Testing with Crossbows vs Longbows

[Bilgediver]

I don't have the screenshot results at the moment, but I was doing some testing with crossbow units vs longbow units.

To do the testing, I let one be defensive, and one attack (because it makes sense in-battle)

Initially I tested Retinue Longbowmen against Geneose Crossbowmen (arguably the best of each), and let them duke it out. I set the player-controlled group as the longbowmen, set them up as loose formation , guard mode and let them auto-fire. Initially they make some early kills against the Genoese xbowmen while they set up and moved to loose formation. As the fight wore on, the xbowmen kills increased while the shields on their backs became telling. Eventually the Longbowmen ran out of ammo with fewer men. The Genoese Xbomen won out (I tested it twice and the second time it was even worse for the retinue longbowmen)

I then used the French Aventurier's as they are just armored but without any shields, just to see if its the shields that really mattered. Nope, the battle was closer but the extra "punch" of the Crossbows really showed through. Again I tested twice and it came out as an "Average Defeat" for the Longbows.

I'm going to remind you that I DID have the Longbows already set up in loose formation, and firing first so if I switched positions, it would be even WORSE for the longbows.

I then scrolled through the different factions and found that Dismounted Dvors for Russia seemed to have the highest missile attack (11) out of any archer unit in the game. I did the same test and it wasn't even a contest Dvors lost)

I did these tests because of another thread where we compared units and I stated I loved Pavise-style xbowmen, but others kept spouting the benefits of Longbowmen.

When you think about it, longbowmen were prized due to their fast reloading skill, not their "punch". That's not to say longbows didn't have a "punch" but they obviously cannot beat out crossbows for "punch". M2TW isn't really that realistic because most armies back then probably were comprised of mostly peasant armies who (if armored) wore leather or padded armor. Longbows would be easily effective against that, and if you can spam missiles against mostly peasant armies its more effective than the slower reload of crossbows (which would be more effective against heavily armored opponents, which you probably didn't see as often).

[A Nerd]

Very informative! :) I will have to keep in mind what you concluded next time I play! I have yet to fully utilize the effectiveness of crossbows when I play M2TW!

[Bilgediver]

Thanks, all the while after playing multiple factions, I just "felt" that crossbows had a much higher kill rate, despite their slower reload times, and it appears that my testing showed that.

I've also seen crossbows stop charging units, while I don't honestly remember seeing any archer unit do that.

I must bring myself down in that I didn't do many tests at all, I set them up so that both units fired point blank on the grassy plain so ground was flat, and only ran each test twice, sometimes only once., instead of the parabolic "arch", which renders xbows ineffective (but I also didn't test to see if the parabolic arch of xbows was any better than normal bows, or longbows).

Settings I used for the battle:


First Battle:


Second Battle:


These two were Retinue Longbowmen (England) vs Genoese Crossbowmen (Milan, but NOT militia).Genoese Crossbowmen have 2 more missile attack than the militia, the highest pre-gunpowder missile attack in the game.

If the images are hard to see, its because I made a mistake in my batch conversion in Irfanview :(

I'll get a better pic posted.

[Ratwar]

I hate to be critical, but honestly, this test proves little. It is fundementally flawed in that it looks at the skill of the units directly against each other, rather than against their likely targets. For example, I'd be surprised if testing against a unit of peasants didn't favor the longbowmen (Higher Rate of Fire vs a lightly armed target), while the crossbowmen might be favored against a more heavily armed target. Of course, the Longbowmen's ability to lay down stakes is another 'x' factor.

[Bilgediver]

Of course, which is why I made the comments at the bottom. Its tough to do a test like that because of the extremely variable nature of the beast. How would you do that kind of test? Would you have a unit of longbows vs crossbows firing at a unit of peasants charging against them?

I just pitted one against the other to see how they fared. Don't get me wrong, most of the battles we fight don't last long enough to use all of their missiles, so in most battles, longbows will get a lot of early kills, just enough time for heavy cav to come in and sweep everyone up, or just enough time for the infantry to actually engage. It takes less time for Archer-style units to set up and start firing than it does crossbows. But if you're going up against factions like the Mongols, where almost all of their infantry is archer-based, I favor crossbows because it often becomes a missile-attrition fest. I've often found its better to have crossbows "punch" through the extra bonuses that Mongol infantry and cavalry have.

It just seemed silly though, that so many people would just deride Pavise-style crossbowmen than for no other reason that they probably "like" longbows better.

[Bilgediver]

Just to prove a point, I've been conquering the world as Portugal, and my Pre-gunpowder conquering armies usually comprised of Pavise Crossbowmen, Aventuros, a few DFK's and Trebuchets.

