Longbows are no good

[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.

[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.

[JFC]

Erm unless graphics lag affects real-life battles, 3 seconds between volleys should not stretch to 6-12 seconds between casualties falling over.

Sorry Dopp, think you mis-read what I put down... The Longbow 'Man' was expected to fire at a rate of one every 3 seconds. But usually let loose an arrow every 6-12 seconds.

[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.

[SMZ]

If the crossbow really is 2/3 the rate of fire of the longbow, I am pretty sure that is inaccurate and should be fixed. Even 1/3 sounds optimistic.

I posted some links about this before, when the issue was RTW... lol. I'll see if I can find them. I guess perhaps the best solution would be to give the Longbows a Barrage Fire ability like the Monster Ribault has. The Longbow can be fired as fast as once every 3 seconds, a Crossbow takes somewhere between 9-15 seconds to fire a new salvo on average, depending on the cocking mechanism.

Buuuuut, a more average figure for firing with a longbow would be 5-7 seconds. When you're talking 100 pound or more draw weights... well, that's a hefty workout. It can be done - but it wouldn't be the usual, and it would leave the men tired afterwards. A steadier pace would usually be more effective.

[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?!

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[crpcarrot]

i'm with SMZ

i just dont understand why anyone would be in a situation where hes charging longbows at xbows? soundds like bad genralship to me.

and someone ssaid the 3 seconds per shot should be right cos there were kinghts dying evern12 seconds?? did u considere that the longbows may have been stagering their fire so that there was one guy firing every 3 seconds? that would be a much more efficient way of keeping a constant barrage of arrows with much more accuracy


longbows were not precision weapons. probably very affective as units firing a cloud of arrows to cover areas rather than singling out specific targets to take down. specially over longer distances.

[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.

[crpcarrot]

"Hmmm composite bows weren't made of wood ?! News to me ."

hmm i think you should read before u laugh at somebody else. in fact there were some composite bows made completly out of bones and sinew but i dont think thats what SMZ meant anyways.

[Carl]

hmm i think you should read before u laugh at somebody else. in fact there were some composite bows made completly out of bones and sinew but i dont think thats what SMZ meant anyways.

I think i just said somthing like that~:p.

longbows were not precision weapons. probably very affective as units firing a cloud of arrows to cover areas rather than singling out specific targets to take down. specially over longer distances.

Thats exactly how they where used. But I doubt ANY weapon of that era was accurate at that range. I don't know of any anyway.

[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.

[Husar]

I think ranged units get more accuracy with experience, so while real longbowmen might have been an elite unit, the game won't let you recruite them as gold-chevron units, you have to get them to that level by gaining combat experience. That's why this is called a game, otherwise you could just watch a movie where the victory is shown without you adding anything to it. You are supposed to develop your own über-elite-ownage longbows instead of the game giving them to you. Almost every unexperienced unit is prone to dying or running in the game and there are not many freshly trained units that can beat anything. My halberd militia for example should be able to win quite a few fights, but due to their low morale, they often run way too early and thus lose fights they could win with higher morale. I am pretty sure longbowmen with high experience kill more units per volley because they are more accurate. I've seen some highly experienced arquebusiers, every volley of them killed about the entire front row of an enemy formation, maybe even more, a newly trained unit is a lot less accurate.

[Kobal2fr]

I wasn't laughing at him, just clumsily pointing a funny logical flaw in what he was saying.

Of course there were horn+sinew and horn+silk composite bows, only not because there wasn't any wood available. The Mongols also used spears, remember ? Long, wooden spears ? Also, try making an arrow out of bone and sinew . Horn packs more tensile strength than wood is all, so it was more efficient to use it.

My point was that it is and was perfectly feasible to make wooden composite bows, even wooden recurve bows (if that was the word you were looking for). The Chinese did. The Japanese did.

What the English lacked was the composite tech itself, or rather they couldn't make it work back home on account of the glue problem, so their solution to increase draw weight was a simple increase in bow size.

Their longbows were made of wood instead of horn because there weren't any dinosaurs left in England anymore (save for Nessie of course), so no huge 2m long ribs for them to use either.

[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.

[SMZ]

hmm i think you should read before u laugh at somebody else. in fact there were some composite bows made completly out of bones and sinew but i dont think thats what SMZ meant anyways.

actually that's exactly what SMZ meant

the point was that wood was not as readily available as bone, horn and sinew... the point was not that the Mongols had never heard of the amazing substance known as wood - far enough back in history, everybody used self bows, the idea was that you get something springy and it will propel an arrow.... it wasn't until later that people began figuring out that substances which were hard to bend made even better devices for propeling missiles

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.

true, but proper care of the weapon could and did prevent such untimely mishaps... some soldiers let their swords rust too... that didn't make the English go back to bronze weapons - early firearms were very difficult to operate in wet conditions, that didn't make the English stick with their longbows - your point is nonexistent

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

You don't need special physics. Normal ones will suffice. The force of the weapon is expended in the upward flight, once it starts coming down, you're just using gravity. A steel crossbow has much greater intial force than a longbow, we can agree on this. However, by firing up into the air you waste all of that extra force. Once the missiles begin coming down, they are going to be gaining momentum and velocity at the same speed... if there was no air resistance. However, an arrow which is sharply pointed, long, slim and very aerodynamic will experience much less resistance than the short, rather blunt and fat crossbow bolt. All of which means, the arrow can attain enough force while falling to be lethal, while the tumbling bolt will be largely ineffective.

