No armour piercing ?

[Magnum_Opus]

I just downloaded SS 6.3, because the campaign I was playing on 6.0 kept crashing when I ended the turn. Anyway I noticed that no archers/crossbowmen/gunners have the AP trait in 6.3. It makes me sad, because now my English Longbowmen just arn't effective vs heavy infantry. I am also disappointed that peasant archers have got a severe nerf with 1 damage, I was really enjoying arrows actually killing the enemy instead of bouncing of their cloth shirts. So I was wondering the reason behind this 'rebalancing'?

[MrExpendable]

Hi,

This change is part of unit balancing, and is supposed to be more realistic. Arrows and bolts now do area effect damage to make up for their decrease in power. This ensures that massive volleys will still slow down and badly hurt even heavily armoured infantry. Guns and crossbows do more damage now, so they're more effective against armour.

Anyway, I still find longbowmen to be extremely deadly. I used 5 units of longbowmen in my army against a full stack of heavily armoured infantry. They managed to kill 16% of the infantry before they reached my lines, and the area effect damage ensured that many of the surviving infantry were battered and bleeding. They're less effective then gunpowder units and crossbows in terms of dealing with armoured enemies (which I think is good), but trust me, they're still useful.

[Magnum_Opus]

Thanks for the reply. I have a couple of questions. First, how does this area trait effect missiles? Secondly, can a soldier be injured? I was under the impression that an attack either killed an enemy or left it unharmed (if it only had 1 HP).

Anyway, I just don't thing longbows are effective enough considering they are so expensive. 16% isn't much, especially considering you could have had 5 units of heavy infantry instead. Maybe I'll make a submod making missile units effective again.

[MrExpendable]

Thanks for the reply. I have a couple of questions. First, how does this area trait effect missiles? Secondly, can a soldier be injured? I was under the impression that an attack either killed an enemy or left it unharmed (if it only had 1 HP).

Anyway, I just don't thing longbows are effective enough considering they are so expensive. 16% isn't much, especially considering you could have had 5 units of heavy infantry instead. Maybe I'll make a submod making missile units effective again.

I don't know everything about the combat mechanics in Medieval 2, but units are able to survive a few hits, especially when they're armoured. When units are wounded by arrow volleys, they're usually much easier to bring down in melee.

Area can influence the entire unit, since every single arrow does "spread damage". It was initially only assigned to artillery units in the original M2TW. Because arrows don't kill armoured units right away, it means that soldiers may survive the arrows, but they get slowed down by their "wounded" animation. Massed arrow fire from numerous archer units can almost stop a battle line from advancing, completely pinning them down. Even if they finally get to your lines, they will be so exhausted by their advance that their melee effectiveness is cut in half. A few archer units can stop an entire army from crossing a bridge. At close range, you'll see that longbowmen can still kill quite a number of heavily armoured, shielded infantry soldiers.

The battle I was talking about was against an army of mostly dismounted men at arms, which aren't very cheap either. I think that they're supposed to take a good beating due to their shields and excellent armour. By the time they got to my infantry, they were so demoralized and fatigued that half of them routed almost instantly. Units wearing leather or chainmail will usually melt away in a few volleys by longbows.

You see, archers aren't the answer to every enemy anymore. Longbowmen will hurt armoured units, but they're much better when used against unshielded or light infantry. They can be very good for pinning down threatening units and exhausting them, and maybe even kill lots of them. Longbows were good weapons, but the question whether they could shred clean through armour is quite debatable. SS takes a more realistic approach to the way weapons worked, instead of having arrows which simply "ignores" half of the armour on a soldier.

I edited the Battle of Agincourt battle in my version of SS to have more realistic troop numbers. The battle is even more of a cakewalk then it already was, the French take ages to reach my infantry line. I just stand still and achieve a heroic victory easily, which is not because of my skill at the game.

[Rushwithoutmercy]

''but the question whether they could shred clean through armour is quite debatable.''

The purpose of the bodkin arrow was to pierce armour.

[MrExpendable]

''but the question whether they could shred clean through armour is quite debatable.''

The purpose of the bodkin arrow was to pierce armour.

I had to be more specific in this one. I was speaking mostly of plate mail armour. Though there is little question about the bodkin arrows' ability to pierce through chain mail and padding.

[PerXX]

The longbow is the single most overrated weapon in history, maybe with the exception of the katana.
Even at Agincourt, more than a hundred arrows were fired for each French casualty, and that's not accounting for how many died from drowning in the mud, being trampled, the large number of prisoners executed after the battle and of course the actual melee combat.

The longbow was an excellent weapon, but no where near the super weapon some seem to think it was.

