Longbowmen or Pavise Arbalesters?

[eadeater]

In my opinion, there are two ranged units competing to be the best, the longbowmen and pavise arbalesters. I use both extensively as they have their uses in different types of battle and armies and opponents and so on, but can't decide which is better on the whole.

[katank]

I typically go for longbows due to faster firing rate and hence greater morale penalty inflicted upon enemy for faster losses.

also, they can arc their fire and thus can work on flat terrain behind spear walls without shooting your guys in the back.

They also have 3 attack with AP which means they are good flankers and in fact superior to FMAA due to AP if flanking.

they are attack rather than defense.

Pav arbs are very defense oriented. they will not kill as fast but wouldn't die as fast.

they can even be attacked by cav and not lose that much men.

they are extremely slow though.

overall, longbows are better but PAs do have their uses.

[HicRic]

The only problem with LBs is the quick firing rate means they'll be out of ammo in a jiffy (although they can then work as good flankers as Katank said). PA work better for longer, more drawn-out battles and take very few casulties from missile fire. I enjoy a combination of the two-PA's for their ongoing contribution throughout a battle, and LBs to quickly mow down a unit when I need it.

You could even consider sending LBs around the back of the enemy line when they've engaged you, pelting a valueable unit in the back with many AP arrows, and then charging into the rear of the enemy. That's one creamed army.

I personally just enjoy using LBs more, just because they're...cool! ~;)

[Daveybaby]

If i'm defending then using both can be very beneficial. Quite often the key to winning/losing a defensive battle is to break the enemies initial assault - if you can get them to retreat once then 90% of the time youve already won, regardless of how many reinforcements they have (at least thats the case vs the AI - MP would be another matter entirely).

So what i do is have some pav arbs (2-3 units), plus at least 3 units of longbows. The pav arbs are there for long term ranged ability (plus soak up enemy arrows), while the longbows are there to try to inflict as much damage as possible on specific units (e.g. enemy generals, charging cav) in as short a space a time as possible in order to break the back of the unit and neutralise its attack.

Once the LB's are out of ammo i either rotate them out for more (if its one of those '4 waves of enemy reinforcements' jobs) or keep them ready to counterattack (good speed + melee capability - not something you can say of pav arbs!).

I think one of the reasons this works so well is that youre combining the sudden massive trauma of having a volley of arbs fire into a target, plus you get the constant morale penalty of being constantly fired on by the LBs (something which, IIRC, doesnt happen from Arb fire, due to the long reload).

So, if this is true, normal archers might also work well in this role - its just that LBs give you the AP and the extra range to actually inflict some damage, whereas usually by the time youre fielding pav arbs, normal bows are pretty ineffective due to enemy armour.

[mfberg]

Longbows, definitely. They get +1 from Wales, and +1 from the Master level building. I will use Pavise arbs if I plan on a ranged duel, then its Pavise arbs in front of Longbows.

mfberg

[katank]

put the pav arbs in spots such as closer to the front where they might be hit by enemy missile or have greater probability of getting charged.

for example, in bridge defense, the two missiles right next to my plugs are usually pav arbs.

this is where my missiles usually take the most fire from enemy missiles and even if the plug breaks, the enemy cav wouldn't play that much havoc with my missiles in terms of casualtie, giving time for flankers and reinforcements to hit.

longbows can function as that.

it's funny how pav arbs can act as a pinning unit in times of desperation and the longbows can function as the flanking crusher.

massed longbows and billmen are a killer combo, particularly with master bow from wales and master spear from mercia.

[eadeater]

I see what you are saying about the sheer killing power a few units of longbows provide, and yes, if you have 4 or 5 of them in defence on a hill, you are almost bound to win (provided you've got soem infantry and cavalry as well ~D ) as you'll obliterate the enemy general and his unit in a half dozen volleys, but with 4 or 5 pavise arbalesters, you could do the same, and they have the added plus that they can keep on doing it because they don't run out of ammo that quickly.

[katank]

the problem is slowness in both movement and shooting.

if you want to just keep HAs away, PAs are better.

the longbows will kill more men per time interval though. Since the morale penalty is based on amount of casulaties inflicted per unit time, the longbows are far better at rapid disintegration of enemy battle line and causing a general rout.

once you shatter their line, you can give chase with your cav.

due to the longbows' attacking ability, I treat them as hybrids and they are more versatile.

Similarly, their faster walking speed allows them to skirmish slow infantry while the PAs are plain slow.

When you need to swap out troops for reinforcements, if both the withdrawing unit and the reinforcement are pav arbs, it's just painfully slow and your lines may have crumbled without missile support in the meanwhile.

[Spartiate]

Longbows if fighting the AI.

Pav Arbs if fighting human opponents.

[Sjakihata]

I use to combine them. 3 rows of pavs and 2 LB is defending. 3 LB and 1 or 2 pavs if attacking.

