muskets vs.longbows in MTW2

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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

[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.

[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