Testing with Crossbows vs Longbows

[Beggarman]

I justed ran 15 tests, 4 units on each side. First test was HRE Pavise Xbowmen vs Yeomen Archers, 2nd was Longbowmen vs. Ottoman Infantry, 3rd was Pavisers vs Ottos. I controleld the Longbowmen vs the Ottos and HRE, and the HRE vs. the Ottos. Started the battle on Arsuf, with my units already in loose formation, and left it alone, and just watched. Unit setting was 48 men per unit. All units were fully upgraded armor. When my longbows ran out of ammo, I had them attempt melee. Generally not successful. Pavisers never ran out of ammo.
Test 1, HRE Pavisers vs Longbows: 183/82(HRE), 176/71(HRE), 162/100(HRE), 184/54(HRE), 118/150(Longbows! hurrah!)
First battle, I forgot to set lose formation, and changed about half way through...
Test 2: Longbows vs. Ottoman infantry: 164/94(Ottos), 161/100(Ottos), 117/150(Longbows!), 162/117(Ottos), 178/144(Ottos)
This whole test was Foggy conditions, but I reckon that evens out since both sides are archers. Third battle, the Ottos switched to fire arrows half way through, and what was previously a lopsided fight(roughly 40% of my force dead, vs 30% of the Ottos), turned around quickly.
Test 3: HRE Pavisers vs. Ottos: 179/99(HRE), 169/91(HRE), 169/96(HRE), 180/78(HRE), 160/107(HRE!)
The ottos, for some reason, attempted to march as close as possible to the Pavisers EVERY battle, and skirmish mode frequently kicked on, and the Pavisers ripped into the Ottos. I chose to control the HRE, because I had the feeling they would win, and after losing 8 or the last 10, I needed to pump up my win ratio!

This shows, I think, just how vulnerable "elite" archers(here I use that term to mean archers with long range, shields and armor) are to prolonged missile fire. Doesn't necessarily mean squat, but I think it's a good example of why I prefer Pavisers in general: they can take a little bit of shooting before they start hurting overly much. in actual campaign, most of my armies have atleast 4 units of Pavisers, and I've generally found them to be quite useful in keeping enemy archers and cavalry "honest".

I will admit that Pavisers lack the general awesome of stakes, which allows a heavy Longbow stack to virtually ignore cavalry charges. Their melee is also admittedly worse, and they arn't going to outfight longbows. But they WILL outshoot them. Any time you can position Pavisers where they can't be easily charged off by cavalry, they will ALWAYS impress. When facing Cavalry, I find it necessary to manually retreat my missile units(archers or xbows) behind my lines, as the skirmish range is shorter than the charge range of cavalry. The AI generally charges their cavalry early, which means I retreat behind Serjents or Spear Militia, and let them handle the cavalry, while my xbows manuever to the wings to pour on the fire against the infantry.

Now, I do think it's obvious that the AI will almost never handle heavy Longbow stacks against a crafty human: I'll always deploy my archers widely to get the most stakage, and generally position my heavy infantry(if I have any) on the front lines during battle, retreating the archers back. Enemy cav charge the stakes, die, enemy infantry get shot apart, reach the swordsmen, and die. But that's as much the AI being retarded as anything else.

But my money is still on Pavisers: if you can get good field position they will never let you down. They also make decent anvil troops, due to their high DEF in melee, allowing them to tangle with enemy spearmen and hold the line, vital if you need to stop some encirclment by french spear spam(why does the French AI ALWAYS seem to spam upgraded spearmen? I don't know!), for example. Don't expect them to handle dedicated melee troops, but against the lighter types, and in defense of walls, they are stellar.