Up until gunpowder, I owned all of the UK, Western Europe from Iberia through France, and halfway through the HRE, Italy, Sicily (Corsica, etc), Africa from Marrakesh, Timbuktu, Arguin all the way to Tripoli.
Post Gunpowder I've moved through Central Europe, Balkans, Constantinople, and own a slice of the Holy Land from Antioch, Acre, Damascus, through to Edessa.

I have Vilnius from a Crusade against the Mongols. I've beaten off multiple strikes, mostly from sallies with Cannon Towers (!), and bringing my crossbows out.

[Ratwar]

Personally, against the Mongols, I'd much rather have Longbowmen. I tend to fight defensively against them, and the stakes are really useful.

Really, Longbowmen and Pavise Crossbowmen are both easily powerful enough to conquer Europe. In the hands of a skilled player, both units can be incredibly deadly. On the other hand, against the computer, you could conquer Europe without any missile units at all, if you were willing.

[Nelson]

I have just reached the 15th century in my Milan campaign. The Italian crossbowmen have been excellent. Their range and hitting power are impressive SO LONG AS THEY HAVE AN UNCLUTTERED DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT.

In a defensive posture on flat ground, archers are easier to deploy since they can fire over one’s battle line much more effectively than crossbowmen, who must settle for flank shots. Of course, if you can defend a slope everybody can be shooting.

I purchase longbow mercs whenever I can.

It’s too bad that missile troops fire so poorly from walls once the enemy is close. They start that 80 degree mortar shot business and accomplish little. Just when the handgunners, aquebusiers and musketeers should come into their own on defense, they become ineffective.

[Bilgediver]

I agree Nelson. With xbowmen and gunpowder units I try to defend hills, so that my pikemen/spearmen are stationed at the very bottom of the slope, so my missile troops stationed above them ON the slope have a direct line of sight to almost the entire field (within their range).

[Bilgediver]

Personally, against the Mongols, I'd much rather have Longbowmen. I tend to fight defensively against them, and the stakes are really useful.

Really, Longbowmen and Pavise Crossbowmen are both easily powerful enough to conquer Europe. In the hands of a skilled player, both units can be incredibly deadly. On the other hand, against the computer, you could conquer Europe without any missile units at all, if you were willing.

I'm with ya there, I fight defensively against the Mongols as well. The only time I've fight consistently against the Mongols as a faction (where in order to even go anywhere east I ran into their entire empire) was as the Hungarians, and I used Pavise xbow militia staggered in a checkerboard formation, so that there was a bit of a "gap" in front of each unit, so that they were fighting 90-95% in a "direct" line of sight style fire, and sure their lancer charges were dangerous, but I placed my units in a square to minimize losses from each charge. Most charges could be stopped from the xbow bolts themselves anyway.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

It would be good to know what difficulty level the battle was when you tested. Be also interesting if it could be retested after swapping factions. Just to see if its repeated.

[Bilgediver]

look at the screenshot in post https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053220455

[PrestigeX]

Crossbows have some good uses, BUT, the longbowmen are far superior. Forget their ability to deploy stakes... they can fire off their arrows much quicker than a xbowmans' bolt. In an actual battle, the enemy isn't going to simply sit there and fire away with your crossbowmen, he'll charge with horse and you'd be lucky to get one volley off - which may or may not even kill more than 2-3 horsemen. OR, he will close with his infantry formation, and the melee begins. Xbows are only really good if you have already knocked out most of the enemies own missle troops, or pacified most of their horse, or you defending a slope. I think they do the best against slower moving heavy infantry like pike or halberd.

The longbow units can fire off a steady stream before a charge of either horse or foot, AND, once they are in the rear behind your infantry they can shoot up and over your men much more easily than a crossbowman. Secondly, the longbowman's melee ability is not to be overlooked, I use it all the time even when they still have ammo - use them to flank the enemies infantry lines or just add more men to your centre / your own weak points - it will often turn the tide and rout the foe.

[Adelaide]

Thanks for an interesting comparison! :)

I wonder where you can see the reload time for archers / crossbows? Is there a good page somewhere for the stats?

I was reading here: http://m2tw.warlore.org/units/ and it says that the weapon delay is 25 for all archers and crossbowmen as far as I could see... is this wrong? :)

[Myth]

The Longbowmen are better - they have superior range, bodkin arrows that are unaffected by in-game weather, they can arc their shots while the crossbowmen need to have a clear LOS to be effective, they have stakes, they fire faster. I was the one arguing with OP and still am. This isolated test proves nothing.

