longbows or crossbows?

[ponderstibbons]

I'm wondering wether longbow-units or crossbow-units are best. I've tried pitting retinue longbowmen or sherwood archers, against different high level crossbowmen. As far as I can tell most of the time pavise crossbowmen and the like are equal to, or better than longbowmen in shoot-outs. Are there any advantage to longbowmen exept stakes that I'm missing?

[Ishan]

Flamming arrows breaks the morale and scares the crap out of elephants and they run amok then.
Sherwood archers have a greater attack i think in melee than a crossbow unit and they have 2 hit points.

[painter]

Stakes are the key. In the right battle fields, sieges and river crossings or just having a lot of longbowmen, stakes can destroy any army dependent on cavalry with little risk to your men. Consider the challenge of taking on two Mongol stacks at once at a river crossing with a captain having eight longbowmen vs a captain having eight pavise crossbowmen.

[shikaka]

I've tried pitting retinue longbowmen or sherwood archers, against different high level crossbowmen.

Don't do that, pavese crossbows will win, BUT this situation will most likely never happen in game. I never had a battle where I had only missiles and the enemy too!


What you should consider:
- you will mostly use them against lightly armored targets like militia, peasant archers, etc. Here, the faster reload of the longbows is more useful! (they kill more until they reach them)
- in siege defense, the longbows are more useful as not all crossbows fire from behind walls (ok, not all crossbowmen in the unit)
- when crossbows are behind your own troops, they are less effective, because of the arc they use
- usually crossbows hit more often because of the lower arc (longbows sometimes fire behind an enemy when that enemy charges)
- crossbows are definietly more effective against armor (like bodyguards or dismounted knigts)

This means to me:
- if you can position your crossbows well, they are more useful then longbows (clean view ahead of your troops or elevation)
- but for longbows, it doesn't matter where you put them


But I don't know with which faction you have access to both? I usually use what I have, don't pay for mercenaries if possible.

[Vice]

Don't do that, pavese crossbows will win, BUT this situation will most likely never happen in game. I never had a battle where I had only missiles and the enemy too!

Funny you should mention that as I had an odd battle the other day with Milan as England. Basically our armies fought it out in the center with my knights and generals going back and forth flanking their infantry while my longbowmen duked it out with their crossbowmen...the deaths were horrendous and I only won the archer battle in the end because I won the main battle! Crossbows hurt even with the longbowmen that had 16 defense...

[Mr. Magi]

I'm fine with both types, but I prefer longbows for the flaming arrows.

[goro]

i use archers mostly to destroy the heavy attack unit like varangian guard or berdiche axemen which have low defense.shooting feudal knights is a waste of time and if they are hit from the front casualties are minimal.if the units that inflict the greater damage in the charge are reduced to half then the battle is on your side.crossbowmen get on my nerves because they always end up shooting my own guys because of their straight shooting.i prefer the bowmen

[Il Medico]

Interestingly enough, Venetian Archers actually won a shoot out with Retuine Longbowmen when I was seeing which one was better. I think this is due to their heavier armor though.

[Alex-Warhammer]

The crossbowmen have better armour but the archers have better reload, longer range, stakes and flaming arrows, but crossbowmen are better in city streets and other close quarters engagements

[VersionLangley]

pavis crossbowmen have equal range with longbow though. pavis will definitely win a straight shooting match up with 12ap arrow in comparison with retinue's 8ap
Retinue have better melee attack stats and morale though + faster reload time = shoot their most important units (maybe cav) as much as you can then bring them into melee along with ur inf to increase the fear by number effect.

so...longbow units are good for early period but pavis a much better choice for later

[aceking90]

I like archers because they can shoot faster, use flaming arrows, and are better on horse back. However I do like to use crossbows against havier armored opponents.

[Incomitatus]

Er... use both. I don't play the Grand Campaign, so my only access to longbows is in Kingdoms: Britannia. Even as awesomely deadly as the Saethwyr and the Retinue Longbowmen are, I like to bring a unit of merc crossbowmen along with my main forces for one reason: longbowmen are great, but when you've got to shoot at an enemy general, having a unit of crossbows backing them up makes all the difference.

