Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

STR-2 seems like an interesting tweak for Slings. Oddly, could have all kinds of fun with Longbows, simulating some of what has been discussed here, by giving them STR damage as well. Dunno, sounds fun. ;)

Too bad you couldn't Berserk the Slingers, that's just too funny an image to me.

Mmmmm, Elite Longbow, STR+0 weapon damage, 24 ammo and 2 attacks/round. :D

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

So, this means that longbows would have fired with much more force at close range? I'm not sure there is any way to mod that into the game, but it seems logical.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

What's up with all the LOLongbow fanboyism in these kind of games? The whole thing is just silly to me and serves no purpose.

I don't want to put anyone on the spot (and it would be mostly everybody) so I'll just address some (and later when they up ) of the points made without directly quoting anybody.

1)Longbows are more powerful.

No, they aren't and for quite a few reasons. Contrary to popular belief much of it has nothing to do with "force" at all but everything to do with consistency and human error. This point ties into other points so there is some overlap. But essentially the longbow is too RANDOM a weapon compared to the crossbow and the firearm. The first thing you have to understand is how arrows are launched from a longbow. The arrow is not directly across the belly of the bow perpendicular to the hand that drawing the bow but on the opposite side of bow from the hand. The arrow curves around bow as it is launched. Because if it was otherwise it would veer to the right (for a right handed person). But this in itself does not solve the problem. The arrow must be bendy enough to go around the belly of the bow otherwise it will veer left but not too bendy or it will go right again. And IF it strikes a balance it does not truly fly straight but rather "swims" in the air like a fish at a rave party.

This means several things. Once the arrow is not likely to truly hit a target straight on flapping in the air like a mad man and more likely to hit at an angle producing a glancing blow. It is also wasting energy while doing so. Thirldy, because the arrow must be bendy even if it does hit dead on it is likely to buckle which increases the period of time it impacts and in turn lessen its power. And this is assuming the arrow and the bow are PERFECT for each other.

Nowadays with the advent of the Plunger Button and the arrow rest to minimize this effect along with computer modeling and superior materials bows can be much improved but even then it ain't perfect.

Now imagine medieval bows made from imperfect varient materials matched with flawed arrows. The problems stated above are then GREATLY exacerbated.

But what about Crossbows?

They don't have this problem. At all. It has nothing to do with power either. It's how the projectile leaves the weapon. The bolt is shot along the tiller and therefore flys straight with a minor vertical lift a the beginning. Because of this the bolt need only be strong enough to withstand being launched by the crossbow and therefore is much more tolerant of human error in its making. Bolts then do not wiggle and are stronger for it. Also many types are metal cored for instance unlike war arrows where the "tang" the back end is short which makes them quite stout. This means each impact is succint and true relative to the fickle arrow. Because of this as long as you get the draw weight the same crossbows are easier to standardize and made even more consistent because you eliminate the factors from suspect ammunition and the method of launching a projectile is relatively simple.

2) Bu-bu-bu what about Bodkins?

LOL. An arrowhead with the purpose to aid armor piercing is not a new and magical concept the English pulled out of their rear ends. "Armor piercing" arrows have been around since Roman times and probably before that. And just because it says armor piercing on the label so to speak doesn't mean it's the best ever. The Everlasting Gobstopper much to my chagrin is not everlasting nor has it ever stopped unruly Gobs. The Bodkin was mostly made for economic reasons and often out of a crappy iron that would shatter on impact. Most of the up to date longbow fanboys have dropped the bodkin in favor of a kind of arrowhead called a type 17 which funnily enough looks like a scaled down broadhead arrow made out of steel.

3) Longbows are expensive.

Incorrect. A decent longbow was approx 4 shillings back in the day. The Franklin social class from which the classic English longbowman were culled from made about 6 shillings a week which was enough to buy a good chunk of grain or a pig. So if a guy wanted to buy one all he had to do was abstain from porkbutt for a week and he could get his own. The crappiest crossbow you could get was approximently 24 shillings. A real good one was 200+ shillings and the "wynche" to reload it could be just as much depending upon where you lived because it is rare that crossbows are made by one person and often needed multiple people who needed to be paid. Such a weapon could not be issued unless the King was willing to subsidize the costs or the soldiers were loaded themselves. The longbow was adopted because they were broke as a joke hence the need to run around and steal other people's crap. It had gotten so bad only one wynch could be afforded for every 5 soldiers. And even then crossbows were still used in limited numbers which is a testament to their efficacy. One need only look at some of the old paintings to see that the English used whatever they got their hands on. The modern English are probably more biased to longbows than their medieval counterparts.

4) Crossbows are for n00bs and rabble.

WRONG. Consider the modern gun. So easy to use a child can do it...and they do. But generally it's not the best idea to round up a bunch a kids, give them guns, and drop them on the battlefield and expect to own everyone. Professional soldiers knowing what the hell they are doing will do better. An easier weapon does not mean a crappier weapon. The advantage is that you can do so IF YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO. That's an important distinction.

Also as I mentioned the things cost a lot of money. You would NOT give them by default to some peasant boob because it is likely worth more than their miserable life.

5) Longbows are for the 133t only.