As for the bodkin arrow being designed to pierce heavy armour: While the narrow, pointy shape certainly would be more efficient than the broadhead arrows at piercing armour, it wasn't designed to be used against plate armour or the likes, as it dates back to the Vikings.
The advantage of the bodkin arrow is that the shape is the easiest to make, making it possible to produce more arrows. This is also supported by the fact that found bodkin arrows were made by cheap, soft iron, rather than steel that the more advanced types of arrowheads. So while the shape does give it a better chance to penetrate armour, most bodkin arrows would've been too soft to do much damage. Bodkins were simply the cheapest and easiest to mass-produce.

[MrExpendable]

Even at Agincourt, more than a hundred arrows were fired for each French casualty, and that's not accounting for how many died from drowning in the mud, being trampled, the large number of prisoners executed after the battle and of course the actual melee combat.

Another thing to take into account, was the condition the French must have been in once they reached the English lines. All the armour, no matter how evenly distributed on your body, would weigh you down when advancing through the soaked field. I know from experience that fighting while being exhausted is one of the most difficult things to do. The English, though ill, were relatively fresh since they didn't have to do the same thing the French did. If you think of all that, then it is quite a feat that the French managed to beat back the English infantry line (even though it was just a few ranks deep).

Also, the army sizes in the battle for both sides are rather disputed. Some accounts and historians claim the odds for the English were 1:6, others say it was 1:3. A more recent research claims the odds were along the lines of 2:3, with the English numbering around 8000 and the first French assault numbering 5000 men at arms.

[Magnum_Opus]

The longbow is the single most overrated weapon in history, maybe with the exception of the katana.
Even at Agincourt, more than a hundred arrows were fired for each French casualty, and that's not accounting for how many died from drowning in the mud, being trampled, the large number of prisoners executed after the battle and of course the actual melee combat.

The longbow was an excellent weapon, but no where near the super weapon some seem to think it was.

As for the bodkin arrow being designed to pierce heavy armour: While the narrow, pointy shape certainly would be more efficient than the broadhead arrows at piercing armour, it wasn't designed to be used against plate armour or the likes, as it dates back to the Vikings.
The advantage of the bodkin arrow is that the shape is the easiest to make, making it possible to produce more arrows. This is also supported by the fact that found bodkin arrows were made by cheap, soft iron, rather than steel that the more advanced types of arrowheads. So while the shape does give it a better chance to penetrate armour, most bodkin arrows would've been too soft to do much damage. Bodkins were simply the cheapest and easiest to mass-produce.

The longbow isn't 'overrated', it is what it is. Of course it won't kill an armoured knight with a shield from 100 metres. Even as a toxophile like myself, I have to admit that longbows couldn't actually pierce quality steel plate, although maille and iron plate was a different matter. They were however super effective against lightly armoured foot soldiers or horses (crecy). If you imagine a skilled longbowmen shooting an arrow every 5 seconds, if it connects with someone they will be either severely wounded or dead. In fact, IMO some well trained longbowmen would absolutely devastate Napoleonic era musketeers.


Anyway back on topic, I suppose Lbows arn't really underpowered in 6.4. They do less damage than they did in 6.0, however they do make up for it slightly in RoF. What annoys me though is that peasant archers were nerfed so badly. Now it takes about 5 arrows to down one militia spearmen, and they can only get off 3 volleys since their range is so short.

[Andytheplatypus]

Ugh not the longbow debate again

[Chazz1225]

OHH LORD I LOVE HISTORY!!!

[MrExpendable]

Realizing the futility of earlier longbow threads, I want to sincerely apologize if any of my actions led to the possible creation of another one. I did not intend it in any way, I swear.

[PerXX]

Realizing the futility of earlier longbow threads, I want to sincerely apologize if any of my actions led to the possible creation of another one. I did not intend it in any way, I swear.

You didn't start the thread.
Also, as long as there's people who still believe the Longbow were some sort of medieval rapid-fire Anti-material rifle, there's still need for threads like this.

[GiddeeUpp]

No worries my friend, always try the search tool first but it can be hard to find what you want sometimes. I rather enjoy these debates

[MrExpendable]

Well, I've read a whole lot of these threads earlier, and I knew beforehand that things would always result into people showing disputable evidence which not everyone would agree with.

I just wanted to add some historical background to make the OP understand better why archers function the way they do in SS.

[k/t]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=442495

[Andytheplatypus]

You should make a list of commonly asked questions and get someone to sticky it

[PerXX]

You should make a list of commonly asked questions and get someone to sticky it

You mean as opposed to the list of frequently asked questions we have stickied?

[Marcvs Antonivs]

Historical accurate or not, AP or not, I love longbows in Stainless Steel! I use at least 6-7 units of longbows in an army. Like a hot knife through butter whoever the enemy is.