View Full Version : hedges and Agincourt
greetings
Can anyone tell me what if any effect the hedges round fields have on Cavalry - ive just had a go at the battle of Agincourt in MTW Started well but ending with my guys running away on mass, I noticed that there are some fields just in front of the english position and wondered if moving forward into them would give a better chance of survival because of the hedges - The english soldiers who took part in the real battle must have had nerves of steel, pretty impressive stuff - any help or advice will be much appreciated :viking:
r johnson
07-20-2006, 20:12
Um im not sure if this will help, but when i fought the agincourt battle i stayed pretty much where i was except i put 1 unit of archers in a clump of trees to fire on the 1/2 units of french cavalry and when it was time for melee the french cavalry were fighin in the wood and i won.
They real Agincourt boys had repented there sins so they were ready for death, plus most people in the English army had fought in other battles lead by other kings and alot of them were criminals big tough blokes wanting to go to France to get some expensive things to sell in England.
ShadesWolf
07-20-2006, 20:15
greetings
Can anyone tell me what if any effect the hedges round fields have on Cavalry - ive just had a go at the battle of Agincourt in MTW Started well but ending with my guys running away on mass, I noticed that there are some fields just in front of the english position and wondered if moving forward into them would give a better chance of survival because of the hedges - The english soldiers who took part in the real battle must have had nerves of steel, pretty impressive stuff - any help or advice will be much appreciated :viking:
In the real battle the English used stakes, hammered in the group. On either side of the battlefield was a thick dense wood that the French could not ride through, so the archers were safe.
As for the MTW version, its just practice. You will in the end get it right.
The version I made is far better and also includes stakes in the ground to make it a little harder for the French to attack
I hope that helps......
Dont know if you'd get a bonus for that. I guess they didnt model all the mud that was at the real battle.
Hemmed-in between tree lines and the heavy cav crushing each other stuck in the mud, this battle was over before it began. The rest was bloody murder.
greetings
Can anyone tell me what if any effect the hedges round fields have on Cavalry - ive just had a go at the battle of Agincourt in MTW Started well but ending with my guys running away on mass, I noticed that there are some fields just in front of the english position and wondered if moving forward into them would give a better chance of survival because of the hedges - The english soldiers who took part in the real battle must have had nerves of steel, pretty impressive stuff - any help or advice will be much appreciated :viking:
Far as I know, trees lower the fighting capability of cavalry in the game. Though with a hedge it just might slow them down ever so much.
As for the English soldiers who fought, it's written that many of them had what was called then "the bloody flux" (bloody diahrea) from eating underipe fruit off the trees and since they could not move out of battle positions, simple went where they stood and then stood there for hours. Oh my.
The battle lines looked like this:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/pic-agincourt.jpg
professorspatula
07-21-2006, 14:07
I just won this battle a couple of days ago for the first time. I don't know about the hedges, but there aren't that many great options for deployment. The only initial terrain advantage I could forsee were the trees. I ended up forming a line of spearmen/billmen on hold formation/position and making sure one billmen unit was slightly in the trees to the left. Archers behind the spearmen, general behind them, and one unit of knights behind the billmen on the left, another on the right flank. A bit like this:
.............................................TTTTT
......SSSS.SSSSS.SSSS.SSSSS.SSTTTT
....I....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT
.II.................GEN....................KK
...KK...............................................
I = Infantry, S = Spear/Billmen
T = Trees, KK = Knights, GEN = Henry
I didn't actually expect a victory, but it worked well. The AI sends 2-3 knights towards your right flank, so I made sure my Billmen intercepted them in the trees. Billmen + Trees = Certain death for cavalry. I sent my nearby knights around the trees and into the engaged French knights to speed up the slaughter there. The centre line holds perfectly well against the French knights, and the archers are concentrating fire on the French general to rout him, occasionally firing into the melee on the weak left flank. My left flank begins to crumble, but my right flank comes around and hits the French where it can. It's then a hell of a job continuously giving orders to every unit to make sure they're not being wasted or idle, but eventually the French lost heart and victory was mine. Which surprised me as last time I attempted the battle I ended up losing and being somewhat battered and bruised at the end of it.
