Longbows are no good

[De Montfort]

I agree that the rate of fire for the longbow should be significantly greater than crossbow units.

English longbowmen spent years (from childhood) practicing their art, and could loose anywhere between 13-18 arrows a minute... and these were aimed and accurate (distance-wise). The range of the longbow would have caused chaos at a distance (and death for lighter armed troops) and utter slaughter at closer range.

The crossbow was largely useless at long range. It couldn't fire effectively in an arc which meant it was only really effective at less than 100 yards.

Both the longbow bodkin and the crossbow bolt were lethal at close range, but the skill and accuracy of the longbowman combined with his rate of fire would mean a longbow unit would make mincemeat of a crossbow unit - pavice or otherwise.

If M2:TW was more accurate, it would cost more to build longbow units (to reflect the training required) but their upkeep would be low.

Crossbow units would be cheaper to build, but cost more in upkeep.

In a standoff fight the range of the crossbow would be at least 2 times less (probably more) and the rate of fire at least 3 times less.

The Longbow is the English superweapon. While it's useful in M2:TW it wouldn't instil the same level of fear that the real weapon did.

[Handel]

The croosbows have the same range as longbows which is unaccurate. But I guess it is made for balance.
But the retenue archers are much better for castle defences because they can keep on their own long enough the help to arrive.

[SMZ]

The ranges are correct. The effective range of a longbow isn't any more than a steel crossbow. Steel crossbows are powerful weapons. The penetrating power is mostly correct. Crossbow bolts hit harder than arrows. Don't forget that the longbows share the armor piercing ability just like the crossbows, but unlike other bows. The Retinue Longbowman should however probably see his Missile Attack bumped up to 9 or 10, it makes no sense for him to share the same stat as the previous Yeoman Archer. The firing rates are pretty close as well. A slight bump to speed up the Longbowmen, and maybe a slight bump to slow down the Crossbowmen could balance things nicely, but both are close to being accurate. Currently the Crossbowmen are operating on the high side of possibility, Longbowmen on the low side... the realism is fairly accurate in this aspect however.

All of which means, the units are pretty close to being accurate - only the slightest tinkering could be considered necessary. It is important to remember the good points of longbows: they fire in an arc - alleviating friendly fire issues greatly and allowing you to shoot over walls etc, they lay down fire more quickly than a group of crossbowmen would, they can use fire arrows to panic the enemy and burn siege engines, and they can deploy stakes to injure cavalry charges and break up infantry advances. Don't forget that you can place the stakes wherever you want during deployment, and then move your archers after the battle begins... the stakes will still be useful.

Now yes, you may see Crossbows firing a parabola shot at times... however what you won't see is them getting any kills that way. If you see your own Crossbowmen doing that, stop them - they're just wasting their ammo. Crossbows must be fired with direct line of sight in order to be effective.

-----------
Especially in Western countries a mythology around the longbow has developed. While it is a powerful weapon, it is not the weapon to end all weapons that it is often portrayed to be. Steel crossbows are extremely powerful weapons as well; modern crossbows are not considered primitive weapons by state hunting authorities... this should tell you something. Longbows are. Each has it's own points and effective uses however.

Composite bows in Eastern lands of antiquity outranged longbows. Penetrating power was still plenty good... there's a reason heavily armed and armored Western powers were continually slaughtered wholesale at the hands of Eastern horse archers. Technically speaking, some of the horse archer units could have the long range ability as well... but as good as they are already, this would greatly imbalance the game. However IRL, they were greatly imbalanced... horse archers had no match until the advent of gunpowder... but that wouldn't make a very fun game, people complain about the power of the Mongols enough already. In short, the game is pretty accurate - learn the units abilities and use them... that's what makes an effective commander. Don't just spend your time looking for the Magical Unit of Ultimate Smashing +5.

[Carl]

@SMZ: Most Cavalry archers used composite Bows as far as i'm aware, and composite bows are highly comparable to Longbows overall. So trying to say the eastern faction power shows somthing is a bit dumb. It's also the case that the shorter length and lighter weight of a quarral compared to a longbow arrow would leave it much less accurate and with much less power at maximum range. Could a steel crossbow reach longbow ranges? Quite possibly, it just wouldn't do any good IMHO.