I'm just wrapping up a Welsh campaign in Britannia and I've found that, for me, the ideal missile configuration for my field armies is 3x Saethwyr, 1x Mercenary Crossbowmen, and 2x Mercenary Sherwood Archers. The Saethwyr lay down stakes and then withdraw behind my main body of spearmen; meanwhile, the crossbows, a couple units of spears, and my light cav form a semi-autonomous flanking force that can run into place, and pour AP fire into the enemy flank and then charge when appropriate. The Sherwood guys are *perfect* skirmishers to spread out in front of my whole force and pepper the enemy as they approach and then run back and take up station behind the Saethwyr.

The most important lesson you can learn, and which I've culled from MTW, RTW (and mods) and M2TW is that almost EVERY unit is good at something given the right strategy. It's just a question of deciding what your strategy is, what type of army you are best at commanding, who you'll be fighting, on what terrain, and then deciding what role you want each type of unit to perform in your army.

There is no 'better' between crossbowmen and longbowmen, only 'better for a particular task'. What type of units do you want your missile units to target? If you primarily want to target the enemy missiles, then you want longbowmen to be the bulk of your missile force, for their rate of fire. If you primarily want to target the enemy cavalry, I would suggest a mix, leaning toward more crossbows - for the armour piercing punch. It's all a question of which best suits your style.

[rubenandthejets]

Pavise crossbowmen went up against longbowmen in at least one historical battle that I know-don't know if you could class them as retinue or not.
Anyway, at Crecy, 1346, the merc. crossbowmen advanced and were shot to bits-outranged and then outshot, speed wise. No flaming arrows either.

The crossbows broke and fled.

Looking at the stats for each unit, and from custom battle match ups discussed in this thread, someone got it seriously wrong. The French continued to get mopped by longbows until they worked out artillery outranged them.

[beckyolt]

Longbows. They have flame arrows, reload faster , and have cooler units.

Besides... omfgrofl they're longbows! The best archers of Europe! We're dead! It frightens the enemy :d

Anyway, at Crecy, 1346, the merc. crossbowmen advanced and were shot to bits-outranged and then outshot, speed wise. No flaming arrows either.

Yes but the genoese wereVERY dumb . They advanced without pavises, with weakened crossbows ( rain ) and with ugly jackets. Morons.

[John Haukewood]

Not that the Genoese had very much choice at Crecy. They were kind of stuck between a formidable enemy and and generals who really didn't give a $#@& if they had wet bowstrings and pavises that hadn't arrived yet. And a terrain disadvantage. And had just arrived from a rather long march.
I love Archers and Crossbowmen; my tactics just change to suit which I'm using.

[avion365]

i like crossbows because of their punch, but if need to hold a bridge of narrow gap i would use longbows

[Double A]

The counter to missile units is cavalry. If the cavalry can't charge the missile units due to stakes, you can charge a unit of spearmen into them, and if they charge anyway, they get killed by the stakes. Longbows also reload faster and work better on walls, including being able to kill siege machines with fire arrows. The only time they are at a disadvantage is against pavise crossbowmen. Pavise crossbows are more of a anti-archer and anti-armor unit, but totally screwed if they get charged by cavalry (unless they get off a volley before the cavalry hits, then they might live depending on the units involved and if there are any spearmen nearby).

[Rowdytavern]

Apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. Two units that each have their own niche. I like longbows for defensive battles because you can use stakes and longbows will survive longer in melee in a pinch. I use Pavise xbows for offensive battles because as a pavise xbow you can take you defense with you on your back.

For me at least what it boils down to is offensive value vs defensive value.

By the way does anyone else think that Pavise xbows look like Cockroaches scurring around when they move?

[Double A]

Apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. Two units that each have their own niche. I like longbows for defensive battles because you can use stakes and longbows will survive longer in melee in a pinch. I use Pavise xbows for offensive battles because as a pavise xbow you can take you defense with you on your back.

For me at least what it boils down to is offensive value vs defensive value.

By the way does anyone else think that Pavise xbows look like Cockroaches scurring around when they move?

Well, they are from Genoa...

[PotentSchraphlon]

By the way does anyone else think that Pavise xbows look like Cockroaches scurring around when they move?

I've always thought turtles with their green shields. On topic, I prefer longbowmen but on paper crossbowmen have a higher missile attack value I think, and I'm far too busy being king to worry about anything more detailed than that.