Steppe factions archery stats, and EDU.

[Happy Hippie]

Hi.
I noticed that Sarmatian units have very poor stats compared to other archers in game (even forest tribal hunters are better statwise). All horse archers have range 100 and strenght 4. What is reasoning behind that? Even info in unit cards is contradictory. It would be minor issue because I know how to edit EDU, but after newest patch I am unable to do this. Even slightes change like in Aorsi Riders changing:
"stat_pri 4, 0, medium_arrow, 100, 25, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1"
to
"stat_pri 5, 0, medium_arrow, 175, 45, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1"
results in unspecified error on loading campaign.

As a result of short range it is quite difficult to command large HA force and using steppe tactics.

Indiand chariots have 150 range, saka foot archers 180 (but 100 on horse).

It would be nice if devs could change it, but if someone tell me how to edit EDU again I will gladly do it myself.

[QuintusSertorius]

EDU changes are not savegame compatible. You have to start a new campaign in order to use them and the game will CTD if you try to load an old campaign started with previous values.

As to the ranges, those are intentional changes to archery, based on research upon the specific weapons used. Cavalry bows were weaker and shorter-ranged than infantry bows, not least because they were shorter. The advantage of a recurve bow on horseback is that it's smaller (and thus easier to use), not that it's more powerful than a larger infantry bow.

Charioteers are using infantry bows, as are foot archers. They have longer ranges. Bear in mind, one of the most effective historical techniques to counter horse archery was to deploy foot archers with longer-ranged bows. So the difficulty you are describing is entirely by design. Horse archers are not an "I Win!" button.

[Happy Hippie]

Thanks for explaining me how to work with EDU.

As for other part challenge accepted.

Scythian bows of EB 2 time frame are better technologically than anything south and west from steppes ( I am not sure about Indian longbows, because I have not looked into them, yet).
As for now we have

Forest barbarians:
Berukomtouga Selgoi (Bow and Arrow Hunters): 5, 100, 25
Sakutones: 6, 100, 25 "long bow made of yew plus a selection of arrows which were mostly tipped with bone or antler" steppe people used mostly metal arrowheads, including superior "trilobate" arrows

Geatai:
Getikoi Hippotoxotai: 4, 100, 25
Komatai Toxotai: 4, 170, 25

Africans:
african elephant forest towered: 4, 150, 40
Numidian Archers: 5, 170, 25
Ethiopian Archers: 5, 120, 25 xlight arrow

Semites:
Nabatean Horse Archers: 5, 100, 25
Sabaean Elite Urban Infantry: 5, 170, 25
Sabaean Royal Guards: 5, 180, 25
Sabaean Citizen Archers: 5, 180, 25
Khamis: 5, 180, 25

Hellens:
Baktrioi Hippotoxotai: 5, 100, 25
Toxotai: 5, 100, 25 "carry a simple bow"
Kretikoi Toxotai: 5, 180, 28

Easterners:
Thanvare Parsig (persian archers): 5, 180, 25
Nizagan Eranshahr (Western Iranian Archer-Spearmen): 4, 180, 25
Thanvare Katpatuka (Caucasus Archers): 5, 180, 25 heavy arrow

India:
indian elephant standard: 12, 150, 40
indian elephant bodyguard: 12, 150, 60
indian chariot archers: 12, 150, 80
Indian Longbowmen: 12, 200, 25

Western Steppe:
Aursa Baexdzhyntae (Aorsi Riders): 4, 100, 25
Ragon Sauromatae Uaezdaettae (Sarmatian Noble Horse-Archers - Provisional Bodyguard): 4, 100, 25
Sauromatae Uaezdaettae (Sarmatian Noble Horse-Archers - Recruitable): 4, 100, 25
Sauromatae Fat Aexsdzhytae (Sarmatian Horse Archers): 4, 100, 25 "Most enemies will be slower or have a shorter range." unit description
Sauromatae Fistaeg Fat Aexsdzhytae (Sarmatian Foot Archers): 4, 180, 25 "And the composite bows that these foot archers employ still maintain the qualities of those of their nomadic relatives."

