Mounted Crossbowmen

Not sure if this has been discussed but I really find this unit amusing, it can perform Cantabrian circle !!!:laugh4:

I see CA have helped certain Euro factions to combat HA by inventing this nonsense. I'd love to see someone reload a crossbow while galloping in a circle, never mind keep the bolt in place.

Perhaps they should consider throwing a life line to Moslem factions with their infantry. I can't believe the Timurid unit choice or the lack of it, or the gross overpricing of the few decent units they have. Moslem infantry were not pathetic little guys in rags and Timur definitely did not have to rely on giant elephants for victories.

I am so disappointed to see the Euro bias is still as evident as it was in MTW

.......Orda

Well, I think the Mongols and Timurids are quite tough and I'd like to have a chance to beat them as the Turks. Wouldn't be as much fun to be overrun in every turkish or russian campaign, would it?
Maybe I'm just a bad strategist and have no idea how to beat them, but I don't think mounted crossbowmen are the absolute über-unit which will annihilate whole stacks of mongols because they have the cantabrian circle.
I almost never use the cantabrian circle anyway because whenever a unit needs to run, it's deactivated anyway.

Well, they did exist...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rossbowman.JPG

I really doubt their tactic was a cantabrian circle, however...But it seems that CA has simply given that ability to all mounted missile units...

i believe the could shoot on the move but at some point they would have to halt to reload. preferably out of range of the enemies missile troops.

I agree with Orda in the sense that there seems to be a little boost to the west unit selection and overall strength/options (if I am getting his sentiment correct). I am a big fan of HA's use them when ever I can no matter the faction, but mounted Xbows is a western unit, and seeing the Danes bring them to bare and performing Cantabrian circle seems a little silly.

That said it would be nice if the ability to perform the tactic was tied into unit expirence. I think if a mounted HA unit reaches a certain level its fair to assume that they would be more efficent with thier weapons and provide better tactics.

I think Orda's overall point is that the western armies are already strong enough with the foot soldiers and heavy cavalry, now on top of that we have western mounted units perfoming skill tactics on horseback. At least at the start all HA advantages should belong to the east.

"
I see CA have helped certain Euro factions to combat HA by inventing this nonsense. "

I doubt it. Mounted crossbowmen are total pants compared to units like Mongol heavy archers, Dvor cavalry and Mamluk archers. If you are playing as a European faction and you have to deal with horse archers the answer is to train or hire pavise crossbowmen, not mounted crossbowmen with their pitiful 5 missile attack. Mounted crossbowmen are just light cavalry with some ability to skirmish- good for pursuing routing Europeans but totally worthless for fighting proper horse archers. On top of that, with the exception of the Poles, the factions that have them can't even train them until they build the highest level of archery range, which is pretty silly given that historically they were in use long before the other sorts of units that are trained at that level of development. Frankly the pro-Europe bias is not evident to me.

Yes I am well aware that there were mounted crossbowmen but to see them performing Cantabrian circle is nonsense.

Mongols and Timurids in SP campaign are only tough because of upgrades. Try a custom battle at 10,000 florins if you want to see how badly they fare in both units and unit cost.

Yes Odin, spot on

.......Orda

Does anyone know how mounted crossbowmen were used historically? I can see that they would be useful in the typical medieval warfare, based on pillaging and sieging. But in set piece battles, I am having a hard time imagining their utility. Surely it would be better to dismount? Preferably beside a large pavisse?

Quote:

---

Does anyone know how mounted crossbowmen were used historically? I can see that they would be useful in the typical medieval warfare, based on pillaging and sieging. But in set piece battles, I am having a hard time imagining their utility. Surely it would be better to dismount? Preferably beside a large pavisse?

---

Well, as far as the French go, can't give up that mobility for those common advances to the rear! ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Does anyone know how mounted crossbowmen were used historically? I can see that they would be useful in the typical medieval warfare, based on pillaging and sieging. But in set piece battles, I am having a hard time imagining their utility. Surely it would be better to dismount? Preferably beside a large pavisse?

---

Well, a little info from wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor. This led to the development of new cavalry tactics. Knights and mercenaries deployed in triangular formations, with the most heavily armored knights at the front. The knights would carry small, powerful all-metal crossbows of their own. Crossbows were eventually replaced in warfare by gunpowder weapons, although early guns had slower rates of fire and much worse accuracy than contemporary crossbows. Later, similar competing tactics would feature harquebusiers or musketeers in formation with pikemen, pitted against cavalry firing pistols or carbines.

---

I think the real bias is in the ranges CA gives the western mounted units;
Mounted Crossbowmen and longbowmen have the same ranges as the same foot crossbowmen and longbowmen, while the horse archers have 2/3 the same eastern bowmen. For instance the mounted crossman man has a range of 120 squares and the horse archers have only 100 squares. This really seems silly to me, somehow the westerners don’t suffer and accuracy drop for firing from a moving horse because,… they don’t know they should have one like the more skilled eastern horseman does? What? So I moded the ranges down on the mounted crossbowmen and longbowmen.

I worry more about the distinct lack of quality heavy infantry (esp pikes) in Eastern lineups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

I worry more about the distinct lack of quality heavy infantry (esp pikes) in Eastern lineups.

---

Well, that is the downside. If they had both, they would be more than a little overpowered. And anyway, historically they didn't use it.

Heavy armour belongs in the west, mobility belongs in the east.

Yeah, I feel the mounted crossbowmen are the counter to HA as well. You dont need them to fight the western Catholic nations but once you start fighting the the eastern factions thats when they come into play. At least thats when I start using them. To make your campaigns more challenging just dont use them against eastern armies that have HA.

I can't really see how mounted crossbowmen can counter true HA's at all... HA's usually don't have armour, and they have a much higher rate of fire, which means dead crossbowmen...