Also the hunting thing means nothing. in hunting you need a lot of piower per shot, but not a high fire rate. A longbow had all the penetrating power necessery at range, it also fired faster. It just hasn't got the penetrating power of a Crossbow at shorter ranges and is more unweildy.

[SMZ]

@SMZ: Most Cavalry archers used composite Bows as far as i'm aware, and composite bows are highly comparable to Longbows overall. So trying to say the eastern faction power shows somthing is a bit dumb. It's also the case that the shorter length and lighter weight of a quarral compared to a longbow arrow would leave it much less accurate and with much less power at maximum range. Could a steel crossbow reach longbow ranges? Quite possibly, it just wouldn't do any good IMHO.

Also the hunting thing means nothing. in hunting you need a lot of piower per shot, but not a high fire rate. A longbow had all the penetrating power necessery at range, it also fired faster. It just hasn't got the penetrating power of a Crossbow at shorter ranges and is more unweildy.

There were cavalry archers in the western lands... they didn't use composite bows. Composite bows were for the most part, an eastern thing. It has to do with the available materials. Wood was plentiful in the west, so they used that. In the east it wasn't, so they got inventive and it happened to end up being something better. If you think that's dumb... well I guess history's dumb then.

A Steel Crossbow can fire a good ways with a straight shot. It is only when fired with an arc that the Crossbow loses its power. Crossbows are for the most part primitive guns, they operate on the same basic principals. Remeber, bullets are much much lighter and shorter than either... and are by far the most deadly. The size of the ammo isn't as important as the power that's throwing it. Snapping pieces of steel aren't as strong as exploding gunpowder, but they're plenty strong and can fling a bolt plenty far.

The hunting comment was illustrating the power of the Crossbow, I don't know how you connected that to rate of fire. I already said that Crossbows are slower... everyone knows that.

[Kobal2fr]

There were cavalry archers in the western lands... they didn't use composite bows. Composite bows were for the most part, an eastern thing. It has to do with the available materials. Wood was plentiful in the west, so they used that. In the east it wasn't, so they got inventive and it happened to end up being something better. If you think that's dumb... well I guess history's dumb then.

A Steel Crossbow can fire a good ways with a straight shot. It is only when fired with an arc that the Crossbow loses its power. Crossbows are for the most part primitive guns, they operate on the same basic principals. Remeber, bullets are much much lighter and shorter than either... and are by far the most deadly. The size of the ammo isn't as important as the power that's throwing it. Snapping pieces of steel aren't as strong as exploding gunpowder, but they're plenty strong and can fling a bolt plenty far.

The hunting comment was illustrating the power of the Crossbow, I don't know how you connected that to rate of fire. I already said that Crossbows are slower... everyone knows that.

Hmmm composite bows weren't made of wood ?! News to me . It's not the wood, it's the glue. Couldn't be used in more humid climates, composite bows lost their power and even outright broke sometimes when they were brought further west.

A crossbow bolt has just as much power fired in an arc as an arrow. Why would it suddenly lose any ? There not a special realm of physics for crossbows . The problem with firing a crossbow (or a rifle, for that matter) in an arc is not loss of power, only it's absolutely impossible to aim that way. The bolt is too small and flies too fast to be seen easily, so you have no idea where it lands if you don't fire straight at the target, whereas you can follow the flight of your arrows and correct your aim accordingly. That's the whole point of modern tracer rounds BTW.

I wholy agree that the longbow is widely overrated though. They certainly weren't the ultimate laser rays of doom you guys seem to accept they were. Fire far ? Sure. Fire fast ? Why not. It's still a simple bow and arrow, not a mortar shell. Ah, but I forget the fiendishly ingenious bodkin head ! Like nobody but the English ever figured broadheads didn't work as well on armor...

Yeah, yeah, Azincourt, right. The way it went down, terrain, weather and command-wise, the Welsh could have fired slingshots and still slaughtered the French cav.

[Carl]

@SMZ & Kobal2fr: First I never said the Longbow wasn't overated. just to say that the crossbow was supiriour just dosen't add up to me.

