Archer Innacuracies

[Dominus Anulorum]

I first have to say I love this game. However, the archers are very inaccuracy. his is especially true towards the 1400's, but archers where way more powerful than they are in the game. Take English long bowmen. They could fire twelve arrows a minute using bows which required 150 pounds of force to pull and shot arrows which could pierce through several feet of solid oak. Also, the game makes out archers to be pathetic weaklings in melee. The reality is that archers where some of the toughest men out there. The British recently found a medieval warship from the 1500's (I forgot the name). The archers on board had the muscle mass of Arnold Schwarzenegger. They were the super weapon of the medieval age. Any other thoughts on them?

[Nazgûl Killer]

I would think this is a balancing issue, since the game doesn't allow for the immense masses of Medieval armies, numbering in the tens of thousands of infantry soldiers and a solid thousand or so of archers. This is for gaming purposes I assume. But yes, I do agree that archers tend to be somewhat weaklings in the game, too weak perhaps.

[Aeratus]

I first have to say I love this game. However, the archers are very inaccuracy. his is especially true towards the 1400's, but archers where way more powerful than they are in the game. Take English long bowmen. They could fire twelve arrows a minute using bows which required 150 pounds of force to pull and shot arrows which could pierce through several feet of solid oak.

This part is a bit misguided. Even though archers could pierce through several inches solid oak, piercing armor is not consistent.

In reality, it takes a number of arrows to successfully pierce armor, because the armor's fragmentation is very random. The piercing ability of arrows is exaggerated by movies like Lord of the Rings, which shows that just about every arrow can go through through plate armor 100% of the time. These movies are completely inaccurate, for example. In history, it was not easy to pierce armor with arrows. You need a whole rainstorm of them to drop knights in full armor, although the English did successfully deploy enough archers to cause a whole rainstorm.

Also, the game makes out archers to be pathetic weaklings in melee. The reality is that archers where some of the toughest men out there.

This part I tend to agree. Foot archers should be better in melee combat then they are in the game.

[Surgeon]

Whoa, not sure where you got the stat on longbows piercing several feet of oak but that sounds very exaggerated. If modern documentaries are anything to go by then longbows had trouble piercing plate armor, too. They were definitely effective but they were doubtfully superweapons.

As for the game itself, not sure what you're doing with your archers but the high-tier missile troops kick butt in both melee and ranged combat! Especially longbows! They don't insta-kill any unit they fire on, no, but they can definitely take a good chunk of enemies out with just a few volleys.

[LongWind]

Well I'm not sure about the several feet of oak thing, but most of the well developed countries did craft special armor-piercing arrows that could easily penetrate a 1400-century armor. These were very expensive to build though, so they weren't standard equipment.

[Aeratus]

Yeah several feet doesn't sound right. I really thought he meant several inches, and that's what I was thinking when I was writing my reply.

[Silverheart]

Experience makes them more accurate - use the archers you have a lot, and they will become more effective. Also, such things as distance and weather affects the accuracy of archers in this game - take such things into consideration. And thirdly, don´t rely on archers in this game - they are best used on walls or as support for better melee units.

A longbow could not, as has already been said, pierce several feet of solid oak - even a modern day assault rifle can´t do that.
They were impressive as far as bows go, ooh indeed, but unfortunately (for the english) not that impressive.
That also goes for the soldiers themselves - firing twelve arrows a minute is hard, even without a strong bow (I´ve tried, with regular bows), and was something only the best and/or most experienced could - or would - do.

Archers were weak in melee because they were mostly poorly equipped for close combat and because real melee troops were trained specifically for that - the disadvantages in equipment and training made them very susceptible if caught in toe-to-toe. Regardless of your physical strength, you will not last long with a knife/dagger/mallet against a trained swordsman in good mail armor. There are examples of archers being trained/better equipped for melee in order to make them less vulnerable, but it was far from common.