Eastern Steppe:
Daha Baexdzhyntae (Dahae Horse-Archers): 4, 100, 25
Shivatir-i Pahlavanig (Parthian Horse-Archers) : 6, 100, 21 "They use the composite bow"
Spahbade Pahlavanig (Parthian Early Bodyguard): 6, 100, 25
Thanvare Pahlavanig (Parthian Foot Archers): 6, 180, 25 "armed with the powerful composite bow"
Duna Asya (Saka Horse-Archers): 7, 100, 25 "they carry the infamous composite bow used by all Inner Asian nomads at this time"
Ysaninu Aysna (Saka Early Noble Bodyguards): 7, 100, 25
Ysaninu Aysna (Saka Early Nobles - Recruitable): 7, 100, 25
Payai Dunai (Saka Foot Archers): 7, 180, 25

As for attack factor. How come western nomads have weakest archers on map? Even Gauls and Germans have better bowmen? Attack factor, in archery case, stays for bow quality, arrow quality and archer skill. In all three factors steppe people are better than rest of the competition (part Indians, as mentioned above).
What makes the difference between Western and Eastern Steppe? Were they not using simillar technology and undergone similliar training (born in saddle etc.)?

What is infantry bow in case of Steppe people? In unit description they all (footmen and horsmen) carry "composite bows". EB 2 aside, can you show me any finds of such a infantry bows or is mention in some of the ancient sources?
I do understand that shooting same bow from foot yelds considerable longer distance (and better accuracy) but 180 to 100? What research is it based on? Composite bows are capable of 500m shots ( "We are able to know something of the range of ancient bows, thanks to chance archaeological finds and recorded feats. On the Genghis Khan Stone, dating from the early 13th century AD, the archer Esukhei is recorded as having fired a distance of 335 ald in competition in the year 1225, this being around 1,759ft (536m). One and a half thousand years earlier, also using a bow of composite type, a similar result was achieved, at the site of ancient Olbia, a Greek Black Sea colony. A stele of c.300 BC has been found at Olbia that describes the distance-firing feat of a certain Anaxagoras son of Dimagoras - some 1,711ft (521.6m). Osprey Scythians 700bc-300bc" ) as a feat so they battle distance should be bit more than 100 ( even being mounted ).

Another issue is number of arrows. 25.
Standard Scythian (and I would bet, Sarmatian too) equipment was gorytos, bow and arrow case capable of helding up to 75 arrows. Apparently there is no case of quiver found be it as an artifact or any pictorial material (sculptures etc.).

Horse archers are "I win" button as any other historicaly composed army in this game led to its full potential.
What I like about EB 1 is its keeping up standards to historical accuracy, I hope it will not be sacrificed to balancing factor in EB 2.

[QuintusSertorius]

As for attack factor. How come western nomads have weakest archers on map? Even Gauls and Germans have better bowmen? Attack factor, in archery case, stays for bow quality, arrow quality and archer skill. In all three factors steppe people are better than rest of the competition (part Indians, as mentioned above).
What makes the difference between Western and Eastern Steppe? Were they not using simillar technology and undergone similliar training (born in saddle etc.)?

You're focusing on one factor alone (attack value) without considering the projectile or the animation used. These latter two are both in the Scythian's favour.

What is infantry bow in case of Steppe people? In unit description they all (footmen and horsmen) carry "composite bows". EB 2 aside, can you show me any finds of such a infantry bows or is mention in some of the ancient sources?

A composite bow is merely a reference to it's mode of construction. A man on foot can carry a bigger bow than a man on horseback, and has less restriction on his drawing motion. Thus infantry archers have longer ranges (because they have bigger bows) than horse archers.

I do understand that shooting same bow from foot yelds considerable longer distance (and better accuracy) but 180 to 100? What research is it based on? Composite bows are capable of 500m shots ( "We are able to know something of the range of ancient bows, thanks to chance archaeological finds and recorded feats. On the Genghis Khan Stone, dating from the early 13th century AD, the archer Esukhei is recorded as having fired a distance of 335 ald in competition in the year 1225, this being around 1,759ft (536m). One and a half thousand years earlier, also using a bow of composite type, a similar result was achieved, at the site of ancient Olbia, a Greek Black Sea colony. A stele of c.300 BC has been found at Olbia that describes the distance-firing feat of a certain Anaxagoras son of Dimagoras - some 1,711ft (521.6m). Osprey Scythians 700bc-300bc" ) as a feat so they battle distance should be bit more than 100 ( even being mounted ).