First the Crossbow does carry les well over range, it's somthing i got from a discussion about modern 7.76mm rounds vs 5.56mm rounds. They both have the same momentum (and thus impact power), but the Light weight, high velocity 5.56mm round losses momentum over distance FASTER than he low velocity high mass 7.76mm round.

Crossbows are low mass high speed, whilst Longbows are high mass low speed weapons. In addittion gravity drop of the quarral will force you to fire it in an arc at greater ranges. Couple that with the aiming issues one of you mentioned and a crossbow really shouldn't be able to shoot to longbow ranges with any accurracy or power, even if you do take into account the higher velocity of the quarral, and it's greater overall launch power.

As to the Composite bows. My comments where based on a documentry i saw about Mongal (the big eastern faction that was enountered by the west). these used composite bows made of wood, animal bone, and animal sinew if i remeber the documentry right. they also combined this with the bow being bent a funny shape, (hard to describe and i don't know the proper name).

Also, as noted the fire rate and general better training of the longbowmen would make the supiriour to all crossbowmen anyway. I just don't belive a crossbow could match the range of a Longbow, whilst still having a useful accurracy and penetrating power.

[Bongaroo]

From what I've read, I think the weather and the longbowmen being unarmoured is what gave the English victory. I think a lot of French died when they landed face first in the mud and suffocated. Pretty easy for a dude with leather on to wade through some mud to stab a man in the joints of his armour if he's stuck in the mud.

[Cos3]

It has already been proven with the use of modern technology, that longbows wern't as good as legend has played them out to be.

There was a documentary about the Battle of Agincourt, a legendary English win against a vastly superior French Army. Legend always said that it was the longbow that won it for the English, when in fact the longbow and bodkin arrow would have had very little impact against the more modern (1415) armour of the time.

A combination of terrible ground conditions, wet, soggy soil/mud and the vast numbers of Frenchmen in a relatively small area created a massive wall of men all trampling over themselves, many dying without even reaching combat.


So in reality the longbows in the game are probably more true to life than many people would think.

[dopp]

My source for this is uncertain, since I read it years ago. They made a replica of plate armor and fired bodkins into it. The arrows penetrated the arms and legs fine (about 1mm sheet steel), which would be fairly disabling but hardly fatal. The chest armor could only be penetrated some of the time (2mm sheet steel) and the arrows were unable to penetrate deep enough to kill. The helmet and shoulders were about 3mm and totally immune to arrow fire. In battle the practice was to hunch over and present the thickest parts of the armor (helmet and shoulders) to the incoming arrow storm. Only at very short range would the arrows start coming in horizontal and thus potentially hit weaker spots. In full plate, the armored man felt safe enough to do away with the protection of a shield, which he would not have done if longbows (and crossbows) could easily penetrate his armor.

No mention was made of the test armor's design. Plate was often specially designed to deflect piercing weapons like arrows. Since the armor was strapped over a dummy standing upright, the arrows could hit it dead-on at the best angle of impact for penetration.

The range for the test was 15 yards. 15 yards and perfect angle of impact, yet the longbow struggled to penetrate the armor. I doubt it would kill knights at 300 yards (although it might wound the horses).

The longbows ingame have the same penetration as crossbows and muskets. The composite and simple bowmen of various sorts do not. I think that's about good enough. I do not expect to see them pierce steel breastplates at 200 yards like in LOTR.

While longbowmen were mostly experienced soldiers, crossbowmen also boasted elite mercenary bands. Why would they be any worse? If the crossbow was easier to learn to fire, they might even be better. There would certainly be more of them. Mastery of a more difficult weapon does not automatically make you a better warrior than those who master easier weapons. It would depend on the potential effectiveness of the weapons in question. If your chosen weapon is merely on par or inferior to easier weapons, you might even be a bit of a retard to have wasted all your time on it...

[Zenicetus]

My source for this is uncertain, since I read it years ago. They made a replica of plate armor and fired bodkins into it. The arrows penetrated the arms and legs fine (about 1mm sheet steel), which would be fairly disabling but hardly fatal. The chest armor could only be penetrated some of the time (2mm sheet steel) and the arrows were unable to penetrate deep enough to kill.