I hope they get a better Agincourt battle in MTW2. This version didn't feel very euthentic, if such a thing is possible in MTW.
Hedges have no effect on units at all.
Beirut: something is wrong with that pic as there were more than 4 times as many archers as men-at-arms. According to Anne Curry's latest reseach there were about 1600 men-at-arms and 7600 archers in the English army at Agincourt.
The men-at-arms stood in 4 ranks according to some sources so the total frontage of the 3 battles would be around 400 yards and the remaining 600 yards would have taken up by archers. The flanking archer formation would most likely have been the widest.
The sources are not clear on how the formation looked but I scanned two likely ones from the book "The great warbow" by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy. Although they are based on the older traditional numbers of men (900 men-at-arms and 5000 archers) it does not change the overall layout.
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/cbrasmussen/agincourt1.jpg
Hedges have no effect on units at all.
Beirut: something is wrong with that pic as there were more than 4 times as many archers as men-at-arms. According to Anne Curry's latest reseach there were about 1600 men-at-arms and 7600 archers in the English army at Agincourt.
I saw that book, I should have bought it. Next time I'm in the city I will.
Cheers for the advice guys :2thumbsup: my own battle formation was surprisingly similar to the one in CBR's Diagram, only I had my archers lined up between the Nobles and rest of the troops. Like I said before things started well but once the French knights hit my right flank it was white flags up and run away! I think ill try using the trees as suggested, Billmen + Trees = Certain death for cavalry sounds good to me. I have a slight recollection of seeing a documentary about agincourt where they stated that two of the key factors were mud and the number of arrows fired by the english which made movement for foot soldiers extremely tough. I think on reflection, even with some pointy sticks in front of me and having repented my sins, I wouldnt have wanted to face down that many French knights - gives me the Bloody flux just thinking about it! I suppose it goes to show how much power Kings had - Impressive
Shame about the hedges will stop trying to use them in battles for cover.
One again cheers, I will take onboard the advice and have another go :knight:
r johnson
07-22-2006, 13:42
. I have a slight recollection of seeing a documentary about agincourt where they stated that two of the key factors were mud and the number of arrows fired by the english which made movement for foot soldiers extremely tough.
They've made many documentaries about Agincourt some include Harflour and travelin through the Somme river, it's a gold mine for producers as it's got alot to talk about.
I dont remeber who narrated the documentary i saw but while it was interesting I did kind of think - oh its just this big field - but after playing the battle in MTW, even if its not 100% accurate I have total respect for the English Troops. I suppose most battlefields are just big fields at the end of the day and after the battles come and gone you just have your imagination to fill in the details - Im a bit surprised really at how much playing (and losing)
this battle has Fired my Imagination - Im off to give it another go - TO THE TREES!:horn:
I found this battle quite hard when I fought it and I won on the first try but I don't remember how it wasn't a pretty site I assure you. Troops running away from the French, archers firing at the French knights. I think the only reason I won was because of either my archers killing the French general or my Billmen. But it was a really fun battle and I'm sure you'll beat it eventually.
Good Luck:2thumbsup:
I saw that book, I should have bought it. Next time I'm in the city I will.
I think its a very good book. Robert Hardy is sometimes a bit over the top for me but nonetheless its a good read.
CBR
Hurrah!
I played through the battle Last night and won, I took all the footsoldiers into
the small copse of trees,next to the Buildings on the english 's right at the start of the battle - I then strung the billmen out forming an arrow the tip pointing towards the advancing french , i then positioned the other foot soldiers in similar lines inside the wood, i then sent my cavalry back behind the buildings out of view, it was at this point i thought "oh i better move my archers" - too late - the french knights on my left had begun to engage them, at first, I did curse greatly with much gnashing of teeth etc and i was about to start again thinking it was all over when i noticed that the archers seemed to be managing ok they where taking loses but so where the french knights who seemed to be kind of unsure what to do
- while this was happening the French King and the main body of his troops were attacking my guys in the wood, i waited till the majority of the french force was engaged with the billmen and then brought my cavalry round the side of the buildings and charged the rear of the french engaged in the wood
by this time my archers were pretty much dead :shame: I was just about to give up when the French king was killed by billmen in the wood and moments later the French were running! :laugh4:
I wish that i could say that leaving the archers was some kind of cold clinical plan but - nah it was just luck - I think it allowed the troops in the woods enough time to tackle the french cavalry before they were overwhelmed.