[Beggarman]

The Longbowmen are better - they have superior range, bodkin arrows that are unaffected by in-game weather, they can arc their shots while the crossbowmen need to have a clear LOS to be effective, they have stakes, they fire faster. I was the one arguing with OP and still am. This isolated test proves nothing.

On the other hand, Pavise crossbowmen are more widely available than longbowmen, and the range of the two units are the same. But Pavise crossbowmen can be spammed out of minor cities for 4 factions, and are available from fortresses for a number of other factions. Yeoman Longbowmen are fine units, but I prefer the punch of the crossbow, over the rate of fire of the long bow.

I think it can easily come down to personal preference, and it can depend on what your opponents troops are, and whether or not you are playing England. Playing england? Go with the longbows: you have no crossbows. Anyone else? Crossbows are still great. I think the two weapons deal with different troops, however. Longbows are for tearing up lighter troops, even with the AP(which they shouldn't have, but anyway), but crossbows do much better against heavier troop types, and are especially murderous on anything relying purely on armor to save it.

The higher base power of the Crossbow is what I especially like, and it works very well against infantry. Against Cavalry, I've generally found that most of the Crossbow factions have very good infantry who can pal around with the crossbowmen. Italians have their Militias, who are solid for the early game, Hungarians have better cavalry and decent spearmen. The HRE is pretty much stock, bone standard, the Spanish and Portuguese have Almghuvars. Really, the HRE have the weakest "game".

[tanker]

On the other hand, Pavise crossbowmen are more widely available than longbowmen, and the range of the two units are the same. But Pavise crossbowmen can be spammed out of minor cities for 4 factions, and are available from fortresses for a number of other factions. Yeoman Longbowmen are fine units, but I prefer the punch of the crossbow, over the rate of fire of the long bow.

I think it can easily come down to personal preference, and it can depend on what your opponents troops are, and whether or not you are playing England. Playing england? Go with the longbows: you have no crossbows. Anyone else? Crossbows are still great. I think the two weapons deal with different troops, however. Longbows are for tearing up lighter troops, even with the AP(which they shouldn't have, but anyway), but crossbows do much better against heavier troop types, and are especially murderous on anything relying purely on armor to save it.

The higher base power of the Crossbow is what I especially like, and it works very well against infantry. Against Cavalry, I've generally found that most of the Crossbow factions have very good infantry who can pal around with the crossbowmen. Italians have their Militias, who are solid for the early game, Hungarians have better cavalry and decent spearmen. The HRE is pretty much stock, bone standard, the Spanish and Portuguese have Almghuvars. Really, the HRE have the weakest "game".

I guess it depends how close to the vest historically you want to play the game, but longbows and crossbows imply totally different playing styles to me. In English armies from about 1300 until about 1550, the longbowmen were not merely fire support for the knights (like Norman archers at Hastings), they were THE striking arm of the entire army. The ratio of archers to melee fighters (men-at-arms, billmen, etc) was usually 3 or 4 to 1, sometimes 5 or 6 to 1. Everyone else was there to protect the archers while they rained down destruction down upon the hapless foe or to mop up after most of the killing was done. The mass volleys of archery were more like modern artillery fire than carefully aimed rifle shots. Crossbows, on the otherhand, were always a supporting weapon, first for heavy cavalry charges, and then for attacks by pike and polearm infantry. I can't think of any historical army where crossbowmen exceeded a 1 to 2 ratio with other troop types, let alone where they made up the majority of a field army. The crossbowmen would skirmish ahead of the main body before the general engagement and then back off and snipe at targets of oppurtunity for the rest of the battle. Crossbows were the most effective in static engagements, such as seiges, especially with the pavises. Firing from behind cover, without forces manuevering around them, negated the crossbow's slow reloading and maximized its utility for well-aimed sharpshooting.

So bringing the game back into it, it seems to me that longbows and crossbows work pretty well in their historical contexts. Most of my experience is with the English faction, and I am pleased to find that a stack of mostly longbowmen will be very effective. (BTW, the AP bonus definitely SHOULD be there - the medievel longbow pulled 100 lbs or more and fired a bodkin-tipped arrow specifically designed to pierce plate armor. The chronicals of the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses speak to their success at killing armored men.) Mass quantity of longbows benefit synergistically from their quick rate of fire and their abiltity to "arc" fire over units in front of them. Crossbows, on the otherhand, are more effective in smaller numbers due to their increased punch compared to the longbow. In an army where the decisive "shock" element is heavy cavalry or polearm infantry, then the crossbows are going to be a better missile unit for support - especially where they can get out in front of the main body or line up on the flank of an enemy unit that's engaged. In fairness, I haven't tried fighting a battle with a stack that's over 50% crossbowmen. Maybe they would work just as well as longbowmen, but I doubt it. Not from what I've seen. In any case, if you want to play a cavalry-heavy game or a spear/pike-heavy game, you're not going to play as England, and if you want a missile-heavy game, you're not play as France/HRE/Italiens/Iberians. I mean, I guess you could just for the challenge of it and to warp history a bit. It wouldn't be as fun for me.