Bzzzt. Wrong. There was nothing special about them...in any way. Bows are everywhere in many cultures. It is also not that hard to pull one back. Despite what you hear about heavy draw weights since you use your whole body with a proper form and using your back it is not that hard at all. Similar to how bench press weights are much higher than one can curl for instance because of the kind of muscle and number of muscles you use. There was nothing extreme about their training as they could only really do it on Sunday and other nations used similar systems including no restrictions on hunting to encourage the populace to practice. In fact the English longbow is only really distinct in how much worse it is because it is a round bow as opposed to flatbow like the original Welsh longbow. The round bow is cheaper and easier to make but it's force distribution is poor and ultimately less powerful than a good flatbow with LESS draw weight. It also has worse hand shock which means it's more inaccurate.

There are other points but I don't want my first post to be too long.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think it's fair to postulate that you are biased in favor of machine guns.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

1&2) I'm not sure anyone argued that longbows are more powerful or more penetrating than crossbows, most people who have stated an opinion agreed crossbows were. Longbows were certainly more powerful than your average bow.

3) All medieval weaponry was mix and match, obviously the English would have some crossbows. However, if you want to suggest the longbow was just about money, I'd request evidence. The battlefield doctrine of massed longbows suggests is was viewed as a battle winner in its own right, not just an alternative way to sling a few missiles.

4) People have said a crossbowman needed little training to fire his weapon well, but that does not mean they thought crossbowmen were usually ignorant rabble.

5) No. Fully drawing most bows, including modern sporting longbows, can be readily accomplished by a healthy adult. A brief google tells me they have draw weights of about 200N, which would equate to lifting 20kg if my rusty physics serves me well. An English/Welsh longbow had a draw weight maybe 600N (60kg) or more. Now also think about doing that 6-10 times a minute for a few minutes - it's not easy. Sure, flatbows were better (the cheap and easy manufacture of English longbows has also been mentioned before). But so what?

* * *

"Longbow fanboy" suggests you think some people have some ideological or emotional investment in supporting longbows, and I don't think anyone here does. They were superb weapons, and some people may freely wonder whether they might be underpowered in the game without being referred to as "fanboys".

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

So, you cruise around the internet, looking for unjust comparisons between the longbow and the crossbow, so that you can smite the wrong-thinking multitudes of a far flung future? You're the crossbow crusader?

Or I suppose the entire thing could have been an elaborate and cheesy introduction that you improvised. If so, bravo! No one introduces themselves with so much drama and excitement anymore, they're all too scared to hurt someone's feelings. :happy:

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Aaah, this crossbow-fanboyism these days... :D

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I don't see how it's elaborate or cheesy. He was just being comprehensive.

Seems like he just browses the forums here and saw a thread of personal interest, disagreed with what was being said and wanted to set the record straight.

Of course coming in with the term "LOLongbow fanboys" doesn't exactly identify him as anyone you'd want to pay attention to.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Hello, here's a viewpoint from the other side of the hundred years war, i.e. a french point of view.

This discussion is very interesting, specially applied to our most beloved game.

I don't claim to be a specialist or autorithy on historical matters, but it's a subject that interest me and I read a lot about it...

Factors not taken into account into DOM III :
- In dom3 you're playing a bit like a modern monarch or dictator. In that view, the french army was far more 'medieval' than the english one. Cohesion was low and the king or its marechal had few control over most of the troops. That can have dramatical impact
- Knights : france had far more knights than england and it was assumed that superior knight force means ensured victory. In fact it was those same knights that caused the first major french disastor. Eager to proove themselves and loots bounties and ransom, they attacked against the king order and without any plan or cohesion... The french king wanted its troop to fight only the next day, with a global plan, but wasn't obeyed. They attacked without waiting, in complete disordered waves.. When the french (italian in fact, from Genes) arbalest guy got routed, the same knights charged them, considering them traitors, adding to the confusion.
- Against that, Eduard III was in far better control of his troops and could apply a good overall plan. Generally it's considered he was a very apt tactician.
- Crossbow vs bow ? Well in DOM3 crossbow fires every other turn, vs every turn for bow. Reality seems that bows fired 6 to 12 arrow per minutes, while crossbow managed only 4. So the rate of fire could be 1 against 3. Add to that it add rained and the ropes of crossbow and arrows were not made of the same stuff : the crossbow one was far less resistant to water.
At Crecy the crossbow guy were sent already tired while entering battle (see knights charging up there) (encumberance of crossbow ?) and their armor had not arrived.. they went unprotected.
- Is the bow superior ? Well crossbow got banned by the church. Because of it's efficience ! The opinion I forged through various sources (I admit it's an opinion !) is that crossbow is more powerfull, more precise that the longbow. But it's far more exepensive, fires less often, and is also less suited to be used in mass. Anyone played 'fire the flag' with indirect fire with bows ? In war you're not targeting someone with the bow / crossbow. It's more a 'saturation' fire. In that crossbow was no more efficient. But, to protect a castle with a small garrison, a crossbow is far more usefull : it's more skirmish fight with few guys and you can target someone. There I guess crossbow is AP, more precise and you get more time to reload while being protected... On the field, I doubt crossbow is AP and as efficient...

Dom3 :
- Make some knights berserk !
- Add tactical advantages for great leaders. Not only + moral, but att / def ?
- More diverse maps, so that you can have shock points, etc.. A choice to fight now in bad conditions, or wait for better one with the risk of having your adversary flee (in crecy the english were trying to get back to england IHMO and french was pursuier).
- Crossbow should be less usefull in large maps, but more in castle assault or small engagment
- You don't have complete control of troops. Well in dom3 you get mad tartarians, a bit like french knights ?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

You have no chance that any of that will be implemented.

A mod could easily be made to make knights berserk (though I wouldn't use it) and I guess insanity or shattered soul could be given to various military commanders (which no-one uses anyway) but that would be an exercise in micro more than anything else.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Something I learned while checking this topic : the long bow should be considered as a cousin of the composite bow.

