Which ranged unit does better damage against armored units: Longbowmen or Crossbows? In my English campaign I came to the point where both units are available to me...
Printable View
Which ranged unit does better damage against armored units: Longbowmen or Crossbows? In my English campaign I came to the point where both units are available to me...
Longbowman will kill more faster, but Arbs have better range. Crossbows are just hold over until Arbs are available. Use longbowman behind pavise arbs or pavise crossbowman.
Crossbow missiles are more effective against armour, but the Longbows' higher rate-of-fire makes more than up for that. Arbalesters beat both when it comes to armour penetration, but it depends on the situation (pure killing power versus rate-of-fire) wether you will prefer Longbows or Arbalesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikpalj
I prefer arbalesters personally. Longbows can get a lot of arrows in the air fast, but soon they run out of ammo and there's usually plenty of fighting left to go. Arbs are in there for the long haul, and do better damage in the end. However, longbows do have decent attack, so even without arrows they can still contribute to the fight. Mounted crossbows can also be nice for their mobility, sniping at an enemy general or elite unit, then retreating behind your battle line and continuing to lend fire support during the melee.
Ajax
I have yet to play an English campaign, but I´d combine longbow archers and crossbows/arbalests, especially the pavise versions for the missile duels.
I personally prefer a bit of both, 2 xbows just for the ammo, and 2 longbows...or more :) for the damage and flanking once out of ammo...
i usually go with 4 longbows, having them all concentrate on a single target at the same time can rapidly anihilate the most threatening enemy unit before they get to you. :knight:
Longbowmen fire over the line, Arbs will hit your own men, so unless you can redeploy them on the flank, which tends to be difficult, then they only have a short time to hit the enemies best units.
I use archers to shower the enemy infantry with arrows and use a couple of arbs to hit the enemy heavy cavalry, what I also like about Longbowmen is that they are passable light infantry that can do a fair bit of damage in melee. I think they work best in conjunction with each other.
I just use my longbow men to take out the general and their decent melee attack to hit their flanks.
I personnally use Longbows, the arbs have a lower rate of fire, the same range and, as said, they shoot in a straight line.
Arbs are longer ranged.
Not true, unless you mod it, default is 6000 for both (120m). I know because I always turn 'bows up to 10000 (200m) and arbs to 12000 (220m). Arbs are more accurate though, so you get more kills per volley at range.
In gameplay, I've always noticed that my L-bows always seems to need to advance about 4 men's worth of space into enemy fire to pick apart the arbs.
Could the arbs have been on a slight slope? If you're advancing they probably had the high ground.
I believe that LB's indeed have less range,regardless of what the files say. I think someone explained it once.
Yuuki/Puzz3D or CBR could probably enlighten on this topic though...
I think shot per shot, I believe crossbows own. Plus, you don't have to worry about ammo much. The only reason a longbowmen would be better is if your longbowline is constantly moving back due to being attacked, then they may be a lot better due to the quicker firing.
But, I've seen crossbows kill about 3-4 times more men during a volley than a longbowmen.
I like longbows for big assaults. They send up enough ammo that you can really pin an enemy down quick and then charge and they break pretty easy. Now pavs have their own uses for archer duels. You don't wanna get a longbow unit caught in an archer duel.
Whenever you can get them, you should consider using both. I like Pav Arbs up front, backed up by Longbowmen right behind. They each do different things well, and combined will outkill and outlast either type alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikpalj
In a fast-moving attack, substitute regular Arbs for the Pavs - in defense or methodical attack, the Pavs are fine. If I could only have one type of foot missle troop, it would probably be regular Arbs. They seem to have the best balance of armor-piercing firepower, endurance, and mobility - but then, that's seldom a choice you have to make in this game.
longbows all the way! I find that all other kinds of ranged units do not fire quick enough to inflict worthwhile losses on the enemy before they close to engage my front line in hand to hand combat.
I do not use ranged units against other ranged units, preferring to rout them with fast cavalry once their protective screen is pinned down, so archers etc become somewhat redundant in my battles once it really kicks off, and hence Longbowmen are my kind of men.
