Crossbowmen

[Exarch]

does any1 actually use crossbowmen?
i always use archers becasue of the range factor, and the increased firing frequency, despite the armour piercing ability of crossbows.
it seems c4rossbowmen are little more than entertainment for me when i charge my cavalry into them

i mean, how would u actually use crossbowmen? and effectively and satisfacorily too?

[Rommel]

There good for the walls of a city/castle. And I think they fight betta then archers in hand to hand combat.

But Honestly I barely use archers, I'm more of a heavy inf backed by cav.

Rommel

[SDThielking]

As the HRE, I usually put my Pavise Crossbowmen in the center of my infantry line, when fighting defensively. Behind them are some armoured sergeants. Any cavalry that gets too close, I manually pull them behind the armoured sergeants. I've been meaning to try a "bear trap" strategy where the crossbowmen fall back quite a ways from the rest of the infantry line, without the spearmen behind them. This, in theory, pulls enemy infantry into a place where my cavalry, the "teeth" of the beartrap, snap shut by a full charge to both the left and right flanks. As soon as their infantry turns to deal with the gothic knights braining them with maces, the pavise crossbowmen draw swords and rush in for a third flank. If I can get the timing right, it should utterly devestate morale, even accepting the fact that the cavalry charges aren't likely to be powerful.
Heavy cavalry would be easier to use if I "charged" by running full tilt THROUGH the enemy formation, rather than by selecting to attack a single unit. You could balance it, at least in theory, by making the charge less powerful as a whole. I should be able to smash right through a scattered mishmash of running troops, but I should have much less of an effect charging at those same troops when they're ranked up and cohesive. Sadly, the way charging works, you get pretty much the exact opposite.
EDIT: It occurs to me I may get better results using zweihanders than gothic knights....

When fighting offensively, I mostly just keep them behind my feudal and imperial footmen, to use as reserves in case the line breaks. Which it never does, because my policy of maintaining my borders and brokering peace as often as possible means I have Forlorn Hope carving massive destruction through the mostly armoured sergeants the other factions squabble with...

[Gotee7]

I use them for short range devastation. I usually put them on the ends of my line and when my infantry is engaged I swing them out and start firing in from the sides onto the enemy. You would be quite surprised how quickly the enemy falls.

[Pyrebound]

I love genoese xbows. Just place them well and they will barrage the backline of your enemy into pieces.

[Armatus]

peasant xbows are a cheap way to get armor piercing early on in the campaign, if you're going to multiplayer though I would choose the pavise and long range xbows.

[Roman_Man#3]

Moved to Battle Planning

[Druzhina]

Crossbowmen are generally better than archers, except they can't place down stakes. If you put the best crossbowmen (Genoese Crossbowmen) against the best archers (Scots Guard) in a shootout, then the archers would get butchered. Crossbowmen also seem to have more ammo than archers. Crossbowmen are rarer than archers however.

[Pyrebound]

More ammo? Or slower firerate. Crossbowmen fire slower than archers, meaning that they get to shoot less arrows until the foe is close to you, though it gets compensated with ap ability.

They also cannot use burning arrows, meaning that they arent that good in sieges, as they cannot set rams and towers ablaze.

[Problem Sleuth]

Peasant Archers vs Peasant Crossbows? Militia Archers vs Militia Crossbows? Crossbows win. They're more cost effective, and do more damage in a given period of time than the archers, especially thanks to the Armor Piercing ability.


Testing done. Hypothesis confirmed. Stainless Steel Mod 5.1 used. All tests done on Grassy Flatland, Clear weather.
---------------------------------
Peasant Archers vs Peasant Crossbowmen, double lines with both and Loose formation with both, non-flaming

Peasant Crossbowmen - 25 casualties, including wounded
Peasant Archers - 54 casualties, including wounded
---------------------------------
Peasant Crossbowmen vs Armored Swordsmen, double lines tight formation with Peasant Crossbows

Armored Swordsmen - Initially 61 (including captain); reduced to 52. 9 casualties, including wounded, before impact/melee

Peasant Crossbowmen - Losses irrelevant; PC/PA have same melee stats
--------------------------------
Peasant Archers vs Armored Swordsmen, double lines tight formation with Peasant Archers w/ Regular Arrows

Armored Swordsmen - Initially 61; reduced to 57. 4 casualties, including wounded, before impact/melee
--------------------------------
Peasant Archers vs armored Swordsmen, double lines tight formation with Peasant Archers w/ Flaming Arrows

Armored Swordsmen - Initially 61; reduced to 61. 0 casualties before impact/melee

[Surgeon]

The higher-tier crossbowmen have better protection than archers thanks to their pavise, and have very long range too. As already mentioned, many archers don't have armor-piercing arrows like crossbows, and crossbows generally do a lot more damage per hit. Genoese Crossbowmen seem to be more effective than Arquebusiers in my experience.

btw, I don't think crossbows are better than archers hand to hand. Sherwood Archers have insane melee stats for a missile unit, and Yeoman Archers have ap hammers than tear through armor.

[homefry]

Sherwood archers have 2 hit points, so that wouldn't be a fair melee battle.

In general, if a faction has xbows and archers, the xbows would win out. And rightfully so, because the xbow was a newer technology than the bow.

This is assuming regular battle conditions because if they were fighting peasants, than archers would win out because of the fire option and the peasants non armor factors.

They each have their strengths and merits. The biggest advantage the archers have is the ability to fire over friendly soldiers and still be effective.

[bottenbreker]

the HRE, I usually put my Pavise Crossbowmen in the center of my infantry line, when fighting defensively. Behind them are some armoured sergeants.

why do my crosbowmen always hit my guys infront of them in the back? :s

[Khassaki]

why do my crosbowmen always hit my guys infront of them in the back? :s

Because they are a much flatter trajectory. Put them in front of your line on skirmish or well behind your line on a hill - or out to the left of your main line if you have interveneing terrain there.

[Problem Sleuth]

This is assuming regular battle conditions because if they were fighting peasants, than archers would win out because of the fire option and the peasants non armor factors.

But in regular battle conditions only an idiot is going to spam peasants if you have solid infantry lines. Or cavalry of any kind, for that matter.

[pwijnands]

Because they fire in a more or less straight trajectory, archers can fire upwards better. I think it has to do with the projectile speed. Crossbow bolts have a fixed speed (and fairly high speed) while arrows have a variable (slower) speed, which is better suited for arced trajectories.

[Exarch]

yeh, in my KoJ crusades campaign, i'm actually finding the templar crossbowmen to be more effective than the maronites of lebanon.
i hafta place them on the sides to pepper the enemy while my sergeants engage in cqc