Arqs vs retinue longbow?

[Marauder]

The RL's melee advantage is awesome. They're not going to take out DFKs or anything, but I send them against spearmen and various miltias when they run out of ammo on longer battles.

[Askthepizzaguy]

None question the superiority of the Retinue Longbowmen.

The question is, how do they fare against heavily armoured infantry? Crossbowmen are better for that, unless you light the arrows on fire, it seems. But then it takes longer, and crossbowmen are excellent at firing into heavy infantry and breaking up cavalry charges with their bolts, especially against mounted knights.

I suppose England could just recruit and save up a bunch of Mercenary Crossbows to compliment their Retinue Longbowmen...

I just want to point out that Sicilians can get Muslim archers in a matter of a few turns, and can get their top crossbowmen really early, and that advantage so soon gives them long term superiority over England, or any other faction for that matter.

It's only when everyone gets their top tier stuff, when that advantage become nullified.

I think, anyway. I admit, late game stuff is not my forte, seeing as I've never really played late game stuff.

[Quintus.JC]

France only gets longbow mercenaries, as does any catholic faction really.

Well technically... in multiplayers they get dismounted French Archers, which is the French countpart to the English Retinue Longbowmen. Campaign wise they get the elite Scots Guards teamed up with the Aventiers, quite a formidable combination of the best Crossbow and Longbow units in the game.

[Quintus.JC]

I believe the Sicilian Muslim Archers are long range arrows.

Are Longbows "very long range"?

I believe the Sicilians can go toe to toe with the English in terms of archer power, merely because they have excellent long range arrows and nearly unstoppable spammed crossbows.

The other Italian factions do not have Muslim archers.

In the campaign there's three kind of bows; the ordinary bows used by militias and peasants, then the much more powerful composite bows used by Muslim and some southern European factions, then there's the elite longbow. Ordinary bows have a range of 120m and are pretty much worth crap. Composite bows have a range of 160m, very accurate and are used by lots of powerful/elite missile units such as Jannisary archers, Sicilian Muslim archers, Venitian heavy archers etc. The powerful longbow also have 160m range, but there biggest advantage over the composite bow is their superior armour piecing ability, making them a more competent unit then the rest, although only a handful of factions (only 2) are able to recruit them.

[FactionHeir]

A longbow without stakes ain't a longbow

Ret Londbows do alright against heavy infantry due to their AP ability really. Damage isn't that much lower than Xbows.

[Quintus.JC]

A longbow without stakes ain't a longbow

Ret Londbows do alright against heavy infantry due to their AP ability really. Damage isn't that much lower than Xbows.

Afraid you're right, Scots guards can't take a charge against any heavy cavalry unit. What makes a good unit of longbowmen is AP ability and stakes, and that's precisely what makes them superior to the composite bows.

[Quintus.JC]

I don't deem Crossbows to be that dangerous as an adversary. They are only lethal when if you are willing to stand still and wait until you've become a human pin-cushion. Crossbows are slow-reloading and are as unaccurate as hell when they don't have a clear shot of the enemy (shooting over head). So basically if you aren't outnumbered then a frontal charge with infanry or cavalry should render out most kills by the enemy crossbowmen.

[PBI]

Who needs to use archers against heavy infantry anyway? Just mow them down with your knights. Archers are for taking out spears, and all of those found in vanilla die quite happily against any archers. As Quintus says though, the crossbows are really let down by their glacially slow reloading animation; makes them a liability when you are commanding them and easy pickings when the enemy has them. I have spent way too much time fuming at the computer when, having been ordered to withdraw behind the infantry about five minutes in advance, my crossbows proceed to dawdle around and get wiped out by the onrushing enemy cavalry.

Personally I don't take the melee stats of my archers into consideration; if my archers end up in a melee I consider myself to have failed on some level, even if I go on to win the battle. The only important melee ability an archer needs is the ability to scarper as soon as one looks imminent. Thus I prefer longbows over crossbows, since they can run away from any melee threat that will get past their stakes.

[Eikon the Magistrate]

I just want to point out that Sicilians can get Muslim archers in a matter of a few turns, and can get their top crossbowmen really early, and that advantage so soon gives them long term superiority over England, or any other faction for that matter.

