Longbows are no good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

I'm also surprised at Muskets being more expensive to manufacture as they both use steel and wood, except that the Musket used more metal. Again I’ll take your word on it, but it does sound weird again.

---

Firearms were cheaper because they were more simple to make. The metal tube and fire lock mechanism were simpler to make than crossbow prods and locks/trigger.

Quote:

---

..I’m not convinced the shorter quarrel would have been as heavy, which would have reduced range.

---

Remember that the shaft is only part of the weight. The metal point does add considerably to the overall weight of a bolt. The balancing point of a shorter bolt is about 1/3 of the overall length from the tip, but needs to be 1/4 for a longer arrow. If you ever have seen pics of a bolt close up you will note how the metal tip respresent a much bigger part of the overall length than when comparing to arrows.

"European Crossbows: A Survey by Josef Alm" provides details on crossbows and bolts and gives us weights and length of different types of bolts: 38-40 cm long with most having a weight between 70-79 grams (the most common bolts from the museum in Bern)

Quote:

---

On top of that a Crossbow typically has a shorter distance backwards draw, this actually cuts power as well.

---

IIRC in simple terms work x distance = power and one can get a general idea of energy stored in the bow with: draw weight x draw length /2. Of course one would have to lower the result a bit (maybe 5-6% for bows and 10-20% for crossbows) as the power stroke is shorter(the actual distance the string is pulled back)

Stuff like that just makes it all even more complicated as we cant just compare draw weight but have to know the actual draw length. Even for bows there would be a difference as a tall archer might have longer arms so "drawing to the ear" would be different than for a shorter archer.


CBR

Quote:

---

Firearms were cheaper because they were more simple to make. The metal tube and fire lock mechanism were simpler to make than crossbow prods and locks/trigger.

---

Good point about Crossbows having complex firing mechanisms. I was thinking more in the difficult of casting the tube to withstand the pressures without blowing itself to bits.

Quote:

---

Remember that the shaft is only part of the weight. The metal point does add considerably to the overall weight of a bolt. The balancing point of a shorter bolt is about 1/3 of the overall length from the tip, but needs to be 1/4 for a longer arrow. If you ever have seen pics of a bolt close up you will note how the metal tip respresent a much bigger part of the overall length than when comparing to arrows.

---

Good points TBH, I really need to dig out some pictures of Crossbow Bolts and Arrows as I always figured the greater "height" of an arrowhead would make up for any differences in head length. The quoted length for Crossbow bolts is also a lot longer than I thought, (I was figuring two-thirds to half that TBH). So the Bolts gain a lot of weight over my estimation there.

Quote:

---

IIRC in simple terms work x distance = power and one can get a general idea of energy stored in the bow with: draw weight x draw length /2. Of course one would have to lower the result a bit (maybe 5-6% for bows and 10-20% for crossbows) as the power stroke is shorter(the actual distance the string is pulled back)

Stuff like that just makes it all even more complicated as we cant just compare draw weight but have to know the actual draw length. Even for bows there would be a difference as a tall archer might have longer arms so "drawing to the ear" would be different than for a shorter archer.

---

Indeed, also a longer Draw might need longer arrows, (possible if unlikliy), which would only increase the problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

CaptainSolo, now you are just being contrary.

---

I was merely pointing out that the factors that determine the result of a single battle are not always the same as the factors that determine the result of a campaign as a whole.I can't see whats so hard to understand about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

So the French adapted? Well, they left their horses and began to use arty. That was about it. If you really want to, you can also include attackign the English when they were unprepared, but that can hardly be called adapting, that is just common sense.

---

If the French had done what you suggest after Crecy then i would agree with you when you say it was common sense.But to carry on in the same way with the same horrendous results for so long? Having no option but to change is not common sense.They changed their tactics solely to combat the Longbow,of that there is no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Seemingly on an even battlefield the English didn't pwn the French. They won and they lost. If the longbow had been such a wonderweapon the French would have lost decidedly regardless.

---

Of course they won and lost as they did in Scotland but that dosen't alter the fact that the Longbow was the decisive factor in most of their major victories.(Crecy/Nevilles Cross)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

So how can it be the longbow itself that is the victor, and not the tactics and strength of men-at-arms? I'm not saying that these things were what solely won it, but I think the longbow has been far overrated.