Flight archery is not the same thing as war archery. Standing still and shooting a static target is not the same thing as being in the saddle firing at a moving and armoured man. Just because an arrow carries to a target, doesn't mean it has the force to harm a man - especially one in armour. You use a different arrow for distance alone than for war/hunting.

Single events aren't particularly persuasive for general application to warfare. Were these bows specially made? What kind of arrow did they use? What were the environmental conditions at the time? Was the target they were shooting at static or mobile? Was the archer static or mobile?

As to the range specifically, we based that on the Turkish tradition (closest well-researched analogue), who preferred to ride close and fire a flat trajectory for maximum impact. A necessary concession when you have a smaller horseman's bow and are on a moving horse. They also preferred fast firing (which is less powerful) over slower firing (which is more powerful). The critical thing here is that we've gone for effective ranges, not theoretical maximum ranges.

Another issue is number of arrows. 25.
Standard Scythian (and I would bet, Sarmatian too) equipment was gorytos, bow and arrow case capable of helding up to 75 arrows. Apparently there is no case of quiver found be it as an artifact or any pictorial material (sculptures etc.).

You might have a point here; what we struggle with is the absence of evidence, since textiles rarely survive a few thousand years without rotting away. We'll review the numbers again - at the very least a horseman has fewer constraints on the amount they can carry than the infantryman.

Horse archers are "I win" button as any other historicaly composed army in this game led to its full potential.
What I like about EB 1 is its keeping up standards to historical accuracy, I hope it will not be sacrificed to balancing factor in EB 2.

We don't do "balancing factors" in unit stats, they are entirely based on the weapons/armour used and research to back up their deployment. EBII is far more extensively researched than EB1 was, which is why some aspects have changed from then until now.

Horsearchers were overpowered in EB1, their impact had been exaggerated.

[Happy Hippie]

"You're focusing on one factor alone (attack value) without considering the projectile or the animation used. These latter two are both in the Scythian's favour."

All nomads are using medium_arrow. Why Saka and Parthians have bigger attack factor?

"A composite bow is merely a reference to it's mode of construction. A man of foot can carry a bigger bow than a man on horseback. Thus infantry archers have longer ranges (because they have bigger bows) than horse archers."

I would like to see an example of such a bigger bow in steppe context. If there is none this is speculative at best.

"Flight archery is not the same thing as war archery."

I never stated that. Flight archery gives you idea about performance of a bow. If a bow is capable of 500m shot with light arrow and hit the target it should be effective bit more than 100m in combat situation. I understand of Turkish tactic of riding up close to loose arrows but were they not fighting better armored opponents? I understand that engine of the game will not give more penetration for a close range, so maybe steppe roster should have specialist with short range and bigger punch (like ap or bigger attack). It was done in Broken Crescent and works just fine.

"As to the range specifically, we based that on the Turkish tradition".
Can you point me to relevant sources (I am interested in the subject and would like to learn more)? Were Turks using heavy cavalry to deliver breaking charge as steppe armies did? Would not Tatars be better comparison?

"We don't do "balancing factors" in unit stats"
It is good to read that.

"Horsearchers were overpowered in EB1"
I agree with that, still, historically, in favorable circumstances (landscape wise) they were unstoppable.

[+Marius+]

Composite bows are capable of 500m shots

Hahaha, no.

( "We are able to know something of the range of ancient bows, thanks to chance archaeological finds and recorded feats. On the Genghis Khan Stone, dating from the early 13th century AD, the archer Esukhei is recorded as having fired a distance of 335 ald in competition in the year 1225, this being around 1,759ft (536m). One and a half thousand years earlier, also using a bow of composite type, a similar result was achieved, at the site of ancient Olbia, a Greek Black Sea colony. A stele of c.300 BC has been found at Olbia that describes the distance-firing feat of a certain Anaxagoras son of Dimagoras - some 1,711ft (521.6m). Osprey Scythians 700bc-300bc" ) as a feat so they battle distance should be bit more than 100 ( even being mounted ).