I'm the same, the ranged duel is a fettish people here seem to have. Its possibly the most idiotic idea I have ever come across. Two sets of guys with bows shooting at each other while the knights look on and laugh.
Cav round the back is the way to deal with archers. Archers should be preserved because they are the only ones who do damage at range.
you can laugh, but this sort of thing happened all the time. Crecy in 1346 saw Genoese crossbowmen being decisively outshot by English longbows. In the Wars of the Roses, many battles featured archery duels...particularly Towton in 1461 (where clever use was made of the wind direction by the Yorkists). Also at Shrewsbury in 1403, where Hotspur's archers forced the Royalist archers to withdraw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
It does seem rather suicidal though, and i've always considered missile duels to be a waste of my archers...they're better used to wipe out enemy combat units. As you rightly say, cavalry should deal with archers.
I prefer longbows with maybe some pav arbs as the ultimate 'missile curtain', but otherwise i like normal arbs, as they can perform better in wet weather and can kill half a unit in one volley if they've got decent valour. It's easy to get fixated on using loads of archers, the AI does it a lot and is then left vulnerable to being slaughtered by small elite cavalry units.
I'm aware duels did happen but in many cases it was only when it was one sided. Duels are definately a waste. I fight English style. Archers and Bills, with a little light and a little heavy Cav.
i find pavs and arbs to be of no real use to me.
sword, spear, pike and bill for assault.
longbows for indirect fire support.
cavalry for flanking and pursuit.
when i`m attacking an enemy line i have my archers moving behind the assault line providing indirect fire in support of them.
if its a slugfest then the xbows would be ok, but in a fast battle getting the troops into a firing position asap is important. :2cents:
Not to mention doing as much damage as quickly as possible.
You know, there's a nifty little option called 'limited ammo' which, if off, makes hte Longbow the best archer in the game.
now, that i would call cheesy!
I second that, very cheesy.
Get 16 of them and find a bridge with a few thousand mongols. They won't even reach you.
Sounds like an Arnold Swarzenegger movie...
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roark
definitely Commando, a classic!
that is the kind of stuff i fight in custom battles, like using 6 organ guns.Quote:
Get 16 of them and find a bridge with a few thousand mongols. They won't even reach you.
i always leave that option on, unlimited ammo has never appealed to me, it means i have to think about how i expend their ammo in a battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
In a duel between ranged units do the pavise units with there large shields really have better protection against say normal archers? :inquisitive:
Yes, frontally at least. But pavises slow them down and don't help in melee. It just adds two points of armour to the unit against frontal missiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
Just found one of the old posts on this, here it is:
Ok, I never could stand the concept of using arbalest or even crossbows since I play the brits always.. the longbows always just seemed so much better cus of the speed. Anyway, for fun I made 6 crossbow units in one of my outpost towns I knew was gonna be attacked, but didn't care if fell.. I gave 2 units of feudal men at arms to guard em (was making more, but germans attacked).
So there I was.. crossbows up front against 800 someodd enemies (around 400 for me) and MAA in rear ready to charge when they got close.. enemy royal knights (20) start charging to the xbows... I cursed and ordered them to fire... waited a few sec, screaming in my mind "LOAD THE DAMN WEAPON AND FIRE!!! ARRGG!" (i'm used to longbow rapid shot).. eventually they kneeled, took aim syncronously, and then ---TWANG! Thwup thwup thwup..
"Aieiee!! Arrgg! Aahhh!" ... all 20 royal knights dead in 1 volley! AND it was a prince, their general.. it devastated their morale, although they still charged, but not after my xbows let loose a second volley, that chased 'em right off the map.. lol.
The thing is, that wouldn't have worked with my longbows cus they always miss charging cavalry (the angle is high and it lands behind them).. but since the xbows and arbalests seem to fire more or less straight, you nail 'em every time!
I'm currently in the midst of a long campaign as the Spanish. After I hit the high era, I started building xbows and arbs. But since I still have a lot of archers and a few merc longbows laying around I tend to bring a mix of both to my battles. I'm playing slow, and I've fought off a number of big attacks and rebellions. When I look at the summaries at the end of the battles, I find that the xbows/arbs kill a good number more men than the lbows/archers, despite the fact that the lbows/archers expend far more ammo.