Longbows, pavise crossbowmen, foot archers in general really, is the way to counter HA's for western factions.

I use the mounted crossbows mainly in the west, as they are fast, they do wonderfully when chasing routers. The crossbows just give them something to do until the enemy rout..

Use them just like you would HA units. Mounted archers that can move about quickly and once they run out of arrows they can run down seperated or routing units. They do pretty good melee against HA units if you have enough of them.

they need to speed up some of the light cav in the game to run down horse archers. i think alans, mounted seargeants, and some of the others would be good candidates for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Heavy armour belongs in the west, mobility belongs in the east.

---

Precisely the point I was making. CA have given Euro factions all sorts of cav choices, many and varied infantry choices, many and varied missile options and then decided to add MOBILTY by way of circling while shooting crossbows on horseback, offering the Euro army the option of an eastern army. The miserable unit choice on offer with eastern factions shows that nothing has changed since MTW

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skott

Use them just like you would HA units. Mounted archers that can move about quickly and once they run out of arrows they can run down seperated or routing units. They do pretty good melee against HA units if you have enough of them.

---

Yes, but they still wont be able to shoot down turkomans or mamelukes due to their low rate of fire. The only way to do it, is to gang up in melee, but there are better units for that job.

You cannot use them as mounted archers, because they are not mounted archers. They are crossbowmen, and as such cannot be used in the same way. Their low rate of fire means that they will not win any shootouts, and neither will they be able to quickly harass an enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You cannot use them as mounted archers, because they are not mounted archers. They are crossbowmen, and as such cannot be used in the same way. Their low rate of fire means that they will not win any shootouts, and neither will they be able to quickly harass an enemy.

---

Not true, they can be used in exactly the same way as HA. You can see this regularly in MP

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Does anyone know how mounted crossbowmen were used historically? I can see that they would be useful in the typical medieval warfare, based on pillaging and sieging. But in set piece battles, I am having a hard time imagining their utility. Surely it would be better to dismount? Preferably beside a large pavisse?

---

It's wrong to imagine a unit of Mounted xbows. The kind of armies that we see in Total War, neatly seperated in "one weapon only"-units has nothing to do with history but only with gameplay.
In reality you had small units, at some point in time called a "lance". A lance would consist of a noble and his entourage. The noble would be equipped as a heavy Knight and his entourage would protect and assist him on the battle field. (Broken Lances are Knights without entourage). Those followers had all kinds of weapons, xbows among them.
This structure of loyalty, followers taking orders from the noble, can be scaled up to the whole army and thus gives a good impression on army structure. One army leader (king for example) commands lesser nobles which command even lesser wich only command their own followers.
So, if an army leader would like to have a Cavalry contingent attack a flank, that contingent would consist of very mixed troops. The heavy Knights among them would form the spearhead and everyone else would follow, using what kind of weapon he has access to.

R'as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Not true, they can be used in exactly the same way as HA. You can see this regularly in MP

........Orda

---

Yes of course, I was talking about HA vs HA and HA vs mounted crossbow. IMO, the mounted crossbows are effective against the same armies as the HA's, but they are not effective against a HA heavy army, like the mongols. Pavises and longbows are much better against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Not true, they can be used in exactly the same way as HA. You can see this regularly in MP

........Orda

---

Orda;

The export_desc_unit file in the \DATA folder is very easy to modify. Go into and take out the bloody Cantabrian circle for the mounted crossbowmen if you don't like it in your own game.

I suppose they are they way they are becuase CA had to come up with something when they flubbed the real life western counter to horse archers, the wagon fort.

is that still true for the professional army of the byzantines?

Hmm, i dont think MC have to be used like other HA. Or to counter Eastern HA.

They are exactly unit to counter pavise crossbows ,they also mobile and dont need to regroup like pavise. They can also charge pavises unlike many HA. Against large heavy infantry armies like Skotts or Armoured Swordsmen they are useful too. How many time need HA to kill 1 lancer? I bet much mor than MC. so, they can be useful vs western units using difference between slow and normal speed. Circle and shot is death for them, i think CA just used HA algorythm for all mounted missile units. Without at least "good stamina" or beeng lightly armoured they will be exausted after 3 min circling. But with ability to shot while moving you dont need it.

This is my opinion

"The kind of armies that we see in Total War, neatly seperated in "one weapon only"-units has nothing to do with history but only with gameplay."

Don't know what you're on about. That's exactly how, for example, every Anglo-Norman army in every battle they ever fought was organised, e.g. at Hastings a line of archers and crossbowmen, then a line of infantry, then a line of cavalry.

He's talking about how, for gameplay reasons, units in M2TW are more clearly organized and more uniformly equipped than would have been the case historically. As a result, the player commands armies immeasurably more responsive and effective than IRL.

Having said that, I was under the impression that 'lances' were an 'administrative' unit for the feudal levy and not a battlefield formation. Therefore, the lance would split up on the battlefield, with the archers going off to join the other archers in the army, the knights trotting off to the heavy cavalry line with the footmen tagging along gamely, and the lighter horsemen forming up on the flanks. This of course means that apart from perhaps the knights and a few hardened mercenary bands, the men in the various units were often complete strangers at the beginning of the campaign and completely unused to working with each other (this is part of the reason why good heavy infantry was so rare during this time). A professional army would flatten them instantly.

Less developed states probably just chucked a horde of people at the enemy but some medieval armies were organised exactly like the ones in MTW 2. I know it because I've read treatises by, for example, Moorish tacticians saying "these guys carrying this, this and this go here, to repel cavalry", "brave foot soldiers go here, to inspire the other troops", and so on. As far as I'm concerned it's convenient and has enough historical validity, although sometimes I wish we could mix troop types to form, for example, a tercio.