COMPOSITE BOWS vs LONGBOWS

[NoRbAk]

Please proceed your very interesting debate here!

TY


And BTW... IMO AP hability is too powerful for any bows-xbows... I mean, what if the arrow just hits the man's shield?

Surely a close xbow shot will pierce any helmet-skull from side to side, but first it has to hit it!!! I would love to see an odd-related AP capability, like: AP 50% of times. This would reflect that even if the arrow hits target, there is still a chance that it wont have AP effect depending on where it hit.

I ingore if this is possible with M2 mechanics... afraid not.

About english longbows and fantastic (for fantasy) sherwood archers with hoods in their heads... I believe english archers made their fame at Agincourt, when the french got stuck in the mud with their big armours, and the english archers, with no armour at all, were able to kill them all with small daggers by stabbing them throught the helmet visors... and eventually winning the french against all odds.

English archers were a elite unit, very good with bows and also with swords... etc etc... or so I have read, but I don't understand why the longbow-sherwood english archers should be the best archer in the game... let alone AP capability.

I bet you 10 to 1 that any mongol riding a steppe horse full speed with a composite bow would turn Robin Hood into a Mexican "pinchito" before he would even put his stupid hat on.

[Byzantium]

There are a few other things to consider here NoRbAk.

Regardless of the comparison between the weapons you have to consider the soldier using the weapons.I have little knowledge on the Eastern bows but the simple fact is the English Longbowmen (man and weapon) drastically changed the face of medieval warfare in Western Europe.They were not historically classed as an 'elite' unit but for game purposes they should be classed so as their effect was great.
During the hundred years war they forced the French (most powerful kingdom in the West) to adopt tactics that were alien to them (dismounting at the Battle of Mauron is a good example).
The way they were deployed and their numbers in the English armies were significant but theres no doubting they were a high quality soldier.

Also,Agincourt was no one off either,the same tactics were perfected against the Scots at Falkirk,Nevilles cross and repeated at Crecy etc.

The title of 'Composite V Longbow' hints at a historical debate which would be nothing but speculation.A debate on these units should be from the point of view of 'game balance' which is what matters here.
With that in mind as Englands unique unit and their historical impact they should be classed as a elite unit in game terms.

[sera]

I've come to recent longbows in general, simply because they seem to constitute the European equivalent of the katana. And similar to the katana, the longbow has a fanbase that praise the weapon to the point of wondering why modern weapons were invented at all!

Much of todays literature and culture is Anglo-Saxon oriented, and this have directly contributed to further the myth of the unsurpassable superiority of the longbow. The Battle of Crecy, for instance, was won due to the uber longbow and fine English archery, not because of poor French leadership, favourable conditions and the thousands upon thousands of archers deployed.

Consequently, any mod that incorporates one-sided longbow "fixes" are suspect in my eyes. Especially when advertising it along the lines of; "A gift to the longbowmen to give them the advantage they deserved". This is my number #1 reason I've yet to test this mod.

The longbow is a selfbow made out of a single piece of wood and can be made by a professional bowyer in a couple of hours while the composite recurve bow was truly medieval hi-tech at its finest. I've yet to see this portrayed in game terms.

[Tajl]

English Longbowmen (man and weapon) drastically changed the face of medieval warfare in Western Europe.

Did they really? What did english conquer with longbows? What other armies did adapt longbow as their main weapon? If longbow was superior to anything others had, then why didnt others use it too or if they couldn't, then why didn't English conquer French and some other countries too. Certainly it was not because they didn't want to.

On the other hand Mongols conquered a lot with their composite bows. Little info about mongol bows: http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm

Weapon desing is all about physics. I am not dr. but i think that it is clear that recurved composite bow is far superior desing.

If we speak about soldiers, i agree that english professional archers were probably very good with their weapons and they were very strong, they had to be. But i don't think that eastern soldiers were any worste. It is unlikely that Mongols would have conquered anything if they wouln't have had good military tradition. (Or if they were bad soldiers, then how overpowered should good soldier be with their equipment)

I think that Mongols had best archers, after that other eastern composite bow users, then longbows and after that rest of the western archers with their shorter selfbows.