[tanker]

Really, the HRE have the weakest "game".

In the early period - yes!!! In the late period, HRE gets some pretty cool units - Gothic knights, Landsneckts, Reiters, Zweihanders. It's too bad you can't start a campaign in the late period, like you could in Medieval 1. I suppose there's a mod that'll do it. They should have added "Constantinian paladin" or "Frankish ax thrower" units or something like that to spice up the HRE's early game a little. The Danish viking units should a "shield wall" specially ability too.

[Nelson]

I guess it depends how close to the vest historically you want to play the game, but longbows and crossbows imply totally different playing styles to me. In English armies from about 1300 until about 1550, the longbowmen were not merely fire support for the knights (like Norman archers at Hastings), they were THE striking arm of the entire army. The ratio of archers to melee fighters (men-at-arms, billmen, etc) was usually 3 or 4 to 1, sometimes 5 or 6 to 1. Everyone else was there to protect the archers while they rained down destruction down upon the hapless foe or to mop up after most of the killing was done. The mass volleys of archery were more like modern artillery fire than carefully aimed rifle shots. Crossbows, on the otherhand, were always a supporting weapon, first for heavy cavalry charges, and then for attacks by pike and polearm infantry. I can't think of any historical army where crossbowmen exceeded a 1 to 2 ratio with other troop types, let alone where they made up the majority of a field army. The crossbowmen would skirmish ahead of the main body before the general engagement and then back off and snipe at targets of oppurtunity for the rest of the battle. Crossbows were the most effective in static engagements, such as seiges, especially with the pavises. Firing from behind cover, without forces manuevering around them, negated the crossbow's slow reloading and maximized its utility for well-aimed sharpshooting.

So bringing the game back into it, it seems to me that longbows and crossbows work pretty well in their historical contexts. Most of my experience is with the English faction, and I am pleased to find that a stack of mostly longbowmen will be very effective. (BTW, the AP bonus definitely SHOULD be there - the medievel longbow pulled 100 lbs or more and fired a bodkin-tipped arrow specifically designed to pierce plate armor. The chronicals of the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses speak to their success at killing armored men.) Mass quantity of longbows benefit synergistically from their quick rate of fire and their abiltity to "arc" fire over units in front of them. Crossbows, on the otherhand, are more effective in smaller numbers due to their increased punch compared to the longbow. In an army where the decisive "shock" element is heavy cavalry or polearm infantry, then the crossbows are going to be a better missile unit for support - especially where they can get out in front of the main body or line up on the flank of an enemy unit that's engaged. In fairness, I haven't tried fighting a battle with a stack that's over 50% crossbowmen. Maybe they would work just as well as longbowmen, but I doubt it. Not from what I've seen. In any case, if you want to play a cavalry-heavy game or a spear/pike-heavy game, you're not going to play as England, and if you want a missile-heavy game, you're not play as France/HRE/Italiens/Iberians. I mean, I guess you could just for the challenge of it and to warp history a bit. It wouldn't be as fun for me.

I agree with your assesment, tanker.

Another hallmark of English armies was their small size. Archers were RELATIVELY numerous but still numbered just a few thousand. Continental armies were often much larger. To get the fire suport you mentioned in the numbers they needed quickly continentals relied upon the easy to learn crossbow. England more or less fought in France when she liked, picking and choosing when to cross over. Continental powers had to muster fast if someone crossed the border. Ergo the long training time for a few longbowmen would not work out nearly so well.

[tanker]

I agree with your assesment, tanker.

Another hallmark of English armies was their small size. Archers were RELATIVELY numerous but still numbered just a few thousand. Continental armies were often much larger. To get the fire suport you mentioned in the numbers they needed quickly continentals relied upon the easy to learn crossbow. England more or less fought in France when she liked, picking and choosing when to cross over. Continental powers had to muster fast if someone crossed the border. Ergo the long training time for a few longbowmen would not work out nearly so well.

