Crossbows vs. Arbalasters

[Jxrc]

Small question.

Has anyone considered the impact of the possibility to get both a pavise and a +1 valour bonus with the masterlevel workshop ?

You cannot get it with pavise arbs but you can with the x-bows version so what would the difference of accuracy be between a valor 0 arb and valour 1 x-bow ?

[bondovic]

Small question.

Has anyone considered the impact of the possibility to get both a pavise and a +1 valour bonus with the masterlevel workshop ?

You cannot get it with pavise arbs but you can with the x-bows version so what would the difference of accuracy be between a valor 0 arb and valour 1 x-bow ?

Supposedly, the accuracy increase per valour level is very small. And even with that 1 valour advantage the arbs are far superior to x-bows concerning range and killing power, which of course doesn't increase with valour. Probably even so regarding the accuracy too, since the arb is inherently more accurate than the x-bow. .7 for x-bow vs .75 for arbs. I doubt the accuracy increase is 5%/valour. But I don't know for sure.

[The Unknown Guy]

Imho arbalesters are far superior. In fact, I never found much use for crossbowmen, beyond them being far cheaper than the more effective (even against armor) vanilla archers.

[bondovic]

Imho arbalesters are far superior. In fact, I never found much use for crossbowmen, beyond them being far cheaper than the more effective (even against armor) vanilla archers.

You didn't mean that vanilla archers are more effective than x-bows against armour, right?

[The Unknown Guy]

I didnt find them to be particularily less effective, due to the high volume of fire.

[bondovic]

I didnt find them to be particularily less effective, due to the high volume of fire.

Ok. I feel you. Not much for the reload time myself. But then again, I'm a Turk-freak. 'We don't need no stinkin' x-bows...'

[Ravencroft]

The way xbows are set up, it doesn't take a genius to tell that they're nearly useless.

So, what i d to make 'em useful? Put them in early, that's right.

[Empirate]

Ok. I feel you. Not much for the reload time myself. But then again, I'm a Turk-freak. 'We don't need no stinkin' x-bows...'

Don't the Turks actually get Crossbowmen? Just plain Crossbowmen, no Arbalesters? That would make the Turks the only faction with a real use for Crossbowmen!

I have to agree with most people here that Arbalesters are superior. As Frogbeastegg put it: Everything XBows can do, Arbs can do better!
Still, in a pinch, XBows can do quite well.

I don't really understand the people who advocate massive archer use over Arbalesters, even Longbows. So you only get a volley of Arb fire every x seconds, while archers can put three volleys in the air in that time. But that Arb volley kills three times as many (armored) enemies as each of the archer volleys. So over time, their kill rates don't diverge significantly - always depending on the kind of armor on your target, of course (try to whittle down Halberdiers with archer fire!).
The Arb is still better than the archer if both kill the same number of targets in the same time (and that isn't the case vs. high-armor targets) because:
a. more men killed per volley = greater immediate morale penalty = better chance for the unit to flee.
b. Arbs only use a third of the ammo the archers are using. Even in short battles, my archer units frequently run out of arrows while the fight is still going. The arbs don't.
c. Arbs are less vulnerable to counterfire, due to better armor.
d. Arbs are cheaper to maintain.
e. Arbs have flat trajectories, meaning better enfilade, which helps in some situations, though not in all.
f. Arbs perform much better in rain.
g. Arbs bring down generals very easily.
h. Arbs have greater range, meaning they can begin firing while the archers must still march around. In many situations, there's no chance archers could ever open fire without exposing themselves too much, while arbs are more easily protected from countercharges.

Some of these points are mitigated or even eliminated with Longbows being the point of comparison. For example:
a. Longbows are armor-piercing, too.
b. Longbows have long range, too.
c. Longbows have higher lethality/accuracy, too.
d. Longbows have better melee capability, allowing them to work like a hybrid unit. Strong plus in my book, I like to use them like Turks!
e. Longbows can make better use of their long range due to shorter reload time.
f. Wales gives a bonus to Longbows' valor, while Arbs don't receive this bonus anywhere.

Only the latter three are marked improvements over the Arbalester. You might not even want to count d., since this is a comparison of MISSILE units. Still, these are weighty points in favor of the Longbow. However, some problems crop up with these, too:
a. Longbows are as high tech as Arbs...
b. ...and are English only...
c. ...and run out of ammo as fast or even faster than regular archers (at least in vanilla M:TW)...
d. ...and their AP ability isn't that great, actually, when compared to the Arbs'...
e. ...and perform as bad in rain as other archers. Even regular XBows are better...
f. ...and the Arbs' lethality/accuracy is better still. And then there's the trajectory thing...
g. ...and Longbows are still vulnerable to missile counterfire.


So that's that. Hope this helps!