Questions about the Arquebus

I'm sorry if this has been asked before, I looked for a forum search option but couldn't find one.

When was the Arquebus first invented and used? I recall it was 1470 something, yet I have Arquebusier's at 1340 in MTW?

Also, how do you guys effectively use them? They don't seem worth it to me, they only are able to fire a volley or two in the time it takes a unit to cross their firing range, and they only kill about 10 or so men in these two volleys. I thought that is why they were massed together in big groups shooting in volley, so that they would actually inflict significant casulties.

Thanks

Yeah the Arguebus is rather useless in MTW. Strange, since in 16th century battles arquebusques were important on both land and sea.

The battle for Malta (1565) was almost entirely fought with gunpowder units you find in MTW (although Jannissaries had arquebusques as well by that time). Yet I find they completely don't have the effect in the game that I read about in the book.

Oh, and handguns were introduced in the late 14th century according to a weapon encyclopedia I have. The Arquebus made its appearence around 1500. But I'll admit I don't know the exact definition of an arquebus.

The problem with both arquebuses and handguns is their poor range and even poorer accuracy. You can't even use them as javelin troops since their projectiles don't arc. The way to use them is to pin an enemy unit with another unit and place the arquebusiers behind the enemies backs to loose a few volleys.

However, they do have a significant morale effect, so you will get more use of them in situations were this counts. Like when you have a (local) superiority in numbers and can create a 'fire zone' with arquebusiers at the flanks that the enemy must cross to reach your units. The combined morale penalty (under fire by gunpowder weapons, taking casualties, in danger of being flanked) makes most enemies waver. But this is only useful in specific circumstances.

Put them in three ranks so you can keep up a continuous barrage: firing one large volley is only useful if you are being charged. A lot of people argue handgunners are a better buy since they can stand up in a fight as well. They use their gun troops as melee fighters that can do some ranged damage. The arquebusier is a better ranged fighter and performs better in the situation I described.

Personally, I don't use them often since my campaigns don't last long enough to reach them. They also came as a disappointment after the powerful S:TW musketeers.

Thanks for the info. Do you know the name of the book about the battle for Malta by chance? It sounds like it might be an interesting read.

The Arquebus, from what I understand is a smooth bore gun, that uses a match lock mechanism, basicly you pull the trigger and this lowers a handle that is holding a burning peice of cord. It gets lowered into a pan of gunpowder which light, then travels down into the barrel and ignites the charge. Thats how I understand it to work at least.

It just seems strange that they are so useless in the game, because they seem to have been an important weapon, they were used well into the 1600's and maybe the 1700's even?

Maybe I could mod them to have better accuracy, because I know they were inaccurate weapons but that is why they were massed into large blocks of men, so that the number of rounds being fired would make up for poor accuracy. They just don't seem to be killing as many men as I assume a salvo of fire would kill.

Oh well :)

I have two books on the Siege itself:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=P6035~ser=CAM
That's seems more for modeling purposes.

And I have a storytelling book called: The Great Siege: Malta 1565, by Ernle Bradford.
A nice read. He also has a similar title about the Maltese Siege of 1942 by Italy.

Fascinating as the entire weight of the Ottoman army (including unique units like Jannissaries and Saphis) were thrown against a handful Spanish Arquebusiers, Maltese men-at-arms and dismounted Knights Hospitallers.
The ratio was roughly 3-4:1 in favour of the Ottomans.

Patton is said to have said: 'Fortifications are a monument to Man's stupidity'.
Well this is only the case if you have aircraft and tanks, as the Christian fortifications proved a slaughterhouse for the Turks despite overwhelming odds.

The sea battle of Lapento (1571) is considered a more defining battle then the siege of Malta, so you won't find it in less detailed history books about the era.

In real life, medieval armies rarely fought. THey didnt want to. If an army came into your land youd just go back to your castle and hope they left before you died of dysentry or starvation or some other nasty gross reason that makes you really happy you didnt live back then. Castles were a good idea once they got good at architecture and masonry. All that became useless one cannons were invented though. Only for a short period of time were stationary posistions not stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen_Warrior

Castles were a good idea once they got good at architecture and masonry. All that became useless one cannons were invented though. Only for a short period of time were stationary posistions not stupid.

---

Castles maybe, but fortresses were almost impossible to take without heavy losses. This was because it was very resilent to gunfire and almost impossible to take by storm if the garrison was professional (and motivated) enough.

The siege of Rhodes (what, 1530s?) lasted 6 months, despite overwhelming odds between attackers and defenders. This was with cannons involved.
The Siege of Malta (1565) lasted 3 grueling months in the hot sun, costing tens of thousends of lives (mainly on the besiegers side). Fairly long if you consider the Ottomans (the besiegers) had a then-record amount of artillery aiming for the fortress walls on Malta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simovek

It just seems strange that they are so useless in the game, because they seem to have been an important weapon, they were used well into the 1600's and maybe the 1700's even?

---

Well, I am not a specialists on weapons, but I think it is because the arquebuses of the medieval era were not quite as good as those of a few centuries later. Also, it took a while before generals figured out how to use them effectively. But the main advantage is that a general could bulk up his army with cheap missile troops (arquebuses are cheap and don't require intensive training like bows or slings) that still packed a punch. However, in M:TW it is easier to get high quality troops than it was in real life so in game the arquebus is outclassed.

Off course, I don't think the missile weapons in M:TW are balanced to start with :duel: .

BTW, the forum does not have the integral search function enabled because the number of search request brought the forum down. Instead, there is a Google search in the top left, but it is not up to date and not very reliable.

Arquebusiers are DA BOMB in bridge battle defense. Put them in three ranks at the base of the bridge, pray for clear weather, and watch the enemy turn and run.
You'll need additional firepower on the banks/sides of the bridge to discourage the attacker from peppering your arqs.
I saw a thread in the TotalWar forum on this and tried it out for myself. When defending against JHI, VGs, SAP, GFKs (i.e. those units you would normally send across a bridge first), in each instance the arqs caused them all to break and run before they reached the arq line.
In open battle, IMHO, I've found them pretty inferior to pavise arbs for the money.