In west most of the wars were decided in melee and in melee western knight was superior to its eastern counter parts, but in the east there was thousand years of history in archery warfare and their archers were superior to their western counterparts. That is how it was in history books that i have read. (Crusades etc...)

[Marine Hoplite]

Sera
Not entirely true. The serious longbows would actually take a while to make. Not because of any great complex process, but in an effort to get a precise moisture content. Also, there is good documentation that the english (and norse) were making recurved bows in the early middle ages. So that is'nt unique to the asian cultures.

The asiatic composite bows remained relatively unchanged right up until recent times. There are useable surviving examples of these. We can easily reproduce examples of the English war bow that are, if not exactly the same, damn close to what they would have been.

I do agree that any arrow, even a super heavy bodkin tipped one, will have trouble truly penetrating plate armor at anything but point blank range. However the sheer volume of arrows being rained down would ensure that some would fine their way through a visor or in between plates. I can get off a reasonably well aimed arrow once every 5 seconds or so. (I'm big time into bowhunting with a longbow) a well trained archer should be able to pull off 4 second volleys with no problem. Hell, the mounted archers can do that at full gallop. (Look at this guys video www.salukibow.com )

IMO to accurately portray archers in the game would be to set them up so that they have about 100 arrows or so, and can get off a volley every 4 or 5 seconds. But only a small percentage of the arrows will cause a casualty.

Now, I'm really talking about later period plate armor. Those bodkin arrows should have no problem at all opening up the rings of mail armor. Even at a decent range and would certainly go through "padded armor" like it was'nt even there.

[Marine Hoplite]

Tajl

I'm no historical expert, but I am very familiar with this subject. I don't know about who wrote that article but I have to take exception with some

each soldier carried two bows on horseback. One bow was for long-range shooting, another for shooting at close distances.

In all my years of being into traditional archery and studying this kind of thing. I have never ever seen a single illustration, relief or mention of an archer carrying two bows. Further, there is simply no reason for it. A bow that is suitable for shooting at a distance is just as good for shooting at close distances. The arrow will just not have slowed down as much.

Also, each soldier had two quivers with arrows for different purposes. .................... there were incendiary arrows for setting buildings afire and spreading fear in the enemy ranks

Flaming arrows on horseback?????????? Please!

Of course, the most arrows they carried were ordinary arrows where the arrowhead and length of the shaft were adjusted to the normal range at which the particular type arrow was to be used.

Again. There is simply no differrence for an arrow to shoot a long range and one for close range. I think the author is confusing this with tuning the arrows for an individual bow. This is done with shaft length and point weight.

The Mongol bow is not as large and long as the English one, but it is vastly more powerful. The draw weight of an English longbow averages around 70-80 pounds, whereas the Old Mongol bow had a pull that, according to George Vernadsky, averaged at around 166 pounds.

It has been pretty firmly established that the english bows were pulling around 150 pounds as well. However, I agree that it is bow design that has a much greater impact on it's performance. The extremely recurved design of the aisiatic bow would indeed give it much greater arrow speed and thus more kinetic energy.

However it's a trade off. A short, very recurved bow will not be very stable and have a tremendous amount of handshock. Greatly reducing it's accuracy. Whereas a longer heavier longbow will be much more stable and as a result much more accurate, but at a small penalty in arrow speed. I have had several longbows and still have a modern recurve. The differrence in handshock, stability, accuracy and arrow speed is quite noticeable. And neither of my bows aproach the extreme ends of the spectrum the way an english longbow and an asiatic horsebow would.

The Old Mongols have their own technique for shooting, known as the "Mongolian release." The Mongols......................Since this bow has immense power, the Mongols have to use a special technique to hold the string during the drawing of the bow and before the arrow is released

The thumb release is in no way unique to the mongols. Thumb rings and releases were used pretty much everywhere except europe. The reason for the thumb release has nothing to do with the power of the bow. It is because of the length. A short bow like that will exhibit lots of "finger pinch" where the string is trying to press your fingers together as it is pulled. This is difficult to explain without examples. It also makes zero difference in bow performance.

[Tajl]

In all my years of being into traditional archery and studying this kind of thing. I have never ever seen a single illustration, relief or mention of an archer carrying two bows. Further, there is simply no reason for it. A bow that is suitable for shooting at a distance is just as good for shooting at close distances. The arrow will just not have slowed down as much.

