Why do longbows have more range than composite bows?

[Fraxinicus]

All the evidence I know points to composite bows being significantly more powerful than longbows. Granted, a Manchu warbow is at the very upper end of composite bow power, but an 82 pound draw weight Manchu composite bow can handily outshoot a 128 pound yew longbow (Manchu bow shoots an arrow at 190fps with 134J of kinetic energy, the longbow shoots the same arrow at 170fps with 107J of energy).
http://www.manchuarchery.org/bows
Yes, Manchu bows were not around in 200BC, but the technology is more or less the same across time. Do you guys have sources that indicate that longbows should be stronger than the composite bows around in 200BC?

[TheJackinati275]

Composite bows are not significantly more powerful than longbows, they generally have faster velocities but not to a significant degree (Except in the case of flight arrows et cetera). It seems that in the ancient world, most bows were often within ~70lbs.

From my knowledge, longbows tend to launch arrows at around ~40-50 m/s, whilst composite bows can launch arrows anywhere from ~40-70 m/s.

[dogukan]

there is a bit of a myth around the gaming community that longbows are superior due to the euro-centric legacy of the longbow in medieval games I think
Composite bows are more sophisticated tools overall and they also tend to be more efficient. But range would depend on the arrow used and the drawing power of the bow.

Its often easier to pull higher weights with longbow because you use 3 fingers. Whereas composite bows are based on thumb-release which would require a lot more strength to pull a heavy bow. It is not impossible, but more difficult as you go high up. If the average was 70lbs in ancient era, a composite bow user can easily do that. It gets problematic after 100+to use a composite bow. Especially since they were often used on horse back.

[stevehoos]

there is a bit of a myth around the gaming community that longbows are superior due to the euro-centric legacy of the longbow in medieval games I think
Composite bows are more sophisticated tools overall and they also tend to be more efficient. But range would depend on the arrow used and the drawing power of the bow.

Its often easier to pull higher weights with longbow because you use 3 fingers. Whereas composite bows are based on thumb-release which would require a lot more strength to pull a heavy bow. It is not impossible, but more difficult as you go high up. If the average was 70lbs in ancient era, a composite bow user can easily do that. It gets problematic after 100+to use a composite bow. Especially since they were often used on horse back.

The same myth that you describe is prevalent in the (anti European culture) composite bow crowd as well.

[Petellius]

Longbows have longer range and slower fire rate, composite bows fire faster, at lower ranges and have much higher accuracy and stopping power.

[Fraxinicus]

"Longbows have longer range and slower fire rate, composite bows fire faster, at lower ranges and have much higher accuracy and stopping power."
But why? If anything it should be the opposite - longbows are actually easier to draw than composite bows. And the only example of bows that fire faster, with longer range, but with lower stopping power are Turkish or Korean composite bows usually meant for sport shooting, though they would also have higher accuracy. The mix and distribution of effects between the two bow types doesn't make sense.

A bow is a bow. It's power is a combination of draw weight * draw length * mechanical efficiency of the materials used, also multiplied by the properties of the arrow (heavier arrow = more kinetic energy, lighter arrow = longer and more accurate flight). On the archer's end, a longer bow with the same draw weight and draw length will be easier to pull than a shorter bow with the same weight and length of draw (a Manchu design that shoots the same long, heavy arrow as an English longbow is harder to pull back # for #, although you need much less poundage to get the same power).

The arrow largely determines the properties of the bow used. If you are in war and want to take out enemies in armor, you use heavy arrows with the most powerful bows your men can wield. If you have no great tradition of war archery and are repurposing hunters, you probably use lower-power hunting bows that are worthless against even simple armor. That's a better dichotomy for archers in game to follow - low-tier archers or archers from cultures without a strong archery tradition (i.e. everyone but easterners and Scythians) get bows with low power, and archers from the East and maybe some elite bowmen from other cultures get powerful bows.

The current dichotomy, +range -fire rate vs. +fire rate, -range, +accuracy, +stopping power doesn't make sense between two bow types. +range, +stopping power, -fire rate are associated with more powerful bows, and reversed in weaker bows. Heavy arrows give you -range, +stopping power, light arrows give +range, -stopping power (not sure how accuracy is affected - light arrows are blown by the wind more easily and have less forward momentum, but also probably more wobble coming out of the bow). This post is getting long, so I'll make a more detailed recommendation for an archery overhaul in another.

To the other commenters, from tests, a Manchu composite bow is actually significantly stronger than a longbow - this advantage only shows up at higher poundages on the Manchu bow, but these were the poundages required for warbows by the Qing government. Despite have 46 pounds lower draw weight, the bow shoots with 25% more power than a 128# longbow. Given that most composite bows should be somewhat weaker than Manchu bows, however, it's reasonable for composite bows in game to not be significantly better than longbows - they just shouldn't be worse in any way, except for upkeep cost of the men using them. Also, they are not significantly harder to draw back, and this difficulty is due to the shorter length of the bow vs. its draw weight, not the style of release. If thumb release was such a big drawback you'd imagine they'd come up with something else.

[TheJackinati275]

(i.e. everyone but easterners and Scythians) get bows with low power, and archers from the East and maybe some elite bowmen from other cultures get powerful bows.

Hey, don't forget the Kretans, they'd be very remiss to hear that you forgot about them.

[Fraxinicus]

Concrete suggestions for archery improvement:
Distinguish between 4 types of bow - peasant bow, longbow, weak composite, and strong composite.
Peasant bow is for low level archers from cultures with no great archery tradition (which you can tell is there if noblemen shoot bows for prestige). Obviously it has terrible stats, and is good for little else but suppression fire or taking out unshielded men in tunics. Low damage, range, and accuracy, but a relatively high firing rate. Doesn't matter if its from a longbow or composite culture, as low-power bows have similar performance with both designs. Possibly downgrade low-tier horse archers to this level, as draw power and accuracy suffer on horseback even with a better bow.

I assume longbows in 200BC are not as powerful as English warbows - I don't know of any discoveries of ancient corpses warped by intense heavy-bow archery practice. Longbows should therefore be about as powerful as weak composite bows, but more powerful than simple peasant hunting bows - perhaps 70-100 pounds draw weight, which puts the more powerful ones at the lower end of what was acceptable for English warbows, and on par with the average composite bow. Average damage and range and fire rate, but good accuracy - the men using these are presumably the best archers in cultures without composite bows, and the design itself has no serious faults. But the strength of these weapons should not be based on English warbows, just as the composite bows shouldn't be based on Manchu warbows.

Weak composite bows would be from about 60-80 pounds, and the standard low-level weapon in cultures with a strong archery tradition (i.e. tier 1 Eastern archers use this bow). Even elite Scythian horse archers would be capped at this level of bow, because even with stronger bows they have reduced draw power on horseback. Average damage and range and fire rate, good accuracy. If you want to distinguish it from the longbow, give it a somewhat slower fire rate but more damage. Alternatively, you could probably merge them together if you don't need different bow types in the data files for different bow graphics in game.

Strong composite bows are anything about 80 pounds draw weight with a composite design, used by professional soldiers and noblemen. It should have more power than any other type of bow, and be restricted to at least mid-level or elite foot archers, depending on the culture. Combine the best stats of current longbows and composite bows. Make the most elite archers from the best archery traditions something to fear on the battlefield.

I'm assuming there is nothing like the dichotomy between high power, short-range Manchu bows and low power, long-range Korean bows in the 200BC Mediterranean, so a simple strong vs. weak and optional long vs. composite dichotomy is alright.