As an archery enthusiast, I can personally claim and bet my reproductive organs on the fact that every single such epic and fancy archery "record" through history, including the Ottoman 900m shot, is utter .

Standard Scythian (and I would bet, Sarmatian too) equipment was gorytos, bow and arrow case capable of helding up to 75 arrows.

Impossible.
War arrows are not the slim shafted little darts people are used to at modern archery dojos.
War arrows big, war arrows need room;

I don't know much bout hunnic bows but 40lb is not effective even for hunting. Average scythian composite bow was in range of 120lb, like Yanghai cemetery example (which is from 700bc).

Impossible, laughable.

The average height of a scythian warrior would have been 163-166(the average was even worse for his Asian buddy) meaning that his body was far weaker than the modern human in regards to muscle mass.
Shooting a 120lb bow on horseback is virtually impossible even for a modern human experienced in the art of horsearchery, let alone a skinny little malnourished horselord.

[Happy Hippie]

Marius, aren't you little bit overaggressive?

500m range of composite bows.
I stay by ma case. I gave two different primary sources which support each other. I am sorry but your enthusiasm is not good enough to counter that. Mind that both of sources gave quite similar distance being 536m and 521m, which makes them more reliable. They are from different times and different cultures which again makes them more reliable.

As for the amount of arrows.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=eeG...arrows&f=false
this here is page 34 from The Sarmatians 600BC-AD450

Gorytos was mainly used by Scythians and Parthians (Studia Archaeologica 27, p. 188), Sarmatians complemented them with quivers. One of the mentioned quivers contained 128 arrows (points with shafts). In later periods amount of arrows declined with appearance of more powerful bows.

Gorytos capable of containing up to 75 arrows is mentioned in Osprey book about Scythians

Impossible 120lb composite bow was found and replica was made, you can read about it in "SCYTHIAN BOW FROM XINJANG" by Adam Karpowicz and Stephen Selby
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai..._bow_ATARN.pdf
Nomads were training literally whole life to use bows so they could use them far more efficiently that most if not all modern archers.

And mind me, I am here not to won the argument, but to learn something new. If you have relevant information then share it.

@Goth
Xenophon, Anabasis, Book Three, Chapter Three, page 84 (Polish edition, Czytelnik, Warszawa 2003) Mithradates with force of 200 riders and 400 foot archers and slingers is harassing Greeks. When he close up part of his men foot and horse start shooting arrows, others were slinging stones. Cretans were not shooting they arrows as far as Persians.
It does not states specifically if they were out ranged by foot or horse. I assume that both foot and horse archers have better range than Greeks.
Later on (cant find it) it is stated that Greeks employed slingers with long range slings to successfully deal with enemy archers.

[+Marius+]

Marius, aren't you little bit overaggressive?

You are confusing aggression with mockery.
I am laughing at your claims.

500m range of composite bows.
I stay by ma case.

I own 2 of them, and my friends owns 3, historical reproductions, and we say no.

I gave two different primary sources which support each other.

No you gave 2 mentions of some guy that said something to some other guy who heard it from a third guy two and a very, very long ago and whilst doing that you completely forgot that massive exaggeration was the main tool of literary description during those times used absolutely everywhere.

How about we start talking about those 2-10 million man Persian armies while we are at it.

I am sorry but your enthusiasm is not good enough to counter that. Mind that both of sources gave quite similar distance being 536m and 521m, which makes them more reliable. They are from different times and different cultures which again makes them more reliable.

There is a annual mongolian archery festival named Naadam that remains unchanged for centuries and is kept practiced even today.
The Mongol men shoot at targets 75 meters away and the women 65 meters away, the average draw weight of traditionally made Mongol bows is between 35-80lb.
Combine that with the actual metric ton of written documents describing horse archers having trouble dealing with foot archers, crossbowmen and even javelin armed troops and you have yourself the actual average horse archer range.