---

I don't have an issue with you thinking that the longbow has been overrated,that's your opinion.The problem i have is that on these boards many have vastly UNderrated it's importance.
To the English campaigning in France it represented their best chance of victory in large engagements and looking at the composition of those armies and the relatively small numbers of other troop types ( men at arms,cavalry) compared with the huge numerical advantage at times of their enemy it's hard to doubt their effectiveness.

The point I was trying to make was that when the English didn't have their near perfect setup in a battle, it was decidedly harder for the longbows to make an impact. If they had been superbly great, mowing down charging Frenchmen (be it knights of mailclad men-at-arms), would the same results not have applied to the battle where the longbows DIDN'T get to do their little setup? Ok, not the same results, but similar results (more losses and harder fighting but generally the same events).

That wasn't what happened. So the point Kobal was making was that the longbowmen could have been superbly trained shortbow archers, and the difference in battles would be slight. It came down to how these archers were used, rather than the weapon they carried.
These longbowmen were so good that shortbows would still ahve left the French flabbergasted in battle.

The longbow was undoubtedly better than the shortbow. *duh*
But the difference might have been quite a bit smaller than often asumed. So when these great guys did their little show of sending French knights facedown in the mud, it was their achievement, not the bows'. They could have done only slightly less with shortbows, but I firmly believe that the French would still have lost Agincourt had the longbowmen been shortbowmen, but the longbow added that little extra that made the battle so astoundingly odd...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The point I was trying to make was that when the English didn't have their near perfect setup in a battle, it was decidedly harder for the longbows to make an impact. If they had been superbly great, mowing down charging Frenchmen (be it knights of mailclad men-at-arms), would the same results not have applied to the battle where the longbows DIDN'T get to do their little setup? Ok, not the same results, but similar results (more losses and harder fighting but generally the same events).

---

Every weapon type will have conditions and situations which will allow it to excell and others where it is at a disadvantage.For the English as you say it was a prepared position,for the French mounted knight it was a flat field free of hedges and stone walls.Thats not to say either is useless in other situations of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

That wasn't what happened. So the point Kobal was making was that the longbowmen could have been superbly trained shortbow archers, and the difference in battles would be slight. It came down to how these archers were used, rather than the weapon they carried.
These longbowmen were so good that shortbows would still ahve left the French flabbergasted in battle.

---

Now here's where we disagree,though i agree that their deployment and numbers played a large part in their success.Taking a look at a few of the casualty figures for some of these battles Kraxis and they are very high,even for a big medieval battle.Fatalities from melee fighting even in large battles were not always as big as people may imagine.

Anyway i'd just like to thank you.You are the first person that has disagreed with me but has still acknowledged the quality of the archer.The man behind the bow if you will.I always stayed out of the technical discussions as thats not my field and thats why when talking about the longbow i always tried to say Longbowmen,as in the man and the bow as one.
Whether you feel the warbow as a weapon is overrated/underrated i suppose is immaterial at the end of the day.Theres no doubting that the English archer and his warbow had a massive impact on the Medieval battlefield at the time though.

I can only agree with yout last point.

However when the French failed in battle it was often a bloody mess. At Courtrai the Flemish militias managed to pulp the French nobility in a similar fashion, yet they had no archers, save a few crossbowmen that retreated to the main line (and dropped their crossbows, supposedly to impeed the charge) as soon as the French began to move out.

The battle of the Bouvines which was a decisive French victory was also very bloody in melee, as both the French and German/English/Flemish forces suffered heavily among their infantry, without there seemingly being any obvious routs (other than the knights on the flanks).

Heavy losses in melee were not usual, but they were not so unusual as well. Espcially when you get almost surrounded while being quite compressed(Agincourt when the longbowmen charged the French in the flanks).

Some good points here, but I might add that every weaponsystem or launcher/missile combination was tuned to the environment. This environment consisted of a huge amount of interlocked factors, such as your own and your enemy's resources, strategy and tactics, the economic, social and military landscapes and the climate and geography.

Let's take the example of the Scythian composite bow. Scythian culture and weapontechnology and their way of war swapped over the Danube around 500 BC colliding with the Hallstatt culture. It was an area where the long warbow was along with javelins the dominant missile weapon, and where the wealth was centered, according to the funeral gifts on a few individuals. This individuals quickly adopted Scythian culture and arrowtechnology and most likely also their bows, given that one is strongly connected to each others. Trilobate arrowheads substituted the leafshaped ones.