True, it's made of only one piece of wood... But the piece of wood that was taken was cut among different layer of the tree, running through the core to the exterior skin (yew ; other trees were less efficient), acting a bit like composite bows. Without the problem of the rain going against the glue !

It seems it took one day to build one. Compare that to composite bow or crossbow ! The rope accounting for half the price (sometimes in silk)

In a way the yew long bow was a bit like a giant, rainproof, composite bow.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Originaly posted by Sombre :

>You have no chance that any of that will be implemented.

>A mod could easily be made to make knights berserk (though I >wouldn't use it) and I guess insanity or shattered soul could >be given to various military commanders (which no-one uses >anyway) but that would be an exercise in micro more than >anything else.

I have to learn to quote :)

Just curious why you wouldn't want knights to be made berserk ? Suits the medieval mentality, no ? In a way, Knights are irregular. Heavy Cavalry should behave as trained army corp. But knights are more elite but untrained to fight in groups or obey orders ?

I would like to have a real general unit in the game. Maybe add bonus when the pretender or prophet leads the army (so that you don't have a general in every stack) ?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Yeah, except berserk works as much more of an advantage in the game. Berserk knights won't retreat even when the rest of the army does. And considering knights are tough already, could win fights even after the rest of the army has routed.

To simulate what you're suggesting, you'd really want an effect that made knights ignore the scripts they're assigned. Charging at once instead of holding, not attacking the rear, etc. An interesting idea, especially if it was only a chance, but much harder to implement. It would require entirely new code.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Bah! Don't you get enough of that already with mage scripts? :P

Knights with the 'berserker' attribute would charge into battle if they received damage and passed their morale berserk check, even if they were supposed to Guard Commander or whatever.

The extra fatigue from being berserk is kind of bad.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Knights varied a lot in terms of discipline. Some, particularly the religious orders (e.g. Templars, Hospitallers) were generally disciplined professionals.

The idea of charging without due care and attention was an eternal problem for any army. It wasn't just some of the more hotheaded troops like knights and Scottish highlanders, but it also happened to some degree with professional armies such as that of the Byzantines.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Berserk in dom3 terms = a morale 99 guy that doesn't autorout, can punch through awe/repel, wins battles after the automatic rout turn limit etc. It's suitable for fictional norse berserkers or whoever, but not impetuous knight.

An #impetuous tag which emulates only the 'charge and ignore all orders' part of berserk would be ok for certain units. But it's not going to happen.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think the fact that my knights often ignore my "Hold and attack REAR! I said REAR! The commanders! The mages!!" to charge the first line of enemy infantry. sounds pretty much similar to what you want... and it's already implemented!! :D

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I realise you're right.

I wasn't looking at this as an advantage for the knights. The idea of having 'rash' or 'hothead' troops seems fun still. It would make all the difference between, say, Hoplites, Roman legions or templars on the one side and barbarian hordes on the other side of the scale. Maybe an idea for Dom 4 ?

So maybee we lack a 'discipline' characteristics in troops ?

Does madness work on non commander troops ? It could work ?

I remember reading of one battle between french and english (french were winning of course ;b) where rumors started on the filed that the french 'train' (treasure ?) was left unprotected. The english troops rushed there, followed by the french one and everyone started looting with no consideration of nationality...

By the way, did not the berserker (bear seeker ?) in nordish tales die at the end of the fight from exhaustion. Either that or he triy to kill its comrades ?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

You might want to check the OP again.

Simple logic would show you that it is unlikely that longbows would be chosen because of this so called "battlefield doctrine." First of all you have to understand that longbows were everywhere and they are very very old. Found in India, Africa, the Americas and were used by Vikings even before Wales. To assume that everyone didn't know what one was and ignored this supposedly awesome weapon is to assume that everyone including England were a bunch of...goobers. Secondly, to claim that it is a battle winner is dubious. One need only look forward in time during the imperialistic ambitions of European nations such as Britain at the Battle of Assaye where they went against old school Indian longbowman with so called "slow weapons with little trainings" and soundly womped them over and over and over again. This is DESPITE the so called awesomeness of the longbow and DESPITE the fact the Europeans were armored in nothing but a goofy BRIGHTLY colored uniform with a silly hat. If the longbow was that awesome that would not happen. If you want to look at the period itself you only need to explore some battles other than the same two which are spammed on the internet ad nauseum which are too hampered by outside factors. Patay where the longbowman outnumbered the French knights and despite being their PEW PEW PEW powers couldn't do jack diddly and got their English booties kicked. Or the battle of Constance where xbowman tore them a new one when they weren't hampered by idiotic French leadership. Or the Hussite Crusades who's angry religous fantatic Xbow and gunman scared the English mercenary commander so bad he fled to the clergy and never returned to the battlefield...ever...again.

Again the OP and you just implied it right here. LOL. I'm pretty sure I tried to stress "easier" and not "little training to fire well." First of all to be pedantic you don't "Fire" a bow, cross or otherwise, because no "fire" is involved like in firearm. Secondly, while they could shoot it they wouldn't do it what I would call "well." A crossbow itself could weigh up to 25 pounds. If you were not trained you wouldn't even be able to hold it level.

The rate of shooting is something that is the MAXED out element and no one would do that for the same reason no one would spray all their bullets like...well...Machinegun Joe from Deathrace. It is not difficult. It is not special. You saw these kind of archers everywhere. If they were as difficult as some people make them sound on the internets this would not be the case. As for last statement I find it amusing how you claimed there was no evidence for longbow cost above but answered your own question here. If they didn't need the dough they could have spent more cash on making a less poopy longbow. Since they didn't is a pretty good indicator that every coin was important.