Yes and no. English armies were small because England was a small country. But England still had to contend with sudden invasions from Scotland all the way into the 16th century. And even though the English could pick and choose when to launch major campaigns in France (Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt), the Hundred Years War was on a "low boil" for the duration and required a steady stream of troops for raiding, seiges, quelling insurrections, that sort of thing. Not to mention the crisis response induced by Joan of Arc's victories and the French resurgence that followed. So I think the main difference between the English and the Continentals was not so much that England had a lot of time to train archers and Continental kingdoms didn't. Rather, by the time the Hundred Years War started, England had both policies in place for over a generation to encourage archery (the famous law that archery was the only sport allowed on Sundays) and a social structure (yeomanry) that allowed them to recruit what was at the time a "national" and "professional" army (i.e. not a feudal levy). They had neither on the Continent. The crossbow was mainly the perview of highly trained (and very expensive) mercenaries. When it first came out, it was the machine gun of its era - paradigm shifting. It was the first weapon that allowed a foot soldier to take down an mounted armored knight one-on-one. Crusaders used it to slaughter Turkish cavalry by the bushel barrel loads on the way to Jerusalem. No feudal lord in his right mind was going to arm his peasants with a weapon like that. And he sure as hell wasn't going to let his knights have such an undignified weapon either; the Pope banned it for use against Christians, after all. Better to hire the pros. And, yes, they could be mustered up pretty quickly, but not necessarly because crossbows are easier to use than longbows. More because the mercenary companies came fully equipped and ready to go (more or less). The French recognized the superiority of the longbow by the early 1400's (and hired lots of merc longbowmen too - the free company longbows in the game) and had some success raising thier own archers (portrayed in the game, I think, by the mounted longbowmen - though in real life they only used the horses to get around, not fight). But by then it was too late to make longbow archery a sustainable part of society the way it was in England, and they fairly quickly skipped straight to firearms. I think the game models all this pretty accurately. You know, the longbow units get more powerful and better armored as the game goes on, just like real bows became better designed (yew wood instead of ash, longer arms, improved craftsmanship) and armor "trickled down" so most English archers were wearing at least a helmet and a mail hauberk by the 15th century. And just like in real life, the Retinue Longbows are plate armored and liveried - they were "fully sponsored", as it were, by the richy richest English nobles. Merc crossbows are the first available on the Continent, just like in real life, and you can train your own progressively improving "professional" crossbows later on. Its all pretty good. Sorry this is so long; I am a touch of an enthusist. And maybe too much of an anglophile - my Irish ancestors must be rolling in their graves.

[Myth]

Nitpick: historical longbows could pull around 180-190 lbs. some even 220, well in excess of the measly 100 you describe. The bodkin arrows are all well and good but it is absolute nonsense that arrows pierced platemail on a regular basis. Even regular mail (aka. chaimail if you are a D&D type of guy) was nigh-on-impervious to arrow fire unless done at point-blank.

Crossbows on the other hand had a much heavier pull, starting at 220-280 lbs. for the "light" military variant and going up to 900 lbs. (!) for a sort of portable ballista requiring two men to operate, as well as a crank mechanism.

The success England had vs the French in those aforementioned battles was not because they mowed them down with ease (like Age of Empires II or Hollywood movies would have you believe) but because the French were terribly disorganized and poorly lead. Still, when the battle reached melee, the Longbowmen threw their bows away and joined the fray with their mallets or other sidearms they carried. The majority of the battles were still won with hand to hand combat! Other factors such as terrain and weather played a huge role as well, but that's besides the point.

Now, developing the back and shoulder muscles needed to reliably use a 180-200 lbs. longbow basically requires one to be using it from the earliest age possible (11 or so), whilst any able man grabbing a crossbow could learn how to use it in a few months time - hence the Pope banning it (too hard to control, diminishes the value of mounted men-at-arms who were more or less controllable by the nobility and church)

[tanker]

Nitpick: historical longbows could pull around 180-190 lbs. some even 220, well in excess of the measly 100 you describe. The bodkin arrows are all well and good but it is absolute nonsense that arrows pierced platemail on a regular basis. Even regular mail (aka. chaimail if you are a D&D type of guy) was nigh-on-impervious to arrow fire unless done at point-blank.

What is your source for that? Everything I've read puts a medieval longbow's draw weight at 80 lbs on the low end, 120 lbs on the high end and most somewhere in between. Even so, that's an extremely powerful bow. Primary sources from the Middle Ages, such as Frousart's Chronicals, are full of testimony of bodkin arrows piercing armor, especially chainmail. I'll stipulate that it was unlikely for an arrow to penetrate the center of a steel breastplate, especially the very advanced armors in the later period. But the battles weren't characterised by one shot on one knight - it was showers of arrows fired enmass. Arrows were likely to hit joints, faces, slits in visors, spaces between armor plates, and especially (mostly unarmored) horses. Still, the effect was the same -knights were just as neutralized in combat effectiveness as if they had been struck straight through the heart.