I'll still say that Pavisers are great, because they can fight pretty much anyone's elite archers and come off well in a ranged battle, and are available to a majority of factions(Spain, Portugal, HRE, Milan, Venice, Sicily, Papal States and Hungary, or 8 of the 15 playable factions. I think that's a pretty good performance ratio, especially when you consider their modest 490 florins recruitment cost. They are also cheaper to maintain(By 50 florins less for militia, 25 for Pavisers) than longbowmen. This adds up: 2 longbow units cost as much to maintain as 3 Pavise Militia! Genoese are more expensive, but you get a higher starting armor, and their actual Pavisers have Attack 14 AP! Yowsers. In addition, the Genoese can have 1 higher level of armor than other Pavisers, so they're better protected.

I like Pavisers because I don't have to rush to kill enemy archers to keep my missile units alive, and I can actually let them exchange volleys for a while, while my cavalry can manuever to a flank. Or, and this is VERY important when using Catapults, I can let my artillery soften up the enemy army, without worrying that my cavalry chasing down archers are going to catch friendly fire. That's important! I've lost too many family members during what would've been heroic victories, to my inaccurate siege weaponry.

[Myth]

1. You did not account for Retinue Longbowmen. England can get them within 10-15 turns if they Crusade against Cordoba.
2. You did not account for arched shots. Crossbows need clear line of sight or they are virtually useless. Longbowmen do not - they can shoot past your melee line.
3. You did not account for bodkin arrows being unaffected by wind and snow, unless light on fire. Try testing in varying weather.

Testing Crossbowmen (who have the pavise shields on their backs which makes them much better vs arrow fire) vs Longbowmen does not mean they are better overall, just better at enduring arrow fire. Test 6 stacks of Retinue Longbowmen and 6 stacks of Dism. Feudal Knights vs 6 stacks of Pavise/Genoes Crossbowmen and 6 stacks of Dism. Feudal knights to get a better idea.

Add cav if you want to test the stakes, though we all know they are made of awesome.

[Beggarman]

1. You did not account for Retinue Longbowmen. England can get them within 10-15 turns if they Crusade against Cordoba.

I'm only accounting for troops of similar tiers, rather than what is possible under specific campaign strategies. Milan, Venice, and possibly Sicily can all have Pavise Militia by turn 5, and they can retrain them in a larger variety of locations. Also, Retinue longbow cost 230 florins more, and require more infrastructure(something to the tune of almost 18k more florins for their troop buildings) to build. I chose Yeomen because Yeomen are more easily produced, can be retrained in more locations, etc. Whether or not Retinue are better is irrelevant: they are Citidal produced troops, compared to Minor City/Fortress troops. They should be better!

2. You did not account for arched shots. Crossbows need clear line of sight or they are virtually useless. Longbowmen do not - they can shoot past your melee line.

Just ran a second series of tests: 4 Levy spearmen, 4 Longbows/ 4 Armored Sergeants, 4 Pavisers vs 10 unupgraded scottish spear militia(poor scots...). Weather conditions, foggy. I ran these battles until the melee charge was initiated and skirmish mode triggered, so as to focus on the casualties inflicted by the missile troops. Formation was a simple line of spears, with missile troops behind them, with no overlap for clear LOS. Results:
Longbows: 12, 28, 15, 18, 12
Pavisers: 16, 24, 26, 20, 12

Strangely, in the test where the Longbows were supposed to have the "advantage", the Pavisers actually out performed them. Signifigantly.

3. You did not account for bodkin arrows being unaffected by wind and snow, unless light on fire. Try testing in varying weather.

You are correct I didn't test for weather conditions: I know of no way to match up weather conditions exactly for each battle, so it's a variable that I don't think I can isolate. Without being able to isolate it, we cant be sure how much effect it would actually have, so I didn't test for it.

Testing Crossbowmen (who have the pavise shields on their backs which makes them much better vs arrow fire) vs Longbowmen does not mean they are better overall, just better at enduring arrow fire. Test 6 stacks of Retinue Longbowmen and 6 stacks of Dism. Feudal Knights vs 6 stacks of Pavise/Genoes Crossbowmen and 6 stacks of Dism. Feudal knights to get a better idea.

