Mounted Crossbowmen

[HoreTore]

Well, they did exist...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rossbowman.JPG

I really doubt their tactic was a cantabrian circle, however...But it seems that CA has simply given that ability to all mounted missile units...

[pike master]

i believe the could shoot on the move but at some point they would have to halt to reload. preferably out of range of the enemies missile troops.

[Odin]

I agree with Orda in the sense that there seems to be a little boost to the west unit selection and overall strength/options (if I am getting his sentiment correct). I am a big fan of HA's use them when ever I can no matter the faction, but mounted Xbows is a western unit, and seeing the Danes bring them to bare and performing Cantabrian circle seems a little silly.

That said it would be nice if the ability to perform the tactic was tied into unit expirence. I think if a mounted HA unit reaches a certain level its fair to assume that they would be more efficent with thier weapons and provide better tactics.

I think Orda's overall point is that the western armies are already strong enough with the foot soldiers and heavy cavalry, now on top of that we have western mounted units perfoming skill tactics on horseback. At least at the start all HA advantages should belong to the east.

[Furious Mental]

"
I see CA have helped certain Euro factions to combat HA by inventing this nonsense. "

I doubt it. Mounted crossbowmen are total pants compared to units like Mongol heavy archers, Dvor cavalry and Mamluk archers. If you are playing as a European faction and you have to deal with horse archers the answer is to train or hire pavise crossbowmen, not mounted crossbowmen with their pitiful 5 missile attack. Mounted crossbowmen are just light cavalry with some ability to skirmish- good for pursuing routing Europeans but totally worthless for fighting proper horse archers. On top of that, with the exception of the Poles, the factions that have them can't even train them until they build the highest level of archery range, which is pretty silly given that historically they were in use long before the other sorts of units that are trained at that level of development. Frankly the pro-Europe bias is not evident to me.

[Orda Khan]

Yes I am well aware that there were mounted crossbowmen but to see them performing Cantabrian circle is nonsense.

Mongols and Timurids in SP campaign are only tough because of upgrades. Try a custom battle at 10,000 florins if you want to see how badly they fare in both units and unit cost.

Yes Odin, spot on

.......Orda

[econ21]

Does anyone know how mounted crossbowmen were used historically? I can see that they would be useful in the typical medieval warfare, based on pillaging and sieging. But in set piece battles, I am having a hard time imagining their utility. Surely it would be better to dismount? Preferably beside a large pavisse?

[vonsch]

Does anyone know how mounted crossbowmen were used historically? I can see that they would be useful in the typical medieval warfare, based on pillaging and sieging. But in set piece battles, I am having a hard time imagining their utility. Surely it would be better to dismount? Preferably beside a large pavisse?

Well, as far as the French go, can't give up that mobility for those common advances to the rear!

[HoreTore]

Does anyone know how mounted crossbowmen were used historically? I can see that they would be useful in the typical medieval warfare, based on pillaging and sieging. But in set piece battles, I am having a hard time imagining their utility. Surely it would be better to dismount? Preferably beside a large pavisse?

Well, a little info from wikipedia:

Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor. This led to the development of new cavalry tactics. Knights and mercenaries deployed in triangular formations, with the most heavily armored knights at the front. The knights would carry small, powerful all-metal crossbows of their own. Crossbows were eventually replaced in warfare by gunpowder weapons, although early guns had slower rates of fire and much worse accuracy than contemporary crossbows. Later, similar competing tactics would feature harquebusiers or musketeers in formation with pikemen, pitted against cavalry firing pistols or carbines.

[R'as al Ghul]

Does anyone know how mounted crossbowmen were used historically? I can see that they would be useful in the typical medieval warfare, based on pillaging and sieging. But in set piece battles, I am having a hard time imagining their utility. Surely it would be better to dismount? Preferably beside a large pavisse?

It's wrong to imagine a unit of Mounted xbows. The kind of armies that we see in Total War, neatly seperated in "one weapon only"-units has nothing to do with history but only with gameplay.
In reality you had small units, at some point in time called a "lance". A lance would consist of a noble and his entourage. The noble would be equipped as a heavy Knight and his entourage would protect and assist him on the battle field. (Broken Lances are Knights without entourage). Those followers had all kinds of weapons, xbows among them.
This structure of loyalty, followers taking orders from the noble, can be scaled up to the whole army and thus gives a good impression on army structure. One army leader (king for example) commands lesser nobles which command even lesser wich only command their own followers.
So, if an army leader would like to have a Cavalry contingent attack a flank, that contingent would consist of very mixed troops. The heavy Knights among them would form the spearhead and everyone else would follow, using what kind of weapon he has access to.

R'as