muskets vs.longbows in MTW2

[poo_for_brains]

There was a thread on the forum about how rubbish firearms were when they first came into use. Since in MTW2, if playing as the English, you will probably have tonnes of units of good longbowmen by the time gunpowder is discovered, will their be any point in switching to muskets, except for scaring horses?

It seems to be that the only other advantage of gunpowder units is that they will be cheap, but by the time they come in, a good player will have a steady economy already.

Just wondering what people thought.

[Myrddraal]

I think the main problem with longbowmen historically was that it's much much harder to train someone to be good with a bow than it is to train someone to point a gun and fire it...

Longbows were more effective than early gunpower weaponry, but much harder to train.

[Sethik]

An effective way to balance the issue is to increase the unit size of musketmen. Since it was much easier to train a man to point and fire than to draw and shoot there should be more musketmen per unit.

I think it might also add a massive musketmen line as a viable strategy.

[Myrddraal]

Well now that there's these recruitment pools, the simple way would be to have a much much larger recruitment pool for gunpowder units.

[professorspatula]

Yes but unless they make Gunpowder units more useful and cost effective, you probably won't require more than a few units in an army, so greater availability won't be that important. Unless of course longbow availability is very scarce, but then you wouldn't want it to be that scarce throughout the campaign or you won't have enough pre-gunpowder age. I wonder therefore if unit recruitment replenishment changes over the course of time, or indeed unit costs? Or maybe we can just all spam musket armies!

I'm sure CA has it all figured out though.

[Tamur]

I don't know what M2TW will be like, but powder will likely be a battle-winner par excellence based on its effects to morale.

With bows in MTW, one enjoyed the same casualty rate as mid-grade powder units. However, the difference was that, with powder units, the enemy loses 5, 10, 15 men at the same instant after a volley is fired. I remember this as a rout-inducer by itself in MTW, even without the additional cavalry-fright effect, and I would guess (just a guess, of course) that M2TW will be similar.

[Ignoramus]

I fear that CA may accidently overpower gunpowder units. Arquebusiers in MTW were about exactly right.

[DisruptorX]

I felt that guns in MTW were vastly underpowered. Against the AI, they often never even got a shot off before they were either in melee, or blocked by allied units. The AI wasn't stupid, and did its best to stop you from using them. At maximum range, they never seemed to hit anything, and were decimated by crossbows. It took a ridiculous amount of effort to use them effectively, far more effort than they were actually worth, you had to really want to use them.

It may just be that I haven't used them all that much, so I'm not good with them, but still. Extremely finesse based.

The downsides will be obvious in any event, short range, long reload time compared to the long range, fast firing longbows.

[JR-]

sounds pretty historical to me.

[DisruptorX]

The main problem, at least, for me, was that you could not order your men to load their guns before lining up the shot.. The unit had to start reloading from scratch every time it moved.

Also, your men could not fire in volleys while the rank behind them reloaded. I don't know if this tactic had come into use so early on, but it seems like common sense to me.

[poo_for_brains]

Also, your men could not fire in volleys while the rank behind them reloaded. I don't know if this tactic had come into use so early on, but it seems like common sense to me.

In the new game, your gunpowder troops now fire in volleys, so that's not a problem.

As for the people talking about recruitment pools, by the time gunpowder is invented, you are hundreds of years into the game - plenty of time to build up a healthy amount of longbowmen, even if the recruitmnt pools are relatively small.

Anyway, the recruitmnt pools for longbows should be big shouldn't they? - I thought everyone in England had to learn to shoot a bow.

[cannon_fodder]

Hmm, I'd say...

Arquebuses should have a greater range, greater power, a greater morale effect, and far greater recruitement pools.
Longbows should have a greater rate of fire, far greater accuracy, the ability to fire in rainy weather, and possibly lesser upkeep.

Base costs should be about the same.

[CBR]

Also, your men could not fire in volleys while the rank behind them reloaded. I don't know if this tactic had come into use so early on, but it seems like common sense to me.

If put in two ranks only they will fire a volley. In 3 ranks they fire by revolving ranks. Handguns and arquebus in MTW had lousy killing power. An arquebus should be comparable with a heavy crossbow IMO.

So far we have only seen revolving ranks fire in M2TW vids. I think M2TW will have both the arquebus and the musket(mentioned in a description of a vid somewhere IIRC)


CBR

[TB666]

Hmm, I'd say...

Arquebuses should have a greater range,

No way.
Arquebuses should have alot less less range then longbows.
The way it worked in MTW1 was good IMO, medium range, not very accurate but great with reducing morale.