I ran a test of 4 Yeomen/4 Pavisers vs 4 Dismounted Feudals with armor upgrade. I concluded each test after the feudals initiated a charge, because otherwise, I have to actually micromanage the troops, and that brings in the element of human control vs. AI control. Under human control, was able to win each battle, no matter what troops I used, so that's a variable that has to be eliminated. So I just allowed for volleys until the charges caused skirmishing away. Weather: clear Results:
Longbows: 31, 27, 22, 41, 28
Pavisers: 32, 28, 43, 36, 41

Pavisers came out ahead, again, significantly.

Add cav if you want to test the stakes, though we all know they are made of awesome.

Yeah, considering the AI cant avoid charging headlong into the stakes, I just left them as a moot point: we all know stakes make Longbowmen better against Pavisers, and no amount of testing will prove otherwise, because the AI is st00pid.

Again, my initial test was simply to see how the troop types performed against ranged fire, because that's what I like about pavisers: they don't drop like flies to enemy archery. They also inflict large numbers of casualties against heavily armored troops, which was my initial hypothesis as well. Are they better over-all? I'm not sure. The Longbowmen are better at killing enemies in melee, while Pavisers have longer staying power in melee due to their superior protection. Yeomen Longbowmen, on the other hand, are more expensive(190 florins, to be precise), and only available to 1 faction(unless you take the less effective mercenaries, who are very expensive to maintain, and also lack shields, so more susceptible to archery. I think it's largely a wash.

As for the 6 Retinue Longbowmen vs. 6 Crossbowmen: that's a cost difference of 1380 florins, which measures up to almost 3 units of Pavisers. Do you really think 6 retinue are going to out perform 8, almost 9, pavisers? I'll run a quick test, should take about an hour, and post the results.

[Beggarman]

6 retinue vs 8 Pavisers, arsuf, foggy weather, Retinue start in loose formation and are on defensive. Results: 277/90(Pavisers), 277/145(Pavisers), 251/190(Pavisers), 257/168(pavisers), 278/195(Pavisers).

Noot too bad, for being outnumbered. But yeah, that's my point: Retinue Longbows are more expensive to train, upkeep and tech up to than Pavise Crosbowmen or Pavise Militia. In grand campaign, this matters because you've gotta balance military recruitment with economic infrastructure. The fact that retinue require about 19.2k to tech up to(Citadel and Marksman range), they arn't exactly an easy to grab force, and represent a considerable investment of resources. Think about all the different things you can do with 19k florins for the factions with Pavisers.

[Beggarman]

Also, I should add that in the above test, I was using fully upgraded units, which is another example of why Retinue arn't really relevant: the cost for the heavier armourers becomes quite impressive, which means that we're looking at even more investment for your Retinue to perform at their best.

[edbenedict77]

Nice topic. Presently playing as the English, will have to see how my retinue longbows fair against Milanese Pavis Xbows :)

[Beggarman]

Nice topic. Presently playing as the English, will have to see how my retinue longbows fair against Milanese Pavis Xbows :)

I'm starting to think, but haven't tested, that your best bet is probably to spread into open formation, and rush the xbowmen. If you Retinue have heavy mail, they have DEF 15 in melee, and Attack 11. Genose Militia have Attack 6, DEF 15, while Crossbows have Attack 8, DEF 16(and come with heavy mail). Longbowmen are at Attack -4 or -5, while Genose are at -9 or -8. I think that difference will allow the Retinue to outfight the Genose and break them(they have better morale than the Militia, tie with the Crossbowmen. Don't try to outshoot them, and it looks like the Pavisers will perform admirably against shooting(where they put you at Attack -4/-5, vs their Attack 6 or 8).

If the genoese have other infantry, and come on strong, have your longbow tear up the infantry coming in, and retreat behidn lines when charges look immenient. take of skirmish mode once everythign is engaged, or it's safe to do so, and try to get your long bow to rush into the Crossbows: where they can probably kill off them.

It's hypothetical whether it really works effectively, but I've used the same idea vs. Genoese before, because those crossbows are lethal!

[Myth]

Not sure how you tested the arched shots battle, did you place the crossbows behind the troops? They still outperformed yeomen archers?

