Longbows vs. Crossbows

[Rick]

Why is the missile rating of a longbow 5 and the crossbow rating an 8?

[PerXX]

Because the crossbow is capable of delivering much higher kinetic energy in a bolt than any bow.

[MrExpendable]

I think that the SS team wanted the player to have crossbows more as a powerful support unit for sniping targets at close/medium range, whereas the longbows have to be used en masse to be effective.

Also, what PerXX said is true. Especially counts for late era crossbows.

[Rick]

An yet (correct me if I'm wrong) at the Crecy a unit of Genoese crossbowmen were decimated and routed by the English longbowmen before the crossbowmen could get into range.

[MrExpendable]

Absence of pavises, crossbow mechanisms being screwed by rainfall (longbowmen could simply remove and hide their bow strings), and poor infantry organization by the French were the main causes for the Genoese crossbowmen to fail.

[PerXX]

An yet (correct me if I'm wrong) at the Crecy a unit of Genoese crossbowmen were decimated and routed by the English longbowmen before the crossbowmen could get into range.

I'm not sure why that's relevant compared to their attack strength?

True, it was a victory for the Longbow, although many factors played in.
Be sure though that the stats are based on quith thorough research by Point Blank, who've made the Real Recruitment/Real Combat submod.
It should be possible to find discussions there, counting draw power, missile weight and so forth. It is not randomly chosen numbers.

[CoeurDeLion]

They are two very different weapons. A crossbow has superior power because its draw weight is far higher than a longbow, hence the bolt (not arrow) is launched at a greater velocity and thus, delivers more force on impact. It is able to achieve the higher draw weight because the process is mechanized as opposed to be dependent on the arm strength of the user. Conversely, because of the mechanization, it takes far longer to load and fire one and a crossbow is bulkier and heavier than a longbow. The other downside is that it can only fire in a relatively straight line.

A longbow by contrast, can be fired in an arc, which allows the downward force of gravity to supplement the initial energy supplied by the draw, thus greatly extending the range. Although a longbow requires years of training to master, once learned, it can be used quite rapidly as it is a very simple device mechanically speaking.

Therefore, historically crossbows were used as skirmish troops to fire a few volleys and soften an enemy line prior to contact with infantry/cavalry. The higher impact force and straight line of sight makes it perfect in this regard as it becomes a point and shoot weapon that will essentially guarantee a kill or severe wound on whatever target it hits, regardless of armor. Longbows, in the context of how the English used them, were employed as a primary force rather than a supporting force. By achieving a high rate of fire, despite the lower impact force, an English army could suppress rather than soften an enemy, and in many cases inflict terribly high casualties. This is why late period English armies would be 70% - 80% archers whereas more traditional European armies might only have 10% of their force committed as archers.

Crecy illustrates another important aspect, as the English fought from a strongly defensible and ELEVATED, position. The elevation increases the range of the arc even more, allowing additional casualties to be inflicted from even further away. Agincourt involved a narrow field sodden with mud, slowing the French advance and allowing the English to fire an enormous quantity of arrows into a relatively condensed target. however, on open fields, and not afforded the opportunity to prepare defenses, the English were at a severe disadvantage to the French cavalry.

[Rick]

Thank you, everyone. Your grasp of the details of this subject is amazing and extremely instructive. Many years ago I read a novel titled "The White Company" by Arthur Canon Doyle. In it he has a group of longbowmen in a contest with crossbowmen. In it, he had the longbowmen penetrating plate armor with a higher velocity than the crossbow counterpart. From what you're telling me here, Arthur may have got his specifications twisted.

Thanks again.

[CoeurDeLion]

You're welcome.

What you read is not entirely inaccurate though. There are other factors, but I was trying to avoid writing even more of an essay.

A longbow can definitely pierce armor, it just takes more skill to use. Depending on range and the angle of the shot, an arrow from a longbow can certainly hit with enough force to do that. From 10 yards away for instance, both are pretty lethal in a straight shot. The advantage of the long bow is it can reach greater ranges without losing too much force because gravity causes the arrow to accelerate downwards when fired in an arc whereas a crossbow bolt just steadily loses velocity over distance.

An important factor is the training required. As I mentioned, a longbow takes years of practice to master whereas just about anybody can pick up and use a crossbow with deadly force within a matter of minutes. As a result, crossbows were disposable troops whereas longbows were an investment. Being able to fire in an arc also meant being able to shoot over the heads of people in front of you and so, English longbows would typically be arranged as many as ten ranks deep, creating a large field of fire due to the different angles being used simultaneously.

There are also several different varieties of crossbows. For instance some were drawn by hand and then fired whereas some were wound with gears. Different crossbows of course had, and still have, different draw weights. Depending on the skill of the longbowman, the conditions of the test, and the crossbow being used for comparison, it is certainly possible that a longbow could be fired with greater velocity. For purposes of overall discussion, it is sometimes necessary to make generalizations though.

