Crossbow effectiveness

[Aeimnestus]

I feel all crossbows should receive a massive boost, as their performance is underwhelming atm. Perhaps the team can look into this a little.
I'm currently experimenting with increasing their attack value to 13, which seems to be working out fine.

Yes, this means they are lethal with armorpiercing, however they should be. As it currently is, a salvo of 90 crossbow men kill 2 knights per salvo, generally 4 before the knights charge and kill the crossbowmen. There is a reason crossbows were forbidden by the pope to use against Christians, and it was not because 90 of them killed 2 knights

Anyway, observed changes as playing KoJ;

- 1 or 2 crossbow units in some full stack Turkish/Egyptian armies, but definately no crossbow spam.
- They are very effective when ignored. But the AI does not ignore them often.
- Their long reload time means they only can make 3 or 4 salvo's. After that the battlelines engage and the crossbows can't do anything except firing on routing units.
- The long reload time also makes it hard to pull crossbows back, as more often then not they finish their reload animation.
- They do not make archers absolete; archers can hide behind units while crossbows are extremely vulnerable to fast calvary charges as you can't screen them. Archers also have a longer range and fire faster, and can quickly switch targets.
- A unit of 90 KoJ levant crossbowmen kills about 10-12 knights with shooting. They still get defeated in combat eventually, but manage to kill a few more knights in combat.

[Ahiga]

Achilla's sent me some information on them stat wise, that they may be behaving like archers (In the ability to shoot too high an arc), and may serve better with projectile stats like a musket. I think he's right, though I haven't the experience to say if they can shoot above infantry (As they should not).

Archery and Crossbows are something we need to devise a system for, and will for 1.1. What would you suggest then, for crossbows? A high distance, low quiver? A medium-ish distance, average quiver? What is the niche that they should fill in comparison to non-ap arrows?

Also, if you are putting them closer to your flanks, this may allow you to have them fire on your enemy while they engage the main of your line.

[Kataphractoi1956]

well, if you want to increase the effectiveness of crossbows you could always edit the descr_projectile and increase the radius of crossbows by ".1". that would make it more effective.

@Ahiga
i think that they should have a shorter range than drawn bows but have more arrows as it is historically...

[the42up]

a very simple crossbow fix is to change their radius from zero to .1 (definitely NOT 1)

[Victus Sagrada]

a very simple crossbow fix is to change their radius from zero to .1 (definitely NOT 1)

What will that do to crossbows? hehe sorry noobish question

[Aeimnestus]

In an ideal world, they would have an accuracy bonus and damage bonus at close range, whilst having a penalty to accuracy at long range. I have no idea if the game allows it but that was how crossbows were different to bows. It was very easy to aim with them, and the penetrating power of a crossbow was enormous at short range, capable of piercing any armor in game at the BC age, save perhaps the Cathapract with his layered armor. But at long range accuracy was miserable, and thus the faster firing bow was more effective.
You can shoot a bow 3 to 5 times in the time it takes to fire a single crossbow bolt, but that is fairly accurately represented atm, although bows should shoot somewhat faster as they currently do.


Crossbows would approximately have the same range as normal bows. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the evolution of the crossbow, but I do know they became more powerful as technology advanced, and the 15th century crossbows outranged the english longbow. Crossbows in BC should probably be about 120-130 yard range, as tech wasn't so advanced.

Crossbows did fire in a straight line, so they should definately not behave as archers. The reason for this is that the crossbow bolt is lighter, and thus would do far less damage when fired with a parabolic angle.

A thing to note is that bows were considered more effective, (1 strong salvo was considered inferior to 3-5 less powerful salvo's) but crossbowmen were far easier to train. Perhaps a cheap recruiting and/or retraining cost compared to archers.

[whhyy]

The problem with making crossbows fire in a straight line is that they don't shoot on walls.

This confuses people (thinking something is wrong with the mod) and causes tidal waves of false bug reports and stuff. That's what happened in SS.

[Point Blank]

The problem with making crossbows behave the same as muskets etc is that they then are very ineffective when firing from castle walls.

edit: whhyy beat me to it.