* * *

What else could there be but "emotional investment" when someone is trying to pump up their value within a strategy game? Instead of the same generic Mickey Mouse history discussion that occurs on any game, movie, pencil and paper RPG set remotely in this time period actual figures from battles within the game should be discussed to suggest parity. I also noticed you tried to sneak in a "superb" in there. No. There's nothing special about them. A bow is a bow is a bow. There is no magic that makes longbows "stronger" than other bows although there characteristics that define it simply calling them "superb" is highly deceptive.

Edit:
I've seen the megathread on Somethingawful and have perused the forums, yes. I saw this thread and it is a litmus test of mind when judging a fantasy game. I've found that games with good range weapon parity tend to be good overall while games full of Longbow fanboyism tend to be crap.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I'm just waiting for Bogus, a knight on a winged steed, and a pair of wizards to turn up now.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Ah, trolltastic!

Yes, quite right. There's all of one other post agreeing from my quick check, for the grand total of two, out of all posters in this topic. And yet you've started a huge rant about longbow fanboys. You might want to check the prevailing arguments, not go off half-cocked about one comment.

I will quickly pop through the traces of intellectual meat to your last post: your waffle about various battles isn't really relevant, for the obvious reasons like morale, surprise attacks, tactics and so on also applying. re. longbow costs, "lowest bidder" rules applied then as now, I suspect. I note you consistently avoided my points on the different draw weight of Welsh/English war longbows compared other bows and longbows. Ho hum.

Check your dictionary. No, hang on, let me save you the effort:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ : fire (shoot) - 1. "to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles". You need to get your facts right if you want to act like that in debates.

I think you have an emotional investment in being anti-longbow, which explains your attitude and your exhaustive yet very factually and logically limited two posts. Everyone else here is very calm about it all.

Wow. I guess then a gun is a gun is a gun. Musket, assault rifle, shotgun, what's the difference?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

A missile is a missile.

I'll stick with ICBMs, thank you very much.


:sucks:

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

What an absurd and peculiar little dictionary entry you have found...
I hope people here don't believe this is the correct and historical way to say "loose" just because of this.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Are you guys really going to sit here and argue about the definition of the word "fire"? It is fairly obvious what was meant by the term fire, and using historically correct terminology to describe the action of firing/shooting/loosing/releasing/flinging/beatingwithastick an arrow is fairly irrelevant to the conversation and understanding what is being said in this thread. One might even argue that it would be more correct to use more modern terminology as it would be more readily understood in common conversation. So please, go back to flaming each other for slightly less silly reasons.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Since obviously all bows are the same, I completely see your point now. I made bows out of switchgrass and kite string when I was a kid, and man did they SUCK, erego the longbow must be awful. It couldn't kill a man at 10 feet, unarmored!

I was under the impression that the attraction of the -Long Bow- was the incredible distance that it could be fired. You did use them en mass, and because of arced volley fire, you did not actually aim, you just lobbed as many arrows at someone as possible, before they were close enough to even do anything about it.

The crossbow on the other hand, was probably more effective, in its own effective range. However, with a lower rate of fire, you are relying more on intentionally aimed shots, and thus you must be in range to fire directly, rather than using arced volleys.


Honestly, mister Gun, I do believe that you are such a rabid protector of the honor of the crossbow, for the simple fact that it is almost a gun - and therefore must be superior to the barbaric weapons that existed previously.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think we should tone down the namecalling/flaming on either side because I actually find the discussion otherwise, pretty nifty. =)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Yeah, I agree. I kind of wish I had never started the thread, but I have learned some history lessons. And, I have changed my mind. Longbows should not be AP. Except perhaps for some special units.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I'm not trolling because trolling is marked by a sole intent to annoy and that's not my purpose.


I was making a general statement because I didn't want to go off on specific people to cut down on the mass quoting (at the start anyway). I wrote something to that effect and there's other points too that I'll bring up as the come up so my huge rant is in totally even more huge than the one you see now.

Then your statement of the bows being "battle winning" is therefore overally ambitious and somewhat deceptive and I don't know why you are getting angry at me for? Have you not essentially admit you were in the wrong here? I'm sorry I don't get your meaning.

Your statement of draw weight changed nothing I said. It's not that difficult. Estimations of Mongol bow draw weight can be higher than that and the so called African Elephant bow can be as high as 300 pounds. Again strong bows are found everywhere.

The lowest bidder rule doesn't apply because you talking about a royal decree and not a modern capitalistic democracy.

Remember that dictionaries change over time and are subject to modern whims which include incorrect usage. I prefaced that post with "pedantic" to emphasize I was being cute and informative and not offending your sensibilities. Next time I will add some smileys to make that clear.

Hey! Did you know that definiton is wrong? :D

Well you certainly seem to be calm right now. I'm perfectly monk-like over here myself. Well maybe one of those twinkly eyed mischevious monks but pretty monk-like overall.


Well, I believe you have selectively quoted there and misunderstood me. A longbow by itself tells you nothing. A 20 pound draw longbow isn't the same as a 100 pound plus composite bow to give an obvious example. I did say that there some characteristics that define it. An example is that the longer bow is easier on your limbs because of reduced hand shock. But the nature of the bow is the same in that you are using limbs as a spring to launch a missle and is human powered. Your example is incorrect because guns can differ in principle mechanically. The longbow get's nothing that makes it better just by being a longbow.