However some 200 to 300 years later archery seems to play no more role on the battlefields of Mitteleuropa, the scythian heritage seems to forgotten or just restricted to a few. The ways of war have changed, closecomat with spear, shield and sword rule the fields, javelins are usually sufficient for ranged combat while large shelfbows are mostly used as siegeweapons. Composite bows leave no traces of their existence.

After another 200-300 years Rome occupies the regions close to the Danube, Pannonia and Noricum where once the Scythians composite bow sang, bringing with them archers of the east with their trilobate arrowheads, introduced by the Scythians and readily adopted and spread in the Middle East, where they roamed. The composite bow gets used more and more by the Romans and the Germanic people as they great migrations take place.
The Goths adopt the steppe technology and ride into the battle also with the Hornabogn, a bow made of horn a word which still exists in many germanic tongues. Their nobler men are increasingly fond of horsecombat and have to defend themselves against the new masters of mounted combat the Huns. To do so they copy what they deem fine.

So do the Langobards, the Franks as one finding and some religious motifs show as. But Europe is still for the most part heavy forested and yew is quite plentiful. Cheap good yew can easily turned into cheap good bows and good bows can help to win battles. So frankish footsoldiers have to carry a warbow and 12 arrows into battle. The composite bow is restricted to the elites which use him more for hunting than for warfare, as it is difficult to make without the broad technical knowledge available in the steppe. And when did men just by shooting arrows ever win battles in Central and Western Europe? Not in men's memory.

Even when the Magyars raid a great part of the old frankish reich with their old steppe tactics does their main weapon get a solid foothold in Central Europe. Otto wins against them with cavalry, good leadership and much more luck, focing them back to Hungary. It seems that Europe is bad country for the composite bow and the philosophy and technology surrounding it....

Seems that his clear advantages in efficiency (power for size and power for draw) are not enough to replace the combination of well known and widely available shelfbow and the "new" crossbow, while almost everywhere else the composite bow ruled supreme...

To be continued.

I wrote a long text but killed it because the discussion seems to go over and over and over...:laugh4:

So only one last thing: I like the mentioning of blitzkrieg some posts before. Because it reminds me that blitzkrieg also is a very legendary affair that did not exist in the way many persons thought (prior to the last great research that was done about it in the last years, made surely by armchair historians). Of course one can also trust old stories, mostly they must be true. Same for the longbow.

Quote:

---

IIRC in simple terms work x distance = power and one can get a general idea of energy stored in the bow with: draw weight x draw length /2. Of course one would have to lower the result a bit (maybe 5-6% for bows and 10-20% for crossbows) as the power stroke is shorter(the actual distance the string is pulled back)

Stuff like that just makes it all even more complicated as we cant just compare draw weight but have to know the actual draw length. Even for bows there would be a difference as a tall archer might have longer arms so "drawing to the ear" would be different than for a shorter archer.

---

Quote:

---

Indeed, also a longer Draw might need longer arrows, (possible if unlikliy), which would only increase the problems.

---

I don't like the idea of comparing crossbow strength with bow strength, they are too different in technology. The bolt is short and is set in a guide and though the 'draw' may be short, it usually requires a machine to draw the string which itself is like a rope compared with a bowstring.
The bows of the time were nothing like todays takedown recurves or compounds, they did not have a riser allowing 'centre shot'. The archer had to find a way to overcome the archers paradox. When loosing an arrow, its natural path would be central, in line with the string, however this is not possible. The Mediterranean 3 finger draw requires the arrow rests on the back of the bow hand and the paradox is the means by which the arrow contorts its way around the bow. This requires an arrow of correct spine be used otherwise it will not fly well and/or will not be accurate. The correct spine weight will also be determined by the length of the arrow.

For example, using modern shafts.
40lb spine at 32" length. Cut that down to 28" and the spine has effectively been increased to 48lb. Likewise a bow with draw weight of 40lb at 28" is lighter or heavier depending on draw length, it equates to approximately 2lbs per inch.
Of course, the cast of the arrow will be greatly affected by the weight of the arrowhead and the size of fletchings. Even then there may be some slight adjustment that will perfect the cast.
My own draw length is roughly 28" and my bow is 45lbs. After years of experimenting, I get best performance from 29" arrows, 5/16" diameter, 100 grain piles (points), 5 1/2" low profile fletchings (5" normal fly just as well but not in cross winds) and the spine is 40lbs.
By using a lighter pile of say, 63 grains, the arrow becomes stiffer and will fly left.
It goes without saying that the correct nocking point on the bowstring has to be located to prevent 'porpoising' of the arrow.

