Longbows are no good

[Lord_hazard]

Actually If yiou use FLAMING MISSILES you will take care of pavise crossbowmen as their shield on the back catches fire very quickly ;)

So still the best missile units are retinue longbowmen ( specially because of the sharpened satkes only english longbowmen can use!!!!

The english longbowman should be supperior just because they can use stakes, but because they are superior arhcers. A longbowman could hit a target 300m away well beyond the reach of a crossbow, and since the longbowmen didnt use quivers, instead they put their arrows into the ground infront of them to increase rate of fire, did could fire about 20 arrrows per minute alot faster, then any other archer. And the english longbow, which should be made of yew in the game as it was in rl, was far superior to smaller bows as they typically had draws greater than 65 kgf (143 lbf)).
Its stupid that only the notthingham archers in the game use yew bows when infact that was what most english longbows were made off.

[rosscoliosis]

I see this has been discussed to death, but I'd like to throw in my support to this ridiculousness as well. I had loved using archers to dwindle down enemy numbers before attacking in the previous Total War games, but I've long since gotten to the point in M2TW (playing as England) that if I see an enemy army has crossbowmen, I don't even bother bringing archers to attack. There really doesn't seem to be much point when crossbowmen fire faster, with about the same range, (or will run up to be within range anyway) and then will rape your archers. So, I usually just start running my infantry at the melee units behind the crossbowmen as soon as they start receiving fire, and chase down the fleeing crossbowmen with cavalry. Thus, with almost all of Europe having crossbowmen, my previously loved archers end up being relegated almost entirely to garrison duty. At least there they're still pretty effective, just for some reason seemingly not as effective at destroying rams and siege towers as they were in Rome...

[Lord_hazard]

I see this has been discussed to death, but I'd like to throw in my support to this ridiculousness as well. I had loved using archers to dwindle down enemy numbers before attacking in the previous Total War games, but I've long since gotten to the point in M2TW (playing as England) that if I see an enemy army has crossbowmen, I don't even bother bringing archers to attack. There really doesn't seem to be much point when crossbowmen fire faster, with about the same range, (or will run up to be within range anyway) and then will rape your archers. So, I usually just start running my infantry at the melee units behind the crossbowmen as soon as they start receiving fire, and chase down the fleeing crossbowmen with cavalry. Thus, with almost all of Europe having crossbowmen, my previously loved archers end up being relegated almost entirely to garrison duty. At least there they're still pretty effective, just for some reason seemingly not as effective at destroying rams and siege towers as they were in Rome...

Sad isnt it

[Ring_Master\]

I see this has been discussed to death, but I'd like to throw in my support to this ridiculousness as well. I had loved using archers to dwindle down enemy numbers before attacking in the previous Total War games, but I've long since gotten to the point in M2TW (playing as England) that if I see an enemy army has crossbowmen, I don't even bother bringing archers to attack. There really doesn't seem to be much point when crossbowmen fire faster, with about the same range, (or will run up to be within range anyway) and then will rape your archers. So, I usually just start running my infantry at the melee units behind the crossbowmen as soon as they start receiving fire, and chase down the fleeing crossbowmen with cavalry. Thus, with almost all of Europe having crossbowmen, my previously loved archers end up being relegated almost entirely to garrison duty. At least there they're still pretty effective, just for some reason seemingly not as effective at destroying rams and siege towers as they were in Rome...

This is very interesting, because in my game experiences I've never had to resort to these role-dwindling practices concerning the archer's role...
The most I'll say to that though is that it's dead true that Pavise cross-bowmen dominate any other archer unit..no doubt in my mind over that...

[Carl]

But then again, Pavise Crossbowmen really should when you think about it. Only Muskets would have the power to go through that sheild. Allthough their are ways around it I imagine.

[econ21]

... I've long since gotten to the point in M2TW (playing as England) that if I see an enemy army has crossbowmen, I don't even bother bringing archers to attack. There really doesn't seem to be much point when crossbowmen fire faster, with about the same range, (or will run up to be within range anyway) and then will rape your archers.