I think that i would use two bows if other would be very strong draw (150 pound) and other medium (80) when close range it would be waste of energy and speed to use that extremely strong bow. It takes longer to draw that heavy bow and even if in very good shape how long man can use a bow with that heavy draw.

Flaming arrows on horseback?????????? Please!

Flaming arrows in any battle but sieges????

Again. There is simply no differrence for an arrow to shoot a long range and one for close range. I think the author is confusing this with tuning the arrows for an individual bow. This is done with shaft length and point weight.

Even english had many kind of arrows, "Specialist war-arrows were designed to tackle the problem of different types of armour"
They definitely had hunting arrows too, different kind of arrows to different purphoses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbows

It has been pretty firmly established that the english bows were pulling around 150 pounds as well. However, I agree that it is bow design that has a much greater impact on it's performance. The extremely recurved design of the aisiatic bow would indeed give it much greater arrow speed and thus more kinetic energy.

"after leading bowyers examained the 'Mary Rose Longbows' (the best surviving example of the Medieval Longbow), it was decided that realisticly the bows could only be 100 pounds " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow
I have seen claims 70-180 pounds with longbows, who knows what is average but propaply Mary Rose Longbows can tell something.

However it's a trade off. A short, very recurved bow will not be very stable and have a tremendous amount of handshock. Greatly reducing it's accuracy.

Something that propaply doesn't matter a lot after few decades of training. Even if the composite bow is superior bow it is not easier to use than longbow, it too requires lot of training to use is properly...

[Byzantium]

Did they really? What did english conquer with longbows? What other armies did adapt longbow as their main weapon? If longbow was superior to anything others had, then why didnt others use it too or if they couldn't, then why didn't English conquer French and some other countries too. Certainly it was not because they didn't want to.

Yes they did.Up to that point the armoured knight was the ultimate battle winning weapon on the medieval battlefield.Even the French,probably the the most powerful kingdom in this respect altered their traditional tactics because of it.The English also had what is now 1/3 of modern day France with a relatively small number of soldiers mainly due to the French reluctance to engage in another large scale battle like Crecy.
Nobody else could field quality bowmen in such numbers,it certainly wasnt because they did'nt want to.It took years of training to get to that level of skill it wasn't simply a case of churning a few out.

Weapon desing is all about physics. I am not dr. but i think that it is clear that recurved composite bow is far superior design.

Maybe it is,i'm no expert,the design of the weapon is not the only thing that counts however.It is also down to the soldier,deployment and numbers.The design of the M16 is far superior to that of the Ak47 but that alone is not the only factor in the outcome of a many battles where they faced each other.

I think that Mongols had best archers, after that other eastern composite bow users, then longbows and after that rest of the western archers with their shorter selfbows.

Pure speculation.To suggest that any archer is better than another simply because of the bow he uses is flawed.The English archers,as i'm sure the Eastern archers were,were highly skilled and usually trained from a young age due to it being a popular sport in certain counties in Wales and Southern England.Englands tactics at this time revolved around a mass of arrow fire into enemy formations but that does not mean they were any less skilled individually should the need arise.


Also,you cannot attribute a specific poundage to a weapon such as the Longbow.The were not some government issued weapon and were in the main made by the user to their own specification.Nor were they made solely for war.They would have been used in everyday life for many and that is why there are few remaining from that period,they were simply a tool.

I'm not trying to say anyone is better than another as a skilled archer is a skilled archer no matter what bow he uses but the simple fact is the Longbowmen of England had a massive impact on the medieval battlefield during the period of the 100 years war and i feel this should be reflected in the game.
This dosent mean they have to be uber but their quality along with unit and game balance should be taken into account.

[Turgid_Walrus]

100 arrows is grossly inflated. It was 24, one third flight arrows, leaving 16 war arrows.

Padded armor is not weak, and is very protective from hand bow fire, though it is better served under armor.