Asian people are small and thin and were even smaller and thinner during those times, muscle mass is imperative for high poundage archery and the 90-130 lb longbows were a trouble to draw even for the rugged English Europeans whose actual skeletons can be identified by the massive bone structure deformities that the high poundage bows caused.

Effectively using and drawing anything above 70-80lb on horseback is pure fantasy. Pick up a bow, get a horse, and try it.
Then you will have no choice but to accept that absolute truth.

As for the amount of arrows.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=eeG...arrows&f=false
this here is page 34 from The Sarmatians 600BC-AD450

Gorytos was mainly used by Scythians and Parthians (Studia Archaeologica 27, p. 188), Sarmatians complemented them with quivers. One of the mentioned quivers contained 128 arrows (points with shafts). In later periods amount of arrows declined with appearance of more powerful bows.

Gorytos capable of containing up to 75 arrows is mentioned in Osprey book about Scythians

Pure garbage made by sharlatans with historical degrees who never saw or wore an arrow quiver in their life.
It is the same people with PhDs in history that claim that the average longsword was 15 kg and that the katana could slice through mail, there are loads of such pompous ignorant fairies in the historical community.

A 40 arrow quiver is already big and clumsy, a 128 arrow quiver would practically be a large wooden barrel tied to the hip

These are actual historical reconstructions;




How the hell would you put 128 arrows in such a quiver?

Impossible 120lb composite bow was found and replica was made, you can read about it in "SCYTHIAN BOW FROM XINJANG" by Adam Karpowicz and Stephen Selby
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai..._bow_ATARN.pdf
Nomads were training literally whole life to use bows so they could use them far more efficiently that most if not all modern archers.

Irrelevant;

"It must be emphasized, the draw weight must be taken here as only an indication of the possible range for these bows. Very small variations in dimensions willresult in substantial changes in weight. For example, a bow only 0.1cm thinnerwill be 15lb lighter, 0.2cm thinner about 30lb lighter. Narrowing the bow by0.1cm will bring about 7lb drop in weight, by 0.2cm 15lb decrease." - from that same document

They obviously made a reconstruction with a personal biased cause to make it as powerful as possible.
A 120lb recurve composite bow of that size is more a waste of precious rate of fire than an useful range increase.

@Goth
Xenophon, Anabasis, Book Three, Chapter Three, page 84 (Polish edition, Czytelnik, Warszawa 2003) Mithradates with force of 200 riders and 400 foot archers and slingers is harassing Greeks. When he close up part of his men foot and horse start shooting arrows, others were slinging stones. Cretans were not shooting they arrows as far as Persians.
It does not states specifically if they were out ranged by foot or horse. I assume that both foot and horse archers have better range than Greeks.
Later on (cant find it) it is stated that Greeks employed slingers with long range slings to successfully deal with enemy archers.

During the battle of Mohi the Hungarian crossbowmen outranged the Mongol horsearchers causing them significant casualties and the Mongols were forced to use siege weaponry to clear out the pathway.
This was repeated during the many later Mongol invasions during which, although in smaller engagements, the foot archers and crossbowmen prevailed nearly every single time.

During the battle of Jaffa the crusader crossbowmen wiped the floor with the numerically far superior horsearchers with the Crusaders only loosing 2 men.

Although the battle of Carrhae is always mentioned, the Romans still destroyed the Parthians in the majority of the later engagements and burned their capital to the ground.



Horse archers were good, horse archers were extremely useful, but they were not nearly as good/useful as people claim/want them to be.

[Sint]

I noticed that Sarmatian units have very poor stats compared to other archers in game

I noticed that too the Sarmatian foot archers have a missle attack of 4 while even toxotai have 5.

[QuintusSertorius]

I'll have to come back when I have time to go through the detail, but once again an infantryman's bow is not the same weapon as a horseman's bow. The horseman's bow is necessarily smaller (and thus less powerful) than the infantryman's.

[z3n]

Yes, I am no historian but I do know the draw weights of horse archer bows were rather small (30/40lbs) for hunnic bows in comparson of a 170/240lbs longbow draw weight.