@JimMorrison:
I clarified what I wrote above. Arced volley shooting isn't a feature it is a necessity to gain distance. You cannot choose to arc because there is no varient way to draw a hand bow. You reminded me of an additional point

6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths. Remember what I said about arrows being "right" for bows? All bows must be pulled back to same spot every single time. This spot is called the "anchor." Many modern bows use a clicker to tell the archer where this "sweet spot" is. In other words you MUST shoot the bow at "full power" every single time to maintain consistency and form and prevent bad things from happening to your arrows. This means you cannot "arc" whenever.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Is anyone here actually arguing that strong bows aren't found everywhere? I don't recall that being the case.

Or that the person with the longbow is releasing the shot at a different angle to achieve a different trajectory and reach?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

So, for example, if you were at the Battle of Hastings, and you were told to shoot over the shield wall and ensure victory for the Normans, you'd be like, "Sorry dude, I can't arc."

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Obviously there are situations where the longbow proves it's mettle as opposed to times when it does not. However, history is written by the victors and for the most part, the British Empire wrote most of the history. Since the longbow was seen as one of it's pride, it's no surprise that it achieves it's fame in strategy guides. =)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Well then sorry to be pedantic, but you're wrong.

Believe it or not lexicographers know what they're doing. Language doesn't change on 'whims' and the definition isn't wrong, it's modern. Then again your definition of wrong appears to be 'not what I think'. If you expect everyone to use the definitions of words you personally believe rather than the ones in, say, the dictionary, I think you have an uphill battle on your hands.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The fact that it's defined as such in the Cambridge dictionary means people already use the language this way. That's how dictionaries work. They record and define usage, they don't direct it. If you look up 'loose' you'll find a definition relating to firing arrows also.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

It's also acceptable to use "fire" with respect to bows in the Oxford English Dictionary and Chambers Dictionary (two of the three most-used British dictionaries) and, I think, Merriam-Webster.

* * *

I don't support the "because they were cheap" argument for one main reason: I don't think it adequately explains the adoption of massed bowfire as a tactic itself. I think that requires military commanders seeing how a weapon can be used and adapting to it. In the ancient and medieval eras, massed bowfire was common in Eastern militaries, but the further west into Europe you got, the more the ethos was melee: archery was generally about softening up or harassing an opponent prior to the real action. That the English used such mass deployment of archers suggests a tactical doctrine at variance with not just their own history, but the prevailing cultural habits of Western Europe. Thus they would have to have weapon to make that doctrinal change viable.

This is why I suggest the English longbow is a "battle winner" - it was a weapon you could heavily base your army on, not that it meant proper scouting, logistics, good morale, disciplined troops and decent generalship became less necessary. It could fulfill this role because weaker bows could not fire an arrow far enough and or with enough penetration, whereas crossbows that had the range and power fired too slowly. Yes, I think it *was* a superb weapon; the many victories accomplished with it should be some testament to its effectiveness.

Strong bows with huge draw weights are indeed worldwide. However, that doesn't mean it's easy and anyone plucked from the general populace could do it without practice: they would largely have been specialised hunters and the like. Producing tens of thousands of such archers available for warfare is a different matter. Longbows vary, well, yes this has been agreed. In that sense you'd be right that there was nothing very special about longbows generically. However, to do so would also mask the fact that the Welsh/English version was much more powerful than your average longbow. At which point, we'd be asking instead "Which longbow does the game mean?"

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Rarely is a weapon a 'war winner' by itself. In 100d war, it's not the bow by itself wich won battles. But its efficient use, i.e. trained bowman (see how it was done in england), tactics and learning how your adversary thinks (see why french knight were decimated), using the landscape (forest, protection or defending a chock point). On other set up or use, your mighty bowmen would avail to nothing.

What about a fight between horse archers and 'static' longbowmen ? Being charged on a dry plain instead of a drenched soil ? Or turned by light cavalry ?

At one time the most efficient weapon was the military pike, largely used by switzerland/swiss federation. Yet was the pike by itself a superior weapon ? It has its case of use, like most other weapons...

From what I gathered, crossbows were deadly, more accurate and dangerous than the longbow. Every european nations used them, most in countries were the noble cast was less in power. After all being killed by a rufian while you're a knight is not glorious. So many crossbow mercenary were italian (Genoa). One kind of crossbow was outlawed by the church because it was too efficient. (The one you draw/arm with your feet instead of a winch).

Funily enough, in England the rufian hero is Robin Hood, with a bow, while for the swiss I think its Guillaume/Whilelm Tell with a crossbow :) (In France it's Thierry La Fronde, 'La Fronde' stands for 'sling', his weapon. I don't want to restart on bow vs sling, I know nothing of slings !!! Even if I share his firstname (for reasons.. thanks TV !))

So why do see so many reports of longbow being so efficient in war ? Crossbow were far more expensive, heavy and had a far less fire rate. The troop was slower, harder to use and didn't deliver as much a punch while large archer formations managed 'saturation fire' at time. They were very efficient in some settings (castle, small troops, 'hand weapon' for travelers, etc..) Hence their use by all major european nations, england included. By they were not effecient in a masse battle, loosing to the bow.

English longbow were notorious because they were technically superior to other european countrie's bow, and mainly because the training and drafting of the archer was really above. It turned to France copying the organisation and forming 'Archers francs' companies, trained professionals. I heard that Churchill 'V' for victory hand sign comes from this time : the english archer showing that they still had their two fingers to draw the bow, while the french threatened to cut it on any prisonneer :D This alone shows how efficient those guys were !