Some accounts:
This one is from joinville, where a knight has to quickly put on padded armor to fend off arrows. They were wounded from before, but not killed, we can easily assume padded armor is effective.
"I got up, threw a quilted tunic over my back, clapped a steel cap on my head, and shouted out to our sergeants: 'by Saint Nicholas, they shall not stay here!'. My knights gathered round me, all wounded as they were, and we drove the Saracen sergeants away from our own machines and back toward a great body of mounted Turks who had stationed themselves quite close to the ones we had taken from them. I sent to the king for help, for neither I nor my knights could put on our hauberks because of the wounds we had received"

Louis the Sixth ordinance of 1470, Thick padded jacks are trusted against arrows:
"And first they must have for the said jacks, thirty, or at least twenty-five, folds of cloth, and a stag's skin; those of thirty, with the stag's skin being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is the best for this purpose, and these jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole (assiette) of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the arm- pit and full under the arm sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the jack, but not be too high behind, to allow room for the salade.

This jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece (porte piece) of the same strength as the jack itself. Thus the jack will be secure and easy, provided there be a pourpoint without sleeves or collar of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which pourpoint shall be attached the hose. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack, and be at his ease; for never have been seen half-a-dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."

Adding chain and survivalbility shoots up:
Siege of Bruges:
"By the special grace of God no one died in this multitude which was entering." and "I could not begin to describe the crowd of those who were hit and wounded." and "...as to those wearing an armor, they were exempted from wounds but not from bruises.."

Beha-ad-Din account of porcupine soldiers:
"Clothed in a kind of thick felt, and mail corselets as ample as they were strong, which protected them against arrows. I have seen men with up to ten arrows stuck in their bodies marching no less easily for that"

Account of Poitiers were longbowman failed to penetrate armor even leather shields at less than 60 meters. They have to resort to horse mining.
"Our bowmen of the vanguard stood safely in the marsh, lest the horsemen should attack them, yet even so those did prevail there somewhat. For the horsemen, as has been said, had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards.

Perceiving this, the earl of Oxford left the prince, and leading the archers with him to one side, ordered these to shoot at the hind parts of the horses. When this was done, the wounded horses kicked and reared, and threw their riders, and then turning back upon them, wrought great slaughter on their own masters, who had thought to have another end. Since the horsemen were thus beaten back, the archers, retiring to the place form which they had come, pierced the fighting flanks of the French with direct shots."

Problem with hand bows, long bows in particular, is when the arrow goes across the bow with such force the wrapping effect causes the arrow to oscillate and swerve to the left and then right. Called Archer's Paradox by hunters. As the arrow oscillates the chance of the head hitting at a piece of armor at an angle drasctically increases, meaning less force enters into the target. Modern day compound bows use specially designed loops and arrow shelves to compensate for the paradox which is one of the reasons they are more "powerful" even with less draw weight. Crossbows never had this problem because the bolt is more stout and fired along a tiller. It is not unreasonable to assume then that a crossbow with less draw weight than a bow could ultimately have more penetration power. Famed bow hunter, Howard "one shot" Hill writes about this, I believe, stating the problems in killing animals with thick fur because the absorbant resistance "fouls" the arrow. He often hunted with longbows of medieval draw weight, so again another example in how a soft "suit" can suitable protection.

[Marine Hoplite]

I see your point with the padding. I have had a broadhead arrow fail to penetrate the layer of wing feathers on a Canada goose.

However as to the oscilation. This is a very small amount of flexing on the part of the shaft. So it would not angle the head very much at all. Besides this has all ended within 15 or 20 yards. It's only an issue because the angling of the fletching relative to the air robs arrow speed.

[Turgid_Walrus]

Well I've seen it still occur from slow motion photography for quite a ways on hunting shows. A bodkin, being a needle wouldn't require much deviation to lose effectiveness either.

