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.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

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

[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.

[spacedouthamster]

It has been shown in various historical reenactments by historians and scientists that the longbow was unable to penetrate plate armour, as worn by most knights by the time of the 15th century, they even reckon that the victory at agincourt was due to the fact the arrows killed the knights horses and the riders got trappled into the mud by those following behind.

Therefore by the time muskets become widely available the effectiveness of longbows would be decreased. so longbows pro, fast rof, cheap to train, widely available,

cons, little armour penetration, no scare factor.

firearms pro, effective against all armour, scare enemies

cons, long reload time, don't work in rain, expensive to train.

historically firearms didn't really become popular in england until Henry VIII, even in the wars of the roses at the end of the 15th century only a few cannon were in use.

[Furious Mental]

I'd say longbows are pretty scary if one has to advance through a cloud of arrows. Real life isn't like a Total War game where some programmer designates certain weapons as "scary". If it is effective then it is probably also scary same as if it is novel it is probably also scary.

[econ21]

It has been shown in various historical reenactments by historians and scientists that the longbow was unable to penetrate plate armour, as worn by most knights by the time of the 15th century, they even reckon that the victory at agincourt was due to the fact the arrows killed the knights horses and the riders got trappled into the mud by those following behind.

I'm also sceptical about the ability of longbows to penetrate plate - perhaps they could if they hit at certain points and ranges, but not with the reliability of gunpowder weapons. However, on the specific point of Agincourt - the French advanced dismounted (perhaps partly from fear of what the archers could do to horses) so it was not the arrows killing horses or riders being trappled that explains the victory. It's rather like Cannae or Blenheim - one of those iconic victories that are hard to explain in simplistic terms (in all three some kind of "pressed too close together" penalty would be important). It will be interesting to see how CA model it - hefty experience advantages for the English, plus mud/exhaustion penalties for the French, perhaps?

[rory_20_uk]

Concerning muskets in STW I found them extremely useful when used correctly. Although their accuracy was not great, and rate of fire not that good either, they did slaughter at point blank and scare the enemy. So, at the crest of a hill end of a bridge bieng "greeted" by three units of muskets would inflict massive casualties on any unit type. And since there's so much ammo they'd go on firing again and again, whereas bows quickly ran out.

I thought that Panther tanks had a tendancy to catch on fire - especially in the early models.

[AussieGiant]

sharrukin post explains why the transition from Bows to Muskets occured. To repeat, the main reason was:

The time and effort needed to train a man to weild a bow effectively was far greater than a musket. This simple point meant that over some centuries the long bow was dropped in favour of muskets which allowed "the under six foot and not as strong as an ox men" to participate in ranged war

The minimum physical requirements of a man to be effective "en Mass" with a musket meant that much larger armies could be raised and used effectively.

Both weapons used massed formation to be deadly in battle but as an individual weapon the musket did not reach the level of precision of a Longbow until the advent of rifles in the late 1700's.

Stats:

The average Longbow could be shot between 200 and 300 yards and was accurate as an individual weapon out to 200 yards. Given a man could fire 20 arrows a minute it was deadly.

The average musket (not rifle) of the 1700's, and please note this is some 200 years after the time we are talking about in this game was as follows.

British Smooth Bore musket. Effective range 50 to 70 yards. You would be very lucky to hit a target at 100 yards. MAXIMUM shots per minute by the British (THE BEST AND FASTEST OF THE Napoleonic Era) was 4 shots per minute. The French and other continental armies shot between 2 and 3 per minute maximum.

So you can see that as an individual weapon there is no comparison, and this is with a musket of the 1700's and not the early 1500 or 1600's in which the MTWII is set.

In the late 1700's the British invented the Rifle. Basically the same as as a musket except 5 to 7 grooves were spiraled into the muzzel. This weapon could be aimed effectively out to 200 yards but a marksman and reached recorded shots or 300 yards and more by real experts. due to the grooving of the barrel this weapon could only be fired about 2 times per minute by an expert.

I'd like the recommend two series of books to everyone who wants to learn more about Muskets and Longbows.

If you want to get a great and realistic account of Professional Longbowmen in medieval times read Bernard Cornwells "The Grail Quest" series. Reading about Thomas of Hookton's adventures will get you ready for some real MTWII action in November and December!!