Good fun :2thumbsup: But now ive got a lot of letters to write to the families of those poor archers
Cheers for the Advice folks :bow:
- the french knights on my left had begun to engage them, at first, I did curse greatly with much gnashing of teeth etc and i was about to start again thinking it was all over when i noticed that the archers seemed to be managing ok they where taking loses but so where the french knights who seemed to be kind of unsure what to do
Congrats on your victory Vidar and yes English longbowmen are very good soldiers thats probably my favorite unit out of the whole game.:2thumbsup:
If I´m right they not only have armour-piercing arrows but carry axes for melee as well, which makes them superior killers of anything in a tin can.
macsen rufus
07-24-2006, 11:54
Historically I believe longbowmen used to carry daggers which - being more nimble than the canned variety of footman - they could easily slip through gaps in armour, and ALSO had mallets for hammering in their stakes, which are no doubt as good as maces against armour. Either way, they're damn fine units in MTW!
I wonder why no other countries seem to have adopted the long bow - The advent of gunpowder? - my favorite unit so far are the joms vikings but that may change as i get more subtle with tactics :knight:
I don´t know when the longbow was first used, but chances are the time period in which it was used was simply too short to spread the technology. As well, from what I know (next door to nothing) it was mainly the French who faced the longbow- armed troops, so chances are word didn´t get beyond France.
The longbow itself is an old weapon but it was England who first made sure that most commoners were familiar with the weapon to ensure large numbers of archers as support to their men-at-arms. The French created their own force of Francs-Archers but never in the same numbers nor as the only missile armed infantry as the crossbow was a popular weapon on the continent.
The crossbow were in general better in sieges and the heavier versions were more powerful than bows, so it had a higher chance of penetrating armour.
Although missile armed infantry were quite useful it needed support. The English infantry from mid 15th century had anywhere between 33 to perhaps 50% armed with Bills and spears. And even earlier at Crecy there were both Welsh archers as well as spearmen in Edwards army.
CBR
I wonder why no other countries seem to have adopted the long bow - The advent of gunpowder?
The problem is that to become a good longbowman requires a long time of training, even moreso than an ordinary bowman. In Wales there was a long tradition of archery, and the English Kings made longbow training obligatory in England (even to the point of forbidding football), so they had a large pool of trained longbowmen available for recruitment. Countries lacking such traditions simply could not field enough of them to make a difference.
The early muskets weren't a match for the English longbows: they couldn't even outrange them, and were far less accurate and far slower to reload. However, they did have one big advantage. Training a longbowman took years, training a musketeers mere days.
So The Training of those 5000 peasants in the use of the longbow - from an early age im guessing - really paid off. Ive Heard that the physical demands of the long bow actually altered the bones and muscles in the upper torso of its users - Big chest muscles and thickened bones - In the village that i live in Fife there is an old part called "bow butts" which i believe is the where the archery practice took place i dont think it would have necessarily been longbows though - im sure that all over britain there are similarly named streets, what about outside the uk - Denmark for example - is there a similar
occurence in place names indicating medieval or older military practice.
I had forgotten about the crossbow didnt someone like the Pope try to have them outlawed because anyone could aim,fire and kill with one, and this was thought of being rather unsporting
I had forgotten about the crossbow didnt someone like the Pope try to have them outlawed because anyone could aim,fire and kill with one, and this was thought of being rather unsporting
Yes I think your right. Couldn't longbowmen fire like 10-12 shoots per minute?
