Arrow damage

[LittleD]

I have a question that has always bothered me on the realisim of the arrows of RTW system. Is it realistic damage wise? I mean in movies and history videos, you always see a side of a army firing a huge mass of arrows at the other side. Then once the arrows hit, they take out about maybe 50% of the unit in the first hit. Does this really happen or is it just some Hollywood BS to make the video more interesting and epic to watch?

In RTW and RS and other mods, you can have 20 units of fully upgraded strongest bowman..and shoot at a weak eastern infantry or peasant unit. And you would think that ammount would take the whole unit out because there is arrow about every 2 inches apart, but somehow the 3000-4000 arrows miss and only about 60% of the 1 unit is dead.

I know this probably has o do with "balancing the game" but they could have at least made it a little stronger.

[rsslcs]

Idk, but some wounds might not be fatal, so the death toll is reduced because RTW can't simulate injured soldiers. Also, that modification would wreak havoc in battles, making units rout prematurely, and making battles much shorter with archers in the fight, which was ofc not the case to a large extent.

[chaplain118]

play with some horse archers, and you won't ever complain about arrows not killing things

[Flavius Silvanus]

I don't believe the Romans had much of a problem with archers until they met enemies with the recurve bow.

The Persian arrows didn't do much against heavily armored Greeks either.

[damnmap]

As Chaplain said horse archers are very powerful... in fact they are overpowered and can crush entire armies with hardly any casualties

[LittleD]

well yea I know about the HA, but I was just wondering how well the RTW arrow damage compares to real life damage it took upon armies.

[Leeham991]

The Roman shield was strong enough to deflect an early musket ball (in lab tests they shew this) and it was only about 30% stronger than the average shield in a well equipped army. SO against shielded people I think that the death toll on arrows is too large in RS.

And, just a note, in real life musket warfare didn't happen on flat ground with the armies 10 meters apart. I've never seen an archer army in a Hollywood film but I would imagine the same Hollywood BS applies there too.

[chaplain118]

The Roman shield was strong enough to deflect an early musket ball (in lab tests they shew this) and it was only about 30% stronger than the average shield in a well equipped army. SO against shielded people I think that the death toll on arrows is too large in RS.

I'd actually like to see the source for this, because the scutum was made by layering on wood and leather. At Carrhae, reports of legionaires having their hands pierced by the Parthian arrows were plenty:

From here: http://www.persianempire.info/parthia10.htm

These were then once more exposed to the deadly missiles, which pierced alike through shield and breast-plate and greaves, and inflicted the most fearful wounds.

And here: http://www.amazon.com/DEFEAT-ROME-EA.../dp/1932033890

Aside from Pompey and Gabinius's influence the author examines everything from the special barbed arrows, able to pierce Roman shields

A composite bow has a draw strength of about 160 pounds according to wikipedia. I don't know what that translates to in terms of impact force, but it wouldn't be stronger than the punch behind a musket ball. So to say that a Roman shield can deflect a musket ball doesn't seem very likel.

[Dafuge]

You've never seen Gladiator?

[Leeham991]

You've never seen Gladiator?

Of course I have!

But I never heard reports of Romans breaking off into groups of twenty and walking out into the battlefield spaced apart like. Anyway, it's hardly a battle film is it?

[rory o'kane]

Well, i think if your soldiers were being shot at by ballistae and onagers as well as arrows, they'd be dropping like flies, as you might expect. I think our perception of the use of archers in ancient battles has been coloured by our experiences with archers in the middle ages - put simply, the battle-winning power of Welsh Longbowmen in the English army of the Hundred Years' War (wahey!)! Just because a few battles were won by the english archers, everyone assumes that all archers throughout the ages were just the same... but Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt type situations were quite rare in reality. archers were more used to harass an enemy rather than annihilate them. Though, obviously, they achieved this by causing casualties, they weren't generally responsible for slaughter.

[Ballacraine]

I reckon you are quite correct, Rory.

Training, morale & equipment levels varied, but generally fell far short of the instances you quoted.

[Dafuge]

Actually onager shots and ballistae would of only injured maybe, 2/3 men per accurate shot, and archers are really over powered, to be fair though, composite bows could go straight through all of Roman armour, even in some cases shields, so...

[Ballacraine]

Probably not if it was raining.

[rory o'kane]

they're actually supposed to be individual centuries.

[Leeham991]

They still running off in off form to the rest of the army though innit.

[Leeham991]

Aye well I had a good look on google but I can't find a site relating. I saw it on ITV1 a few years ago.

But yes that said, sometimes a slower moving, heavier, sharper object does more damage, but if my knowledge is correct a Parthian arrow would be traveling almost as fast as an early musket ball anyway. Unless I'm thinking of the Huns...

Anyway... What year was the Parthian war anyway? I thought the legions had switched to their stronger plywood shields by about 200ad... I'm not too good with dates.

[chaplain118]

Parthians were replaced by the Sassanids by 226AD, but the conflicts between Rome and Parthia started around the 60sBC

[Leeham991]

Ahh ok...

I believe the imperial legions had much better shields than the republicans who fought Parthia then.

[Dafuge]

They weren't Republicans. They fought them during Cladius's reign as well, definitely.