My understanding is that most (if not all) of those tests are flawed, because they were done at "modern" longbow replica pull weights of around 80lbs. The bows recovered from the Mary Rose (and also skeletal deformation of archers of the time) suggest that longbows of the period were actually used at 150-160 lb. draw, which very few modern archers can manage. Do those same tests at 150 lbs. with a full draw on the arrow, and you get very different results (source, again: "The Great Warbow - from Hastings to the Mary Rose)").

It doesn't make the longbow a superweapon, and it did ultimately fail to keep up with developments in better armor as the crossbow could, and later gunpowder weapons, since it was "capped" at a certain draw strength by the limits of the human body.

[Grifman]

While longbowmen were mostly experienced soldiers, crossbowmen also boasted elite mercenary bands. Why would they be any worse? If the crossbow was easier to learn to fire, they might even be better. There would certainly be more of them. Mastery of a more difficult weapon does not automatically make you a better warrior than those who master easier weapons. It would depend on the potential effectiveness of the weapons in question. If your chosen weapon is merely on par or inferior to easier weapons, you might even be a bit of a retard to have wasted all your time on it...

The problem is that history is against your analysis. English longbowmen consistently shot up the mercenary xbowmen hired by the French. The longbow had a higher rate of fire that the xbowmen just could not match.

[fenir]

Maybe because it took them 200 years to do so? Or that in order to do so required calling upon English interests in France to bolster their army? Even then they relied heavily upon loyal Welsh troops from mid Wales. And finally more castles than any other country in order to keep the Welsh in place. All this for a nation of fairly easy going people.


........Orda

No sorry Orda,
before Edward finally had enough of the northern wales, as Wales had been England since roman times, various Lords who had sworen fealty would go raiding(by defination, English Lords), where by the princes, as they are so styled themselves in the 1200's, and Edward allowed them to keep the title in 1278AD treaty, were allowed to live under treaty most of the time.
Even King Henry III smacked north Wales because they would raid other areas. Generally just causing trouble, but they where not independant, and hadn't been since well before King Stephen's time. They lived under treaty by their overlord the King.
You cannot Conquer what is already yours.

Easy Going people? yeah who would go killing stealing and raping :) Real easy going.
More castles than what nation? that would be Luxemburg and germany per sq km. Or even per population.

Wales even in Stephen, and William the I times, was England, and a province of Such, just as (Wessux and Anglia and Mercia) as is it's offical status today.

There was not any relying on Loyal welsh troops as you put it, they used mainly marcher lord troops, and royal army(the northern one). Mostly troops from the then Royal Marcher of Cheshire.
Hence the famous Edwardian Castles are only in the north west of Wales.
The last Rising in Wales was English lords in 1400's or late 1300's.
But Wales has been no different to any other area, every now and again, people disagreed and would resort to arms.


Edward being impressed By Welch Archers? No
England Already was using the Longbow, the Welch campign made them famous.
Edward took Longbowman from Surrey with him in the VIII Crusade 1271AD, and his father used longbowman before him in Battle of Lewes ~1264AD against Montfort, who also used them.

ARCHERY LAW OF ENGLAND......1252AD (BEFORE EDWARD was born).
All Men age between 15 to 60, must train, and equip themselves for service of the King....oh dear? thats before!!! Edward, heck thats before his father.

A musket even up to the 1800's is a useless weapon over 60 meters, surely someone thought to think, well i wonder why they marched in a line close packed and fire there weapons at point blank.
Does make one question doesn't it.



PS: OFFICALLY the two most powerful bows in the World are the longbow and African elephant bow. Both of which top 220lb (900n).
The average power for bows of all designs is about 50 pounds (220 newtons) at 28 inches (70 cm) of draw.


LONGBOW.... there are three main head types for the longbow.
short bodkin ........used against armnour plate <---- this is the one that killed all the French nobles (In plate Armour) at crecy with the English losing only 50 odd men. The Longbow stopped an enitre attack before it started.
Long bodkin........Against chainmail
swallowtails........used against horses.

Longbowman, where also trained swords man, because after the battle of Crecy 1364...the French King Decreed that every Longbowman Caught with have his Two Fingers cut off.....hence even today, we give the Fingers to someone we don't like.
They where trained in a Butt.
where by military training armed and unarmed, and command training was given.