Hm training wasnt really an issue IMO. It took years to train English archers for the simple reason that most people had like one hour of shooting every Sunday and started when they were kids. You dont become an expert marksman with such training nor will you gain much muscle to draw a very heavy bow.
Some would of course have liked shooting and trained more and I guess one could expect a lot more skill from retainers.
Crossbowmen trained a lot too and were common as mercs and their expertise were highly valued (Just as bands of English archers were too)
The arquebus was a cheap weapon compared to crossbows (but still more costly than bows) and there are examples of Italian cities who would only refund lost arquebuses and refused to pay for crossbows. That certainly had an effect of what weapon men would buy.
I have read some conflicting details on armour penetration of arquebuses but there is no doubt that the musket had a lot more power than the arquebus, and AFAIK did become widespread during the later half of 16th century.
The English experience was somewhat different as they already had a pretty cheap weapon in the bow. It worked ok for them but it did show its weakness against well armoured opponents. And as they werent involved in that many conflicts against continental armies they werent forced to do same type of military reforms like other continental armies did. But guns and pikes slowly entered English armies and in late 16th century the bow was finally retired.
One of the arguments made then, for keeping the bow, was actually that they already had lots of bows and trained men so it would be a waste of time and money to convert them to musketeers.
Although bows could shoot faster I dont agree that their accuracy was so much better than a musket nor the range. A heavy arrow would have a range of 200-250 yards and the heavy 16th century musket still packed quite a punch as that range too.
An arrow/bolt with a velocity of around 55-60 m/s versus a lead ball of 300-400 m/s certainly makes aiming very different. Long range shots are very difficult with a bow if you dont know the range. Misjudging range just 5% could mean a clear miss. Shooting at long range is basically just area fire hoping some of the shots will hit.
CBR
The papacy tried to ban both crossbows and bows in 1139 and IIRC again some time later. Of course it was still allowed to use them against infidels. The ban did works some places but overall it was ignored.
I have read some places that an archer can do something like 20-22 shots/minute but that requires point blank shooting (so he doesnt have to raise his arm or something like that) and it wont be a very strong bow either. How fast English archers would shoot is not easy to say.
I have seen some contemporary sources mention some figures compared to other weapons but, as we cant be sure what rate of fire they had, that only gives us an estimate. My guess is an average of around 6-10 shots/minute.
CBR
Hm training wasnt really an issue IMO. It took years to train English archers for the simple reason that most people had like one hour of shooting every Sunday and started when they were kids. You dont become an expert marksman with such training nor will you gain much muscle to draw a very heavy bow.
Good point.
Although bows could shoot faster I dont agree that their accuracy was so much better than a musket nor the range. A heavy arrow would have a range of 200-250 yards and the heavy 16th century musket still packed quite a punch as that range too.
An arrow/bolt with a velocity of around 55-60 m/s versus a lead ball of 300-400 m/s certainly makes aiming very different. Long range shots are very difficult with a bow if you dont know the range. Misjudging range just 5% could mean a clear miss. Shooting at long range is basically just area fire hoping some of the shots will hit.
True. However, when I said early musket I actually meant arquebus.
From what I can recall of the documentary i watched i think that the accuracy of the the long bowmen at agincourt was not really there strength but there numbers - the muddy ground In front of the french bristled with thousands of arrows making many foot knights stumble as they tried to engage the english - I get the impression that the english archers on whole were firing in the general direction of the enemy, and not pinpointing individual troops I suppose its a bit like using a shotgun instead of sniper rifle - I dont necessarily know if im right about that. I saw a book on agincourt the other day that i should have bought but i bought one on Germanic tribes instead - It was Cheaper.
Anything Ive ever heard about early firearms doesnt make them sound all that great, Dirty, noisy, unreliable and dangerous - Makes me wonder why bother?:inquisitive:
macsen rufus
07-28-2006, 09:19
A great resource if you're interested in English archery is the book "The Bowmen of England" (and in true orgah stylee I can't remember the author :embarassed: ). Some odd snippets from there:
Agincourt was the first battle where metal-tipped stakes were used to protect the longbows, which must have had some impact on the tactics of the day.