Given the heavy weight of the old Warbows and the bodkin heads and the fact that these archers drew to their shoulder, the arrows can almost be mistaken for broom handles

.........Orda

Quote:

---

I don't like the idea of comparing crossbow strength with bow strength, they are too different in technology. The bolt is short and is set in a guide and though the 'draw' may be short, it usually requires a machine to draw the string which itself is like a rope compared with a bowstring.
The bows of the time were nothing like todays takedown recurves or compounds, they did not have a riser allowing 'centre shot'. The archer had to find a way to overcome the archers paradox. When loosing an arrow, its natural path would be central, in line with the string, however this is not possible. The Mediterranean 3 finger draw requires the arrow rests on the back of the bow hand and the paradox is the means by which the arrow contorts its way around the bow. This requires an arrow of correct spine be used otherwise it will not fly well and/or will not be accurate. The correct spine weight will also be determined by the length of the arrow.

---

I'm not an archery expert okay so let me check if I understand this bit right:

What your saying is that because you have to rest the arrow on your hand you can't have the back of the arrow in the perfect position so you have to have the arrow size and weight, (as well as fletching and head), just right to stop the arrow bending and veering left or right as it leaves the bow.

That what you where trying to say?

Thanks for butting in as it's nice to have a real expert on archery, who uses it rather than just theorises, in here correcting us as necessary.

Since i can't Edit:

I presume Spine and Spine weight refers to bow Weight?

Whilst length refers to the draw distance?

Sorry about the add-on.

Sorry Carl, I tried to give the information without the post going on and on.
First off
Spine/Spine weight refers to the arrow shaft in other words how flexible it is.
Draw length refers to the distance from bow to the string at full draw.

So if you buy arrow shafts, they usually measure 32" and are spined accordingly. If you shorten them you also stiffen them, thereby increasing the spine weight.

Imagine holding a bow with the arrow nocked on the string and resting on the back of your hand (index finger knuckle). The arrow will point slightly to the left due to the thickness of the bow. Correctly spined arrows are essential and this is known as the 'archers paradox'. That is the arrow must bend around the bow before continuing on its course.

Another point that I did not mention was the tillering of bow limbs. The lower limb is stiffer because the arrow is not fired from a central (top to bottom) position on the bow.
Hope this helps

......Orda

I get you now Orda. Many thanks for the explanation, makes sense now, you need an arrow that is flexible enough to "bend round the bow to make up for the fact that it's offset. Get it too flexible however and it will bend too far.

As I say, it's nice that we have someone on these forums who actually knows something about bows and Arrows and can thus give us this kind of information.

Ahhh... I just thought that archers learned how much offset there would be and aimed from that.

When I tried a bow (a longbow as it happened), I continually sent the arrows far to one side (the side it was nooked on of course). I simply couldn't understand that as I did exactly as the instructor told me... I ended up sending four arrows deep into a wood, never to be found again.

After that I have not touched a bow as I feel cursed.:sweatdrop:

@Kraxis: Well at least you've used a proper good old fashioned Longbow, All I’ve got to use was one of those plastic ones that with the bit of plastic to rest the arrows on. The Instructor had a Proper Bow and the leather guard though. She looked to be pretty good with it too, no robin hood, (or should that be Maid Marian :smash:), but better accuracy than anyone else, (Duh).

Curse you and your luck Kraxis:smash:.

EDIT: Should have been:

Curse you Kraxis :smash:. I wouldn't care if I did so bad if I was getting to have a go with the real thing, I’d just love the chance to have a go, regardless of how well I did.

Longbows are good . Increasing fire rate could inbalance THE GAME.
After playing a lot VH/VH .
To easy to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

@Kraxis: Well at least you've used a proper good old fashioned Longbow, All I’ve got to use was one of those plastic ones that with the bit of plastic to rest the arrows on. The Instructor had a Proper Bow and the leather guard though. She looked to be pretty good with it too, no robin hood, (or should that be Maid Marian :smash:), but better accuracy than anyone else, (Duh).

Curse you and your luck Kraxis:smash:.