....Ready your Bows...
....Nock...fit Arrow
....Mark....like aiming
....Draw... pull bow back
....Loose...FIRE!

[Kruniac]

Battle Report - Me (England) - 6 Units of Yeomen Archers, 3 Units of Dismounted Feudal Knights, 1 ** Star General

vs

France - 4 Units of Dismounted Feudal Knights, 4 Units of Mounted Feudal Knights, 3 Units Peasant Archers - 1 * Star General

Situation - Longbows up front, Knights behind. General in the very back. SLIGHT high ground advantage, being on a long slope. Woodland area, situated across a clearing the enemy would have to go through.

Final Result - English casualities 0, French losses TOTAL

..Longbows rock. Especially with the HORRIBLE AI that causes the enemy to "retreat" from missile fire, only to resume charging after losing 50% of the ground the covered.

Medium/Medium Difficulty - No routs, except for the VERY last few kills

[Orda Khan]

No sorry Orda,
before Edward finally had enough of the northern wales, as Wales had been England since roman times, various Lords who had sworen fealty would go raiding(by defination, English Lords), where by the princes, as they are so styled themselves in the 1200's, and Edward allowed them to keep the title in 1278AD treaty, were allowed to live under treaty most of the time.
Even King Henry III smacked north Wales because they would raid other areas. Generally just causing trouble, but they where not independant, and hadn't been since well before King Stephen's time. They lived under treaty by their overlord the King.
You cannot Conquer what is already yours.

Easy Going people? yeah who would go killing stealing and raping :) Real easy going.
More castles than what nation? that would be Luxemburg and germany per sq km. Or even per population.

Wales even in Stephen, and William the I times, was England, and a province of Such, just as (Wessux and Anglia and Mercia) as is it's offical status today.

There was not any relying on Loyal welsh troops as you put it, they used mainly marcher lord troops, and royal army(the northern one). Mostly troops from the then Royal Marcher of Cheshire.
Hence the famous Edwardian Castles are only in the north west of Wales.
The last Rising in Wales was English lords in 1400's or late 1300's.
But Wales has been no different to any other area, every now and again, people disagreed and would resort to arms.


Edward being impressed By Welch Archers? No
England Already was using the Longbow, the Welch campign made them famous.
Edward took Longbowman from Surrey with him in the VIII Crusade 1271AD, and his father used longbowman before him in Battle of Lewes ~1264AD against Montfort, who also used them.

ARCHERY LAW OF ENGLAND......1252AD (BEFORE EDWARD was born).
All Men age between 15 to 60, must train, and equip themselves for service of the King....oh dear? thats before!!! Edward, heck thats before his father.

Very concise... The fact still remains that the Welsh, as I stated, were very easy going; something that remains true today, always willing to do someone else's bidding. Raiding was carried out by many people in many countries considered 'vassals', however it does not usually take 200 years to sort out a small problem.
Did these raids occur simply because they were a bad lot or was it something provoked? Such as treatment by the so called Marcher Lords?
Sure Germany and Luxembourg have many castles but I think they were built by themselves.

The troops from Brycheiniog never joined Edward? He never received reinforcement from France?
And then finally in 15thC the last rising was by an English Lord? Owain Glyndwr...or more correctly Owain Glyndyfrdwr was an Englishman? I think not

........Orda

[Orda Khan]

There is a world of difference between flight arrows and war arrows. Those crazy distances from Turkish bows are achieved by use of an arrow guide and arrows that resemble darts. Likewise, modern equipment like compounds and recurves can not be used for comparison, they are completely different and the technology did not exist in Mediaeval times. Same thing applies to carbon arrows.
Similarly, because a bow of a certain poundage has been made we should not assume that it is practical to use or even that a stronger one couldn't be made tomorrow. I am sure it would be possible to make a Turkish bow of 250lbs but its use would be totally impractical

.....Orda

[dopp]

Especially in Western countries a mythology around the longbow has developed. While it is a powerful weapon, it is not the weapon to end all weapons that it is often portrayed to be.