Equally if you want to learn more about muskets and the like, read Bernard Cornwells Sharpe series.

To all the English fella's here he will be well known, and Sean Bean did the character of Richard Sharpe proud

All I can say that Mr Cornwell does an enourmous amount of research to make his novels as historically accurate as possible and you will get a great feel for this subject as a whole by reading his books.

P.S. How CA are going to balance this out will be really interesting!!

[CBR]

The average Longbow could be shot between 200 and 300 yards and was accurate as an individual weapon out to 200 yards. Given a man could fire 20 arrows a minute it was deadly.

Could yes could. Its interesting to note that Simon Stanley(one of the few people who shoot strong 160+ pound bows) says he does not like to shoot more than 6 shots/minute. It doesnt take that much practice to shoot 20+ shots/minute but generally its done with lighter 60-70 pound bows AFAIK.

So you can see that as an individual weapon there is no comparison, and this is with a musket of the 1700's and not the early 1500 or 1600's in which the MTWII is set.

There is actually not much difference in quality between 16th century and 19th century muskets. Tests have shown comparable accuracy.

In the late 1700's the British invented the Rifle.

No they introduced a rifle to their own army. Rifles had been used a long time before that.

I'd like the recommend two series of books to everyone who wants to learn more about Muskets and Longbows.

TBH I prefer history books and not works of fiction. I watched Sharpe at Waterloo and if that is representative of the authors historical research then I will put his works in the same category as Braveheart.


CBR

[AussieGiant]

I'm also sceptical about the ability of longbows to penetrate plate -

Certainly Econ Bokin arrows may not penerate High end FULL Plate.

But, getting hit 2 or 3 or 4 times per minute, while not killing you outright will render you less than effective. Think of it like individual "supression fire" of a knight

At 100 yards with a relatively flat trajectory;

1st hit RHS Chest; Loud thump, balance momentarily lost...feels like a small horse just kicked you.

2nd hit, Shield; Arrow caught, left arm ripped back violently..no apparent damage.

3rd hit, glancing blow to helmet; head snaps back...and to the left, vision clouds, 2nd degree whiplash sustained.

Distance travelled...40 yards, 60 to go. 3 more hits to take and each one harder than the last.

I'm not saying the Longbow has punched through Plate Armour...but does it really need to?? Once the young French laddie has made it past all that, and he can still stand upright and still knows the name of the girl he spent the night with before the battle, then there are some crazed english physco's wait to cave his skull in with a war hammer.

[Wishazu]

Certainly Econ Bokin arrows may not penerate High end FULL Plate.

But, getting hit 2 or 3 or 4 times per minute, while not killing you outright will render you less than effective. Think of it like individual "supression fire" of a knight

At 100 yards with a relatively flat trajectory;

1st hit RHS Chest; Loud thump, balance momentarily lost...feels like a small horse just kicked you.

2nd hit, Shield; Arrow caught, left arm ripped back violently..no apparent damage.

3rd hit, glancing blow to helmet; head snaps back...and to the left, vision clouds, 2nd degree whiplash sustained.

Distance travelled...40 yards, 60 to go. 3 more hits to take and each one harder than the last.

I'm not saying the Longbow has punched through Plate Armour...but does it really need to?? Once the young French laddie has made it past all that, and he can still stand upright and still knows the name of the girl he spent the night with before the battle, then there are some crazed english physco's wait to cave his skull in with a war hammer.

The best post in the thread. I agree that a longbow wouldnt need to be able to punch through armour to be effective. At agincourt the arrows flew so thick and into concentrated groups of men that arrows were bound to hit vulnerable points and disorient a target. As to fear effects of weapons, try to imagine standing under a hail of arrows...

[Watchman]

At Agincourt the French actually tried the sensible approach of first clearing the damned archers off the flanks with fast strike troops (ie. cavalry). That failed, but AFAIK mainly because the cavalry wings were badly understrenght from what they were supposed to be (feudal military aristocracy not being famous for strict adherence to discipline or orders, quite a few knights and men-at-arms who were supposed to participate failed to do so). The ground wasn't exactly the best possible either and the stakes the English had erected as an anti-cavalry measure (an increasingly common tactic at the time, it was also used by the Low Countries militias and Ottoman infantry) didn't particularly help either. I've read the horses were only barded at the front to save weight and maintain speed, and did not suffer overmuch from the archery until the cavalry realized the futility of the attempt and turned tail, at which the beasts' rumps became painfully exposed to flying pointy things.