Also I disagree that costs matter at all in the Grand Campaign. As soon as you expand to either Spain or take coastal France and present day Netherlands you are swimming in cash. When you launch or join the first crusade to get free upkeep on all your stacks you can boom your cities for gold and pop and when it ends you can't spend your gold anyway. Especially if you raid and pillage across Muslim territory.

[Beggarman]

Not sure how you tested the arched shots battle, did you place the crossbows behind the troops? They still outperformed yeomen archers?

Yup, had them set up behind the troops the whole time, and the results were what I posted. I think the Arcing thing might have been under the unpatched version, I'm patched up to 1.05(I think?), and I haven't had trouble with 2handers, pikes or crossbows. Muskets still act a little flakey at times.

Also I disagree that costs matter at all in the Grand Campaign. As soon as you expand to either Spain or take coastal France and present day Netherlands you are swimming in cash. When you launch or join the first crusade to get free upkeep on all your stacks you can boom your cities for gold and pop and when it ends you can't spend your gold anyway. Especially if you raid and pillage across Muslim territory.

It all depends on how your campaign goes, I guess. I generally play Very Hard campaigns with Normal Battles. And I've definitely felt the pinch when it comes to money. In anycase, 18k for Retinue isn't exactly a pittance. Generally, I don't think you NEED retinue, as Yeomen seem to work fairly effectively. I'd rather spend the money on upgrading my Barracks line so I can produce better heavy infantry.

But in any case, if you can make Pavise Militia, you're going to be able to swarm a whole lot more of them than possible for longbows, and the great thing? Easy as pie to retrain them. My current Milan game(Very Hard/Very Hard) is certainly strapped for cash, but I've been trying to be respectable, and not get Excommunicated. It's not easy, but it's not very hard. here's the results of a successful sally:

[Myth]

I only play VH/VH and I always get way too much gold way too early so the challenge of picking my unit composition goes away. I rarely lead battles myself at that point as it's faster to just re-train or recruit new armies. Unless the autocalc makes me lose or I'm particularly bored and have time. So it's a matter of playstyle I suppose.

[Beggarman]

How do you get so much money on VH/VH? I've had good luck with the HRE, France and Turks, but everyone else seems to be hard pressed for cash. Even in my Milan game I'm playing right now, I'm hurting for cash.

[Myth]

Hmm... Well I boom my cities for +pop (farms and health buildings like the Councl Chambers) first, then I make ports and other eco buildngs. I leave the armour and unit upgrades for last, as I can win the battles vs the Ai with wahtever I have at the start. I usually take as many rebel provinces as I can, and sell Alliance/Trade/Map info to anyone and everyone. This has an avalanche effect because the more nations you are allied with, the better the value of your own alliance. Thus the AI will pay as much as 6000 gold for the whole package. This takes care of my early game needs.

I mass units and as soon as I start running out of cash I call a Crusade and join it with everyone I can. I continue booming my cities and making more units so that the second generation generals will have armies when they come of age. The free upkeep from the Crusading armies is the greatest boon you can get early on. Well, if you want to be even better off, go by land and rape and pillage your way trough the Turks, demolishing buildings for cash and sacking settlements. That will net you 60,000 gold or more for the value of one crusade alone!

That is a bit unfair though, so you might be content to just sack and keep the settlements. If you want to hold your provinces in Muslim territories bring 10 or so priests along. They soon all become Cardinals and there is a high chance that the next Pope will be one of your own.

After the first Crusade (Cordoba is great if you want a big castle that is easy to keep, Jerusalem, Acre, Tyre etc. are great for the nation that can afford to support large garissions overseas. Like, say, the HRE) you can return, rebuild and retrain and wait for the inevitable AI attack. Though since you are maxed with the Pope favor you can just attack someone you don't like (Milan, France, Venice, Spain or Portugal make good candidates depending on your position).

Remember, in TW nothing beats sea trade! Get tons of ports, merchant wafts etc. and try to have trade rights with anyone who has sea access to your lands. At some point you will have so much land and sea trade that you will be unable to spend your florins. I think you will manage from then on.

