Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

That's silly. It's clearly known that the spiral mounting of fletchings was develop to increase the spinning penetration of arrows. Archimedes began his invention of the screw pump with a helical arrow head designed to spin it's way through bronze breastplates.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I prefer longbows all the way.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

A crossbow bolt is no more 'piercing' than an arrow. In fact the arrow typically has more mass and because of its length compared to cross section and fetching more flight stability.

The tip of the projectile is more important for the penetration of armor. The bows, and arrows, of Japanese Samurai were measurably superior to the English Longbow but the English arrows could penetrate both chain mail and plate armor. The Japanese arrow typically fails to penetrate chain (because Japanese knights never used it).

Composite re-curve short-bows are also very effective.

Penetration characteristics of a crossbow bolt are no different. It is simply easier to build crossbows and train crossbowmen.

Sling bullets just do not penetrate armor. They are blunt impact. You need gun powder to make a bullet effective. Slingers should though be able to carry 50 bullets and crossbow men 20 bolts.

Arquebus's were not so terribly inaccurate as to be useless, they killed or maimed what they hit and they reloaded as fast or faster than a crossbow with no strength needed. Breach loading versions were also available, just not widely so.

The use of crossbows and bows should be fatiguing, modified by strength.

What's also unsettling about shooting is the pattern of impact which tends to be all over the target area. Generally directed kinetic ammunition shouldn't stray too far to the left or right.

Missile weapons generally only penetrate at most 4". This means that shields should be very effective against most arrows/bolts and almost impossible for sling bullets.

An Arquebus will simply ignore shield and armor at effective range.

In this regard, distance should affect both accuracy and potential damage.

Bows could also be customized for the character's strength.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Can some friendly admin re-title this "The thread that WILL NOT DIE", please?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

This is a serious discussion, and the outcome will affect how crossbow/longbow based wargames are developed all over the world. FFS show some respect for the effort and time people put into this very important subject.

Speaking of that, how about we start a mac vs PC thread?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Sorry Fantomen, I hadn't realised how C3R34L!!!!11111!!11!1 the discussion was.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Thanks for your understanding Greg.

@Lizardo: In order to relate the issue to dom3, assuming a bone/cherrywood ethiopian recurved composite shortbow, how would a vine arrow affect velocity and penetration. That spell always struck me as slightly out of touch with proper aerodynamics.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

That's just BS fantomen. You are confusing the poor noob. It's all about the input energy.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Crossbows were frowned upon as not being the weapon of a Christian gentleman (meaning that it was perfectly OK to skewer a Muslim with one, but quite unchivalrous and rude to knock a proper knight off his noble steed with a crossbow bolt, especially since peasants could do so behind a bush. Peasants, after all, were made for sucking.)

I suspect that infamy had something to do with the rise of gunpowder, which fell under the very popular "knocks over castles" clause.

It's Rule of Cool, for lack of a better term.

Longbows remained quite popular, even after the introduction of gunpowder. Their decline had quite a bit to do with the fact that all the yew trees that made the best bows, had already been harvested. Mature yew trees became remarkably difficult to locate, in the late Middle Ages.

Slings, on the other hand, are insidiously difficult to aim, and fairly dangerous to friendlies, in close quarters. While powerful, they just weren't very good weapons for using in ranks.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Oh dear.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Only rejoined children.

It's relevant if the game distinguishes things like crossbows, short bows and longbows. Might be nice if the distinctions had some basis in the actual products.

The vine effect occurs on impact I assume thus it is irrelevant to aerodynamics or lack there of.

Crossbows really aren't that great except that you can have them cocked and ready and they are easy to aim and fire. They're also a lot easier to make than a good bow.

Mods could always lock the topic if it serves no useful purpose.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Crossbows aren't great...compared to a Glock 9, AK, or assault shotgun. Compared to a 14th century hand-cannon, they're spiffy.

They're still great for hunting, superior in some ways to guns. Infact, a lot of states only allow crossbow-hunting for disabled hunters who can't easily use a gun.

Matchlocks, wheel-locks, and their predecessors had the unhappy tendancy to messily explode in the hands of their intended firers, among their many drawbacks. It was great for knights and nobles to give them to peasants (peasants are made for sucking) and then ride off to fight from horseback, because there was no way in hell a peasant could afford to mass-produce quality guns or quality powder, back then. Coupled with their inaccuracy, and the need for highly trained, and hideously expensive, special warhorses (which themselves took decades and decades to develope) to merge guns with calvalry (the only way low class gunfighters could hope to outmaneuvar landed chivalry on the battlefield), guns were reasonably safe to put in the hands of the common mass.

