[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

**Tuuvi** · 10-06-2011, 02:11

According to my quick research, the Cretans used horn composite bows similar to what the Scythians, etc. were using. So the answer is no. Here's a reproduction of a Cretan bow I found, but I think it's from before the EB time frame. http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/19534

**Arjos** · 10-06-2011, 02:28

Cheers!
So in a way Krete was the westernmost hub of eastern archery tech, with a ready to take mercenary pool; had some talks whether their fame was mostly related to their melee capabilities, giving them a plus over any regular western psiloi, or actual ballistic...
Thanks again :)

**antisocialmunky** · 10-06-2011, 04:33

Crete: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

**vartan** · 10-06-2011, 06:18

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Crete: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

This.

And oh I didn't know Crete was taking in eastern archery technology. I thought it was independently developed. Thanks for clearing that up for me Arjos. You're the man!

**Ludens** · 10-06-2011, 08:34

Interesting. I did wonder about the Cretan bows.

Originally Posted by Arjos

So in a way Krete was the westernmost hub of eastern archery tech, with a ready to take mercenary pool; had some talks whether their fame was mostly related to their melee capabilities, giving them a plus over any regular western psiloi, or actual ballistic...

There is a factor other than bow-technology or melee skill that could explain the reputation of Cretan archers: aggression and tactical skill. For example: Napoleon's light infantry didn't use special muskets or engage in close-combat fighting more often than other skirmishers, but they were very effective. This was the result of aggressive deployment and good leadership; I read that their marksmanship skills were actually poor.

Also, the TW games restrict the fighting to large-scale battles, but especially light troops would spend most of their time patrolling, skirmishing or raiding. Better bows or more accurate rifles won't make a great difference in these situations, since the enemy will often get too close for them to matter. Aggression and clever deployment are the deciding factors here.

This cannot be properly simulated on the TW engine, though.

**TheShakAttack** · 10-06-2011, 10:46

Hey

Interesting discussion. I wanted to see what others said before I weighed in.

As far as I know, Cretans used composite bows which were not recurved (as many of the steppe peoples used) made out of locally available materials. Whilst these composite bows were more powerful than the self bows used by the vast majority of mainland Greeks, they would not be as powerful as the composites used further east or in the Steppe. It is very likely that they picked up some of the knowledge on bow-making from these regions, though there is nothing to indicate that they could replicate the same quality of bows. Even though they used composites, obviously not all composites are made equal (due to variations in materials, technology, know-how, etc). Even is the East and Steppe regions, there were significant variations in quality- a good quality bow could take upto 10 years to make (aging/gluing materials etc).

Just a quick note on the earlier link. Whilst it is incredibly interesting, the author of that post does not make his sources clear, nor which time period the bow he used refers to. I am generally reluctant to rely on such material.

The only source I have been able to find which speaks of Cretan bow range (Anabasis by Xenophon) explains that the Cretans were not able to match the range of Persian slingers or archers. Do keep in mind that Xenophon wrote earlier than the EB time period, though by this time, the Greeks had exchanges with Scythians (and would presumably have had an opportunity for trade and exchange of knowledge).

I am very inclined to agree with Ludens in his assessment of Cretan archers- namely that the reason for their renown is due to their aggression, ability to understand and follow orders and high morale rather than their prowess as marksmen or the power of their bows. Being scumbags also gives them that distinctive touch :).

Though this is purely conjecture, I think another reason for their frequent use and mention may well be because they were the only decent archers that the earlier Greeks, and most civilisations west of them, would have access to. By the time of Diadochi and late republic Rome, they already established a “brand name”. Plus, they would have been easier to integrate into a Western/Hellenic army (due to common language, culture and ethos) than say a band of Scythians or Persians.

I have always thought that a significant, unsubstantiated bias was given in favour of Cretan Archers in EB (strictly) in terms of their bow range and attack; and lately, accuracy. I think they should be inferior to Eastern and Steppe archers (even the medium-quality ones) in terms of range, attack. Accuracy should be same-ish as medium-quality, and slighly higher than persian levies. Melee and armor should remain the same though. They were noted as being crazy in melee and relatively heavily armoured.

**Lazy O** · 10-06-2011, 12:45

All hail the Shak. Making long posts so I dont have to. Yay

**Arjos** · 10-06-2011, 13:22

Originally Posted by Ludens

Interesting. I did wonder about the Cretan bows.

I wasn't much thinking about accuracy, as with such big numbers in battle something is to get hit...
But rather penetration and missile speed, then yes I agree that battlefield awareness must have been a nice addition, not to mention they spoke greek, which must have been a plus considering the employing "nations"...

**vartan** · 10-06-2011, 17:08

So we wait and pray for gg2 to correct the Kretan monsters? Bahahah. Bosphorans remain the top dog then, eh? Those Greeks in the East must have learned quickly then!

**Lazy O** · 10-06-2011, 17:11

I dont believe they were greeks, who says they were greeks? Isnt it much more probable that they were Scythians?

And what happened to your presentation?

**-Stormrage-** · 10-06-2011, 17:47

I found a cheap way to win, a very cheap exploit . replay

Who needs archers just get all infantry and some cav . and even if the guy you go up agaisnt brings archers and slingers he wont do anything .

**vartan** · 10-06-2011, 18:26

Originally Posted by Lazy O

I dont believe they were greeks, who says they were greeks? Isnt it much more probable that they were Scythians?

And what happened to your presentation?

The Greeks colonized from Iberia to the Black Sea.

It had great reception. People asked many questions about EB, and I answered the best I could. If only presentation could be dedicated to the multiplayer aspect alone!

**gamegeek2** · 10-06-2011, 20:21

Originally Posted by Lazy O

I dont believe they were greeks, who says they were greeks? Isnt it much more probable that they were Scythians?

And what happened to your presentation?

Ah, now I understand why you don't like historical accuracy as a stat system's basis!

Anyways, I like the interpretation of Cretans' effectiveness put forward by Shak and Ludens. This would leave Bosporans and Elite Dacians as the only expensive foot archer units, assuming we reduced Cretans' accuracy and cost to tier 2 levels.