[Vladimir]

The later gun units, Arquebusseres or something, were actually quite effective against the AI. Just put them in front of some pikes, halbs, or spears and the computer will be so afraid to take on the spears they'll march around confused while the gun units engage and destroy them. If they did attack you just had to pull your guns back and let your infantry stall while your cav or elite infantry came in on the flanks and destroyed them. Gunpowder worked quite well, especially on the offense when you had better control of the weather. If you put your guns in ranks of 3 the rate of fire is very good. You can take out a general's unit in 2 or 3 volleys.

[Myrddraal]

the ability to fire in rainy weather

True, but a bowstring isn't very effective if it gets wet.

[Furious Mental]

If you look at the screenshots of what is apparently the Battle of Pavia, you can see that there are different firearms in use, apparently arquebuses and the larger musket.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm, I'd say...

Arquebuses should have a greater range, greater power, a greater morale effect, and far greater recruitement pools.
Longbows should have a greater rate of fire, far greater accuracy, the ability to fire in rainy weather, and possibly lesser upkeep.

Base costs should be about the same.

The maximum range of a warbow firing a 1 1/2 lb arrow would be as much as 400 yards, based on a 110 lb pull, which was about average. Maximum effective range was around 200 yards for actually killing a man. For punching through early plate range is about 60 yards. Refire rate could be as much as 20 arrows a minute but was usually more like 12, 6 when directly aiming.

By contrast the Civil-War era musket could not be accurately aimed, had a maximum range of just over 100 yards and an effective range of about 75. The fastest refire rate you could hope for would be 4 rounds a minute tops and the weapon was largely ineffective against plate. In fact breastplates were shot at at close range before being sold; the dent being a quality mark.

Thats not to mention the Crossbow, which could have a greater range and lethality than the warbow, while being faster firing and easier to use than the aquabus or musket.

The only advantage gunpounder weapons have is that you can carry about four times as much ammunition.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

crossbows are effective and easy to train too.
unfortuantly it takes long to reload.

[econ21]

By contrast the Civil-War era musket ... was largely ineffective against plate.

No disrespect intended, but I find that hard to believe - otherwise why did armour pretty much disappear with the spread of the firearm? (By Civil War, do you mean English Civil War? If so, armour then was vastly reduced compared to the pre-gunpowder era: maybe one or two units of cuirassiers were well armoured in a medieval sense; most others having a helmet and breastplate at best).

Or are you saying early firearms were not good against plate? If so, when did firearms become effective? By the Napoleonic period, breastplates were certainly not proof against muskets (hence their rarity).

[Myrddraal]

Thats not to mention the Crossbow, which could have a greater range and lethality than the warbow, while being faster firing and easier to use than the aquabus or musket.

Are crossbows really faster to reload than a musket?

[Vladimir]

Are crossbows really faster to reload than a musket?

Well that would depend on the poundage of the crossbow and what era musket you are refering to; flintlock vs. percussion cap, etc.

[ajaxfetish]

In MTW some units required multiple years to train. Perhaps that could be implemented to represent the greater commitment and difficulty of training longbowmen vs. crossbows or musketeers. Then regardless of relative cost, upkeep, or recruitment availability, longbows would be a greater investment because the province would be tied up longer in producing them.

Ajax

edit: I felt very satisfied by the relative power, reload, accuracy, etc. of the bow and gunpowder units in MTW.

[CBR]

As 1 1/2 pounds is 681 grams surely you mean ounces? I have seen around 100 grams to be the max. A standard flight arrow would have a range of about 350 yard rang and the heavy arrows 200-250 yards, depending on draw weight.

It took some very thick steel plate to stop muskets and overall gunpowder weapons can be considered quite effective against steel armour.

http://www.medievalproductions.nl/fi...tyacrobat7.pdf

Crossbow reload time depends on how powerful they are. The clawbelt was faster than the crannequin used for the heavy crossbows. I'm pretty sure an arquebus is faster than a heavy crossbow. The heavy musket would perhaps be similar to heavy crossbows.

And crossbows are not really easy to train with. Sure it doesnt take long to figure out how to reload it but it takes lots of practice to hit anything beyond very short range.

Gunpowder weapons always had one clear advantage over bows and crossbows and that was the muzzle velocity. IMO it was easier to hit a fleeting target, in a siege or skirmish, with guns than with crossbows/bows. In battles the much longer danger zone of bullets meant accurate judgement of the range was not as important. And the forward movement of a target unit didnt require the same amount of adjusting for range.


CBR

[JFC]

Are crossbows really faster to reload than a musket?

Take a look.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A bow of the strength described by Stayner and Paterson would project a war arrow a long distance. But here again, no one is sure how far: Stayner believes the war arrow had an effective range of 180 yards; Paterson maintains a slightly further distance of 200 yards; and Bartelot estimates a useful range of 249 yards. Captain George Burnet, Secretary to the Royal Scottish Archers, notes that the members of the Queen's Body Guard for Scotland, who still shoot, use six foot long self yew bows of 55 to 60 pounds draw weight. The range of these modern bows is 180-200 yards shooting light target shafts.

