Printable View
Just had an idea for the new MTW, don't know if anybody suggested this.
Let's make the archers upgradeable to an armor piercing variant. I mean, we all know that AP versions of arrowheads existed, why not put it in the game also.
Maybe we could make them appear "chronologicaly" after different versions of armor appear (and light and heavy crossbow variants also) to better illustrate the historical quest for the best armor penetrating solution in ranged warfare...
Moved to MTW II Forum.
-Mithrandir.
Maybe a high level archery range could give this?
didn't we already have this in MTW?
I could have sworn there was an armor piercing field in one of the files (i forget the name of the file, but it had all the projectors on it)
Well, I don't know. Some recent evidence suggests that the AP arrowhead of English longbowmen did not actually have the power to penetrate armour (although a crossbow could).
So maybe it's not such a great idea...
Rather than having an upgrade to a generic "armour piercing archer" you should just be able to tell your archers to use different types of arrows depending on wht they're shooting.
Longbows definately could..saw it on the bbc :pQuote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Anyway, I like the idea, as long as it doesn't cause unbalance.Then again I'm a sucker for upgrades :)
I saw a show on the History Channel not long ago, an episode of "Battlefield Detectives" where they analyzed the battle of Agincourt, including the English Longbow and bodkin arrowheads. It gave me second thoughts about a number of my assumptions for the battle, including the effect of English Longbows.
Through various bits of research they came to the conclusion that armor technology had advanced to steel plate by that time, and that bodkin arrowheads would be made of iron, as steel would be far too expensive for a one-use weapon, especially in the numbers the English were fielding. They measured the release velocity of a longbow with stop-motion photography, and used some hydraulic instrument to smash an iron bodkin into a sheet of armor-thickness steel at a perpendicular angle. The arrowhead was crushed without leaving so much as a dent in the armor.
Against chainmail I'm sure it was effective, and I'm not sure about vs. iron plate (they didn't quite convince me that all the French knights would be able to afford the newest, best armor), but I'm no longer as confident about the Longbows ability to penetrate plate armor.
Ajax
If you were to look at paintings from that period, the French took the field with large numbers of very well armored men. You also have to remember that French nobility, alone, outnumbered the English. Most of these men could affored plate armor.
diBorgia
But we still won :hippie:
no matter what history tells us, do you like the idea to add that upgrade to the game or not, and why ?
No, because I have never liked the upgrade system and in MP is the biggest reason for imbalances. If you want new technology to help you produce new weaponry then fair enough, a better archer type, but please, none of this V,W,A upgrading. Obviously the better archer unit should be at a price that reflects the improvement, something like the Roman archers/Eastern archers price difference
........Orda
I agree with Orda, no upgrades please. I find it unimaginative as hell and I would rather see CA coming up with something more original to simulate the arms race.
Have you considered the Longbowmen shooting the horses?
Good point. I know that during the Wars the Roses were rarely used because longbows were so effective against arrows. It may not always kill the horse but panicking it could be enough to disrupt the formation and throw off the rider.
i think upgrades are good idea but make it locked to certian units so like normal archers cant use armor piercing but longbows and crosbows can.
Surely a normal archer using iron-headed arrows could pierce the armour of an infantry man wearing chainmail?
If it was a bodkin head I'm sure it could get through chainmail fine, but I understand chainmail was quite effective against regular arrowheads, which was fortunate for the crusaders who often had to stand there and take it.
I'm not for upgrades. I think introducing armor-piercing type bows is plenty, and more realistic, and while horses would indeed be more vulnerable, this is already reflected in the original MTW.
Ajax
Longbows could pierce plate, I saw it on the bbc I think, but by the time of Agincourt it had to hit the plate perpendicular, I think.
Virtually everyone except peasants used bondkin arrows, they were made for piercing chainmail, so they should definately be considered armour piercing in the early period. By the High period they were less effective but as has been pointed out the horse was still a vulnerable target. Also whilst an arrow may not have penetrated a breastplate there were still a lot of gaps in the armour that a bodkin could get through.
The problem with that "Battlefield Detectives" experiment is that it assumed that the arrow would hit the breastplate, which was one of the most protected areas. If it hit any of the gaps such any place where two plates overlapped or where there are a lot of articulations (arms, legs, stomach, hips, neck, etc.) of even the faceplate (an arrow could go through the eye slits or breathing holes) then there is still a decent chance of penetration. Don't get me wrong, plate armour was very good against arrows but not full proof, especially considering how many arrows they would get hit by in a charge.
Yes, I'd certainly expect the longbow-fired bodkin to still penetrate the joints of the armor, and certainly to stop a mounted charge, which the episode asserted it did. The show's analysis of arrow vs. armor was far from exhaustive, but did make me question some of my casual assumptions. It didn't claim the longbow had no effect in the battle, just that it had less than is traditionally allotted to it, and other aspects (such as the suction of mud on metal plate vs on cloth and the type of soil on the field, crowding, etc.) were the critical ones.
I liked the way they worked the armor-piercing quality of arrows in the first MTW. Regular arrows had the potential to kill even the best-armed knights, though their chances were much lower, which could correspond to the lower chance of hitting a joint or other weak spot. Against the less-well-armored warriors of the early period they were more effective, though still not nearly as much as the better longbows or especially the crossbow-armed troops. I think this accurately bears out both the protection afforded by armor and the potential of any arrows to still succeed, but moreso for those that are armor-piercing. Also, the horse makes a target more vulnerable, though the armored horses of later ages (or some of the eastern civilizations) have at least some protection.
I might perhaps adapt it so that regular archers have no armor-piercing bonus (though still the potential to kill armored troops), longbows are armor-piercing against chainmail (which would surely be the majority of armor, and crossbows/arbs against all armor.
Ajax
With regards to armour piercing arrowheads.....There were two types of bodkin head.
The Needle bodkin, as the name suggests was a long, thin, square section head. The fine point could pierce the rings of chain mail and the square section edges would cut/force apart the mail, allowing the arrow to pass through. This head was useless against plate as the fine point would simply bend.
This was overcome by using short bodkin heads which look almost blunt by comparison. They worked in a similar way to a dot punch tool, again the edges of the square section would cut early plate. Imagine an X shaped cut, the arrow velocity would then push the four triangular pieces of plate inward.
I am a little on the fence about their actual ability. People argue that they were not as effective as is generally thought, however if this was the case surely English armies would have employed far less Longbowmen than they did and these men would not have been granted the rights that were bestowed on them for services rendered.
This is my feeling. Why use an upgrade system for weapons and armour? The logical solution IMO would be to upgrade the unit...a new class of archer, that costs more to produce and reflects technology improvementQuote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
........Orda
Perhaps allowing players to produce 'veteran' and normal types of some or all units (maybe on a building basis?)('veteran' peasants might be considered silly, eg., the whole point about these guys is that don't fight regularly; perhaps they could be changed to 'looting knife mob' or 'jacquerie' or something)
So, normal archers would have less ability to penetrate armour cos they weren't experienced enough to make sure they used the right arrows or were less well-equipped than the veterans. This would not be the same as higher valour, but more based on fighting wars fairly frequently.