In either case where is the drawback for longbowmen? In the late 1500's Sir Roger Williams and Humphrey Barwick wrote many.
-Bolts and bullets are easier to produce and resupply and more can be carried than arrows. The number carried can last the whole combat, longbowmen sometimes had people running around the battlefield to resupply them. In the game they carry roughly the same amount.
-Archers need to "shoot strong shoots." Crossbows still require a hefty strength as mechanical advantage doesn't eliminate the poundage and guns require much less. Meaning that gunmen and the like are more versatile on the move as their performance drops less in comparison when suffering from strength debilitating diseases. Try pulling a longbow back with mudbutt...unpossible. In the game no one gets sick. You can fight the Aztecs with Sherwood Archers, no problem.
-An Archer must "discover himself." They have to shoot standing up and in close ranks to concentrate their fire if they want to hit anything. While it takes significant skill with a smaller, but equivalent powered composite bow you can fire sitting. Crossbows and muskets can fired prone (the chinese could reload xbows prone too) and fired/reloaded crouched. Also, their weapons are not as awkward, being held laterally, and easily integrated into pike formations. This would mean longbowman would be easier to hit, less mobile, and couldn't stand so close to their melee companions. In the game there is no accuracy penalty/benefit unique to particular units, you can move either as you like, and pike integration is not a given option plus pikemen tend to drop pikes and pick up swords when they shouldn't.
-Longbowmen can't make use of defensive trenches for the above reason and so are much more vulnerable to artillery fire, while they do use stakes and pits to protect them in place of infantry. During the Battle of Formigny cannon blasted them out of their stakes and earthworks, and were only captured when they charged. Of course without a defensive position longbowmen were charged and return fired upon. Rate of fire is not enough to protect them, over 500 Welsh longbowmen were killed by peasants alone, so maybe peasants aren't that overpowered
-The hidden costs behind longbowmen are considerable, which is bad considering they were intended as a "cheap" fix because less men could be fielded. Consider the enforced bow practice. You tell dirt farmer's of Village X to practice more archery, then less dirt is farmed. Less dirt = less taxes, less taxes = less money, and money is the engine that drives expansion. Also longbowmen, being drawn from a vast talent pool rather than standards of chivalry or discipline (as can be made with "simpler" weapons) were notorious for the brutal killing of noble prisoners that shocked even the English and for engaging in banditry and rapine within their own country. Again more hidden costs. Argueably eastern composite bow societies had a much smoother integration of archery. Mongols had a strict, mobile warrior culture. The Muslims were wealthy being in places of trade and thus could afford more "free time." In the game, England suffers no inherent economic disadvantage from passively producing the men recruited as longbowmen. They are only somewhat more expensive to recruit.

[Byzantium]

Interesting discussion chaps,

I suppose the real trick to all this is how to balance this ingame,to do this from a historical point of view is virtually impossible i think.Even first hand accounts of large scale battles vary a lot from person to person.Even a well known battle like Crecy has it's talking points;whether the English archers were deployed on the wings or along the front of the line is one such point of debate.
Even the best armour is not uniformally protective of the whole body which leads me to believe that the sheer volume of arrows fired at a battle like Crecy is what caused the damage.Looking at conservative estimates of the battle where each of the 6000 bowmen carried and fired 25-30 arrows that equals 180,000 which is a terrifying prospect.
Another point to consider is the Genoese at Crecy who were very well equipped in both mail and leather who were routed fairly quickly at the battle and who suffered terrible casualties even before the French knights under Alencon rode them down.
As none of us were there you have to give some credence to the chroniclers who describe the battle.If the longbowmen were as impotent as many would suggest,and i'm not talking about anyone here by the way,then the battle would have been a cakewalk for the French who outnumbered the English greatly.This battle in particular was also more or less a straight copy of other battles such as Nevilles cross where the Scots were defeated.

[sera]

Yes they did.Up to that point the armoured knight was the ultimate battle winning weapon on the medieval battlefield.Even the French,probably the the most powerful kingdom in this respect altered their traditional tactics because of it.The English also had what is now 1/3 of modern day France with a relatively small number of soldiers mainly due to the French reluctance to engage in another large scale battle like Crecy.

There are historical treatises on the Battle of Crecy that might shed a different light to your Longbows R' Us version of events. The Genoese Pavaise Crossbowmen were considered a professional elite unit and under French command. It has been said that the Genoese were force-marched in heavy rain and deployed on the battlefield without their pavaise shields which were still enroute. Furthermore, their drawstrings had been exposed to rain for an extended period and thus wet, which reduced the range of their crossbows. The English longbowmen were rested and waiting in position and had been able to remove their strings to protect them from the rain.

It was the introduction of the crossbow (and the pike) who changed the face of West European medieval warfare as much as anything. The heavy crossbow was the main driving force leading to heavier and heavier plate mail armour. These crossbows could penetrate armour and kill at further distances than the longbow. Unlike the longbow, it could be used efficiently even by untrained troops.