->
Oh by the way, can someon from (or learned in) Asia tell us how crossbow were used in asia ? In my old RPG time, we had 'repetition' crossbow :) It is (supposed to be) an Chinese invention ?

As for me I'm confortable with having crossbow AP and bow not. It hads variety to the game and different strategies :)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Mandatory Warning:
If you feel this is a worthy discussion which should continue then please make a strong effort to discuss the subject and NOT discuss each other. Personal attacks of any type will close a thread and possibly remove it entirely.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The repeating crossbow was used in ancient china, yes. I don't think any accounts of its effectiveness are available though.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Okay I knew nothing of chinese warfare. After some searsh, it seems crossbow was used at least around 500 BC in china. It lead to various improvings, probably meaning that it was usefull. Interestingly, it seems it was a weapon of choice for close defence. Chinese crossbows seems to have a better 'latch' system, not counting the repeatable ones. That could explain this (you could keep it loaded)

Tien Chin should definitively have crossbows :)

I seem to remember reading Judge Ti novels that he or his assistants used crossbows. It's also in a french serie on china, but that's a more dubious source ('Ivory Puppet' if it was ever translated in English)

And Ermor / Pythium should have Scorpions or other crossbow like machine of war. Usefull for siege, but maybe for battle too (against elephants ?)


EDIT : Hey there's a book on comparison of crossbow vs long bow !
http://books.google.fr/books?id=xCDK...esult#PPA22,M1

From this very interesting book you learn that the 'long bow reign' ranges from 1298 (Falkirk) to 1550 where hand-gun were far more efficient in warfare. Also it should be noted that various kind of crossbows were used (until hand-guns replaced them also), and that we should compare long bow to steel crossbow, the ones used at the same period.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

hmmm Thierry, very nice of you to tell us what we should compare but could you maybe tell us the general conclusion we could deduce from that book too then?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

You can't vary the drawing of the bow and still have it work the way it is suppose to work. They wouldn't have been able to shoot over that wall at any distance within their range. For example if they were close they couldn't just give the arrow a little tug to scoot over. Bows have to be shot full powered. It's simply the mechanics of how they work. Read my post and I'm talking about absolute arcing all the time. They obviously can do so when in a position that allows them in accordance with the power of their weapon but not in the way you see in these games where the crossbow is forced to shoot straight and the bow has all this extra magical flexibility. You can ,and they did, lob high angle shots with a crossbow too. However that isn't arching whenever is it? That is my point if I was not clear.

@Sombre.

Lol at lexicographers knowing what they're doing. Have you heard about words like "acorn" being removed from the Oxford Junior dictionary? Sorry the definition is still wrong, but that is not your fault so this isn't a flame. Security smiley incoming. :D


They were massed because they could be because they were cheap enough for the populace to snag them up. They wouldn't be able to sub in another competing range weapon because they did not have the pimpin' money rolls to do it with. There was no mystical English hoodoo going on and restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

To prove this you would have to prove that what the English have accomplished could not have been done otherwise without the longbow. The longbow's power is inflated simply because the strategies of the French were poor. Poor enough when at Morlaix when they didn't even use them they still won with basically what amounted to traps and pointy sticks. When the French gain cohesion and focus later on, they fell apart.

And the crossbow is not as "slow" as you think it is. For one you have to realize the inherent advantages of a missile weapon held in such a manner allowed a greater frontage. The man in front can lower his profile giving the men behind clear sight. This also allows multiple ranks to take turns ensuring a continuous and more cohesive stream of missiles. Recalling my good discussion with my buddy at the top of my post remember what I said about bow arcing. Imagine a longbowman standing behind his fellow longbowman. The longbow because it is...long cannot be shot from a crouched/prone position in the manner of crossbow/firearm. So how is the guy gonna get around his buddy? If the target is too close and he aims up a little bit he'll over shoot. If he trys to go way high up he is likely to miss. And not to mention he's doing this without being able to see past his buddy's pumpkin head. So he can't even get a rough idea on how to adjust following shots. Combine this with what I've said before and the rate of shooting of the longbow is no where near the kind of efficacy that you think it is.

Producing many archers has been done before. Again there is nothing special about the Welsh/English longbow comparative bows are found elsewhere in Europe there is no extra power that it has. And it isn't that difficult. There is no special Englishness that let's them engage in the kind of martial archery practice that happened elsewhere. Average longbows of that strength are found in old Viking burial sites. The weapon is really really old.

Edit: Oh yeah a couple more things. The V thing is pure apocrypha. To pull a warbow you need three-four fingers. So there is no significance in two. Longbowman would not likely be bothered to be ransomed back in the first place and so they would have dead so it didn't matter how many fingers they had left. Churchill lied his rear end off about a whole lot of things and admitted it too.

And the church ban didn't do anything since the pope at the time was weak.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I work at OUP. There's certainly been some hysteria in the media about words being removed, but it is extremely skewed. Probably because they have an audience to pander to and because the truth is less interesting. Still, rather than bleating what you read in a poorly researched article about the Junior Dictionary eroding the language, maybe you should check the facts for yourself.

The Junior Dictionary is designed for very young children, as an introduction to dictionaries. They are expected to already know the majority of the words in the book, adding to their sense of security and familiarity when using it. Clearly the dictionary also has a limit on the number of words it contains. So when the vocabulary of young children changes, as it does constantly, the dictionary must change to reflect this. It isn't like 'monarch', 'bishop', 'acorn, 'psalm' etc were left out as an oversight due to stupidity, or were removed as political correctness gone mad, or because the researchers at OUP Reference division wanted to exert thought control over the next generation. It's an accurate (according to a team of professional linguistic researchers, as opposed to say, you) portrayal of the vocabulary and language needs of very young children in england.