Crossbowmen do not fire faster and they don't "rape" archers. This thread is a little misleading, as it has no test results and goes off on a tangent out history. But in-game testing tends to match my experience that longbows are fine:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...32&postcount=1

From a historical realism point of view, I agree with Carl, pavise crossbows should win - that enormous shield minimises exposure to enemy fire. So M2TW is a little generous to the longbow in giving them near parity. More than a little generous, given that the longbows can unrealistically make the pavise explode into flame, killing the crossbowmen.

Sad isnt it

Nothing sad about it. An English army with 3-5 longbows is a powerful force in the SP campaign. Yes, if you faced 3-5 pavise crossbows (e.g. the Milanese), you should not shoot it out but instead charge them. However, against most AI armies, I find the longbows are extremely useful. I find they are excellent at shooting up the few peasant crossbowmen etc, then softening up the heavy enemy units prior to my assault. Now that the passive AI bug is largely gone, they shine more in the offense (or siege defence) than in a defensive field battle (when the AI will rush to close with you). But the stakes are nice for the latter - especially given the weakness of spears in the game.

[AussieGiant]

Hell of a read.

[Lord_hazard]

From a historical realism point of view, I agree with Carl, pavise crossbows should win - that enormous shield minimises exposure to enemy fire. So M2TW is a little generous to the longbow in giving them near parity. More than a little generous, given that the longbows can unrealistically make the pavise explode into flame, killing the crossbowmen.

In reallife the archers and crossbowmen who used a pavis would not have it on his back, they would put it into the ground or for the larger pavises have a groom carry and hold it.
But that dosnt change the fact that crossbows have a much shorter range then the yew longbow that the british used and its slower to fire.
The crossbowmen would be cut down from afar unless they were willing sacrifice speed for protection by only moving behind a big pavise carried by a groom, but it this game they carry it on their back, whats up with that?
The english longbowmen if compared would be miles ahead the crossbowmen in every regard other then not being as cost effective as a crossbow.
The english longbowmen in this game are underpowered and sadly just like any other archer unit. Not only historically incorrect but also a game ruiner when playing england (for me anyways).

[econ21]

But that dosnt change the fact that crossbows have a much shorter range then the yew longbow that the british used ...

I don't believe that is a fact. Most sources I have read indicate rough parity in effective range. (It will, of course, depend on the bow - both longbows and crossbows can vary a lot.) Also the longbow's lethality was mainly at the shorter ranges.

Here's about the first hit google throws up on "longbow crossbow range":

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

The english longbowmen in this game are underpowered ... a game ruiner when playing england (for me anyways).

Who are you fighting? Against Venetian massed stacks of pavise crossbowmen, I can see you being disappointed although I doubt anyone would seriously try to duke it out with them. But against anything else I've encountered, my longbowmen do great. A unit of longbowmen will pretty much destroy a stationary unit of knights, dismounted or mounted, let along pikemen and more lightly armoured troops. The trouble comes when the enemy is not stationary...

[Lord_hazard]

I don't believe that is a fact. Most sources I have read indicate rough parity in effective range. (It will, of course, depend on the bow - both longbows and crossbows can vary a lot.) Also the longbow's lethality was mainly at the shorter ranges.

Here's about the first hit google throws up on "longbow crossbow range":

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html



Who are you fighting? Against Venetian massed stacks of pavise crossbowmen, I can see you being disappointed although I doubt anyone would seriously try to duke it out with them. But against anything else I've encountered, my longbowmen do great. A unit of longbowmen will pretty much destroy a stationary unit of knights, dismounted or mounted, let along pikemen and more lightly armoured troops. The trouble comes when the enemy is not stationary...

The crossbow has a better punch then a longbow but a normal crossbow cant accurately hit a target 300+ meters away.
True that there are many different types of crossbows and they all varied in strength and effective range. But theres only two types of longbows the ones made of yew(the english longbows) and those not made of yew. But normal crossbows had inferior range and all the variations had a very low rate of fire. And that homepage isnt very scientific.
The way english longbowmen used their bows wasnt straight fire, as you would do with the crossbow, but they all fired into certain areas to carpet that area with bodkin arrows. But the bodkin arrow wasnt made to combat platemail as the platemail wasnt really widespread at that time, instead it was made to pierce chainmail, so the crossbow bolt with its greater energy would easily pierce most types of armor within its effective range.
The main difference is that the longbow has a better rate of fire then the crossbow.