Maybe it is,i'm no expert,the design of the weapon is not the only thing that counts however.It is also down to the soldier,deployment and numbers.The design of the M16 is far superior to that of the Ak47 but that alone is not the only factor in the outcome of a many battles where they faced each other.

Each design has its purpose and is superior to the other in those regards. The AK-47 (designed a decade before the M-16) has more firepower and is both more reliable and cheaper in production cost. The M-16 is certainly not far superior, but we digress.

To suggest that any archer is better than another simply because of the bow he uses is flawed.The English archers,as i'm sure the Eastern archers were,were highly skilled and usually trained from a young age due to it being a popular sport in certain counties in Wales and Southern England.Englands tactics at this time revolved around a mass of arrow fire into enemy formations but that does not mean they were any less skilled individually should the need arise.

I'm not trying to say anyone is better than another as a skilled archer is a skilled archer no matter what bow he uses but the simple fact is the Longbowmen of England had a massive impact on the medieval battlefield during the period of the 100 years war and i feel this should be reflected in the game.
This dosent mean they have to be uber but their quality along with unit and game balance should be taken into account.

Bah. There are so much evidence to support the recurve composite bows to be superior to longbows (similar draw-weight, smaller frame). Olympic competition bows today are recurve composite bows (or compound bows for Paralympics), NOT longbows.

Whereas I agree it is foolhardy to compare archery skill - there's much indicium of other cultures having far greater archery traditions than England. Hungarians (who at the beginning of the mod had barely left their semi-nomadic traditions behind) , certainly the Mongols and likely most other steppe peoples. Young children would learn to ride (sheep) and use the bow for hunting. Everyone was expected to ride and master the bow. For them is was more than sport or hobby or even profession, it was their culture and their way of life.

Of course, neither of these people are particularly dominant today and lack the global scale cultural propaganda of the Anglo-Saxons. :smileybri


SOLUTIONS?

Enough history and politics. Let's talk about game terms: The longbow should be quite costly to purchase, but with relatively lower upkeep. It should also take twice the time to build as most other units. This to simulate the fairly extensive training required to become proficient with the use of a longbow. Reinforcing units should be expensive. Range should be very good, damage above average and be armour piercing. Special firemode could include non-AP broadhead point for lower range but higher damage. Stake special should still be in. Reduce melee attack somewhat. Remove Sherwood Archers. Not usable on horse (remove the French mounted longbow unit).

Composite bow archers should be almost as costly (more expensive bows, extensive training but large pools of available archers) as longbowmen. Upkeep should be slightly higher though (more expensive bows). Normal building rates for some factions (larger pools of archers). Range, damage and AP attributes similar to the longbow. Special firemode: Incendiary arrows.

[Byzantium]

There are historical treatises on the Battle of Crecy that might shed a different light to your Longbows R' Us version of events. The Genoese Pavaise Crossbowmen were considered a professional elite unit and under French command. It has been said that the Genoese were force-marched in heavy rain and deployed on the battlefield without their pavaise shields which were still enroute. Furthermore, their drawstrings had been exposed to rain for an extended period and thus wet, which reduced the range of their crossbows. The English longbowmen were rested and waiting in position and had been able to remove their strings to protect them from the rain.

I'm not sure what that paragraph has to do with the passage you quoted?
There will be a hundred historical treatises on the battle of Crecy and the vast majority will give a different account to each other.Which ones specifically differ to mine considering i have given no version of events in this thread for the battle of Crecy? and why is the one you believe the correct one?

Let's talk about game terms:

Thank God for that..

I'm not sure why you think that longbowmen should be costly or take more time to build? Existing records,which were submitted to the king,of Lords who hired them for service in France show them to be relatively cheap from the point of view of both wages and retaining costs.
They were also readily available in the early years of the hundred years war as they already existed.They didnt pass through some military academy at great expense to the king with a view to waging war in France.

Of course, neither of these people are particularly dominant today and lack the global scale cultural propaganda of the Anglo-Saxons.

That old chestnut again,it sounds like you have an axe to grind. I dont see anyone flying any flags here,it's a discussion at the end of the day.