-----

They both have the same momentum (and thus impact power)

That's why your illustration is a little off... steel crossbows and longbows do not give the same momentum. Yes, the crossbow loses momentum faster over distance, but it starts out with significantly higher momentum to begin with... thus averaging out about the same in the end.

general better training of the longbowmen would make the supiriour to all crossbowmen anyway

And pardon me picking on this, but I see this mistake often. Sure, longbowmen generally speaking were far better trained than crossbowmen... but that's not as much of a difference as people think. Crossbowmen don't NEED as much training to be just as deadly as longbowmen. I can train in dart throwing for 25 years, but a guy who's trained with a pistol for just 2 years will still be more deadly.

[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...

[Mega Dux Bob]

Worth keeping in mind about longbows is the English used a lot of them. A typical late 14th to 15th century English army would be in MTW2 The general, two to three units of bill men and the rest longbows. 16 units of longbows verses 5-10 of crossbows is going to be a crossbowman massacre.

As for being the uber weapon of doom the later battles in the 100 years war make it very clear that if the longbowmen couldn't set their stakes they were meat on the table for the French mounted men-at-arms. At one battle (Vernuil, I think) the French had hired Italian mercenaries in the latest plate armor and the longbow was absolutely useless against it. That is retinue longbows verses gothic knights in game terms.

[Carl]

That's why your illustration is a little off... steel crossbows and longbows do not give the same momentum. Yes, the crossbow loses momentum faster over distance, but it starts out with significantly higher momentum to begin with... thus averaging out about the same in the end

I am aware of this BTW, the problem here is that as speed increases, the rate at which momentum is lost increases exponentially, (momentum is mass X velocity if you didn't know), as a result it's going to lose momentum even faster. yes in direct fire the crossbow WILL carry further, and it WILL retaining power better at short ranges. However, as the range increases then the longbow starts to get closer to and then surpass the crossbow. This doesn’t necessarily have to come before the longbows max range, but I’d be inclined to believe to would. Just a hunch based on my, (limited), science knowledge BTW.

@dopp: Do you know if you can find this anywhere, or anything similar? It sounds a touch dodgy considering I’ve seen a longbow go through fairly thick chain mail. Sure the plate is a lot better, but considering the relative thickness differences, it sounds odd. For that matter the suits of Historical Plate I’ve seen at the Royal Armouries in Leeds (UK), look a LOT thicker then 3mm everywhere. Not saying your wrong, rather it sounds very odd.

[Kraxis]

3mm is very thick... and quite heavy.

You can't compare mail, as it is particularly weak against arrows with a chisel point. Point get into ring, expands as it moves and breaks the ring from the inside. Simple enough, and the main background behind the bodkin.
With good padding the problem becomes much less, but still the arrows would penetrate the rings themselves. As the account of the 1st Crusade knights that had lost their horses and were peppered by horse archers until they looked like porcupines, yet they felt no ill effects themselves. Obviously the enemy arrows penetrated the rings (they stuck to the man), but not the padding beneath.

So whenever you see tests against mail, make sure there is padding and something behind the padding to simulate the person. And make sure the mail is stretched out and generally fairly large (or else the mail will just move with the force into the target creating a falsly strong impact, but this is more regarding melee).

Also, I have seen people try to argue for the longbow's 1337'ness with tests made against plate that was then penetrated, but not told people that it was in fact darkened aluminium. Talk about closing your eyes and wanting things to be true.

[Carl]

3mm is very thick... and quite heavy.

I know that, just that the stuff I’ve seen up close looks a LOT thicker, probably half a cm+. Of course most of these WHERE famous suit, or based on famous suits, so maybe they where unusually thick?

Also, I have seen people try to argue for the longbow's 1337'ness with tests made against plate that was then penetrated, but not told people that it was in fact darkened aluminium. Talk about closing your eyes and wanting things to be true.

Of course, by the same token, when doing it against proper steel you need to bear in mind the type of steel used in both the plate and the arrow head. If the plate is too good a quality (we can make much better quality steel today), it could have knock on effects on the accuracy.

You can't compare mail, as it is particularly weak against arrows with a chisel point. Point get into ring, expands as it moves and breaks the ring from the inside. Simple enough, and the main background behind the bodkin.
With good padding the problem becomes much less, but still the arrows would penetrate the rings themselves. As the account of the 1st Crusade knights that had lost their horses and were peppered by horse archers until they looked like porcupines, yet they felt no ill effects themselves. Obviously the enemy arrows penetrated the rings (they stuck to the man), but not the padding beneath.