Even in the Napoleonic era, generals were making the case for the re-introduction of the longbow on grounds of range, accuracy, firing rate and morale effects on the enemy. Also bowmen are not blinded by their own smoke, unlike musketeers.
The last time the longbow was used in battle was 1941!
1941!! who,what,why,where, how :dizzy2: Tell me more please
Here's a link to a article about English Longbows here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbows)
It says that last use of English Longbows was during the English Civil War in 1692 or around there.
macsen rufus
07-29-2006, 10:54
1941: a Captain Churchill (an Olympic archer and probably no relation to the other Churchill) went everywhere with his longbow apparently, and used it in action in Normandy and Saarland, at least once to take out sentries. It's not like there was a regiment of them or anything :laugh4:
Oh, "The Bowmen of England" by Donald Featherstone, a Pen and Sword publication, by the way.
:2thumbsup: Thank the gods!
So it wasnt whole divisions of archers, I was having nightmares - " right Chaps! get those stakes in,take up your positions, get ready!, the panzers should be coming over the hill any moment now!":laugh4:
I tried to find a pic of Captain churchill but couldn't, I did find a site Archerytalk.com which had a link to a picture of an American soldier who carried and used a longbow during WW2, I would put up a link but Im not sure how to :embarrassed:or if im allowed to being Jnr.
Cheers for the link Csar Very interesting particulary the references to the battle of Flodden, as Ive Seen Bits of the Flodden wall In Edinburgh
Cheers guys:knight:
macsen rufus
07-29-2006, 16:32
@Vidar
I can see it now - a company of longbows softening up the Panzer division just before the Polish Hussars charge them ~;)
Nothing would surprise me ~:) Didnt Troops carry out bayonet charges against machine gun nests in WW1, and unless Im mistaken wasnt there an incident with British troops fixing bayonets and charging insurgents in Iraq recently:inquisitive: - Oh and of course the stupefying Charge of the Light brigade
Mr Frost
08-07-2006, 11:13
1941: a Captain Churchill (an Olympic archer and probably no relation to the other Churchill) went everywhere with his longbow apparently, and used it in action in Normandy and Saarland, at least once to take out sentries. It's not like there was a regiment of them or anything :laugh4:
Oh, "The Bowmen of England" by Donald Featherstone, a Pen and Sword publication, by the way.
For added coolness , he was in a Welsh Regiment : the Welsh Fusiliers . The last action was thus by Welsh Longbows .
WarMachine420
08-09-2006, 20:25
@Vidar
I can see it now - a company of longbows softening up the Panzer division just before the Polish Hussars charge them ~;)
lol...unfortunately for Poland, that's pretty much how the reality of their "defense" against German forces actually was. I was reading an in depth article on that yesterday and also couldn't get it out of my mind. Panzer tank divisions with machine gun infantry storming a town filled with the same Cavalry used prior to ww1?!
Unbelievable. Kinda makes you wonder what the Poles were thinking. I'd have to speculate that they at least had a clue that horseman were outdated at that time.
Jeez...I could even still imagine infantry using crossbows and longbows with REGULARITY TODAY than I can a country using horseman as cavalry in 1940.
Amazing.
lol...unfortunately for Poland, that's pretty much how the reality of their "defense" against German forces actually was. I was reading an in depth article on that yesterday and also couldn't get it out of my mind. Panzer tank divisions with machine gun infantry storming a town filled with the same Cavalry used prior to ww1?!
Unbelievable. Kinda makes you wonder what the Poles were thinking. I'd have to speculate that they at least had a clue that horseman were outdated at that time.
Are you sure? I thought death-or-glory charges were out of fashion since WWI. The Polish cavalry probably functioned as scouts and mobile infantry: remember that with the exception of the Germans, most armed forces weren't mechanized yet. Incidentally, the Americans also had a cavalry unit at the beginning of WWII, but it never saw action, and IIRC a German cavalry unit took part of the invasion of Poland as well.