---

Well I have always felt that should I try a bow, it must be 'traditional'. None of these weighted, balanced and all other kind of things, bows. Pure and 'clean'.

It was fun to try, and I felt that I was a bit stronger than I expected. However I quickly found the reason for the bracers. Damn my forearm was sore. GAH!

Ouch, yeah, theres a damm good reason to have one, the instructer i had had one too when she was using hers.

The time i got to try it was at a medivial arts and crafts fair at pontfract castle, (or the ruins of it at least anyway).

Damm no EDIT: So since it was an arts and crafts they where letting everyone shoot 10 arrows at a target, couldn't have been more than 20 meteres, good fun but it only made me wish I could have had a proper go~:(.

Carl & Kraxis,
Have you ever considered taking up archery? At any of these fayres you are only ever going to get to try one of these cheap bows, or at best one of a club's training recurves. The arrows will probably not be matched and any good shot will be more luck than judgement so don't be hard on yourselves.

Field Archery is the most exciting, target archery may offer longer distances but you basically stand at one end of a field and aim at a target the other end, collect arrows and repeat.
A traditional archer shoots distances ranging from 5 to 50 metres in field archery and there are usually 24 targets per course. The course is shot over 2 days, one marked (so you know the distance) and one unmarked. The course will take in many natural features to help add to the difficulty so expect to be trekking through the woods, aiming uphill and downhill, fighting for footing etc. It really is a great way to spend a weekend; tiring, sometimes wet and cold or hot and sticky but always great fun, in fresh air and you feel alive. Also making arrows is very rewarding.

If Longbow is your preference you are lucky, there is a seperate Longbow class. With my Hun bow I have to compete in 'traditional' which puts me at the disadvantage of having to compete against people who use modern recurves (they only have to use wooden arrows to be considered trad :thumbsdown: ) Be aware that the Longbow we see today is unfortunately NOT the bow of Mediaeval times, it is a Victorian design. When strung it resembles a shallow 'D' shape, the Mediaeval Warbow was more of a crescent ... )
Because very few people use Asiatic reflex bows it will be difficult to get to try one out but trust me when I say that their performance is far superior to a Longbow of the same draw weight. So if it's 'pure and clean' that you seek, you should really consider one of the bows of the steppe.
Take a look here....www.eastern-archery.com

The bracer. Did you get a nice blue forearm? :laugh4:
Imagine what 40lbs draw would do to you. My wife had to kneel to shoot one target but raised the wrong leg. The end of the bottom limb caught her thigh!!
Anyway, the bracer saves your arm which may get string slap due to the Mediterranean draw, the string is released towards you. If you tried the thumb draw there is no need because the string travels away from the arm. With experience you will find your technique will improve and the bracer is there just in case. I don't use one.

So there you go. Why not give it a try? Do a Google search for GNAS (grand national archery society) and look for a club in your area. In September 2008, the World Field Archery Championship will be held in South Wales (at my club Pentref Bowmen) so you have plenty of time ~;)

OK apologies for going off topic

.......Orda

History Vs. Balance


Why does everyone think Balance is more important than history? Are you really playing a Real Time Sim if your choice of player has been watered down so they don't beat the pants off of every enemy? Can you really call it Historical Strategy if one country's units have been beefed up so they can compete for "world domination"? Let's take a look...


Let's say we are playing Alexander the Great. How realistic is it that it should be simple for you to FAIL to conquer the known world? When I read the history books I don't read about a general who struggled and fought from behind and won the battles because his will was greater, no, I read about unmatched training and armies. When I read about Temujin, who would become Genghis Khan, I don't read about his prowess at outsmarting his foe. Like the German Blitzkrieg of World War II, Khan's armies were like a blunt force instrument. They just hit you so hard that you couldn't stand against them. Taking any of these three countries and turning the game into a matter a military genius instead of military prowess automatically removes the historical accuracy of the game, thus you are playing a strategy game based on historical places and people, not historically accurate battles. In all three situations, the game should be pretty boring, because it should be relatively simple to reproduce the results of history. Is that a game you would want to play?