[Lucius Lucullus]

What are these longbows you talk about ? Oooh you mean what those quarterstaffs the barbarians from the rebellious province of Brittania keep insisting on calling bows ~:rolleyes:


I dont play Catholic factions..... nor do I play moslems one for that matter..... and I only play one Orthodox faction..... ~:smoking: Trebizond Archers rule the battlefield.



Though to answer your question in a somewhat .... I use archers and arbelasters in support of each other. I start of with three archer units whom after they have fired all of their arrows march of the field to be replaced by arbelasters.... and yes when playing SP I amass huge armies, wich mean huge battles :evilgrin:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I tend to use the pav arbs to win missile duels and to wear the enemy down, and use longbows as close support machine gun style units for when something MUST die now. Due to their speed, they can also be redeployed quickly, and provide forward support while travelling with advancing troops.

[Lonewarrior]

i will have to say both, first I always use lownbowmen to inflict damage on the enemy fast, and when they're out of amo, that's when the pavise take over to reinforce my attack.

Like my sig?

[katank]

@ LL, equal valor, longbows will kill treb archers.

they outrange the treb archers and thus can decimate them while TAs trying to walk into range and are otherwise statistically equal for dueling and melee. (longbow's AP doesn't apply as treb archers don't have enough armor).

however, both getting master armor, then longbows would come out ahead.

longbows are generally more versatile

[Si GeeNa]

I suppose if your comparison is to determine their effectiveness as a straight-off archers to archers duel. These 2 tend to come up tops...

But the field is dynamic and i tend to find that HA's versatility makes them more useful in the battle.

The Nash Equilibrium to the Archer Game is that LongBowmen wins.

[sir_schwick]

I prefer bow troops to pavise-crossbow types due to speed. I usually go missle light and depend on archers to redeploy. Regualr crossbows are thus useful for flanking missle attacks, but not pavise. Often I use Halbediers for absorbing missles, or peasants before then(finally a use for them).

As for skirmisher type archers, learning to use them more effectively.

[Nowake]

If available, I combine the two, but if it was to choose, the PA are much, much efficient.

[Papewaio]

I rarely bother with any missile troops except in defense. I may bring one missile unit to make an all melee enemy move off a defensive position.

If I am an all melee army (Danes) I look at each of the archer units as just more kills for cavalry.

Mind you playing the Turks its HA dominated armies I play. Two totally different styles and it keeps things fresh.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It's interesting that some people see LB rate of fire as a potential disadvantange. I find if I micromanage the LB in terms of selecting targets, switching off fire-at-will and "waiting until you can see the whites of their eyes" means that LB can conserve ammo and be very effective. In fact I find them so effective that haven't found the need to build Pav Arbs. Concentrating LB fire on the enemey's best units and watching them drop like flies it SO cool, as well as being a top tactic.

Mfbergs point is worth considering too. If you are teched up enough to build Pav Arbs you could get LB's with +1 valour. Combine this with the extra mobility of LB's and I think they are winners.

[Lucius Lucullus]

@ LL, equal valor, longbows will kill treb archers.

they outrange the treb archers and thus can decimate them while TAs trying to walk into range and are otherwise statistically equal for dueling and melee. (longbow's AP doesn't apply as treb archers don't have enough armor).

however, both getting master armor, then longbows would come out ahead.

longbows are generally more versatile
So? They are still just rebellious barbarians ~:smoking:

However Trebizond archers are available in the early era, while Longbows are not. ~;)

[Sinner]

I'm often tempted to mod Longbowmen to have 48 arrows, the number typically carried during the various French campaigns, which would solve the battlefield endurance issue, although to be fair you'd also really have to consider modding other missile troops.

Even unmodded, I'd rather have the Longbowmen since they're more flexible overall, Pavise Arbalesters are just a little too specialized for my tastes, and the availability of Valour 2 Longbowmen compared to Valour 0 Pavise Arbalesters in the campaign game is too good to ignore.

[eadeater]

True, the extra valour is a massive help, especially when you use a jedi-general to lead several units of longbows, making them of very high valour (6 or 7) and these will simply decimate an entire line of attacking troops, often removing the general, thus bringing you half-way to victory.

[katank]

v2 longbows are actually extremely competent attackers with 5 AP attack.

when applied on flanks, it's equal to huscarles! that's only for use where there's no retaliation though.

still, 6+ longbows can maul approaching units beyond recognition and pav arbs shoot way too slow for that and just doesn't deliver the hose down enemy effect as well.

[hotingzilla]

I'd support longbowmen. Due to the fact I simply love them (historically).

Longbowmen are much quicker than Pavise Arbalesters.
PAs require good terrain to fire effectively while longbow can arc their fire.
PAs fire too slowly, this disadvantage can be exposed when facing quick cavalry charges.
PAs must be positioned in front otherwise they lose a lot of accuracy.

[HicRic]

Something just popped into my head.

Does anyone know if general-added valour increases accuracy of archers? I know the normal valour does, but does the extra bonus given by the general do anything? (Obviously the extra attack and defense helps with physical attacks still).