If you look at a list of all the hundreds of words removed and added and you choose a handful selectively based on your political or 'logical' agenda, you can 'prove' just about whatever you want. I would think this was obvious.

For the last time - dictionaries do not DRIVE language, they merely represent and define it. The definition could be inaccurate due to an error somewhere in the process, but since they are representing modern language usage a definition cannot be 'wrong' if it accurately portrays the current use. Which 'fire' for loosing arrows certainly does. Regarding the Junior dictionary, if very young children aren't using pulpit, acorn, psalm etc that's hardly the fault of OUP. We just record it. If your argument is that you know more about the state of language and how to construct a dictionary than the researchers at OUP, then wow. Enjoy your fantasy land.

It's pretty clear now you're a troll, which I will blame you for, because it is your fault. Even so you could at least try to get things halfway correct. That way you wouldn't get 'pwn3d' like a 'n00b' every time you open your mouth. 'LOL :D'

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Machingun Fail

Obligatory :D

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I thought everyone wanted Joe to post a lot. :happy:

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I haven't seen longbows used in the way you describe, in games or in movies. What games are you talking about, and what, exactly, is this magical aiming effect?

At least to me, your original mention of arcing seemed to ignore the fact that the archers have more options than "straight" and "arc of X degrees". Changing the angle the arrows are fired at will also affect the place where they come down, obviously. While it can't be used always, it would allow for some flexibility. The constant force is also a limit for crossbows, also used in similar manner.


I think you missed Agema's point here. He also said that the English didn't have other range weapons to sub in. Money was a big part of this.

Longbows are cheaper than crossbows, and a trained man can load a longbow faster than he can a crossbow. If your goal is to fire as many arrows/bolts into the enemy army fast, longbows do it better than crossbows, both because their rate of fire is better and because they are cheaper, ergo you can afford more longbowmen.


As far as I know, there was no other cheap ranged weapon that could fire at a comparable distance, in the time period we are talking about. If longbow is the only such weapon, then the English couldn't have used the tactic of massed archers with anything but the longbow. I can't see anything wrong with this logic. Unless you know something I don't, that means longbows really were the superior choice, for this single instance.

We are not talking about longbows and crossbows in this game, but about their historical usage. Since we're talking about how the English used their longbows, we should talk about the time and place they used the longbows in.

This sounds more like something from the period when firearms and rank-fighting were in use. To my knowledge, crossbows were never used like this, but I could be wrong. Can you post any example? It's an intriguing image, and I'd be interested in reading more about it.




Actually, if the arrows is fired higher up it will come down nearer to the archer, not farther away. It took me some time to find the term, but "clout shooting" or "clout practice" describes the act of firing inside an area marked on the ground. With enough practice, a longbowman would at least be less likely to miss, especially if he wasn't aiming at a lone soldier but, say, a group of cavalry.

I don't know how longbowmen were stationed in the battlefield, but of course they couldn't be stationed so close to each other that they wouldn't have space to fire or aim. However, since the weapon has rather long range, it isn't necessary. It would make defending an army or longbowmen more difficult than an army of crossbowmen, since the longbowmen would cover a larger area. However, as I said above, crossbows couldn't be massed (by English) in such numbers any way.


There have been other armies that used huge amounts of archers, and longbows have been used by specialized hunters (and the like) in other places. The proper question is, has anyone else ever trained an army of longbowmen?

It is an interesting question, for two reasons:
1) If longbows are so useful, why didn't anyone else do it?
2) If they aren't superior weapons, why did the English do it?

I think the second question has been answered in this thread: for the English, it was cheaper and/or more efficient to mass longbows than other similar weapons, like crossbows.

Now the question becomes, why did they need so many archers? I found someone who thought it was because archers were good against CAVALRY, not infantry. Arrows would kill and/or wound unarmored horses, and the presence of longbowmen would force the French to dismount. It was just one person and he didn't cite any sources, so make of that what you will.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Cavalry kills infantry.
Infantry kills bowmen.
Bowmen kill cavalry.

Warsong, for Sega Genesis, rock-paper-scissors system.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

This is just poppycock.
It was common military practice in the medieval ages to

a). Mark out spacings around castles as markers so bowmen and artillery knew how hard to pull for the effective range.

b). It was often done to fire same at *less* than full strength to deceive your opponent as to the maxiumum range of your pieces.

According to your argument that each bow had a specific "sweet spot". Nonsense. If you are saying that a bow had to be pulled with 40 lbs of strength - Imagine how hard it would be to match each bowman to each bow.

It is much rather true that each bow had a *Wide* range of acceptable pull strengths. And generally, the harder you pulled it the farther the arror flies.

Competitions in the middle ages were held at various distances, with some at more than 1000 feet.

Other points:
While crossbows did have the ability for a moderate amount of ascenscion- they had essentially no ability for declension.

Talented bowman could put 5 arrows in the air in two seconds - and putting three arrows in a bird before it hit the ground. You can't even begin to compare the rate of fire of a crossbow.

Saying things is rocks scissors paper is a little misleading - yes, after a time systems and tactics develop to compensate for a new weapon.