Let's say you are playing a colonization war game. You are the American's driving the Indians across the plains as you systematically usurp all of their lands. Their bows and shields are no match for the weapons of Gunpowder. SO, you load this game up, and the first village you scout has 120 natives in it, all hunter/warriors, armed with a spear, a shield, and a hatchet for after they've thrown their spear at you. Your basic starting units all have muskets, basic armour, and a sword. You take four musket units in the numbers are 240 muskets to 120 warriors. Your muskets have a slow reload time, they are untrained, and you're routed by the enemy warriors as less than 20% are taken out with your initial and second round of musket fire. they're on you and that's the end since they are much more highly trained with their hatchets. Are you shrugging that you should have brought a bigger army, or are you pissed that a bunch hatchets buried your musket troops with almost no effort? They toned your muskets down and beefed up the native stats to "balance" the game. We all know that the muskets should tear the natives apart. We know it because historically it's true. We know it because logic tells us Guns Vs. Swords starting at 200 yards range equals a bunch of dead guys with swords in their hands still about 50 yards shy of the gunmen.

We may not like it, but you just can't have a game play out like that. Countries are balanced for their overall army, not just one unit versus one unit. It's really not looked upon as though you are going to fight many battles with one unit of Crossbows against two units of Longbows. It is expected that their will be cavalry, swordsmen, and spears in their as well. It is expected their will two or three lines marching towards each other just like in the feudal days. In history versus balance, you have to play the balance card to issue challenge to the players. Don't pick apart the fact that one unit doesn't measure up to what you know they were while another is stronger. Change the stats and you'll see devastating results. At first you'll kind of laugh at how those long bows rip to shreds the opposing army. After that, though, it'll start to lose its enjoyment because now it's too easy.

Example:

Play the expanded scenario mod and use the use the Timurids. Edit the descr_strat_unit.txt file and remove the "can_run_amok" line from the elephant units. I promise, you'll stop training any unit other than elephants. It's pointless to use anything else. Line 'em up in a straight line across the map and rush your enemy. They'll break every time.

Now beef up your Longbows to where you think they should be in comparison of the other bow units ingame. It won't take long for you to realize that all you need are 12-15 Longbows. Their AP along with the added strength you gave their arrows will cut down any army from such a distance their own bows never get a chance to take aim at you. You'll marvel at all the dead bodies and how you didn't eve have to engage them, and then you'll turn the game off. No challenge, no fun, no interest.


Balance sucks because someone always loses. Their's a unit we enjoy the history of that has to be changed for the balance of army Vs. army. You just have to learn how to use them effectively. Unless you are a master editor who really understands combat balance, and I've played quite a few of the Rome and Medieval Mods so i can tell you, someone or something is always out of balance, it just doesn't pay to start messing around with single units. There's always unit or a move, or a tactic that is "overpowered". That's every combat game from strategy to fighters to jedi knights. You either learn to live with it, or you just stop playing. In the battle of Balance Vs. Historical Accuracy, balance always wins, even though there is always SOMETHING that could be improved upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny WiFiHr

I'm not talkig about sitting ducks.I'm talkig abut distruption in the force.LB fire much faster (historicly) pierce almost like Xbow.But now they are slow have same range as Xbows and they have less damage.This is not a shock troop as should be.Need some balancing.

---

Totally agree the english longbowmen arent nearly powerfull enough. In rl they had the huge advantage of range, they dont in this game, and rate of fire, again taken away in this game.
The english longbowmen were the the most powerfull ranged units in the world until the rifled gun arrived, just simply just took to long to train to be as cost effective as crossbows and gunpowder units of that time.
The longbowmen needs to be upgraded to match history.
And elite units like the scots guard needs to be number limited or removed as they were never used in any great numbers.

Actually If yiou use FLAMING MISSILES you will take care of pavise crossbowmen as their shield on the back catches fire very quickly ;)

So still the best missile units are retinue longbowmen ( specially because of the sharpened satkes only english longbowmen can use!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zstajerski

Actually If yiou use FLAMING MISSILES you will take care of pavise crossbowmen as their shield on the back catches fire very quickly ;)

So still the best missile units are retinue longbowmen ( specially because of the sharpened satkes only english longbowmen can use!!!!

---

The english longbowman should be supperior just because they can use stakes, but because they are superior arhcers. A longbowman could hit a target 300m away well beyond the reach of a crossbow, and since the longbowmen didnt use quivers, instead they put their arrows into the ground infront of them to increase rate of fire, did could fire about 20 arrrows per minute alot faster, then any other archer. And the english longbow, which should be made of yew in the game as it was in rl, was far superior to smaller bows as they typically had draws greater than 65 kgf (143 lbf)).
Its stupid that only the notthingham archers in the game use yew bows when infact that was what most english longbows were made off.