Just to be fair, the crossbow also enjoys an exaggerated reputation as a handheld ballista that can skewer two or three men in a row and pick off coins at 200 yards. People like to credit ancient weapons with impossible feats, like the katana cutting clean through sheet steel. Even the musket is supposed to be able to blow a man completely in half. It all sounds like a bunch of war veterans grumbling about how soldiers these days are weedy and effete... a "take those longbowmen, now THOSE were real men" kind of deal.

[JFC]

Just to be fair, the crossbow also enjoys an exaggerated reputation as a handheld ballista that can skewer two or three men in a row and pick off coins at 200 yards. People like to credit ancient weapons with impossible feats, like the katana cutting clean through sheet steel. Even the musket is supposed to be able to blow a man completely in half. It all sounds like a bunch of war veterans grumbling about how soldiers these days are weedy and effete... a "take those longbowmen, now THOSE were real men" kind of deal.

Love it! Trafalgar: When Ships were made of Wood and Men were made of Steel! Not like nowadays eh?!

[dopp]

Love it! Trafalgar: When Ships were made of Wood and Men were made of Steel! Not like nowadays eh?!

Reminds me of a Trafalgar account where the French captain Infernet asks his colonel of marines, "Colonel, do you think I am sheathed in metal?". They were getting raked and the fellow was trying to shelter behind him.

[JFC]

Reminds me of a Trafalgar account where the French captain Infernet asks his colonel of marines, "Colonel, do you think I am sheathed in metal?". They were getting raked and the fellow was trying to shelter behind him.

Can you IMAGINE the Carnage if Longbows and Crossbows were used at Trafalgar??!! OH THE HUMANITY!

Edit: AND AT THE SOMME!!?? I can't take it!

[geala]

Just to be fair, the crossbow also enjoys an exaggerated reputation as a handheld ballista that can skewer two or three men in a row and pick off coins at 200 yards. People like to credit ancient weapons with impossible feats, like the katana cutting clean through sheet steel. Even the musket is supposed to be able to blow a man completely in half. It all sounds like a bunch of war veterans grumbling about how soldiers these days are weedy and effete... a "take those longbowmen, now THOSE were real men" kind of deal.

Hihi, very well said.

But to be "fairer" one have to tell that also modern weapons are often credited to do wondrous things. Let it be the shotgun of the hero sending men on a flight against the next wall or the lonesome cowboy blasting holes in thrown coins with his incredible six-shooter. Or the opposite, a hero hiding behind a car door or a desk when a villain shoots at him with an assault rifle. Brrr.

Thats all media world, Robin Hood against Billy the Kid against Rambo against The last Samurai. It forms our brains more than we expect.

[pevergreen]

Don't just spend your time looking for the Magical Unit of Ultimate Smashing +5.

Someone's a fellow D&D player...

[Carl]

@CBR: Thanks for the reply and you raise many good points, (I though winch drawn crossbows where more common later on TBH, but I’ll take your word on it). I'm also surprised at Muskets being more expensive to manufacture as they both use steel and wood, except that the Musket used more metal. Again I’ll take your word on it, but it does sound weird again.

Your right on similar draw Crossbows having similar fire rates, maybe a bit lower due to the awkward nature of pulling them back compared to a bow. However as noted before, I’m not convinced the shorter quarrel would have been as heavy, which would have reduced range.

On top of that a Crossbow typically has a shorter distance backwards draw, this actually cuts power as well, (it's a bit complex why, I can explain it if you want).

@Everyone (Especially Kobal2fr): I strongly suggest you read the PDF linked to in this here. It never claims Longbows where Uber Weapons (and they weren’t), but at the same time it makes clear they where nasty and did a lot of damage, it uses quotes from the time period to back it up, and some of these come from neutral or enemy sides of the story (i.e. no interest in promoting England). This makes it actually quite believable,. as apposed to the fantasy claims some people spout about it being an uber weapon that can kill a moder tank at 5 miles .

Finally, for me this is NOT a France vs. England argument. For me it's just an interesting discussion that giving me something to do.

@Orda Khan: Many thanks for taking the time to reply, you clearly know what your talking about.

[CBR]

I'm also surprised at Muskets being more expensive to manufacture as they both use steel and wood, except that the Musket used more metal. Again I’ll take your word on it, but it does sound weird again.