AggonyDuck
08-10-2006, 00:43
lol...unfortunately for Poland, that's pretty much how the reality of their "defense" against German forces actually was. I was reading an in depth article on that yesterday and also couldn't get it out of my mind. Panzer tank divisions with machine gun infantry storming a town filled with the same Cavalry used prior to ww1?!
Unbelievable. Kinda makes you wonder what the Poles were thinking. I'd have to speculate that they at least had a clue that horseman were outdated at that time.
Jeez...I could even still imagine infantry using crossbows and longbows with REGULARITY TODAY than I can a country using horseman as cavalry in 1940.
Amazing.
Actually the Polish cavalry did quite well against the Germans. Although they mostly fought as mounted infantry, they did actually do a couple of cavalry charges and almost half of them were actually successful it seems. ~:)
WarMachine420
08-10-2006, 18:20
Actually the Polish cavalry did quite well against the Germans. Although they mostly fought as mounted infantry, they did actually do a couple of cavalry charges and almost half of them were actually successful it seems. ~:)
That's amazing...how on earth did the cavarly charge work? :inquisitive:
I mean if flaming arrows scare a horse...what did machine gun fire and artillery shells do to it?
Conradus
08-11-2006, 14:18
Well, if they could train cavalery in Napoleonic time to get used to all the horrors of the battlefield, I guess they could do so in 1940's Poland :)
AggonyDuck
08-12-2006, 01:40
That's amazing...how on earth did the cavarly charge work? :inquisitive:
I mean if flaming arrows scare a horse...what did machine gun fire and artillery shells do to it?
Well in most cases we are talking of sudden cavalry charges against Germans that were not entrenched. Against dug-in positions a cavalry charge would be sheer suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#Cavalry_Charges_and_Propaganda
Conradus
08-12-2006, 12:41
You could make your horses poo on the Germans:sweatdrop:
No, srr, thx for the link though, interesting read
Id be interested to know opinions on the fine line between clever and stupid when it comes to military actions :inquisitive: - Capt churchill killing sentries with his longbow seems kinda clever to me,swift silent deadly, The poles attacking Tanks with horses,just sounds desperate - I hope if there were any cav left, they lynched the commanding officer who sent them in to fight panzers!
AggonyDuck
08-13-2006, 23:55
Id be interested to know opinions on the fine line between clever and stupid when it comes to military actions :inquisitive: - Capt churchill killing sentries with his longbow seems kinda clever to me,swift silent deadly, The poles attacking Tanks with horses,just sounds desperate - I hope if there were any cav left, they lynched the commanding officer who sent them in to fight panzers!
There was never a Polish cavalry charge against German tanks. The few charges that were done were against infantry and in most cases against infantry that wasn't properly dug in.
The cavalry charging tanks is a myth based on German propaganda and it certainly isn't true.
There was never a Polish cavalry charge against German tanks. The few charges that were done were against infantry and in most cases against infantry that wasn't properly dug in.
The cavalry charging tanks is a myth based on German propaganda and it certainly isn't true.
Well, the first item of the list your Wiki-article mentions a charge on elements of the 4th panzer division. One that was succesfull by the way. Off course, at this point most German tanks were more like armoured cars on tracks than real tanks (as we understand the term).
WarMachine420
08-14-2006, 16:18
Id be interested to know opinions on the fine line between clever and stupid when it comes to military actions :inquisitive: - Capt churchill killing sentries with his longbow seems kinda clever to me,swift silent deadly, The poles attacking Tanks with horses,just sounds desperate - I hope if there were any cav left, they lynched the commanding officer who sent them in to fight panzers!
Yeah...that's exactly what it was, desperation. Although people got awefully defensive around here when I brought it up. Don't know what the issue is, it's common knowledge that the Poles defense was an embarrassment as was pretty much every other defense in eastern europe against the Nazis. I've done more research on the subject...turns out, yes...they did do a couple cavalry charges...half of them died, half of them surrendered almost immediately. This is to be expected...put me on a horse and have me charge a tank or machine gun fire and I'll probably look like a big heap of desperation in a couple of seconds also.
