Missile Cavalry vs. Crossbowmen: Which is better?

[Portuguese Man-Of-War]

The title says all. Which is better?
I'll start out with some basic facts, and then my opinion. Keep in mind that I am in no means an experienced player, and this is just a basic list of pros and cons; if I am missing something, by all means comment and add to the list, all the while presenting your opinion.

Missile Cavalry: Multiple types(Horse archers, Mounted javelineers, Mounted Crossbowmen, etc.)
Pros:
* Very Mobile, Harder to hit
* Typically tend to have decent missile attack AND melee attack (There are exceptions of course)
* Can shoot/throw while moving
* Some (Jinetes, Polish Nobles, etc.) are able to be recruited early on
* Javelin cavalry are armor piercing
Cons:
* Jinetes, Polish Nobles, and other Javelin Cavalry have very low ammo(only 8)
* Most are pretty expensive to recruit and upkeep(Don't know about upkeep, check on that)
* Not as widespread as crossbowmen, for example horse archers mostly available only in east, and javelin cavalry only available to five(Moors, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Russia, in vanilla) factions

Crossbowmen: Multiple types(Pavise, Peasant, Militia, Mounted, etc.)
Pros:
* Armor piercing(This is a biggie)
* Good amount of ammo(30)
* Available as mercenaries in many locations
Cons:
* Most are not really able to hold their own in melee against either infantry or cavalry
* Require lots of upgrades to be able to recruit, most not available early game
* Expensive(I don't quite remember exact prices)
* Not much more (Please correct me here)

Personally, I'm a Portugal fan, and Portugal is able to recruit both Missile Cavalry and Crossbowmen. They have Jinetes very early on, and a little later, they get crossbow militia, pavise crossbowmen, and mounted crossbowmen. My favorite unit is the Jinetes, but finally, here is my opinion.

OPINION: Missile Cavalry are much better for open field battles, whereas crossbowmen (not mounted crossbows) are good for siege battles, especially when defending. A full stack army of Jinetes can wreak pure destruction. Check out this guide as to why: http://medieval2.heavengames.com/m2t...ry/index.shtml
I welcome your opinion, comments, and additions to this prototype of a guide. Thank you.

(P.S. I love to argue, and I have placed my opinion. It is nothing more than an opinion, and if you feel it is completely wrong, go ahead and tell me why. I encourage it. I am not saying I am completely right at all. This is my request; please don't yell and shout that I'm wrong. I'm new to the game(about two months) and this is what I"ve learned from my experiences. )

(P.S.S. I did get some information from the link I posted above. 100% of my information is not mine. I am citing from el_bandito.)

[ChivalrousKiller]

First of all, a good post It'll bring you a +rep

As for the topic itself, I guess that depends on the player. Myself, I love to use missile cavalry both for field battles (where they are perfect to completely wipe out the enemy) and siege attacks. Horse archers are very good for taking out troops on the walls of a city/castle, because of their great strength, the mobility. Of course, as you've mentioned, crossbowmen are more useful in a siege while defending, but other than that, I find them quite useless. In the field I'd rather use archers because of their range and speed. I tend to use crossbow troops mostly as garrison troops for cities.

But of course, if you're a Portugal player, the missile cavalry consists mostly of javelin troops like Jinetes, and, as you say, Mounted Crossbowmen. Then I find these kind of troops less useful.

[Christonikos]

Try to fight against the Mongol horse archers. Then you see why horse archers are superior. Sereiously. I play as France and I had an army consisting of 8 aventurers, the elite French crossbowmen. No need to say I was devastated.

[Aeratus]

Mounted archers are certainly more versatile than foot archers. Because of the horse, they can charge and engage in melee combat much better, and certain "heavy" horse archers like the Mameluks, Mongols, and the Dvors are quite devastating in charging and melee combat. Foot archers are relatively one-dimensional, but they are better in ranged combat, and are much cheaper. So if you ask me, I'd rather have an army of 20 horse archers than an army of 20 foot archers, but from a practical standpoint (especially cost), I use a lot of foot archers, and not very many horse archers.