The longbow, because of its rapidity of fire, was a medieval machine gun. It has been calculated that a bowman of the Hundred Years War period, when military archery was at its zenith, could shoot 10 to 12 arrows a minute. The closest weapon in range and strength to the longbow was the crossbow. But, as the battle of Crecy (1346) showed, even the superior Genoese composite crossbow - made of wood, horn, sinew and glue - was no match for the English weapon.

After firearms were introduced into continental warfare, Sir John Smythe, soldier of fortune, and Queen Elizabeth's ambassador to the Spanish Court of Philip II, noted that "archers are able to discharge four or five arrows apiece before the harquebusies shall be ready to discharge one bullet."

I wonder if CA will allow the soldiers to use the two finger gesture?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The French used to cut off the index and middle finger of English Longbowmen POWs thus cutting short their days of firing the Bow. The two figer gesture thus began to taunt the both the French POWs and on the Battle Field to indicate their ability to fire the Longbow.

[Myrddraal]

And for all you yanks out there, the two finger gesture continues to be an equivalent to the the middle finger in the UK.

BTW JFC, that quote doesn't mention crossbow reload times at all...

[cannon_fodder]

I still think arquebuses (at least in most cases) had greater ranges.

"The maximum range of the Korean bow was 460 meters, in contrast to its Japanese counterpart, a heavy composite bow whose range was 380 meters [4] which sacrified raw distance for improved accuracy. In battle, Korean archers would find themselves outranged against Japanese musketeers, who had a range of about 500 meters." (from Wikipedia)

I've read in other places that the arquebus had a greater range, but I've also read the inverse. However, a projectile launched by way of rapid conversion of solid to gas travelling further seems more likely (scientifcally speaking) than a projectile launched by tension of wood. Of course the longbow should have a greater effective range, but this should purely be a consequence of that weapon's accuracy.

An arquebus has a muzzle velocity of about 800 fps, while a longbow has one of about 130 fps. Of course, the arquebus ball would suffer greater drag due to its shape and velocity, but those figures suggest to me a greater range for the arquebus.

And I'm certain that gunpowder weapons were far more powerful. I have also read of heavy plate armour being able to stop an arquebus ball. But such armour wouldn't be used by rank-and-file troops (at least not until some time in the late 16th century). And anything that could stop an arquebus ball could also stop an arrow fired from a longbow; I'm also certain that the arquebus' percussion effect far outbalanced the bow's penetration effect. Note also that stopping something with a percussion effect will no doubt still lead to injury (as it's actually stopped by the deformation of metal, both the ball and plate), which is not necessarily the case for arrows.

As for crossbows, I've read that most had a far lesser range than the longbow, greater power, a somewhat higher ROF than an arquebus, a shorter range than both, and greater accuracy than both.

[Myrddraal]

However, a projectile launched by way of rapid conversion of solid to gas travelling further seems more likely (scientifcally speaking)

The thing is, I'm sure early gunpowder weapons were horribly inefficient. How much of that pressure was simply wasted (through leaks, the shot not fitting the barrel etc)

[SpencerH]

I would think that the longbows range would decrease in rain due to the stretching of the bowstring. OTOH gunpowder units were totally useless. Of course, any variation in ranges/effectiveness etc will require CA to re-introduce battlefield weather effects.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Arquebusiers did not have the range of the warbow. Yes they would dominate the battlefield after Pavia but the Longbow only faded from existance due to the easy training that gunmen had. It took years to train a quality bowmen but weeks for an average gunner. Throughout the 16th century in England especially in Henry VIII reign the warbow was still prefered over the gun. The ratio of 3-4 arrows fired from an average bowmen to one fired gun says to me the power of the bow over the weapon. Seasoned bowmen could probably fire 6 to the one of a gunman, perhaps more.

Many believed that a unit of longbow men put against infantry units armed with the musket in the 18th and 19th cenury would see the latter torn to ribbons. I think some people often look into the wet bowstring a bit too much. Most bowmen would keep the string safe from weather before the battle (usually wrapped around a body part safe from rain, you can guess what the obvious choice was) and even with rain could unleashed a hell of a barrage into infantry and cavalry formations. Prolonged combat would be a problem but most archers were there to break up enemy charges not to stop it. Most after a several volly's would retire behind or on the flanks of the dismouted men at arms and would enter the melee once the enemy was sufficently weakened by casualities and fatigue.

There is no way the Musket would have chance against the warbow. Rapid fire, greater range and better accuracy imo would see them destroyed within moments. Greater impact individually? Maybe. But the mass formations of archers producing a rain of arrows wouldn't give it much advantage in my opinion. The only time guns would get the better of it would be behind earthern forts and prepared postions from where to fire e.g Castillon