How anyone actually thought that the there was a "silver lining" to the poles defense simply baffles me.
Guess we have some proud Polish citizens on these forums. Even still, the Poles' defense was a joke. Like a one legged man in a...well you know how it goes.
Archaeopath
08-14-2006, 16:42
Lb's sound nasty :book:
WarMachine420
08-14-2006, 17:41
Lb's sound nasty :book:
this was of much more interest to me than the cavalry of Poland anyway...apologies for dragging this off topic.
and yes archeo...I've been doing a little research on LBs also. You should look at enemy accountings of what it was like to take fire from a LB unit. I think someone on this thread already mentioned that many a time broad daylight would actually turn DARK (like midnight dark) from the rain of arrows overhead. I saw something on the history channel this weekend about that too. Hearing this made me actually try to imagine marching towards the enemy with 50+ pounds of armour/gear while watching hundreds and thousands of men around me be annihilated by rains of arrows which could just as easily kill me any second. Think about that the next time your local paper writes up an article calling a man who found someone's car keys a "hero".
sbroadbent
08-16-2006, 05:07
An arrow/bolt with a velocity of around 55-60 m/s versus a lead ball of 300-400 m/s certainly makes aiming very different. Long range shots are very difficult with a bow if you dont know the range. Misjudging range just 5% could mean a clear miss. Shooting at long range is basically just area fire hoping some of the shots will hit.
One of the reasons why the English Longbowers were so successful was because of the mass of arrows that the longbowmen could fire. When you got hundreds if not thousands of arrows blanketing an area, you don't need accuracy to score hits. My main source of information on the battle comes from the A&E documentary series Arms in Action (unfortunately only available on VHS). According to it the English had to move their position closer to the French as the French just sat back, waiting for the English to tire. At their new position, a single arrow was fired to start off the battle as it landed fairly close to the French troops thereby indicating their range, thus coaxing the French to attack.
From the three battles in MTW, I found Agincourt was the easiest, as a matter of fact.
Crecy was a lot tougher, Poitiers wasn´t exactly a walk in the park either, but Agincourt wasn´t that difficult.
I put up my spearmen in the center at the hedges (I don´t think they give any bonus, but they mark a slight ridge, thus giving a height advantage), the billmen took the flanks of the spears and the men at arms I sent into the left-handed woods. the archers went behind. All the cavalry seved as a reserve. Then it was simply a matter of waiting for the French to come. I don´t remember the exact results, but they were something like four of theirs to one of mine lost.
In the real battle, by the way, Henry V ordered over a thousand French prisoners killed when the French cavalry tried a flanking attempt, that was one of the factors which caused the French to rout.
Since my initial post ive bought the Gold edition DVD and reinstalled MTW/VI, so my progress was reset, ive played up to agincourt but havent tried it again as i got a bit distracted with the Barbarosa campaign - which i completed with out to much trauma - I'll probably have another go at agincourt soon hopefully this time there will be some bowmen left alive - anyone know why you dont seem to be able to take prisoners (and kill them) in the historical battles? :viking:
Im sure the poles taking part in cavalry charges against panzers had no choice and were individually very brave - I think i would have been ill that day however
Because, just like in custom battles, it matters not whether you took the men as prisoners or killed them, on the result screen they show up as lost in either case. And you do get a breakdown of prisoners and killed enemies on the battle summary screen.
Cheers Ciaran, that explains the results window info - which did confuse me a wee bit :embarassed: - I tried Agincourt again earlier today, it took me two goes but I managed it and didnt lose all my archers this time, my king got killed the first time through,but I was more cautious with him second time around I used similar tactics to my previous victorious attempt (see earlier post) but got My archers in behind the small copse of woods quickly then strung my foot soldiers out in a v shape following the edge of the woods facing the french this kept the archers out of hand to hand for most of the battle - one unit did get caught on the right flank of the woods by french knights - but all in all way better than my very first victory which saw me lose all my archers -French dead = 1158. English dead = 561. - now to try the french battles :knight:
You placed the archers in the woods? It´s better not to do that, their arrows get caught in the trees (they do! Don´t place archers in woods). It´s better to place them slightly outside of the woods, as soon as the enemy cavalry comes close they´ll retreat into the woods and we all know that cavalry are sitting ducks in forests...