If you are really really poor just recruit 6-8 Merchants, hop them on a boat and sail for Africa. Go South of the Moors territories until you reach Timbuktu. The gold, gems and other goods there yuield 200+ florins for inexperienced merchants and can reach 1200-1400 for maxed ones. You can see the profit in that of course.

[daztheviking]

Ok guys, first post here. I've been reading the forums for a while but want to share an idea i've had regarding the OP's original question

I don't think you can accurately measure which unit is "better" because there are so many variables in any battle. What i can measure, through huge amounts of testing and statistics, is which unit's projectiles does the most damage on differing units. Let me explain;

The actual units that i am going to test will be posted later today, as i am in work at the moment.

Firstly, i am going to select a unit of crossbows and a unit of longbows with the SAME "missile damage" attribute (since i am only measuring the effectiveness of the projectiles, selecting units with different attributes would lead to an unfair result). These units will be controlled by the AI, and tested one at a time.

I will then charge single units of infantry and cavalry at the crossbows/longbows, and measure how many men are lost out of the unit BEFORE they engage in melee with the missile unit (since most missiles are poor at melee, it would be pointless to measure how they perform at this point). The objective is to discover, in a standard battle situation, which type of missile is more effective against differing units. I am aware there are other variables (stakes, ability to use fire, ability to fire over troops head etc), and depending on how this experiment goes, i will also have a crack testing different battle situations.

So, the Guinea Pig units are as follows:

1. Poor infantry (early infantry, poor attack and defence, Spear militia or similar)
2. Medium infantry (medium infantry, medium A & D, Armoured seargants or similar)
3. Elite Infantry (High or late infantry, high A & D, Feudal knights or similar)

4. Poor Light cavalry (early, very light cavalry, Scouts etc)
5. Good Light Cavalry (not sure what this unit will be yet, may be discounted)
6. Poor Heavy Cavalry (early period heavy cav unit)
7 Good Heavy cavalry (Templar knights or similar)

Ok, so these units will go against the two missile units separately, and in each case i will measure how many of the unit die before engaging in melee with the missile unit. I will test each unit on every difficulty setting, and avarage the result out. this way, i can compare the two missile units effectiveness against the different units and (hopefully) find out which is better against which type of unit. The results should look something like this;


1 Poor infantry Vs Crossbows

(the letters in each case represent difficulty. Note that all tests will be run on the same map, same weather- for now anyway)

VE-[Number of men lost]
E- [Number of men lost]
M- [Number of men lost]
H- [Number of men lost]
VH-[Number of men lost]

[Avarage men lost to crossbow unit]

We then do the same with Longbows vs Poor infantry, and compare the results. Then with all other units.

This will bring the total number of battle tests to 70, 45 for each unit. Hopefully it should throw up some results which can then be used to plan your tactics for different battles. If we do see a trend, i will try it with different weather and other variables.

Let me know what you think!

Daztheviking

[A Nerd]

I look forward to seeing what you come up with! :) Welcome to the .org by the way!

[where's yur troosers]

It will be interesting seeing the results of the detailed testing, but Retinue Longbows and Geonese Crossbows are both superb units. I imagine the longbows would fair worse in a straight shoot out, but I would not use them for that. I think the longbows are more handy in a defensive situation - deploy those wonderfully cheesy stakes then drop behind your infantry line from where you can still shoot effectively and quickly. Crossbows are easier to manage in attack especially against an enemy who just sits back and allows you to pepper them. I wouldn't say no to either unit and always try to hire the (inferior) mercenary versions if my faction does not have access as of right.

[daztheviking]

Ok, after quite a lot of deliberation last night, i have finally settled on the two missile units- English Retinue Longbowmen Vs French Peasant Crossbowmen. I appreciate there is a huge difference interms of melle attack and defence between these two, but it terms of missile damage they are very similar. Generally speaking, crossbows deal much more damage than archers in terms of projectiles (the maximum damage for arrows is 7/8 , whearas crossbow bolts come in at 14/15).

