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).