The test was against a model of a Boar draped in Mail, (it was a publicity piece for Time Team). Don't know for sure what the boar was made of, probably wood based on the impact sound. Also a 15 yard test I think, (I can't remember the distance given I’m afraid). It defiantly went through the mail and buried itself firmly in the boar, and this longbow only had 60lb of draw supposedly.

Also thanks for the Mail explanation, I knew it was at a disadvantage vs. missiles, but didn't know the exact cause.

My biggest reason for being a touch disbelieving of the test mentioned is the fact that the English DID use Longbows extensively prior to gunpowder, and apparently won often, yet the enemy would often have been wearing plate, so it has to have been useful against it or they would have switched to crossbows.

[Kobal2fr]

actually that's exactly what SMZ meant

the point was that wood was not as readily available as bone, horn and sinew... the point was not that the Mongols had never heard of the amazing substance known as wood - far enough back in history, everybody used self bows, the idea was that you get something springy and it will propel an arrow.... it wasn't until later that people began figuring out that substances which were hard to bend made even better devices for propeling missiles

Aaaand we're back to the bone+silk spears, then. If there long pieces of wood weren't readily available, they must have been using those, innit ?

In ancient times they started using wooden composite bows because they were better pound for pound, and easier to handle (and make) than longer plain bows, especially on horseback. They switched to bone ones when they realized those worked even better. I agree that the first bone bows must have sprung up out of necessity rather than bow field efficiency research, but they stuck overtime because of said efficiency, I think.

true, but proper care of the weapon could and did prevent such untimely mishaps... some soldiers let their swords rust too... that didn't make the English go back to bronze weapons - early firearms were very difficult to operate in wet conditions, that didn't make the English stick with their longbows - your point is nonexistent

It's not a "misshap" when it just doesn't work. If the glue cannot hold and react the right way, you're left with a silly looking bow that is even less powerful than a plain bow of the same size.
Early English firearms didn't work in the rain, that much is true, but firearms didn't work in the rain for the French either.
On the other hand, if you can't use your funny bows in the rain, yet the enemy can use his normal, less powerful bows just fine, I imagine your enthusiasm for them funny bows is somewhat dampened (excuse the pun).

The English (and French, and Italians etc...) certainly knew about composite bows. The Huns had invaded Europe centuries earlier and used composite bows. The Magyar tribes who became the Hungarians also did. Why would Christendom pass up on usable superior tech ?

You don't need special physics. Normal ones will suffice. The force of the weapon is expended in the upward flight, once it starts coming down, you're just using gravity. A steel crossbow has much greater intial force than a longbow, we can agree on this. However, by firing up into the air you waste all of that extra force. Once the missiles begin coming down, they are going to be gaining momentum and velocity at the same speed...

Won't an arrow shot upwards behave exactly the same ? Factoring air resistance out, anything thrown up will come back down with exactly the same amount of force it had going up.

To hit the same spot with a bow and a crossbow in an arc, the crossbowman will have to use a much steeper angle, and that means more friction, a loss in accuracy (due to wind and tumbling) and a change in the target's aspect making him even harder to hit.

The bolt sure will lose much of its original power/momentum to friction, but that won't make it any harmless. Less powerful, sure. Won't pierce metal anymore. But the terminal velocity of a crossbow bolt is not that far from that of an arrow, and is probably still downright dangerous, if only you could get it to hit anything reliably

[Kraxis]

Also gunpowder weapons can easily be shielded from the nasty effects of rain (less so with fog, but then again who fights set piece battles in dense fog?). A composite bow just needed a damp environment. It dealt fine enough with rain as long as it was dried and kept dry afterwards.

[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.

[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.

[SMZ]

It's not a "misshap" when it just doesn't work.

I'd call that the worst type of mishap. Once again, just like you can protect powder from getting wet, oil your sword and sand your armor... if you had a composite bow in a damp area - you could prevent it from falling apart, as long as you took care of it. If they knew how to make the things, and had the materials, they would've.

If there long pieces of wood weren't readily available, they must have been using those, innit ?

On the steppes who used a bow? Everybody who wanted to eat. On the steppes who used a spear? Wealthier equivalents of nobility. I trust you see the connection.

The English (and French, and Italians etc...) certainly knew about composite bows. The Huns had invaded Europe centuries earlier and used composite bows. The Magyar tribes who became the Hungarians also did. Why would Christendom pass up on usable superior tech?

lol... being killed with something does not translate into knowing how to make it. The U.S. had fun blowing up Afghanistan with the aid of "smart bombs".... why doesn't Afghanistan just build it's own?

Won't an arrow shot upwards behave exactly the same?

However, an arrow which is sharply pointed, long, slim and very aerodynamic will experience much less resistance than the short, rather blunt and fat crossbow bolt. All of which means, the arrow can attain enough force while falling to be lethal, while the tumbling bolt will be largely ineffective.