[edited for additional clarification]

[k/t]

A wise man once said "The only weapon more overhyped than the longbow is the katana".

Oh, wait, it was me.

[CoeurDeLion]

The longbow is definitely over-hyped considering the very steep learning curve. People forget the reason England lost all the territory it won in the Hundred Year's War was because they couldn't garrison the land with enough men to hold it. Like yea, 8,000 dudes with longbows are bad ass, but if you suffer one major defeat it takes a long time to recoup that.

The katana......that's a tougher call but I would agree with the over hyped assessment. Again, the learning curve is a huge factor. You really have to know how to deliver a blow with one for it to be an awesome weapon, although it is still a capable blade with only minimal training. A trained Samurai is probably the closest thing to invincible the world has ever seen in terms of single combat though.

Not to go too far OT but, I think the most decisive military invention of the post-Roman and pre-Modern world would have to be the stirrup, but that's a different thread.

[Ichon]

It depends on the level of crossbow technology in large part as well as the type of crossbow. Early crossbows were relatively weak with draw weights only a bit above longbow capability but were less efficient in passing that energy to the missile which meant short range and incapable of penetrating more than mail. However because of the low investment cost it was still an effective weapon.

As the technology improved the velocity and range of crossbows improved steadily and eventually surpassed longbows although being more inaccurate at longer ranges due to difficulty aiming, shorter bolt, and other factors and most important for battles was that crossbows fired more slowly. However its main advantages were crossbows could store energy and nearly anyone could use them. For sieges crossbows have more advantages than bows and sieges were a large part of warfare in that era. Late era crossbows could fire heavy bolt as far as a longbow or even much further with some designs while retain greater penetration power though just as crossbow were attaining this level guns were developing as well and guns were an even cheaper, more effective weapon.

During 1400-1600 before guns were everywhere crossbows attained a level of technology where they were capable of penetrating plate armor from a further distance than longbows but neither could do so at long range so plate armor still provided very good protection while in a charge or advancing on a position.

[Rick]

Not to go too far OT but, I think the most decisive military invention of the post-Roman and pre-Modern world would have to be the stirrup, but that's a different thread.

Oh absolutely. I've done some study on the stirrup, primarily trying find the earliest us of it. By all means, let me know the thread I'd like to participate the discussion.

[Ichon]

Oh absolutely. I've done some study on the stirrup, primarily trying find the earliest us of it. By all means, let me know the thread I'd like to participate the discussion.

There were a couple long threads about that in EB forums but you can also read the Couched Lance thread here. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=564028

[RollingWave]

bows and crossbows are complex subjects as it involve both the construction of the bows and crossbows as well as that of the arrow and bolt, different combinations end up with considerablly strengths and weakness that makes it hard to really generalize. for example weather were a considerable factor for those things, longbows general advantage was that it was a simple design that thus was more weather resistent that the more complex crossbows or composite bows (think of it as the AK-47 of it's days) though simple crossbows also had similar advantages .

Meanwhile, Composite bows are a different subject compare to Longbows as well, and that's a whole nother complex subject as composite material vary and the arrows also is often different. Turks can hit a abosalutely ridiculas distances (greater than even the greatest crossbows and easily double the Longbow) but using arrow that had virtually no penetration value.

[PerXX]

bows and crossbows are complex subjects as it involve both the construction of the bows and crossbows as well as that of the arrow and bolt, different combinations end up with considerablly strengths and weakness that makes it hard to really generalize. for example weather were a considerable factor for those things, longbows general advantage was that it was a simple design that thus was more weather resistent that the more complex crossbows or composite bows (think of it as the AK-47 of it's days) though simple crossbows also had similar advantages .

Meanwhile, Composite bows are a different subject compare to Longbows as well, and that's a whole nother complex subject as composite material vary and the arrows also is often different. Turks can hit a abosalutely ridiculas distances (greater than even the greatest crossbows and easily double the Longbow) but using arrow that had virtually no penetration value.

Turkish composite bows, firing flight arrows can certainly fly at amazing ranges, compared to most ranged weapons at the time - things like the weight of the arrow means they probably wouldn't do much damage at full range though.

[Trailhog250]

Why is the missile rating of a longbow 5 and the crossbow rating an 8?

To answer this directly without giving various RL reasons it's because those are the RC (real-combat) stats for them in-game. (you'll notice longbows shoot just a little farther and faster I believe)

[Andytheplatypus]

crossbows should have a longer range than long bows

[Ichon]

crossbows should have a longer range than long bows

Late era crossbow do get longer ranges but not more than longbow. It is a difficult situation due to the engine. If we give crossbow ranges of 250 or higher than they should lose some of their attack as otherwise they are hitting above 10 attack past 200 which is not correct. Only way I've been able to think how to do it is divide both archers and crossbow into 2 types of units where there are long range units with lower attack, accuracy, and velocity and short range unit with higher attack, accuracy, and velocity

[DC53]

crossbows should have a longer range than long bows

Why do you say that? Just want to know.