Knights were the superweapons of the medieval ages...
They could ride down any archer with ease, hack their way through most kinds of spearmen and outclass any regular swordsman. They were also fast moving, and a very mobile and dangerous unit on the battlefield. Their armor was heavy and thick, and could repel surprising amounts of damage (friendly tip: visit a medieval fare next time you get the chance. You can usually find someplace there where you can try on some equipment or armament. Try it on, and feel the sturdiness, the hardness and the durability. You´ll think higher of plate armor after that, I promise)
With their lifelong training and very good equipment, they could charge through or outclass anything else in medieval Europe.
They had their weaknesses, of course, and one should never count out other types of soldiers as useless, but if any type of soldier is to be described as the superweapon of medieval Europe, it should be the knights.

[Aeratus]

Archers were weak in melee because they were mostly poorly equipped for close combat and because real melee troops were trained specifically for that - the disadvantages in equipment and training made them very susceptible if caught in toe-to-toe. Regardless of your physical strength, you will not last long with a knife/dagger/mallet against a trained swordsman in good mail armor. There are examples of archers being trained/better equipped for melee in order to make them less vulnerable, but it was far from common.

Actually, archers were well equipped for melee combat. For example, this manuscript of the battle of Crecy shows that both the French Crossbowmen and the English Longbowmen wore plate armor and carried swords.


Better quality image: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/b...6-granger.html

[Silverheart]

Actually, archers were well equipped for melee combat. For example, this manuscript of the battle of Crecy shows that both the French Crossbowmen and the English Longbowmen wore plate armor and carried swords.

As opposed to the Swordsmen and knights in the same picture, who are obviously unequipped by comparison...

Also, that armament only counts as partial plate at best, and hardly even that.
If you take a closer look yourself, you´ll see that most of them actually have only brigandine armour - almost no chainmail, only plate on a few small spots of their bodies, and plenty of them do not carry any melee weapons at all!
Compare to the melee troops in the same picture - they are all better equipped in that sense.

[druzhina345]

Actually, archers were well equipped for melee combat. For example, this manuscript of the battle of Crecy shows that both the French Crossbowmen and the English Longbowmen wore plate armor and carried swords.

The archers in the retinues of people like the Black Prince were better equipped and mounted than the average archer, and these are more likely to be represented in art.

druzhina345
sites of wargaming interest

[Shasqua]

Longbows struggled against plate armor except at the closest of ranges. Historically, armor generally stops arrows pretty effectively. Of course, it doesn't often cover everything, and well-placed arrows can cause some hurt.

[The Despondent Mind]

That was painted by artists who wants to make it look appealing not accurate .

[Savoyard]

That was painted by artists who wants to make it look appealing not accurate .

It actually is, however, that's not plate, that's cotton coats and brigandines.

[Aeratus]

It was painted by someone who lived during the hundred years war. Although you're right that it might not be totally accurate, I think it should have some basis in fact.

[TWWolfe]

The longbow didn't win because of power, it won because of sheer volume. At Agincourt, the english fired around 100,000 arrows. If you fire enough arrows at someone, they will find a kink in the armor eventually, or knock thier horses out from under them, or other damage.

[Blaze of Macedon]

I kinda dissagree with the point that archers aren't well represented in this game.

English archers are great in the high period of the game, they can butcher a lot of units from a far. How good they are in melee is also well portrait IMO. And as was pointed above, one of the main sources of their power in real history came from the sheer mass of arrows being fired. And no, they couldn't pierce the top knotch French knightly armor with one shot. If they could the French would not of even managed to get to the English line...

Also if you are looking for elite, multi-task archers look at the Russian Dismounted Dvor and the Ottoman Infantry. Janissary Archers are also pretty good. The French have the Scots Guard, they have excellent stats but i have never tested them in battle tbh. As for more AP damage from ranged units - check out the crossbowmen. The HRE and the Italians have access to some real nice Pavise Crossbows. The Genoese Crossbows (Milan) and the French Aventurier are elites here.

But in the end they all became pretty useless when gupowder appeared... In game if you can get musketeers alsways go with them. On the other hand i find supplementing Arqs with some long-range guys a nice option...

[DarthLazy]

Use horse archers. Problem solved

[D00d]

They could fire twelve arrows a minute using bows which required 150 pounds of force to pull

People often quote this but they never mention fatigue. After the first minute of such intense string pulling, men get tired and rate of fire drops drastically. Since archers in the game always fire at a constant speed, and can keep firing for minutes without resting, I'd say their average rate of fire is pretty good.