I didnt put them in the woods, but just behind them - although it does occur to me that either way it must be pretty hard to target the enemy through or over trees, hmm is this a bug, dont archers need line of sight? :inquisitive:
I agree about the woods and cav usually, but when I played through the last barbarossa battle I was soundly pummeled when I tried to use the woods on the left of the start position - I found that sitting tight with my main force and then using the unit of horse archers to draw the enemy general out of the main force and then into a position that allowed barbarossa to flank him worked best.
havent tried the French battles yet but any day now :2thumbsup:
In MTW, archers do need a line of sight or they get an accuracy penalty, that´s why you should deploy them with maximum two ranks depth, or else the lines in the back get the penalty.
Unlike crossbows they still can shoot without a line of sight, of course, but you´ll notice they´ll score less hits. And I don´t know whether archers can shoot over a copse of wood or if they try to shoot through it, with a lot of arrows getting stuck in the foilage.
Cheers Ciaran, :2thumbsup: In the MTW game Im playing at the moment, Ive just played my first castle defense - Im pretty sure its the first time the AI has stormed one of my castles, and if not, then i must have simmed the defense before - The defense was a citadel in Arragon, I had two units of arbalests a unit of archers, and a couple units of pavis crossbow men, and a unit of foot knights against a vast army of rebels, Now Im sure that the missile units were firing even though they didnt have line of sight, but it did seem that they only caused damage when they had line of sight - at the gates, and when the vast rebel army eventually broke in, and preceded to slaughter my guys to a man - if what you say about crossbows is true, are they as my results suggest a poor defensive weapon in castle defense or am i just rubbish at castle defense
You had a castle defense in a campaign? In my campaigns I´ve never, ever played one. Oh, there were some castle assaults, usually when I had one half unit of peasants left, so playing that out wouldn´t be that much fun.
But back to the topic at hand. I suppose you´re refering to the "firing" icon in the top right corner of the missile units. Yes, that´ll say the unit is shooting, even if only one man actually works his weapon. Take a look at the unit itself, the little men on screen, you´ll find that, if they have no line of sight, the individual man will not shoot. And if only one man out of a unit of 80 (I´ll assume) shoots, the chances for causing damage are slim.
Yeah! I was Surprised the rebel units attacked the castle - It was barcelona not Arragon - I had quick saved the battle so, so i tried it couple of times, but alas to no avail, to many rebels. I had initially thought like ive said that my guys were firing at the enemy troops all the way from there lines to the front gate, but the results and what you say Ciaran makes sense. I suppose thats why they give you arrow towers which automatically fire at the enemy, it would have been a different story if the game had allowed me to line the various different types of bowmen up on the battlements
Ive started stringing my archers/bowmen out as you suggested, and yes it does seem to make a difference so cheers! :2thumbsup:
Do you get friendly fire in MTW?
Do you get friendly fire in MTW?
Certainly. Under certain conditions they can even hit the archer standing in front of them. However, when not given orders to fire, your missile troops will generally stop firing if there is a risk of hitting comrades. On the other hand, if they have been ordered to shoot at a unit, they will keep shooting at it even if it means hitting theor own men.
Many Thanks Ludens, Ive been wondering for a while why the under fire icon was appearing next to my units when the only missile units near them where their own - That probably also explains why my archers look so guilty from time to time :grin2:
1941: a Captain Churchill (an Olympic archer and probably no relation to the other Churchill) went everywhere with his longbow apparently, and used it in action in Normandy and Saarland, at least once to take out sentries. It's not like there was a regiment of them or anything :laugh4:
Oh, "The Bowmen of England" by Donald Featherstone, a Pen and Sword publication, by the way.
totally off topic I know, but I believe he was Prime Minister Churchill's nephew.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.