If crossbows had recieved the same level of technological attention guns have for centuries, it's reasonable to suppose they'd operate at a much, much higher level than they currently do--and possibly much closer to the guns we have today.

At the time gunpowder became weaponized, crossbows and ballistae were the most advanced ranged weapons on the battlefield (the hand version of the trebuchet-pretty much the omega catapult-was basically a sling, afterall...). A seige arbalest could be fired accurately, by a single soldier with modest training, at up to 900 meters, every 30 seconds, and deliver 5000 pounds of force. That's not nothing. Consider that that could be done from behind a large, heavy shield, and that crossbows could atleast be fired from a horse, without much special training from the horse. Crossbows and ballistae could also be stacked together, creating 2 and 3 shot versions, and repeating crossbow technology had existed for centuries before guns were ever invented.

The problem with crossbows was that they were too dangerous, and too easily produced and employed.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Except crossbows aren't made of cherry.

And their cross-section is a dodecahedron, so therefore they are inferior weapons.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

honeybadger, i don't know where you're getting your information, but so much of it is flat out wrong that i don't know where to start.

Example: your figures for speed and power of an arbalest come from an uncited assertion on wikipedia. In particular, i highly doubt the 2/min rate of *accurate* fire listed. You might be able to winch and fire 2/min without aiming at all. But those 5k lbs of force have to be cranked into the arbalest by the operator, and that takes time. (You don't get anything out that you don't put in). And there is open scepticism of 5k lbs of force as an accurate number on the talk page. (Indeed, the page is basically uncited since one of the two citations has absolutely nothing to do with any material actually on the page, and the other may or may not, but without being specifically referenced to a statement there's no way to know).

I will point out that it was firearms which forced the increasing thickness of combat armor in the late medieval period until armored knights became completely untenable.

I will point out that the french used crossbows/arbalests (there's no difference in medieval useage) because they were afraid to let peasants train with longbows, and thus their peasants *couldn't* use longbows in any military capacity. (the english, otoh, required peasants to train with the bow for most of the medieval period, and thus had a corp of highly trained bowmen available).

And by the time there were steel-bowed crossbows (c. 14th century), the cannon had already become state-of-the-art in medieval siege warfare.

And by the time you have either matchlocks or wheellocks, crossbows were museum pieces at best.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

It was a Wikipedia reference (I like it because it's easy for everyone online to follow, much more easily referenced than a lot of out of print texts, and while it may not be perfectly accurate, it's accurate enough for a game), but I'd like to point out that I actually own a crossbow, that I'm very familiar with their use, and traditional construction-including the steel versions-
that I've spent over 3 decades studying the history of arms and armour, and that I grew up around such. My father professionally appraised swords for auction-houses, for years, and my family has an extensive collection of books on the subject, and on medieval weaponry, in general.

You're welcome to argue the point, but 2 accurate shots a minute is quite doable, even with a heavy crossbow, using a common windlass, provided you have enough upper body strength, and training.
30 seconds may not seem like much, but it becomes quite a lot of time, when someone's threatening your family with an axe.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I've probably forgotten and remembered Dominions 3 more than any game ever. Since Elemental War of Magic seems to be a bust so far I've been looking back at the Dom and was surprised that I actually had an account, the topic was still here and on top, and people have over the months finally understood the things I was talking about once they got over their butthurt.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I was trying to figure out what you were talking about and here it is.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...4&postcount=53

Glad you are back to provide clarity on this issue. It's clearly muddled up with fanciful dreams and a lack of reality.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Oh so glad you are back, we missed your unequaled insight in the world of aerodynamics!

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Although the topic had faded into obscurity for quite some time, until one forum troll revived it to embarrass poor lingchih. Sigh.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

How is it embarrassing? This is a wonderful thread. Afterall, I posted in it. ;)

Also it probably brought in at least few extra customers because it shows up on the front page of google when you search the topic title.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Troll in the dungeon!

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The modern use of the word "arbalest" tends to denote a steel crossbow, and is useful as such. The medieval word was indeed interchangeable.