The main body of the French men-at-arms then advanced on foot. This was a perfectly normal tactic at the time. Even elite cavalry notoriously can't really make much of a dent even on commoner militias with shields and spears should the latter hold their line and formation, due to certain peculiar dynamics inherent in how horses (being the skittish herbivores they are at the core) behave when faced with such solid obstacles. Throwing cavalry against highly trained and extremely well equipped heavy infantry who can pretty much be counted not to even blink before shredding the horsemen with their assorted pole-cutlery, like dismounted men-at-arms, would pretty much be throwing them away. In a set-piece battle a typical army of the time normally only kept a small part of its men-at-arms mounted for pursuit duties, strikes directed at possible weaker portions of the enemy line, flanking and suchlike (assorted lighter equipped cavalry would also have been present in almost all instances and typically worked together with the mounted heavies).

Alas, due to certain deficencies feudal troops tended to have in terms of large-unit drill, command-and-control and similar issues of organisation and coordination what the huge number of MAAs present advanced in was really just a huge, unwieldy mob; the commanders could really do very little else with it than point it in the correct direction and hope for the best. The English longbows couldn't really do much real damage against such well-protected troops, many of whom also carried shields, but the constant rain of wood and metal they subjected them to would certainly have been very unnerving (made no less so by the way a random arrow would every now and then find someone's eyeslit or a weak spot in armour if only by raw statistical probability), and no doubt made the French MAAs "bunch up" towards the centre away from the troublesome archers. Which of course did nothing to the manageability and general usefulness of the already haphazard and unwieldy mass.

After trudging over considerable stretch of muddy field (churned up by the horses of the failed flank attacks too), in full armour with the visors down to keep arrows away from faces, in a very crowded and no doubt rather confused mass, the French heavies were naturally enough tired as Hell by the time they reached the waiting line of their fully rested English colleagues. By this time the longbows may also have been able to inflict some actual damage by firing directly into the ranks at close range, but in any case the column had little momentum left and kind of got stuck against the English heavies. The rear ranks trying to push forward (and/or get further away from the increasingly pesky archers at the flanks) would not have helped matters any.

Then to boot the longbowmen at the flanks put aside their bows, grabbed assorted mallets and axes and swords and whatever ironmongery they now had available, and pulled a double envelopement. Now, head one even stone dead tired MAAs would no doubt have torn just about any number of the lightly equipped archers to bits in hand-to-hand combat; they were highly trained and very well equipped experts on the field after all, whereas the archers were neither. But attacking the flanks of a confused, tired mass the bowmen, nimble on the muddy ground in their light equipement, were quite lethal enough to ensure the main French heavy column was history.

Remember: the longbow was never a true battle-winning weapon. Rather its efficient and judicious use, and the considerable shortcomings of the French military system (still based on feudal levies, whereas the English armies on the Continent were more professional "state mercenaries"), allowed the English to triumph even at severe numerical disadvantage with field armies consisting to a large part of the "cheap and cheerful" archers and for the period fairly small numbers of the very expensive men-at-arms. The longbowmen couldn't really do all that much damage to the enemy heavy troops, but they could affect, distrupt and channel their movements so their own heavies could better deal with them, as well as cause heavy damage to the assorted lighter support troops. What really tilted the balance in French favour was not finding a "miracle weapon" of their own in artillery - although that certainly didn't hurt - but rather modernizing the military system to do what its commanders needed and wanted it to rather than what the rank-and-file of feudal warrior aristocracy were capable of and felt like doing.

It should also be kept in mind that even armies based on horse-archers wielding the by far more powerful reflex composite bow tended to make a point of having at least small detachements of heavy shock cavalry at their disposal. Even for such forces the ability to smash weakened enemy formations through shock action and mounting immediate pursuit (and of course countering such attempts from enemy heavies) seems to have been if nothing else a good way to dispose of the remnants of the enemy, instead of spending God knows how long pouring arrows at their slowly dwindling shieldwalls.