The success England had vs the French in those aforementioned battles was not because they mowed them down with ease (like Age of Empires II or Hollywood movies would have you believe) but because the French were terribly disorganized and poorly lead. Still, when the battle reached melee, the Longbowmen threw their bows away and joined the fray with their mallets or other sidearms they carried. The majority of the battles were still won with hand to hand combat! Other factors such as terrain and weather played a huge role as well, but that's besides the point.

True of Agincourt; not necessarily other battles. At Crecy, the English position was not particularly advantagous and the French employed what was at the time THE battle winning tactic - soften up the enemy with crossbow fire and then launch three successive heavy cavalry charges to break and route the enemy line. But Crecy was France's first encounter with an English longbow army; they did adapt their tactics and weaponry as the war went on. Undoubtedly, archers engaged in melee (again, most notably at Agincourt), but long range archery was still the decisive element in English victories. I would definitely agree with you that the longbow was not a superweapon that could mitigate poor battlefield leadership or bad strategy, hence English losses at Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn, and the end of the 100 Years' War.

Now, developing the back and shoulder muscles needed to reliably use a 180-200 lbs. longbow basically requires one to be using it from the earliest age possible (11 or so), whilst any able man grabbing a crossbow could learn how to use it in a few months time - hence the Pope banning it (too hard to control, diminishes the value of mounted men-at-arms who were more or less controllable by the nobility and church)

Agreed. But the English essentially "paid it forward" by starting their archery policy in the 1200's, so that by the time the 100 Years' War came, nearly every English yeoman farmer was a trained archer. So it was quite possible for the Crown to raise a large force of longbow archers very quickly (the whole country was what we call an "Individual Ready Reserve") - at least as quickly as other monarchs could raise a force of knights and crossbowmen. The Pope banned the crossbow at a time when the crossbow not only upset the balance of power on the battlefield, but the social order of Europe. Also, in the 12th century, the Papacy was at its most politically powerful and could make sweeping pronoucements like that. By the time the English brought the longbow to the Continent, and thus into the consciouseness of European warfare, the Papacy was in exile in France and had lost a huge part of its credibility and political influence. The Pope probably would have banned the longbow too, if he could have (against fellow Christians only, of course). Besides, I don't think anyone adherred to the crossbow ban anyway.

I should note that nobody in the Middle Ages used the term "longbow" - that's a modern word. They called them warbows, if they bothered to distinguish them at all from other self bows. And they weren't "new" weapons, particularly. The Vikings used bows that were over six feet tall. Of course, so did the Welsh - the direct progenitor of the English longbow. The English weapon was more advanced, bigger, and more powerful than other European bows. But what was really "new," was the way that the English made a national policy of training archers and employing them in large overwhelming numbers on the battlefield. The English system of directly hiring and paying archers and men-at-arms in lew of feudal levies was also a major break from the past.

[Adelaide]

I wonder where you can see the reload time for archers / crossbows? Is there a good page somewhere for the stats?

Can someone please tell me a good place (or site) that includes all the units stats (including range and reload / rate of fire for ranged units)?? Thanks! :)

[Beggarman]

What is your source for that? Everything I've read puts a medieval longbow's draw weight at 80 lbs on the low end, 120 lbs on the high end and most somewhere in between. Even so, that's an extremely powerful bow. Primary sources from the Middle Ages, such as Frousart's Chronicals, are full of testimony of bodkin arrows piercing armor, especially chainmail. I'll stipulate that it was unlikely for an arrow to penetrate the center of a steel breastplate, especially the very advanced armors in the later period. But the battles weren't characterised by one shot on one knight - it was showers of arrows fired enmass. Arrows were likely to hit joints, faces, slits in visors, spaces between armor plates, and especially (mostly unarmored) horses. Still, the effect was the same -knights were just as neutralized in combat effectiveness as if they had been struck straight through the heart.

The great Warbow is an excellent source, and pretty much sets up that a war bow isn't going to take out a Man-at-arms in a coat-of-plates/hauberk. Additional tests with bodkin arrows have discovered that bodkins don't really penetrate that well(at the low velocities of muscle-powered weapons, mass accounts for much more than velocity, hence using heavy broadheads, rather than lightweight bodkins). Bows simply cannot kill knights at distances of more than 50yds. Hell, even mail armor will work VERY effectively. There's plenty of contradictory contemporary reports that the bows would punch through armor, or that an armored man could resist arrow fire almost indefinite. Mark Stratton, the greatest modern archer with the warbow, who uses something like a #150 bow, is on the record stating his doubts as to the effectiveness of the bow against armored men. Even a thick jupon, aketon or the like will protect against most arrowfire beyond 50yds.