[Happy Hippie]

I don't know much bout hunnic bows but 40lb is not effective even for hunting. Average scythian composite bow was in range of 120lb, like Yanghai cemetery example (which is from 700bc). Longbow draw weights you gave are probably taken from Mary Rose (XVI century). There are virtually no longbows in EB 2 time frame, apart of few pieces from Britannia and Germania. Composite bows were primary weapon on steppes so they should be effective against local types of armour (most fighting were internal affairs) or they would be replaced with something else.

[Goth]

Hi Happy Hippie
Try using a program called Notepad++ to edit text files for EB2, windows notepad causes crashes now unfortunately. Once a file is altered such as edu or edb though I have noticed that save games are no longer compatible.
Like you I think that horse archers are underpowered and mod them myself. My reasoning is that even though the mounted bow was less powerful than the foot bow and had less range, the mounted archer had much greater mobility and was not an easy target and this is something the game engine cannot reproduce effectively so we have to do it through range and damage stats instead.
It is important to remember that in ancient times the foot archer was more like a battlefield sniper than a mass volley specialist like the english archers of the middle ages and a fast moving horse archer was a much more difficult target for a foot archer to hit than a slow moving infantryman. Horse archers of the steppes developed special techniques for fighting foot archers which involved galloping at them at break neck speed whilst firing his bow thus forcing the foot bowman to take cover, then veering away at the last second whilst still firing and getting out of range before the foot archer could emerge from cover take aim and fire back (I cant remember where I read this as it was many years ago (maybe a WRG book) but I have never forgotten it. Like I said its a tactic the engine cannot reproduce.

Goth

[Happy Hippie]

Hi Goth.
Thanks, I successfully edited my EDU with notepad, it is a pitty it's not save compatible though.

"Mounted bow was less powerful than the foot bow and had less range" I do not believe it is true in steppe context. I can not find any example of such "an infantry bow", if you will show me one I will change my opinion on that. Xenophon states that Cretan archers have shorter range than Persian horse archers (Anabasis, 3,3).

"ancient foot archer was more like a battlefield sniper than a mass volley specialist" what is the base for this opinion? Peoples that use lots of archers (Persians, Partians et consortes) should develop volley fire naturally. Cretan archers apparently used some kind of mass fire (according to EB 1).

[Goth]

I will find the sources for you though it may take some finding as I read them many years ago.

With regard to steppe bows try reading The Fall of the Roman Empire-A New History by Peter Heather, its out of the date range for the time of EB but back tracks to earlier times and gives a very good description of the Composite bows development on the Eurasian steppe from the earliest times to the middle ages. It begins on page 154 and is titled The Golden Bow and explains the greater power and length of the foot bow over the horse bow and the reasons why the horse bow was shorter and weaker.(I would type this out for you but it would take ages.
I have xenephons book here and cant remember him stating that cretan archers had less range than persian horse archers just that they had less range than persian archers. It had something to do with the cretan arrow having a heavier head if I remember.
Still looking for the sniper reference to ancient bowmen, I was convinced it was in a WRG book but cant find it at the mo
Found it, though it is not an ancient source and is from a modern book now out of print. The book is called Alexander the Greats Campaigns by Phil Barker and published by PSL.
It is mainly concerning Greek Archers and not necessarily all ancient archers as I stated Earlier and it describes how the Greek archer was a sniper trying to make each shot count and not a mass volley specialist where a group soak a specific area of ground with arrows. The cost of arrows required the greek archer to choose a specific target and take careful aim to make each shot count. Reading this again I am sure that mass volleys did take place in Ancient times just not to the same scale as what the English did at Crecy where they had the potential to fire off 90 thousand arrows in just a few minutes.

[QuintusSertorius]

Could we all try to remain civil, please? It's possible to have a difference of opinions without being insulting to anyone.

[Sint]

Horse archers are "I win" button as any other historicaly composed army in this game led to its full potential.

No no they are not....if you look at some battles in anicent china you will see that,if you look at many battles that the romans had with the pathians and Sassanids(not just carrhae) you will see that,hell even if you look at the battle of Jaffa you will see that...