The only really major problem with LBs is the lack of availibility. English and merc only. And I don't see many merc LBs in my games. ~:mecry:

[katank]

no.

it's well established that general valor doesn't improve missile accuracy, only inherent valor.

[Sinner]

The only really major problem with LBs is the lack of availibility. English and merc only. And I don't see many merc LBs in my games. ~:mecry:

That's not a problem, that's a benefit, because I rarely play anything other than the English. ~:)

[Sociopsychoactive]

I could have sworn general induced valour improved accuracy for ranged units, I'm almost certain it does for artillary.

As for the debate, Longbows all the way, but then again, I am english, as well as having lived in wales untill recently, so I appreciate it for the historical flavour aswell, we english b*stards were good at subdugating and enslaving the world, and the welsh were one of the hardest to subdugate, but the most worthwhile when we finally did, gotta love those longbows.

As for in M:TW, longbows win again. The rate of fire is a great help for all but the most drawn out battles, and if you have 4 or so (my standard army has 4 ranged units) then pick one target and watch them turn into pincushions, regardless of armour or defence.

Also the arc of fire, Arbs and crossbows, especially pavise ones, have to stand infront of your troops, or have a decent height advantage to shoot over heads, longbows arc so can sit happily on a hill behind you army racking up kills, the extra range compared to normal bows is invaluable, making them worthwhile even to shoot uphill, and the rate of fire allows them to decimate a chosen target quickly, even if they do run out of ammo.

Pavise arbs may well have greater killing power and missile defence, but even thee volleys of arbs won't stop a determined charge of cav, and it;s unlikely you'll get even three shots off with two units or arbs. Longbows would have had up to 6 shots in the same time, and with equal valour more kills, plus they melee better against knights, so would likely manage to kill off the surviving cav. Cav being the bane of almost all ranged units that gives longbows a major advantage.

The only time Pav Arbs would beat longbows in my opinion is when you manage to get them to the rear of the enemy lines, the flat trajectory is usefull then, but the pav makes them to slow to efectively do this, plus they tire at about the same rate for firing les shots. Maybe in a bridge or siege arbs would be better, but they can;t fire over walls like longbows, so only really on a bridge and then the slow rate of fire means you rout les units in the thick of the melee, which longbows are good for routing a uit and therefore starting a chain rout.

All in all, my longbows are my fave. I really ought to start another english campaign to make use of them....

[Kagetora]

Personally I think that the longbowmen are far superior to arbalasters in that they reload and shoot faster, but if you can train a standard archer unit to a high valor rank, they'll have some of the same killing power as longbowmen but not the range (something that is easily moddable with gnome editor).

[Kagetora]

Also, accuracy is imrovable with weapons upgrades, at least thats how I've seen it to be in my campaigning.

[hotingzilla]

You mean metal smiths improve the accuracy of archers? I thought they only affected the physical attack (melee).

[HicRic]

I'm very sure that the weapon upgrade adds one to the melee attack of archers, it has no effect on accuracy or power of ranged attacks.

[Sinner]

I'm very sure that the weapon upgrade adds one to the melee attack of archers, it has no effect on accuracy or power of ranged attacks.

That is correct... weapon upgrades only effect hand-to-hand combat, it does not benefit missile fire in any way.

It's still worthwhile giving missile troops weapon upgrades in case they end up in a melee, especially the shorter ranged javelin troops who are more likely to get caught by a counterattack.

Once I have a Master Metalsmith somewhere in my realm, I always route my Longbowmen through that province for retraining. Combined with armour & morale upgrades it turns them into very decent infantry: Attack 7 with AP, Defense 2 & Armour 5 plus a small shield, and a morale of 6 or 7, plus Valour 2 and a longbow on top of all that! What isn't there to love about the longbowmen? ~:)

A common army for me is 2 cavalry, 4 CS/Bills or if I can get them Order Foot/Italian Inf/Swiss Pike/GS plus 10 or more Longbows. The cavalry & melee troops are just to hold & keep the enemy back while the arrows do the killing; I normally reserve 4 Longbowmen, keeping them off fire-at-will, for emergencies, general killing & to continue my arrow storm when the other 6 run out. If I have reinforcements & I think they'll be able to get to the battleline in time, I withdraw any archers who've run out of ammo one or two units at a time, with others being sent into melee to plug gaps, flank the enemy & sometimes chase down any enemy pavise units if they've wandered too close. I perhaps lose more longbowmen than I would MAA or other dedicated melee troops, but Wales rarely stops building them & with their missile kills added in, my combat losses per unit are usually outnumbered by the kills.

[hotingzilla]

I think longbowmen is a great defense missile unit. I attack defensively, I reposition my archers slowly forward, and hope to draw out the enemy. Then they have to get through the missile storm. I usually have 7 units of lbow per army, leaving the rest to billmen, and serpentines and cavalry.

[Kagetora]

Say what you will but I just notice that when I train archers to have better weapons, they kill more men, call me crazy but that is just how I see it.

[Romaoi]

Bulgarian Brigands aren't bad either.