[Turgid_Walrus]

In game terms I'm far more worried about the loss of volley shots for Xbowman and the possible (inevitable) changes that would hurt gunmen. As a player I enjoy the Italian factions, especially the feisty Milan. Crossbow volley shots can be pretty important sometimes, while it is generally best for any archer unit to fire directly there are situations were I have to make the best and let my spearmen hold of the enemy while my xbows pepper their morale and numbers down from behind, hopefully long enough for my mercenary Frank knights to sweep around and get a good charge in. Not the most brilliant of manuveurs probably but it gets the job done....usually. My limited skill would probably collapse into a pile of goo more often than it does now without it. And at the same time I'm really looking forward to these kind of mods for a sane kill rate and movement. Playing through RTR which uses some Darthmod stuff, the game was much more enjoyable pace-wise. I of course, dreaded what would happen to ranged combat as longbow vs. the rest of the world seems as common a meme in fantasy/history games as "where is the German campaign" in World War II affairs.

The "problem" I have with longbow fans is that generally it seems that it is not enough to merely have a longbow buff, but also to make everything else worse, just to really rub it in apparently. In the original MTW I could bombard the enemy and herd them with my longbowmen, blast the clumps with my arbs and just in time fire a volley of guns and rout the whole lot. They worked wonderfully together with the proper timing. I don't know the specifics but if all archers are truly the "same" and the little man behind the curtain is the roman archer from RTW then we could be very limited, as they are now forced to be in direct competition with one another. At the end of the day I suppose could tolerate a longbow only buff, but why fiddle with all the other long rangers? Please stop fiddling with my poor xbowmen they are very sensitive.

I conclude again that other factions argueably need the help whether in composites/xbows more than the English do at this point.

[sera]

@ Byzantium:

This might give you more perspective:

"The first attack was from the crossbowmen, who launched a shower of volleys with the purpose of disorganizing and frightening the English infantry. This first move was accompanied by the sound of musical instruments, brought by Philip VI to scare the enemy. But the crossbowmen would prove completely useless. With a firing rate of three to five volleys a minute, they were no match for the longbowmen, who could fire ten to twelve arrows in the same amount of time. Furthermore, their weapons were damaged by the rain that had preceded the battle, while the longbowmen were able to simply unstring their bows until the weather improved. The crossbowmen did not have their pavises (shields), which were still in the baggage train. Frightened and confused, the Genoese crossbowmen retreated after heavy losses, some of them killed by the French cavalry, who thought they were cowards. According to Froissart, the King of France himself ordered their slaughter. The English continued firing as the infantry advanced and many French knights fell."

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-cr-cy

I conclude again that other factions argueably need the help whether in composites/xbows more than the English do at this point.

I agree with a lot of what you said here.

I'd very much like for the crossbow to be realistically implemented with all their strength and weaknesses though.


SOLUTIONS?

* An instant (no reload, only quick aim) special attack should be afforded crossbows (and firearms) as they could be cocked and loaded in advance. This special attack should only be available at the initial volley and after short ceasefires (long enough to cock and load).

* Firerate should be lowered somewhat to about half that of bows.

* Siege weaponry, including rams and cannons should have lower damage on walls making crossbows more realistically strong in these settings.

Most crossbow units should be relatively affordable compared to longbowmen and upkeep should be similar or lower.

[Byzantium]

To be honest with you lads i'd take a balanced game over an historicaly accurate one every time as i've said elsewhere.A job i wouldnt want so props to Darth for tackling it.
I think a lot of people when making a comparison between units in game put too much emphasis on unit stats and custom battle 1 v 1 situations rather than how they perform on the battlefield in a large scale campaign battle.This inevitably leads to cries of 'x unit is better than y' and it needs to be modded! In my first campaign game as the English i found them to be devastating and had no problem with how they were in vanilla.
I think the traditional way of thinking in the original MTW was that the longbows killed quicker but that the crossbowmen had more longetivity and would kill as many,maybe more, just over a longer period of time.As in MTW i much prefer to use crossbows,maybe it's just the noise they make

SOLUTIONS?

* An instant (no reload, only quick aim) special attack should be afforded crossbows (and firearms) as they could be cocked and loaded in advance. This special attack should only be available at the initial volley and after short ceasefires (long enough to cock and load).