The reason i said the longbowman wasnt better then alot of the other archers in the game, is based on their stats. Ofc you will rule the battlefield with longbowmen when fighting against the AI. But i havent tried mp yet, so its mostly based on the stats of the units which are pretty much identical.

[CBR]

The crossbow has a better punch then a longbow but a normal crossbow cant accurately hit a target 300+ meters away.

Only heavy crossbows had a better punch. Belt hook crossbows of 300-400 pound draw weight would be similar to heavy longbows in power.

And no one could hit anything accurately at 300+ meters anyway. At that range bolts and arrows would be dropping down at 45 degrees or so depending on power of the weapon. That means if the shooter misjudges distance by just 2 meters he would miss no matter how accurate the weapon is.

But normal crossbows had inferior range and all the variations had a very low rate of fire.

The most common crossbows used were belt and hook crossbows. I have not seen any data to suggest they had inferior range to heavy longbows when using heavy bolts. Only when bows used light flight arrows would they have had better range, but such arrows were in a minority and have less energy compared to heavy war arrows. All in all they had similar effective range.

A belt and hook crossbow can do 8-10 shots/minute max compared to 20+ shots/minute for light bows. Heavy crossbows using a windlass or crannequin would be more like 1-2 shots/minute max. As I described in an earlier post in this thread, one archer (Simon Stanley) who can use longbows of 170+ pound draw weight doesnt like to shot more than 6 shots/minute when using such monsters.

Now obviously the fast firerates are really just light draw weight tests to see how long it takes to perform the whole loading proces. Weapons of heavier draw weight would require more work to use and if one wanted a bit of aiming it would slow down too.

I dont think there was that much difference between the belt hook crossbow and heavy longbows.

The way english longbowmen used their bows wasnt straight fire, as you would do with the crossbow

Missile troops would use direct "fire" if at short range and use indirect at long ranges. There would be no difference between bows and crossbows. Obviously troops in the rear ranks would still use high trajectory shooting even at short ranges.

firstly there are no recorded instances (as far a I know) of generally successful indirect fire from crossbows

Skeleton remains from Visby shows bolt wounds from both short range direct fire as well as wounds from bolts that came down nearly vertical. There are illustrations of crossbowmen using crossbows at around 45 degrees. Of course shooting at near max range is never very effective but that is the same for bows.

Erm, draw weight is draw weight. A 100 lb composite bow is no harder to draw and use than a 100 lb longbow.

Technically thats not entirely true. The force-draw curve of a composite is different than a self bow. A self bow has a slight rise (meaning the gradual increase in draw weight becomes bigger for each inch. A composite is more linear (although depends on design)

Basically it means that a composite bow has more energy stored in it if we assume same brace height, draw lenght and draw weight (and even the recurve design might not make them completely identical but nevermind that). But the more energy stored also means more work for the archer. A longbow archer who can shoot a 150 pound bow might prefer a 140 pound composite bow or less.

It is my understanding though that horsearchers did not use as heavy a draw weight as footarchers but TBH I dont have much information on that.


CBR

[Reapz]

The reason i said the longbowman wasnt better then alot of the other archers in the game, is based on their stats. Ofc you will rule the battlefield with longbowmen when fighting against the AI. But i havent tried mp yet, so its mostly based on the stats of the units which are pretty much identical.

Crapalot you can't rely on unit stats. The fact is that in-game testing shows that longbowmen are very powerful and handily beat pavise militia crossbowmen.

[Von Nanega]

I usually run 6 to 8 longbow units in a full army. This many arrows from the mighty bows have routed many of Englands enemies in my game. They are definatly worth the price IMO. In one battle four of my longbows marching to reinforce an army were attacked by a french army. They deployed stakes and managed to wreck the french full stack before charging and routing the rest. Good battle and amusing too. One just has to use them with an eye to terrain and the present tactical situation considered.