Testing with Crossbows vs Longbows

[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.

[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! :)