Fun fact: The French during their invasion of russia even called the bashkirs(horse archers )Cupids since they were so useless(granted that's bit unfair against firearms but if you consider that they did even had armor and were yet said to casue little damage despite thousands of arrows....

500m range of composite bows.
I stay by ma case. I gave two different primary sources which support each other. I am sorry but your enthusiasm is not good enough to counter that. Mind that both of sources gave quite similar distance being 536m and 521m, which makes them more reliable. They are from different times and different cultures which again makes them more reliable.

And a shot like that could be blocked by cloth....maximum range is not = maxium effectic range.


"the Franks were drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them… I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks."
Bahā’al-Dīn, "The Life of Saladin" (Ch. CXVII), in What Befell Sultan Yusuf, by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi.

"…and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him [Walter of Châtillon] with arrows. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the arrows that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again… Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described."
The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, (Ch.XVII).

[Happy Hippie]

@Goth
Thanks for trouble.
I looked into "The Fall..." and I could not find anything about infantry steppe bows. It mentioned Turkish/Ottoman infantry bows. Are they used as a reference to in game Sarmatians?
It mentioned that Scythian and Sarmatian bows were weaker than Hunnic bows and that Scythians lose to Sarmatians due to lack of effective armour piercing bow. It does not states any statistics of those bows though. That is contradictory to Xinjangbow which is relatively new discovery and might be not known by the author.

@Sint
"I win" is my opinion about horse archers in this game. Apart of game I can give you as many examples of battles won by horse archer army. Even in relatively modern period, during Indian genocide in North America, horse archers scored some victories against rifle armed US soldiers. Nonetheless horse archery is made obsolete by firearms.
As to two Crusade examples, I believe armour was bit better in xii-xiii century than in iii-i bc.

As I stated before, I do not advocate 500m range for in game HA.

That is not the point however.

I would like to know why (in EB 2) western nomads have significantly weaker archery stats that pretty much anyone else.

[k/t]

EDU changes are save-compatible in every mod except this one, it seems. I remember someone mentioning the EB2 files were zipped somehow. That's probably what's causing the problem. What was the rationale behind the zipping? What does it improve enough to justify the inconveniences caused?

"the draw weights of horse archer bows were rather small (30/40lbs) for hunnic bows"

Those would be worthless for warfare.

"170/240lbs longbow draw weight"

BS.

"A man on foot can carry a bigger bow than a man on horseback, and has less restriction on his drawing motion."

A longer bow doesn't equal a more powerful bow, and there's nothing interfering with your drawing arm anyway.

"Horse archers of the steppes developed special techniques for fighting foot archers which involved galloping at them at break neck speed whilst firing his bow thus forcing the foot bowman to take cover, then veering away at the last second whilst still firing and getting out of range before the foot archer could emerge from cover take aim and fire back"

What cover in a field? Why not just shoot back and kill the horsearchers? Or shoot from behind cover?

"malnourished horselord"

That's right; everyone who lived before 1980 lived in hunger.

"Pure garbage made by sharlatans with historical degrees who never saw or wore an arrow quiver in their life.
It is the same people with PhDs in history that claim that the average longsword was 15 kg and that the katana could slice through mail, there are loads of such pompous ignorant fairies in the historical community."

This is true. They also say stupid things like "the stirrup made charges possible". They've never been on or even near a horse, they've never held a lance or charged at something, and yet they "know" all these things. But it's not only history-minded academics who are a joke; sociologists and economists are just as bad.

"lack of effective armour piercing bow"

Such a thing has been lacked by everyone ever.

[QuintusSertorius]

A longer bow doesn't equal a more powerful bow, and there's nothing interfering with your drawing arm anyway.

Yes it does, with two bows of otherwise identical construction, but one with a longer stave will necessarily be more powerful than the shorter.

You don't just draw a bow with your arm, not if you're firing a shot that will do anything to a man in armour. You use your whole upper body; you can fire full-body shots on the ground that are impossible in the saddle. Same way a javelin-throw from the ground is more powerful than one from the saddle (where you can only throw from your hips up).