[Strelac]

crossbows do fire from walls, but it's limited to only those who have access to the 'opening' on the wall edge. Nevertheless, with killing power they have in BC, even if 50% of formation is able to fire, they do damage.

In the battle, they should act as snipers, so it is up to players to position them on the field to maximize their effectiveness. ‘Set it and forget it’ is for archers…

One thing that can be done is to reduce reload speed, as I am not a fan of passiveness when it comes to units in battle, either.

[A_B]

In the battle, they should act as snipers, so it is up to players to position them on the field to maximize their effectiveness. ‘Set it and forget it’ is for archers…

Any changes in the crossbow role has to take the AI abilities into account. It doesn't help to come up with a realistic, insteresting solution, only to be able to crush the AI because it can't implement the solution.

[Strelac]

Any changes in the crossbow role has to take the AI abilities into account. It doesn't help to come up with a realistic, insteresting solution, only to be able to crush the AI because it can't implement the solution.

Key words "maximize their effectiveness" is relevant to players only, and it's true for all units. AI uses them to best of their ability as any other units.

[NoFrag]

I agree, they should buff xbows

[Tariq]

I destroyed almost whole heavily armored stack with xbows positioned right.

I don't see anything wrong with them.

[Point Blank]

As implemented with velocity 40 80 they can fire OK from walls, but if the velocity is set to say just 80, it will reduce their firing rates on walls but they will be more realistic in field battles.

[AdmiringtheEnemyeh?]

Nah they definitely need turbo-charged jetpacks. On a serious note, if you use them in conjunction with spears they can deal loads of damage.

[craziii]

battlefield is very hilly in BC, which makes placing a Xbow unit on a hill to continuously fire at the enemy is easy. it may need a small buff if you guys think it is needed, but make sure it doesn't fire over units when they are on level ground, but if they are on a hill, who are you to tell them not to fire? the long reload times is enough of a handicap, what is the purpose for the xbows in BC? are they suppose to be a replacement only for other bow units/just another range unit, or a specialize killers of armored knights? if replacement, they are fine, they make up for the reload times with their accuracy right? but if it's the ladder, then you need to improve them, they definitely need to kill more than 2 or 3 to fit the role of armor killers.

[Sher Khan]

Personally, crossbows are fine as they are since armor values for anything not cavalry is pretty low due to the combat system (at least when compared to plate armor in vanilla). Buffing the crossbows doesn't really seem all that necessary.


If it must be done, however, I submit that their range should be a little shorter while their strength given one or two point increases. This is a personal taste, though.

[Trygvasson]

Crossbows shoot bolts that are heavier than arrows, have greater kinetic energy(thus losing less speed in flight), but have a shorter range. Apart from this, there is no fundamental difference, meaning you could shoot over infantry or cavalry as long as the range allowed it(too close and you shoot into the back of your own troops).

I think 50% more reload time, twice the stopping power would be a good way to ajust crossbow fire. The range is fine.

[Aeimnestus]

Crossbows shoot bolts that are heavier than arrows, have greater kinetic energy(thus losing less speed in flight), but have a shorter range. Apart from this, there is no fundamental difference, meaning you could shoot over infantry or cavalry as long as the range allowed it(too close and you shoot into the back of your own troops).

I think 50% more reload time, twice the stopping power would be a good way to ajust crossbow fire. The range is fine.

Actually crossbow bolts are lighter then arrows. And there is a fundamental difference between bows and crossbows, it was possible to shoot parabolic with them but this reduced the effectiveness drastically (wouldn't pierce armor).

Note that I'm not saying crossbows should be the be-all end-all of medieval warfare, but a volley of 90 crossbowmen should kill alot more then 2 knights at close range.

[Trygvasson]

Actually crossbow bolts are lighter then arrows. And there is a fundamental difference between bows and crossbows, it was possible to shoot parabolic with them but this reduced the effectiveness drastically (wouldn't pierce armor).

Note that I'm not saying crossbows should be the be-all end-all of medieval warfare, but a volley of 90 crossbowmen should kill alot more then 2 knights at close range.

Sorry Aeminestus, I was dead certain quarrels were heavier than arrows (it would make sense due to the shorter lath and draw length of a crossbow), but after checking this up thorougly you appear to be quite right.