As for Mounted vs. foot javelins, the mounted version is far superior. Foot javelins are basically a waste of space in vanilla/kingdoms. For better foot javelins, try mods like SS.

[the new username]

lol ur information is without of doubt correct, i didnt note that the crossbowmen have 30 ammo and javelins 8, well i learned something today, +rep for u

[crzyrndm]

Due to reduced size, missile cav are less effective ranged units, are weak to other missiles due to being mounted (larger target) and no shield. However they are almost immposible to get into melee with and retain the effectiveness of the mounted charge.
Personally I prefer foot archers, because they are better at what they do, and I don't let mine get anywhere near a melee if it can be helped. Archers guarded by spears will rip mounted archers to shreds (the spears are to stop the cav just meleeing to victory). However jav cav are useful in a support role as heavily armoured units die so quickly under a rain of javelins and due to mobility they can normally get off more than one volley.

[King William the Conqueror]

I would say that horse archers are better. They don't have to worry about being run over by cavalry and they can out distance spearmen. They are also useful for chaseing down routers!

[Re_Minder]

Mounted archers are much better than foot ones because there is no need to micromanage them and other units in order to avoid a suicide charge. With foot archers I usually get 2 -3 good horizontal volleys (they do best damage) and then they must sit behind shooting from crap positions if no elevation is present... oh and lets not forget that stupid bodyguard unit which bumrushes the front line, gets almost killed, and that couple that still remains passes through and kills a whole unit of archers. Sweet.

[Aeratus]

Surely, mounted archers have an easier time staying alive in a prolonged battle, but then again, foot archers are so much cheaper in general.

[Teutonic Warlord]

Missile cavalry are more versatile since they can charge, take out routers, and flank and shoot. I like to use them to take out enemy heavy cavalry and generals by sneaking around an army headed towards me and showering these guys. However, foot archers will usually beat missile cavalry in a ranged battle and are very good for showering attackers during a siege. Depending on the type of unit they are, either could win in a melee with each other. Byzantine guard archers make decent heavy infantry after all their arrows are gone.

[ccgr1121]

In an ideal world, HAs are better, as noted above. However, in terms of actual gameplay, you are far more likely to spam foot archers as they are so much cheaper. After all, several stacks of crossbowmen are likely to defeat a stack of HAs

[Silverheart]

Since we are obviously talking about top quality troops of both kinds, I say Horse Archers.
Their mobility makes is their strength, and if you have a stack vs. stack, top quality HAs (Vardariotai, Dvor cavalry etc.) will beat top quality Crossbowmen (Pavise Crossbowmen, Genoese Crossbowmen)
Why? Considering the deadly effectiveness of the Crossbowmen, why?
Because you just let the HAs fire their arrows as they please while positioning them all around your enemies.
Then you charge the enemy head on from all directions - the sheer number of cavalry will shock even the sturdiest Crossbowmen into rout quickly, or at least after a second charge.

So yeah, Crossbowmen stand a chance in a mere shoot-out, but the HAs are more flexible, and properly used they win 10 outta 10 ^::^

[xcorps]

Since we are obviously talking about top quality troops of both kinds, I say Horse Archers.
Their mobility makes is their strength, and if you have a stack vs. stack, top quality HAs (Vardariotai, Dvor cavalry etc.) will beat top quality Crossbowmen (Pavise Crossbowmen, Genoese Crossbowmen)
Why? Considering the deadly effectiveness of the Crossbowmen, why?
Because you just let the HAs fire their arrows as they please while positioning them all around your enemies.
Then you charge the enemy head on from all directions - the sheer number of cavalry will shock even the sturdiest Crossbowmen into rout quickly, or at least after a second charge.

So yeah, Crossbowmen stand a chance in a mere shoot-out, but the HAs are more flexible, and properly used they win 10 outta 10 ^::^

Pretty much an epic THIS.

