/stakes and will get ridden down. The longbows work great at short range when the enemy cavalry is engaged and firing into their flank. So maybe not much improvement needed against cavalry.

Longbows shouldnt be able to kill that many heavily armoured foot knights and we know longbows alone rarely stopped dismounted knights.

I said in another thread that recreating Agincourt would be nearly impossible. The effects of disorder and units becomming too compressed is simply not simulated in MTW.

We know that the French dismounted knights somehow managed to go from a nice wide line to a too compressed disordered mass of men that ended up attacking only the English center.

John Keegan has come up with the theory that it was the routing French cavalry on the flanks that ran into the line disordering it, and started the disaster. I think that is the best theory for why it happened. But it doesnt matter why really. Disordered and too tightly packed units gets slaughtered in melee..thats what happened and thats what MTW cant recreate.


Late era starts at 1321..you could easily say that the longbow should be late era only too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But looking at several of the units that come in late era..it should start in 1421 or later heh

CBR

[Puzz3D]

ShadesWolf,

CBR and I had a discussion online where we conjectured that you might be able to simulate the inefficiency of the large French infantry formations by making the French inf units larger but weaker in combat stats.

Also, a point about stakes in the game: it's possible to set the spacing so that cavalry cannot get through but infantry can easily pass through them. In my map of Patay, I went further than that and set the stakes in such a way that cavalry can get through, but the charge is broken. This is to simulate the supposed unpreparedness of the English. My Patay map is in the uploads section: http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Mtw_Uploads/MTWupload/

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Mar. 09 2003,08:37)]Cavalry?..dont know really. Longbows couldnt stop knights from reaching their lines. They might disorder them but as we can see from a few battles, Patay included, longbows dont stand a chance if not covered by terrain/stakes and will get ridden down. The longbows work great at short range when the enemy cavalry is engaged and firing into their flank. So maybe not much improvement needed against cavalry.
The main danger to the mounted knight from archery was wounding of his horse. Unless he had an excellent mount, it would tend to become maddened when it was struck. This could be very bad for cavalry in formation.

Perhaps this could be represented by giving cavalry an extra morale penalty against arrow fire?

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Pablo Sanchez @ Mar. 09 2003,17:40)]The main danger to the mounted knight from archery was wounding of his horse. Unless he had an excellent mount, it would tend to become maddened when it was struck. This could be very bad for cavalry in formation.

Perhaps this could be represented by giving cavalry an extra morale penalty against arrow fire?
Yes the horse is the main problem, which is why we see the increase in horse armour especially in the 15th century.

Right now a unit can only really be in two different morale states: routing or non-routing heh

Would be nice to have some kind of disordered state where a unit stops its advance or retreat or even continue forward just with a disordered negative combat modifier.

CA could do a lot of nice changes to morale and formations/tactics if they looked at some of the miniature rulesets that exists and add some more as the computer can keep track of it all. And still be easy to play without needing a Phd to understand the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

CBR

[ShadesWolf]

Nice to see a good discussions going on here.

I find longbows and the 100 years war inparticular very interesting. I feel it is a little examined campaign. So many interesting figures to be looked at

Joan of Arc
Henry v
The Black Prince
etc.....

and so many excellent battles to recreate

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Mar. 09 2003,07:29)]Btw Kristaps...

Longbows have a total power of 1 since they have a buckler that adds 1 Armour and 1 Defense to the front (and you added that to your Arbs). That combined with the AP makes the Longbows better in melee than the Arbs.
Sadly the Longbows are weaker in ranged combat and they are more expensive.
Yes, you're right. Thanks for the correction. I guess, I had gotten the stats from a post on the assembly site. Here is the 'corrected version' for zero valor units from the "crusaders*.txt" file:

Longbowmen: Attack(3), Defense(-2), Shield Bonus(1): Melee = (3 - 2 + 1) = 2 (doesn't account for AP).

Pavise Arbalesters: Attack(-1), Defense(2), Shield Bonus(1): Melee = (-1 + 2 + 1) = 2.

It appears, the pavises and longbowmen are equal when it comes to fighting unarmored troops and longbowmen have an edge when fighting armored types.

[Kraxis]

You have still got it wrong... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

The Pavise doesn't add any melee ability to the Arbs, so they end up at total value 1. Meaning the Longbows are better in any case (though will suffer more from heavy charges).

[Orda Khan]

It could be true that it took the French 90 years to counter the Longbow or simply to learn how to fight. At Agincourt the English were cold, wet, hungry and many were ill. It seems the French were as incompetant as they were arrogant

.....Orda

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Mar. 11 2003,14:24)]You have still got it wrong... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

The Pavise doesn't add any melee ability to the Arbs, so they end up at total value 1. Meaning the Longbows are better in any case (though will suffer more from heavy charges).
My bad, yes: the pavise is not used in melee, therefore should not be used in melee stat comparisons. In regards to this, I noticed that "F1" battlefield stat display appears to account for pavise defense bonus even if the arbalesters are engaged in melee. I was wondering whether the battle engine actually accounts for them using that +1 defense bonus in melee or is it bugged?

[ShadesWolf]

bump

Just incase anybody from .com comes over to read it

[Aelwyn]

Ok I'm sure others have said what I am about to (not going to read all 3 pages http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) but it really all depends on what you're looking to do. If I am taking a rush army, but still want to do some preliminary damage, I'd take maybe 3 longbows. That way, the enemy arbs are going to focus on them at first, and I'd simply move them into position to hit the enemy inf. That way they get shot, not my inf. and they shoot inf themselves. Well this won't work exactly that way....but anything left will be more effective in a second round...like when everyone regroups. Also. Any longbowmen left don't have to be as quickly pulled back as Arbs to avoid a chain route. They can be used to flank. That having been said, I haven't seen Pav. Arbs. lose to Longbowmen, except maybe in the Desert.

[Ligur]

Good thread, I got just one thing to add.

I shit my pants everytime I see 5 x 60 man Arb units open up from close range on attacking heavy cavalry.

You know the way a few 20 man Royal Knight units just _evaporate_ in 2 seconds?

Playing our dear AI I often use 4 to 5 pav. arb. units on defence and rack them on a hill just above my line of spears, halberdiers and billmen and place them on hold position, hold formation and deselect fire at will. When the enemy comes close with heavy units I let rip with all the arb units at the exact same time. Causes some of the enemy units to rout after the first or second volley if their general is weak. You just see knights fall down like hay. I've never been able to do this with longbows.

[NewJeffCT]

It depends on the battle I am fighting. If I am on offense, I definitely prefer longbows, as they are much more mobile. On defense, pavise arbalesters are preferred, as you can set up your defensive position to have them protected on a little hilltop or sand dune or whatever. I have never had a lot of luck with arbalesters or pavise arbalesters, though. Even on defense, I like quick, maneuverable forces.

[DemonArchangel]

I modded longbows to have slightly better range and armor piercing, problem solved.

[LeeJackson]

I have to agree with NewJeffCT. Longbows are definitely the preferred choice if you want to be mobile.

While on defense I usually take a pavise unit, on offense some times I take Longbows because they can move relatively quickly. Helping with flanking, chasing and harassing.

[A.Saturnus]

A longbowman has the same speed as a crossbowman without pavese and is - if I remember correctly - more vulnerable to missiles.