Archers in M2TW

**Point Blank** · April 30, 2018, 10:56 AM

This is worth a read if you have an interest in knowing more about the topic. It well displays that the model in this game is flexible, powerful and surprisingly realistic, with a great many factors influencing outcomes.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15175552

**Jurand of Cracow** · September 26, 2018, 10:48 AM

PB, I don't want to start another topic, but I've got a question: how do the crossbow effectiveness react to rain in the M2TW engine and possibly your submod?
It should much, while the bow shouldn't, but is it reflected in the engine?
cheers
JoC

**Point Blank** · October 02, 2018, 08:01 AM

At present it doesn’t, but you are right, it certainly should and this will be reflected in the next mini-patch to be posted very shortly.

**Jurand of Cracow** · October 19, 2018, 02:14 AM

Another topic: are there in the SSHIP horse archers in the Western European armies?
And should they be? (I'm reading about the relationship between material culture and bows, and my conclusion is: there should not be any horse archers' units, or they should be very weak - having no culture of producing complex composite reflexive bows)

**Point Blank** · October 19, 2018, 03:29 AM

Checked the projectiles file, turns out most xbows were affected by rain, extended it to all.

There were actually a lot of Mounted Archer units in Western Armies, esp England, France and English mercs in Italy, but I’m not yet clear on whether they dismounted for combat, forgot to check, will do so.

**Jurand of Cracow** · October 20, 2018, 01:36 AM

Given differences in the cultures (nomad - settled, also simple bows - composite, small reflexive bows), I'd expect the steppe HA to be much faster, have higher stamina, have much better archery stats (accuracy, rate of fire). You may call them Mounted Archers, but the lifestyle and technology would prevent from any effectiveness against steppe HA. In a duel the losess should be like 10-1.

**Point Blank** · October 20, 2018, 02:06 AM

Agreed - still, given their likely opponents, they might have been effective.

They were probably more like dragoons, just using their horses to ride to and rapidly deploy on the battlefield, which is how most of the English Mounted Arquebusiers operated during their civil war. I'm sure the information will be available on the net somewhere.

**Mamlaz** · October 20, 2018, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

Another topic: are there in the SSHIP horse archers in the Western European armies?
And should they be?

There definitely was horse archery in western Europe, it is just that it was practiced sporadically and mostly by the gentry when they were hunting and sporting around.

There were mounted crossbowmen though.

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

(I'm reading about the relationship between material culture and bows, and my conclusion is: there should not be any horse archers' units, or they should be very weak - having no culture of producing complex composite reflexive bows)

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

Given differences in the cultures (nomad - settled, also simple bows - composite, small reflexive bows), I'd expect the steppe HA to be much faster, have higher stamina, have much better archery stats (accuracy, rate of fire). You may call them Mounted Archers, but the lifestyle and technology would prevent from any effectiveness against steppe HA. In a duel the losess should be like 10-1.

Steppe horse archers would not be any faster actually, as they rode small steppe horsies.

Also, the lack of composite bows should not be the main indicator of horse archer's power, as the draw weight of the bow would be limited by the usage on the horse from the starters, so a selfbow would just have to be a bit more powerful to compensate.

The main issue is the lack of cavalry culture among the commoners in Europe, IMO Europe should not have horse archers west of the Balkans and Hungary.

Heck, composite bows were actually completely common in areas like the Balkans and Italy, but a horse archer culture never really developed, for many reasons.

Europe, like N Africa and the middle East, focused nearly solely on foot archers, that is why the Normans, arguably the most cavalry focused troop of the 11th century, had nearly a third of their army as foot archers when they marched across southern Italy, instead of horse archers.

**Point Blank** · October 20, 2018, 05:02 AM

Well, the composite bow is about 20% more efficient than a self/simple bow, and we are talking here about Mongol riders who grew up in the saddle and have been training with the weapon since childhood for recreation and hunting, ie a lot longer than the vaunted English longbowmen. So with that 20% and maybe an additional 20% from their years of training, that translates into the difference between penetrating a given level of armor, or not. They would also shoot faster and a lot more accurately, as well as being more tactically flexible such as riding in close or shooting from a distance. They would be adept at 'Parthian shots' and have a lot better discipline, having started riding with the other warriors from early adulthood. While their ponies would indeed not be any faster, they would have better stamina and on campaign would eat less and have less need to be watered etc.

**Mamlaz** · October 20, 2018, 06:29 AM

That 20% only results in a difference of 18-20ish lbs draw weight difference for bows fired from horseback, which were most likely topping 80-100lbs.

So a selfbowman would only need a bit more powerful bow and you get the same bow power.

If you read into Qing dynasty archery reports, it is clear that the vast, vast majority of war archers were far below the immense 150+ lbs power bows that are constantly being blabbered about by Dan Carlin and the like.

We have a recorded testing of Qing archers and their capabilities, the vast majority cannot even pull beyond 130lbs, let alone even use it, and only 0.03% of them can pull the 147-173 lbs.

Also, I do not see where history notes such archery superiority of the steppe horse archers compared to settled peoples archer troops.

The difference was more in the immense number of archers the steppe peoples had in comparison, and both the Seljuk and the Ayyubid archers are described as being ineffective against armor just as the European archers are, an archer is an archer.

The entire theme is simply filled with romanticized tropes stemming from decades of theoretical mist selling, in reality, you could train a simpleton to be an utterly elite archer within 6 months to maybe a year of daily training, if that.

The lifelong experience of archery would not really add much to war archery, because you are not trick shooting coins out of the air, but launching at large formations of troops on a field.

**k/t** · January 06, 2021, 02:56 AM

Why would crossbows be affected by rain but not bows? English archers took the strings off their bows and put them under their helmets when it was raining before some battle so they wouldn't get wet.

**Mamlaz** · March 19, 2021, 11:39 AM

You answered your own question?

**Sar1n** · March 19, 2021, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by k/t

Why would crossbows be affected by rain but not bows? English archers took the strings off their bows and put them under their helmets when it was raining before some battle so they wouldn't get wet.

Stringing and unstringing a high power crossbow is much more difficult task than bow and often requires special tools. While archers could keep their strings in cover and string their bows a minute before first volley, crossbowmen had to string them before marching from the camp, giving them more time to get wet.