[diez]

mounted crossbows are the best...
they have good enough defence to survive enemy missile attack,fast moving armor piercing,good enough melee skills,endless ammo...i drive em behind enemy line,and destroy the enmies cavalry...in my last multiplayer battle,1 shot of them for the behind killed 5 royal mamluks...

[ProjectCaddyGuy]

I'm actually the opposite approach. I prefer dedicated archers/crossbowmen teamed with spearmen. However, in battles I almost exclusively turtle. Using schiltron spearmen with ranged parked behind them, and either a pair of generals, or some heavy infantry to plug any gaps and guard flanks, I'll let the enemy charge me, getting cut to bits by the ranged, and then falling onto spears. Because I upgrade armor fairly early on, even the predominantly horse archer armies don't kill enough spearmen to punch through and rout my ranged units. I'll happily sit behind my shield walls and expend all the ammo my units have in a prolonged "gunfight" and my meat shield can mop up the leftovers.

[Robert E Lee]

i think sometimes we get rapped up in the statistics of it all. there is not right answer to what is better. its the tactics that the guy using them (or not using them) that matters. generally, ranged foot troops are a counter to HA's in a straight shoot out.

[fadly]

I played turks and i've build a full cavalry army. the composition is 13 units made up of horse archers and the rest a heavy cavalries (sipahi lancer or Qapukulu). I've managed to decimate several full stack armies of 2000+ units with minimal losses. for example, my cav army intercepted a full stack danish army attempted to relieve a besieged castle. it was made up of mostly norse axemen and dismounted huscarls with some war clerics and crossbowmens. i've wipe out the whole army of 2000+ units while only suffering about 80 casualties. i will use the HA to inflict severe casualties and reduce moral. then the heavy cavs charge will induce a rout.

[13lackGu4rd]

let me start by saying that the question "which is better" is generally stupid, because it's a relative, subjective and very circumstantial question. moreover, Crossbowmen and HAs serve different purposes, Crossbowmen are made specifically to counter armor while HAs are made specifically to be mobile and destroy lightly armored troops. another key point is that the best(and highest tiered of course) Crossbowmen are the Genoese, which are minor city/castle level troops, while the best HAs are a variety of elite troops from various factions(Vardariotai, Dvor Cavalry, etc) which are all Fortress and Citadel level troops. needless to say, HAs in general are a lot more expensive(both upfront cost and upkeep) than Crossbowmen in general.

so this entire comparison is as good as comparing apples to oranges, yet on a much more complex level.

[El Cid99]

let me start by saying that the question "which is better" is generally stupid, because it's a relative, subjective and very circumstantial question. moreover, Crossbowmen and HAs serve different purposes, Crossbowmen are made specifically to counter armor while HAs are made specifically to be mobile and destroy lightly armored troops. another key point is that the best(and highest tiered of course) Crossbowmen are the Genoese, which are minor city/castle level troops, while the best HAs are a variety of elite troops from various factions(Vardariotai, Dvor Cavalry, etc) which are all Fortress and Citadel level troops. needless to say, HAs in general are a lot more expensive(both upfront cost and upkeep) than Crossbowmen in general.

so this entire comparison is as good as comparing apples to oranges, yet on a much more complex level.

A couple of things:

The origin post wasn't talking specifically about HAs. It included all missile cavalry. Most of which are actually standard castle-level troops. Jinetes, Polish Nobles, Vardariotai, Mamluk Archers, Sipahis, Hungarian Nobles, Boyar Sons, etc. are all high-end missile cav avaliable early in the game.

Apart from that, I agree with your post. But I generally prefer missile cavalry (not so much mounted crossbows) in a field battle, whereas the only time I would rather have crossbows would be in a siege defence.

[issler]

Horse archers. Because of the cantabrian circle, and because foot archers tend to be much more spatially concentrated in rigid lines, while the first are disperse and running, pretty much all over the place, much harder to hit.