The technique of rifling barrels to spin-stabilize musket balls was known very early on, AFAIK. I've read the idea was derived from the fletching used in arrows to impart similar gyrostabilization. However, for the rifling to be effective the ball had to fit tightly into the barrel, which duly made reloading muzzle-loaders in general and long-arms in particular something of a challenge. I've read estimates, based on contemporary accounts, that a standard smoothbore musket with loose-fitting balls took about half a minute to reload (more experienced men were faster); a rifle took roughly double that or more. Thus, rifles in military use were by and large confined to sharpshooters and small elite units of marksmen (they typically hunted down enemy officers, standard-bearers, musicians and C^2 specialists aside from plain old skirmishing); the line infantry blasted off volleys of rather inaccurate smoothbore musketry at rather short ranges, their formations essentially acting as giant shotguns.

Might as well. Unstabilized spherical projectiles, of somewhat questionable shape and bouncing off the walls of the barrel every this way and that before clearing it, are about as ballistically sucky as anything you can fire out of a gun can get. Not only does the shape of the ball give it some serious air-resistance drag, its random spin does nothing to improve its energy retention. Most pistols, for example, actually had muzzle velocities in the supersonic range, comparable to modern 9mm (their typical bore size was in the 13-15mm range). But they could not be counted on to penetrate armour from further than about 5-10 meters away, and were next to useless against anything at ranges over 15 meters or so; that's some serious energy loss there.

Even balls from long-barreled muskets, should they actually hit, at long range have been described by contemporaries as feeling like "strong blows" that merely bruised through clotches.

Conversely balls spin-stabilized by rifled barrels, while still suffering from poor aerodynamics, at least had a stable spin around their flight path and flew straight. They were both accurate and effective at markedly greater distances - some rifled cavalry pistols were actually meant to counter enemy skirmishers (these often had detachable stocks), and Prince Rupert (of the English Civil War fame) reputedly once shot a weathercock off a bell tower with his rifled wheellock pistols to win a bet.

Given the rather considerable shortcomings of balls as projectiles it's actually kind of weird that the by far more effective conical bullet wasn't developed before mid-1800s...

[CBR]

However, on the specific point of Agincourt - the French advanced dismounted (perhaps partly from fear of what the archers could do to horses) so it was not the arrows killing horses or riders being trappled that explains the victory.

The French dismounted because a big mounted attack against a prepared dismounted force of men-at-arms would do them no good, with or without bows to potientially disorder the cavalry.

It will be interesting to see how CA model it - hefty experience advantages for the English, plus mud/exhaustion penalties for the French, perhaps?

Yes most likely lots of valor and from the screenshots I saw about half the infantry were billmen.


CBR

[econ21]

The French dismounted because a big mounted attack against a prepared dismounted force of men-at-arms would do them no good, with or without bows to potientially disorder the cavalry.

Yes, indeed. This partly takes us back to the "myth of the cavalry charge" debate - ie how powerful are cavalry vs infantry. Instinctively, I am on the side that says charging dismounted men-at-arms is not smart, but I know others may disagree. BTW, I was interested to see that M2TW had some dismounted knights with spears - I always thought dismounted knights should have negated the cavalry charge in MTW; maybe I'll get my wish with M2TW.

However, I also think the longbow was also a factor. The knights might be in full plate, but the horses were not. Moreover, cavalry vs steady infantry might just be relatively bloodless Mexican standoff. If the infantry are also backed by lethal missiles, it becomes a very bad situation for the cavalry.

I may be wrong, but it seems that dismounting knights was a particularly favoured tactic of the English (less common with continental armies). Part of the reason for this may have been that the English, almost uniquely, had a significant contingent of longbowmen. There is a synergy between the longbow and anti-cavalry heavy foot: either one alone is not particularly decisive against mounted knights.

[Randarkmaan]

Just one thing I have to add... Dismounted knights and men-at-arms in the late middle-ages often used polearms and would have been effective enough against cavalry if they used those weapons.

[Ulstan]

"The Longbow was used significantly through the sixteenth century, and still in mass numbers. I would say after the battle of Pinkie in 1547 was when the Longbow was finally being edged out for the gun and that was just due to the fact that it was easier to use and to train men with rather than any advantage in fire power."

Then why didn't all the 'elite' units still use longbows if they were a superior weapon?

I can see arming your hastily raised levies with a handgun and 2 weeks of training, but your elite standing army would be armed with the longbow, if it truly was a better weapon.