Firearms were cheaper because they were more simple to make. The metal tube and fire lock mechanism were simpler to make than crossbow prods and locks/trigger.

..I’m not convinced the shorter quarrel would have been as heavy, which would have reduced range.

Remember that the shaft is only part of the weight. The metal point does add considerably to the overall weight of a bolt. The balancing point of a shorter bolt is about 1/3 of the overall length from the tip, but needs to be 1/4 for a longer arrow. If you ever have seen pics of a bolt close up you will note how the metal tip respresent a much bigger part of the overall length than when comparing to arrows.

"European Crossbows: A Survey by Josef Alm" provides details on crossbows and bolts and gives us weights and length of different types of bolts: 38-40 cm long with most having a weight between 70-79 grams (the most common bolts from the museum in Bern)

On top of that a Crossbow typically has a shorter distance backwards draw, this actually cuts power as well.

IIRC in simple terms work x distance = power and one can get a general idea of energy stored in the bow with: draw weight x draw length /2. Of course one would have to lower the result a bit (maybe 5-6% for bows and 10-20% for crossbows) as the power stroke is shorter(the actual distance the string is pulled back)

Stuff like that just makes it all even more complicated as we cant just compare draw weight but have to know the actual draw length. Even for bows there would be a difference as a tall archer might have longer arms so "drawing to the ear" would be different than for a shorter archer.


CBR

[Carl]

Firearms were cheaper because they were more simple to make. The metal tube and fire lock mechanism were simpler to make than crossbow prods and locks/trigger.

Good point about Crossbows having complex firing mechanisms. I was thinking more in the difficult of casting the tube to withstand the pressures without blowing itself to bits.

Remember that the shaft is only part of the weight. The metal point does add considerably to the overall weight of a bolt. The balancing point of a shorter bolt is about 1/3 of the overall length from the tip, but needs to be 1/4 for a longer arrow. If you ever have seen pics of a bolt close up you will note how the metal tip respresent a much bigger part of the overall length than when comparing to arrows.

Good points TBH, I really need to dig out some pictures of Crossbow Bolts and Arrows as I always figured the greater "height" of an arrowhead would make up for any differences in head length. The quoted length for Crossbow bolts is also a lot longer than I thought, (I was figuring two-thirds to half that TBH). So the Bolts gain a lot of weight over my estimation there.

IIRC in simple terms work x distance = power and one can get a general idea of energy stored in the bow with: draw weight x draw length /2. Of course one would have to lower the result a bit (maybe 5-6% for bows and 10-20% for crossbows) as the power stroke is shorter(the actual distance the string is pulled back)

Stuff like that just makes it all even more complicated as we cant just compare draw weight but have to know the actual draw length. Even for bows there would be a difference as a tall archer might have longer arms so "drawing to the ear" would be different than for a shorter archer.

Indeed, also a longer Draw might need longer arrows, (possible if unlikliy), which would only increase the problems.

[Orda Khan]

IIRC in simple terms work x distance = power and one can get a general idea of energy stored in the bow with: draw weight x draw length /2. Of course one would have to lower the result a bit (maybe 5-6% for bows and 10-20% for crossbows) as the power stroke is shorter(the actual distance the string is pulled back)

Stuff like that just makes it all even more complicated as we cant just compare draw weight but have to know the actual draw length. Even for bows there would be a difference as a tall archer might have longer arms so "drawing to the ear" would be different than for a shorter archer.

Indeed, also a longer Draw might need longer arrows, (possible if unlikliy), which would only increase the problems.

I don't like the idea of comparing crossbow strength with bow strength, they are too different in technology. The bolt is short and is set in a guide and though the 'draw' may be short, it usually requires a machine to draw the string which itself is like a rope compared with a bowstring.
The bows of the time were nothing like todays takedown recurves or compounds, they did not have a riser allowing 'centre shot'. The archer had to find a way to overcome the archers paradox. When loosing an arrow, its natural path would be central, in line with the string, however this is not possible. The Mediterranean 3 finger draw requires the arrow rests on the back of the bow hand and the paradox is the means by which the arrow contorts its way around the bow. This requires an arrow of correct spine be used otherwise it will not fly well and/or will not be accurate. The correct spine weight will also be determined by the length of the arrow.