Squirreloid: Since you find fault with my references, what exact are yours? How can a crossbow be considered a "museum piece" when they're still being manufactured today? And if armour was being thickened only to protect against bullets, why were crossbows disavowed due to their ability to kill armoured knights, in the first place?

Here are a list of non-Wikipedia references:

Crossbows were banned by the church in 1139AD. http://www.castles-of-britain.com/castle36.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...44231/crossbow
Does anyone wish to argue that the influence of the Church was unimportant and easily disregarded, in medieval Europe?

The arquebus (a very primitive handgun) was first used in Europe circa AD1450+ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arquebus http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...5834/harquebus
and it was compared directly to the crossbow.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...44231/crossbow "The crossbow was the leading missle weapon of the middle ages". That's a direct quote from the online Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Cannons were used in warfare before that point, ofcourse, but it's ridiculous to imagine an army made up of only cannons, even modern cannon in modern times (armies aren't even made up entirely of mobile armor tanks).

Pike and shot tactics were employed as early as 1503, and it was a combination of arms that granted it's success (pike, cannon, and firearms--which include the English longbow)
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/...ry/tactics.htm
This success continued through the 30 Years War, past the mid 1800s, and it was even suggested as late as the American Civil War, that Confederate regiments include 2 companies of pike, a plan supported by Rober E. Lee.

However, the Swiss were already using similar tactics, as early as 1315, utilizing the crossbow. "If the worst occurred and an isolated column was caught in the open, the troops could always form a square or hedgehog, facing outward in all directions while keeping up a steady fire from their crossbows and relying on their pikes to keep the opposing horse at a respectful distance until help arrived."

Plate armour, as used by the classical knight, was still being perfected (not thickened) in the 16th century (Maximillian-style gothic plate).

http://stormshock.com/archive/articles/development.html
"German full plate armor in the sixteenth century represented the height of personal body armor in all of human history. This armor was called Maximilian armor and it was nearly impenetrable by all hand-powered weapons at the time. Even arrows and crossbow bolts were known to bounce off of such armor harmlessly. Furthermore, Maximilian armor distributed weight evenly throughout the body allowing freedom of movement and jogging."

Clearly, gunpowder didn't immediately render plate obsolete upon it's arrival.

http://stormshock.com/archive/articles/development.html
"Battles such as the massacre at Wisby or the battle of Poitiers pointed out the vulnerabilities of many types of armor to arrows and crossbow bolts."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/froissart1.html
The battle of Crecy, where thousands of crossbows were used by the winning side, occurred in 1346.

The battle of Agincourt (very famously won by longbow-using English) occurred circa 1415, and included crossbows on both sides. These were the more primitive, less effective, wood and horn bows, but the Genoise using them were still the most orderly of the French forces, until devastated by longbow fire.

The last major battle of the 100 years war was at Castillon (1453), where thousands of crossbows were used alongside gunpowder weapons, including cannon.

Gunpowder had been manufactured in the Tower of London, in the early 1300's.

http://www.royalgunpowdermills.com/wargm_chronology.htm

All of which would indicate that crossbows were quite common on the battlefield, for well over 100 years after gunpowder was common in Britain, Europe, and the Middle East. Certainly not by the 14th century (1300's).

And the Longbow may not have been used much in France, but the Germans and Scandinavians had no such restriction. http://www.teamultimedia.com/HRMH/Hi...20Longbow.html The Swiss legend of William Tell (an expert crossbowman) should be enough to indicate the popularity of the crossbow in that region.
http://www.amazon.com/Crossbows-Roya.../dp/9059721748

I couldn't find any direct references, but I've read and heard of a lot of theories and suggestions that heavy crossbows were employed in teams, with one team member firing, while the other reloaded the bow, and perhaps maintained a large pavaise. This makes a certain amount of sense, particularly in a seige, and would easily account for the 2 shots per minute, and more easily account for the use of a very powerful "seige" type hand crossbow.

Crossbows were even employed in WW2, by Austalian commandoes, and by U.S. special forces in Vietnam.
http://www.extremely-sharp.com/es/learn/aimcross.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Milita...iew&id=3877948

So clearly, there's no issue of them having become mere "museum pieces", even in modern times.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I can't find anything in your above list of reference to back up this claim from your earlier post.

And of course, 5000 lbs draw weight does not deliver 5000 lbs of force at the target. It imparts a certain kinetic energy to the bolt depending on draw distance (work = force x distance). The weight and resulting muzzle velocity of the bolt is a more useful comparison.