Those archers are the only/main reason that Sicily is a playable faction for me. The awful construction of Sicilian castles... thats another matter entirely. The Egyptians start with quite good archer units as well, and your in the desert to begin with so they guaranteed get their *bonus* from the start.

I try not to use the xbow much myself, I consider it an evil weapon: perhaps to be fielded only when Peter brings his gaggle of peasants/children to play.

I long for the days of the pavise arbalester......

[Eikon the Magistrate]

Spam.

[FactionHeir]

Retinue has 160 unmodded afaik.

[Old Geezer]

I agree with PBI about archers not being suited for any melee with two exceptions. The noble Scottish archers have good melee stats and decent morale; they do very well defending walls. The pavaise crossbowmen can put up a decent fight and don't immediately collapse when charged by heavy knights. The nice thing about the crossbowmen is that their trajectory is so low that they never miss if you shoot into a deep enemy formation.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's nice to hear from a fellow crossbow lover.

Longbows seem so overpowered... I like the better crossbowmen in the game because they have a realistic amount of kills, slower (fairer) rate of fire, impressive damage when they do hit, and good melee.

[TheLastPrivate]

[QUOTE=Askthepizzaguy;1996046]None question the superiority of the Retinue Longbowmen.

The question is, how do they fare against heavily armoured infantry? Crossbowmen are better for that, unless you light the arrows on fire, it seems. But then it takes longer, and crossbowmen are excellent at firing into heavy infantry and breaking up cavalry charges with their bolts, especially against mounted knights.
QUOTE]

On a side note, lighting arrows on fire does not deal extra fire damage. This was confirmed before I think.

[Eikon the Magistrate]

Dont fire arrows = less accuracy,slower reload,higher damage,morale reduction? Of course,there is a high chance that I am wrong....

[Quintus.JC]

In my mind Retinue Longbowmen have several advantages over crossbows.

1. Able to plant stakes
2. Faster rate of fire
3. Accurate when firing overhead (when standing behind friendly forces, Crossbow have to fire straight on)
4. Armour peicing (arrow)
5. Good melee capability
6. Armour Peicing (hammer, I think)

So I think Retinue Longbowmen are better in the game, if you are debating historically accuracy and all then it should be in the monastary.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Without question, RL are better.

I just prefer crossbowmen because they arent overpowered. An army of spammed RL could beat almost anything. Cannons, elephants, armour, cavalry, you name it.

Crossbowmen are cooler anyway. Go XBOWS!!!


And... in my own independent experience... when firing on general's bodyguards, regular arrows suck and fire arrows work. But, thats experience, not scientific testing. Perhaps they don't deal MORE damage, but they sure seem to kill armoured generals better.

[Quintus.JC]

I understand that, I often use regular longbowmen and yeomens instead of Rentinue ones because it just takes out the fun. I don't like a army made out of entirely elite troops. I try to keep the troops as professional as possible. Armoured Sergents, Men at Arms, Genoanese Crossbowmen are all good. Dismounted Knights should have no more than 5 units or else it would be boring.

Edit: In real life Crossbow are much easier to use than longbow, and more damaging too. Although there reloading rate is more than disappointing.

[Ramses II CP]

IIRC the RLs have swords, but Yeomen (and maybe regular Longbowmen) have AP hammers.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Longbows, hands down.

^
This.

Although Arqs certainly have their place...but in a straight question, straight answer "which is better" - see quote.

[ArtistofWarfare]

In my mind Retinue Longbowmen have several advantages over crossbows.

1. Able to plant stakes
2. Faster rate of fire
3. Accurate when firing overhead (when standing behind friendly forces, Crossbow have to fire straight on)
4. Armour peicing (arrow)
5. Good melee capability
6. Armour Peicing (hammer, I think)

So I think Retinue Longbowmen are better in the game, if you are debating historically accuracy and all then it should be in the monastary.

The fact is that historical accuracy is relatively well reflected in game when it comes to the question of longbows vs crossbows.

There are far more crossbow units available, earlier, and for a cheaper recruitment cost as well as upkeep.

Still- A unit of crossbowmen vs a unit of longbows isn't really even fair. The crossbowmen have most likely taken casualties and a moral hit before they've even fired their first shot off @ the longbows.