However the longbow was an amazing and groundbreaking development.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

@Sombre

When young children are referring to "magical pebbles that grow trees" I'll hold you to what you said. How am I troll? I prefaced that factoid with an inference that I was intentionally being silly which is why I'm not badgering people about it when they use it elsewhere. And it is still true that "fire" is not the appropriate term. It is still incorrect. :D

Unless it has been patched is it not true in this game where crossbows will shoot the backs of troops they are behind of while arrows will go over? That's what I'm referring to. Both bows and crossbows are limited by constant force because a bow has to be balanced to it's anchor and pulled the same way every time. The difference is , is that crossbows do not allow for the same degree of human error because the string always rests on the "nut" (the part that rolls over when the trigger is pulled). While with a bow that spot is inconsistently reached especially in the heat of battle.

Due to the money situation they were more or less forced into a position regardless yes I mentioned this a while back too. But what was necessary for England at the time does not equate to an absolute optimal decision in general. Also there is a misconception with rate of shooting . The simple reason is that when you consider all the negative factors effecting the quality per arrow of the longbow this number is not as significant as it may seem at first glance.

Given the poor leadership of their enemies at the time I do not feel a massed archer strategy was necessary and in the long run it was a hindrance.

Well the purpose of a historical discussion in a game forum, to be on topic, is to gain insight and what is right for ingame mechanics.

Alternating shooting is present in multiple pictures of the period such as in German usage books and in Froissart's manuscripts. It's a described technique in the ancient Chinese military. The descriptions of the "streams" are present in the wars of Charles VIII in Sweden and the Hussite Crusades. I can't name any specific books for the moment as it's been quite a while. Like everyone else here I'm simply casually sharing.

I know that but extreme high angle shots would be...unwise as you risk raking your own ranks. You would gain distance and then at some point get closer however that "closer" area could be hit with a direct shot in any case. And again training goes only so far when you consider the fickleness of the weapon. Imagine an expert marksmen using a modern firearm and each shot has a different character. Is it possible for his training to overcome it when he cannot predict how each shot will behave? Perhaps to a degree. But now flip it on it's head. Is it possible to train an expert marksman in the first place with such a weapon? I would say...not really. No longbow volley could be cohesive enough to hit even a blob with the same amount of cohesion of other weapons.

The longbow was a major part of India for a long long time. And I already mentioned Assaye and the not good things that happened to those guys. You wouldn't see an "army" (and I'm assuming you mean some quantifiable number greater than "huge amount") because it wasn't really a good idea. The ultimate failures of such a system become evident when they you know...lost horribly. The English did it because of cost reasons and got stuck so to speak which is a recurrent problem with the country throughout it's history similar to how they were slow to change from hand cutting coal to machine cut which hampered their industry (obviously much latter in history).


Bows DO have an anchor. You can't overdraw a bow or you damage it. And if you underdraw it they arrow won't even fly straight not to mention even if it did it would be significantly weaker. Yes precisely it is HARD to balance each bow. This is why such a weapon in that time period is inherently INCONSISTENT.

LOL you are vastly overestimating the rate of shooting for a bow as well as their possible accuracy.

And can you clarify what you said about crossbow "declension" I do not get your meaning.

The longbow was NOT an "amazing and groundbreaking development" because it is neither amazing nor groundbreaking since in that time period the weapon was already old as dirt.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

To my knowledge, this has never been the case, and I've played since the first Dominions game. Arrows, crossbow bolts, sling bullets, javelins and fire bolts cast by wizards will all arc the same way, given they hit the same place in the ground. They only differ in range and precision.

I might write answer to the rest of your post later.


I don't believe anyone can fire 5 unaimed arrows in two seconds. It's probably possible to have the five arrows in the air at the same time, though. I agree that crossbow is much slower, but I can't believe any bow being that fast.


I also agree with MGJT in regards to the fact that longbow itself isn't an English invention, and not new by that time. He's commented on it already, but longbows have existed for thousands of years. They had varying draw strengths, of course. I found a few mentions of something called "African elephant bow", but couldn't find a time for it. I did find an image of a girl who had killed an elephant with a single arrow, but her bow was a modern, adjustable hunting bow.

I liked the other parts of your post, but without sources, your points will just be ignored by MGJT.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Well I'm not trying to convince you, believe me. Especially after that stupid response. Since it's been demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, it's cool for you to continue. No-one with any sense will listen.

It also now appears you've never even played dominions. You couldn't possibly be a troll :rolleyes:

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Just watched a history channel special on xbows and longbows, an also a show on the battle of Crecy.

The longbow archers fired a rate of roughly 12 arrows a minute. So every 5 seconds.

The range of the longbow outpaced the range of the xbow until you get into the composite xbows which were certainly not cheap and were very labour intensive and because of cranking the rof on those was terrible.

Sheer numbers of arrows and the fact that England was using the longbow during a period of mounted nobility meant the longbow was incredibly effective at halting charges. The lack of penetration at long ranges is one reason English longbowmen were trained to aim for the horses. Longbow groups were also more mobile than xbow groups who used pavises from behind which they fired. (although they were left on the baggage train at crecy).

What it boiled down to in the programs was that whoever has to charge the enemy is going to hurting, thhose charging longbows through sheer volume and barrages at multiple points in the charge. Those charging at pavise protected xbows would be killed at a much closer range.

But the biggest purpose of the xbows and thier pavises was to provide a line of defence and retreat from which the knights could charge.

Of course at Crecy the French knights ended up killing the Genoese xbows when they routed, I guess the 'cowardice'(they were being slaughtered) sent them into a rage. Just one of many errors that helped the English succeed against such odds.