Now this i definitely agree with and i'm suprised no one has had a go at doing this yet.

* Siege weaponry, including rams and cannons should have lower damage on walls making crossbows more realistically strong in these settings.

This is also something i'd like to see altered.Not just for the ranged defenders but in general to make sieges a more hard fought affair.It would also give assaulting a large settlement a more epic feel rather than battering constantinoples wallls down in 30 seconds.

Most crossbow units should be relatively affordable compared to longbowmen and upkeep should be similar or lower.

Now this will be tricky to balance.I have no problem with increasing the costs of the longbowmen as long as they outclass the cheaper crossbow units on the battlefield which they would certainly do.Now i dont wish to make them uber but from a game point of view they are Englands unique unit and should perform well.If i were French i'd feel a little miffed if my Gendarmes were matched by mailed knights on the battlefield.

This might give you more perspective:

I have never disputed your take on what happened to the Genoese at Crecy,in fact it is exactly how i see it.I was just curious to know what i wrote that would make you think otherwise? I have never been interested in flag waving as it always gets in the way of establishing the facts.

I conclude again that other factions argueably need the help whether in composites/xbows more than the English do at this point.

Got to agree with that also,regardless of the debate surrounding stats i have no complaints with the longbows in game.I'm also a big fan of the xbow factions especially the Genoese.Up to now they have been fantastic for me and i dont see much wrong with them at the moment.I defended Venice in a large siege battle last night using Darth's latest version and they were as lethal as they ever were.I'm a long time user of Darths mods and i have every confidence all issues will be addressed.

[Tajl]

Pure speculation.To suggest that any archer is better than another simply because of the bow he uses is flawed.The English archers,as i'm sure the Eastern archers were,were highly skilled and usually trained from a young age due to it being a popular sport in certain counties in Wales and Southern England.Englands tactics at this time revolved around a mass of arrow fire into enemy formations but that does not mean they were any less skilled individually should the need arise.

I dont say that english archers were less skilled (alltough i think that they were on average, because in England it was order from king to train archery while in east it was culture and tradition. Of course in both places there was very good individuals)

Point is that if skill is equal then better weapon makes more effective soldier. It doesn't work with individual soldiers because personal skill varies. But in two equally trained groups average skill is equal and weapon makes a difference.

I think that eastern tradition should count. Western factions have knight, armoured infantry, pikemen etc... and in the east there is archers and mounted archers. Archery is not specialty of West. England is somekind of exeption, but even then you can't compensate 1000 years of tradition in few years (composite bow was not invented in a day) Longbowmen were better than rest of the western archers, but that shouldn't make them best archers in the game.

Game terms: Composite bow range should be little better than longbows and elite archers range little better than militia or peasant archers with similar bow. So that Elite archers with composite bows should have best range, then elite archers with longbow&good archers with composite bow, then good archers with longbows&peasants with composite bow, then peasants with longbows&elite archers with common selfbows.

Longbow and composite bow should be equal attack strenght and common self bow little less. No bow should have armour piercing. No matter how strong bow is, it is still lot easier to kill unarmoured man with bow than armoured.

Crossbow range should depend on crossbow. Crossbows are allway comromise between speed and strenght. Most powerfull and slowest crossbow should have range equal to best composite bow with elite archers (no matter who is using crossbow) but they should be extremely slow. While fast hunting crossbow should have range equal to common selfbow but nearly as good speed as bows. Strongest crossbows should have AP ability...

[Byzantium]

You make some good points Tajl and a lot of what you say about the game mechanics i agree with.The English faction in vanilla is supposed to be an infantry biased faction,which strangely lacks the heavily armoured spears of some of the other factions and lacks slightly in cavalry,though i have had no problems in game with either.As Englands unique unit in the game the Longbowmen should definitely be a cut above the other archers in Western Europe as no other country could deploy archers of anywhere near the same quality or in such numbers in this region.That dosent mean i think they should be uber,balance is paramount in games such as this.
The point about crossbows i also agree with,points also made by Sera and Turgid_Walrus,there has to be a good deal of difference between the peasent militias and units such as the quality Italian Crossbow units in particular.

[DARTH VADER]

The discussion is really very interesting and made me to implement the composite bows to my patch 1.1 uploaded some hours ago.
Will revert later.