For example, using modern shafts.
40lb spine at 32" length. Cut that down to 28" and the spine has effectively been increased to 48lb. Likewise a bow with draw weight of 40lb at 28" is lighter or heavier depending on draw length, it equates to approximately 2lbs per inch.
Of course, the cast of the arrow will be greatly affected by the weight of the arrowhead and the size of fletchings. Even then there may be some slight adjustment that will perfect the cast.
My own draw length is roughly 28" and my bow is 45lbs. After years of experimenting, I get best performance from 29" arrows, 5/16" diameter, 100 grain piles (points), 5 1/2" low profile fletchings (5" normal fly just as well but not in cross winds) and the spine is 40lbs.
By using a lighter pile of say, 63 grains, the arrow becomes stiffer and will fly left.
It goes without saying that the correct nocking point on the bowstring has to be located to prevent 'porpoising' of the arrow.

Given the heavy weight of the old Warbows and the bodkin heads and the fact that these archers drew to their shoulder, the arrows can almost be mistaken for broom handles

.........Orda

[geala]

The English "long"bow is by far the most overrated medieval weapon. Comparing it to a machine gun is not very wise. Even thousands of archers were not able to stop an enemy and repulse an attack what is what a machine gun can do. As one example you can take the battle of Towton when the Lancastrians had wasted their arrows and were free targets for the Yorkist archers. The arrow showers forced the Lancastrian army to attack but were by no means devastatious to them.

"Long"bows were simple powerful self-bows, nothing special compared with asian composite bows but used throughout Europe since the stone ages. Special were in case of the English only the men who draw the bows because they were very experienced and well trained and could therefore draw very strong bows up to 160 lbs. But even then the bow was no wonder-weapon. The French f.e. won a lot of battles against English armies with strong numbers of bowmen during hundred years war. It depended on situation.

Bows proved rather bad against plate armour. They helped indeed much to win battles against bad equipped foes or in certain special situations (Crecy, Agincourt). But at least from 1450 on the best time of the bow was gone.

Puuh. That said I concur with the assertion that longbowmen are too weak in some aspects in M2TW compared to crossbowmen. The powerful crossbows capable to punch through some forms of armour (crossbows were poor performers against plate, too) had steel bows with pull weights of 500 to 1000 lbs. and were not easily drawn. If you give a longbowman 10 arrows per minute (which would be rather fast and exhausting shooting) a crossbowman should be capable to fire max. 3 bolts per minute. The longbow should have more reach than crossbows, similar to that of muskets. The performance of bolts and arrows in M2TW is generally too high but with the abundance of plate armour in late game it would be unfair to lower it. So mod the forementioned two things and you can be satisfied.

By the way: the Aztecs are unrealistically strong compared with old world units. But that is for fun, otherwise it would be boring.

[Zenicetus]

The crossbow was largely useless at long range. It couldn't fire effectively in an arc which meant it was only really effective at less than 100 yards.

This is not true. There are human remains recovered from battles that have bolts sticking through the top of the skull and the front at a 45 degree angle. One woodcut from the period shoes crossbowmen firing up at a 45 degree angle, and bolts falling down vertically on the enemy's heads like rain (source and image: Strickland & Hardy, "The Great Warbow" page 283).

Crossbowmen may have preferred to fire at closer range in a flatter trajectory for maximum penetration, but it's a ballistic weapon (no such thing as a truly "flat" trajectory), and they would have been well aware of how one could gain more range with elevation. Also remember that a crossbow bolt (especially one of the larger ones) is heavier than an arrow, with less fletching to slow it down. Now think about firing that in a high arc, and letting bolts fall down near-vertically on the enemy. Sure, it's not as effective as a close range, "flat" shot, but it's going to have some effect... if the recovered bolts piercing the roof of unfortunate soldier's skulls mean anything. If you had time to reload for a second or third shot before the enemy closed on you, and plenty of bolts, then why wouldn't you try an arcing shot first?

Now, whether or not CA has implemented it that way is another story. I can see where they might restrict the range and incur friendly fire casualties if placed behind your own troops, mainly for gameplay reasons... i.e. forcing different tactics for different units.