Does this mean that the bow is ineffective? Nope. Lowering one's visor to provide facial protection reduces one's situational awareness, as well as reducing airflow and stifling the breath, increasing fatigue. Soldiers under fire by archers would lean their heads forward to provide additional protection, perhaps covering their faces with their shields. This would reduce their ability to maintain unit cohesion, unless the group tighter together, which reduces their capability to fight. By showering the approaching lines with arrows, you force them into a tight clump that is less effective in close combat and you cause greater fatigue.

And horses, well, only the richest knights could afford to armor their horses. And even then, there's a contemporary account of english archers being order to the flank to strike the weaker armor of the engaged french: so it seems pretty clear that the strength of the longbow is entirely over rated in Medieval. They should not have the AP value: their base attack is high enough to get through heavy mail(ARM 6 or 7 in the game), and plate armor should largely be proof against arrows.

... At Crecy, the English position was not particularly advantagous...

The english were deployed on a hill, with their flanks protected by terrain. That's pretty dern advantageous.

The Pope banned the crossbow at a time when the crossbow not only upset the balance of power on the battlefield, but the social order of Europe.

The pope banned the crossbow, not because of any sense of humanitarianism, but because his allies were primarily bow-using, and his opponents were primarily using crossbows. Nothing more or less than that.

The English success stories were largely a result of centuries of freeholding men being part of the military, expected to bear arms and trained in the use of those arms. Continental societies, in general(excluding the Swiss and Netherlands) did not allow for the lower classes to bear arms or participate in warfare, and as such they did not have a body of skilled men to call upon, nor a system to cover the payment of such men in the field. Oh, and the fact that the most skilled professional soldiers were often not part of the higher command circle, and their admonitions against stupid and fool-hardy tactics were ignored.

[Beggarman]

In the early period - yes!!! In the late period, HRE gets some pretty cool units - Gothic knights, Landsneckts, Reiters, Zweihanders. It's too bad you can't start a campaign in the late period, like you could in Medieval 1. I suppose there's a mod that'll do it. They should have added "Constantinian paladin" or "Frankish ax thrower" units or something like that to spice up the HRE's early game a little. The Danish viking units should a "shield wall" specially ability too.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I LOVE the HRE. Favorite faction to play as. But their missile game is decidedly weak: peasant archers and crossbowmen, and crossbow militia arn't exactly awe-inspiring. Their selection is pretty standard, but it's workable, and with a smart "blitz" at the begining, you can have a large empire capable of fueling lots of troops. But they don't have any particular "Strength" to any of their games until the late game, when you get all kinds of groovy stuff. Lots of people hate on the Imperial Knights, for example, but I LOVE dismounted imp. knights when going up against late game upgraded troops: halving armor is awesome!

[A Nerd]

Can someone please tell me a good place (or site) that includes all the units stats (including range and reload / rate of fire for ranged units)?? Thanks! :)

This might be helpful. :)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...eadsheet-TW%29

[Myth]

Thank you Beggerman for that response.

[tanker]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I LOVE the HRE. Favorite faction to play as. But their missile game is decidedly weak: peasant archers and crossbowmen, and crossbow militia arn't exactly awe-inspiring. Their selection is pretty standard, but it's workable, and with a smart "blitz" at the begining, you can have a large empire capable of fueling lots of troops. But they don't have any particular "Strength" to any of their games until the late game, when you get all kinds of groovy stuff. Lots of people hate on the Imperial Knights, for example, but I LOVE dismounted imp. knights when going up against late game upgraded troops: halving armor is awesome!

Agreed. Did I really write Constaninian paladin?! Must have been late at night. Meant Carolingian paladin.

[tanker]

Good argument Beggarman. Thankyou. I'll buy that for a dollar. As far as the longbow (warbow - whatever you want to call it) piercing armor. I wasn't there. Neither were you. None of us were, and we can only go by what the historical primary sources say and what modern reenactments demonstrate. I give the benefit of the doubt to the former. If you don't, that's fine with me. But I think you made my original point that even when arrows didn't penetrate armor, archery still effectively killed and otherwise disabled armored knights. I still have no problem with teh game assigning longbows an AP benefit. The game isn't exactly going to model a knight ducking against the hail of arrows, falling off his horse, tripping up half a dozen other riders around him, and half of them getting trampled from behind and drowning in the mud. AP bonus is good enough to make the game work.