I'm going to test tonight, so stand by for the results

[ArcturUs]

Longbows are way better than xbows, not that i hate xbows, but the requirements for an xbow to be effective simply makes it a less useful weapon than longbow, and of those, tests, I can't say those are very sure, caz I have had a battle with Milan (2 Genoese xbow) and me using 2 retinue longbow, there, i won that battle

, so a lot depends on how you use them not their sheer values . Not to mention that xbows need a clear los to be effective and they don't do morale damage like fire arrows of longbows .

[Nelson]

"requirements for an xbow to be effective simply makes it a less useful weapon than longbow"

The requirement TO BE ENGLAND makes longbowmen quite a bit less useful for every other faction, wouldn't you say?!

Granted, there are some mercs out there but never nearly enough to exploit the unit like England can. I've played England and the Italians and found that crossbowmen and longbowmen are both very effective. I will add that longbomen profit from shoddy scholarship with the armor piercing and the fire arrows but will concede that this being a game the comparisons are what they are.

[Vladimir]

Just to jump on the bandwagon: Why didn't you test them against various types of units? Testing them against each other is kinda pointless. As Nelson stated, the requirement to be England is one of the most stringent in the game. How do longbows compare to crossbows against commonly fielded troops? I think the longbows would do better with their rate of fire but that's what I'm interested in. Crossbows from different factions would be interesting as well.

[ArcturUs]

"requirements for an xbow to be effective simply makes it a less useful weapon than longbow"

The requirement TO BE ENGLAND makes longbowmen quite a bit less useful for every other faction, wouldn't you say!

Granted, there are some mercs out there but never nearly enough to exploit the unit like England can. I've played England and the Italians and found that crossbowmen and longbowmen are both very effective. I will add that longbomen profit from shoddy scharlarship with the armor peircing and the fire arrows but will concede that this being a game the comparisons are what they are.

I think you have misunderstood my statement, I did not say that xbows are less useful for other factions, what I meant to say was that when compared to longbows, xbows aren't as good, in other words, longbows are better than xbows. Factions are an entirely different thing.

Just to jump on the bandwagon: Why didn't you test them against various types of units? Testing them against each other is kinda pointless. As Nelson stated, the requirement to be England is one of the most stringent in the game. How do longbows compare to crossbows against commonly fielded troops? I think the longbows would do better with their rate of fire but that's what I'm interested in. Crossbows from different factions would be interesting as well.

Ill be posting the results of such battles soon :P

EDIT: Here are the results,
2 Retinue, 2 AS vs 2 NS, 2 HN




2GC, 2 DFK vs 2 DFK, 2 HN




Not much of difference there, Note that i used DFKs for Milan as they dont have the likes of AS to defend well against NS, the highest def infantry is only DFK, so i used DFK for enemy too to make it easier for Milan. Xbows do kill more than longbows, but longbows end the battle quicker, the reason is they rout units instead of killing them. and when you have cavalry unit which most of us will have, you can run down the enemy which will earn you ransom money when you find yourself in a tight situation. I basically choose longbows caz its more fun to rout them

And about England having to spend more money than pavisers to get their pro longbows, considering the fact that English start recruiting ordinary longbows very early in the game, a good English player would use the tier 1 longbows to full advantage caz as far as I know, England has one of the deadliest early game archer unit (Longbowmen). An English player would have full stacked before a Italian one could start to produce those decent GC. And by that time, the English player would start to send out Yeomen, so the combination of Yeomen and tier 1 longbows would be better than GC and Militas or GC and PCB. But a lot depends on the skill of the player not the values as I have said before.

One more reason why I like longbows is because historically, Longbows require a great deal of skill and marksmanship compared to a crossbow. A person can master a crossbow within months, but to use a longbow he has to practise for years together. Longbowmen are often drawn at a very young age and trained unlike crossbowmen.

[Vladimir]

Interesting, thanks. I didn't think the crossbows would kill more.