I see this has been discussed to death, but I'd like to throw in my support to this ridiculousness as well. I had loved using archers to dwindle down enemy numbers before attacking in the previous Total War games, but I've long since gotten to the point in M2TW (playing as England) that if I see an enemy army has crossbowmen, I don't even bother bringing archers to attack. There really doesn't seem to be much point when crossbowmen fire faster, with about the same range, (or will run up to be within range anyway) and then will rape your archers. So, I usually just start running my infantry at the melee units behind the crossbowmen as soon as they start receiving fire, and chase down the fleeing crossbowmen with cavalry. Thus, with almost all of Europe having crossbowmen, my previously loved archers end up being relegated almost entirely to garrison duty. At least there they're still pretty effective, just for some reason seemingly not as effective at destroying rams and siege towers as they were in Rome...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosscoliosis

I see this has been discussed to death, but I'd like to throw in my support to this ridiculousness as well. I had loved using archers to dwindle down enemy numbers before attacking in the previous Total War games, but I've long since gotten to the point in M2TW (playing as England) that if I see an enemy army has crossbowmen, I don't even bother bringing archers to attack. There really doesn't seem to be much point when crossbowmen fire faster, with about the same range, (or will run up to be within range anyway) and then will rape your archers. So, I usually just start running my infantry at the melee units behind the crossbowmen as soon as they start receiving fire, and chase down the fleeing crossbowmen with cavalry. Thus, with almost all of Europe having crossbowmen, my previously loved archers end up being relegated almost entirely to garrison duty. At least there they're still pretty effective, just for some reason seemingly not as effective at destroying rams and siege towers as they were in Rome...

---

Sad isnt it~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosscoliosis

I see this has been discussed to death, but I'd like to throw in my support to this ridiculousness as well. I had loved using archers to dwindle down enemy numbers before attacking in the previous Total War games, but I've long since gotten to the point in M2TW (playing as England) that if I see an enemy army has crossbowmen, I don't even bother bringing archers to attack. There really doesn't seem to be much point when crossbowmen fire faster, with about the same range, (or will run up to be within range anyway) and then will rape your archers. So, I usually just start running my infantry at the melee units behind the crossbowmen as soon as they start receiving fire, and chase down the fleeing crossbowmen with cavalry. Thus, with almost all of Europe having crossbowmen, my previously loved archers end up being relegated almost entirely to garrison duty. At least there they're still pretty effective, just for some reason seemingly not as effective at destroying rams and siege towers as they were in Rome...

---

This is very interesting, because in my game experiences I've never had to resort to these role-dwindling practices concerning the archer's role...
The most I'll say to that though is that it's dead true that Pavise cross-bowmen dominate any other archer unit..no doubt in my mind over that...:no:

But then again, Pavise Crossbowmen really should when you think about it. Only Muskets would have the power to go through that sheild. Allthough their are ways around it I imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosscoliosis

... I've long since gotten to the point in M2TW (playing as England) that if I see an enemy army has crossbowmen, I don't even bother bringing archers to attack. There really doesn't seem to be much point when crossbowmen fire faster, with about the same range, (or will run up to be within range anyway) and then will rape your archers.

---

Crossbowmen do not fire faster and they don't "rape" archers. This thread is a little misleading, as it has no test results and goes off on a tangent out history. But in-game testing tends to match my experience that longbows are fine:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...32&postcount=1

From a historical realism point of view, I agree with Carl, pavise crossbows should win - that enormous shield minimises exposure to enemy fire. So M2TW is a little generous to the longbow in giving them near parity. More than a little generous, given that the longbows can unrealistically make the pavise explode into flame, killing the crossbowmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Crapalot

Sad isnt it

---

Nothing sad about it. An English army with 3-5 longbows is a powerful force in the SP campaign. Yes, if you faced 3-5 pavise crossbows (e.g. the Milanese), you should not shoot it out but instead charge them. However, against most AI armies, I find the longbows are extremely useful. I find they are excellent at shooting up the few peasant crossbowmen etc, then softening up the heavy enemy units prior to my assault. Now that the passive AI bug is largely gone, they shine more in the offense (or siege defence) than in a defensive field battle (when the AI will rush to close with you). But the stakes are nice for the latter - especially given the weakness of spears in the game.