[Beggarman]

Good argument Beggarman. Thankyou. I'll buy that for a dollar. As far as the longbow (warbow - whatever you want to call it) piercing armor. I wasn't there. Neither were you. None of us were, and we can only go by what the historical primary sources say and what modern reenactments demonstrate. I give the benefit of the doubt to the former. If you don't, that's fine with me. But I think you made my original point that even when arrows didn't penetrate armor, archery still effectively killed and otherwise disabled armored knights. I still have no problem with teh game assigning longbows an AP benefit. The game isn't exactly going to model a knight ducking against the hail of arrows, falling off his horse, tripping up half a dozen other riders around him, and half of them getting trampled from behind and drowning in the mud. AP bonus is good enough to make the game work.

Well, my point is that we have a host of contradictory contemporary accounts of longbowmen either penetrating armor(though our chroniclers arn't giving us very yspecific details to the armor), and also of men in armor standing against archery fire for a long time. For example, many eastern bows)particularly the Turkish bow) were in the 100-120 pound draw weight, and we have numerous contemporary records of Frankish crusaders marching with 20 or more arrows embedded in them, with little discomfort, and this is in Hauberk /w felt(wqe're unsure if it was over or under the armor, lean towards a felt aketon/gambeson under the mail). One account I remember, that was just down right amazing, described a single frankish knight defending a village from turks by charging up and down the street, driving the turks out each time. At the end of a pass, he would remove his hauberk and pull the turkish arrows out of his armor, then put it back on and ride back through.

I'm not really sure I'm comfortable with the AP values on a great many of the weapons in Medieval, other than Maces, polearms and some axes. For example, while the musket was effective, I'd like to remind everyone that men wearing steel armor remained on the battlefield into the 19th century. In the 16th century, for example, there plate harness made that were of a "duplex" construction, and could resist musket fire.

In fact, what I would like to see if some manner of modeling ranged weapons such that they reduce their power over distance. The distance that high draw weight bows oculd penetrate mail was around 50yds. Outside of 50yds, the wounding drops off dramatically. However, something must be said for the long term ramifications of having an arrow penetrate even a few inches into one's body, in the middle ages. While such a penetration would prove less than fatal(hurt like the dickens, however), most arrow heads were barbed(to increase the difficulty of removal), and affixed to their shaft with beeswax, and frequently harboring tetanus. The risk of infection is very higher, and antiseptic was almost unknown.

Now, in honesty, this doesn't make for fun gaming, and so we have to ditch historical accuracy for playability. In a historically accurate setting, raising a full stack armor should impoverish even a large country such as France, and when you go on campaign, over half your army will die from disease(particularly diaharhhea), desert due to not being paid, or because the feudal obligation has been discharged(very few knights owed an obligation longer than 30-60 days). Battles would consist of much smaller amounts of men actively fighting, with most of your soldiers standing around shouting obscenities and throwing clods of dirt at the other side. Battles would be much less conclusive and satisfying, and we'd come away feeling rather disappointed.

Of course, making war into something that's fun and enjoyable means great liberties are taken, because in truth, war consists of a whole lot of walking, doing nothing, waiting, doing some more nothing, and is punctuated by sudden and terrifying moments of violence.

You know that silly charge thing, where 10 guys out of a 60 strong unit actually rush into combat, and the rest just mill around, doing a whole lot of nothing? It's pretty frustrating right? That's closer to what a real medieval battlefield consisted of, rather than large blocks of ordered men clashing together and grinding it out. Most battles have extremely low casualty rates(losing 10-20% of your force in one battle would be almost catastrophic, for example), because fighting, while intense, was very limited due to the mechanics of how soldiers actually fought. Most of the really "dramatic" and "conclusive" battles of history occurred when one side's cavalry drove the other from the battlefield and then rode down the retreating army, preventing an orderly withdrawal. But, that's not very fun gaming either. Units should probably break when they've suffered 10-20% casualties, rather than fighting to the last man. But again, not very fun for a computer game. :)

A more historically "accurate" treatment would probably be unplayable, which I don't want!

Now, in regards to actual game play, I prefer Pavise Xbows, because they handle missile fire better. Sure, against Yeomen Longbowmen they struggle, because Yeomen have those awesome attack 8 AP bows, with almost twice the fire rate. But when you run into "regular" archers(like Muslim Archers, Desert Archers, Ottoman Infantry, Mongol Infantry, Dvor, Norse Archers and Noble Archers), you feel the burn, where pavisers have DEF 10 or more vs shooting, while the Yeomen(upgraded to max, at that!) have DEF 8.