I prefer crossbows because I remember the arbalest crossbow from MTW. Like laser beams they were.

[ArcturUs]

Interesting, thanks. I didn't think the crossbows would kill more.

I prefer crossbows because I remember the arbalest crossbow from MTW. Like laser beams they were.

Well, nothing can be sure, as I have said before a lot depends on how you use your troops no matter what they are, it depends on the tactical and strategic skills of the player. A good player will avoid mistakes and take advantage of those made by his opponents :P

Edit: here are a few ss of my recent battles in English campaign (VH/VH) showcasing the strength of longbows :D







they strike again, but i was able to defend myself with the same army (without replacing the losses in the previous battle)





I doubt whether I would have pulled it off if i had genoese xbows or xbows of any sort.
Note: I used plain longbowmen not retinue.

But in any case, if you can make Pavise Militia, you're going to be able to swarm a whole lot more of them than possible for longbows, and the great thing? Easy as pie to retrain them. My current Milan game(Very Hard/Very Hard) is certainly strapped for cash, but I've been trying to be respectable, and not get Excommunicated. It's not easy, but it's not very hard.

Well, a good English player would make use of the normal longbows (not yeomen) before he can get yeomen out, and I would say
the normal longbows are better than pavise and they can be swarmed out just like pavise mlitia or even better than pavise militia.
I usually start to send out longbow swarms right by turn 12~15 and the no. of longbows just keeps increasing, they are also easy
retrain because its requirements are not as heavy as retinue. Even yeomen take some time to come out, but not longbows.
The English have one diasadvantage to other factions, they don't have decent spearmen to counter cavalry, still if they bring in
longbows, they can be quite formiddable as seen above.

Some more pics, this time against the Danes, in another VH/VH campaign

[where's yur troosers]

I have nothing scientific or statistical to add to this debate, merely an annecdote. I had a little skirmish against some rebels last night. I was playing as France and marched out a general, 3 militia spears and a unit of scot's guard to swat a pesky little force of pikes and a unit of militia crossbows.

I sent my spears against the pikes whilst running my general round to the rear and set my bows to fire at the crossbows. I then concentrated on the pikes and sucessfully dealt with them. When I turned my attention back to the missile dual I was surprised to see that my scots guard had 34 men left as opposed to the crossbow's 26. That hardly seemed like a good return for what are meant to be one of the best archers n the game against one of the most basic.

[Nelson]

I'm not familiar with the Scots Guard unit. Is it longbowmen?

Were your archers in close order while the enemy were in open order? That could explain it. Otherwise, I agree that one would expect a different result.

[Myth]

Scotts Guard are French longbowmen with plate armour. Terrain and formation size do play a role though.

[archimedez]

Hello, I like to mention that the attack and defense stats do not mean as much as the circumstances.

I am playing the game for a week now and after one campaign at medium difficulty,
I just finished the HRE long compaign at VH/VH difficulty mainly using Town Militia and Peasant Archers.
That was not the original plan, but I was drawn into more and more conflicts so I ended up with 5 conflict zones at a time.

Suprisingly the 4-6 units of Peasant Archers behind the line of Town Militia killed pretty much everything from Mailed Knights to DFKs.
All that was required to hit the enemy at the Town Milita was a tiny slope elevating the archers about 1 yard above the melee line.

The archers became even stronger in siege attacks, once i had them on the walls they were killing the enemy in the streets like they had an attack of 18 and not of 5.

Maybe someone can link the mechanics behind this "strong boost" archers get from elevated position or close range.
Because from what I have read on the forum so far, an attack of 5 should be pretty much useless against most units with a shield or armor.

On that very interesting other topic about the armor piercing capabilities of longbows:
I saw a documentary some time ago where they tested various bows against a roman hauberk.
The classic bows did not have the required combination of arrow tip shape and force to burst open the links of the hauberk.
So one could indeed stand in a rain of arrows.
The longbow plus the bodkin tip then delivered the force that was required.
For that reason plate was added above the hauberk to reduce the force again.