[satchef1]

CA should just give gunners a production time of 0, it would represent the speed they can be trained at (you could train a full line in the recruitment bar in a single turn).
I did it in M:TW and it worked, gave them a purpose. Ended up using Longbows + Arbalasters for my main forces and Peasant (gave them 0 production time aswell) + Aquibuser armies for emergencies (like faction re-emergences, or getting badly defeated on my borders and needing to reinforce (read: spam) a provence quickly. The Aquibusers would still get ripped to shreads by decent bowmen but thier numbers allowed them some advantage

[Vanya]

GAH!

Vanya has yearned for the days of the Wet Gunny Wedgie of Doom! Now, the WGWD shall return and mop the fields of battle with their scalps again!

To improve morale, Vanya will introduce bald generals wearing toupees. This will allow them to not "die" when losing their hair. Funny how mere mortals worry about such vain things as "hair" and "keeping a head on their shoulders". If nothing else, it should provide some comic relief to the soon-to-be-damned to see a general fumble with fake hair!

GAH!

[R'as al Ghul]

[..] GAH!

Thanks for posting. Good to see you back....

[Bagpuss]

This thread has been a pleasure to read ,cheers

can I just add I do like the History channel on Sky ,lol an see nothing wrong in their excellent medieval war progs like Master of Defense ,Weapons That Made Britain, etc
an I think it was that barmy but good historian guy Mike loades that proved that the Longbow arrow could easily piece the French armour ,if chainmail underneath the shock /impact could kill as well...

[maestro]

I saw that, too. I've definitely seen programs on the telly with people shooting through leather, mail and plate armour from considerable distances with longbows.

No idea about muskets, though....... if only they had a Desert Eagle

[ElectricEel]

I've definitely seen programs on the telly with people shooting through leather, mail and plate armour from considerable distances with longbows.

Most of the mail around nowadays is massively inferior in quality to the mail that would be found on a medieval battlefield. Wikipedia has this to say about modern mail usage:

Mail is now used in protective clothing for butchers (against meat-packing equipment), scuba divers (against shark teeth) and animal control officers (against animal teeth). The British police use mail gloves for dealing with knife-armed aggressors. The military also uses mail vests for the same reason. Modern re-enactors of medieval battles and living history also use mail in combat.

In the little combat use that mail armor sees nowadays, it is not required to deflect anything more dangerous than knives or animal teeth. In re-enactment, the re-enactors are either using fake weapons not designed to kill, or following a strict coreography in order to avoid maiming each other. Good-quality mail requires more time and effort to make than poor-quality mail, and understandably, most people and organizations are not willing to pay for good-quality mail when they can get a cheaper product that is adequate for their purproses. Good-quality mail is thus mostly made for wealthier re-enactors who want to pay extra to use something as close to the real armor as possible. The demand there is limited, thus little good-quality mail is produced. As a consequence, it can be hard to get hold of, and because of this, and often lacking expertise on the subject, the people doing the tests usually end up using poor-quality armor. This should be true for plate armour, as well. I will note that at least one History Channel program that included tests like this has used butted mail, which is greatly inferior in every aspect compared to good-quality riveted mail that would have been used by knights throughout the medieval period.

In addition, usually mail was worn over padding. The padding might be easily penetrated by an arrow when worn alone, and an arrow might penetrate mail significantly, but tests indicate that when they are worn together, the arrow imparts a sufficiently large part of its energy to the mail that the padding may offer enought resistance to stop it from penetrating significantly. This fits in with the contemporary accounts of numerous arrows sticking from mail-clad soldiers. Again, good-quality padding consisting of numerous layers of cloth is probably rather difficult to find in the modern world.

[LadyAnn]

GAH!

Vanya has yearned for the days of the Wet Gunny Wedgie of Doom! Now, the WGWD shall return and mop the fields of battle with their scalps again!

To improve morale, Vanya will introduce bald generals wearing toupees. This will allow them to not "die" when losing their hair. Funny how mere mortals worry about such vain things as "hair" and "keeping a head on their shoulders". If nothing else, it should provide some comic relief to the soon-to-be-damned to see a general fumble with fake hair!

GAH!

Weeeeeeee Vanya!

We prefer that the enemies shave their head clean so we could do a clean chop.

Anniep